Effect of atorvastatin on glycaemia progression in patients with diabetes:an analysis from the Collaborative Atorvastatin in Diabetes Trial (CARDS)

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: In an individual-level analysis we examined the effect of atorvastatin on glycaemia progression in type 2 diabetes and whether glycaemia effects reduce the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with atorvastatin. METHODS: The study population comprised 2,739 people taking part in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) who were randomised to receive atorvastatin 10 mg or placebo and who had post-randomisation HbA(1c) data. This secondary analysis used Cox regression to estimate the effect of atorvastatin on glycaemia progression, defined as an increase in HbA(1c) of ≥0.5% (5.5 mmol/mol) or intensification of diabetes therapy. Mixed models were used to estimate the effect of atorvastatin on HbA(1c) as a continuous endpoint. RESULTS: Glycaemia progression occurred in 73.6% of participants allocated placebo and 78.1% of those allocated atorvastatin (HR 1.18 [95% CI 1.08, 1.29], p < 0.001) by the end of follow-up. The HR was 1.22 (95% CI 1.19, 1.35) in men and 1.11 (95% CI 0.95, 1.29) in women (p = 0.098 for the sex interaction). A similar effect was seen in on-treatment analyses: HR 1.20 (95% CI 1.07, 1.35), p = 0.001. The net mean treatment effect on HbA(1c) was 0.14% (95% CI 0.08, 0.21) (1.5 mmol/mol). The effect did not increase through time. Diabetes treatment intensification alone did not differ with statin allocation. Neither baseline nor 1-year-attained HbA(1c) predicted subsequent CVD, and the atorvastatin effect on CVD did not vary by HbA(1c) change (interaction p value 0.229). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The effect of atorvastatin 10 mg on glycaemia progression among those with diabetes is statistically significant but very small, is not significantly different between sexes, does not increase with duration of statin and does not have an impact on the magnitude of CVD risk reduction with atorvastatin. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00125-015-3802-6) contains peer-reviewed but unedited supplementary material, which is available to authorised users

Why alternative teenagers self-harm: exploring the link between non-suicidal self-injury, attempted suicide and adolescent identity

Background: The term ‘self-harm’ encompasses both attempted suicide and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). Specific adolescent subpopulations such as ethnic or sexual minorities, and more controversially, those who identify as ‘Alternative’ (Goth, Emo) have been proposed as being more likely to self-harm, while other groups such as ‘Jocks’ are linked with protective coping behaviours (for example exercise). NSSI has autonomic (it reduces negative emotions) and social (it communicates distress or facilitates group ‘bonding’) functions. This study explores the links between such aspects of self-harm, primarily NSSI, and youth subculture.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Methods: An anonymous survey was carried out of 452 15 year old German school students. Measures included: identification with different youth cultures, i.e. Alternative (Goth, Emo, Punk), Nerd (academic) or Jock (athletic); social background, e.g. socioeconomic status; and experience of victimisation. Self-harm (suicide and NSSI) was assessed using Self-harm Behavior Questionnaire and the Functional Assessment of Self-Mutilation (FASM).&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Results: An “Alternative” identity was directly (r ≈ 0.3) and a “Jock” identity inversely (r ≈ -0.1) correlated with self-harm. “Alternative” teenagers self-injured more frequently (NSSI 45.5% vs. 18.8%), repeatedly self-injured, and were 4–8 times more likely to attempt suicide (even after adjusting for social background) than their non-Alternative peers. They were also more likely to self-injure for autonomic, communicative and social reasons than other adolescents.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Conclusions: About half of ‘Alternative’ adolescents’ self-injure, primarily to regulate emotions and communicate distress. However, a minority self-injure to reinforce their group identity, i.e. ‘To feel more a part of a group’

Suppression of Cellular Transformation by Poly (A) Binding Protein Interacting Protein 2 (Paip2)

Controlling translation is crucial for the homeostasis of a cell. Its deregulation can facilitate the development and progression of many diseases including cancer. Poly (A) binding protein interacting protein 2 (Paip2) inhibits efficient initiation of translation by impairing formation of the necessary closed loop of mRNA. The over production of Paip2 in the presence of a constitutively active form of hRasV12 can reduce colony formation in a semi-solid matrix and focus formation on a cell monolayer. The ability of Paip2 to bind to Pabp is required to suppress the transformed phenotype mediated by hRasV12. These observations indicate that Paip2 is able to function as a tumor suppressor

The effect of statin therapy on heart failure events: a collaborative meta-analysis of unpublished data from major randomized trials

