Duplex sonographic criteria for measuring carotid stenoses

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine optimal duplex sonographic criteria for use in our institution for diagnosing severe carotid stenoses and to correlate those findings with angiographic measurements obtained by the European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST), North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET), and Common Carotid (CC) methods of grading carotid stenoses. METHODS: We analyzed the angiographic data using the ECST, NASCET, and CC methods and compared the results with the duplex sonographic findings. We then calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of the duplex sonographic method. Taking these parameters into account, the optimal intrastenotic peak systolic velocity (PSV) and end diastolic velocity (EDV) were derived for diagnosing severe stenoses according to the 3 angiographic methods. RESULTS: Optimal PSV and EDV values for diagnosing a 70% or greater stenosis in our laboratory were as follows: with the NASCET method of angiographic grading of stenoses, PSV 220 cm/second or greater and EDV 80 cm/second or greater, and with the ECST and CC methods, PSV 190 cm/second or greater, and EDV 65 cm/second or greater. The optimal PSV and EDV for diagnosing a stenosis of 80% or greater with the ECST grading method were 215 cm/second or greater and 90 cm/second or greater, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Duplex sonography is a sensitive and accurate tool for evaluating severe carotid stenoses. Optimal PSVs and EDVs vary according to the angiographic method used to grade the stenosis. They are similar for stenoses 70% or greater with the NASCET method and for stenoses 80% or greater with the ECST method.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence, the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association (STREGA) studies initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information into the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and issues of data volume that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Engineered fibrin matrices for functional display of cell membrane-bound growth factor-like activities: study of angiogenic signaling by ephrin-B2

With the rapid increase in approaches to pro- or anti-angiogenic therapy, new and effective methodologies for administration of cell-bound growth factors will be required. We sought to develop the natural hydrogel matrix fibrin as platform for extensive interactions and continuous signaling by the vascular morphogen ephrin-B2 that normally resides in the plasma membrane and requires multivalent presentation for ligation and activation of Eph receptors on apposing endothelial cell surfaces. Using fibrin and protein engineering technology to induce multivalent ligand presentation, a recombinant mutant ephrin-B2 receptor binding domain was covalently coupled to fibrin networks at variably high densities. The ability of fibrin-bound ephrin-B2 to act as ligand for endothelial cells was preserved, as demonstrated by a concomitant, dose-dependent increase of endothelial cell binding to engineered ephrin-B2-fibrin substrates in vitro. The therapeutic relevance of ephrin-B2-fibrin implant matrices was demonstrated by a local angiogenic response in the chick embryo chorioallontoic membrane evoked by the local and prolonged presentation of matrix-bound ephrin-B2 to tissue adjacing the implant. This new knowledge on biomimetic fibrin vehicles for precise local delivery of membrane-bound growth factor signals may help to elucidate specific biological growth factor function, and serve as starting point for development of new treatment strategies.

Contribution of genome-wide significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms and antiretroviral therapy to dyslipidemia in HIV-infected individuals: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND: HIV-infected individuals have an increased risk of myocardial infarction. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is regarded as a major determinant of dyslipidemia in HIV-infected individuals. Previous genetic studies have been limited by the validity of the single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) interrogated and by cross-sectional design. Recent genome-wide association studies have reliably associated common SNPs to dyslipidemia in the general population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We validated the contribution of 42 SNPs (33 identified in genome-wide association studies and 9 previously reported SNPs not included in genome-wide association study chips) and of longitudinally measured key nongenetic variables (ART, underlying conditions, sex, age, ethnicity, and HIV disease parameters) to dyslipidemia in 745 HIV-infected study participants (n=34 565 lipid measurements; median follow-up, 7.6 years). The relative impact of SNPs and ART to lipid variation in the study population and their cumulative influence on sustained dyslipidemia at the level of the individual were calculated. SNPs were associated with lipid changes consistent with genome-wide association study estimates. SNPs explained up to 7.6% (non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol), 6.2% (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol), and 6.8% (triglycerides) of lipid variation; ART explained 3.9% (non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol), 1.5% (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol), and 6.2% (triglycerides). An individual with the most dyslipidemic antiretroviral and genetic background had an approximately 3- to 5-fold increased risk of sustained dyslipidemia compared with an individual with the least dyslipidemic therapy and genetic background. CONCLUSIONS: In the HIV-infected population treated with ART, the weight of the contribution of common SNPs and ART to dyslipidemia was similar. When selecting an ART regimen, genetic information should be considered in addition to the dyslipidemic effects of ART agents.