METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies to identify potentially novel prognostic factors that may improve CVD risk prediction in T2D. Out of 9380 studies identified, 416 studies met inclusion criteria. Outcomes were reported for 321 biomarker studies, 48 genetic marker studies, and 47 risk score/model studies.
RESULTS: Out of all evaluated biomarkers, only 13 showed improvement in prediction performance. Results of pooled meta-analyses, non-pooled analyses, and assessments of improvement in prediction performance and risk of bias, yielded the highest predictive utility for N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (high-evidence), troponin-T (TnT) (moderate-evidence), triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index (moderate-evidence), Genetic Risk Score for Coronary Heart Disease (GRS-CHD) (moderate-evidence); moderate predictive utility for coronary computed tomography angiography (low-evidence), single-photon emission computed tomography (low-evidence), pulse wave velocity (moderate-evidence); and low predictive utility for C-reactive protein (moderate-evidence), coronary artery calcium score (low-evidence), galectin-3 (low-evidence), troponin-I (low-evidence), carotid plaque (low-evidence), and growth differentiation factor-15 (low-evidence). Risk scores showed modest discrimination, with lower performance in populations different from the original development cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite high interest in this topic, very few studies conducted rigorous analyses to demonstrate incremental predictive utility beyond established CVD risk factors for T2D. The most promising markers identified were NT-proBNP, TnT, TyG and GRS-CHD, with the highest strength of evidence for NT-proBNP. Further research is needed to determine their clinical utility in risk stratification and management of CVD in T2D.
METHODS: Case information from 192 children was collected from outpatient and inpatient clinics using a survey questionnaire. These included 90 pediatric burn cases and 102 controls who were children without burns. A stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to determine the risk factors for pediatric burns in order to establish a model. The goodness-of-fit for the model was assessed using the Hosmer and Lemeshow test as well as receiver operating characteristic and internal calibration curves. A nomogram was then used to analyze the contribution of each influencing factor to the pediatric burns model.
RESULTS: Seven variables, including gender, age, ethnic minority, the household register, mother's employment status, mother's education and number of children, were analyzed for both groups of children. Of these, age, ethnic minority, mother's employment status and number of children in a household were found to be related to the occurrence of pediatric burns using univariate logistic regression analysis (p 0.2 and variance inflation factor <5 showed that age was a protective factor for pediatric burns [odds ratio (OR) = 0.725; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.665-0.801]. Compared with single-child parents, those with two children were at greater risk of pediatric burns (OR = 0.389; 95% CI: 0.158-0.959). The ethnic minority of the child and the mother's employment status were also risk factors (OR = 6.793; 95% CI: 2.203-20.946 and OR = 2.266; 95% CI: 1.025-5.012, respectively). Evaluation of the model used was found to be stable. A nomogram showed that the contribution in the children burns model was age > mother's employment status > number of children > ethnic minority.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that there are several risk factors strongly correlated to pediatric burns, including age, ethnic minority, the number of children in a household and mother's employment status. Government officials should direct their preventive approach to tackling the problem of pediatric burns by promoting awareness of these findings.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with histologically/cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 were randomized 1:1 to receive erlotinib (oral; 150 mg once daily until progression/unacceptable toxicity) or GP [G 1250 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8 (3-weekly cycle); P 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1, (3-weekly cycle) for up to four cycles]. Primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points include objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.
RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were randomized: 110 to erlotinib and 107 to GP. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 11.0 months versus 5.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.51; log-rank P < 0.0001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed median PFS was consistent (HR, 0.42). Median OS was 26.3 versus 25.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively (HR, 0.91, 95% CI 0.63-1.31; log-rank P = .607). ORR was 62.7% for erlotinib and 33.6% for GP. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2.7% versus 10.6% of erlotinib and GP patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were rash (6.4%) with erlotinib, and neutropenia (25.0%), leukopenia (14.4%), and anemia (12.5%) with GP.
CONCLUSION: These analyses demonstrate that first-line erlotinib provides a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus GP in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (NCT01342965).