1,667 research outputs found
Work Sharing: Case Studies
Offers practical assistance useful to employers who wish to implement reduced work hour arrangements.https://research.upjohn.org/up_press/1151/thumbnail.jp
Daily Associations Between Drinking and Sex Among College Students: A Longitudinal Measurement Burst Design
Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/111762/1/jora12135.pd
Perpetuation of inflammation associated with experimental arthritis: the role of macrophage activation by neutrophilic myeloperoxidase
Risk of prostate cancer after isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) detected on extended core needle biopsy : a UK hospital experience.
Background High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) is a precursor lesion to prostate cancer (CaP). UK-based studies examining the occurrence of isolated HGPIN and subsequent risk of CaP are lacking. Our aim was to assess the occurrence of HGPIN in a regional UK population and to determine whether in a retrievable cohort of such patients that had repeat extended core biopsies, there was an elevated risk of CaP. Methods A retrospective analysis of the pathology database was conducted at our institution (Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) for prostate biopsies recorded between January 2001 and December 2005 (all extended core biopsies). Those patients with isolated HGPIN on 1st set of biopsies were identified and, their clinical characteristics and pathological findings from subsequent biopsies (if any) were determined. The risk of CaP on subsequent biopsies based on presenting baseline PSA was stratified. Results Of 2,192 biopsied patients, there were 88 cases of isolated HGPIN of which 67 patients underwent one or more repeat biopsies. In this repeat-biopsy group, 28 CaP diagnoses were made. Age at first biopsy (P 20 ng/ml – 87.5%. Conclusion Based on our results, we recommend delaying the 1st repeat biopsy at low PSA range but to have a shorter interval to repeat biopsies at intermediate and higher PSA ranges
Renal effects and associated outcomes during angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition in heart failure
Objectives:
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the renal effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.
Background:
Renal function is frequently impaired in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and may deteriorate further after blockade of the renin–angiotensin system.
Methods:
In the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE inhibition to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial, 8,399 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were randomized to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was available for all patients, and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was available in 1872 patients, at screening, randomization, and at fixed time intervals during follow-up. We evaluated the effect of study treatment on change in eGFR and UACR, and on renal and cardiovascular outcomes, according to eGFR and UACR.
Results:
At screening, the eGFR was 70 ± 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 2,745 patients (33%) had chronic kidney disease; the median UACR was 1.0 mg/mmol (interquartile range: 0.4 to 3.2 mg/mmol) and 24% had an increased UACR. The decrease in eGFR during follow-up was less with sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril (−1.61 ml/min/1.73 m2/year; [95% confidence interval: −1.77 to −1.44 ml/min/1.73 m2/year] vs. −2.04 ml/min/1.73 m2/year [95% CI: −2.21 to −1.88 ml/min/1.73 m2/year ]; p < 0.001) despite a greater increase in UACR with sacubitril/valsartan than with enalapril (1.20 mg/mmol [95% CI: 1.04 to 1.36 mg/mmol] vs. 0.90 mg/mmol [95% CI: 0.77 to 1.03 mg/mmol]; p < 0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization was not modified by eGFR, UACR (p interaction = 0.70 and 0.34, respectively), or by change in UACR (p interaction = 0.38).
Conclusions:
Compared with enalapril, sacubitril/valsartan led to a slower rate of decrease in the eGFR and improved cardiovascular outcomes, even in patients with chronic kidney disease, despite causing a modest increase in UACR
Influence of Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) on 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization
Background:
Patients with heart failure (HF) are at high risk for hospital readmission in the first 30 days following HF hospitalization.
Objectives:
This study sought to determine if treatment with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces rates of hospital readmission at 30-days following HF hospitalization compared with enalapril.
Methods:
We assessed the risk of 30-day readmission for any cause following investigator-reported hospitalizations for HF in the PARADIGM-HF trial, which randomized 8,399 participants with HF and reduced ejection fraction to treatment with LCZ696 or enalapril.
Results:
Accounting for multiple hospitalizations per patient, there were 2,383 investigator-reported HF hospitalizations, of which 1,076 (45.2%) occurred in subjects assigned to LCZ696 and 1,307 (54.8%) occurred in subjects assigned to enalapril. Rates of readmission for any cause at 30 days were 17.8% in LCZ696-assigned subjects and 21.0% in enalapril-assigned subjects (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.97; p = 0.031). Rates of readmission for HF at 30-days were also lower in subjects assigned to LCZ696 (9.7% vs. 13.4%; odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.87; p = 0.006). The reduction in both all-cause and HF readmissions with LCZ696 was maintained when the time window from discharge was extended to 60 days and in sensitivity analyses restricted to adjudicated HF hospitalizations.
Conclusions:
Compared with enalapril, treatment with LCZ696 reduces 30-day readmissions for any cause following discharge from HF hospitalization
Independent beta-arrestin 2 and G protein-mediated pathways for angiotensin II activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2.
Stimulation of a mutant angiotensin type 1A receptor (DRY/AAY) with angiotensin II (Ang II) or of a wild-type receptor with an Ang II analog ([sarcosine1,Ile4,Ile8]Ang II) fails to activate classical heterotrimeric G protein signaling but does lead to recruitment of beta-arrestin 2-GFP and activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases 1 and 2 (ERK1/2) (maximum stimulation approximately 50% of wild type). This G protein-independent activation of mitogen-activated protein kinase is abolished by depletion of cellular beta-arrestin 2 but is unaffected by the PKC inhibitor Ro-31-8425. In parallel, stimulation of the wild-type angiotensin type 1A receptor with Ang II robustly stimulates ERK1/2 activation with approximately 60% of the response blocked by the PKC inhibitor (G protein dependent) and the rest of the response blocked by depletion of cellular beta-arrestin 2 by small interfering RNA (beta-arrestin dependent). These findings imply the existence of independent G protein- and beta-arrestin 2-mediated pathways leading to ERK1/2 activation and the existence of distinct "active" conformations of a seven-membrane-spanning receptor coupled to each
Effects of sacubitril/valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF Trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) according to background therapy
Background—In the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure), the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan was more effective than the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We examined whether this benefit was consistent irrespective of background therapy.
Methods and Results—We examined the effect of study treatment in the following subgroups: diuretics (yes/no), digitalis glycoside (yes/no), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (yes/no), and defibrillating device (implanted defibrillating device, yes/no). We also examined the effect of study drug according to β-blocker dose (≥50% and <50% of target dose) and according to whether patients had undergone previous coronary revascularization. We analyzed the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, as well as cardiovascular death. Most randomized patients (n=8399) were treated with a diuretic (80%) and β-blocker (93%); 47% of those taking a β-blocker were treated with ≥50% of the recommended dose. In addition, 4671 (56%) were treated with a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, 2539 (30%) with digoxin, and 1243 (15%) had a defibrillating device; 2640 (31%) had undergone coronary revascularization. Overall, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary composite end point was 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.73–0.87; P<0.001) and for cardiovascular death was 0.80 (0.71–0.89; P<0.001). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across all subgroups examined. The hazard ratio for primary end point ranged from 0.74 to 0.85 and for cardiovascular death ranged from 0.75 to 0.89, with no treatment-by-subgroup interaction.
Conclusions—The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan, over an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, was consistent regardless of background therapy and irrespective of previous coronary revascularization or β-blocker dose
- …