Immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome in patients starting antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

In patients with HIV-1 infection who are starting combination antiretroviral therapy (ART), the incidence of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) is not well defined. We did a meta-analysis to establish the incidence and lethality of the syndrome in patients with a range of previously diagnosed opportunistic infections, and examined the relation between occurrence and the degree of immunodeficiency. Systematic review identified 54 cohort studies of 13 103 patients starting ART, of whom 1699 developed IRIS. We calculated pooled cumulative incidences with 95% credibility intervals (CrI) by Bayesian methods and did a random-effects metaregression to analyse the relation between CD4 cell count and incidence of IRIS. In patients with previously diagnosed AIDS-defining illnesses, IRIS developed in 37.7% (95% CrI 26.6-49.4) of those with cytomegalovirus retinitis, 19.5% (6.7-44.8) of those with cryptococcal meningitis, 15.7% (9.7-24.5) of those with tuberculosis, 16.7% (2.3-50.7) of those with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, and 6.4% (1.2-24.7) of those with Kaposi's sarcoma, and 12.2% (6.8-19.6) of those with herpes zoster. 16.1% (11.1-22.9) of unselected patients starting ART developed any type of IRIS. 4.5% (2.1-8.6) of patients with any type of IRIS died, 3.2% (0.7-9.2) of those with tuberculosis-associated IRIS died, and 20.8% (5.0-52.7) of those with cryptococcal meningitis died. Metaregression analyses showed that the risk of IRIS is associated with CD4 cell count at the start of ART, with a high risk in patients with fewer than 50 cells per microL. Occurrence of IRIS might therefore be reduced by initiation of ART before immunodeficiency becomes advanced.

Effects of glucosamine, chondroitin, or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of hip or knee: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of glucosamine, chondroitin, or the two in combination on joint pain and on radiological progression of disease in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Design Network meta-analysis. Direct comparisons within trials were combined with indirect evidence from other trials by using a Bayesian model that allowed the synthesis of multiple time points. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pain intensity. Secondary outcome was change in minimal width of joint space. The minimal clinically important difference between preparations and placebo was prespecified at -0.9 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception to June 2009, expert contact, relevant websites. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Large scale randomised controlled trials in more than 200 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip that compared glucosamine, chondroitin, or their combination with placebo or head to head. Results 10 trials in 3803 patients were included. On a 10 cm visual analogue scale the overall difference in pain intensity compared with placebo was -0.4 cm (95% credible interval -0.7 to -0.1 cm) for glucosamine, -0.3 cm (-0.7 to 0.0 cm) for chondroitin, and -0.5 cm (-0.9 to 0.0 cm) for the combination. For none of the estimates did the 95% credible intervals cross the boundary of the minimal clinically important difference. Industry independent trials showed smaller effects than commercially funded trials (P=0.02 for interaction). The differences in changes in minimal width of joint space were all minute, with 95% credible intervals overlapping zero. Conclusions Compared with placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not reduce joint pain or have an impact on narrowing of joint space. Health authorities and health insurers should not cover the costs of these preparations, and new prescriptions to patients who have not received treatment should be discouraged.

Impact of stent overlap on angiographic and long-term clinical outcome in patients undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation

