Non-AIDS defining cancers in the D:A:D Study-time trends and predictors of survival : a cohort study

BACKGROUND:Non-AIDS defining cancers (NADC) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in HIV-positive individuals. Using data from a large international cohort of HIV-positive individuals, we described the incidence of NADC from 2004-2010, and described subsequent mortality and predictors of these.METHODS:Individuals were followed from 1st January 2004/enrolment in study, until the earliest of a new NADC, 1st February 2010, death or six months after the patient's last visit. Incidence rates were estimated for each year of follow-up, overall and stratified by gender, age and mode of HIV acquisition. Cumulative risk of mortality following NADC diagnosis was summarised using Kaplan-Meier methods, with follow-up for these analyses from the date of NADC diagnosis until the patient's death, 1st February 2010 or 6 months after the patient's last visit. Factors associated with mortality following NADC diagnosis were identified using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.RESULTS:Over 176,775 person-years (PY), 880 (2.1%) patients developed a new NADC (incidence: 4.98/1000PY [95% confidence interval 4.65, 5.31]). Over a third of these patients (327, 37.2%) had died by 1st February 2010. Time trends for lung cancer, anal cancer and Hodgkin's lymphoma were broadly consistent. Kaplan-Meier cumulative mortality estimates at 1, 3 and 5 years after NADC diagnosis were 28.2% [95% CI 25.1-31.2], 42.0% [38.2-45.8] and 47.3% [42.4-52.2], respectively. Significant predictors of poorer survival after diagnosis of NADC were lung cancer (compared to other cancer types), male gender, non-white ethnicity, and smoking status. Later year of diagnosis and higher CD4 count at NADC diagnosis were associated with improved survival. The incidence of NADC remained stable over the period 2004-2010 in this large observational cohort.CONCLUSIONS:The prognosis after diagnosis of NADC, in particular lung cancer and disseminated cancer, is poor but has improved somewhat over time. Modifiable risk factors, such as smoking and low CD4 counts, were associated with mortality following a diagnosis of NADC

Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra

Chronic heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) commonly coexist. Each condition increases the likelihood of developing the other, and when they occur together in the same patient the risk of morbidity and mortality increases markedly. We discuss the epidemiological overlap and consider the complex patho-physiological pathways linking the two diseases. The treatment of each condition is made more problematic by the presence of the other. We review the evidence-based treatment strategies and discuss the common problems faced by physicians when treating patients with both conditions. This article forms a comprehensive overview of a fascinating intersection between two common diseases

Effects of tezosentan on symptoms and clinical outcomes in patients with acute heart failure: the VERITAS Randomized controlled trials

Context: Plasma concentrations of the vasoconstrictor peptide endothelin-1 are increased in patients with heart failure, and higher concentrations are associated with worse outcomes. Tezosentan is an intravenous short-acting endothelin receptor antagonist that has favorable hemodynamic actions in heart failure. Objective: To determine if tezosentan improves outcomes in patients with acute heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Value of Endothelin Receptor Inhibition With Tezosentan in Acute Heart Failure Studies, 2 independent, identical, and concurrent randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials conducted from April 2003 through January 2005 at sites in Australia, Europe, Israel, and North America. Patients admitted within the previous 24 hours with persisting dyspnea and a respiratory rate of 24/min or greater were eligible provided they fulfilled 2 of 4 criteria: (1) elevated plasma concentrations of B-type or N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide, (2) clinical pulmonary edema, (3) radiologic pulmonary congestion or edema, or (4) left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Intervention:Infusion of tezosentan (5 mg/h for 30 minutes, followed by 1 mg/h for 24 to 72 hours [n = 730]) or placebo (n = 718). Main Outcome Measures: The coprimary end points were change in dyspnea (measured at 3, 6, and 24 hours using a visual analog scale from 0-100) over 24 hours (as area under the curve) in the individual trials and incidence of death or worsening heart failure at 7 days in both trials combined. Results: Of the 1435 patients who received treatment as assigned, 855 (60%) were men; mean age was 70 years. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (measured in 779 patients [54%]) was 29% (SD, 11%). Baseline dyspnea scores were similar in the 2 treatment groups. Tezosentan did not improve dyspnea more than placebo in either trial, with a mean treatment difference of −12 (95% confidence interval [CI], −105 to 81) mm · h (P = .80) in the first trial and −25 (95% CI, −119 to 69) mm · h (P = .60) in the second. The incidence of death or worsening heart failure at 7 days in the combined trials was 26% in each treatment group (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.21; P = .95). Conclusion: The endothelin receptor antagonist tezosentan did not improve symptoms or clinical outcomes in patients with acute heart failure