233 resultados para Women photographers -- Biography
Resumo:
We hypothesized that combining clinical risk factors (CRF) with the heel stiffness index (SI) measured via quantitative ultrasound (QUS) would improve the detection of women both at low and high risk for hip fracture. Categorizing women by risk score improved the specificity of detection to 42.4%, versus 33.8% using CRF alone and 38.4% using the SI alone. This combined CRF-SI score could be used wherever and whenever DXA is not readily accessible. INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Several strategies have been proposed to identify women at high risk for osteoporosis-related fractures; we wanted to investigate whether combining clinical risk factors (CRF) and heel QUS parameters could provide a more accurate tool to identify women at both low and high risk for hip fracture than either CRF or QUS alone. METHODS: We pooled two Caucasian cohorts, EPIDOS and SEMOF, into a large database named "EPISEM", in which 12,064 women, 70 to 100 years old, were analyzed. Amongst all the CRF available in EPISEM, we used only the ones which were statistically significant in a Cox multivariate model. Then, we constructed a risk score, by combining the QUS-derived heel stiffness index (SI) and the following seven CRF: patient age, body mass index (BMI), fracture history, fall history, diabetes history, chair-test results, and past estrogen treatment. RESULTS: Using the composite SI-CRF score, 42% of the women who did not report a hip fracture were found to be at low risk at baseline, and 57% of those who subsequently sustained a fracture were at high risk. Using the SI alone, corresponding percentages were 38% and 52%; using CRF alone, 34% and 53%. The number of subjects in the intermediate group was reduced from 5,400 (including 112 hip fractures) and 5,032 (including 111 hip fractures) to 4,549 (including 100 including fractures) for the CRF and QUS alone versus the combination score. CONCLUSIONS: Combining clinical risk factors to heel bone ultrasound appears to correctly identify more women at low risk for hip fracture than either the stiffness index or the CRF alone; it improves the detection of women both at low and high risk.
Resumo:
Objective: To compare effects of a non-renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker, using a CCB, or a RAS blocker, using an ARB regimen on the arterial stiffness reduction in postmenopausal hypertensive women. Methods: In this prospective study, a total of 125 hypertensive women (age: 61.4_6 yrs; 98% Caucasian; BW: 71.9_14 kg; BMI: 27.3_5 kg/m2; SBP/ DBP: 158_11/92_9 mmHg) were randomized between ARB (valsartan 320mg_HCTZ) and CCB (amlodipine 10mg _ HCTZ). The primary outcome was carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) changes after 38 weeks of treatment. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline demographic data between the two groups. Both treatments effectively lowered BP at the end of the study with similar (p>0.05) reductions in the valsartan (_22.9/_10.9 mmHg) and amlodipine based (_25.2/_11.7 mmHg) treatment groups. Despite a lower (p<0.05 for DBP) central SBP/DBP in the CCB group (_19.2/_10.3 mmHg) compared to the valsartan group (_15.7/_7.6 mmHg) at week 38, a similar reduction in carotid-femoral PWV (_1.7 vs _1.9 m/sec; p>0.05) was observed between both groups. The numerically larger BP reduction observed in the CCB group was associated with a much higher incidence of peripheral edema (77% vs 14%) than the valsartan group. Conclusion: In summary, BP lowering in postmenopausal women led to a reduction in arterial stiffness assessed by PWV measurement. Both regimens reduced PWV at 38 weeks of treatment to a similar degree, despite differences in BP lowering suggesting that the effect of RAS blockade to influence PWV may partly be independent of BP.
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Trial 11-93 is the largest trial evaluating the role of the addition of chemotherapy to ovarian function suppression/ablation (OFS) and tamoxifen in premenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. METHODS: IBCSG Trial 11-93 is a randomized trial comparing four cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC: doxorubicin or epirubicin, plus cyclophosphamide) added to OFS and 5 years of tamoxifen versus OFS and tamoxifen without chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with node-positive, endocrine-responsive early breast cancer. There were 174 patients randomized from May 1993 to November 1998. The trial was closed before the target accrual was reached due to low accrual rate. RESULTS: Patients randomized tended to have lower risk node-positive disease and the median age was 45. After 10 years median follow up, there remains no difference between the two randomized treatment groups for disease-free (hazard ratio=1.02 (0.57-1.83); P=0.94) or overall survival (hazard ratio=0.97 (0.44-2.16); P=0.94). CONCLUSION: This trial, although small, offers no evidence that AC chemotherapy provides additional disease control for premenopausal patients with lower-risk node-positive endocrine-responsive breast cancer who receive adequate adjuvant endocrine therapy. A large trial is needed to determine whether chemotherapy adds benefit to endocrine therapy for this population.