Objectives We compared the angiographic and long-term clinical outcomes of patients with and without overlap of drug-eluting stents (DES). Background DES overlap has been associated with delayed healing and increased inflammation in experimental studies, but its impact on clinical outcome is not well established. Methods We analyzed the angiographic and clinical outcomes of 1,012 patients treated with DES in the SIRTAX (Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization) trial according to the presence or absence of stent overlap and the number of stents per vessel: 134 (13.2%) patients with multiple DES in a vessel with overlap, 199 (19.7%) patients with multiple DES in a vessel without overlap, and 679 (67.1%) patients with 1 DES per vessel. Results Angiographic follow-up at 8 months showed an increased late loss in DES overlap patients (0.33 ± 0.61 mm) compared with the other groups (0.18 ± 0.43 mm and 0.15 ± 0.38 mm, p < 0.01). The smallest minimal lumen diameter was located at the zone of stent overlap in 17 (68%) of 25 patients with stent overlap who underwent target lesion revascularization. Major adverse cardiac events were more common in patients with DES overlap (34 events, 25.4%) than in the other groups (42 events, 21.1% and 95 events, 14.0%) at 3 years (p < 0.01). Both the risk of target lesion revascularization (20.2% vs. 16.1% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.01) and the composite of death or myocardial infarction (17.2% vs. 14.1% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.01) were increased in patients with DES overlap compared with the other groups. Conclusions DES overlap occurs in >10% of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in routine clinical practice and is associated with impaired angiographic and long-term clinical outcome, including death or myocardial infarction. (Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization; NCT00297661).

Impact of arterial injury on neointimal hyperplasia after implantation of drug-eluting stents in coronary arteries: an intravascular ultrasound study

Aims: We investigated the impact of arterial injury on neointimal hyperplasia following implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods and results: A total of 196 patients with 223 segments (sirolimus-eluting stents [SES]: 104, paclitaxel-eluting stents [PES]: 119) underwent intravascular ultrasound eight months after DES implantation. Arterial injury was defined as the balloon-to-artery ratio (BAR). Segments were categorised into two groups: high BAR defined as BAR>1.1 (120 segments), and low BAR defined as BAR ≤1.1 (103 segments). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar for both groups. Although reference vessel diameter was smaller, stent diameter, maximal balloon pressure and balloon diameter were higher in the high BAR compared with the low BAR group. Lumen (7.10±1.91 vs. 6.25±1.69, p=0.001), stent (7.31±1.95 vs. 6.41±1.80, p=0.001), and external elastic membrane (17.1±4.9 vs. 14.8±4.0, p<0.0001) areas (mm2) were higher, but neointimal hyperplasia (0.21±0.36 vs. 0.16±0.48, p=0.42) area (mm2) was similar in the high BAR compared with the low BAR group. Arterial injury as assessed by BAR was not associated with the amount of neointimal hyperplasia (R2=0.003, p=0.40). Conclusions: Arterial injury does not correlate with the amount of neointimal hyperplasia following DES implantation. Conventionally aggressive DES implantation techniques do not adversely affect long-term outcome with respect to restenosis. - See more at: http://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/30th_issue/79/#sthash.1do4X31G.dpuf

Five-Year Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes of a Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: Results of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization LATE Trial

Background—Long-term comparative data of first-generation drug-eluting stents are scarce. We investigated clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 5 years as part of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization (SIRTAX) LATE study. Methods and Results—A total of 1012 patients were randomly assigned to SES or PES. Repeat angiography was completed in 444 of 1012 patients (43.8%) at 5 years. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 19.7% of SES- and 21.4% of PES-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.17; P=0.39) at 5 years. There were no differences between SES and PES in terms of cardiac death (5.8% versus 5.7%; P=0.35), myocardial infarction (6.6% versus 6.9%; P=0.51), and target lesion revascularization (13.1% versus 15.1%; P=0.29). Between 1 and 5 years, the annual rate of target lesion revascularization was 2.0% (95% confidence interval, 1.4% to 2.6%) for SES and 1.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.9% to 2.0%) for PES. Among patients undergoing paired angiography at 8 months and 5 years, delayed lumen loss amounted to 0.37±0.73 mm for SES and 0.29±0.59 mm for PES (P=0.32). The overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was 4.6% for SES and 4.1% for PES (P=0.74), and very late definite stent thrombosis occurred at an annual rate of 0.65% (95% confidence interval, 0.40% to 0.90%). Conclusions—Long-term follow-up of first-generation drug-eluting stents shows no significant differences in clinical and angiographic outcomes between SES and PES. The continuous increase in late lumen loss in conjunction with the ongoing risk of very late stent thrombosis suggests that vascular healing remains incomplete up to 5 years after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents.