The effect of statins on risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and HF death remains uncertain. We aimed to establish whether statins reduce major HF events.We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled endpoint statin trials from 1994 to 2014. Collaborating trialists provided unpublished data from adverse event reports. We included primary- and secondary-prevention statin trials with >1000 participants followed for >1 year. Outcomes consisted of first non-fatal HF hospitalization, HF death and a composite of first non-fatal HF hospitalization or HF death. HF events occurring <30 days after within-trial myocardial infarction (MI) were excluded. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with fixed-effects meta-analyses. In up to 17 trials with 132 538 participants conducted over 4.3 [weighted standard deviation (SD) 1.4] years, statin therapy reduced LDL-cholesterol by 0.97 mmol/L (weighted SD 0.38 mmol/L). Statins reduced the numbers of patients experiencing non-fatal HF hospitalization (1344/66 238 vs. 1498/66 330; RR 0.90, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.84-0.97) and the composite HF outcome (1234/57 734 vs. 1344/57 836; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99) but not HF death (213/57 734 vs. 220/57 836; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80-1.17). The effect of statins on first non-fatal HF hospitalization was similar whether this was preceded by MI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68-1.11) or not (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.98).In primary- and secondary-prevention trials, statins modestly reduced the risks of non-fatal HF hospitalization and a composite of non-fatal HF hospitalization and HF death with no demonstrable difference in risk reduction between those who suffered an MI or not

The effect of statin therapy on heart failure events: a collaborative meta-analysis of unpublished data from major randomized trials

The effect of statins on risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and HF death remains uncertain. We aimed to establish whether statins reduce major HF events.We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled endpoint statin trials from 1994 to 2014. Collaborating trialists provided unpublished data from adverse event reports. We included primary- and secondary-prevention statin trials with >1000 participants followed for >1 year. Outcomes consisted of first non-fatal HF hospitalization, HF death and a composite of first non-fatal HF hospitalization or HF death. HF events occurring <30 days after within-trial myocardial infarction (MI) were excluded. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with fixed-effects meta-analyses. In up to 17 trials with 132 538 participants conducted over 4.3 [weighted standard deviation (SD) 1.4] years, statin therapy reduced LDL-cholesterol by 0.97 mmol/L (weighted SD 0.38 mmol/L). Statins reduced the numbers of patients experiencing non-fatal HF hospitalization (1344/66 238 vs. 1498/66 330; RR 0.90, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.84-0.97) and the composite HF outcome (1234/57 734 vs. 1344/57 836; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99) but not HF death (213/57 734 vs. 220/57 836; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80-1.17). The effect of statins on first non-fatal HF hospitalization was similar whether this was preceded by MI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68-1.11) or not (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.98).In primary- and secondary-prevention trials, statins modestly reduced the risks of non-fatal HF hospitalization and a composite of non-fatal HF hospitalization and HF death with no demonstrable difference in risk reduction between those who suffered an MI or not

Survey of oxaliplatin-associated neurotoxicity using an interview-based questionnaire in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: New chemotherapy regimens for patients with colorectal cancer have improved survival, but at the cost of clinical toxicity. Oxaliplatin, an agent used in first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, causes acute and chronic neurotoxicity. This study was performed to carefully assess the incidence, type and duration of oxaliplatin neurotoxicity. METHODS: A detailed questionnaire was completed after each chemotherapy cycle for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer enrolled in a phase I trial of oxaliplatin and capecitabine. An oxaliplatin specific neurotoxicity scale was used to grade toxicity. RESULTS: Eighty-six adult patients with colorectal cancer were evaluated. Acute neuropathy symptoms included voice changes, visual alterations, pharyngo-laryngeal dysesthesia (lack of awareness of breathing); peri-oral or oral numbness, pain and symptoms due to muscle contraction (spasm, cramps, tremors). When the worst neurotoxicity per patient was considered, grade 1/2/3/4 dysesthesias and paresthesias were seen in 71/12/5/0 and 66/20/7/1 percent of patients. By cycles 3, 6, 9, and 12, oxaliplatin dose reduction or discontinuation was needed in 2.7%, 20%, 37.5% and 62.5% of patients. CONCLUSION: Oxaliplatin-associated acute neuropathy causes a variety of distressing, but transient, symptoms due to peripheral sensory and motor nerve hyperexcitability. Chronic neuropathy may be debilitating and often necessitates dose reductions or discontinuation of oxaliplatin. Patients should be warned of the possible spectrum of symptoms and re-assured about the transient nature of acute neurotoxicity. Ongoing studies are addressing the treatment and prophylaxis of oxaliplatin neurotoxicity

An examination of the self-referent executive processing model of test anxiety: control, emotional regulation, self-handicapping, and examination performance

According to the self-referent executive processing (S-REF) model, test anxiety develops from interactions between three systems: executive self-regulation processes, self-beliefs, and maladaptive situational interactions. Studies have tended to examine one system at a time, often in conjunction with how test anxiety relates to achievement outcomes. The aim of this study was to enable a more thorough test of the S-REF model by examining one key construct from each of these systems simultaneously. These were control (a self-belief construct), emotional regulation through suppression and reappraisal (an executive process), and self-handicapping (a maladaptive situational interaction). Relations were examined from control, emotional regulation, and self-handicapping to cognitive test anxiety (worry), and subsequent examination performance on a high-stakes test. Data were collected from 273 participants in their final year of secondary education. A structural equation model showed that higher control was indirectly related to better examination performance through lower worry, higher reappraisal was indirectly related to worse examination performance through higher worry, and higher self-handicapping was related to worse examination performance through lower control and higher worry. These findings suggest that increasing control and reducing self-handicapping would be key foci for test anxiety interventions to incorporate. © 2018 The Author(s