ORCID Profile
0000-0002-9449-6056
Current Organisation
The University of Sheffield University Library
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 18-07-2013
Publisher: The Journal of Rheumatology
Date: 09-2014
Abstract: To systematically review available literature on treatment of hyperuricemia (HU) as a measure of preventing gouty arthritis, renal disease, or cardiovascular events in asymptomatic patients. A systematic literature search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, clinical trials registries of the World Health Organization and the US National Institutes of Health, and abstracts from American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism meetings, for interventional studies involving adults with no history of gouty arthritis, who were treated for HU. Outcomes of interest included gouty arthritis, renal disease (i.e., renal insufficiency, urate nephropathy, nephrolithiasis), and cardiovascular events (i.e., myocardial infarction, heart failure, ischemic stroke). A total of 3 studies met the inclusion criteria, 2 studies assessing the prevention of renal disease and 1 study evaluating the potential for delaying progression of preexisting renal disease. In hyperuricemic patients without renal disease, treatment resulted in increased estimated glomerular filtration rate. In hyperuricemic patients with preexisting renal disease, treatment resulted in no significant elevation of serum creatinine over a 1-year followup. However, differences in renal function between the treatment and no-treatment groups were not statistically significant in any of the identified studies. Very limited data are available on the treatment of HU in asymptomatic patients. There is currently insufficient empiric evidence to suggest that lowering serum uric acid level in asymptomatic patients with HU can prevent gouty arthritis, renal disease, or cardiovascular events.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 10-2015
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 27-11-2013
DOI: 10.1002/ACR.22085
Publisher: The Journal of Rheumatology
Date: 09-2014
Abstract: To determine the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids (GC), colchicine, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAID), interleukin-1 (IL-1) inhibitors, and paracetamol to treat acute gout. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to September 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) or quasi-RCT in adults with acute gout that compared GC, colchicine, NSAID, IL-1 inhibitors, and paracetamol to no treatment, placebo, another intervention, or combination therapy were included. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary endpoints were pain and adverse events. Data were pooled where appropriate. Twenty-six trials evaluating GC (N = 5), NSAID (N = 21), colchicine (N = 2), and canakinumab (N = 1) were included. No RCT assessed paracetamol or intraarticular (IA) GC. No RCT compared systemic GC with placebo. Moderate quality evidence (3 trials) concluded that systemic GC were as effective as NSAID but safer. Low quality evidence (1 trial) showed that both high- and low-dose colchicine were more effective than placebo, and low-dose colchicine was no different to placebo with respect to safety but safer than high-dose colchicine. Low quality evidence (1 trial) showed no difference between NSAID and placebo with regard to pain or inflammation. No NSAID was superior to another. Moderate quality evidence (1 trial) found that 150 mg canakinumab was more effective than a single dose of intramuscular GC (40 mg triamcinolone) and equally safe. GC, NSAID, low-dose colchicine, and canakinumab all effectively treat acute gout. There was insufficient evidence to rank them. Systemic GC appeared safer than NSAID and lower-dose colchicine was safer than higher-dose colchicine.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 19-04-2011
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.983874
Abstract: Observational studies suggest that there are differences in adherence to antihypertensive medications in different classes. Our objective was to quantify the association between antihypertensive drug class and adherence in clinical settings. Studies were identified through a systematic search of English-language articles published from the inception of computerized databases until February 1, 2009. Studies were included if they measured adherence to antihypertensives using medication refill data and contained sufficient data to calculate a measure of relative risk of adherence and its variance. An inverse-variance–weighted random-effects model was used to pool results. Hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios were pooled separately, and HRs were selected as the primary outcome. Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled mean adherence by drug class ranged from 28% for β-blockers to 65% for angiotensin II receptor blockers. There was better adherence to angiotensin II receptor blockers compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (HR, 1.33 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.57), calcium channel blockers (HR, 1.57 95% confidence interval, 1.38 to 1.79), diuretics (HR, 1.95 95% confidence interval, 1.73 to 2.20), and β-blockers (HR, 2.09 95% confidence interval, 1.14 to 3.85). Conversely, there was lower adherence to diuretics compared with the other drug classes. The same pattern was present when studies that used odds ratios were pooled. After publication bias was accounted for, there were no longer significant differences in adherence between angiotensin II receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or between diuretics and β-blockers. In clinical settings, there are important differences in adherence to antihypertensives in separate classes, with lowest adherence to diuretics and β-blockers and highest adherence to angiotensin II receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. However, adherence was suboptimal regardless of drug class.
Publisher: Mary Ann Liebert Inc
Date: 02-2014
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 11-08-2010
DOI: 10.1345/APH.1P150
Abstract: Nonadherence to statins limits the benefits of this common drug class. In idual studies assessing predictors of nonadherence haue produced inconsistent results. To identify reliable predictors of nonadherence to statins through systematic review and meta-analysis. Multiple databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, were searched (from inception through February 2009) to identify studies that evaluated predictors of nonadherence to statins. Studies were selected using a priori defined criteria, and each study was reviewed by 2 authors who abstracted data on study characteristics and outcomes. Relative risks were then pooled, using an inverse-variance weighted random-effects model. Twenty-two cohort studies met inclusion criteria. Age had a U-shaped association with adherence the oldest (≥70 years) and youngest ( years) subjects had lower adherence than the middle-aged (50-69 years) subjects. Women and patients with lower incomes were more likely to be nonadherent than were men (odds of nonadherence 1.07 95% CI 1.04 to 1.11) and those with higher incomes (odds of nonadherence 1.18:95% CI 1.10 to 1.28), respectively. A history of cardiovascular disease predicted better adherence to statins (odds of nonadherence 0.68 95% CI 0.66 to 0.78). Similarly, a diagnosis of hypertension or diabetes was associated with better adherence. Although there were too few studies for quantitative pooling, increased testing of lipid levels and lower out-of-pocket costs appeared to be associated with better adherence. There was substantial (l2 range 68.7-96.3%) heterogeneity between studies across factors. Several sociodemographic, medical, and health-care utilization characteristics are associated with statin nonadherence. These factors may be useful guides for targeting statin adherence interventions.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 12-2018
DOI: 10.1136/RMDOPEN-2018-000756
Abstract: To summarise the available information on physician workforce modelling, to develop a rheumatology workforce prediction risk of bias tool and to apply it to existing studies in rheumatology. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed in key electronic databases (1946–2017) comprising an update of an SLR in rheumatology and a hierarchical SLR in other medical fields. Data on the type of workforce prediction models and the factors considered in the models were extracted. Key general as well as specific need/demand and supply factors for workforce calculation in rheumatology were identified. The workforce prediction risk of bias tool was developed and applied to existing workforce studies in rheumatology. In total, 14 studies in rheumatology and 10 studies in other medical fields were included. Studies used a variety of prediction models based on a heterogeneous set of need/demand and/or supply factors. Only two studies attempted empirical validation of the prediction quality of the model. Based on evidence and consensus, the newly developed risk of bias tool includes 21 factors (general, need/demand and supply). The majority of studies revealed high or moderate risk of bias for most of the factors. The existing evidence on workforce prediction in rheumatology is scarce, heterogeneous and at moderate or high risk of bias. The new risk of bias tool should enable future evaluation of workforce prediction studies. This review informs the European League Against Rheumatism points to consider for the conduction of workforce requirement studies in rheumatology.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United States of America
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Louise Falzon.