Sirolimus versus paclitaxel coronary stents in clinical practice

Objectives: We aimed at comparing the long term clinical outcome of SES and PES in routine clinical practice. Background: Although sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) more effectively reduce neointimal hyperplasia than paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), uncertainty prevails whether this difference translates into differences in clinical outcomes outside randomized controlled trials with selected patient populations and protocol-mandated angiographic follow-up. Methods: Nine hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a drug-eluting stent between May 2004 and February 2005: 467 patients with 646 lesions received SES, 437 patients with 600 lesions received PES. Clinical follow-up was obtained at 2 years without intervening routine angiographic follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 2 years, the primary endpoint was less frequent with SES (12.9%) than PES (17.6%, HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The difference in favor of SES was largely driven by a lower rate of target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 4.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.05), whereas rates of death (6.4% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.49), MI (1.9% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.21), or definite stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.27) were similar for both stent types. The benefit regarding reduced rates of TLR was significant in nondiabetic (3.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.04) but not in diabetic patients (5.6% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.80). Conclusions: SES more effectively reduced the need for repeat revascularization procedures than PES when used in routine clinical practice. The beneficial effect is maintained up to 2 years and may be less pronounced in diabetic patients.

Soziale Ungleichheit von Bildungschancen und Chancengleichheit - eine Reanalyse mit bildungspolitischen Implikationen

Zweifelsohne war und ist das Prinzip der Chancengleichheit – gleiches Recht auf Entfaltung ungleicher Anlagen – eine Maxime für die Bildungspolitik und Gestal-tung von Bildungssystemen (vgl. Müller 1998; Friedeburg 1992; Baumert 1991: 333). Diese Prämisse wird nicht zuletzt durch Artikel 3, Absatz 3 des Grundgeset-zes, wonach niemand wegen seines Geschlechts, seiner Abstammung, seiner Ras-se, seiner Sprache, seiner Heimat und Herkunft, seines Glaubens, seiner religiösen oder politischen Anschauungen benachteiligt oder bevorzugt werden darf, inhalt-lich vorgegeben. So lag ein Hauptteil der Zielsetzungen von Bildungsreformen seit den 1960er Jahren darin, die Rahmenbedingungen für den Bildungszugang – für die Chancennutzung – in der Weise zu setzen, dass weder das strukturelle Angebot an Bildungsgelegenheiten noch sozialstrukturelle Eigenschaften von Schulkindern und ihres Elternhauses systematische Einflüsse auf den Bildungsweg und den Erwerb von Bildungszertifikaten haben (Friedeburg 1992). Mit dem Ausbau des Schul- und Hochschulwesens und den institutionellen Reformen seit den 1960er Jahren ist das Ziel auch größtenteils erreicht worden, dass neben institutionellen Barrieren auch ökonomische und geografische Barrieren beim Bildungszugang weitgehend an Bedeutung verloren haben (Müller 1998; Krais 1996). Bildungs-disparitäten nach sozialstrukturellen Merkmalen wie etwa Klassenlage des Eltern-hauses haben sich ebenfalls bis zu einem bestimmten Grad abgeschwächt (Müller und Haun 1994; Schimpl-Neimanns 2000). Insbesondere konnten Mädchen ihre Bildungsdefizite gegenüber den Jungen mehr als ausgleichen (Rodax und Rodax 1996; Rodax 1995), sodass nunmehr von einer Bildungsungleichheit zu Unguns-ten von Jungen auszugehen ist (Diefenbach und Klein 2002; Becker 2007). Einige der beabsichtigten wie unbeabsichtigten Folgen dieser Reformbemühungen kön-nen am Wandel der Bildungsbeteiligung, insbesondere beim Übergang von der Grundschule auf das Gymnasium, abgelesen werden (Becker 2006).