Outcome of patients with occlusions of the internal carotid artery or the main stem of the middle cerebral artery with NIHSS score of less than 5: comparison between thrombolysed and non-thrombolysed patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The use of thrombolysis in patients with minor neurological deficits and large vessel occlusion is controversial. METHODS We compared the outcome of patients with low National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores and large vessel occlusions between thrombolysed and non-thrombolysed patients. RESULTS 88 (1.7%) of 5312 consecutive patients with acute (within 24 h) ischaemic stroke had occlusions of the internal carotid or the main stem of the middle cerebral artery and baseline NIHSS scores ≤5.47 (53.4%) were treated without thrombolysis, and 41 (46.6%) received intravenous thrombolysis, endovascular therapy or both. Successful recanalisation on MR or CT angiography at 24 h was more often observed in thrombolysed than in non-thrombolysed patients (78.9% versus 10.5%; p<0.001). Neurological deterioration (increase of NIHSS score ≥1 compared to baseline) was observed in 22.7% of non-thrombolysed versus 10.3% of thrombolysed after 24 h (p=0.002), in 33.3% versus 12.5% at hospital discharge (p=0.015) and in 41.4% versus 15% at 3 months (p<0.001). Symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage occurred in two (asymptomatic in five) thrombolysed and in none (asymptomatic in three) non-thrombolysed. Thrombolysis was an independent predictor of favourable outcome (p=0.030) but not survival (p=0.606) at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS Non-thrombolysed patients with mild deficits and large vessel occlusion deteriorated significantly more often within 3 months than thrombolysed patients. Symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhages occurred in less than 5% of patients in both groups. These data suggest that thrombolysis is safe and effective in these patients. Therefore, randomised trials in patients with large vessel occlusions and mild or rapidly improving symptoms are needed.

Plasma and urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) in dogs with acute kidney injury or chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) is a protein that is used in human medicine as a real-time indicator of acute kidney injury (AKI). HYPOTHESIS Dogs with AKI have significantly higher plasma NGAL concentration and urine NGAL-to-creatinine ratio (UNCR) compared with healthy dogs and dogs with chronic kidney disease (CKD). ANIMALS 18 healthy control dogs, 17 dogs with CKD, and 48 dogs with AKI. METHODS Over a period of 1 year, all dogs with renal azotemia were prospectively included. Urine and plasma samples were collected during the first 24 hours after presentation or after development of renal azotemia. Plasma and urine NGAL concentrations were measured with a commercially available canine NGAL Elisa Kit (Bioporto® Diagnostic) and UNCR was calculated. A single-injection plasma inulin clearance was performed in the healthy dogs. RESULTS Median (range) NGAL plasma concentration in healthy dogs, dogs with CKD, and AKI were 10.7 ng/mL (2.5-21.2), 22.0 ng/mL (7.7-62.3), and 48.3 ng/mL (5.7-469.0), respectively. UNCR was 2 × 10(-8) (0-46), 1,424 × 10(-8) (385-18,347), and 2,366 × 10(-8) (36-994,669), respectively. Dogs with renal azotemia had significantly higher NGAL concentrations and UNCR than did healthy dogs (P < .0001 for both). Plasma NGAL concentration was significantly higher in dogs with AKI compared with dogs with CKD (P = .027). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE Plasma NGAL could be helpful to differentiate AKI from CKD in dogs with renal azotemia.

Patient information leaflets: informing or frightening? A focus group study exploring patients' emotional reactions and subsequent behavior towards package leaflets of commonly prescribed medications in family practices.

BACKGROUND The purpose of patient information leaflets (PILs) is to inform patients about the administration, precautions and potential side effects of their prescribed medication. Despite European Commission guidelines aiming at increasing readability and comprehension of PILs little is known about the potential risk information has on patients. This article explores patients' reactions and subsequent behavior towards risk information conveyed in PILs of commonly prescribed drugs by general practitioners (GPs) for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, hypertension or hypercholesterolemia; the most frequent cause for consultations in family practices in Germany. METHODS We conducted six focus groups comprising 35 patients which were recruited in GP practices. Transcripts were read and coded for themes; categories were created by abstracting data and further refined into a coding framework. RESULTS Three interrelated categories are presented: (i) The vast amount of side effects and drug interactions commonly described in PILs provoke various emotional reactions in patients which (ii) lead to specific patient behavior of which (iii) consulting the GP for assistance is among the most common. Findings show that current description of potential risk information caused feelings of fear and anxiety in the reader resulting in undesirable behavioral reactions. CONCLUSIONS Future PILs need to convey potential risk information in a language that is less frightening while retaining the information content required to make informed decisions about the prescribed medication. Thus, during the production process greater emphasis needs to be placed on testing the degree of emotional arousal provoked in patients when reading risk information to allow them to undertake a benefit-risk-assessment of their medication that is based on rational rather than emotional (fearful) reactions.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.

