Association of APOE polymorphism with chronic kidney disease in a nationally representative sample: a Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) Genetic Study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Apolipoprotein E polymorphisms (<it>APOE</it>) have been associated with lowered glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with e2 allele conferring risk and e4 providing protection. However, few data are available in non-European ethnic groups or in a population-based cohort.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The authors analyzed 5,583 individuals from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) to determine association with estimated GFR by the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation and low-GFR cases. Low-GFR cases were defined as GFR <75 ml/min/1.73 m²; additionally, GFR was analyzed continuously.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In univariate analysis, the e4 allele was negatively associated with low-GFR cases in non-Hispanic whites, odds ratio (OR): 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60, 0.97. In whites, there was a significant association between increasing <it>APOE </it>score (indicating greater number of e2 alleles) and higher prevalence of low-GFR cases (OR: 1.21, 95%CI: 1.01, 1.45). Analysis of continuous GFR in whites found the e4 allele was associated with higher levels of continuous GFR (β-coefficient: 2.57 ml/min/1.73 m², 95%CI: 0.005, 5.14); in non-Hispanic blacks the e2 allele was associated with lower levels of continuous GFR (β-coefficient: -3.73 ml/min/1.73 m², 95%CI: -6.61, -0.84). <it>APOE </it>e2 and e4 alleles were rare and not associated with low-GFR cases or continuous GFR in Mexican Americans.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In conclusion, the authors observed a weak association between the <it>APOE </it>e4 allele and low-GFR cases and continuous GFR in non-Hispanic whites, and the <it>APOE </it>e2 allele and continuous GFR in non-Hispanic blacks, but found no association with either measure of kidney function in Mexican Americans. Larger studies including multiethnic groups are needed to determine the significance of this association.</p

International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ranking of universities and institutions has attracted wide attention recently. Several systems have been proposed that attempt to rank academic institutions worldwide.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We review the two most publicly visible ranking systems, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' and the Times Higher Education Supplement 'World University Rankings' and also briefly review other ranking systems that use different criteria. We assess the construct validity for educational and research excellence and the measurement validity of each of the proposed ranking criteria, and try to identify generic challenges in international ranking of universities and institutions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>None of the reviewed criteria for international ranking seems to have very good construct validity for both educational and research excellence, and most don't have very good construct validity even for just one of these two aspects of excellence. Measurement error for many items is also considerable or is not possible to determine due to lack of publication of the relevant data and methodology details. The concordance between the 2006 rankings by Shanghai and Times is modest at best, with only 133 universities shared in their top 200 lists. The examination of the existing international ranking systems suggests that generic challenges include adjustment for institutional size, definition of institutions, implications of average measurements of excellence versus measurements of extremes, adjustments for scientific field, time frame of measurement and allocation of credit for excellence.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Naïve lists of international institutional rankings that do not address these fundamental challenges with transparent methods are misleading and should be abandoned. We make some suggestions on how focused and standardized evaluations of excellence could be improved and placed in proper context.</p

Association between adherence to calcium-channel blocker and statin medications and likelihood of cardiovascular events among US managed care enrollees

