11 research outputs found

    CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR VARIANCE COMPONENTS IN ONE-WAY UNBALANCED DESIGNS

    Get PDF
    Consider the one way unbalanced components of variance model given by Yij = μ + Ai + Eij, (i = l, ... ,a, j = l, ... ,bi) where μ is an unknown constant parameter, Ai and Eij are independent normal random variables with zero means and variances σ2A and σ2E respectively, The problem is to obtain a confidence interval for σ2A with confidence coefficient greater than or equal to a specified 1 - α. Three new procedures for obtaining confidence intervals for σ2A are examined. These new methods are derived using unweighted means. These three methods are compared with a standard procedure based on confidence coefficients and expected widths .

    Improvement in Renal Function and Reduction in Serum Uric Acid with Intensive Statin Therapy in Older Patients: A Post Hoc Analysis of the SAGE Trial

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Improvement in renal function and decreases in serum uric acid (SUA) have been reported following prolonged high-intensity statin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor) therapy. This post hoc analysis of the SAGE trial examined the effect of intensive versus less intensive statin therapy on renal function, safety, and laboratory parameters, including SUA, in elderly coronary artery disease (CAD) patients (65–85 years) with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: Patients were randomized to atorvastatin 80 mg/day or pravastatin 40 mg/day and treated for 12 months. Patients were stratified using Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) in CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and non-CKD populations. RESULTS: Of the 893 patients randomized, 858 had complete renal data and 418 of 858 (49 %) had CKD (99 % Stage 3). Over 12 months, eGFR increased with atorvastatin and remained stable with pravastatin (+2.38 vs. +0.18 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively; p < 0.0001). MDRD eGFR improved significantly in both CKD treatment arms; however, the increased eGFR in patients without CKD was significantly greater with atorvastatin (+2.08 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) than with pravastatin (−1.04 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Modest reductions in SUA were observed in both treatment arms, but a greater fall occurred with atorvastatin than with pravastatin (−0.52 vs. −0.09 mg/dL, p < 0.0001). Change in SUA correlated negatively with changes in eGFR and positively with changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Reports of myalgia were rare (3.6 % CKD; 5.7 % non-CKD), and there were no episodes of rhabdomyolysis. Elevated serum alanine and aspartate transaminase to >3 times the upper limit of normal occurred in 4.4 % of atorvastatin- and 0.2 % of pravastatin-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Intensive management of dyslipidemia in older patients with stable coronary heart disease may have beneficial effects on renal function and SUA

    High-dose atorvastatin is superior to moderate-dose simvastatin in preventing peripheral arterial disease

    No full text
    To study whether high-dose versus usual-dose statin treatment reduces the incidence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and what is the effect of high-dose statin treatment on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcome in patients with PAD. In the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering trial, 8888 post-myocardial infarction patients were randomised to high-dose or usual-dose statin therapy (atorvastatin 80 mg/day vs simvastatin 20-40 mg/day). We investigated the effect of high-dose versus usual-dose statins on the pre-specified outcome PAD incidence, and additionally performed a posthoc analysis of the efficacy of high-dose statins in reducing CVD risk among patients with PAD. During a median follow-up of 4.8 years, 94 patients (2.2%) receiving atorvastatin and 135 patients (3.2%) receiving simvastatin developed PAD (HR=0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.91; p=0.007). The risk of major coronary events was almost twofold higher in patients with PAD at baseline, but was no longer significant after adjusting for the adverse cardiovascular risk profile. In PAD patients, major coronary events occurred in fewer patients in the atorvastatin group (14.4%) than in the simvastatin group (20.1%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. (HR=0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.11; p=0.13). Atorvastatin treatment significantly reduced overall cardiovascular (p=0.046) and coronary events (p=0.004), and coronary revascularisation (p=0.007) in these patients. High-dose statin therapy with atorvastatin significantly reduced the incidence of PAD compared with usual-dose statin therapy with simvastatin. Patients with a history of PAD at baseline were at higher risk of future coronary events and this risk was reduced by high-dose atorvastatin treatment. NCT00159835 (URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00159835

    Differential blood pressure effects of ibuprofen, naproxen, and celecoxib in patients with arthritis: the PRECISION-ABPM (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement) Trial

    Full text link
    Aims: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), both non-selective and selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, are among the most widely prescribed drugs worldwide, but associate with increased blood pressure (BP) and adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. PRECISION-ABPM, a substudy of PRECISION was conducted at 60 sites, to determine BP effects of the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib vs. the non-selective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen. Methods and results: In this double-blind, randomized, multicentre non-inferiority CV-safety trial, 444 patients (mean age 62 ± 10 years, 54% female) with osteoarthritis (92%) or rheumatoid arthritis (8%) and evidence of or at increased risk for coronary artery disease received celecoxib (100-200 mg bid), ibuprofen (600-800 mg tid), or naproxen (375-500 mg bid) with matching placebos in a 1: 1: 1 allocation, to assess the effect on 24-h ambulatory BP after 4 months. The change in mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP) in celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen-treated patients was -0.3 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.25, 1.74], 3.7 (95% CI, 1.72, 5.58) and 1.6 mmHg (95% CI, -0.40, 3.57), respectively. These changes resulted in a difference of - 3.9 mmHg (P = 0.0009) between celecoxib and ibuprofen, of - 1.8 mmHg (P = 0.12) between celecoxib and naproxen, and of - 2.1 mmHg (P = 0.08) between naproxen and ibuprofen. The percentage of patients with normal baseline BP who developed hypertension (mean 24-h SBP ≥ 130 and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) was 23.2% for ibuprofen, 19.0% for naproxen, and 10.3% for celecoxib (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.004 and odds ratio 0.49, P = 0.03 vs. ibuprofen and naproxen, respectively). Conclusions: In PRECISION-ABPM, allocation to the non-selective NSAID ibuprofen, compared with the COX-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib was associated with a significant increase of SBP, and a higher incidence of new-onset hypertension. ClinicalTrials: gov number NCT00346216
    corecore