ARTICLES Religion as Political Postulate in the Writings of the Modern Buddhist Philosopher Inoue Enryō

departmental bulletin pape

Mykologisches

n/

Exogenous pulmonary surfactant for the treatment of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: results of a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of exogenous surfactant administration to assess whether this therapy may be useful in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. METHODS: We performed a computerized literature search from 1966 to December 2005 to identify randomized clinical trials. The primary outcome measure was mortality 28–30 days after randomization. Secondary outcome measures included a change in oxygenation (PaO(2):FiO(2 )ratio), the number of ventilation-free days, and the mean duration of ventilation. Meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance method. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-one articles were identified. Five studies met our inclusion criteria. Treatment with pulmonary surfactant was not associated with reduced mortality compared with the control group (odds ratio 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73, 1.30). Subgroup analysis revealed no difference between surfactant containing surface protein or not – the pooled odds ratio for mortality was 0.87 (95% CI 0.48, 1.58) for trials using surface protein and the odds ratio was 1.08 (95% CI 0.72, 1.64) for trials without surface protein. The mean difference in change in the PaO(2):FiO(2 )ratio was not significant (P = 0.11). There was a trend for improved oxygenation in the surfactant group (pooled mean change 13.18 mmHg, standard error 8.23 mmHg; 95% CI -2.95, 29.32). The number of ventilation-free days and the mean duration of ventilation could not undergo pooled analysis due to a lack of sufficient data. CONCLUSION: Exogenous surfactant may improve oxygenation but has not been shown to improve mortality. Currently, exogenous surfactant cannot be considered an effective adjunctive therapy in acute respiratory distress syndrome

Net Efficacy Adjusted for Risk (NEAR): A Simple Procedure for Measuring Risk:Benefit Balance

BACKGROUND: Although several mathematical models have been proposed to assess the risk:benefit of drugs in one measure, their use in practice has been rather limited. Our objective was to design a simple, easily applicable model. In this respect, measuring the proportion of patients who respond favorably to treatment without being affected by adverse drug reactions (ADR) could be a suitable endpoint. However, remarkably few published clinical trials report the data required to calculate this proportion. As an approach to the problem, we calculated the expected proportion of this type of patients. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Theoretically, responders without ADR may be obtained by multiplying the total number of responders by the total number of subjects that did not suffer ADR, and dividing the product by the total number of subjects studied. When two drugs are studied, the same calculation may be repeated for the second drug. Then, by constructing a 2 x 2 table with the expected frequencies of responders with and without ADR, and non-responders with and without ADR, the odds ratio and relative risk with their confidence intervals may be easily calculated and graphically represented on a logarithmic scale. Such measures represent "net efficacy adjusted for risk" (NEAR). We assayed the model with results extracted from several published clinical trials or meta-analyses. On comparing our results with those originally reported by the authors, marked differences were found in some cases, with ADR arising as a relevant factor to balance the clinical benefit obtained. The particular features of the adverse reaction that must be weighed against benefit is discussed in the paper. CONCLUSION: NEAR representing overall risk-benefit may contribute to improving knowledge of drug clinical usefulness. As most published clinical trials tend to overestimate benefits and underestimate toxicity, our measure represents an effort to change this trend

Systems medicine and infection

By using a systems based approach, mathematical and computational techniques can be used to develop models that describe the important mechanisms involved in infectious diseases. An iterative approach to model development allows new discoveries to continually improve the model, and ultimately increase the accuracy of predictions. SIR models are used to describe epi demics, predicting the extent and spread of disease. Genome-wide genotyping and sequencing technologies can be used to identify the biological mechanisms behind diseases. These tools help to build strategies for disease prevention and treatment, an example being the recent outbreak of Ebola in West Africa where these techniques were deployed. HIV is a complex disease where much is still to be learnt about the virus and the best effective treatment. With basic mathematical modelling techniques, significant discoveries have been made over the last 20 years. With recent technological advances, the computation al resources now available and interdisciplinary cooperation, further breakthroughs are inevitable. In TB, modelling has traditionally been empirical in nature, with clinical data providing the fuel for this top-down approach. Recently, projects have begun to use data derived from laboratory experiments and clinical trials to create mathematical models that describe the mechanisms responsible for the disease. A systems medicine approach to infection modelling helps identify important biological questions that then direct future experiments , the results of which improve the model in an iterative cycle . This means that data from several model systems can be integrated and synthesised to explore complex biological systems .Postprin

A tool to balance benefit and harm when deciding about adjuvant therapy

Adjuvant therapy aims to prevent outgrowth of residual disease but can induce serious side effects. Weighing conflicting treatment effects and communicating this information with patients is not elementary. This study presents a scheme balancing benefit and harm of adjuvant therapy vs no adjuvant therapy. It is illustrated by the available evidence on adjuvant pelvic external beam radiotherapy (RT) for intermediate-risk stage I endometrial carcinoma patients. The scheme comprises five outcome possibilities of adjuvant therapy: patients who benefit from adjuvant therapy (some at the cost of complications) vs those who neither benefit nor contract complications, those who do not benefit but contract severe complications, or those who die. Using absolute risk differences, a fictive cohort of 1000 patients receiving adjuvant RT is categorised. Three large randomised clinical trials were included. Recurrences will be prevented by adjuvant RT in 60 patients, a majority of 908 patients will neither benefit nor suffer severe radiation-induced harm but 28 patients will suffer severe complications due to adjuvant RT and an expected four patients will die. This scheme readily summarises the different possible treatment outcomes and can be of practical value for clinicians and patients in decision making about adjuvant therapies