Vaccine adverse event enrichment tests

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/168532/1/sim9027.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/168532/2/sim9027_am.pd

Inflammatory fibroid polyp: an immunohistochemical study Pólipo inflamatório fibróide: estudo imunoistoquímico

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory fibroid polyp is a localized lesion, which arises in the submucosa of the gastrointestinal tract, most often in the stomach.Although it is generally believed to represent a reactive, nonneoplastic condition, its histogenesis remains controversial. AIM: To study inflammatory fibroid polyp by immunohistochemistry in an attempt to further clarify their histogenesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine cases were studied by immunohistochemistry using a panel of antibodies against smooth-muscle actin, vimentin, S-100 protein, factor VIII- R.Ag and macrophage (HAM-56). RESULTS: There was a strong diffuse positive staining pattern in the spindle cells with vimentin antibody. A patchy staining for smooth-muscle actin was observed in these cells. Immunophenotyping revealed a heterogeneous reaction with HAM-56. In edematous areas, HAM-56-positive cells show voluminous cytoplasm and reniform nuclei. In cell-rich areas, the HAM-56-positive cells had fusiform cytoplasm. Stains for S-100 and factor VIII RAg were negative in the proliferating elements. CONCLUSIONS: The present immunohistochemical study refutes the suggested neural or vascular nature of the lesion. The strong positivity for vimentin in all cases suggests a major component of spindle cells best recognizable as fibroblasts. These results would favor the existence of a span of morphological and immunohistochemical patterns possibly indicating evolutive phases of an inflammatory reaction.<br>RACIONAL: O pólipo inflamatório fibróide é uma lesão localizada que se origina na submucosa do trato gastrointestinal, mais freqüentemente do estômago. Embora se acredite que represente condição reativa e não neoplásica, sua histogênese permanece controversa. OBJETIVO: Estudar o pólipo inflamatório fibróide por imunoistoquímica na tentativa de contribuir para o entendimento de sua histogênese. PACIENTES AND MÉTODOS: Foram estudados nove casos por imunoistoquímica usando-se um painel de anticorpos contra actina de músculo liso, vimentina, proteína S-100, fator VIII e macrófago (HAM-56). RESULTADOS: Houve um padrão difuso de coloração nas células fusiformes, fortemente positivo para vimentina. Um padrão focal de positividade para actina de músculo liso foi observado nessas células. O estudo revelou reação heterogênea com HAM-56. Nas áreas edematosas, as células positivas para HAM-56 mostraram citoplasma volumoso e núcleos reniformes. Nas áreas ricamente celulares, as células positivas para HAM-56 apresentaram citoplasma fusiforme. As reações para S-100 e fator VIII foram negativas nos elementos proliferantes. CONCLUSÕES: O presente estudo imunoistoquímico afasta a hipótese de natureza neural ou vascular da lesão. A forte positividade para vimentina em todos os casos sugere um componente principal de células fusiformes, melhor reconhecidas como fibroblastos. Estes resultados favoreceriam a existência de um espectro de padrões morfológicos e imunoistoquímicos, indicando, possivelmente, fases evolutivas de uma reação inflamatória

Efficacy and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and atomoxetine in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder:a head-to-head, randomized, double-blind, phase IIIb study

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the prodrug psychostimulant lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and the non-stimulant noradrenergic compound atomoxetine (ATX) in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who had previously responded inadequately to methylphenidate (MPH). METHODS: This 9-week, head-to-head, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study (SPD489-317; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01106430) enrolled patients (aged 6-17 years) with at least moderately symptomatic ADHD and an inadequate response to previous MPH therapy. Patients were randomized (1:1) to an optimized daily dose of LDX (30, 50 or 70 mg) or ATX (patients <70 kg, 0.5-1.2 mg/kg with total daily dose not to exceed 1.4 mg/kg; patients ≥70 kg, 40, 80 or 100 mg). The primary efficacy outcome was time (days) to first clinical response. Clinical response was defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) score of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved). Secondary efficacy outcomes included the proportion of responders at each study visit and the change from baseline in ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS-IV) and CGI-Severity scores. Tolerability and safety were assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), height and weight, vital signs and electrocardiogram parameters. Endpoint was defined as the last post-baseline, on-treatment visit with a valid assessment. RESULTS: Of 267 patients randomized (LDX, n = 133; ATX, n = 134), 200 (74.9%) completed the study. The median time to first clinical response [95% confidence interval (CI)] was significantly shorter for patients receiving LDX [12.0 days (8.0-16.0)] than for those receiving ATX [21.0 days (15.0-23.0)] (p = 0.001). By week 9, 81.7% (95% CI 75.0-88.5) of patients receiving LDX had responded to treatment compared with 63.6% (95% CI 55.4-71.8) of those receiving ATX (p = 0.001). Also by week 9, the difference between LDX and ATX in least-squares mean change from baseline (95% CI) was significant in favour of LDX for the ADHD-RS-IV total score [-6.5 (-9.3 to -3.6); p < 0.001; effect size 0.56], inattentiveness subscale score [-3.4 (-4.9 to -1.8); p < 0.001; effect size 0.53] and the hyperactivity/impulsivity subscale score [-3.2 (-4.6 to -1.7); p < 0.001; effect size 0.53]. TEAEs were reported by 71.9 and 70.9% of patients receiving LDX and ATX, respectively. At endpoint, both treatments were associated with mean (standard deviation) increases in systolic blood pressure [LDX, +0.7 mmHg (9.08); ATX, +0.6 mmHg (7.96)], diastolic blood pressure [LDX, +0.1 mmHg (8.33); ATX, +1.3 mmHg (8.24)] and pulse rate [LDX, +3.6 bpm (10.49); ATX, +3.7 bpm (10.75)], and decreases in weight [LDX, -1.30 kg (1.806); ATX, -0.15 kg (1.434)]. CONCLUSIONS: LDX was associated with a faster and more robust treatment response than ATX in children and adolescents with at least moderately symptomatic ADHD who had previously responded inadequately to MPH. Both treatments displayed safety profiles consistent with findings from previous clinical trials