Based on reports that the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may reduce the risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD), we studied the cross-sectional relation between NSAID use and the risk for AD in a population-based study of disease and disability in older people. After controlling for age, education, gender, and use of benzodiazepines, we found a relative risk (RR) for AD of 0.38 (0.15 to 0.95) when comparing NSAID users (n = 365) to NSAID non-users (n = 5,893). To address confounding by indication or contraindication, we compared NSAID users with a subset of NSAID non-users who were using topical medication for ear, eye, or dermatologic conditions (n = 365). In this comparison, the adjusted RR for AD was 0.54 (0.16 to 1.78). These findings are compatible with a possible protective effect of NSAIDs on the risk for AD.
In one general practice, 660 people aged 60 years or over were screened by means of pure tone audiometry and a specific questionnaire to assess the prevalence of hearing impairment and hearing complaints. Hearing impairment was defined as an average loss of 35 dB or more in the 1, 2 and 4 kHz frequencies in one or both ears. In total, 37.4% (95% CI, 33.3-41.1%) of the participants was hearing impaired. The prevalence was higher in men (55.1%) than in women (44.9%) and clearly increased with age in both sexes. The prevalence of hearing complaints in terms of hearing difficulties and/or tinnitus, was 37.3% (95% CI, 33.6-41.0%), and increased with age, especially in women. Of the subjects with hearing impairment, 64.4% reported hearing complaints. Of the subjects without hearing impairment, 21.1% experienced hearing complaints. This study suggests that screening older adults with relatively simple methods, may identify a large proportion of men and women in general practice with hearing problems. Providing information to both patients and general practitioners about the possibilities of hearing improvement is a crucial step in making people become more aware of hearing problems. This could ultimately lead to improvement of the quality of life of older men and women with hearing problems.
To predict which patients with current high-risk disease in the community may benefit most from additional preventive or therapeutic measures for influenza, we determined prognostic factors for influenza-associated hospitalization and death in a general practice-based case-control study among this segment of the vaccine target population with high influenza vaccination rates. In 103 general practices followed during the 1996/7 influenza epidemic, cases were either hospitalized, or died due to influenza, bronchitis, pneumonia, diabetes, heart failure or myocardial infarction. Age- and gender-matched controls were randomly sampled from the remaining cohort. Information was collected by review of patient records. In total, 119 cases and 196 matched controls were included. Of the cases, 34, 25 and 4% were hospitalized for acute pulmonary and cardiac disease and diabetes, respectively, and 37% died. Multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis revealed that presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, previous hospitalization, high GP visiting rate and polypharmacy were independent prognostic factors. Several non-modifiable determinants can be used to ensure targeting additional preventive or therapeutic measures at the most vulnerable segment of the vaccine target group.
Objective-To assess the observer variability of ultrasound measurements of the abdominal aorta and to study whether observer variability is influenced by the site of measurement or cardiovascular risk factors. Setting-Population based screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Methods-For 135 subjects taking part in a screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysms, two of the three ultrasonographers measured the distal and proximal ultrasound diameter of the abdominal aorta, using B-mode ultrasound, according to the Rotterdam study scanning protocol. Results-The mean diVerence between two diVerent observers was 0.06 mm (95% CI −0.15 to 0.27) for measurements of the distal aorta and 0.32 mm (95% CI 0.09 to 0.55) for the proximal aorta. Maximal differences between observers for measurements of both the distal and proximal aortic diameter were 4.0 mm. Interobserver variability in the proximal and distal measurements of the abdominal aorta was not related to the level of the major cardiovascular risk indicators. However, interobserver variability in ultrasound measurements of the proximal aorta increased with increasing waist circumference and increasing diameter of the proximal aorta. Conclusion-Ultrasonographic readings of the distal and proximal aortic measurements can be interpreted within a range of plus or minus 3 mm. Ultrasound measurements are more accurate for the distal than for the proximal measurement. Definition of the aortic diameter based on a combination of both distal and proximal measurement may be more accurate. (J Med Screen 1998;5:104-108)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.