Office wall color influence on subjective response in patients with chronic heart failure

Heart failure is defined as a clinical state, which occurs as a result of structural or functional damage of ventricle with consequential blood hypo perfusion of organs (reduced stroke volume of heart muscle and/or increased intracardial pressure in rest or during work activity). Therapeutical monitoring of patient is imperative, and it includes assessment of objective and subjective state of patient, which is often guide for optimizing of pharmacological treatment. The aim of paper is assessment of the room wall color influence as one of the factor for optimizing the therapeutic modality of patients with diagnosis of heart failure. Findings suggest that the influence of color in environment can be neutral, enabling or disabling, and this is the aspect of treatment that needs to be investigated further in future.&nbsp

Biomechanical analysis of three-point shot in basketball

Background: A precise three-point shot (3S) is considered a key parameter of success in a basketball game, and therefore the factors that affect its success have always attracted the attention of researchers. Aim: The aim of this research was a biomechanical-mathematical analysis of 3S in basketball, in order to determine the key parameters for performing a 3S. Results: The research shows a model of shooting a basketball player from the central position of the shot with 6.75 m. The modeling led to the conclusion that the height of the throw, the speed and the angle of the throw of the ball have a positive and direct relationship with the angle at which the ball falls into the basket when it comes to a shot for three points. Conclusion: The height of the throw, the speed and the angle of the ball have a positive and direct relationship with the angle at which the ball hits the basket when it comes to a shot for three points. Anthropometric characteristics of the player, such as the length of the arm, and the height of the player, directly lead to a positive relationship with the throwing angle

Efficacy and safety of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in Chinese patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: a phase II study

Abstract Background This phase II bridging study assessed the safety and efficacy of nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Clinical Trial [MPACT] regimen) in Chinese patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). Methods This 3-part sequential study evaluated nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Part 1 evaluated safety. Part 2 evaluated efficacy using Simon’s optimal 2-stage design: if >2 responses were observed in Stage 1 (n = 28), 54 additional patients would be enrolled in Stage 2. If >9 responses were observed, the study was complete. Otherwise, nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine would be compared with gemcitabine alone in Part 3. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results Eighty-three patients were treated. The prespecified primary endpoint was met: the independently assessed ORR in Stages 1 + 2 was 35% (95% CI, 24.8–46.2); therefore, Part 3 was not initiated. The median DOR was 8.9 months (95% CI, 6.01–8.94). The median OS and progression-free survival were 9.2 (95% CI, 7.6–11.1) and 5.5 (95% CI, 5.29–7.16) months, respectively. The 12-month OS rate was 30%. In an updated analysis, the median OS was 9.3 months and the 12-month OS rate was 32%. Longer OS was observed in patients with baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≤ 5 vs > 5. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were leukopenia (35%), neutropenia (34%), anemia (15%), thrombocytopenia (10%), and fatigue (13%). Grade 3 peripheral neuropathy occurred in 7% of patients (no grade 4 reported). Conclusions The MPACT regimen of nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine is efficacious in Chinese patients with MPC. No new safety signals were observed. Trial registration NCT02135822 , May 8, 2014

Nivolumab versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 459): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background: Single-agent nivolumab showed durable responses, manageable safety, and promising survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the phase 1-2 CheckMate 040 study. We aimed to investigate nivolumab monotherapy compared with sorafenib monotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at medical centres across 22 countries and territories in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America, patients at least 18 years old with histologically confirmed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for, or whose disease had progressed after, surgery or locoregional treatment; with no previous systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, with Child-Pugh class A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and regardless of viral hepatitis status were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02576509. Findings: Between Jan 11, 2016, and May 24, 2017, 743 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (nivolumab, n=371; sorafenib, n=372). At the primary analysis, the median follow-up for overall survival was 15·2 months (IQR 5·7-28·0) for the nivolumab group and 13·4 months (5·7-25·9) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 16·4 months (95% CI 13·9-18·4) with nivolumab and 14·7 months (11·9-17·2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·72-1·02]; p=0·075; minimum follow-up 22·8 months); the protocol-defined significance level of p=0·0419 was not reached. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (1 [<1%] of 367 patients in the nivolumab group vs 52 [14%] of patients in the sorafenib group), aspartate aminotransferase increase (22 [6%] vs 13 [4%]), and hypertension (0 vs 26 [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. Four deaths in the nivolumab group and one death in the sorafenib group were assessed as treatment related. Interpretation: First-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve overall survival compared with sorafenib, but clinical activity and a favourable safety profile were observed in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, nivolumab might be considered a therapeutic option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs are contraindicated or have substantial risks