Search

Contains fulltext : 225964.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) PURPOSE: To generate conclusive evidence regarding the noninferiority of intravitreal bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Comparative, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, noninferiority clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were older than 18 years, diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus, with glycosylated hemoglobin of less than 12%, central area thickness of more than 325 μm, and visual impairment from DME with a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between 24 letters and 78 letters. METHODS: From June 2012 through February 2018, a total of 170 participants were randomized to receive 6 monthly injections of either 1.25 mg bevacizumab (n = 86) or 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n = 84). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was change in BCVA from baseline to month 6 compared between the 2 treatment arms. The noninferiority margin was 3.5 letters. RESULTS: The difference in mean BCVA between treatment arms was 1.8 letters in favor of ranibizumab after 6 months of follow-up; BCVA improved by 4.9±6.7 letters in the bevacizumab group and 6.7±8.7 letters in the ranibizumab group. The lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was -3.626 letters, exceeding the noninferiority margin of 3.5 letters. Central area thickness decreased more with ranibizumab (138.2±114.3 μm) compared with bevacizumab (64.2±104.2 μm). In a post hoc subgroup analysis, participants with a worse BCVA at baseline (≤69 letters) improved by 6.7±7.0 letters with bevacizumab and 10.4±10.0 letters with ranibizumab, and central area thickness decreased significantly more in the ranibizumab arm of this subgroup compared with the bevacizumab arm. Participants with an initially better BCVA at baseline (≥70 letters) did not demonstrate differences in BCVA or OCT outcomes between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Based on change in BCVA from baseline to month 6, the noninferiority of 1.25 mg bevacizumab to 0.5 mg ranibizumab was not confirmed. Only the subgroup of patients with a lower BCVA at baseline showed better visual acuity and anatomic outcomes with ranibizumab. Our study confirmed the potential differential efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents in the treatment of DME as well as the difference in response between patient groups with different baseline visual acuities.

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and obesity are associated with frequent exacerbations and poor quality of life in asthmatics. Multiple mechanisms have been proposed for the effect of obesity, including modification of inflammation affecting epithelial cell proliferation and wound repair, while the role of GORD is poorly understood and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) are of variable efficacy. GORD might exert a deleterious effect by inducing vagal reflex, neuroinflammation and directly ( via microaspiration) triggering airway inflammation. Studies of reflux in animal models and human bronchial epithelial cell culture show varying impact on inflammation and airway remodelling. Footnotes This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal . It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article. Conflict of interest: Dr PEROTIN has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Schofield has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Wilson has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Ward has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Brandsma has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Strazzeri has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Bansal has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Yang has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Rowe reports and a full time employee and shareholder of Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson. Conflict of interest: Miss Corfield has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Lutter has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Prof. Shaw reports personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Teva, personal fees from Circassia, and a grant from GSK, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Dr Bakke reports personal fees from GSK, AZ, Novartis andTeva, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: MC have no conflict of interest to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Dahlen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Fowler reports personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Teva, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Dr Horvath reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, CSL, Chiesi, Roche, GSK, Berlin-Chemie and Sandoz, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Dr Howarth reports personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Dr Krug has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Montuschi has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Sanak has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Sandstrom reports other monetary support from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: Dr Sun has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Pandis has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Auffray reports grants from Innovative Medicine Initiative, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: Dr De Meulder reports grants from Innovative Medicine Initiative, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: Ms. Lefaudeux reports grants from Innovative Medicine Initiative, grants from Innovative Medicine Initiative, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: Dr Riley reports and I have shares in and I am employed by GSK. Conflict of interest: Dr Sousa has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Dahlen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Adcock reports grants from EU-IMI, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: KFC has received honoraria for participating in Advisory Board meetings of GSK, AZ, BI, Teva, Novartis and Merck regarding treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and has also been renumerated for speaking engagements. Conflict of interest: Dr Sterk reports grants from Innovative Medicines Initiative, during the conduct of the study. Conflict of interest: Dr Skipp has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Collins reports a patent application for use of a genetically modified Drosophila line carrying one or more mammalian genes associated with a chronic respiratory disease and uses to screen the impact of such genes. Conflict of interest: Dr Davies has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: Dr Djukanovic reports receiving fees for lectures at symposia organised by Novartis, AstraZeneca and TEVA, consultation for TEVA and Novartis as member of advisory boards, and participation in a scientific discussion about asthma organised by GlaxoSmithKline. He is a co-founder and current consultant, and has shares in Synairgen, a University of Southampton spin out company.

