Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

Comparison of psychometric properties between the Labin, a new electronic dynamometer, and the Jamar: Preliminary results in healthy subjects

International audienceMany instruments exist for measuring grip strength. The Jamar hydraulic hand dynamometer is currently the gold standard. The Labin is a prototype electronic dynamometer that can also measure maximum grip strength. The main objective was to compare the Labin dynamometer with the gold standard instrument, the Jamar, in a healthy population, and secondarily to compare discomfort during use. A single-center exploratory study was conducted. The subjects enrolled had to be aged between 20 and 60, be volunteers and give consent. The required number of subjects was 30. The subjects were positioned according to American Society of Hand Therapists recommendations. Maximum grip force was measured in kilograms using the mean of three successive trials. The first dynamometer used was chosen randomly. The handle's discomfort during use was rated on a simple verbal scale from 0 to 10. Thirty-four subjects were included. The concordance coefficient for peak torque between the Labin and Jamar dynamometers was 0.90 for the dominant hand and 0.83 for the non-dominant hand. The intraclass correlation coefficient for peak torque with the Labin was 0.81 [0.69; 0.89] for the dominant hand and 0.86 [0.76; 0.92] for the non-dominant hand. In our study, we have shown that the Labin prototype has acceptable validity and reproducibility. The Labin will need to be tested in pathological conditions next

The major worldwide stress of healthcare professionals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic - the international COVISTRESS survey

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has initiated an upheaval in society and has been the cause of considerable stress during this period. Healthcare professionals have been on the front line during this health crisis, particularly paramedical staff. The aim of this study was to assess the high level of stress of healthcare workers during the first wave of the pandemic.Materials and methodsThe COVISTRESS international study is a questionnaire disseminated online collecting demographic and stress-related data over the globe, during the pandemic. Stress levels were evaluated using non-calibrated visual analog scale, from 0 (no stress) to 100 (maximal stress).ResultsAmong the 13,537 individuals from 44 countries who completed the survey from January to June 2020, we included 10,051 workers (including 1379 healthcare workers, 631 medical doctors and 748 paramedical staff). The stress levels during the first wave of the pandemic were 57.8 33 in the whole cohort, 65.3 +/- 29.1 in medical doctors, and 73.6 +/- 27.7 in paramedical staff. Healthcare professionals and especially paramedical staff had the highest levels of stress (p < 0.001 vs non-healthcare workers). Across all occupational categories, women had systematically significantly higher levels of work-related stress than men (p < 0.001). There was a negative correlation between age and stress level (r = -0.098, p < 0.001). Healthcare professionals demonstrated an increased risk of very-high stress levels (>80) compared to other workers (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.87-2.41). Paramedical staff risk for very-high levels of stress was higher than doctors' (1.88, 1.50-2.34). The risk of high levels of stress also increased in women (1.83, 1.61-2.09; p < 0.001 vs. men) and in people aged <50 (1.45, 1.26-1.66; p < 0.001 vs. aged >50).ConclusionsThe first wave of the pandemic was a major stressful event for healthcare workers, especially paramedical staff. Among individuals, women were the most at risk while age was a protective factor