The challenges and opportunities of pharmacoepidemiology in bone diseases

Pharmacoepidemiology is used extensively in osteoporosis research and involves the study of the use and effects of drugs in large numbers of people. Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in assessing treatment efficacy and safety. However, their results can have limited external validity when applied to day-to-day patients. Pharmacoepidemiological studies aim to assess the effect/s of treatments in actual practice conditions, but they are limited by the quality, completeness, and inherent bias due to confounding. Sources of information include prospectively collected (primary) as well as readily available routinely collected (secondary) (eg, electronic medical records, administrative/claims databases) data. Although the former enable the collection of ad hoc measurements, the latter provide a unique opportunity for the study of large representative populations and for the assessment of rare events at relatively low cost. Observational cohort and case-control studies, the most commonly implemented study designs in pharmacoepidemiology, each have their strengths and limitations. However, the choice of the study design depends on the research question that needs to be answered. Despite the many advantages of observational studies, they also have limitations. First, missing data is a common issue in routine data, frequently dealt with using multiple imputation. Second, confounding by indication arises because of the lack of randomization; multivariable regression and more specific techniques such as propensity scores (adjustment, matching, stratification, trimming, or weighting) are used to minimize such biases. In addition, immortal time bias (time period during which a subject is artefactually event-free by study design) and time-varying confounding (patient characteristics changing over time) are other types of biases usually accounted for using time-dependent modeling. Finally, residual "uncontrolled" confounding is difficult to assess, and hence to account for it, sensitivity analyses and specific methods (eg, instrumental variables) should be considered

How a Diverse Research Ecosystem Has Generated New Rehabilitation Technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program

Therapy Insight: Parenteral Estrogen treatment for Prostate Cancer—a new dawn for an old therapy

Oral estrogens were the treatment of choice for carcinoma of the prostate for over four decades, but were abandoned because of an excess of cardiovascular and thromboembolic toxicity. It is now recognized that most of this toxicity is related to the first pass portal circulation, which upregulates the hepatic metabolism of hormones, lipids and coagulation proteins. Most of this toxicity can be avoided by parenteral (intramuscular or transdermal) estrogen administration, which avoids hepatic enzyme induction. It also seems that a short-term but modest increase in cardiovascular morbidity (but not mortality) is compensated for by a long-term cardioprotective benefit, which accrues progressively as vascular remodeling develops over time. Parenteral estrogen therapy has the advantage of giving protection against the effects of andropause (similar to the female menopause), which are induced by conventional androgen suppression and include osteoporotic fracture, hot flashes, asthenia and cognitive dysfunction. In addition, parenteral estrogen therapy is significantly cheaper than contemporary endocrine therapy, with substantive economic implications for health providers

Prevalence and trends of selected urologic conditions for VA healthcare users

BACKGROUND: Conducted as part of the Urologic Diseases in America project whose aim was to quantify the burden of urologic diseases on the American public, this study focuses on Veterans Health Administration (VHA) users as a special population to supplement data on overall prevalence rates and trends in the United States. Veterans comprise 25% of the male population 18 years or older and contribute substantially to the overall burden of urologic conditions. The objective of this study is to describe the prevalence rates and trends of urologic cancers and selected benign conditions from 1999 to 2002 for VHA users. METHODS: VHA administrative files for 1999 – 2002 and Medicare claims files for the same years were used to identify those who had a diagnosis of qualifying urologic conditions. RESULTS: Among the conditions evaluated, prostate cancer was listed as a primary diagnosis for 5.4% of VHA users in 2002, followed in decreasing prevalence by erectile dysfunction (2.9%), renal mass (1.5%), interstitial cystitis (1.4%), and prostatitis (1.1%). Age-adjusted rates showed significant increases for renal mass (31%), interstitial cystitis (14%), and erectile dysfunction (8%) between 1999 and 2002. Systematic variations in prevalence rates and trends were observed by age, race/ethnicity, and region. Those in the Western region generally had lower age-adjusted prevalence rates and their increases were also slower than other regions. Addition of Medicare data resulted in large increases (21 to 489%) in prevalence among VHA users, suggesting substantial amount of non-VA urological care provided to VHA users. CONCLUSION: Prevalence rates for many urologic diseases increased between 1999 and 2002, which were not entirely attributable to the aging of veterans. This changing urologic disease burden has substantial implications for access to urologic care and treatment capacity, especially in light of the level of urologic care delivered to veterans by Medicare providers outside the VA. Further study on the factors associated with these increases and how they affect the patterns, cost, and quality of care in veterans is needed