Training in intensive care medicine. A challenge within reach.

The medical training model is currently immersed in a process of change. The new paradigm is intended to be more effective, more integrated within the healthcare system, and strongly oriented towards the direct application of knowledge to clinical practice. Compared with the established training system based on certification of the completion of a series or rotations and stays in certain healthcare units, the new model proposes a more structured training process based on the gradual acquisition of specific competences, in which residents must play an active role in designing their own training program. Training based on competences guarantees more transparent, updated and homogeneous learning of objective quality, and which can be homologated internationally. The tutors play a key role as the main directors of the process, and institutional commitment to their work is crucial. In this context, tutors should receive time and specific formation to allow the evaluation of training as the cornerstone of the new model. New forms of objective summative and training evaluation should be introduced to guarantee that the predefined competences and skills are effectively acquired. The free movement of specialists within Europe is very desirable and implies that training quality must be high and amenable to homologation among the different countries. The Competency Based training in Intensive Care Medicine in Europe program is our main reference for achieving this goal. Scientific societies in turn must impulse and facilitate all those initiatives destined to improve healthcare quality and therefore specialist training. They have the mission of designing strategies and processes that favor training, accreditation and advisory activities with the government authorities.

Reporting of statistical results in prosthodontic and implantology journals: p values or confidence intervals?

PURPOSE Confidence intervals (CIs) are integral to the interpretation of the precision and clinical relevance of research findings. The aim of this study was to ascertain the frequency of reporting of CIs in leading prosthodontic and dental implantology journals and to explore possible factors associated with improved reporting. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty issues of nine journals in prosthodontics and implant dentistry were accessed, covering the years 2005 to 2012: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Implant Dentistry, and Journal of Dentistry. Articles were screened and the reporting of CIs and P values recorded. Other information including study design, region of authorship, involvement of methodologists, and ethical approval was also obtained. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify characteristics associated with reporting of CIs. RESULTS Interrater agreement for the data extraction performed was excellent (kappa = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.87 to 0.89). CI reporting was limited, with mean reporting across journals of 14%. CI reporting was associated with journal type, study design, and involvement of a methodologist or statistician. CONCLUSIONS Reporting of CI in implant dentistry and prosthodontic journals requires improvement. Improved reporting will aid appraisal of the clinical relevance of research findings by providing a range of values within which the effect size lies, thus giving the end user the opportunity to interpret the results in relation to clinical practice.

A Research Roadmap for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – What We Need to Know by 2020

Background: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella’s several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. Methods: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7–9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9–11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella’s scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. Results: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens’ needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. Conclusions: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens’ attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EUwide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe’s reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.

In vitro Activity of Fosfomycin Alone and in Combination with Ceftriaxone or Azithromycin Against Clinical Neisseria gonorrhoeae Isolates.

New therapeutic strategies are needed to combat the emergence of infections due to multidrug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae (Ng). In this study, fosfomycin (FOS) was tested against 89 Ng using the Etest method and showing MIC50/90s of only 8/16 μg/ml (range ≤ 1-32 μg/ml). FOS in combination with ceftriaxone (CRO) or azithromycin (AZT) was then evaluated using the checkerboard method for eight strains, including F89 (CRO-resistant) and AZT-HLR (high-level AZT-resistant). All combinations including FOS gave indifferent effects (fractional inhibitory concentration [FIC] index values between 1.2-2.3 for FOS plus CRO and between 1.8-3.2 for FOS plus AZT). Time-kill experiments for FOS, CRO, AZT and their combinations (at concentrations of 0.5×, 1×, 2× and 4× MIC) were performed against ATCC 49226, one Ng of NG-MAST ST1407, F89 and AZT-HLR. For all strains, at 24 hours results indicated that: i) FOS was bactericidal at 2× MIC concentrations but after >24 hours there was re-growth of bacteria; ii) CRO was bactericidal at 0.5× MIC; iii) AZT was bactericidal at 4× MIC; iv) CRO plus AZT was less bactericidal than CRO alone; v) FOS plus AZT was bactericidal at 2× MIC; vi) CRO plus AZT and FOS plus CRO were both bactericidal at 0.5× MIC, but the latter had more rapid effects. FOS is appealing for the management of Ng infections because of its single and oral formulation. However, our results suggest its use in combination with CRO. This strategy could, after appropriate clinical trials, be implemented for the treatment of infections due to isolates possessing resistance to CRO and/or AZT.

