Coronary collaterals and risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The benefit of the coronary collateral circulation (natural bypass network) on survival is well established. However, data derived from smaller studies indicates that coronary collaterals may increase the risk for restenosis after percutaneous coronary interventions. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was to explore the impact of the collateral circulation on the risk for restenosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science databases (2001 to 15 July 2011). Random effects models were used to calculate summary risk ratios (RR) for restenosis. The primary endpoint was angiographic restenosis > 50%.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 7 studies enrolling 1,425 subjects were integrated in this analysis. On average across studies, the presence of a good collateralization was predictive for restenosis (risk ratio (RR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.80); <it>P </it>= 0.009). This risk ratio was consistent in the subgroup analyses where collateralization was assessed with intracoronary pressure measurements (RR 1.37 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.83); <it>P </it>= 0.038) versus visual assessment (RR 1.41 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.99); <it>P </it>= 0.049). For the subgroup of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), the RR for restenosis with 'good collaterals' was 1.64 (95% CI 1.14 to 2.35) compared to 'poor collaterals' (<it>P </it>= 0.008). For patients with acute myocardial infarction, however, the RR for restenosis with 'good collateralization' was only 1.23 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.69); <it>P </it>= 0.212.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increased in patients with good coronary collateralization. Assessment of the coronary collateral circulation before PCI may be useful for risk stratification and for the choice of antiproliferative measures (drug-eluting stent instead bare-metal stent, cilostazol).</p

Safety and Adherence to Intermittent Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV-1 in African Men Who Have Sex with Men and Female Sex Workers

Background Little is known about safety of and adherence to intermittent HIV PrEP regimens, which may be more feasible than daily dosing in some settings. We present safety and adherence data from the first trial of an intermittent PrEP regimen among Kenyan men who have sex with men (MSM) and female sex workers (FSW). Methods/Principal Findings MSM and FSW were randomized to daily oral FTC/TDF or placebo, or intermittent (Monday, Friday and within 2 hours after sex, not to exceed one dose per day) oral FTC/TDF or placebo in a 2:1:2:1 ratio; volunteers were followed monthly for 4 months. Adherence was assessed with the medication event monitoring system (MEMS). Sexual activity data were collected via daily text message (SMS) queries and timeline followback interviews with a onemonth recall period. Sixty-seven men and 5 women were randomized into the study. Safety was similar among all groups. Median MEMS adherence rates were 83% [IQR: 63–92] for daily dosing and 55% [IQR:28–78] for fixed intermittent dosing (p = 0.003), while adherence to any post-coital doses was 26% [IQR:14–50]. SMS response rates were low, which may have impaired measurement of post-coital dosing adherence. Acceptability of PrEP was high, regardless of dosing regimen. Conclusions/Significance Adherence to intermittent dosing regimens, fixed doses, and in particular coitally-dependent doses, may be more difficult than adherence to daily dosing. However, intermittent dosing may still be appropriate for PrEP if intracellular drug levels, which correlate with prevention of HIV acquisition, can be attained with less than daily dosing and if barriers to adherence can be addressed. Additional drug level data, qualitative data on adherence barriers, and better methods to measure sexual activity are necessary to determine whether adherence to post-coital PrEP could be comparable to more standard regimens</p

The prevalence of stillbirths: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth rate is an important indicator of access to and quality of antenatal and delivery care. Obtaining overall estimates across various regions of the world is not straightforward due to variation in definitions, data collection methods and reporting. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of a range of pregnancy-related conditions including stillbirths and performed meta-analysis of the subset of studies reporting stillbirth rates. We examined variation across rates and used meta-regression techniques to explain observed variation. RESULTS: We identified 389 articles on stillbirth prevalence among the 2580 included in the systematic review. We included 70 providing 80 data sets from 50 countries in the meta-analysis. Pooled prevalence rates show variation across various subgroup categories. Rates per 100 births are higher in studies conducted in less developed country settings as compared to more developed (1.17 versus 0.50), of inadequate quality as compared to adequate (1.12 versus 0.66), using sub-national sample as compared to national (1.38 versus 0.68), reporting all stillbirths as compared to late stillbirths (0.95 versus 0.63), published in non-English as compared to English (0.91 versus 0.59) and as journal articles as compared to non-journal (1.37 versus 0.67). The results of the meta-regression show the significance of two predictor variables – development status of the setting and study quality – on stillbirth prevalence. CONCLUSION: Stillbirth prevalence at the community level is typically less than 1% in more developed parts of the world and could exceed 3% in less developed regions. Regular reviews of stillbirth rates in appropriately designed and reported studies are useful in monitoring the adequacy of care. Systematic reviews of prevalence studies are helpful in explaining sources of variation across rates. Exploring these methodological issues will lead to improved standards for assessing the burden of reproductive ill-health

What Is Stochastic Resonance? Definitions, Misconceptions, Debates, and Its Relevance to Biology

Stochastic resonance is said to be observed when increases in levels of unpredictable fluctuations—e.g., random noise—cause an increase in a metric of the quality of signal transmission or detection performance, rather than a decrease. This counterintuitive effect relies on system nonlinearities and on some parameter ranges being “suboptimal”. Stochastic resonance has been observed, quantified, and described in a plethora of physical and biological systems, including neurons. Being a topic of widespread multidisciplinary interest, the definition of stochastic resonance has evolved significantly over the last decade or so, leading to a number of debates, misunderstandings, and controversies. Perhaps the most important debate is whether the brain has evolved to utilize random noise in vivo, as part of the “neural code”. Surprisingly, this debate has been for the most part ignored by neuroscientists, despite much indirect evidence of a positive role for noise in the brain. We explore some of the reasons for this and argue why it would be more surprising if the brain did not exploit randomness provided by noise—via stochastic resonance or otherwise—than if it did. We also challenge neuroscientists and biologists, both computational and experimental, to embrace a very broad definition of stochastic resonance in terms of signal-processing “noise benefits”, and to devise experiments aimed at verifying that random variability can play a functional role in the brain, nervous system, or other areas of biology

