Objective. To investigate the validity, reproducibility, and responsiveness of a simplified power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) assessment of joint inflammation compared with a comprehensive 44-joint PDUS assessment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who started therapy with a biologic agent. Methods. A total of 160 patients with active RA who started a biologic agent were prospectively recruited in 18 Spanish centers. The patients underwent clinical and laboratory assessment and blinded PDUS examination at baseline and 6 months. A PDUS examination of 128 synovial sites in 44 joints was performed. US synovitis and PD signal were semiquantitatively graded from 1 to 3 in all synovial sites. US count and index for synovitis and PD signal were obtained. PDUS intraobserver and interobserver reliability were evaluated. A process of data reduction based on the frequency of involvement of synovial sites by both synovitis and PD signal was conducted. Construct and discriminant validity of a simplified PDUS assessment was investigated. Results. A PDUS simplified assessment including 24 synovial sites from 12 joints detected 100% of patients with synovitis and 91% of patients with PD signal. There was a highly significant correlation between the 44-joint count and index for synovitis and PD signal and the 12-joint count and index for synovitis and PD signal at baseline and 6 months (r ؍ 0.84 -0.90, P < 0.0005). The smallest detectable difference was lower than the mean change in simplified PDUS variables. Conclusion. A 12-joint PDUS assessment of RA joint inflammation may be a valid, feasible method for multicenter monitoring of therapeutic response to biologic agents.
BACKGROUNDDespite many advances in assisted reproductive techniques (ART), little is known about preferences for technological developments of women undergoing fertility treatments. The aims of this study were to investigate the preferences of infertile women undergoing ART for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) treatments; to determine the utility values ascribed to different attributes of COS treatments; and to estimate women's willingness to pay (WTP) for COS.METHODSA representative sample of ambulatory patients ready to receive, or receiving, COS therapies for infertility were recruited from seven specialized private centres in six autonomous communities in Spain. Descriptive, inferential and conjoint analyses (CA) were used to elicit preferences and WTP. Attributes and levels of COS treatments were identified by literature review and two focus groups with experts and patients. WTP valuations were derived by a combination of double-bounded (closed-ended) and open questions and contingent ranking methods.RESULTSIn total, 160 patients [mean (standard deviation; SD) age: 35.8 (4.2) years] were interviewed. Over half of the participants (55.0%) had a high level of education (university degree), most (78.8%) were married and half (50.0%) had an estimated net income of >€1502 per month and had paid a mean (SD) €1194.17 (€778.29) for their most recent hormonal treatment. The most frequent causes of infertility were related to sperm abnormalities (50.3%). In 30.6% of cases, there were two causes of infertility. The maximum WTP for COS treatment was €800 (median) per cycle; 35.5% were willing to pay an additional €101–€300 for a 1–2% effectiveness gain in the treatment. Utility values (CA) showed that effectiveness was the most valued attribute (39.82), followed by costs (18.74), safety (17.75) and information sharing with physicians (14.93).CONCLUSIONSWTP for COS therapies exceeds current cost. Additional WTP exists for 1–2% effectiveness improvement. Effectiveness and costs were the most important determinants of preferences, followed by safety and information sharing with physicians.
PurposeTo define importance values assigned to attributes of biological agents (BAs) by Spanish patients with rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis) and rheumatologists.Patients and methodsThis was an observational, cross-sectional design based upon a rank-based full-profile conjoint analysis. A literature review and four focus groups were undertaken to identify attributes and levels. An orthogonal matrix, combining the selected levels of attributes, was used to define scenarios. Participants ranked eight scenarios from 1 (most preferred) to 8 (least preferred). The relative importance (RI) of attributes was calculated. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify the characteristics that influenced the values of RI. A total of 488 patients (male 50.9%, mean age 50.6 [standard deviation {SD} 12.06] years, rheumatoid arthritis 33.8%, ankylosing spondylitis 32.4%, psoriatic arthritis 33.8%; mean time since diagnosis 12.6 [SD 8.2] years) and 136 rheumatologists (male 50.4%, mean age 46.4 [SD 9.1] years, mean time of practice 16.7 [SD 8.8] years) participated.ResultsThe ideal BAs for patients and physicians, respectively, should allow pain relief and improvement of functional capacity (RI 39% and 44.7%), with low risk of adverse events (RI 24.9% and 30.5%), a long time prior to perceiving the need for a new dose (RI 16.4% and 12.4%), and self-administration at home (RI 19.7% and 12.5%), as identified through their preferences.ConclusionAlthough efficacy and safety are paramount for patients and rheumatologists to make a choice regarding BAs, the need for a low frequency of administration and the administration method also play a role as preference attributes for BAs.
Loci selected for biopsy and histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia are not randomly distributed across the cervix. There is a predilection for the locations anterior and posterior to the cervical os.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.