207 research outputs found

    Comparison of different definitions to classify remission and sustained remission: 1 year TEMPO results

    Get PDF
    To assess methods to calculate achieving and sustaining remission in a double blind randomised trial in patients with RA who received etanercept, methotrexate, or an etanercept/methotrexate combination. Remission was defined as DAS <1.6, DAS28 <2.6, and ACR70 response. Sustaining remission was analysed in three ways: (a) analysis of sustained DAS remission, DAS28 remission, or ACR70 response continuously for 6 months; (b) analysis of sustained remission appraised through a continuity rewarded scoring system, which is the weighted sum of all intervals in the study in which patients are in DAS or DAS28 remission; or (c) longitudinal modelling of remission odds using generalised estimating equations. Significantly more patients treated with the etanercept/methotrexate combination reached DAS remission (37%) than those treated with either methotrexate (14%) or etanercept (18%) alone (p <0.01). Results for DAS28 and for the ACR70 response were similar. Agreement between DAS remission and DAS28 remission was good, but agreement between either of these and the ACR70 response was less. Patients in DAS or DAS28 remission had a lower level of disease activity (fewer active joints, lower ESR) than those achieving ACR70 response; the converse was seen using pain VAS. The three methods were comparable for sustainability of remission and showed significant advantage for combination therapy, which increased the number and durability of remission periods. DAS and DAS28 remission results were similar for assessing achieving and sustaining remission in RA, frequently differing from patients classified as ACR70 responders. The three methods of examining duration of remission produced comparable result

    Molecular detection of mycobacterium tuberculosis in oral mucosa from patients with presumptive tuberculosis

    Get PDF
    Funding: This research was funded by a Strategic Award grant from the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (grant DRIA2014-309) and its cofounders, the Medical Research Council UK, and Institutode Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), Spain (PI116/01912); and from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 823854 (INNOVA4TB).Tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis is increasingly based on the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) DNA in sputum using molecular diagnostic tests as the first test for diagnosis. However, sputum can be difficult to obtain in children, patients without productive cough, and the elderly and approaches testing non-sputum samples are needed. We evaluated whether TB can be detected from the oral mucosa of patients with TB. Adults with presumptive TB were examined using culture, Xpert MTB/RIF, smear microscopy and X-Rays. Oral mucosa swabs collected on PrimeStore-MTM, stored at room temperature if tested within 30 days or at −20 °C if examined at a later time. RT-PCR was performed to detect M. tuberculosis DNA. Eighty patients had bacteriologically-confirmed TB, 34 had bacteriologically-negative TB (negative tests but abnormal X-rays) and 152 were considered not to have TB (not TB). Oral swabs RT-PCR were positive in 29/80 (36.3%) bacteriologically-confirmed, 9/34 (26.5%) bacteriologically-negative and 29/152 (19.1%) not TB. The yield varied among samples stored for less and more than 30 days (p = 0.013) from 61% (11/18) and 29% (18/62) among bacteriologically confirmed, and 30.8% (4/13) and 23.8% (5/21) among bacteriologically-negative participants. Among not TB patients, the specificity was 80.9% (123/152), being 78.3% (18/23) among samples stored less than 30 days and 81.4% (105/129) among samples stored for more than 30 days (p = 0.46). The detection of M. tuberculosis in oral mucosa samples is feasible, but storage conditions may affect the yield.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

    Infliximab plus methotrexate is superior to methotrexate alone in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis in methotrexate-naive patients: the RESPOND study

    Get PDF
    Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of treatment with infliximab plus methotrexate with methotrexate alone in methotrexate-naive patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods: In this open-label study, patients 18 years and older with active PsA who were naive to methotrexate and not receiving disease-modifying therapy (N=115) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either infliximab (5 mg/kg) at weeks 0, 2, 6 and 14 plus methotrexate (15 mg/week); or methotrexate (15 mg/week) alone. The primary assessment was American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 16. Secondary outcome measures included psoriasis area and severity index (PASI), disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) and dactylitis and enthesitis assessments. Results: At week 16, 86.3% of patients receiving infliximab plus methotrexate and 66.7% of those receiving methotrexate alone achieved an ACR20 response (p<0.02). Of patients whose baseline PASI was 2.5 or greater, 97.1% receiving infliximab plus methotrexate compared with 54.3% receiving methotrexate alone experienced a 75% or greater improvement in PASI (p<0.0001). Improvements in C-reactive protein levels, DAS28 response and remission rates, dactylitis, fatigue and morning stiffness duration were also significantly greater in the group receiving infliximab. In the infliximab plus methotrexate group, 46% (26/57) had treatment-related adverse events (AE) and two patients had serious AE, compared with 24% with AE (13/54) and no serious AE in the methotrexate-alone group. Conclusions: Treatment with infliximab plus methotrexate in methotrexate-naive patients with active PsA demonstrated significantly greater ACR20 response rates and PASI75 improvement compared with methotrexate alone and was generally well tolerated. This trial is registered in the US National Institutes of Health clinicaltrials.gov database, identifier NCT00367237

    MYC regulates ribosome biogenesis and mitochondrial gene expression programs through its interaction with host cell factor-1.

    Get PDF
    The oncoprotein transcription factor MYC is a major driver of malignancy and a highly validated but challenging target for the development of anticancer therapies. Novel strategies to inhibit MYC may come from understanding the co-factors it uses to drive pro-tumorigenic gene expression programs, providing their role in MYC activity is understood. Here we interrogate how one MYC co-factor, host cell factor (HCF)-1, contributes to MYC activity in a human Burkitt lymphoma setting. We identify genes connected to mitochondrial function and ribosome biogenesis as direct MYC/HCF-1 targets and demonstrate how modulation of the MYC-HCF-1 interaction influences cell growth, metabolite profiles, global gene expression patterns, and tumor growth in vivo. This work defines HCF-1 as a critical MYC co-factor, places the MYC-HCF-1 interaction in biological context, and highlights HCF-1 as a focal point for development of novel anti-MYC therapies

    EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update

    Get PDF
    Objectives: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items. Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high. Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost
    corecore