Atenolol versus losartan in children and young adults with Marfan's syndrome

BACKGROUND : Aortic-root dissection is the leading cause of death in Marfan's syndrome. Studies suggest that with regard to slowing aortic-root enlargement, losartan may be more effective than beta-blockers, the current standard therapy in most centers. METHODS : We conducted a randomized trial comparing losartan with atenolol in children and young adults with Marfan's syndrome. The primary outcome was the rate of aortic-root enlargement, expressed as the change in the maximum aortic-root-diameter z score indexed to body-surface area (hereafter, aortic-root z score) over a 3-year period. Secondary outcomes included the rate of change in the absolute diameter of the aortic root; the rate of change in aortic regurgitation; the time to aortic dissection, aortic-root surgery, or death; somatic growth; and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS : From January 2007 through February 2011, a total of 21 clinical centers enrolled 608 participants, 6 months to 25 years of age (mean [+/- SD] age, 11.5 +/- 6.5 years in the atenolol group and 11.0 +/- 6.2 years in the losartan group), who had an aorticroot z score greater than 3.0. The baseline-adjusted rate of change (+/- SE) in the aortic-root z score did not differ significantly between the atenolol group and the losartan group (-0.139 +/- 0.013 and -0.107 +/- 0.013 standard-deviation units per year, respectively; P = 0.08). Both slopes were significantly less than zero, indicating a decrease in the degree of aortic-root dilatation relative to body-surface area with either treatment. The 3-year rates of aortic-root surgery, aortic dissection, death, and a composite of these events did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS : Among children and young adults with Marfan's syndrome who were randomly assigned to losartan or atenolol, we found no significant difference in the rate of aorticroot dilatation between the two treatment groups over a 3-year period

Self-consistent solution of the Schwinger-Dyson equations for the nucleon and meson propagators

The Schwinger-Dyson equations for the nucleon and meson propagators are solved self-consistently in an approximation that goes beyond the Hartree-Fock approximation. The traditional approach consists in solving the nucleon Schwinger-Dyson equation with bare meson propagators and bare meson-nucleon vertices; the corrections to the meson propagators are calculated using the bare nucleon propagator and bare nucleon-meson vertices. It is known that such an approximation scheme produces the appearance of ghost poles in the propagators. In this paper the coupled system of Schwinger-Dyson equations for the nucleon and the meson propagators are solved self-consistently including vertex corrections. The interplay of self-consistency and vertex corrections on the ghosts problem is investigated. It is found that the self-consistency does not affect significantly the spectral properties of the propagators. In particular, it does not affect the appearance of the ghost poles in the propagators.Comment: REVTEX, 7 figures (available upon request), IFT-P.037/93, DOE/ER/40427-12-N9

