Phase 3, Randomized, 20-Month Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Bimatoprost Implant in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (ARTEMIS 2)

Objective- To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of 10 and 15 µg bimatoprost implant in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). Methods- This randomized, 20-month, multicenter, masked, parallel-group, phase 3 trial enrolled 528 patients with OAG or OHT and an open iridocorneal angle inferiorly in the study eye. Study eyes were administered 10 or 15 µg bimatoprost implant on day 1, week 16, and week 32, or twice-daily topical timolol maleate 0.5%. Primary endpoints were IOP and IOP change from baseline through week 12. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and corneal endothelial cell density (CECD). Results- Both 10 and 15 µg bimatoprost implant met the primary endpoint of noninferiority to timolol in IOP lowering through 12 weeks. Mean IOP reductions from baseline ranged from 6.2–7.4, 6.5–7.8, and 6.1–6.7 mmHg through week 12 in the 10 µg implant, 15 µg implant, and timolol groups, respectively. IOP lowering was similar after the second and third implant administrations. Probabilities of requiring no IOP-lowering treatment for 1 year after the third administration were 77.5% (10 µg implant) and 79.0% (15 µg implant). The most common TEAE was conjunctival hyperemia, typically temporally associated with the administration procedure. Corneal TEAEs of interest (primarily corneal endothelial cell loss, corneal edema, and corneal touch) were more frequent with the 15 than the 10 µg implant and generally were reported after repeated administrations. Loss in mean CECD from baseline to month 20 was ~ 5% in 10 µg implant-treated eyes and ~ 1% in topical timolol-treated eyes. Visual field progression (change in the mean deviation from baseline) was reduced in the 10 µg implant group compared with the timolol group. Conclusions- The results corroborated the previous phase 3 study of the bimatoprost implant. The bimatoprost implant met the primary endpoint and effectively lowered IOP. The majority of patients required no additional treatment for 12 months after the third administration. The benefit-risk assessment favored the 10 over the 15 µg implant. Studies evaluating other administration regimens with reduced risk of corneal events are ongoing. The bimatoprost implant has the potential to improve adherence and reduce treatment burden in glaucoma

33 Questions about Triglycerides and Cardiovascular Effects: Expert Answers

Education professionals are concerned about the dropping levels of motivation and engagement students experience as they go through schooling. Sustained low motivation across the student population leads to increased dropout rates, which in turn leads to many detrimental consequences. The literature shows clear correlations between low self-efficacy and low motivation, alongside a lack of tools to address the problem. This thesis tested a student-centered intervention composed of a goal setting instrument, an expressive writing instrument, and several coping mechanisms. Self-efficacy was tested in eight 16-year-old Finnish students before and after the intervention using a validated self-efficacy scale. A thematic analysis was conducted to assess the importance and effects of each of the components of the intervention, and to account for external variables. All the participants showed an increase in self-efficacy after the intervention, which was attributed to be the main cause. The goal setting instrument was reported to have the strongest effect on self-efficacy, followed by the expressive writing instrument. The coping mechanisms showed null effects. The results suggest that the goal setting instrument causes new appraisals of the most influential source of self-efficacy: performance attainments. Additionally, expressive writing serves as a foundational previous step to goal setting. However, further research is required to confirm the validity of these findings. The small sample size, the strong localization, and the fact that self-efficacy is not directly observable, severely limit the results of the study. In addition, a longer study should be conducted to observe the durability of the effects of the intervention

33 Questions about Triglycerides and Cardiovascular Effects: Expert Answers

WOS: 000396440800002PubMed ID: 2844673

Cardiovascular Efficacy and Safety of Bococizumab in High-Risk Patients

BACKGROUN

Evaluation of lipoprotein(a) in the prevention and management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A survey among the Lipid Clinics Network

