GHb Level and Subsequent Mortality Among Adults in the U.S.

OBJECTIVE To examine the association of hyperglycemia, as measured by GHb, with subsequent mortality in a nationally representative sample of adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We included adults aged ≥20 years who participated in Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (1988–1994) and had complete information, including baseline diabetes status by self-report and measured GHb (n = 19,025) and follow-up through the end of 2000 for mortality. RESULTS In the overall population, higher levels of GHb were associated with increased risk of mortality from all causes, heart disease, and cancer. After adjustment for potential risk factors, the relative hazard (RH) for adults with GHb ≥8% compared with adults with GHb <6% was 2.59 (95% CI 1.88–3.56) for all-cause mortality, 3.38 (1.98–5.77) for heart disease mortality, and 2.64 (1.17–5.97) for cancer mortality. Among adults with diagnosed diabetes, having GHb ≥8% compared with GHb <6% was associated with higher all-cause mortality (RH 1.68, 95% CI 1.03–2.74) and heart disease mortality (2.48, 1.09–5.64), but there was no increased risk of cancer mortality by GHb category. Among adults without diagnosed diabetes, there was no significant association of all-cause, heart disease, or cancer mortality and GHb category. CONCLUSIONS These results highlight the importance of GHb levels in mortality risk among a nationally representative sample of adults with and without diagnosed diabetes and indicate that higher levels are associated with increased mortality in adults with diabetes. Hperglycemia has been associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes for individuals with glucose values both above and below the threshold for diabetes, including increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality (1). Studies have consistently found undiagnosed diabetes to be associated with increased risk of mortality (2–4), and many studies have also shown levels of glucose that are elevated, but not enough for a diagnosis of diabetes, such as impaired fasting glucose, to be associated with increased mortality (2–4). However, most of these studies are based on fasting or postprandial glucose (1–4), and few are based on GHb levels (3,5–8). The GHb level may be a better indicator of hyperglycemia because it provides a measure of an individual's average glucose levels for the previous 3 months. Thus, it may provide a more stable snapshot of glucose levels when used in prospective cohort studies to examine the association of subsequent risk. Currently, GHb is monitored in the treatment of diabetes, and GHb targets for prevention of complications among individuals with diabetes have been established (9). Interest in the use of GHb for the diagnosis of diabetes is increasing (10), and an international effort is underway to standardize the measurement of GHb (11). This focus of GHb in clinical care measures (12) raises important questions about the long-term predictability of GHb. Examination of the relationship of GHb with mortality reveals several areas of uncertainty, including whether the relationship of GHb with mortality is similar among individuals with and without diabetes from both prospective cohort studies and clinical trials. A few prospective cohort studies have examined the association of GHb with risk of mortality (5–8) and shown an increased risk of mortality with increasing GHb level. Only two studies included individuals with diabetes, but these studies did not examine GHb levels by diabetes status, and none were representative of the general U.S. population. Recently published findings from three clinical trials among adults with diabetes have added to this uncertainty. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial showed that lower GHb levels increased risk of mortality and did not decrease CVD events (13). Whereas the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease—Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) study showed that lowering of GHb levels was associated with a decrease in micro- and macrovascular events and deaths from CVD (14) and the Veterans Administration Diabetes Trial reported that lower GHb levels were not associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events (15). These findings have not led to any changes in glycemic control recommendations (16). The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) is the first nationally representative survey to include a measure of GHb and has mortality status available through linkage to the National Death Index. The objective of this study was to examine the association of GHb with subsequent mortality in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults

Atypical depression is more common than melancholic in fibromyalgia: an observational cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been postulated that atypical and melancholic depression subtypes exist in depressed fibromyalgia (FM) patients, yet no study has empirically tested this hypothesis. The purpose of this study is to determine whether major depressive disorder (MDD) with atypical features and MDD with melancholic features occurs in a FM sample and to describe their demographic, clinical and diagnostic characteristics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An observational cohort study using a descriptive cross-sectional design recruited a convenience sample of 76 outpatients with FM from an academic Rheumatology clinic and a community mental health practice. Diagnoses of FM were confirmed using the 1990 ACR classification guidelines. Diagnoses of MDD and diagnostic subtypes were determined using the DSM-IV-TR criteria. Clinical characteristics were measured using the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale with Atypical Depression Supplement and other standardized instruments. Odds ratios were computed on subtype-specific diagnostic criteria. Correlations assessed associations between subtype diagnoses and diagnostic criteria.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 76 subjects with FM, 11.8% (n = 9) were euthymic, 52.6% (n = 40) met diagnostic criteria for MDD with atypical features and 35.6% (n = 27) for MDD with melancholic features. Groups did not differ on demographic characteristics except for gender (p = 0.01). The non-depressed and atypical groups trended toward having a longer duration of FM symptoms (18.05 yrs. ± 12.83; 20.36 yrs. ± 15.07) compared to the melancholic group (14.11 yrs. ± 8.82; p = 0.09). The two depressed groups experienced greater severity on all clinical features compared to the non-depressed group. The atypical group did not differ clinically from the melancholic group except the latter experienced greater depression severity (p = 0.001). The atypical group demonstrated the highest prevalence and correlations with atypical-specific diagnostic criteria: (e.g., weight gain/ increased appetite: OR = 3.5, p = 0.02), as did the melancholic group for melancholic-specific criteria: (e.g., anhedonia: OR = 20, p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Depressed fibromyalgia patients commonly experience both atypical and melancholic depressive features; however, in this study, atypical depression was 1.5 times more common than melancholic depression. This finding may have significant research and clinical implications.</p

Criteria for existence of Riesz bases consisting of root functions of Hill and 1D Dirac operators

