Background: The true benefit of iron supplementation for nonanemic menstruating women with fatigue is unknown. We studied the effect of oral iron therapy on fatigue and quality of life, as well as on hemoglobin, ferritin and soluble transferrin receptor levels, in nonanemic iron-deficient women with unexplained fatigue. Methods: We performed a multicentre, parallel, randomized controlled, closed-label, observer-blinded trial. We recruited from the practices of 44 primary care physicians in France from March to July 2006. We randomly assigned 198 women aged 18–53 years who complained of fatigue and who had a ferritin level of less than 50 ug/L and hemoglobin greater than 12.0 g/dL to receive either oral ferrous sulfate (80 mg of elemental iron daily; n = 102) or placebo (n = 96) for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was fatigue as measured on the Current and Past Psychological Scale. Biological markers were measured at 6 and 12 weeks. Results: The mean score on the Current and Past Psychological Scale for fatigue decreased by 47.7% in the iron group and by 28.8% in the placebo group (difference –18.9%, 95% CI −34.5 to −3.2; p = 0.02), but there were no significant effects on quality of life (p = 0.2), depression (p = 0.97) or anxiety (p = 0.5). Compared with placebo, iron supplementation increased hemoglobin (0.32 g/dL; p = 0.002) and ferritin (11.4 μg/L; p < 0.001) and decreased soluble transferrin receptor (−0.54 mg/L; p < 0.001) at 12 weeks. Interpretation: Iron supplementation should be considered for women with unexplained fatigue who have ferritin levels below 50 μg/L. We suggest assessing the efficiency using blood markers after six weeks of treatment. Trial registration no. EudraCT 2006–000478–56.
5 July 2010 in Canadian Medical Association Journal
Background: Chest pain can be caused by various conditions, with life-threatening cardiac disease being of greatest concern. Prediction scores to rule out coronary artery disease have been developed for use in emergency settings. We developed and validated a simple prediction rule for use in primary care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional diagnostic study in 74 primary care practices in Germany. Primary care physicians recruited all consecutive patients who presented with chest pain (n = 1249) and recorded symptoms and findings for each patient (derivation cohort). An independent expert panel reviewed follow-up data obtained at six weeks and six months on symptoms, investigations, hospital admissions and medications to determine the presence or absence of coronary artery disease. Adjusted odds ratios of relevant variables were used to develop a prediction rule. We calculated measures of diagnostic accuracy for different cut-off values for the prediction scores using data derived from another prospective primary care study (validation cohort). Results: The prediction rule contained five determinants (age/sex, known vascular disease, patient assumes pain is of cardiac origin, pain is worse during exercise, and pain is not reproducible by palpation), with the score ranging from 0 to 5 points. The area under the curve (receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–0.91) for the derivation cohort and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87–0.93) for the validation cohort. The best overall discrimination was with a cut-off value of 3 (positive result 3–5 points; negative result ≤ 2 points), which had a sensitivity of 87.1% (95% CI 79.9%–94.2%) and a specificity of 80.8% (77.6%–83.9%). Interpretation: The prediction rule for coronary artery disease in primary care proved to be robust in the validation cohort. It can help to rule out coronary artery disease in patients presenting with chest pain in primary care.
9 March 2012 in International journal of legal medicine
Clinical Prediction Rules (CPRs) are tools that quantify the contribution of symptoms, clinical signs and available diagnostic tests, and in doing so stratify patients according to the probability of having a target outcome or need for a specified treatment. Most focus on the derivation stage with only a minority progressing to validation and very few undergoing impact analysis. Impact analysis studies remain the most efficient way of assessing whether incorporating CPRs into a decision making process improves patient care. However there is a lack of clear methodology for the design of high quality impact analysis studies.