Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Many pediatricians recommend, and many parents administer, alternating or combined doses of ibuprofen and acetaminophen for fever. Limited data support this practice with standard US doses. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the antipyretic effect of 3 different treatment regimens in children, using either ibuprofen alone, ibuprofen combined with acetaminophen, or ibuprofen followed by acetaminophen over a single 6-hour observation period. METHODS: Febrile episodes from children aged 6 to 84 months were randomized into the 3 treatment groups: a single dose of ibuprofen at the beginning of the observation period; a single dose of ibuprofen plus a single dose of acetaminophen at the beginning of the observation period; or ibuprofen followed by acetaminophen 3 hours later. Ibuprofen was administered at 10 mg/kg; acetaminophen at 15 mg/kg. Temperatures were measured hourly for 6 hours using a temporal artery thermometer. The primary outcome was temperature difference between treatment groups. Adverse-event data were not collected in this single treatment period study. RESULTS: Sixty febrile episodes in 46 children were assessed. The mean (SD) age of the children was 3.4 (2.2) years, and 31 (51.7%) were girls. Differences among temperature curves were significant (P < 0.001; the combined and alternating arms had significantly better antipyresis compared with the ibuprofen-alone group at hours 4 to 6 (hour 4, P < 0.005; hours 5 and 6, P < 0.001). All but one of the children in the combined and alternating groups were afebrile at hours 4, 5, and 6. In contrast, for those receiving ibuprofen alone, 30%, 40%, and 50% had temperatures >38.0 degrees C at hours 4, 5, and 6, respectively (hour 4, P = 0.002; hours 5 and 6, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: During a single 6-hour observation period for these participating children, combined and alternating doses of ibuprofen and acetaminophen provided greater antipyresis than ibuprofen alone at 4 to 6 hours. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00267293.

BACKGROUND: We investigated illness perceptions among critically ill patients or their surrogates in a university medical ICU using a prospective survey. We hypothesized that these would vary by demographic, personal, and clinical measures. METHODS: Patients (n = 23) or their surrogates (n = 77) were recruited. The Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised (IPQ-R) measured six domains of illness perception: timeline-acute/chronic, consequences, emotional impact, personal control, treatment efficacy, and illness comprehension. Multiple variable linear regression models were developed with IPQ-R scores as the outcomes. RESULTS: African Americans tended to perceive the illness as less enduring and reported more confidence in treatment efficacy (P < .01 for each). They also tended to report the illness as less serious, having less emotional impact, and having greater personal control (P = .0002 for each). Conversely, African Americans reported lower illness comprehension (P = .002). Faith/religion was associated with positive illness perceptions, including less concern regarding consequences (P = .02), less emotional impact (P = .03), and more confidence in treatment efficacy (P < .01). Lower patient quality of life (QOL) precritical illness was associated with negative perceptions, including greater concern about illness duration and consequences as well as perception of less personal control and less confidence in treatment efficacy (P < .01 for each). These variables were independently associated with illness perceptions after controlling for race, faith/religion, and survival to hospital discharge, whereas clinical measures were not. CONCLUSIONS: Illness perceptions among critically ill patients and surrogates are influenced by patient/surrogate factors, including race, faith, and precritical illness QOL, rather than clinical measures. Clinicians should recognize the variability in illness perceptions and the possible implications for patient/surrogate communication.

Adequate reliability and valid factor structure are prerequisites for appropriate use of a measure in a population. Although the Repeatable Battery for Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) has been used to examine cognition in Parkinson's disease (PD), its reliability and factor structure have not been examined in this population. This study examined the reliability and factor structure of the RBANS in participants with de novo PD recruited for two NIH Exploratory Trials in Parkinson's Disease (NET-PD), using Cronbach's alpha and factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was implemented on the factor structure proposed in the RBANS manual, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify a valid factor structure given the proposed one was not supported. The RBANS exhibited poor reliability in participants with NET-PD. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.03 to 0.74 for the five domains and the full scale. CFA results indicated that the proposed factor structure in the RBANS manual was not supported in this sample. EFA identified a two-factor structure for six of the 12 RBANS items. Six items were eliminated due to low correlation with other items or severe ceiling effects. This new factor structure was validated by another CFA. The two domains have fair reliability. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.65 to 0.74 for the two factors in the two datasets. These results suggest that the current RBANS domain and total scores may not provide valid measurement of the neuropsychological status for patients with early PD.