We study the system of root functions (SRF) of Hill operator $Ly = -y^{\prime \prime} +vy$ with a singular potential $v \in H^{-1}_{per}$ and SRF of 1D Dirac operator Ly = i {pmatrix} 1 & 0 0 & -1 {pmatrix} \frac{dy}{dx} + vy with matrix $L^2$-potential v={pmatrix} 0 & P Q & 0 {pmatrix}, subject to periodic or anti-periodic boundary conditions. Series of necessary and sufficient conditions (in terms of Fourier coefficients of the potentials and related spectral gaps and deviations) for SRF to contain a Riesz basis are proven. Equiconvergence theorems are used to explain basis property of SRF in $L^p$-spaces and other rearrangement invariant function spaces

Factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies along the medical product lifecycle: a literature review

Industry, regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, and payers are exploring the use of patient preferences in their decision-making processes. In general, experience in conducting and assessing patient preference studies is limited. Here, we performed a systematic literature search and review to identify factors and situations influencing the value of patient preference studies, as well as applications throughout the medical product lifecyle. Factors and situations identified in 113 publications related to the organization, design, and conduct of studies, and to communication and use of results. Although current use of patient preferences is limited, we identified possible applications in discovery, clinical development, marketing authorization, HTA, and postmarketing phases. This study can inform different stakeholders on how to conduct, assess, and use patient preference studies and on when to include patient preference studies in development plans

How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making.Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022.Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators’ understanding of patients’ unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions.Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators’ experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations

FRAGMATIC: A randomised phase III clinical trial investigating the effect of fragmin® added to standard therapy in patients with lung cancer

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs when blood clots in the leg, pelvic or other deep vein (deep vein thrombosis) with or without transport of the thrombus into the pulmonary arterial circulation (pulmonary embolus). VTE is common in patients with cancer and is increased by surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and disease progression. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is routinely used to treat VTE and some evidence suggests that LMWH may also have an anticancer effect, by reduction in the incidence of metastases. The FRAGMATIC trial will assess the effect of adding dalteparin (FRAGMIN), a type of LMWH, to standard treatment for patients with lung cancer. Methods/Design The study design is a randomised multicentre phase III trial comparing standard treatment and standard treatment plus daily LMWH for 24 weeks in patients with lung cancer. Patients eligible for this study must have histopathological or cytological diagnosis of primary bronchial carcinoma (small cell or non-small cell) within 6 weeks of randomisation, be 18 or older, and must be willing and able to self-administer 5000 IU dalteparin by daily subcutaneous injection or have it administered to themselves or by a carer for 24 weeks. A total of 2200 patients will be recruited from all over the UK over a 3 year period and followed up for a minimum of 1 year after randomisation. Patients will be randomised to one of the two treatment groups in a 1:1 ratio, standard treatment or standard treatment plus dalteparin. The primary outcome measure of the trial is overall survival. The secondary outcome measures include venous thrombotic event (VTE) free survival, serious adverse events (SAEs), metastasis-free survival, toxicity, quality of life (QoL), levels of breathlessness, anxiety and depression, cost effectiveness and cost utility. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN8081276

The Prediabetic Period: Review of Clinical Aspects

Hyperglycemia that does not satisfy the diagnostic criteria for diabetes mellitus (DM) is generally called prediabetes (preDM). The global prevalence of preDM has been increasing progressively in the past few decades, and it has been established that preDM status is a strong risk factor for DM and cardiovascular disease. Currently, preDM status is classified into two subtypes: impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance. Currently, preDM is not regarded as an independent clinical entity, but only as a risk factor for others. In this article, we review various clinical aspects of preDM in terms of the working definition, changes in criteria over the years, epidemiology, and pathophysiological characteristics, and its clinical significance in current medicine

Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making. METHODS: A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international). RESULTS: From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients' valuations of treatment outcomes, patients' benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed

Selective Interaction of Syntaxin 1A with KCNQ2: Possible Implications for Specific Modulation of Presynaptic Activity

KCNQ2/KCNQ3 channels are the molecular correlates of the neuronal M-channels, which play a major role in the control of neuronal excitability. Notably, they differ from homomeric KCNQ2 channels in their distribution pattern within neurons, with unique expression of KCNQ2 in axons and nerve terminals. Here, combined reciprocal coimmunoprecipitation and two-electrode voltage clamp analyses in Xenopus oocytes revealed a strong association of syntaxin 1A, a major component of the exocytotic SNARE complex, with KCNQ2 homomeric channels resulting in a ∼2-fold reduction in macroscopic conductance and ∼2-fold slower activation kinetics. Remarkably, the interaction of KCNQ2/Q3 heteromeric channels with syntaxin 1A was significantly weaker and KCNQ3 homomeric channels were practically resistant to syntaxin 1A. Analysis of different KCNQ2 and KCNQ3 chimeras and deletion mutants combined with in-vitro binding analysis pinpointed a crucial C-terminal syntaxin 1A-association domain in KCNQ2. Pull-down and coimmunoprecipitation analyses in hippocampal and cortical synaptosomes demonstrated a physical interaction of brain KCNQ2 with syntaxin 1A, and confocal immunofluorescence microscopy showed high colocalization of KCNQ2 and syntaxin 1A at presynaptic varicosities. The selective interaction of syntaxin 1A with KCNQ2, combined with a numerical simulation of syntaxin 1A's impact in a firing-neuron model, suggest that syntaxin 1A's interaction is targeted at regulating KCNQ2 channels to fine-tune presynaptic transmitter release, without interfering with the function of KCNQ2/3 channels in neuronal firing frequency adaptation