A Distinct Urinary Biomarker Pattern Characteristic of Female Fabry Patients That Mirrors Response to Enzyme Replacement Therapy

Female patients affected by Fabry disease, an X-linked lysosomal storage disorder, exhibit a wide spectrum of symptoms, which renders diagnosis, and treatment decisions challenging. No diagnostic test, other than sequencing of the alpha-galactosidase A gene, is available and no biomarker has been proven useful to screen for the disease, predict disease course and monitor response to enzyme replacement therapy. Here, we used urine proteomic analysis based on capillary electrophoresis coupled to mass spectrometry and identified a biomarker profile in adult female Fabry patients. Urine samples were taken from 35 treatment-naive female Fabry patients and were compared to 89 age-matched healthy controls. We found a diagnostic biomarker pattern that exhibited 88.2% sensitivity and 97.8% specificity when tested in an independent validation cohort consisting of 17 treatment-naive Fabry patients and 45 controls. The model remained highly specific when applied to additional control patients with a variety of other renal, metabolic and cardiovascular diseases. Several of the 64 identified diagnostic biomarkers showed correlations with measures of disease severity. Notably, most biomarkers responded to enzyme replacement therapy, and 8 of 11 treated patients scored negative for Fabry disease in the diagnostic model. In conclusion, we defined a urinary biomarker model that seems to be of diagnostic use for Fabry disease in female patients and may be used to monitor response to enzyme replacement therapy

Infant and Child Mortality in India in the Last Two Decades: A Geospatial Analysis

Studies examining the intricate interplay between poverty, female literacy, child malnutrition, and child mortality are rare in demographic literature. Given the recent focus on Millennium Development Goals 4 (child survival) and 5 (maternal health), we explored whether the geographic regions that were underprivileged in terms of wealth, female literacy, child nutrition, or safe delivery were also grappling with the elevated risk of child mortality; whether there were any spatial outliers; whether these relationships have undergone any significant change over historical time periods.The present paper attempted to investigate these critical questions using data from household surveys like NFHS 1992-1993, NFHS 1998-1999 and DLHS 2002-2004. For the first time, we employed geo-spatial techniques like Moran's-I, univariate LISA, bivariate LISA, spatial error regression, and spatiotemporal regression to address the research problem. For carrying out the geospatial analysis, we classified India into 76 natural regions based on the agro-climatic scheme proposed by Bhat and Zavier (1999) following the Census of India Study and all estimates were generated for each of the geographic regions.This study brings out the stark intra-state and inter-regional disparities in infant and under-five mortality in India over the past two decades. It further reveals, for the first time, that geographic regions that were underprivileged in child nutrition or wealth or female literacy were also likely to be disadvantaged in terms of infant and child survival irrespective of the state to which they belong. While the role of economic status in explaining child malnutrition and child survival has weakened, the effect of mother's education has actually become stronger over time

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95–1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83–1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08–1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319–1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110–1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5–12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0–94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96–1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of −0·040 (95% central range −0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Interpretation: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

Taking stock of 10 years of published research on the ASHA programme: Examining India’s national community health worker programme from a health systems perspective

Background: As India’s accredited social health activist (ASHA) community health worker (CHW) programme enters its second decade, we take stock of the research undertaken and whether it examines the health systems interfaces required to sustain the programme at scale. Methods: We systematically searched three databases for articles on ASHAs published between 2005 and 2016. Articles that met the inclusion criteria underwent analysis using an inductive CHW–health systems interface framework. Results: A total of 122 academic articles were identified (56 quantitative, 29 mixed methods, 28 qualitative, and 9 commentary or synthesis); 44 articles reported on special interventions and 78 on the routine ASHA program. Findings on special interventions were overwhelmingly positive, with few negative or mixed results. In contrast, 55% of articles on the routine ASHA programme showed mixed findings and 23% negative, with few indicating overall positive findings, reflecting broader system constraints. Over half the articles had a health system perspective, including almost all those on general ASHA work, but only a third of those with a health condition focus. The most extensively researched health systems topics were ASHA performance, training and capacity-building, with very little research done on programme financing and reporting, ASHA grievance redressal or peer communication. Research tended to be descriptive, with fewer influence, explanatory or exploratory articles, and no predictive or emancipatory studies. Indian institutions and authors led and partnered on most of the research, wrote all the critical commentaries, and published more studies with negative results. Conclusion: Published work on ASHAs highlights a range of small-scale innovations, but also showcases the challenges faced by a programme at massive scale, situated in the broader health system. As the programme continues to evolve, critical comparative research that constructively feeds back into programme reforms is needed, particularly related to governance, intersectoral linkages, ASHA solidarity, and community capacity to provide support and oversight

How different aspects of motor dysfunction influence day‐to‐day function in huntington's disease

PurposeThis study examined the relationships between different aspects of motor dysfunction (chorea, dystonia, rigidity, incoordination, oculomotor dysfunction, dysarthria, and gait difficulties) and functional status in persons with Huntington’s disease.MethodsA total of 527 persons with Huntington’s disease completed the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale motor, total functional capacity, and functional assessments.ResultsConfirmatory factor analysis indicated that a 4â factor model provided a better model fit than the existing 5â factor model. Exploratory factor analysis identified the following 4 factors from the motor scale: dystonia, chorea, rigidity, and a general motor factor. Regression indicated that dystonia (β = â 0.47 andâ â 0.79) and rigidity (β = â 0.28 andâ â 0.59) had strong associations with function, whereas chorea had modest correlations (β = â 0.16 andâ â 0.15).ConclusionsDystonia and rigidity have stronger relationships with functional status than chorea in persons with Huntington’s disease. The findings underscore the need for further research regarding the effects of dystonia and rigidity on functioning. © 2019 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder SocietyPeer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152910/1/mds27866_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152910/2/mds27866.pd