Allergic rhinitis in patients with asthma: the Swiss LARA (Link Allergic Rhinitis in Asthma) survey

OBJECTIVE: To determine the characteristics of asthma (A) and allergic rhinitis (AR) among asthma patients in primary care practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Primary care physicians, pulmonologists, and allergologists were asked to recruit consecutive asthma patients with or without allergic rhinitis from their daily practice. Cross-sectional data on symptoms, severity, treatment and impact on quality of life of A and AR were recorded and examined using descriptive statistics. Patients with and without AR were then compared. RESULTS: 1244 asthma patients were included by 211 physicians. Asthma was controlled in 19%, partially controlled in 27% and not controlled in 54%. Asthma treatment was generally based on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with or without long acting beta 2 agonists (78%). A leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) was used by 46% of the patients. Overall, 950 (76%) asthma patients had AR (A + AR) and 294 (24%) did not (A - AR). Compared to patients with A - AR, A + AR patients were generally younger (mean age +/- standard deviation: 42 +/- 16 vs. 50 +/- 19 years, p < 0.001) and fewer used ICS (75% vs. 88%, p < 0.001). LTRA usage was similar in both groups (46% vs. 48%). Asthma was uncontrolled in 53% of A + AR and 57% of A - AR patients. Allergic rhinitis was treated with a mean of 1.9 specific AR medications: antihistamines (77%), nasal steroids (66%) and/or vasoconstrictors (38%), and/or LTRA (42%). Rhinorrhoea, nasal obstruction, or nasal itching were the most frequently reported AR symptoms and the greatest reported degree of impairment was in daily activities/sports (55%). CONCLUSIONS: Allergic rhinitis was more common among younger asthma patients, increased the burden of symptoms and the need for additional medication but was associated with improved asthma control. However, most asthma patients remained suboptimally controlled regardl-ess of concomitant AR.

14C Analysis and Sample Preparation at the New Bern Laboratory for the Analysis of Radiocarbon with AMS (LARA)

The University of Bern has set up the new Laboratory for the Analysis of Radiocarbon with AMS (LARA) equipped with an accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) MICADAS (MIni CArbon Dating System) to continue its long history of 14C analysis based on conventional counting. The new laboratory is designated to provide routine 14C dating for archaeology, climate research, and other disciplines at the University of Bern and to develop new analytical systems coupled to the gas ion source for 14C analysis of specific compounds or compound classes with specific physical properties. Measurements of reference standards and wood samples dated by dendrochronology demonstrate the quality of the 14C analyses performed at the new laboratory.

A Randomized Comparison of Reservoir-Based Polymer-Free Amphilimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: The RESERVOIR Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of amphilimus-eluting stents (AES) with that of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). BACKGROUND The AES is a polymer-free drug-eluting stent that elutes sirolimus formulated with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells. This technology could be associated with a high efficacy in patients with DM. METHODS This was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. Patients with DM medically treated with oral glucose-lowering agents or insulin and de novo coronary lesions were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to AES or EES. The primary endpoint was the neointimal (NI) volume obstruction assessed by optical coherence tomography at 9-month follow-up. RESULTS A total of 116 lesions in 112 patients were randomized. Overall, 40% were insulin-treated patients, with a median HbA1c of 7.3% (interquartile range: 6.7% to 8.0%). The primary endpoint, NI volume obstruction, was 11.97 ± 5.94% for AES versus 16.11 ± 18.18% for EES, meeting the noninferiority criteria (p = 0.0003). Pre-specified subgroup analyses showed a significant interaction between stent type and glycemic control (p = 0.02), with a significant reduction in NI hyperplasia in the AES group in patients with the higher HbA1c (p = 0.03). By quantitative coronary angiography, in-stent late loss was 0.14 ± 0.24 for AES versus 0.24 ± 0.57 mm for EES (p = 0.27), with a larger minimal lumen diameter at follow-up for AES (p = 0.02), mainly driven by 2 cases of occlusive restenosis in the EES group. CONCLUSIONS AES are noninferior to EES for the coronary revascularization of patients with DM. These results suggest a high efficacy of the AES and may support the potential benefit of this stent in patients with DM. (A Randomized Comparison of Reservoir-Based Polymer-Free Amphilimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus [RESERVOIR]; NCT01710748).

Mittheilungen aus der Schrift: Die entlarvte Inquisition der Spanier, von Don Antonio Puigblanch [Rezension]

L. Lange