Comparison of Short-Term Estrogenicity Tests for Identification of Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals

The aim of this study was to compare results obtained by eight different short-term assays of estrogenlike actions of chemicals conducted in 10 different laboratories in five countries. Twenty chemicals were selected to represent direct-acting estrogens, compounds with estrogenic metabolites, estrogenic antagonists, and a known cytotoxic agent. Also included in the test panel were 17β-estradiol as a positive control and ethanol as solvent control. The test compounds were coded before distribution. Test methods included direct binding to the estrogen receptor (ER), proliferation of MCF-7 cells, transient reporter gene expression in MCF-7 cells, reporter gene expression in yeast strains stably transfected with the human ER and an estrogen-responsive reporter gene, and vitellogenin production in juvenile rainbow trout. 17β-Estradiol, 17α-ethynyl estradiol, and diethylstilbestrol induced a strong estrogenic response in all test systems. Colchicine caused cytotoxicity only. Bisphenol A induced an estrogenic response in all assays. The results obtained for the remaining test compounds—tamoxifen, ICI 182.780, testosterone, bisphenol A dimethacrylate, 4-n-octylphenol, 4-n-nonylphenol, nonylphenol dodecylethoxylate, butylbenzylphthalate, dibutylphthalate, methoxychlor, o,p′-DDT, p,p′-DDE, endosulfan, chlomequat chloride, and ethanol—varied among the assays. The results demonstrate that careful standardization is necessary to obtain a reasonable degree of reproducibility. Also, similar methods vary in their sensitivity to estrogenic compounds. Thus, short-term tests are useful for screening purposes, but the methods must be further validated by additional interlaboratory and interassay comparisons to document the reliability of the methods

Long-term safety of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: Evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis

Abstract Background Previous meta-analyses have investigated the relative safety and efficacy profiles of different types of drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS); however, most prior trials in these meta-analyses reported follow-up to only 1 year, and as such, the relative long-term safety and efficacy of these devices are unknown. Many recent studies have now reported extended follow-up data. Objectives This study sought to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of durable polymer-based DES, bioabsorbable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents (BES), and BMS by means of network meta-analysis. Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing DES to each other or to BMS were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases and proceedings of international meetings. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted. Results Fifty-one trials that included a total of 52,158 randomized patients with follow-up duration ≥3 years were analyzed. At a median follow-up of 3.8 years, cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES) were associated with lower rates of mortality, definite stent thrombosis (ST), and myocardial infarction than BMS, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and less ST than BES. Phosphorylcholine-based zotarolimus-eluting stents had lower rates of definite ST than SES and lower rates of myocardial infarction than BMS and PES. The late rates of target-vessel revascularization were reduced with all DES compared with BMS, with cobalt-chromium EES, platinum chromium-EES, SES, and BES also having lower target-vessel revascularization rates than PES. Conclusions After a median follow-up of 3.8 years, all DES demonstrated superior efficacy compared with BMS. Among DES, second-generation devices have substantially improved long-term safety and efficacy outcomes compared with first-generation device

Impact of acute coronary syndrome on clinical outcomes after revascularization with the dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of the dual-therapy CD34 antibody-covered sirolimus-eluting Combo stent (DTS) and the sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (O-SES) in patients with and without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) included in the SORT OUT X study.BACKGROUND: The incidence of target lesion failure (TLF) after treatment with modern drug-eluting stents has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with ACS when compared to patients without ACS. Whether the results from the SORT OUT X study apply to patients with and without ACS remains unknown.METHODS: In total, 3146 patients were randomized to stent implantation with DTS (n = 1578; ACS: n = 856) or O-SES (n = 1568; ACS: n = 854). The primary end point, TLF, was a composite of cardiac death, target-lesion myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 1 year.RESULTS: At 1 year, the rate of TLF was higher in the DTS group compared to the O-SES group, both among patients with ACS (6.7% vs. 4.1%; incidence rate ratio: 1.65 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.08-2.52]) and without ACS (6.0% vs. 3.2%; incidence rate ratio: 1.88 [95% CI: 1.13-3.14]). The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR, whereas rates of cardiac death and target lesion MI did not differ significantly between the two stent groups in patients with or without ACS CONCLUSION: Compared to the O-SES, the DTS was associated with a higher risk of TLF at 12 months in patients with and without ACS. The differences were mainly explained by higher rates of TLR.</p

Randomised comparison of provisional side branch stenting versus a two-stent strategy for treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch:the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study IV

Background - It is still uncertain whether coronary bifurcations with lesions involving a large side branch (SB) should be treated by stenting the main vessel and provisional stenting of the SB (simple) or by routine two-stent techniques (complex). We aimed to compare clinical outcome after treatment of lesions in large bifurcations by simple or complex stent implantation. Methods - The study was a randomised, superiority trial. Enrolment required a SB≥2.75 mm, ≥50% diameter stenosis in both vessels, and allowed SB lesion length up to 15 mm. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-procedural myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation at 6 months. Two-year clinical follow-up was included in this primary reporting due to lower than expected event rates. Results - A total of 450 patients were assigned to simple stenting (n=221) or complex stenting (n=229) in 14 Nordic and Baltic centres. Two-year follow-up was available in 218 (98.6%) and 228 (99.5%) patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months was 5.5% vs 2.2% (risk differences 3.2%, 95% CI −0.2 to 6.8, p=0.07) and at 2 years 12.9% vs 8.4% (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13, p=0.12) after simple versus complex treatment. In the subgroup treated by newer generation drug-eluting stents, MACE was 12.0% vs 5.6% (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.17, p=0.10) after simple versus complex treatment. Conclusion - In the treatment of bifurcation lesions involving a large SB with ostial stenosis, routine two-stent techniques did not improve outcome significantly compared with treatment by the simpler main vessel stenting technique after 2 years