Upper and lower gastrointestinal dysautonomia symptoms (GIDS)--sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation are common in Parkinson's disease (PD) and often socially as well as physically disabling for patients. Available invasive quantitative measures for assessing these symptoms and their response to therapy are time-consuming, require specialized equipment, can cause patient discomfort and present patients with risk. The Movement Disorders Society commissioned a task force to assess available clinical rating scales, critique their clinimetric properties, and make recommendations regarding their clinical utility. Six clinical researchers and a biostatistician systematically searched the literature for scales of sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation, evaluated the scales' previous use, performance parameters, and quality of validation data (if available). A scale was designated "Recommended" if the scale was used in clinical studies beyond the group that developed it, has been specifically used in PD reports, and clinimetric studies have established that it is a valid, reliable, and sensitive. "Suggested" scales met at least part of the above criteria, but fell short of meeting all. Based on the systematic review, scales for individual symptoms of sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation were identified along with three global scales that include these symptoms in the context of assessing dysautonomia or nonmotor symptoms. Three sialorrhea scales met criteria for Suggested: Drooling Severity and Frequency Scale (DSFS), Drooling Rating Scale, and Sialorrhea Clinical Scale for PD (SCS-PD). Two dysphagia scales, the Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire (SDQ) and Dysphagia-Specific Quality of Life (SWAL-QOL), met criteria for Suggested. Although Rome III constipation module is widely accepted in the gastroenterology community, and the earlier version from the Rome II criteria has been used in a single study of PD patients, neither met criteria for Suggested or Recommended. Among the global scales, the Scales for Outcomes in PD-Autonomic (SCOPA-AUT) and Nonmotor Symptoms Questionnaire for PD (NMSQuest) both met criteria for Recommended, and the Nonmotor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) met criteria for Suggested; however, none specifically focuses on the target gastrointestinal symptoms (sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation) of this report. A very small number of rating scales have been applied to studies of gastrointestinal-related dysautonomia in PD. Only two scales met "Recommended" criteria and neither focuses specifically on the symptoms of sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation. Further scale testing in PD among the scales that focus on these symptoms is warranted, and no new scales are needed until the available scales are fully tested clinimetrically.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the perception of chance for survival among critically ill patients and surrogates and compared those perceptions to actual survival and to clinical estimates of illness severity. Secondary aims explored whether select demographic, clinical, or personal measures were associated with different perceptions of chance for survival. DESIGN: Prospective, sequential, observational, survey-based study. Primary measures were perception of chance for survival as compared to actual survival and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores. SETTING: Tertiary care, academic medical intensive care unit (MICU). PATIENTS: Subjects were English-speaking adult MICU patients with a MICU length-of-stay greater than three days or their surrogates (n = 100). RESULTS: Respondents tended to be more optimistic regarding chance for survival than supported by actual survival (p = 0.07) or APACHE II tertile (p = 0.34). Secondary analyses found African American race, faith, or religion impacting health decision-making, and higher health status reports were associated with more optimistic perceptions of chance for survival. CONCLUSION: Patient/surrogate perceptions of chance for survival were not associated with either actual MICU survival or illness severity (APACHE II) highlighting an opportunity to better inform critically ill patients and families regarding prognosis. Clinician recognition of patients' and families' backgrounds and values might set the stage for such discussions.

A sample of 175 veterans' scores on the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS; Randolph, 1998) was examined to investigate the factor structure of this scale. First, we attempted to replicate a five-factor model to reflect the five Index Scores of the RBANS (immediate memory, visuospatial/constructional, language, attention, and delayed memory) from the 12 individual subtests, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We were unable to identify a five-factor structure of the RBANS. The RBANS subtests were then subjected to an exploratory factor analysis with a maximum likelihood extraction and orthogonal rotation to determine a new dimensional model. Results indicated a two-factor structure that can roughly be described as memory and visuospatial function. CFA of this new structure indicated an adequate fit for this sample. Findings suggest that it may be appropriate to place more emphasis on the individual subtest scores than the index scores during interpretation.