C-reactive protein (CRP) is one of the most commonly used markers of acute phase reaction in clinical settings and predictors of cardiovascular risk in healthy women; however, data on its physiologic regulation in premenopausal women are sparse. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between endogenous reproductive hormones and CRP in the BioCycle Study (2005-2007). Women aged 18-44 years from western New York were followed prospectively for up to 2 menstrual cycles (n = 259). Serum levels of CRP, estradiol, progesterone, luteinizing hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone were measured up to 8 times per cycle, timed by fertility monitors. CRP levels varied significantly across the cycle (P < 0.001). More women were classified as being at elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CRP, >3 mg/L) during menses compared with other phases (12.3% vs. 7.4%; P < 0.001). A 10-fold increase in estradiol was associated with a 24.3% decrease in CRP (95% confidence interval: 19.3, 29.0). A 10-fold increase in luteal progesterone was associated with a 19.4% increase in CRP (95% confidence interval: 8.4, 31.5). These results support the hypothesis that endogenous estradiol might have antiinflammatory effects and highlight the need for standardization of CRP measurement to menstrual cycle phase in reproductive-aged women.

BackgroundMedication regimens in nursing home (NH) residents with severe dementia should be frequently reviewed to avoid inappropriate medication, overtreatment and adverse drug events, within a comfort care approach. This study aimed at testing the feasibility of an interdisciplinary knowledge exchange (KE) intervention using a medication review guidance tool categorizing medications as either “generally”, “sometimes” or “exceptionally” appropriate for NH residents with severe dementia.MethodsA quasi-experimental feasibility pilot study with 44 participating residents aged 65 years or over with severe dementia was carried out in three NH in Quebec City, Canada. The intervention comprised an information leaflet for residents’ families, a 90-min KE session for NH general practitioners (GP), pharmacists and nurses focusing on the medication review guidance tool, a medication review by the pharmacists for participating residents with ensuing team discussion on medication changes, and a post-intervention KE session to obtain feedback from team staff. Medication regimens and levels of pain and of agitation of the participants were evaluated at baseline and at 4 months post-intervention. A questionnaire for team staff explored perceived barriers and facilitators. Statistical differences in measures comparing pre and post-intervention were assessed using paired t-tests and Cochran’s-Q tests.ResultsThe KE sessions reached 34 NH team staff (5 GP, 4 pharmacists, 6 heads of care unit and 19 staff nurses). Forty-four residents participated in the study and were followed for a mean of 104 days. The total number of regular medications was 372 pre and 327 post-intervention. The mean number of regular medications per resident was 7.86 pre and 6.81 post-intervention. The odds ratios estimating the risks of using any regular medication or a “sometimes appropriate” medication post-intervention were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71–0.92) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74–0.94), respectively.ConclusionA simple KE intervention using a medication review guidance tool categorizing medications as being either “generally”, “sometimes” or “exceptionally” appropriate in severe dementia was well received and accompanied by an overall reduction in medication use by NH residents with severe dementia. Levels of agitation were unaffected and there was no clinically significant changes in levels of pain. Staff feedback provided opportunities to improve the intervention.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0895-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

CLINICIAN'S CAPSULE What is known about the topic? Delirium is frequent in older inpatients but often goes undetected. A short tool, the 4 A's Test (4AT), was created and validated for the detection of delirium. What did this study ask? This study compared the performance of the French version of the 4AT (4AT-F) with the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) for the screening of delirium. What did this study find? The 4AT-F was a fast and reliable screening tool for delirium in the emergency department (ED). Why does this study matter to clinicians? Because of its quick administration time, it allows for systematic screening of patients at risk of delirium and cognitive impairment.

IntroductionThe 30-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30) and the shorter GDS-15, GDS-5 and GDS-4 are recommended as depression screening tools for elderly individuals. Existing meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of the GDS have not been able to conduct subgroup analyses, have included patients already identified as depressed who would not be screened in practice and have not accounted for possible bias due to selective reporting of results from only better-performing cut-offs in primary studies. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA), which involves a standard systematic review, then a synthesis of individual participant data, rather than summary results, could address these limitations. The objective of our IPDMA is to generate accuracy estimates to detect major depression for all possible cut-offs of each version of the GDS among studies using different reference standards, separately and among participant subgroups based on age, sex, dementia diagnosis and care settings. In addition, we will use a modelling approach to generate individual participant probabilities for major depression based on GDS scores (rather than a dichotomous cut-off) and participant characteristics (eg, sex, age, dementia status, care setting).Methods and analysisIndividual participant data comparing GDS scores to a major depression diagnosis based on a validated structured or semistructured diagnostic interview will be sought via a systematic review. Data sources will include Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Bivariate random-effects models will be used to estimate diagnostic accuracy parameters for each cut-off of the different versions of the GDS. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.Ethics and disseminationThe findings of this study will be of interest to stakeholders involved in research, clinical practice and policy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018104329.