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prior studies have found that patients taking single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) have greater likelihood of adherence at 6 months than those taking 2-pill calcium-channel blocker and statin combinations (CCB/statin). This study examines whether this adherence benefit results in fewer cardiovascular (CV) events.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data from the IMS LifeLink: US Health Plan Claims database, identifying adults already taking CCB or statin (but not both) who had an index event of either initiating treatment with SPAA or adding CCB to statin (or vice versa) between April 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005. Inclusion criteria included age 18+ years, continuously enrolled for minimum of 6 months prior and 18 months following treatment initiation, >1 diagnosis of hypertension, and no prescription claims for SPAA or added CCB or statin for 6 months prior. Exclusion criteria included >1 claim with missing or invalid days supplied, age 65+ years and not enrolled in Medicare Advantage, or history of prior CV events, cancer diagnosis, or chronic renal failure. The primary outcome measure was the rate of CV events (myocardial infarction, heart failure, angina, other ischemic heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, or revascularization procedure) from 6 to 18 months following index date, analyzed at three levels: 1) all adherent vs. non-adherent patients, 2) SPAA vs. dual-pill patients (regardless of adherence level), and 3) adherent SPAA, adherent dual-pill, and non-adherent SPAA patients vs. non-adherent dual-pill patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 1,537 SPAA patients, 56.5% were adherent at 6 months, compared with 21.4% of the 17,910 CCB/statin patients (p < 0.001). Logistic regression found SPAA patients more likely to be adherent (OR = 4.7, p < 0.001) than CCB/statin patients. In Cox proportional hazards models, being adherent to either regimen was associated with significantly lower risk of CV event (HR = 0.77, p = 0.003). A similar effect was seen for SPAA vs. CCB/statin patients (HR = 0.68, p = 0.02). In a combined model, the risk of CV events was significantly lower for adherent CCB/statin patients (HR = 0.79, p = 0.01) and adherent SPAA patients (HR = 0.61, p = 0.03) compared to non-adherent CCB/statin patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patients receiving SPAA rather than a 2-pill CCB/statin regimen are more likely to be adherent. In turn, adherence to CCB and statin medications is associated with lower risk of CV events in primary prevention patients.</p

Underrepresentation of Elderly People in Randomised Controlled Trials. The Example of Trials of 4 Widely Prescribed Drugs

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the representation of elderly people in published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We focused on trials of 4 medications--pioglitazone, rosuvastatin, risedronate, and valsartan-frequently used by elderly patients with chronic medical conditions. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We selected all reports of RCTs indexed in PubMed from 1966 to April 2008 evaluating one of the 4 medications of interest. Estimates of the community-based "on-treatment" population were from a national health insurance database (SNIIR-AM) covering approximately 86% of the population in France. From this database, we evaluated data claims from January 2006 to December 2007 for 1,958,716 patients who received one of the medications of interest for more than 6 months. Of the 155 RCT reports selected, only 3 studies were exclusively of elderly patients (2 assessing valsartan; 1 risedronate). In only 4 of 37 reports (10.8%) for pioglitazone, 4 of 22 (18.2%) for risedronate, 3 of 29 (10.3%) for rosuvastatine and 9 of 67 (13.4%) for valsartan, the proportion of patients aged 65 or older was within or above that treated in clinical practice. In 62.2% of the reports for pioglitazone, 40.9% for risedronate, 37.9% for rosuvastatine, and 70.2% for valsartan, the proportion of patients aged 65 or older was lower than half that in the treated population. The representation of elderly people did not differ by publication date or sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients are poorly represented in RCTs of drugs they are likely to receive

Effects of Eprosartan on Serum Metabolic Parameters in Patients with Essential Hypertension

The effect of the anti-hypertensive drug eprosartan on metabolic parameters is currently not extensively documented. We evaluated the effect of eprosartan on parameters involved in atherogenesis, oxidative stress and clotting activity. This open-label unblinded intervention study included 40 adult patients with essential hypertension taking eprosartan. Eprosartan significantly reduced by 8% (p<0.001) the systolic and by 13% (p<.001) the diastolic blood pressure, and in-creased by 24% the time needed to produce oxidative by-products (p=0.001), a marker of oxidative stress. In contrast, ep-rosartan did not alter 8-isoprostane (8-epiPGF2a) levels, another marker of oxidative stress. Additionally, eprosartan re-duced by 14% aspartate aminotransferase and by 21% then alanine aminotransferase activity, while it had a neutral effect on the lipid profile and apolipoprotein levels and did not influence glucose homeostasis, creatinine and uric acid levels. Eprosartan did not affect the clotting/fibrinolytic status (estimated by plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, tissue plasmino-gen activator and a2 antiplasmin levels), or the enzymatic activity of the lipoprotein associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2) and paraoxonase 1 (PON1). In conclusion, eprosartan should be mainly considered as an anti-hypertensive agent with neutral effects on most of the metabolic parameters in hypertensive patients