A comparison of Bayesian and frequentist approaches to incorporating external information for the prediction of prostate cancer risk.

We present the most comprehensive comparison to date of the predictive benefit of genetics in addition to currently used clinical variables, using genotype data for 33 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 1,547 Caucasian men from the placebo arm of the REduction by DUtasteride of prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE®) trial. Moreover, we conducted a detailed comparison of three techniques for incorporating genetics into clinical risk prediction. The first method was a standard logistic regression model, which included separate terms for the clinical covariates and for each of the genetic markers. This approach ignores a substantial amount of external information concerning effect sizes for these Genome Wide Association Study (GWAS)-replicated SNPs. The second and third methods investigated two possible approaches to incorporating meta-analysed external SNP effect estimates - one via a weighted PCa 'risk' score based solely on the meta analysis estimates, and the other incorporating both the current and prior data via informative priors in a Bayesian logistic regression model. All methods demonstrated a slight improvement in predictive performance upon incorporation of genetics. The two methods that incorporated external information showed the greatest receiver-operating-characteristic AUCs increase from 0.61 to 0.64. The value of our methods comparison is likely to lie in observations of performance similarities, rather than difference, between three approaches of very different resource requirements. The two methods that included external information performed best, but only marginally despite substantial differences in complexity.

Comparison of cannabinoid concentrations in oral fluid and whole blood between occasional and regular cannabis smokers prior to and after smoking a cannabis joint.

A cross-over controlled administration study of smoked cannabis was carried out on occasional and heavy smokers. The participants smoked a joint (11 % Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)) or a matching placebo on two different occasions. Whole blood (WB) and oral fluid (OF) samples were collected before and up to 3.5 h after smoking the joints. Pharmacokinetic analyses were obtained from these data. Questionnaires assessing the subjective effects were administered to the subjects during each session before and after the smoking time period. THC, 11-hydroxy-THC (11-OH-THC) and 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THCCOOH) were analyzed in the blood by gas chromatography or liquid chromatography (LC)-tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). The determination of THC, THCCOOH, cannabinol (CBN), and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid A (THC-A) was carried out on OF only using LC-MS/MS. In line with the widely accepted assumption that cannabis smoking results in a strong contamination of the oral cavity, we found that THC, and also THC-A, shows a sharp, high concentration peak just after smoking, with a rapid decrease in these levels within 3 h. No obvious differences were found between both groups concerning THC median maximum concentrations measured either in blood or in OF; these levels were equal to 1,338 and 1,041 μg/L in OF and to 82 and 94 μg/L in WB for occasional and heavy smokers, respectively. The initial WB THCCOOH concentration was much higher in regular smokers than in occasional users. Compared with the occasional smokers, the sensation of confusion felt by the regular smokers was much less while the feeling of intoxication remained almost unchanged.

Ultra-rapid opiate detoxification using deep sedation and prior oral buprenorphine preparation: long-term results.

BACKGROUND: New methods of ultra-rapid opiate detoxification (URD) under intravenous sedation have been criticized because of limited data on safety and long-term follow-up. Premedication with buprenorphine has been advocated to improve safety by decreasing vomiting. Prior research has not explored URD in socially impaired patients. METHOD: Sixteen patients were detoxified with URD and prospectively evaluated over at least 30 months. Data of this procedure were compared with those of our previous study without buprenorphine preparation (Drug Alcohol Depend. 52(3) (1998) 243). The 16 patients were followed up by a general practitioner (GP) before and after URD. The GPs also supervised the 7-day course of buprenorphine treatment prescribed for the 16 patients prior to URD. RESULTS: During the procedure, only one episode of vomiting occurred instead of 13 out of 20 in our previous study. Post-procedure, only two patients experienced moderate withdrawal symptoms, such as persistent nausea, abdominal cramps and vomiting lasting from 24 to 48 h, in comparison with most patients in the previous study without buprenorphine. After a period of at least 30 months (36.0+/-6.38), the 16 patients were still alive and were regularly monitored by their GP. Only two of the 16 never relapsed after URD and reported total opiate abstinence. Fourteen patients relapsed; 12 of these were prescribed a licensed methadone substitution program and two were still using heroin. CONCLUSION: In this small sample, the data indicated that URD with buprenorphine preparation was safe and that it markedly decreased post-procedure morbidity. No patient died over a minimum 30-month follow-up period. Furthermore, the procedure was employed with socially impaired patients. In the long term, a few patients were still free of opiates, while the majority opted for a methadone maintenance program, showing that URD can serve as one possible step in a long-term treatment program.

