METHODS: In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days.
RESULTS: We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that in the usual-care group and required supplemental sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation. More adverse events were reported in the dexmedetomidine group than in the usual-care group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SPICE III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01728558.).
METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive HCV patients treated with PegIFN/RBV in 2004 to 2012.
RESULTS: A total of 273 patients received treatment. The mean age was 44.16 ± 10.5 years and 76% were male. The top 2 self-reported risks were blood or blood product transfusion before 1994 and injection drug use, found in 57.1% of patients. The predominant HCV genotype (GT) was 3 at 60.6%, second was GT1 at 36.1% and other GTs were uncommon at about 1% or less. About half of our patients have high baseline viral load (>800,000 iu/ml), 18.3% had liver cirrhosis and 22.3% had HIV co-infection. Co-morbid illness was found in 42.9%, hypertension and type 2 diabetes were the two most common. The overall sustained virological response (SVR) by intention-to-treat analysis were 54.9% (n=150/273), 41.2% (40/97) for GT1, 100% (5/5) for GT2 and 62% (101/163) for GT3. Subgroup analysis for HCV monoinfected, treatment naïve showed SVR of 49.2% (31/63) for GT1, 100% (5/5) for GT2 and 67% (69/103) for GT3. In HCV mono-infected and treatment experienced (n=29), the SVR was 28.6% (4/14) for GT1, 21.4% (69/103) for GT3. In the HIV/HCV co-infected, treatment naïve (n=56), the SVR was 28.6% (4/14) for GT1 and 64.3% (27/42) for GT3. Treatment naïve GT3 mono-infected patients had a statistically significant higher SVR compared to treatment experienced patients (P=0.001). In GT3 patients who achieved rapid virological response, the SVR was significantly higher at 85.2% (P< 0.001). The SVR for cirrhotics were low especially for GT1 at 21% (4/19) and 31% (4/13) based on all patients and treatment naïve HCV monoinfected respectively. In GT3 cirrhotics the corresponding SVR were 57.1% (16/28) and 60.9% (14/23). Premature discontinuation rate was 21.2% with the majority due to intolerable adverse events at 12.1%.
CONCLUSIONS: In our routine clinical practice, the HCV patients we treated were young, predominantly of GT3 and many had difficult-to-treat clinical characteristics. The SVR of our patients were below those reported in Asian clinical trials but in keeping with some "real world" data.
METHODS: A total of 220 T2DM patients from the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia, who had at least one CV complication and who had been taking at least one antidiabetic drug for at least 3 months, were included. The associations of antidiabetics, cardiovascular diseases, laboratory parameters, concurrent medications, comorbidities, demographics, and clinical characteristics with glycemic control were investigated.
RESULTS: Sulfonylureas in combination (P=0.002) and sulfonylurea monotherapy (P<0.001) were found to be associated with good glycemic control, whereas insulin in combination (P=0.051), and combination biguanides and insulin therapy (P=0.012) were found to be associated with poor glycemic control. Stroke (P=0.044) was the only type of CVD that seemed to be significantly associated with good glycemic control. Other factors such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (P=0.026), elderly patients (P=0.018), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (P=0.021), and fasting plasma glucose (P<0.001) were found to be significantly correlated with good glycemic control.
CONCLUSION: Individualized treatment in T2DM patients with CVDs can be supported through a better understanding of the association between glycemic control and CV profiles in T2DM patients.
METHOD: A 12-month single blinded multicenter randomized control trial was designed to investigate the measured variables [Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c), Renal function, Albumin Creatinine Ratio (ACR) etc.]. The trial was randomized into 2 experimental parallel arms (ascorbic acid vs acetylsalicylic acid) were blinded with study supplements in combination with metformin and findings were compared to control arm with metformin alone and blinded with placebo. Withdrawal criteria was defined to maintain the equity and balance in the participants in the whole trial.
FINDING: Patients with metformin and ascorbic acid (parallel arm I) was twice more likely to reduce HbA1c than metformin alone (control arm) in a year (OR 2.31 (95% CI 1.87-4.42) p