Aims Small studies suggested circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) as biomarkers for heart failure (HF). However, standardized approaches and quality assessment for measuring circulating miRNAs are not uniformly established, and most studies have been small, so that results are inconsistent. We used a standardized data handling protocol, optimized for circulating miRNA qPCRs to remove noise and used it to assess which circulating miRNAs robustly add prognostic information in patients with HF. Methods and results We measured 12 miRNAs in two independent cohorts totalling 2203 subjects. Cohort I (Barcelona) comprised 834 chronic HF patients. Cohort II (Detroit) comprised 1369 chronic HF patients. Each sample was measured in duplicate, and normalized to a very abundant and stable miRNA (miR-486-5p). We used a multistep algorithm to distinguish false amplification signals and thus classify each miRNA measurement as 'valid', 'undetectable' or 'invalid'. Higher levels of miR-1254 and miR-1306-5p were significantly associated with risk of the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization in both cohorts, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.11 to 1.21 per log increase (P-values 0.004 to 0.009). However, adding these miRNAs to established predictors (age, sex, haemoglobin, renal function, and NT-proBNP) did not further augment the c-statistic beyond 0.69 (cohort I) or 0.70 (cohort II). Conclusion We used a stringent quality assessment for miRNA testing, and were able to replicate the association of miR-1254 and miR-1306-5p with risk of death and HF hospitalization in HF patients of two independent cohorts. However, these two circulating miRNAs failed to improve prognostication over established predictors.

BACKGROUND: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) binds low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR), preventing its recycling. PCSK9 is a risk predictor and a biotarget in atherosclerosis progression. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether the PCSK9-LDLR axis could predict risk in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: The BIOSTAT-CHF (Biology Study to Tailored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure) is a multicenter, multinational, prospective, observational study that included patients with worsening HF signs and/or symptoms. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and the composite of mortality or unscheduled hospitalizations for HF. We implemented Cox proportional hazard regression to determine the simultaneously adjusted effect of PCSK9 and LDLR on both outcomes when added to the previously validated BIOSTAT-CHF risk scores. RESULTS: This study included 2,174 patients (mean age: 68 ± 12 years; 53.2% had a history of ischemic heart disease). Median (interquartile range) PCSK9 and LDLR levels were 1.81 U/ml (1.45 to 2.18) and 2.98 U/ml (2.45 to 3.53), respectively. During follow-up, 569 deaths (26.2%) and 896 (41.2%) composite endpoints were ascertained. A multivariable analysis, which included BIOSTAT-CHF risk scores, LDLR, and statin treatment as covariates, revealed a positive linear association between PCSK9 levels and the risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.49; p = 0.020) and the composite endpoint (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.40; p = 0.010). A similar analysis for LDLR revealed a negative association with mortality (HR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.98; p = 0.025) and the composite endpoint (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.01; p = 0.087). Including PCSK9 and LDLR improved risk score performance. CONCLUSIONS: The PCSK9-LDLR axis was associated with outcomes in patients with HF. Future studies must assess whether PCSK9 inhibition will result in better outcomes in HF.

BACKGROUND Four large double-blind placebo-controlled studies have been performed to address mortality as a primary endpoint in patients with heart failure treated with beta-blockers. Unfortunately, 2 of the studies were stopped in the interim stage, and so these trials may be somewhat underpowered for the estimation of the secondary endpoint, type of death. This endpoint is important, because if patients die for reasons other than progression of heart failure, e.g. arrhythmias, then alternative antiarrhythmic agents may serve equally well or better than beta-blockers and with fewer side effects. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS We assessed hazard ratios of all-cause-deaths, sudden deaths, death due to progressive heart failure and serious adverse effects leading to discontinuation of double-blind treatment. Hazard ratio = risk of death in treatment group/risk of death in placebo group. RESULTS The pooled results showed a significant reduction in all-cause-deaths of 35% (p < 0.0001). The risk reduction of sudden death, reflecting the occurrence of fatal arrhythmias, similarly, showed a significant risk reduction of 37% (p < 0.0001). However, the risk reduction of death due to progression to heart failure was small (13%) and statistically non-significant, indicating that progression of heart failure, as estimated by numbers of deaths, was not beneficially influenced by the beta-blocker therapy. Finally, the risk of serious adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment with beta-blockers, was not significantly different from that for placebo. CONCLUSIONS Beta-blockers do not reduce the risk of death due to progression of heart failure. The beneficial effect of beta-blockers is mainly due to a reduced risk of fatal arrhythmias. The risk of serious adverse effects of beta-blockers is not different from that of placebo and so there is little argument to withhold this treatment, even if it does not influence the progression of heart failure.

