METHODS: The present study included 812 patients in the ABSORB EXTEND study in which a total of 215 diabetic patients were treated with Absorb BVS. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with EES in pooled data from the SPIRIT clinical program (SPIRIT II, SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV trials) were used for comparison by applying propensity score matching using 29 different variables. The primary endpoint was ischemia driven major adverse cardiac events (ID-MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR).
RESULTS: After 2 years, the ID-MACE rate was 6.5% in the Absorb BVS vs. 8.9% in the Xience group (P = 0.40). There was no difference for MACE components or definite/probable device thrombosis (HR: 1.43 [0.24,8.58]; P = 0.69). The occurrence of MACE was not different for both diabetic status (insulin- and non-insulin-requiring diabetes) in all time points up to the 2-year follow-up for the Absorb and Xience groups.
CONCLUSION: In this largest ever patient-level pooled comparison on the treatment of diabetic patients with BRS out to two years, individuals with diabetes treated with the Absorb BVS had a similar rate of MACE as compared with diabetics treated with the Xience EES. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose.
MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV1 compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.
METHODS: Six hundred and thirty-six adults with biopsy-proven non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) from two independent Asian cohorts were enrolled in our study. Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) was assessed by vibration-controlled transient elastography (Fibroscan). Fibrotic NASH was defined as NASH with a NAFLD activity score (NAS) ≥ 4 and F ≥ 2 fibrosis.
RESULTS: Metabolic syndrome (MetS), platelet count and MACK-3 were independent predictors of fibrotic NASH. On the basis of their regression coefficients, we developed a novel nomogram showing a good discriminatory ability (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]: 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI 0.75-0.83]) and a high negative predictive value (NPV: 94.7%) to rule out fibrotic NASH. In the validation set, this nomogram had a higher AUROC (0.81, 95%CI 0.74-0.87) than that of MACK-3 (AUROC: 0.75, 95%CI 0.68-0.82; P
METHODS: This was a cross sectional study design. A total of 347 respondents from low household income groups, including persons with disability and Orang Asli were recruited from E-kasih. A semi-guided self-administered questionnaire was used. QOL measured by EQ. 5D utility value and health status measured by visual analogue score (VAS). Descriptive statistic, bivariate Chi-square analysis and binary logistic regression were conducted to determine factors influencing low QOL and poor health status.
RESULTS: Majority of the respondents were Malay, female (61%), 63% were married, 60% were employed and 46% with total household income of less than 1 thousand Ringgit Malaysia. 70% of them were not having any chronic medical problems. Factors that associated with low QOL were male, single, low household income, and present chronic medical illness, while poor health status associated with female, lower education level and present chronic medical illness. Logistic regression analysis has showed that determinants of low QOL was present chronic illness [AOR 4.15 95%CI (2.42, 7.13)], while determinants for poor health status were; female [AOR 1.94 95%CI (1.09,3.44)], lower education [AOR 3.07 95%CI (1.28,7.34)] and present chronic illness [AOR 2.53 95%CI (1.39,4.61)].
CONCLUSION: Low socioeconomic population defined as low total household income in this study. Low QOL of this population determined by present chronic illness, while poor health status determined by gender, education level and chronic medical illness.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to review the recent literature on vesicular drug delivery systems containing curcumin.
METHODS: We have collated and summarized various recent attempts made to develop different controlled release drug delivery systems containing curcumin which would be of great interest for herbal, formulation and biological scientists. There are several vesicular nanotechnological techniques involving curcumin which have been studied recently, targeting pulmonary diseases.
RESULTS: Different vesicular systems containing curcumin are being studied for their therapeutic potential in different respiratory diseases. There has been a renewed interest in formulations containing curcumin recently, primarily owing to the broad spectrum therapeutic potential of this miracle substance. Various types of formulations, containing curcumin, targeting different bodily systems have recently emerged and, nevertheless, the search for newer frontiers with this drug goes on.
CONCLUSION: This mini review, in this direction, tries to highlight the key research interventions employing vesicular systems of drug delivery with curcumin.