Using the XML Key Management Specification (and breaking X.509 rules as you go)

Abstract. Implementing X.509 based public-key infrastructure requires following a complex set of rules to establish if a public key certificate is valid. The XML Key Management Specification has been developed as one way in which the implementation burden can be reduced by moving some of this complexity from clients and onto a server. In this paper we give a brief overview of the XML key management specification standard, and describe how, in addition to the above, this system also provides us with the means to sensibly break many of the rules specified for X.509 based public key infrastructure

ELABORAÇÃO E MONITORAMENTO DE CRONOGRAMA EM PROJETO COM RESTRIÇÃO DE PRAZO EM UMA INSTITUIÇÃO DE ENSINO E PESQUISA

O prazo de execução vem se caracterizando como uma significativa restrição em vários projetos. Considerado isso, um ingrediente fundamental para a sua conclusão, respeitando-se os limites restritivos do tempo, passa pela escolha do método mais adequado ao desenvolvimento do seu cronograma.  No contexto de um laboratório de pesquisa de P&D em uma universidade pública, este relato técnico valeu-se da estratégia de pesquisa-ação para analisar o problema apresentado. A conclusão aponta para o Método da Corrente Crítica como mais adequado ao desenvolvimento de cronograma no caso específico, dadas as particularidades do ambiente e do projeto, no entanto, não descarta a necessidade de mais investigações em projetos desta natureza. Palavras-chave: Cronograma de projetos. Método da Corrente Crítica. Método do Caminho Crítico. Restrição de prazo

Development of appropriateness explicit criteria for cataract extraction by phacoemulsification

BACKGROUND: Consensus development techniques were used in the late 1980s to create explicit criteria for the appropriateness of cataract extraction. We developed a new appropriateness of indications tool for cataract following the RAND method. We tested the validity of our panel results. METHODS: Criteria were developed using a modified Delphi panel judgment process. A panel of 12 ophthalmologists was assembled. Ratings were analyzed regarding the level of agreement among panelists. We studied the influence of all variables on the final panel score using linear and logistic regression models. The explicit criteria developed were summarized by classification and regression tree analysis. RESULTS: Of the 765 indications evaluated by the main panel in the second round, 32.9% were found appropriate, 30.1% uncertain, and 37% inappropriate. Agreement was found in 53% of the indications and disagreement in 0.9%. Seven variables were considered to create the indications and divided into three groups: simple cataract, with diabetic retinopathy, or with other ocular pathologies. The preoperative visual acuity in the cataractous eye and visual function were the variables that best explained the panel scoring. The panel results were synthesized and presented in three decision trees. Misclassification error in the decision trees, as compared with the panel original criteria, was 5.3%. CONCLUSION: The parameters tested showed acceptable validity for an evaluation tool. These results support the use of this indication algorithm as a screening tool for assessing the appropriateness of cataract extraction in field studies and for the development of practice guidelines

Palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in hormonal receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative, aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer: a phase III randomised controlled trial—PEARL

Background: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) is the standard treatment of hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, its efficacy has not been compared with that of chemotherapy in a phase III trial. Patients and methods: PEARL is a multicentre, phase III randomised study in which patients with aromatase inhibitor (AI)-resistant MBC were included in two consecutive cohorts. In cohort 1, patients were randomised 1 : 1 to palbociclib plus exemestane or capecitabine. On discovering new evidence about estrogen receptor-1 (ESR1) mutations inducing resistance to AIs, the trial was amended to include cohort 2, in which patients were randomised 1 : 1 between palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine. The stratification criteria were disease site, prior sensitivity to ET, prior chemotherapy for MBC, and country of origin. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort 2 and in wild-type ESR1 patients (cohort 1 + cohort 2). ESR1 hotspot mutations were analysed in baseline circulating tumour DNA. Results: From March 2014 to July 2018, 296 and 305 patients were included in cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. Palbociclib plus ET was not superior to capecitabine in both cohort 2 [median PFS: 7.5 versus 10.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.50] and wild-type ESR1 patients (median PFS: 8.0 versus 10.6 months; aHR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.41). The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities with palbociclib plus exemestane, palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine, respectively, were neutropenia (57.4%, 55.7% and 5.5%), hand/foot syndrome (0%, 0% and 23.5%), and diarrhoea (1.3%, 1.3% and 7.6%). Palbociclib plus ET offered better quality of life (aHR for time to deterioration of global health status: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.53-0.85). Conclusions: There was no statistical superiority of palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine with respect to PFS in MBC patients resistant to AIs. Palbociclib plus ET showed a better safety profile and improved quality of life