Resumo:
A simulation model of the effects of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on hip fractures and their consequences is based on a population of 100,000 post-menopausal women. This cohort is confronted with literature derived probabilities of cancers (endometrium or breast, which are contra-indications to HRT), hip fracture, disability requiring nursing home or home care, and death. Administration of HRT for life prevents 55,5% of hip fractures, 22,6% of years with home care and 4,4% of years in nursing homes. If HRT is administered for 15 years, these results are 15,5%, 10% and 2,2%, respectively. A slight gain in life expectancy is observed for both durations of HRT. The net financial loss in the simulated population is 222 million Swiss Francs (cost/benefit ratio 1.25) for lifelong administration of HRT, and 153 million Swiss Francs (cost/benefit ratio 1.42) if HRT is administered during 15 years.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Physiological changes associated with pregnancy may alter antiretroviral plasma concentrations and might jeopardize prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission. Lopinavir is one of the protease inhibitors more frequently prescribed during pregnancy in Europe. We described the free and total pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in HIV-infected pregnant and non-pregnant women, and evaluated whether significant alterations in its disposition and protein binding warrant systematic dosage adjustment. METHODS: Plasma samples were collected at first, second and third trimester of pregnancy, at delivery, in umbilical cord and postpartum. Lopinavir free and total plasma concentrations were measured by HPLC-MS/MS. Bayesian calculations were used to extrapolate total concentrations to trough (Cmin). RESULTS: A total of 42 HIV-positive pregnant women and 37 non-pregnant women on lopinavir/ritonavir were included in the study. Compared to postpartum and control values, total lopinavir Cmin was decreased moderately (31-39%) during pregnancy, and free Cmin minimally, showing significant alteration only at delivery (-35%). However, total and free Cmin remained in all patients above the target concentrations for wild-type virus of 1,000 ng/ml, and above the unbound IC50(WT) of 0.64-0.77 ng/ml of lopinavir, respectively. Lopinavir free fractions remained higher during pregnancy compared to postpartum and controls, and were influenced by α-1-acid-glycoprotein and albumin decrease. Free cord-to-mother ratio (0.43) was 2.7-fold higher than total cord-to-mother ratio (0.16), suggesting higher fetal exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The moderate decrease of total lopinavir concentrations during pregnancy is not associated with proportional decrease in free concentrations. Both reach a nadir at delivery, albeit not to an extent that would put treatment-naive women at risk of insufficient exposure to the free, pharmacologically active concentrations of lopinavir. No dosage adjustment is therefore needed during pregnancy as it is unlikely to further enhance treatment efficacy but could potentially increase the risk of maternal and fetal toxicity. Nonetheless, in case of viral resistance in treatment-experienced pregnant women, loss of virological control or questionable adherence, it is justified to consider lopinavir dosage adjustment based on total plasma concentration measurement.
Resumo:
The 3-year FREEDOM trial assessed the efficacy and safety of 60 mg denosumab every 6 months for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Participants who completed the FREEDOM trial were eligible to enter an extension to continue the evaluation of denosumab efficacy and safety for up to 10 years. For the extension results presented here, women from the FREEDOM denosumab group had 2 more years of denosumab treatment (long-term group) and those from the FREEDOM placebo group had 2 years of denosumab exposure (cross-over group). We report results for bone turnover markers (BTMs), bone mineral density (BMD), fracture rates, and safety. A total of 4550 women enrolled in the extension (2343 long-term; 2207 cross-over). Reductions in BTMs were maintained (long-term group) or occurred rapidly (cross-over group) following denosumab administration. In the long-term group, lumbar spine and total hip BMD increased further, resulting in 5-year gains of 13.7% and 7.0%, respectively. In the cross-over group, BMD increased at the lumbar spine (7.7%) and total hip (4.0%) during the 2-year denosumab treatment. Yearly fracture incidences for both groups were below rates observed in the FREEDOM placebo group and below rates projected for a "virtual untreated twin" cohort. Adverse events did not increase with long-term denosumab administration. Two adverse events in the cross-over group were adjudicated as consistent with osteonecrosis of the jaw. Five-year denosumab treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis maintained BTM reduction and increased BMD, and was associated with low fracture rates and a favorable risk/benefit profile.