Multimodal treatment for high-risk prostate cancer with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel and long-term androgen deprivation therapy: results of a prospective phase II trial.

BACKGROUND The optimal management of high-risk prostate cancer remains uncertain. In this study we assessed the safety and efficacy of a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer. METHODS This was a prospective phase II trial including 35 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer treated with high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy preceded or not by radical prostatectomy, concurrent intensified-dose docetaxel-based chemotherapy and long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Primary endpoint was acute and late toxicity evaluated with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Secondary endpoint was biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival explored with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS Acute gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 23% and 20% of patients, and grade 3 in 9% and 3% of patients, respectively. Acute blood/bone marrow toxicity was grade 2 in 20% of patients. No acute grade ≥ 4 toxicity was observed. Late gastro-intestinal and genito-urinary toxicity was grade 2 in 9% of patients each. No late grade ≥ 3 toxicity was observed. Median follow-up was 63 months (interquartile range 31-79). Actuarial 5-year biochemical and clinical recurrence-free survival rate was 55% (95% confidence interval, 35-75%) and 70% (95% confidence interval, 52-88%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS In our phase II trial testing a novel multimodal treatment paradigm for high-risk prostate cancer, toxicity was acceptably low and mid-term oncological outcome was good. This treatment paradigm, thus, may warrant further evaluation in phase III randomized trials.

Horizontal ridge augmentation in conjunction with or prior to implant placement in the anterior maxilla: a systematic review.

PURPOSE To systematically review clinical studies examining the survival and success rates of implants in horizontal ridge augmentation, either prior to or in conjunction with implant placement in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS A literature search was undertaken up to September 2012 including clinical studies in English with ≥ 10 consecutively treated patients and a mean follow-up of at least 12 months. Two reviewers screened the pertinent articles and extracted the data. Key words focused on the outcome parameters (implant success, implant survival, horizontal bone gain, and intra- and postoperative complications) in studies utilizing either a simultaneous approach (ridge augmentation performed at the time of implant placement) or a staged approach (ridge augmentation performed prior to implant placement) were analyzed. RESULTS A total of 13 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 2 studies in the simultaneous group and 11 studies in the staged group. In the simultaneous group, survival rates of implants were 100% in both studies, with one study also reporting a 100% implant success rate. No data on horizontal bone gain were available. In the staged group, success rates of implants placed in horizontally augmented ridges ranged from 96.8% to 100% (two studies), and survival rates ranged from 93.5% to 100% (five studies). However, follow-up periods differed widely (up to 4.1 years). Mean horizontal bone gain determined at reentry (implant placement) ranged from 3.4 to 5.0 mm with large overall variations (0 to 9.8 mm, five studies). Intraoperative complications were not reported. Postsurgical complications included mainly mucosal dehiscences (five studies), and, occasionally, complete failures of block grafts were described in one study. CONCLUSIONS Staged and simultaneous augmentation procedures in the anterior maxilla are both associated with high implant success and survival rates. The level of evidence, however, is better for the staged approach than for the simultaneous one.