OBJECTIVE To predict blood pressure outside the clinic from a short-term in-hospital registration for patients referred for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) with special attention to office hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS A series of measurements of blood pressure was performed by the same technician for 187 patients, 82% of whom were being administered antihypertensive therapy. She performed three mercury measurements of blood pressure (Hg stress 1) and then three manually started measurements with a semi-automatic device (Dinamap 1846SX; Dinamap stress) alternated with three manually started readings with a SpaceLabs 90207 monitor (SpaceLabs stress) on the contralateral non-dominant arm. The in-hospital session was continued with 15 automatic Dinamap registrations at 2 min intervals without the technician being present (Dinamap unstressed, five periods of three measurements averaged) before the patient left the hospital for 24h ABPM. RESULTS The percentages of patients with hypertension in the office (systolic blood pressure >/= 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure >/= 90 mmHg, or both) were 80% with Hg stress 1, 76% with Dinamap stress and 85.0% with SpaceLabs stress. Average diastolic SpaceLabs stress was 6.0+/-5.6 mmHg (significantly) higher than diastolic Dinamap stress, whereas the difference between systolic blood pressures was 0.2+/-10.0 mmHg. No further change in blood pressure occurred after the fourth period of Dinamap unstressed measurements. Office hypertension defined as SpaceLabs stress systolic blood pressure >/= 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure >/= 90 mmHg, or both, and SpaceLabs daytime systolic blood pressure < 135 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure < 85 mmHg was found in 21 individuals. Office hypertension defined with similar cut-off points in the comparison of Dinamap stress versus Dinamap unstressed period 5 was found in 29 cases, 10 of which overlapped with the definition SpaceLabs stress versus SpaceLabs daytime. The differences between Dinamap stress and Dinamap unstressed period 5 were significantly correlated to the changes of SpaceLabs stress and SpaceLabs daytime both for systolic (r =0.41) and for diastolic (r =0.32) blood pressures. CONCLUSIONS Measurements of blood pressure in the office with various techniques (mercury, Dinamap and SpaceLabs) are not equivalent. Office hypertension cannot be reliably predicted from a short-term semi-automatic in-hospital registration of blood pressure with a Dinamap device.

Background: Clinical investigators, although they are generally familiar with testing differences between averages, have difficulty testing differences between variabilities. Objective: To give examples of situations where variability is more relevant than averages and to describe simple methods for testing such data. Results: Examples include: (1) testing drugs with small therapeutic indices, (2) testing variability in drug response, (3) assessing pill diameters or pill weights, (4) comparing patient groups for variability in patient characteristics, (5) assessing the variability in duration of clinical treatment, (6) finding the best method for patient assessment. Various fields of research, particularly in clinical pharmacology, make use of test procedures that implicitly, address the variability in the data. Tests specially designed for testing variability in data include the Χ 2 -test for one sample, the F-test for 2 samples and Bartlett's or Levene's test for 3 or more samples. Additional methods include (1) the comparison of confidence intervals, and (2) testing confidence intervals against prior defined intervals of therapeutic tolerance or equivalence. Many of these tests are available in Excel and other statistical software programs and one such program is described. Conclusions: In the analysis of clinical data the variability in the data is often more important than averages. Eight simple methods for assessment variability are described to illustrate the value and importance of putting more emphasis on and this parameter.

Seventeen male outpatients with premature ejaculation were randomly assigned to treatment with paroxetine (N = 8) or placebo (N = 9). After a first week dose of 20 mg/day, the paroxetine regimen was increased to 40 mg/day for 5 weeks. Patients and their female partners were interviewed separately. Patients treated with paroxetine had significantly greater clinical improvement than the patients given placebo.

Item does not contain fulltext We investigated whether 5 to 20mg per week oral methotrexate could slow down disease progression in 44 patients with inclusion body myositis in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study over 48 weeks. Mean change of quantitative muscle strength testing sum scores was the primary study outcome measure. Quantitative muscle strength testing sum scores declined in both treatment groups, -0.2% for methotrexate and -3.4% for placebo (95% confidence interval = -2.5% to +9.1% for difference). There were also no differences in manual muscle testing sum scores, activity scale scores and patients' own assessments after 48 weeks of treatment. Serum creatine kinase activity decreased significantly in the methotrexate group. We conclude that oral methotrexate did not slow down progression of muscle weakness but decreased serum creatine kinase activity.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the developing brain, myelination occurs in an orderly and predetermined sequence. The aim of this study was to determine whether such changes can be tracked using volumetric magnetization transfer imaging. METHODS: Three-dimensional magnetization transfer imaging was performed in 50 children (age range, 0.6–190 months) with no evidence of developmental delay or structural abnormalities. Volumetric magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) parameters generated of the whole brain were mean MTR and height and location of the MTR histogram peak. Relationships between volumetric MTR parameters and age were assessed using nonlinear regression analysis. RESULTS: With age, all volumetric MTR parameters changed exponentially in a way that was best expressed by the function y = a + b.exp(−x/c) (P < .0001). The peak height of the MTR histogram was the parameter that changed most predictably and that continued to change for the longest period of time. CONCLUSION: With this preliminary study, we show that by using volumetric MTR analysis, it is possible to monitor changes in the developing brain, presumably the myelination progress. This method has a potential role for detecting myelination disorders in the pediatric population, for studying the natural history of these diseases, and for monitoring the effects of treatment.

