Doxycycline versus prednisolone as an initial treatment strategy for bullous pemphigoid: a pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

Background: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a blistering skin disorder with increased mortality. We tested whether a strategy of starting treatment with doxycycline conveys acceptable short-term blister control whilst conferring long-term safety advantages over starting treatment with oral corticosteroids.Methods: Pragmatic multi-centre parallel-group randomised controlled trial of adults with BP (≥3 blisters ≥2 sites and linear basement membrane IgG/C3) plus economic evaluation. Participants were randomised to doxycycline (200 mg/day) or prednisolone (0·5 mg/kg/day). Localised adjuvant potent topical corticosteroids

Doxycycline versus prednisolone as an initial treatment strategy for bullous pemphigoid: a pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

Background: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a blistering skin disorder with increased mortality. We tested whether a strategy of starting treatment with doxycycline conveys acceptable short-term blister control whilst conferring long-term safety advantages over starting treatment with oral corticosteroids. Methods: Pragmatic multi-centre parallel-group randomised controlled trial of adults with BP (≥3 blisters ≥2 sites and linear basement membrane IgG/C3) plus economic evaluation. Participants were randomised to doxycycline (200 mg/day) or prednisolone (0·5 mg/kg/day). Localised adjuvant potent topical corticosteroids (<30 g/week) was permitted weeks 1-3. The non-inferiority primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants with ≤3 blisters at 6 weeks. We assumed that doxycycline would be 25% less effective than corticosteroids with a 37% acceptable margin of noninferiority. The primary safety outcome was the proportion with severe, life-threatening or fatal treatment-related adverse events by 52 weeks. Analysis used a regression model adjusting for baseline disease severity, age and Karnofsky score, with missing data imputed. Results: 132 patients were randomised to doxycycline and 121 to prednisolone from 54 UK and 7 German dermatology centres. Mean age was 77·7 years and 68.4% had moderate to severe baseline disease. For those starting doxycycline, 83/112 (74·1%) had ≤3 blisters at 6 weeks compared with 92/101 (91·1%) for prednisolone, a difference of 18·6% favouring prednisolone (upper limit of 90% CI, 26·1%, within the predefined 37% margin). Related severe, life-threatening and fatal events at 52 weeks were 18·5% for those starting doxycycline and 36·6% for prednisolone (mITT analysis), an adjusted difference of 19·0% (95% CI, 7·9%, 30·1%, p=0·001). Conclusions: A strategy of starting BP patients on doxycycline is non-inferior to standard treatment with oral prednisolone for short-term blister control and significantly safer long-term

Performance of the CMS Cathode Strip Chambers with Cosmic Rays

The Cathode Strip Chambers (CSCs) constitute the primary muon tracking device in the CMS endcaps. Their performance has been evaluated using data taken during a cosmic ray run in fall 2008. Measured noise levels are low, with the number of noisy channels well below 1%. Coordinate resolution was measured for all types of chambers, and fall in the range 47 microns to 243 microns. The efficiencies for local charged track triggers, for hit and for segments reconstruction were measured, and are above 99%. The timing resolution per layer is approximately 5 ns

Performance and Operation of the CMS Electromagnetic Calorimeter

The operation and general performance of the CMS electromagnetic calorimeter using cosmic-ray muons are described. These muons were recorded after the closure of the CMS detector in late 2008. The calorimeter is made of lead tungstate crystals and the overall status of the 75848 channels corresponding to the barrel and endcap detectors is reported. The stability of crucial operational parameters, such as high voltage, temperature and electronic noise, is summarised and the performance of the light monitoring system is presented

Calibration of the CMS Drift Tube Chambers and Measurement of the Drift Velocity with Cosmic Rays

Peer reviewe

Commissioning and performance of the CMS silicon strip tracker with cosmic ray muons

This is the Pre-print version of the Article. The official published version of the Paper can be accessed from the link below - Copyright @ 2010 IOPDuring autumn 2008, the Silicon Strip Tracker was operated with the full CMS experiment in a comprehensive test, in the presence of the 3.8 T magnetic field produced by the CMS superconducting solenoid. Cosmic ray muons were detected in the muon chambers and used to trigger the readout of all CMS sub-detectors. About 15 million events with a muon in the tracker were collected. The efficiency of hit and track reconstruction were measured to be higher than 99% and consistent with expectations from Monte Carlo simulation. This article details the commissioning and performance of the Silicon Strip Tracker with cosmic ray muons.This work is supported by FMSR (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); Academy of Sciences and NICPB (Estonia); Academy of Finland, ME, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NKTH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); NRF (Korea); LAS (Lithuania); CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); PAEC (Pakistan); SCSR (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan); MST and MAE (Russia); MSTDS (Serbia); MICINN and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); NSC (Taipei); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA)

Alignment of the CMS silicon tracker during commissioning with cosmic rays

The CMS silicon tracker, consisting of 1440 silicon pixel and 15 148 silicon strip detector modules, has been aligned using more than three million cosmic ray charged particles, with additional information from optical surveys. The positions of the modules were determined with respect to cosmic ray trajectories to an average precision of 3-4 microns RMS in the barrel and 3-14 microns RMS in the endcap in the most sensitive coordinate. The results have been validated by several studies, including laser beam cross-checks, track fit self-consistency, track residuals in overlapping module regions, and track parameter resolution, and are compared with predictions obtained from simulation. Correlated systematic effects have been investigated. The track parameter resolutions obtained with this alignment are close to the design performance

CMS Data Processing Workflows during an Extended Cosmic Ray Run

Peer reviewe

Aligning the CMS Muon Chambers with the Muon Alignment System during an Extended Cosmic Ray Run

Peer reviewe

Alignment of the CMS muon system with cosmic-ray and beam-halo muons

This is the Pre-print version of the Article. The official published version of the Paper can be accessed from the link below - Copyright @ 2010 IOPThe CMS muon system has been aligned using cosmic-ray muons collected in 2008 and beam-halo muons from the 2008 LHC circulating beam tests. After alignment, the resolution of the most sensitive coordinate is 80 microns for the relative positions of superlayers in the same barrel chamber and 270 microns for the relative positions of endcap chambers in the same ring structure. The resolution on the position of the central barrel chambers relative to the tracker is comprised between two extreme estimates, 200 and 700 microns, provided by two complementary studies. With minor modifications, the alignment procedures can be applied using muons from LHC collisions, leading to additional significant improvements.This work is supported by FMSR (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); Academy of Sciences and NICPB (Estonia); Academy of Finland, ME, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); OTKA and NKTH (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); NRF (Korea); LAS (Lithuania); CINVESTAV, CONACYT, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); PAEC (Pakistan); SCSR (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR(Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan); MST and MAE (Russia); MSTDS (Serbia); MICINN and CPAN (Spain); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); NSC (Taipei); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA)