8 research outputs found

    Exact anisotropic brane cosmologies

    Get PDF
    We present exact solutions of the gravitational field equations in the generalized Randall-Sundrum model for an anisotropic brane with Bianchi type I and V geometry, with perfect fluid and scalar fields as matter sources. Under the assumption of a conformally flat bulk (with vanishing Weyl tensor) for a cosmological fluid obeying a linear barotropic equation of state the general solution of the field equations can be expressed in an exact parametric form for both Bianchi type I and V space-times. In the limiting case of a stiff cosmological fluid with pressure equal to the energy density, for a Bianchi type I Universe the solution of the field equations are obtained in an exact analytic form. Several classes of scalar field models evolution on the brane are also considered, corresponding to different choices of the scalar field potential. For all models the behavior of the observationally important parameters like shear, anisotropy and deceleration parameter is considered in detail.Comment: revised version to appear in PR

    Genomic profile concordance between pancreatic cyst fluid and neoplastic tissue

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: DNA mutational analysis of pancreatic cystic fluid (CF) is a useful adjunct to the evaluation of pancreatic cysts. KRAS/GNAS or RAF/PTPRD/CTNNB1/RNF43 mutations are highly specific to precancerous or advanced neoplasia. Several studies recently demonstrated the ability of next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis to detect DNA mutations in pancreatic CF, but few studies have performed a systematic comparative analysis between pancreatic CF and neoplastic surgical tissue (NT). The value of CF-NGS analysis indicators for determining surgical resection necessitates evaluation. AIM: To confirm whether CF genomic profiles are a reliable malignancy predictor by comparing NGS mutational analyses of CF and NT. METHODS: Patients requiring surgery for high-risk pancreatic cysts were included in a multicenter prospective pilot study. DNA from CF (collected by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (known as EUS-FNA)) and NT (collected by surgery) were analyzed by NGS. The primary objective was to compare the mutation profiles of paired DNA samples. The secondary objective was to correlate the presence of specific mutations (KRAS/GNAS, RAF/ PTPRD/CTNNB1/RNF43/POLD1/TP53) with a final cancer diagnosis. Sensitivity and specificity were also evaluated. RESULTS: Between December 2016 and October 2017, 20 patients were included in this pilot study. Surgery was delayed for 3 patients. Concordant CF-NT genotypes were found in 15/17 paired DNA, with a higher proportion of mutated alleles in CF than in NT. NGS was possible for all pancreatic CF collected by EUS-FNA. In 2 cases, the presence of a KRAS/GNAS mutation was discordant between CF and NT. No mutations were found in 3 patients with NT or pancreatic cysts with high-grade dysplasia. The sensitivity and specificity of KRAS/GNAS mutations in CF to predict an appropriate indication for surgical resection were 0.78 and 0.62, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of RAF/PTPRD/CTNNB1 /RNF43/POLD1/TP53 mutations in CF were 0.55 and 1.0, respectively. CONCLUSION: Mutational analyses of CF and NT were highly concordant, confirming the value of NGS analysis of CF in the preoperative malignancy assessment. However, these results need to be confirmed on a larger scale

    Asymptotic behavior of a scalar field with an arbitrary potential trapped on a Randall-Sundrum’s braneworld: the effect of a negative dark radiation term on a Bianchi I brane

    No full text

    A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study

    No full text
    Background: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug–gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug–gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug–gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. Findings: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54–0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61–0·79]; p <0·0001). Interpretation: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020

    C. Literaturwissenschaft.

    No full text
    corecore