49 research outputs found

    Effect of allergen-specific immunotherapy with purified Alt a1 on AMP responsiveness, exhaled nitric oxide and exhaled breath condensate pH: a randomized double blind study

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Little information is available on the effect of allergen-specific immunotherapy on airway responsiveness and markers in exhaled air. The aims of this study were to assess the safety of immunotherapy with purified natural Alt a1 and its effect on airway responsiveness to direct and indirect bronchoconstrictor agents and markers in exhaled air.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a randomized double-blind trial. Subjects with allergic rhinitis with or without mild/moderate asthma sensitized to <it>A alternata </it>and who also had a positive skin prick test to Alt a1 were randomized to treatment with placebo (n = 18) or purified natural Alt a1 (n = 22) subcutaneously for 12 months. Bronchial responsiveness to adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) and methacholine, exhaled nitric oxide (ENO), exhaled breath condensate (EBC) pH, and serum Alt a1-specific IgG<sub>4 </sub>antibodies were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. Local and systemic adverse events were also registered.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean (95% CI) allergen-specific IgG<sub>4 </sub>value for the active treatment group increased from 0.07 μg/mL (0.03-0.11) at baseline to 1.21 μg/mL (0.69-1.73, P < 0.001) at 6 months and to 1.62 μg/mL (1.02-2.22, P < 0.001) at 12 months of treatment. In the placebo group, IgG<sub>4 </sub>value increased nonsignificantly from 0.09 μg/mL (0.06-0.12) at baseline to 0.13 μg/mL (0.07-0.18) at 6 months and to 0.11 μg/mL (0.07-0.15) at 12 months of treatment. Changes in the active treatment group were significantly higher than in the placebo group both at 6 months (P < 0.001) and at 12 months of treatment (P < 0.0001). However, changes in AMP and methacholine responsiveness, ENO and EBC pH levels were not significantly different between treatment groups. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between the treatment groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although allergen-specific immunotherapy with purified natural Alt a1 is well tolerated and induces an allergen-specific IgG<sub>4 </sub>response, treatment is not associated with changes in AMP or methacholine responsiveness or with significant improvements in markers of inflammation in exhaled air. These findings suggest dissociation between the immunotherapy-induced increase in IgG<sub>4 </sub>levels and its effect on airway responsiveness and inflammation.</p

    Design and baseline characteristics of the finerenone in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in diabetic kidney disease trial

    Get PDF
    Background: Among people with diabetes, those with kidney disease have exceptionally high rates of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality and progression of their underlying kidney disease. Finerenone is a novel, nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist that has shown to reduce albuminuria in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) while revealing only a low risk of hyperkalemia. However, the effect of finerenone on CV and renal outcomes has not yet been investigated in long-term trials. Patients and Methods: The Finerenone in Reducing CV Mortality and Morbidity in Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD) trial aims to assess the efficacy and safety of finerenone compared to placebo at reducing clinically important CV and renal outcomes in T2D patients with CKD. FIGARO-DKD is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, event-driven trial running in 47 countries with an expected duration of approximately 6 years. FIGARO-DKD randomized 7,437 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate >= 25 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and albuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio >= 30 to <= 5,000 mg/g). The study has at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in the risk of the primary outcome (overall two-sided significance level alpha = 0.05), the composite of time to first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Conclusions: FIGARO-DKD will determine whether an optimally treated cohort of T2D patients with CKD at high risk of CV and renal events will experience cardiorenal benefits with the addition of finerenone to their treatment regimen. Trial Registration: EudraCT number: 2015-000950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02545049

    Which estimate of mean arterial pressure is to be used for adjustment for pulse wave velocity?

    No full text

    Impact of calibration on estimates of central blood pressure

    No full text

    Impact of calibration on estimates of central blood pressures

    Get PDF
    Using the Sphygmocor device it is recommended that the radial pressure wave is calibrated for brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). However it has been suggested that brachial-to-radial pressure amplification causes underestimation of central blood pressures (BPs) using this calibration. In the present study we examined if different calibrations had an impact on estimates of central BPs and on the clinical interpretation of our results. On the basis of ambulatory BP measurements, patients were categorized into patients with controlled, uncontrolled or resistant hypertension. We first calibrated the radial pressure wave as recommended and afterwards recalibrated the same pressure wave using brachial DBP and calculated mean arterial pressure. Recalibration of the pressure wave generated significantly higher estimates of central SBP (P = 0.0003 and P<0.0001 at baseline and P<0.0001 and P = 0.0002 after 6 months). Using recommended calibration we found a significant change in central SBP in both treatment groups (P = 0.05 and P = 0.01), however, after recalibrating significance was lost in patients with resistant hypertension (P = 0.15). We conclude that calibration with DBP and mean arterial pressure produces higher estimates of central BPs than recommended calibration. The present study also shows that this difference between the two calibration methods can produce more than a systematic error and has an impact on interpretation of clinical results
    corecore