Official Positions for FRAX® clinical regarding prior fractures from Joint Official Positions Development Conference of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and International Osteoporosis Foundation on FRAX®.

The 2010 Position Development Conference addressed four questions related to the impact of previous fractures on 10-year fracture risk as calculated by FRAX(®). To address these questions, PubMed was searched on the keywords "fracture, epidemiology, osteoporosis." Titles of retrieved articles were reviewed for an indication that risk for future fracture was discussed. Abstracts of these articles were reviewed for an indication that one or more of the questions listed above was discussed. For those that did, the articles were reviewed in greater detail to extract the findings and to find additional past work and citing works that also bore on the questions. The official positions and the supporting literature review are presented here. FRAX(®) underestimates fracture probability in persons with a history of multiple fractures (good, A, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with prevalent severe vertebral fractures (good, A, W). While there is evidence that hip, vertebral, and humeral fractures appear to confer greater risk of subsequent fracture than fractures at other sites, quantification of this incremental risk in FRAX(®) is not possible (fair, B, W). FRAX(®) may underestimate fracture probability in individuals with a parental history of non-hip fragility fracture (fair, B, W). Limitations of the methodology include performance by a single reviewer, preliminary review of the literature being confined to titles, and secondary review being limited to abstracts. Limitations of the evidence base include publication bias, overrepresentation of persons of European descent in the published studies, and technical differences in the methods used to identify prevalent and incident fractures. Emerging topics for future research include fracture epidemiology in non-European populations and men, the impact of fractures in family members other than parents, and the genetic contribution to fracture risk.

Bond strength tests of dental adhesive systems and their correlation with clinical results : a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the variability of bond strength test results of adhesive systems (AS) and to correlate the results with clinical parameters of clinical studies investigating cervical restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regarding the clinical studies, the internal database which had previously been used for a meta-analysis on cervical restorations was updated with clinical studies published between 2008 and 2012 by searching the PubMed and SCOPUS databases. PubMed and the International Association for Dental Research abstracts online were searched for laboratory studies on microtensile, macrotensile and macroshear bond strength tests. The inclusion criteria were (1) dentin, (2) testing of at least four adhesive systems, (3) same diameter of composite and (4) 24h of water storage prior to testing. The clinical outcome variables were retention loss, marginal discoloration, detectable margins, and a clinical index comprising the three parameters by weighing them. Linear mixed models which included a random study effect were calculated for both, the laboratory and the clinical studies. The variability was assessed by calculating a ratio of variances, dividing the variance among the estimated bonding effects obtained in the linear mixed models by the sum of all variance components estimated in these models. RESULTS: Thirty-two laboratory studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria comprising 183 experiments. Of those, 86 used the microtensile test evaluating 22 adhesive systems (AS). Twenty-seven used the macrotensile test with 17 AS, and 70 used the macroshear test with 24 AS. For 28 AS the results from clinical studies were available. Microtensile and macrotensile (Spearman rho=0.66, p=0.007) were moderately correlated and also microtensile and macroshear (Spearman rho=0.51, p=0.03) but not macroshear and macrotensile (Spearman rho=0.34, p=0.22). The effect of the adhesive system was significant for microtensile and macroshear (p<0.001) but not for macrotensile. The effect of the adhesive system could explain 36% of the variability of the microtensile test, 27% of the macrotensile and 33% of the macroshear test. For the clinical trials, about 49% of the variability of retained restorations could be explained by the adhesive system. With respect to the correlation between bond strength tests and clinical parameters, only a moderate correlation between micro- and macrotensile test results and marginal discoloration was demonstrated. However, no correlation between these tests and a retention loss or marginal integrity was shown. The correlation improved when more studies were included compared to assessing only one study. SIGNIFICANCE: The high variability of bond strength test results highlights the need to establish individual acceptance levels for a given test institute. The weak correlation of bond-strength test results with clinical parameters leads to the conclusion that one should not rely solely on bond strength tests to predict the clinical performance of an adhesive system but one should conduct other laboratory tests like tests on the marginal adaptation of fillings in extracted teeth and the retention loss of restorations in non-retentive cavities after artificial aging.

