20 resultados para IAS


Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

OBJECTIVES: Etravirine (ETV) is a novel nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with reduced cross-resistance to first-generation NNRTIs, which has been primarily studied in randomized clinical trials and not in routine clinical settings. METHODS: ETV resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were investigated by analysing 6072 genotypic tests. The antiviral activity of ETV was predicted using different interpretation systems: International AIDS Society-USA (IAS-USA), Stanford, Rega and Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida et les hépatites virales (ANRS). RESULTS: The prevalence of ETV RAMs was higher in NNRTI-exposed patients [44.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 41.0-48.9%] than in treatment-naïve patients (9.6%, 95% CI 8.5-10.7%). ETV RAMs in treatment-naïve patients mainly represent polymorphism, as prevalence estimates in genotypic tests for treatment-naïve patients with documented recent (<1 year) infection, who had acquired HIV before the introduction of NNRTIs, were almost identical (9.8%, 95% CI 3.3-21.4). Discontinuation of NNRTI treatment led to a marked drop in the detection of ETV RAMs, from 51.7% (95% CI 40.8-62.6%) to 34.5% (95% CI 24.6-45.4%, P=0.032). Differences in prevalence among subtypes were found for V90I and V179T (P<0.001). Estimates of restricted virological response to ETV varied among algorithms in patients with exposure to efavirenz (EFV)/nevirapine (NVP), ranging from 3.8% (95% CI 2.5-5.6%) for ANRS to 56.2% (95% CI 52.2-60.1%) for Stanford. The predicted activity of ETV decreased as the sensitivity of potential optimized background regimens decreased. The presence of major IAS-USA mutations (L100I, K101E/H/P and Y181C/I/V) reduced the treatment response at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: Most ETV RAMs in drug-naïve patients are polymorphisms rather than transmitted RAMs. Uncertainty regarding predictions of antiviral activity for ETV in NNRTI-treated patients remains high. The lowest activity was predicted for patients harbouring extensive multidrug-resistant viruses, thus limiting ETV use in those who are most in need.

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Purpose: To assess the global cardiovascular (CV) risk of an individual, several scores have been developed. However, their accuracy and comparability need to be evaluated in populations others from which they were derived. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive accuracy of 4 CV risk scores using data of a large population-based cohort. Methods: Prospective cohort study including 4980 participants (2698 women, mean age± SD: 52.7±10.8 years) in Lausanne, Switzerland followed for an average of 5.5 years (range 0.2 - 8.5). Two end points were assessed: 1) coronary heart disease (CHD), and 2) CV diseases (CVD). Four risk scores were compared: original and recalibrated Framingham coronary heart disease scores (1998 and 2001); original PROCAM score (2002) and its recalibrated version for Switzerland (IAS-AGLA); Reynolds risk score. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C statistics, model fitness using Akaike's information criterion (AIC) and calibration using pseudo Hosmer-Lemeshow test. The sensitivity, specificity and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were assessed for each risk score using the highest risk category ([20+ % at 10 years) as the "positive" test. Results: Recalibrated and original 1998 and original 2001 Framingham scores show better discrimination (>0.720) and model fitness (low AIC) for CHD and CVD. All 4 scores are correctly calibrated (Chi2<20). The recalibrated Framingham 1998 score has the best sensitivities, 37.8% and 40.4%, for CHD and CVD, respectively. All scores present specificities >90%. Framingham 1998, PROCAM and IAS-AGLA scores include the greatest proportion of subjects (>200) in the high risk category whereas recalibrated Framingham 2001 and Reynolds include <=44 subjects. Conclusion: In this cohort, we see variations of accuracy between risk scores, the original Framingham 2001 score demonstrating the best compromise between its accuracy and its limited selection of subjects in the highest risk category. We advocate that national guidelines, based on independently validated data, take into account calibrated CV risk scores for their respective countries.

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Whether or not to consolidate financial statements is dealt with in IPSAS#6. This standard is by and large based on IAS#27. It deals with the criterion according to which an entity's financial statements should be considered and which consolidation technique should be used. However, it remains silent when it comes to exposing the reason why a public sector entity should consolidate its financial statements. The literature is almost as silent as IPSAS on this issue. Which means that there is a lack of both theoretical and empirical knowledge on this subject. This paper explores the usefulness of the consolidation of financial statements (CFS) for different categories of users. It aims at investigating for which purposes consolidation is most useful and whether enlarging the scope of the consolidate group serves these purposes. Five purposes are considered: information, decision- making, accountability, risk-assessment, statistics improvement. The paper also aims at investigating if some categories of users consider CFS more useful than others. The issue is essentially empirical. Therefore it is examined in light of the results of an in-person interviews. We surveyed 25members of parliament, officials, creditors, and consultants of the Swiss central government. The results show that consolidating FS is considered especially important and useful for risk- assessment, information and accountability and to a somewhat lesser extent for decision-making and statistics improvement. Extending the scope of CFS may improve the situation when it comes to statistics but it would only marginally make CFS more relevant for decision making. Consultants and, to a lesser extent, members of the finance ministry are those respondents who deem the scope enlargement to be the most useful.