The Regression Growth Evaluation Statin Study (REGRESS) is a placebo-controlled multicenter study designed to assess the effect of 2-year treatment with pravastatin on the progression and regression of angiographically documented coronary artery disease. One of the secondary end points was the occurrence of 2-year restenosis in the percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) block. We randomly assigned eligible patients to receive pravastatin 40 mg once daily or placebo. The end point was the percent diameter stenosis of the target lesion at 24 months, as assessed by (semi)quantitative coronary angiography, Two hundred twenty-one patients underwent scheduled PTCA, which was considered successful in 201 patients, One hundred seventy-eight patients underwent angiographic restudy (89%). The patients in the pravastatin group (n = 109) and placebo group (n = 112) were similar at baseline. Percent diameter stenosis before angioplasty was 78 +/- 14% (mean +/- SD) in the pravastatin group and 80 +/- 14% in the placebo group (p = 0.46), At follow-up, the percent diameter stenosis was 32 +/- 23% in the pravastatin group and 45 +/- 29% in the placebo group (p

Objective. To assess the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of sulfasalazine (SSZ) in the treatment of juvenile chronic arthritis (JCA). Methods. we conducted a 24-week randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study of patients with active JCA of both oligoarticular and polyarticular onset. Patients were treated with a dosage of 50 mg/kg/day of SSZ (maximum 2,000 mg/day) or placebo. The efficacy variables were joint scores, physician's, parents', and patient's overall assessments, and laboratory parameters of inflammation. Results, Of the 69 patients enrolled, 52 (75%) completed the trial. Six patients (18%) withdrew from the placebo group, and 11 (31%) withdrew from the SSZ group (P = 0.18), In the intention-to-treat analysis of end point efficacy, between-group differences were significant for the overall articular severity score (P = 0.02), all global assessments (P = 0.01), and the laboratory parameters (P

Lipid-lowering therapy now has undoubtedly proven to be an effective therapeutic modality to retard the progression of coronary atherosclerosis, An additional approach for prevention of the progression of atherosclerosis is calcium channel blocker (CCB) treatment. Evidence indicating that CCBs inhibit atherosclerosis is less unequivocal than the clear evidence for lipid-lowering therapy, Many investigations support the view that a number of key processes in atherosclerosis may be influenced by CCBs. From the "negative" and "positive" studies with CCBs performed in animals and humans we must conclude that apparently some, but not all, types or stages of the atherosclerotic process are inhibited by CCBs, To assess whether lipid-lowering therapy and CCB treatment may have an additive or synergistic beneficial effect on human atherosclerosis, which is conceivable because their antiatherosclerotic properties differ, data fi om the angiographic Lipid-lowering trial REGRESS (pravastatin vs. placebo) were reviewed. In REGRESS, patients in the pravastatin group had significantly less progression if cotreated with CCBs as compared with those with no CCB cotreatment, whereas in the placebo (no pravastatin) group no effect of CCB treatment was observed, With respect to angiographic new lesion formation, in the pravastatin group there were 50% less patients with new angiographic lesions if cotreated with CCBs as compared with no CCB cotreatment, whereas in the placebo (no pravastatin) group, again, no significant effect of CCB treatment was observed. No beneficial effects of CCB treatment on clinical events mere observed during the a-year study follow-up. In view of the correlation between angiographic progression and subsequent clinical events as demonstrated in several large trials, it is not unrealistic to also anticipate in this population, a beneficial effect on clinical events with longer follow-up. Although the REGRESS trial was not designed to evaluate combination therapy, the results suggest that addition of CCBs to HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor therapy (pravastatin) acts synergistically in retarding the progression of established coronary atherosclerosis, These results appear to warrant prospective randomized trials to determine in a more definitive manner the merits of this combination in the prevention of progression of coronary atherosclerosis. Currently a number of studies in these fields are being designed or are already underway.