RESUMEN
We examined device-measured physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour at the time of diagnosis in people with inoperable lung cancer and investigated their associations with 12-month mortality. The people with inoperable lung cancer wore an accelerometer for seven days prior to the treatment commencement. The analysed PA/sedentary behaviour variables included light-intensity PA, moderate-to-vigorous-intensity PA (MVPA), step count, the total time spent sedentary, and the usual sedentary bout duration. The data on the disease stage, clinical covariates and 12-month mortality were extracted from medical records. Cox regression models were used to estimate the association between the PA measures and 12-month mortality, and the sedentary behaviour measures and 12-month mortality. The models were adjusted for the stage and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio. All the PA and sedentary behaviour variables were dichotomised at their medians for analysis. Eighty-nine participants (70 ± 10 years; 55 [62%] males) contributed valid data. The twelve-month mortality was 30% (n = 27). Compared to the participants who spent ≤4.6 min/day in MVPA (n = 45), those who spent >4.6 min/day (n = 44) had a relative risk of 12-month mortality reduced by 60% (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.96; 18 versus nine deaths, respectively). The other variables of PA/sedentary behaviour were not associated with 12-month mortality. Higher device-measured MVPA was associated with reduced 12-month mortality in people who were newly diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer.
RESUMEN
This study aimed to examine sedentary behaviour (SB), physical activity (PA) and their associations with health-related measures at the time of diagnosis in people with inoperable lung cancer. People newly diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer were invited to participate in the study and asked to wear an accelerometer for seven consecutive days. Variables analysed included time spent in SB, light intensity PA (LIPA) and moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA). Daily steps were also recorded. Data on symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), hand grip force, comorbidities and lung function were collected. Of the 120 patients referred to the study, 89 (74%) consented to participate, and SB/PA data were available for 79 (age 71 ± 11 years; 29 females). Participants spent 71% of their waking time in SB, 28% in LIPA and 1% in MVPA. Regression models demonstrated that increased SB was associated with more symptoms of fatigue and dyspnoea (p ≤ 0.02 for both), poorer HRQoL (general health and physical component score; p ≤ 0.02 for all) and lower hand grip force. For PA variables, higher daily step count was associated with better scores in all health-related measures (p < 0.05 for all). LIPA was associated with more health-related outcomes than MVPA. These findings may guide future interventions in this population.
RESUMEN
Background: Vaccines have had a great impact on disease prevention and reducing mortality. Very rarely, vaccines also can result in serious adverse effects. In consideration of this fact, vaccine injury compensation programs have been implemented in many countries to compensate a vaccinee for associated adverse effects. The existing vaccine injury compensation system addresses routine immunization schemes. However, there are rising concerns about the compensation for adverse effects caused by new vaccines such as those developed for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review focuses on vaccine injury compensation programs and highlights the necessity to include all upcoming new vaccines for COVID-19 and other emerging viral diseases in the compensation schemes. Methods: Published articles relating to vaccine compensation injury programs, vaccines, injuries, disabilities, illnesses, and deaths resulting from vaccination were searched in data bases. Through a careful review of the abstracts, 25 relevant articles were selected for analysis. Results: We identified 27 countries on four continents with vaccine injury compensation schemes: 17 countries in Europe, 7 countries in Asia, the United States, a Canadian Province and New Zealand. No programs were identified in Africa and in South America. Program design, funding, and eligibility for compensation vary vastly between countries. We identified 17 countries operating well-established vaccine injury compensation programs. However, minimal information is available on numerous other countries. Conclusion: We conclude that the vaccine injury compensation programs are available in limited number of countries across four continents - mostly in Europe. Lack of standard approach and scope of injury prevention and compensation programs across the countries exists. Some important limitations include limited scientific material, which hindered our research. Therefore, additional data concerning payout for each type of injury and the number of claimants related to a specific vaccine injury worldwide could provide a more comprehensive analysis.