MASked-unconTrolled hypERtension management based on office BP or on ambulatory blood pressure measurement (MASTER) Study: a randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION: Masked uncontrolled hypertension (MUCH) carries an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) complications and can be identified through combined use of office (O) and ambulatory (A) blood pressure (BP) monitoring (M) in treated patients. However, it is still debated whether the information carried by ABPM should be considered for MUCH management. Aim of the MASked-unconTrolled hypERtension management based on OBP or on ambulatory blood pressure measurement (MASTER) Study is to assess the impact on outcome of MUCH management based on OBPM or ABPM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MASTER is a 4-year prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint investigation. A total of 1240 treated hypertensive patients from about 40 secondary care clinical centres worldwide will be included -upon confirming presence of MUCH (repeated on treatment OBP <140/90 mm Hg, and at least one of the following: daytime ABP ≥135/85 mm Hg; night-time ABP ≥120/70 mm Hg; 24 hour ABP ≥130/80 mm Hg), and will be randomised to a management strategy based on OBPM (group 1) or on ABPM (group 2). Patients in group 1 will have OBP measured at 0, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months and taken as a guide for treatment; ABPM will be performed at randomisation and at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months but will not be used to take treatment decisions. Patients randomised to group 2 will have ABPM performed at randomisation and all scheduled visits as a guide to antihypertensive treatment. The effects of MUCH management strategy based on ABPM or on OBPM on CV and renal intermediate outcomes (changing left ventricular mass and microalbuminuria, coprimary outcomes) at 1 year and on CV events at 4 years and on changes in BP-related variables will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: MASTER study protocol has received approval by the ethical review board of Istituto Auxologico Italiano. The procedures set out in this protocol are in accordance with principles of Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Results will be published in accordance with the CONSORT statement in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02804074; Pre-results

Editor's Choice-2017 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS)

Document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries Endorsed by: the European Stroke Organization (ESO) The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) Authors/Task Force Members (a), Victor Aboyans (*), Jean- Baptiste Ricco (*), Marie- Louise E. L. Bartelink, Martin Bjorck, Marianne Brodmann, Tina Cohnert, Jean-Philippe Collet, Martin Czerny, Marco De Carlo, Sebastian Debus, Christine Espinola-Klein, Thomas Kahan, Serge Kownator, Lucia Mazzolai, A. Ross Naylor, Marco Roffi, Joachim Rother, Muriel Sprynger, Michal Tendera, Gunnar Tepe, Maarit Venermo, Charalambos Vlachopoulos, Ileana Desormais Document Reviewers (b), Petr Widimsky, Philippe Kolh, Stefan Agewall, Hector Bueno, Antonio Coca, Gert J. De Borst, Victoria Delgado, Florian Dick, Cetin Erol, Marc Ferrini, Stavros Kakkos, Hugo A. Katus, Juhani Knuuti, Jes Lindholt, Heinrich Mattle, Piotr Pieniazek, Massimo Francesco Piepoli, Dierk Scheinert, Horst Sievert, Iain Simpson, Jakub Sulzenko, Juan Tamargo, Lale Tokgozoglu, Adam Torbicki, Nikolaos Tsakountakis, Jose Tunon, Melina Vega de Ceniga, Stephan Windecker, Jose Luis ZamoranoPeer reviewe