Safety and immunogenicity of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored Ebola vaccine in healthy adults: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 1/2a study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing Ebola outbreak led to accelerated efforts to test vaccine candidates. On the basis of a request by WHO, we aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of the monovalent, recombinant, chimpanzee adenovirus type-3 vector-based Ebola Zaire vaccine (ChAd3-EBO-Z). METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 1/2a trial at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland. Participants (aged 18-65 years) were randomly assigned (2:2:1), via two computer-generated randomisation lists for individuals potentially deployed in endemic areas and those not deployed, to receive a single intramuscular dose of high-dose vaccine (5 × 10(10) viral particles), low-dose vaccine (2·5 × 10(10) viral particles), or placebo. Deployed participants were allocated to only the vaccine groups. Group allocation was concealed from non-deployed participants, investigators, and outcome assessors. The safety evaluation was not masked for potentially deployed participants, who were therefore not included in the safety analysis for comparison between the vaccine doses and placebo, but were pooled with the non-deployed group to compare immunogenicity. The main objectives were safety and immunogenicity of ChAd3-EBO-Z. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02289027. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2014, and June 22, 2015, we randomly assigned 120 participants, of whom 18 (15%) were potentially deployed and 102 (85%) were non-deployed, to receive high-dose vaccine (n=49), low-dose vaccine (n=51), or placebo (n=20). Participants were followed up for 6 months. No vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. We recorded local adverse events in 30 (75%) of 40 participants in the high-dose group, 33 (79%) of 42 participants in the low-dose group, and five (25%) of 20 participants in the placebo group. Fatigue or malaise was the most common systemic adverse event, reported in 25 (62%) participants in the high-dose group, 25 (60%) participants in the low-dose group, and five (25%) participants in the placebo group, followed by headache, reported in 23 (57%), 25 (60%), and three (15%) participants, respectively. Fever occurred 24 h after injection in 12 (30%) participants in the high-dose group and 11 (26%) participants in the low-dose group versus one (5%) participant in the placebo group. Geometric mean concentrations of IgG antibodies against Ebola glycoprotein peaked on day 28 at 51 μg/mL (95% CI 41·1-63·3) in the high-dose group, 44·9 μg/mL (25·8-56·3) in the low-dose group, and 5·2 μg/mL (3·5-7·6) in the placebo group, with respective response rates of 96% (95% CI 85·7-99·5), 96% (86·5-99·5), and 5% (0·1-24·9). Geometric mean concentrations decreased by day 180 to 25·5 μg/mL (95% CI 20·6-31·5) in the high-dose group, 22·1 μg/mL (19·3-28·6) in the low-dose group, and 3·2 μg/mL (2·4-4·9) in the placebo group. 28 (57%) participants given high-dose vaccine and 31 (61%) participants given low-dose vaccine developed glycoprotein-specific CD4 cell responses, and 33 (67%) and 35 (69%), respectively, developed CD8 responses. INTERPRETATION: ChAd3-EBO-Z was safe and well tolerated, although mild to moderate systemic adverse events were common. A single dose was immunogenic in almost all vaccine recipients. Antibody responses were still significantly present at 6 months. There was no significant difference between doses for safety and immunogenicity outcomes. This acceptable safety profile provides a reliable basis to proceed with phase 2 and phase 3 efficacy trials in Africa. FUNDING: Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), through the EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme

Trends and outcome of neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer: A retrospective analysis and critical assessment of a 10-year prospective national registry on behalf of the Spanish Rectal Cancer Project

Introduction: Preoperative treatment and adequate surgery increase local control in rectal cancer. However, modalities and indications for neoadjuvant treatment may be controversial. Aim of this study was to assess the trends of preoperative treatment and outcomes in patients with rectal cancer included in the Rectal Cancer Registry of the Spanish Associations of Surgeons. Method: This is a STROBE-compliant retrospective analysis of a prospective database. All patients operated on with curative intention included in the Rectal Cancer Registry were included. Analyses were performed to compare the use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment in three timeframes: I)2006–2009; II)2010–2013; III)2014–2017. Survival analyses were run for 3-year survival in timeframes I-II. Results: Out of 14, 391 patients, 8871 (61.6%) received neoadjuvant treatment. Long-course chemo/radiotherapy was the most used approach (79.9%), followed by short-course radiotherapy ± chemotherapy (7.6%). The use of neoadjuvant treatment for cancer of the upper third (15-11 cm) increased over time (31.5%vs 34.5%vs 38.6%, p = 0.0018). The complete regression rate slightly increased over time (15.6% vs 16% vs 18.5%; p = 0.0093); the proportion of patients with involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) went down from 8.2% to 7.3%and 5.5% (p = 0.0004). Neoadjuvant treatment significantly decreased positive CRM in lower third tumors (OR 0.71, 0.59–0.87, Cochrane-Mantel-Haenszel P = 0.0008). Most ypN0 patients also received adjuvant therapy. In MR-defined stage III patients, preoperative treatment was associated with significantly longer local-recurrence-free survival (p < 0.0001), and cancer-specific survival (p < 0.0001). The survival benefit was smaller in upper third cancers. Conclusion: There was an increasing trend and a potential overuse of neoadjuvant treatment in cancer of the upper rectum. Most ypN0 patients received postoperative treatment. Involvement of CRM in lower third tumors was reduced after neoadjuvant treatment. Stage III and MRcN + benefited the most