27 research outputs found
Effect of Tobacco Smoking on The Clinical, Histopathological, and Serological Manifestations of Sjögren’s Syndrome
The authors wish to thank Dr. A. Darise Farris for her critical review of the cellular immune response discussion.Objectives To assess the association of smoking habits with the clinical, serological, and histopathological manifestations of Sjögren’s syndrome (SS) and non-Sjögren’s sicca (non-SS sicca). Methods Cross-sectional case-control study of 1288 patients with sicca symptoms (587 SS and 701 non-SS sicca) evaluated in a multi-disciplinary research clinic. Smoking patterns were obtained from questionnaire data and disease-related clinical and laboratory data were compared between current, past, ever, and never smokers. Results Current smoking rates were 4.6% for SS patients compared to 14.1% in non-SS sicca (p = 5.17x10E-09), 18% in a local lupus cohort (p = 1.13x10E-14) and 16.8% in the community (p = 4.12x10E-15). Current smoking was protective against SS classification (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.22–0.56, FDR q = 1.9E10-05), focal lymphocytic sialadenitis (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.15–0.44, FDR q = 1.52x10E-06), focus score ≥1 (OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.13–0.39, FDR q = 1.43x10E-07), and anti-Ro/SSA(+) (OR 0.36, 95%CI 0.2–0.64, FDR q = 0.0009); ever smoking was protective against the same features and against anti-La/SSB(+) (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.39–0.70, FDR q = 5.82x10E-05). Duration of smoking was inversely correlated with SS even after controlling for socioeconomic status, BMI, alcohol and caffeine consumption. Conclusions Current tobacco smoking is negatively and independently associated with SS, protecting against disease-associated humoral and cellular autoimmunity. The overall smoking rate amongst SS patients is significantly lower than in matched populations and the effects of smoking are proportional to exposure duration. In spite of the protective effects of tobacco on SS manifestations, it is associated with other serious comorbidities such as lung disease, cardiovascular risk and malignancy, and should thus be strongly discouraged in patients with sicca.Yeshttp://www.plosone.org/static/editorial#pee
Midwives' knowledge, attitudes and practice about alcohol exposure and the risk of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder
Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials
Background
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for early breast cancer can make breast-conserving surgery more feasible and might be more likely to eradicate micrometastatic disease than might the same chemotherapy given after surgery. We investigated the long-term benefits and risks of NACT and the influence of tumour characteristics on outcome with a collaborative meta-analysis of individual patient data from relevant randomised trials.
Methods
We obtained information about prerandomisation tumour characteristics, clinical tumour response, surgery, recurrence, and mortality for 4756 women in ten randomised trials in early breast cancer that began before 2005 and compared NACT with the same chemotherapy given postoperatively. Primary outcomes were tumour response, extent of local therapy, local and distant recurrence, breast cancer death, and overall mortality. Analyses by intention-to-treat used standard regression (for response and frequency of breast-conserving therapy) and log-rank methods (for recurrence and mortality).
Findings
Patients entered the trials from 1983 to 2002 and median follow-up was 9 years (IQR 5–14), with the last follow-up in 2013. Most chemotherapy was anthracycline based (3838 [81%] of 4756 women). More than two thirds (1349 [69%] of 1947) of women allocated NACT had a complete or partial clinical response. Patients allocated NACT had an increased frequency of breast-conserving therapy (1504 [65%] of 2320 treated with NACT vs 1135 [49%] of 2318 treated with adjuvant chemotherapy). NACT was associated with more frequent local recurrence than was adjuvant chemotherapy: the 15 year local recurrence was 21·4% for NACT versus 15·9% for adjuvant chemotherapy (5·5% increase [95% CI 2·4–8·6]; rate ratio 1·37 [95% CI 1·17–1·61]; p=0·0001). No significant difference between NACT and adjuvant chemotherapy was noted for distant recurrence (15 year risk 38·2% for NACT vs 38·0% for adjuvant chemotherapy; rate ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·92–1·14]; p=0·66), breast cancer mortality (34·4% vs 33·7%; 1·06 [0·95–1·18]; p=0·31), or death from any cause (40·9% vs 41·2%; 1·04 [0·94–1·15]; p=0·45).
Interpretation
Tumours downsized by NACT might have higher local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy than might tumours of the same dimensions in women who have not received NACT. Strategies to mitigate the increased local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy in tumours downsized by NACT should be considered—eg, careful tumour localisation, detailed pathological assessment, and appropriate radiotherapy