Global age-sex-specific fertility, mortality, healthy life expectancy (HALE), and population estimates in 204 countries and territories, 1950-2019 : a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Accurate and up-to-date assessment of demographic metrics is crucial for understanding a wide range of social, economic, and public health issues that affect populations worldwide. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 produced updated and comprehensive demographic assessments of the key indicators of fertility, mortality, migration, and population for 204 countries and territories and selected subnational locations from 1950 to 2019. Methods 8078 country-years of vital registration and sample registration data, 938 surveys, 349 censuses, and 238 other sources were identified and used to estimate age-specific fertility. Spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression (ST-GPR) was used to generate age-specific fertility rates for 5-year age groups between ages 15 and 49 years. With extensions to age groups 10-14 and 50-54 years, the total fertility rate (TFR) was then aggregated using the estimated age-specific fertility between ages 10 and 54 years. 7417 sources were used for under-5 mortality estimation and 7355 for adult mortality. ST-GPR was used to synthesise data sources after correction for known biases. Adult mortality was measured as the probability of death between ages 15 and 60 years based on vital registration, sample registration, and sibling histories, and was also estimated using ST-GPR. HIV-free life tables were then estimated using estimates of under-5 and adult mortality rates using a relational model life table system created for GBD, which closely tracks observed age-specific mortality rates from complete vital registration when available. Independent estimates of HIV-specific mortality generated by an epidemiological analysis of HIV prevalence surveys and antenatal clinic serosurveillance and other sources were incorporated into the estimates in countries with large epidemics. Annual and single-year age estimates of net migration and population for each country and territory were generated using a Bayesian hierarchical cohort component model that analysed estimated age-specific fertility and mortality rates along with 1250 censuses and 747 population registry years. We classified location-years into seven categories on the basis of the natural rate of increase in population (calculated by subtracting the crude death rate from the crude birth rate) and the net migration rate. We computed healthy life expectancy (HALE) using years lived with disability (YLDs) per capita, life tables, and standard demographic methods. Uncertainty was propagated throughout the demographic estimation process, including fertility, mortality, and population, with 1000 draw-level estimates produced for each metric. Findings The global TFR decreased from 2.72 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 2.66-2.79) in 2000 to 2.31 (2.17-2.46) in 2019. Global annual livebirths increased from 134.5 million (131.5-137.8) in 2000 to a peak of 139.6 million (133.0-146.9) in 2016. Global livebirths then declined to 135.3 million (127.2-144.1) in 2019. Of the 204 countries and territories included in this study, in 2019, 102 had a TFR lower than 2.1, which is considered a good approximation of replacement-level fertility. All countries in sub-Saharan Africa had TFRs above replacement level in 2019 and accounted for 27.1% (95% UI 26.4-27.8) of global livebirths. Global life expectancy at birth increased from 67.2 years (95% UI 66.8-67.6) in 2000 to 73.5 years (72.8-74.3) in 2019. The total number of deaths increased from 50.7 million (49.5-51.9) in 2000 to 56.5 million (53.7-59.2) in 2019. Under-5 deaths declined from 9.6 million (9.1-10.3) in 2000 to 5.0 million (4.3-6.0) in 2019. Global population increased by 25.7%, from 6.2 billion (6.0-6.3) in 2000 to 7.7 billion (7.5-8.0) in 2019. In 2019, 34 countries had negative natural rates of increase; in 17 of these, the population declined because immigration was not sufficient to counteract the negative rate of decline. Globally, HALE increased from 58.6 years (56.1-60.8) in 2000 to 63.5 years (60.8-66.1) in 2019. HALE increased in 202 of 204 countries and territories between 2000 and 2019. Interpretation Over the past 20 years, fertility rates have been dropping steadily and life expectancy has been increasing, with few exceptions. Much of this change follows historical patterns linking social and economic determinants, such as those captured by the GBD Socio-demographic Index, with demographic outcomes. More recently, several countries have experienced a combination of low fertility and stagnating improvement in mortality rates, pushing more populations into the late stages of the demographic transition. Tracking demographic change and the emergence of new patterns will be essential for global health monitoring. Copyright (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

Five insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a rules-based synthesis of the available evidence on levels and trends in health outcomes, a diverse set of risk factors, and health system responses. GBD 2019 covered 204 countries and territories, as well as first administrative level disaggregations for 22 countries, from 1990 to 2019. Because GBD is highly standardised and comprehensive, spanning both fatal and non-fatal outcomes, and uses a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of hierarchical disease and injury causes, the study provides a powerful basis for detailed and broad insights on global health trends and emerging challenges. GBD 2019 incorporates data from 281 586 sources and provides more than 3.5 billion estimates of health outcome and health system measures of interest for global, national, and subnational policy dialogue. All GBD estimates are publicly available and adhere to the Guidelines on Accurate and Transparent Health Estimate Reporting. From this vast amount of information, five key insights that are important for health, social, and economic development strategies have been distilled. These insights are subject to the many limitations outlined in each of the component GBD capstone papers.Peer reviewe