Background and aims: The European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Lipid Clinics Network promoted a survey in order to identify and understand how and when lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is tested and clinically evaluated in lipid clinics throughout Europe, and the challenges that may prevent evaluation from being carried out. Methods: This survey was divided into three areas of inquiry: background and clinical setting information of clinicians, questions for doctors who claimed not to measure Lp(a), in order to understand what were the reasons for not ordering the test, and questions for doctors who measure Lp(a), to investigate the use of this value in the management of patients. Results: A total of 151 centres clinicians filled in the survey, out of 226 invited. The proportion of clinicians who declare to routinely measure Lp(a) in clinical practice was 75.5%. The most common reasons for not ordering the Lp(a) test were the lack of reimbursement or of treatment options, the non-availability of Lp(a) test, and the high cost of performing the laboratory test. The availability of therapies targeting this lipoprotein would result in a greater propensity of clinicians to start testing Lp(a). Among those who declared to routinely measure Lp(a), the Lp(a) measurement is mostly requested to further stratify patients' cardiovascular risk, and half of them recognized 50 mg/dL (approx. 110 nmol/L) as the threshold for increased cardiovascular risk due. Conclusions: These results warrant for a great deal of effort from scientific societies to address the barriers that limit the routine use of the measurement of Lp(a) concentration and to recognise the importance of Lp(a) as a risk factor

Evaluation of lipoprotein(a) in the prevention and management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A survey among the Lipid Clinics Network

Background and aims: The European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Lipid Clinics Network promoted a survey in order to identify and understand how and when lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is tested and clinically evaluated in lipid clinics throughout Europe, and the challenges that may prevent evaluation from being carried out. Methods: This survey was divided into three areas of inquiry: background and clinical setting information of clinicians, questions for doctors who claimed not to measure Lp(a), in order to understand what were the reasons for not ordering the test, and questions for doctors who measure Lp(a), to investigate the use of this value in the management of patients.Results: A total of 151 centres clinicians filled in the survey, out of 226 invited. The proportion of clinicians who declare to routinely measure Lp(a) in clinical practice was 75.5%. The most common reasons for not ordering the Lp(a) test were the lack of reimbursement or of treatment options, the non-availability of Lp(a) test, and the high cost of performing the laboratory test. The availability of therapies targeting this lipoprotein would result in a greater propensity of clinicians to start testing Lp(a). Among those who declared to routinely measure Lp(a), the Lp(a) measurement is mostly requested to further stratify patients' cardiovascular risk, and half of them recognized 50 mg/dL (approx. 110 nmol/L) as the threshold for increased cardiovascular risk due.Conclusions: These results warrant for a great deal of effort from scientific societies to address the barriers that limit the routine use of the measurement of Lp(a) concentration and to recognise the importance of Lp(a) as a risk factor

A patient-based study on the adherence of physicians to guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes in Turkey.

Aims: To evaluate physicians' adherence to guidelines by Diabetes Study Group of The Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism of Turkey (SEMT)

Cardiovascular Efficacy and Safety of Bococizumab in High-Risk Patients

Bococizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin- kexin type 9 (PCSK9) and reduces levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of bococizumab in patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS In two parallel, multinational trials with different entry criteria for LDL cholesterol levels, we randomly assigned the 27,438 patients in the combined trials to receive bococizumab (at a dose of 150 mg) subcutaneously every 2 weeks or placebo. The primary end point was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina requiring urgent revascularization, or cardiovascular death; 93% of the patients were receiving statin therapy at baseline. The trials were stopped early after the sponsor elected to discontinue the development of bococizumab owing in part to the development of high rates of antidrug antibodies, as seen in data from other studies in the program. The median follow-up was 10 months. RESULTS At 14 weeks, patients in the combined trials had a mean change from baseline in LDL cholesterol levels of -56.0% in the bococizumab group and +2.9% in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -59.0 percentage points (P<0.001) and a median reduction from baseline of 64.2% (P<0.001). In the lower-risk, shorter-duration trial (in which the patients had a baseline LDL cholesterol level of ≥70 mg per deciliter [1.8 mmol per liter] and the median follow-up was 7 months), major cardiovascular events occurred in 173 patients each in the bococizumab group and the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.22; P = 0.94). In the higher-risk, longer-duration trial (in which the patients had a baseline LDL cholesterol level of ≥100 mg per deciliter [2.6 mmol per liter] and the median follow-up was 12 months), major cardiovascular events occurred in 179 and 224 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97; P = 0.02). The hazard ratio for the primary end point in the combined trials was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76 to 1.02; P = 0.08). Injection-site reactions were more common in the bococizumab group than in the placebo group (10.4% vs. 1.3%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In two randomized trials comparing the PCSK9 inhibitor bococizumab with placebo, bococizumab had no benefit with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events in the trial involving lower-risk patients but did have a significant benefit in the trial involving higher-risk patients