Safety of endovascular treatment beyond the 6-h time window in 205 patients

Background and purpose Intra-arterial treatment (IAT) is effective when performed within 6 h of symptom onset in selected stroke patients (‘T < 6H’). Its safety and efficacy is unclear when the patient has had symptoms for more than 6 h (‘T > 6H’) or for an unknown time (unclear-onset stroke, UOS), or woke up with a stroke (wake-up stroke, WUS). In this study we compared the safety of IAT in these four patient groups. Methods Eight-hundred and fifty-nine patients treated with IAT were enrolled. The main outcome parameters were clinical outcome [excellent: modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0 or 1; or favorable: mRS 0–2] or mortality 3 months after treatment. Further outcome parameters were the rates of vessel recanalization, and cerebral and systemic hemorrhage. Results Six-hundred and fifty-four patients were treated before (T < 6H) and 205 after 6 h or an unknown time (128 T > 6H, 55 WUS and 22 UOS). NIHSS scores were higher in UOS patients than in T < 6H patients, vertebrobasilar occlusion was more common in T > 6H and UOS patients, and middle cerebral artery occlusions less common in T > 6H than in T < 6H patients. Other baseline characteristics were similar. There was no significant difference in clinical outcome and the rate of hemorrhage in multivariable regression analysis. Conclusions Clinical outcome of our four groups of patients was similar with no increase of hemorrhage rates in patients treated after awakening, after an unknown time or more than 6 h. Our preliminary data suggest that treatment of such patients may be performed safely. If confirmed in randomized trials, this would have major clinical implications.

Management of infusion reactions in clinical trials and beyond: the US and EU perspectives

Monoclonal antibodies have expanded our cancer-fighting armamentarium in both the United States and Europe. While in general, monoclonal antibodies are well tolerated and do not have significant overlapping side effects with traditional cytotoxic agents, severe infusion reactions (IRs)--sometimes severe enough to be life threatening--have been reported. The pathophysiology of severe infusion reactions associated with monoclonal antibodies is poorly understood, but mechanisms are beginning to be elucidated. Geographic differences in the incidence of IRs have become apparent. Understanding the risk, recognizing the signs and symptoms, and being ready to promptly manage severe IRs are key for the clinician to avoid unnecessarily discontinuing these effective anticancer agents and prevent potentially tragic consequences for their patients. To date, clinical trials have incorporated monoclonal antibodies into combinations with standard cytotoxic regimens; it is expected that in time clinical trials will be testing promising new combinations utilizing multiple targeted agents, resulting in improved toxicity profiles and efficacy for cancer patients.

Beyond the tree of texts: Building an empirical model of scribal variation through graph analysis of texts and stemmata

Stemmatology, or the reconstruction of the transmission history of texts, is a field that stands particularly to gain from digital methods. Many scholars already take stemmatic approaches that rely heavily on computational analysis of the collated text (e.g. Robinson and O’Hara 1996; Salemans 2000; Heikkilä 2005; Windram et al. 2008 among many others). Although there is great value in computationally assisted stemmatology, providing as it does a reproducible result and allowing access to the relevant methodological process in related fields such as evolutionary biology, computational stemmatics is not without its critics. The current state-of-the-art effectively forces scholars to choose between a preconceived judgment of the significance of textual differences (the Lachmannian or neo-Lachmannian approach, and the weighted phylogenetic approach) or to make no judgment at all (the unweighted phylogenetic approach). Some basis for judgment of the significance of variation is sorely needed for medieval text criticism in particular. By this, we mean that there is a need for a statistical empirical profile of the text-genealogical significance of the different sorts of variation in different sorts of medieval texts. The rules that apply to copies of Greek and Latin classics may not apply to copies of medieval Dutch story collections; the practices of copying authoritative texts such as the Bible will most likely have been different from the practices of copying the Lives of local saints and other commonly adapted texts. It is nevertheless imperative that we have a consistent, flexible, and analytically tractable model for capturing these phenomena of transmission. In this article, we present a computational model that captures most of the phenomena of text variation, and a method for analysis of one or more stemma hypotheses against the variation model. We apply this method to three ‘artificial traditions’ (i.e. texts copied under laboratory conditions by scholars to study the properties of text variation) and four genuine medieval traditions whose transmission history is known or deduced in varying degrees. Although our findings are necessarily limited by the small number of texts at our disposal, we demonstrate here some of the wide variety of calculations that can be made using our model. Certain of our results call sharply into question the utility of excluding ‘trivial’ variation such as orthographic and spelling changes from stemmatic analysis.