Notes. Exercicis de lectura recitada en clau de Sol i en clau de Fa

Exercicis pràctics per adquirir agilitat en la lectura de les notes musicals.

Systematic review of population pharmacokinetic analyses of imatinib and relationships with treatment outcomes

Several population pharmacokinetic (PPK) analyses of the anticancer drug imatinib have been performed to investigate different patient populations and covariate effects. The present analysis offers a systematic qualitative and quantitative summary and comparison of those. Its primary objective was to provide useful information for evaluating the expectedness of imatinib plasma concentration measurements in the frame of therapeutic drug monitoring. The secondary objective was to review clinically important concentration-effect relationships to provide help in evaluating the potential suitability of plasma concentration values. Nine PPK models describing total imatinib plasma concentration were identified. Parameter estimates were standardized to common covariate values whenever possible. Predicted median exposure (Cmin) was derived by simulations and ranged between models from 555 to 1388 ng/mL (grand median: 870 ng/mL and interquartile "reference" range: 520-1390 ng/mL). Covariates of potential clinical importance (up to 30% change in pharmacokinetic predicted by at least 1 model) included body weight, albumin, α1 acid glycoprotein, and white blood cell count. Various other covariates were included but were statistically not significant or seemed clinically less important or physiologically controversial. Concentration-response relationships had more importance below the average reference range and concentration-toxicity relationships above. Therapeutic drug monitoring-guided dosage adjustment seems justified for imatinib, but a formal predictive therapeutic range remains difficult to propose in the absence of prospective target concentration intervention trials. To evaluate the expectedness of a drug concentration measurement in practice, this review allows comparison of the measurement either to the average reference range or to a specific range accounting for individual patient characteristics. For future research, external PPK model validation or meta-model development should be considered.

Notes secrètes sur l'abbaïe de Longchamp en 1768 / [éd. par Désiré Lacroix]

Collection : Bibliothèque galante

Recueil des lois municipales... avec notes et commentaires... Par Emile Renard,... 2e éd.

[Acte]

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.

Socioeconomic determinants of dietary patterns in low- and middle-income countries : a systematic review

BACKGROUND: In high-income countries, high socioeconomic status (SES) is generally associated with a healthier diet, but whether social differences in dietary intake are also present in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains to be established. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of studies that assessed the relation between SES and dietary intake in LMICs. DESIGN: We carried out a systematic review of cohort and cross-sectional studies in adults in LMICs and published between 1996 and 2013. We assessed associations between markers of SES or urban and rural settings and dietary intake. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies from 17 LMICs were included (5 low-income countries and 12 middle-income countries; 31 cross-sectional and 2 longitudinal studies). A majority of studies were conducted in Brazil (8), China (6), and Iran (4). High SES or living in urban areas was associated with higher intakes of calories; protein; total fat; cholesterol; polyunsaturated, saturated, and monounsaturated fatty acids; iron; and vitamins A and C and with lower intakes of carbohydrates and fiber. High SES was also associated with higher fruit and/or vegetable consumption, diet quality, and diversity. Although very few studies were performed in low-income countries, similar patterns were generally observed in both LMICs except for fruit intake, which was lower in urban than in rural areas in low-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: In LMICs, high SES or living in urban areas is associated with overall healthier dietary patterns. However, it is also related to higher energy, cholesterol, and saturated fat intakes. Social inequalities in dietary intake should be considered in the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases in LMICs.

Endovascular aortic repair versus open surgical repair for descending thoracic aortic disease a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) reduces death and morbidity compared with open surgical repair for descending thoracic aortic disease. BACKGROUND: The role of TEVAR versus open surgery remains unclear. Metaregression can be used to maximally inform adoption of new technologies by utilizing evidence from existing trials. METHODS: Data from comparative studies of TEVAR versus open repair of the descending aorta were combined through meta-analysis. Metaregression was performed to account for baseline risk factor imbalances, study design, and thoracic pathology. Due to significant heterogeneity, registry data were analyzed separately from comparative studies. RESULTS: Forty-two nonrandomized studies involving 5,888 patients were included (38 comparative studies, 4 registries). Patient characteristics were balanced except for age, as TEVAR patients were usually older than open surgery patients (p = 0.001). Registry data suggested overall perioperative complications were reduced. In comparative studies, all-cause mortality at 30 days (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33 to 0.59) and paraplegia (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.63) were reduced for TEVAR versus open surgery. In addition, cardiac complications, transfusions, reoperation for bleeding, renal dysfunction, pneumonia, and length of stay were reduced. There was no significant difference in stroke, myocardial infarction, aortic reintervention, and mortality beyond 1 year. Metaregression to adjust for age imbalance, study design, and pathology did not materially change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Current data from nonrandomized studies suggest that TEVAR may reduce early death, paraplegia, renal insufficiency, transfusions, reoperation for bleeding, cardiac complications, pneumonia, and length of stay compared with open surgery. Sustained benefits on survival have not been proven.