Clinical outcomes following regenerative therapy of non-contained intrabony defects using a deproteinized bovine bone mineral combined with either enamel matrix derivative or collagen membrane

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study is to compare clinical outcomes in the treatment of deep non-contained intrabony defects (i.e., with ≥70% 1-wall component and a residual 2- to 3-wall component in the most apical part) using deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) combined with either enamel matrix protein derivative (EMD) or collagen membrane (CM). METHODS Forty patients with multiple intrabony defects were enrolled. Only one non-contained defect per patient with an intrabony depth ≥3 mm located in the interproximal area of single- and multirooted teeth was randomly assigned to the treatment with either EMD + DBBM (test: n = 20) or CM + DBBM (control: n = 20). At baseline and after 12 months, clinical parameters including probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded. The primary outcome variable was the change in CAL between baseline and 12 months. RESULTS At baseline, the intrabony component of the defects amounted to 6.1 ± 1.9 mm for EMD + DBBM and 6.0 ± 1.9 mm for CM + DBBM sites (P = 0.81). The mean CAL gain at sites treated with EMD + DBBM was not statistically significantly different (P = 0.82) compared with CM + DBBM (3.8 ± 1.5 versus 3.7 ± 1.2 mm). No statistically significant difference (P = 0.62) was observed comparing the frequency of CAL gain ≥4 mm between EMD + DBBM (60%) and CM + DBBM (50%) or comparing the frequency of residual PD ≥6 mm between EMD + DBBM (5%) and CM + DBBM (15%) (P = 0.21). CONCLUSION Within the limitations of the present study, regenerative therapy using either EMD + DBBM or CM + DBBM yielded comparable clinical outcomes in deep non-contained intrabony defects after 12 months.

Interactions between dodecyl phosphates and hydroxyapatite or tooth enamel: relevance to inhibition of dental erosion.

Tooth surface modification is a potential method of preventing dental erosion, a form of excessive tooth wear facilitated by softening of tooth surfaces through the direct action of acids, mainly of dietary origin. We have previously shown that dodecyl phosphates (DPs) effectively inhibit dissolution of native surfaces of hydroxyapatite (the type mineral for dental enamel) and show good substantivity. However, adsorbed saliva also inhibits dissolution and DPs did not augment this effect, which suggests that DPs and saliva interact at the hydroxyapatite surface. In the present study the adsorption and desorption of potassium and sodium dodecyl phosphates or sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS) to hydroxyapatite and human tooth enamel powder, both native and pre-treated with saliva, were studied by high performance liquid chromatography-mass Spectrometry. Thermo gravimetric analysis was used to analyse residual saliva and surfactant on the substrates. Both DPs showed a higher affinity than SDS for both hydroxyapatite and enamel, and little DP was desorbed by washing with water. SDS was readily desorbed from hydroxyapatite, suggesting that the phosphate head group is essential for strong binding to this substrate. However, SDS was not desorbed from enamel, so that this substrate has surface properties different from those of hydroxyapatite. The presence of a salivary coating had little or no effect on adsorption of the DPs, but treatment with DPs partly desorbed saliva; this could account for the failure of DPs to increase the dissolution inhibition due to adsorbed saliva.

Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended after coronary stenting to prevent thrombotic complications, yet the benefits and risks of treatment beyond 1 year are uncertain. METHODS Patients were enrolled after they had undergone a coronary stent procedure in which a drug-eluting stent was placed. After 12 months of treatment with a thienopyridine drug (clopidogrel or prasugrel) and aspirin, patients were randomly assigned to continue receiving thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo for another 18 months; all patients continued receiving aspirin. The coprimary efficacy end points were stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during the period from 12 to 30 months. The primary safety end point was moderate or severe bleeding. RESULTS A total of 9961 patients were randomly assigned to continue thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo. Continued treatment with thienopyridine, as compared with placebo, reduced the rates of stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.4%; hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.17 to 0.48]; P<0.001) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (4.3% vs. 5.9%; hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85]; P<0.001). The rate of myocardial infarction was lower with thienopyridine treatment than with placebo (2.1% vs. 4.1%; hazard ratio, 0.47; P<0.001). The rate of death from any cause was 2.0% in the group that continued thienopyridine therapy and 1.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.85]; P=0.05). The rate of moderate or severe bleeding was increased with continued thienopyridine treatment (2.5% vs. 1.6%, P=0.001). An elevated risk of stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction was observed in both groups during the 3 months after discontinuation of thienopyridine treatment. CONCLUSIONS Dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after placement of a drug-eluting stent, as compared with aspirin therapy alone, significantly reduced the risks of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events but was associated with an increased risk of bleeding. (Funded by a consortium of eight device and drug manufacturers and others; DAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00977938.).