Biological aspects of radiation and drug-eluting stents for the prevention of restenosis

Based on recent advances, this article aims to review the biological basis for the use of either radiation or drug-eluting stents for the prevention of restenosis, and to elucidate the complementary role that they may play in the future. Vascular restenosis is a multifactorial process primarily driven by the remodeling of the arterial wall, as well as by the hyperproliferation of smooth muscle cells (SMC). These pathophysiological features are the target of therapeutic strategies aimed at inhibiting constrictive remodeling as well as inhibiting SMC proliferation. The success of radiation as well as anti-proliferative drugs such as paclitaxel and sirolimus lies in the primary and/or multifactorial inhibition of cell proliferation. Radiation has the additional feature of preventing constrictive remodeling while sirolimus has the potential property of being anti-inflammatory, which may be a desirable feature. The effects of radiation are not reliant on any uptake and "metabolism” by the target cells, as in the case with drugs, and thus radiation potentially may be more effective as a result of its more-direct action. However, radiation does have some significant drawbacks compared to drug-eluting stents, including a much delayed re-endothelialization resulting in the need for prolonged anti-platelet therapy. Based on recent clinical data, drug-eluting stents have been shown to markedly reduce the likelihood of restenosis, which actually favors this approach for the prevention of restenosis. From a biological perspective, drug-eluting stents and radiation have certain differences, which are reviewed in this articl

Can you believe what you read in the papers?

The number of reports of clinical trials grows by hundreds every week. However, this does not mean that people making decisions about healthcare are finding it easier to obtain reliable knowledge for these decisions. Some of the information is unreliable. Systematic reviews are helping to resolve this by bringing together the research on a topic, appraising and summarising it. But the quality of these reviews depends greatly on the quality of the studies, and this usually means the quality of their reports. If there are fundamental flaws within a study, such as the use of inappropriate 'randomisation' techniques in the context of reviews of the effects of interventions, the reviewers will not be able to fix these. Worse still, if they are not aware of underlying flaws, they might make incorrect judgements about the quality of the research in their review. A study by Wu and colleagues of 'randomised trials' from China provides a reminder of the cautious approach needed by users of scientific articles. They contacted the authors of more than 2000 research articles, which purported to be reports of randomised trials; and concluded that ten of every 11 studies claiming to be a randomised trial probably did not use random allocation. Better education of researchers, peer reviewers and editors about what is, and is not, a properly randomised trial is needed; along with better reporting of the details for how participants were allocated to the different interventions. Systematic reviewers must be cautious in making assumptions about the conduct of trials based on simple phrases about the trial methodology, rather than a full description of the methods actually used. It's not that you can't believe anything that you read in the papers, just that you cannot believe everything

Commercial Serological Tests for the Diagnosis of Active Pulmonary and Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis by Karen Steingart and colleagues confirms that commercially available serological tests do not provide an accurate diagnosis of tuberculosis

Genetic loci on chromosome 5 are associated with circulating levels of interleukin-5 and eosinophil count in a European population with high risk for cardiovascular disease

IL-5 is a Th2 cytokine which activates eosinophils and is suggested to have an atheroprotective role. Genetic variants in the IL5 locus have been associated with increased risk of CAD and ischemic stroke. In this study we aimed to identify genetic variants associated with IL-5 concentrations and apply a Mendelian randomisation approach to assess IL-5 levels for causal effect on intima-media thickness in a European population at high risk of coronary artery disease. We analysed SNPs within robustly associated candidate loci for immune, inflammatory, metabolic and cardiovascular traits. We identified 2 genetic loci for IL-5 levels (chromosome 5, rs56183820, BETA = 0.11, P = 6.73E−5 and chromosome 14, rs4902762, BETA = 0.12, P = 5.76E−6) and one for eosinophil count (rs72797327, BETA = −0.10, P = 1.41E−6). Both chromosome 5 loci were in the vicinity of the IL5 gene, however the association with IL-5 levels failed to replicate in a meta-analysis of 2 independent cohorts (rs56183820, BETA = 0.04, P = 0.2763, I2 = 24, I2 − P = 0.2516). No significant associations were observed between SNPs associated with IL-5 levels or eosinophil count and IMT measures. Expression quantitative trait analyses indicate effects of the IL-5 and eosinophil-associated SNPs on RAD50 mRNA expression levels (rs12652920 (r2 = 0.93 with rs56183820) BETA = −0.10, P = 8.64E−6 and rs11739623 (r2 = 0.96 with rs72797327) BETA = −0.23, P = 1.74E−29, respectively). Our data do not support a role for IL-5 levels and eosinophil count in intima-media thickness, however SNPs associated with IL-5 and eosinophils might influence stability of the atherosclerotic plaque via modulation of RAD50 levels

