476 resultados para Abildgaard, Peter Christian
Resumo:
Published evidence suggests that aspects of trial design lead to biased intervention effect estimates, but findings from different studies are inconsistent. This study combined data from 7 meta-epidemiologic studies and removed overlaps to derive a final data set of 234 unique meta-analyses containing 1973 trials. Outcome measures were classified as "mortality," "other objective," "or subjective," and Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate associations of trial characteristics with average bias and between-trial heterogeneity. Intervention effect estimates seemed to be exaggerated in trials with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) random-sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.89 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.82 to 0.96]) and with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.93 [CrI, 0.87 to 0.99]). Lack of or unclear double-blinding (vs. double-blinding) was associated with an average of 13% exaggeration of intervention effects (ratio of odds ratios, 0.87 [CrI, 0.79 to 0.96]), and between-trial heterogeneity was increased for such studies (SD increase in heterogeneity, 0.14 [CrI, 0.02 to 0.30]). For each characteristic, average bias and increases in between-trial heterogeneity were driven primarily by trials with subjective outcomes, with little evidence of bias in trials with objective and mortality outcomes. This study is limited by incomplete trial reporting, and findings may be confounded by other study design characteristics. Bias associated with study design characteristics may lead to exaggeration of intervention effect estimates and increases in between-trial heterogeneity in trials reporting subjectively assessed outcomes.
Resumo:
The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents remains controversial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Resumo:
To examine whether acute dysglycaemia predicts death in people admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia.
Resumo:
Late acquired incomplete stent apposition (ISA) is more common after drug-eluting stent (DES) than bare metal stent (BMS) implantation and has been associated with vascular hypersensitivity and stent thrombosis (ST). We investigated the impact of incidentally discovered ISA as assessed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) 8 months after DES implantation on the long-term clinical outcome.
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: HOE-140/ Icatibant is a selective, competitive antagonist to bradykinin (BK) against its binding to the kinin B2 receptor. Substitution of five non-proteogeneic amino acid analogues makes icatibant resistant to degradation by metalloproteases of kinin catabolism. Icatibant has clinical applications in inflammatory and vascular leakage conditions caused by an acute (non-controlled) production of kinins and their accumulation at the endothelium B2 receptor. The clinical manifestation of vascular leakage, called angioedema (AE), is characterized by edematous attacks of subcutaneous and submucosal tissues, which can cause painful intestinal consequences, and life-threatening complications if affecting the larynx. Icatibant is registered for the treatment of acute attacks of the hereditary BK-mediated AE, i.e., AE due to C1 inhibitor deficiency. AREAS COVERED: This review discusses emerging knowledge on the kinin system: kinin pharmacological properties, biochemical characteristics of the contact phase and kinin catabolism proteases. It underlines the responsibility of the kinins in AE initiation and the potency of icatibant to inhibit AE formation by kinin-receptor interactions. EXPERT OPINION: Icatibant antagonist properties protect BK-mediated AE patients against severe attacks, and could be developed for use in inflammatory conditions. More studies are required to confirm whether or not prolonged and frequent applications of icatibant could result in the impairment of the cardioprotective effect of BK.
Resumo:
In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.