Percutaneous coronary interventions prior to coronary artery bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are frequently performed before coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. This study sought to evaluate postoperative outcomes, and incidence of recurrent target ischemia in vessels with prior PCI in patients who had PCI prior to CABG compared to only CABG patients. METHODS: A review included CABG patients operated from 2000 to 2012. PCI prior to CABG patients were compared with patients having had CABG on native coronary arteries. Demographic and risk factors, including hospital morbidity, mortality, and recurrent target vessel ischemia at follow-up (FU), were compared. Major end-points were statistical differences of postoperative morbidity and reintervention rates due to symptomatic graft failure or target vessel ischemia during FU. RESULTS: Twenty-four percent of 1669 isolated CABG patients had PCI prior to CABG, with an increasing percentage during recent years. Demographics, risk factors, comorbidities and mortality rates were similar. Incidence of postoperative hemorrhage (OR 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.2; p = 0.02), perioperative myocardial infarction rate (p = 0.02), neurological deficits (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.2-9.7; p = 0.02) and re-intervention rate for symptomatic graft or target vessel occlusion were higher in pretreated patients (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.1-3.0; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PCI prior to CABG increases the risk for postoperative morbidity. Increased postoperative hemorrhage could be attributed to ongoing double anti-platelet therapy. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12514 (J Card Surg 2015;30:313-318).

A Lead-In with Silibinin Prior to Triple-Therapy Translates into Favorable Treatment Outcomes in Difficult-To-Treat HIV/Hepatitis C Coinfected Patients.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of first-generation protease inhibitor based triple-therapy against hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is limited in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with advanced liver fibrosis and non-response to previous peginterferon-ribavirin. These patients have a low chance of achieving a sustained virologic response (SVR) using first generation triple-therapy, with a success rate of only 20%. We investigated the efficacy and safety of lead-in therapy with intravenous silibinin followed by triple-therapy in this difficult-to-treat patient group. METHODOLOGY: Inclusion criteria were HIV/HCV coinfection with advanced liver fibrosis and documented previous treatment failure on peginterferon-ribavirin. The intervention was a lead-in therapy with intravenous silibinin 20 mg/kg/day for 14 days, followed by triple-therapy (peginterferon-ribavirin and telaprevir) for 12 weeks, and peginterferon-ribavirin alone for 36 weeks. Outcome measurements were HCV-RNA after silibinin lead-in and during triple-therapy, SVR data at week 12, and safety and tolerability of silibinin. RESULTS: We examined sixteen HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with previous peginterferon-ribavirin failure, of whom 14 had a fibrosis grade METAVIR ≥F3. All were on successful antiretroviral therapy. Median (IQR) HCV-RNA decline after silibinin therapy was 2.65 (2.1-2.8) log10 copies/mL. Fifteen of sixteen patients (94%) had undetectable HCV RNA at weeks 4 and 12, eleven patients (69%) showed end-of-treatment response (i.e., undetectable HCV-RNA at week 48), and ten patients (63%) reached SVR at week 12 (SVR 12). Six of the sixteen patients (37%) did not reach SVR 12: One patient had rapid virologic response (RVR) (i.e., undetectable HCV-RNA at week 4) but stopped treatment at week 8 due to major depression. Five patients had RVR, but experienced viral breakthroughs at week 21, 22, 25, or 32, or a relapse at week 52. The HIV RNA remained below the limit of detection in all patients during the complete treatment period. No serious adverse events and no significant drug-drug interactions were associated with silibinin. CONCLUSION: A lead-in with silibinin before triple-therapy was safe and highly effective in difficult-to-treat HIV/HCV coinfected patients, with a pronounced HCV-RNA decline during the lead-in phase, which translates into 63% SVR. An add-on of intravenous silibinin to standard of care HCV treatment is worth further exploration in selected difficult-to-treat patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01816490.