Background The last nationally representative assessment of kidney stone prevalence in the United States occurred in 1994. After a 13-yr hiatus, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) reinitiated data collection regarding kidney stone history. Objective Describe the current prevalence of stone disease in the United States, and identify factors associated with a history of kidney stones. Design, setting, and participants A cross-sectional analysis of responses to the 2007–2010 NHANES (n = 12 110). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Self-reported history of kidney stones. Percent prevalence was calculated and multivariable models were used to identify factors associated with a history of kidney stones. Results and limitations The prevalence of kidney stones was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1–9.5). Among men, the prevalence of stones was 10.6% (95% CI, 9.4–11.9), compared with 7.1% (95% CI, 6.4–7.8) among women. Kidney stones were more common among obese than normal-weight individuals (11.2% [95% CI, 10.0–12.3] compared with 6.1% [95% CI, 4.8–7.4], respectively; p < 0.001). Black, non-Hispanic and Hispanic individuals were less likely to report a history of stone disease than were white, non-Hispanic individuals (black, non-Hispanic: odds ratio [OR]: 0.37 [95% CI, 0.28–0.49], p < 0.001; Hispanic: OR: 0.60 [95% CI, 0.49–0.73], p < 0.001). Obesity and diabetes were strongly associated with a history of kidney stones in multivariable models. The cross-sectional survey design limits causal inference regarding potential risk factors for kidney stones. Conclusions Kidney stones affect approximately 1 in 11 people in the United States. These data represent a marked increase in stone disease compared with the NHANES III cohort, particularly in black, non-Hispanic and Hispanic individuals. Diet and lifestyle factors likely play an important role in the changing epidemiology of kidney stones.

BACKGROUND. The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of men with prostate cancer has risen sharply. Although cardiovascular disease is the most common reason for death among men with prostate cancer who do not die of the disease itself, data regarding the effect of ADT on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in men with prostate cancer are limited. In the current study, the authors attempted to measure the risk for subsequent cardiovascular morbidity in men with prostate cancer who received ADT. METHODS. A cohort of newly diagnosed men in a population‐based registry who were diagnosed between 1992 and 1996 were identified retrospectively. A total of 22,816 subjects were identified after exclusion criteria were applied. Using a multivariate model, the authors calculated the risk of subsequent cardiovascular morbidity in men with prostate cancer who were treated with ADT, as defined using Medicare claims. RESULTS. Newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients who received ADT for at least 1 year were found to have a 20% higher risk of serious cardiovascular morbidity compared with similar men who did not receive ADT. Subjects began incurring this higher risk within 12 months of treatment. However, Hispanic men were found to have a lowered risk for cardiovascular morbidity. CONCLUSIONS. ADT is associated with significantly increased cardiovascular morbidity in men with prostate cancer and may lower overall survival in men with low‐risk disease. These data have particular relevance to decisions regarding the use of ADT in men with prostate cancer in settings in which the benefit has not been clearly established. For men with metastatic disease, focused efforts to reduce cardiac risk factors through diet, exercise, or the use of lipid‐lowering agents may mitigate some of the risks of ADT. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.

Background Delirium affects > 15% of hospitalised patients but is grossly underdetected, contributing to poor care. The 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT, www.the4AT.com ) is a short delirium assessment tool designed for routine use without special training. The primary objective was to assess the accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. The secondary objective was to compare the 4AT with another commonly used delirium assessment tool, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). Methods This was a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study set in emergency departments or acute medical wards involving acute medical patients aged ≥ 70. All those without acutely life-threatening illness or coma were eligible. Patients underwent (1) reference standard delirium assessment based on DSM-IV criteria and (2) were randomised to either the index test (4AT, scores 0–12; prespecified score of > 3 considered positive) or the comparator (CAM; scored positive or negative), in a random order, using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. Reference standard and 4AT or CAM assessments were performed by pairs of independent raters blinded to the results of the other assessment. Results Eight hundred forty-three individuals were randomised: 21 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome, and 785 were included in the analysis. Mean age was 81.4 (SD 6.4) years. 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84–0.96). The 4AT had a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61–87%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 92–97%). The CAM had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26–57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98–100%). Conclusions The 4AT is a short, pragmatic tool which can help improving detection rates of delirium in routine clinical care. Trial registration International standard randomised controlled trial number (ISRCTN) 53388093 . Date applied 30/05/2014; date assigned 02/06/2014. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-019-1367-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe. Methods This analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS 1-3), mildly frail (CFS 4-5), or frail (CFS 6-9). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities). Findings Between March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55-77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 odds ratio [OR] 2•71 [95% CI 2•04-3•60], p<0•0001 and CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1•54 [1•16-2•06], p=0•0030; age ≥65 years: CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 2•90 [2•12-3•97], p<0•0001 and CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1•64 [1•20-2•25], p=0•0020). In patients younger than 65 years, an increased hospital mortality risk was only observed in frail patients (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 2•22 [1•08-4•57], p=0•030; CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1•08 [0•48-2•39], p=0•86). Frail patients had a higher incidence of admission to intensive care than fit patients (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1•54 [1•21-1•97], p=0•0010), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 0•71 [0•55-0•92], p=0•0090). Among patients younger than 65 years, frail patients had an increased incidence of admission to intensive care (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 2•96 [1•98-4•43], p<0•0001), whereas mildly frail patients had no significant difference in incidence compared with fit patients (CFS 4-5 vs CFS 1-3 OR 0•93 [0•63-1•38], p=0•72). Among patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients had no significant difference in the incidence of admission to intensive care compared with fit patients (CFS 6-9 vs CFS 1-3 OR 1•27 [0•92-1•75], p=0•14), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incide...

BACKGROUNDDespite their potential benefits to patients with kidney cancer, the adoption of partial nephrectomy and laparoscopy has been gradual and asymmetric. To clarify whether this trend reflects differences in kidney cancer patients or differences in surgeon practice styles, the authors compared the magnitude of surgeon‐attributable variance in the use of partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with that attributable to patient and tumor characteristics.METHODSBy using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results‐Medicare data, the authors identified a cohort of 5483 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent surgery for kidney cancer between 1997 and 2002. Two primary outcomes were defined: 1) the use of partial nephrectomy and (2) the use of laparoscopy among patients undergoing radical nephrectomy. By using multilevel models, surgeon‐ and patient‐level contributions to observed variations in the use of partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic radical nephrectomy were estimated.RESULTSOf the 5483 cases identified, 611 (11.1%) underwent partial nephrectomy (43 performed laparoscopically), and 4872 (88.9%) underwent radical nephrectomy (515 performed laparoscopically). After adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidity, tumor size, and surgeon volume, the surgeon‐attributable variance was 18.1% for partial nephrectomy and 37.4% for laparoscopy. For both outcomes, the percentage of total variance attributable to surgeon factors was consistently higher than that attributable to patient characteristics.CONCLUSIONSFor many patients with kidney cancer, the surgery provided depends more on their surgeon's practice style than on the characteristics of the patient and his or her disease. Consequently, dismantling barriers to surgeon adoption of partial nephrectomy and laparoscopy is an important step toward improving the quality of care for patients with early‐stage kidney cancer. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.