Does direction of results of abstracts submitted to scientific conferences on drug addiction predict full publication?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Data from scientific literature show that about 63% of abstracts presented at biomedical conferences will be published in full. Some studies have indicated that full publication is associated with the direction of results (publication bias). No study has looked into the occurrence of publication bias in the field of addiction.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>To investigate whether the significance or direction of results of abstracts presented at the major international scientific conference on addiction is associated with full publication</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conference proceedings of the US Annual Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD), were handsearched for abstracts of randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that evaluated interventions for prevention, rehabilitation and treatment of drug addiction in humans (years searched 1993–2002). Data regarding the study designs and outcomes reported were extracted. Subsequent publication in peer reviewed journals was searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as of March 2006.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Out of 5919 abstracts presented, 581 met the inclusion criteria; 359 (62%) conference abstracts had been published in a broad variety of peer reviewed journals (average time of publication 2.6 years, SD +/- 1.78). The proportion of published studies was almost the same for randomized controlled trials (62.4%) and controlled clinical trials (59.5%) while studies that reported positive results were significantly more likely to be published (74.5%) than those that did not report statistical results (60.9%.), negative or null results (47.1%) and no results (38.6%), Abstracts reporting positive results had a significantly higher probability of being published in full, while abstracts reporting null or negative results were half as likely to be published compared with positive ones (HR = 0.48; 95%CI 0.30–0.74)</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Clinical trials were the minority of abstracts presented at the CPDD; we found evidence of possible publication bias in the field of addiction, with negative or null results having half the likelihood of being published than positive ones.</p

Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?

BACKGROUND: Cochrane systematic reviews aim to provide readers with the most up-to-date evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions. The policy of updating Cochrane reviews every two years consumes valuable time and resources and may not be appropriate for all reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of updating Cochrane systematic reviews over a four year period. METHODS: This descriptive study examined all completed systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Issue 2, 1998. The latest version of each of these reviews was then identified in CDSR Issue 2, 2002 and changes in the review were described. For reviews that were updated within this time period and had additional studies, we determined whether their conclusion had changed and if there were factors that were predictive of this change. RESULTS: A total of 377 complete reviews were published in CDSR Issue 2, 1998. In Issue 2, 2002, 14 of these reviews were withdrawn and one was split, leaving 362 reviews to examine for the purpose of this study. Of these reviews, 254 (70%) were updated. Of these updated reviews, 23 (9%) had a change in conclusion. Both an increase in precision and a change in statistical significance of the primary outcome were predictive of a change in conclusion of the review. CONCLUSION: The concerns around a lack of updating for some reviews may not be justified considering the small proportion of updated reviews that resulted in a changed conclusion. A priority-setting approach to the updating of Cochrane systematic reviews may be more appropriate than a time-based approach. Updating all reviews as frequently as every two years may not be necessary, however some reviews may need to be updated more often than every two years

Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality

BACKGROUND: Failure to be comprehensive can distort the results of a systematic review. Conversely, extensive searches may yield unmanageable number of citations of which only few may be relevant. Knowledge of usefulness of each source of information may help to tailor search strategies in systematic reviews. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of prevalence/incidence of maternal mortality and morbidities from 1997 to 2002. The search strategy included electronic databases, hand searching, screening of reference lists, congress abstract books, contacting experts active in the field and web sites from less developed countries. We evaluated the effectiveness of each source of data and discuss limitations and implications for future research on this topic. RESULTS: Electronic databases identified 64098 different citations of which 2093 were included. Additionally 487 citations were included from other sources. MEDLINE had the highest yield identifying about 62% of the included citations. BIOSIS was the most precise with 13.2% of screened citations included. Considering electronic citations alone (2093), almost 20% were identified uniquely by MEDLINE (400), 7.4% uniquely by EMBASE (154), and 5.6% uniquely by LILACS (117). About 60% of the electronic citations included were identified by two or more databases. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the need for extending the search to other sources beyond well-known electronic databases in systematic reviews of maternal mortality and morbidity prevalence/incidence. These include regional databases such as LILACS and other topic specific sources such as hand searching of relevant journals not indexed in electronic databases. Guidelines for search strategies for prevalence/incidence studies need to be developed