IntroductionTo improve the health of overweight and obese veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) developed the MOVE! Weight Management Program for Veterans. The aim of this evaluation was to assess its reach and effectiveness.MethodsWe extracted data on program involvement, demographics, medical conditions, and outcomes from VA administrative databases in 4 Western states. Eligibility criteria for MOVE! were being younger than 70 years and having a body mass index (BMI, in kg/m2) of at least 30.0, or 25.0 to 29.9 with an obesity-related condition. To evaluate reach, we estimated the percentage of eligible veterans who participated in the program and their representativeness. To evaluate effectiveness, we estimated changes in weight and BMI using multivariable linear regression.ResultsLess than 5% of eligible veterans participated, of whom half had only a single encounter. Likelihood of participation was greater in women, those with a higher BMI, and those with more primary care visits, sleep apnea, or a mental health condition. Likelihood of participation was lower among those who were younger than 55 (vs 55-64), widowed, current smokers, and residing farther from the medical center (≥30 vs <30 miles). At 6- and 12-month follow-up, participants lost an average of 1.3 lb (95% confidence interval [CI], −2.6 to −0.02 lb) and 0.9 lb (95% CI, −2.0 to 0.1 lb) more than nonparticipants, after covariate adjustment. More intensive treatment (≥6 encounters) was associated with greater weight loss at 12 months (−3.7 lb; 95% CI, −5.1 to −2.3 lb).ConclusionFew eligible patients participated in the program during the study period, and overall estimates of effectiveness were low.

In this community-wide study, the availability of on-site cardiac catheterization facilities was associated with a higher likelihood that a patient would undergo coronary angiography. However, admission to hospitals with these facilities did not appear to be associated with lower short-term mortality.

Variability in the control of oral anticoagulant therapy has been associated with a heightened risk of complications. We compared control of anticoagulation between two commonly used coumarins, phenprocoumon and acenocoumarol, and among anticoagulation clinics. All qualifying patients were managed at six regional anticoagulation clinics in the Netherlands. This retrospective cohort study compiled data during a three-year period from a computerised dosing and management system. Anticoagulation control was expressed as the percent of time within the therapeutic range and stability expressed as the time-weighted variance in the international normalised ratio (INR). Data were available for 22,178 patients of whom 72% were treated with acenocoumarol. INRs of patients who received phenprocoumon were within the therapeutic range 50% of the time compared with 43% for acenocoumarol (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.24-1.41). Moreover, patients on phenprocoumon required 15% fewer monitoring visits and had more stable INR values. These observations were consistent for all six clinics. There were also sizable differences between the clinics with respect to control and stability of anticoagulation that were stable from year-to-year and were unrelated to the drug used. With its longer half-life of three to five days, phenprocoumon produces more stable anticoagulation than acenocoumarol and should generally be the drug of choice when these are the available choices. The differences observed among clinics suggest that certain clinics employ policies and practices resulting in better control of anticoagulation.

No abstract

PURPOSE: Psychiatric disorders and abnormal personality traits are commonly identified in patients complaining of fatigue, most of whom can be diagnosed to have depressive (D), anxiety (A), somatoform (S) or eating (E) disorders. This study was designed to determine the relationship between the prevalence of severe fatigue and the presence of personality pathology in individuals with these psychiatric disorders. METHODS: We analyzed 1197 referrals to an academic psychosomatic medicine outpatient unit. All patients underwent highly structured standardized psychometric and clinical assessments which allowed the categorical classification into D, A, S, and E groups. Within each group, the self-scored severity of fatigue experienced during the week preceding the evaluation was compared for patients with and without personality disorders (P). RESULTS: The one-week prevalence of severe fatigue was 38% in D (N ϭ 324) and 45% in D ϩ P (N ϭ 139), p ϭ NS; 29% in A (N ϭ 216) and 29% in A ϩ P (N ϭ 79), p ϭ NS; 33% in E (N ϭ 99) and 32% in E ϩ P (N ϭ 53), p ϭ NS; and 20% in S (N ϭ 209) and 34% in S ϩ P (N ϭ 78), p Ͻ .01. The difference in fatigue severity was ϩ 5% for D ϩ P vs D (p ϭ NS), ϩ 1% for A ϩ P vs A (p ϭ NS), Ϫ 2% for E ϩ P vs E (p ϭ NS) and 32% for S ϩ P vs S (p Ͻ .01). The greater severity of fatigue had a significant contribution to the difference in the 14-item index of somatic distress only for S vs S ϩ P (p ϭ .03) CONCLUSION: Severe fatigue may be a marker of personality pathology in patients with unexplained somatic complaints who do not suffer from depressive, anxiety or eating disorders. SOMATIC DISTRESS OF THE MENTALLY ILL AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PERSONALITY DISORDERS.N Schmitz, N Hartkamp, W Tress, M Franz, P Manu, Department of Psychosomatics and Psychoterapy, Heinrich-Heine-University, Duesseldorf, Germany; Department of Medicine and Department of Psychiatry, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Glen Oaks, NY PURPOSE: Personality disorders are often invoked by clinicians as a contributing factor to the severity of physical complaints of psychiatric patiens, but the scientific support for this asociation is scant. This study was designed to determine the relationship between somatic distress and the presence of personality pathology in individuals with well-defined psychiatric disorders. METHODS: We analyzed 1437 consective referrals to an academic psychosomatic outpatient unit. Standardized psychometric and clinical evaluations were used to diagnose personality (P), depressive (D), anxiety (A), and somatoform (S) disorders. The assessment of somatic distress was based on the self-rating of the severity of 14 somatic experiences (SE) during the week preceding the evaluation. RESULTS: Compared with D (N ϭ 324), A (N ϭ 216) and S (N ϭ 209), patients with P (N ϭ 392) indicated the lowest severity of somatic distress (p ϭ .001). Patients with the comorbid associations D ϩ P (N ϭ 139) and A ϩ P (N ϭ 79) had experienced milder somatic distress than those with D or A alone (p ϭ .007). In contrast, patients with S...