Search

BackgroundThe risk for subsequent major cardiovascular (CV) events among patients with very high-risk (VHR) atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) remains to be fully elucidated.HypothesisWe assessed the characteristics and major CV event rates of patients with VHR versus non-VHR ASCVD in a real-world setting in the United States (US), hypothesizing that patients with VHR ASCVD would have higher CV event rates.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study conducted from January 01, 2011, to June 30, 2018, in the US using the Prognos LDL-C database linked to the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus® database supplemented with the IQVIA prescription claims (Dx/LRx) databases. Patients were ≥18 years old and had  ≥2 non-ancillary medical claims in the linked databases at least 30 days apart. The study was conducted in 2 stages: (1) identification of patients with ASCVD who met the definition of VHR ASCVD and a matched cohort of non-VHR ASCVD patients using the incidence density sampling (IDS) approach; (2) estimation of the occurrence of major CV events.ResultsAmong patients with ≥1 major ASCVD event (N=147,679), most qualified as VHR ASCVD (79.5%). There were 115,460 patients each in IDS-matched VHR and non-VHR ASCVD cohorts. The composite myocardial infarction/ischemic stroke event rates in the VHR and non-VHR ASCVD cohorts were 8.04 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 7.87-8.22) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88) events per 100 patient-years, respectively, during the 1-year post-index period.ConclusionsMost patients with ≥1 previous major ASCVD event treated in real-world US clinical practice qualified as VHR ASCVD. Patients with VHR ASCVD had much higher rates of major CV events versus non-VHR ASCVD patients.

Objectives: To estimate the preferences of patients with asthma and asthma-treating clinicians for attributes of biologic treatments, to compare patients' and clinicians' preferences, and to better understand the reasons for their preferences. Methods: Adults with moderate-to-severe asthma and clinicians who treat asthma in the US completed a cross-sectional, online survey including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) that consisted of seven attributes spanning treatment efficacy, risk and convenience. Marginal utilities were estimated using a mixed logit model, and relative attribute importance scores calculated. Clinicians were also asked about the value of biomarker agnostic biologic treatments. The survey was followed by qualitative interviews targeting a sub-sample of survey participants, in which the rationale behind their survey responses was discussed. Results: In the DCE, both patients and clinicians placed the most importance on exacerbation and hospitalization rate reduction, and risk of injection site reaction. Patients valued location of administration more than clinicians. Rationale for individual-level preferences varied, with patients and clinicians reporting their preference depended on event frequency and anticipated quality of life impacts. Clinicians mentioned compliance and financial impacts, while patients mentioned personal experience, particularly around site reactions. Most patients and clinicians would value a biomarker agnostic asthma treatment. Conclusions: Asthma treatment preferences are largely driven by treatment efficacy and minimizing the risk of site reactions, although preferences differ between patients and clinicians across other attributes, highlighting the need for shared decision-making and individualized care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Byline: Rahul. Krishnatry, Shakthivel. Mani, Jifmi. Manjali, Pallavi. Rane, Abhishek. Chatterjee, Jayant. Goda, Amit. Janu, Arpita. Sahu, Tejpal. Gupta, Rakesh. Jalali Background and Aim: Despite recent advances, the outcomes of [...]

Context: A failure to obtain continued Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) approval for the study before the expiry date assigned by the IEC is considered as "lapse of the IEC approval" to continue the study at the site by the Investigator. Considering this, we had conducted an audit of principal investigators (PI's) compliance for Continuing Review Application (CRA) submission timelines and decision taken on the lapses in the validity of IEC approval continuation. Aim: The aim of this study is to assess the pre- and post-policy trends of non-compliance management of delayed CRA submission and compare the PI's compliance for submission of CRA between Investigator Initiated trial (IIT) and Pharma studies. Setting and Design: The present study was a retrospective audit of CRAs of ongoing projects submitted by PIs to IEC, ACTREC. Materials and Methods: The data from total 199 CRAs submitted for review to the IEC between the year January 2016 and December-2017 were collected and maintained in Microsoft Excel sheet, and later, the data were exported into the SPSS software version 21 for the analysis. Statistical Analysis: All categorical data were presented in numbers and percentage. The first primary objective was assessed by calculating the duration between the dates of approval for any study to the date of next CRA submission. The CRAs submitted after the project expiry date were considered as a lapse in following the IEC SOP. Results: This retrospective audit revealed that CRA reminder sent by the IEC to the PI played an important role in compliance w. r. t timely in following the IEC SOPof the CRA by the PI. As a result, overall, 90% of CRAs showed compliance in submitting CRAs to IEC in both IIT and Pharma study. The number of lapses were reduced to 7 in the postpolicy period as compared to 15 lapses in the prepolicy period. Conclusion: This retrospective audit reveals that CRA reminder sent by the IEC to the PI played an important role in improving the compliance of PIs in submitting CRA to IEC. Each IEC should develop the policy to minimize the delays in CRA submission by the PI and prevent lapses in following the IEC SOP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Autoanalyzers are used in clinical haematology for analysis of blood samples in clinical as well as in nonclinical studies. The results from these analyzers vary from machine to machine. In this study, we compared the lymphocyte and neutrophil count of mouse blood between ADVIA 2120i, Horiba Yumizen H2500 and CellaVision analyzers against manual counting as gold standard. Blood samples from 28 female BALB/c mice were collected and analyzed. Agreement between different autoanalyzers and manual counting were determined by Bland–Altman method. A high level of agreement was found between CellaVision and manual technique for lymphocyte (bias=4.75, 95% limits of agreement −14 to 24) and neutrophil count (bias=0.68 [−17 to 19]). Agreement in lymphocyte count was also observed between ADVIA and manual counting, but to a lesser extent compared to CellaVision (bias=13.9 [−10.45 to 38.27]). However, no agreement was observed for ADVIA (Neutrophils), Horiba (lymphocytes and neutrophils) with manual counting. Our data suggests that CellaVision could be used for the differential counting of neutrophil and lymphocytes in mouse blood sample. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]