MyMedR

Displaying all 6 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Comparative safety and effectiveness of dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban and apixaban in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a retrospective study from a large healthcare system

Villines TC, Ahmad A, Petrini M, Tang W, Evans A, Rush T, et al.

Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother, 2019 Apr 01;5(2):80-90.
PMID: 30500885 DOI: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvy044

AIMS: We used the US Department of Defense Military Health System database to compare the safety and effectiveness of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) initiating dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban or apixaban.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Two cohorts of adults with NVAF, newly initiated on standard-dose DOAC, were identified based on clinical approval dates: July 2011-June 2016 for dabigatran (150 mg b.i.d.) or rivaroxaban (20 mg QD) and January 2013-June 2016 for dabigatran (150 mg b.i.d.) or apixaban (5 mg b.i.d.). Propensity score matching (1:1) identified two well-balanced cohorts (dabigatran vs. rivaroxaban n = 12 763 per treatment group; dabigatran vs. apixaban n = 4802 per treatment group). In both cohorts, baseline characteristics and follow-up duration were similar between treatment groups. Patients newly initiating dabigatran had significantly lower risk of major bleeding vs. rivaroxaban [2.08% vs. 2.53%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.97; P = 0.018], while stroke risk was similar (0.60% vs. 0.78%; HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57-1.04; P = 0.084). The dabigatran vs. apixaban cohort analysis found no differences in risk of major bleeding (1.60% vs. 1.21%; HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.97-1.94; P = 0.070) or stroke (0.44% vs. 0.35%; HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.66-2.39; P = 0.489).
CONCLUSION: Among NVAF patients newly initiated on standard-dose DOAC therapy in this study, dabigatran was associated with significantly lower major bleeding risk vs. rivaroxaban, and no significant difference in stroke risk. For dabigatran vs. apixaban, the reduced sample size limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions.
Study site: Department of Defense (DoD) Military Health System, United States
Fulltext ISPOR Code of Ethics 2017 (4th Edition)

Santos J, Palumbo F, Molsen-David E, Willke RJ, Binder L, Drummond M, et al.

Value Health, 2017 12;20(10):1227-1242.
PMID: 29241881 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.018

As the leading health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) professional society, ISPOR has a responsibility to establish a uniform, harmonized international code for ethical conduct. ISPOR has updated its 2008 Code of Ethics to reflect the current research environment. This code addresses what is acceptable and unacceptable in research, from inception to the dissemination of its results. There are nine chapters: 1 - Introduction; 2 - Ethical Principles respect, beneficence and justice with reference to a non-exhaustive compilation of international, regional, and country-specific guidelines and standards; 3 - Scope HEOR definitions and how HEOR and the Code relate to other research fields; 4 - Research Design Considerations primary and secondary data related issues, e.g., participant recruitment, population and research setting, sample size/site selection, incentive/honorarium, administration databases, registration of retrospective observational studies and modeling studies; 5 - Data Considerations privacy and data protection, combining, verification and transparency of research data, scientific misconduct, etc.; 6 - Sponsorship and Relationships with Others (roles of researchers, sponsors, key opinion leaders and advisory board members, research participants and institutional review boards (IRBs) / independent ethics committees (IECs) approval and responsibilities); 7 - Patient Centricity and Patient Engagement new addition, with explanation and guidance; 8 - Publication and Dissemination; and 9 - Conclusion and Limitations.
Fulltext Lipid Metabolism Links Nutrient-Exercise Timing to Insulin Sensitivity in Men Classified as Overweight or Obese

Edinburgh RM, Bradley HE, Abdullah NF, Robinson SL, Chrzanowski-Smith OJ, Walhin JP, et al.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2020 03 01;105(3).
PMID: 31628477 DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgz104

CONTEXT: Pre-exercise nutrient availability alters acute metabolic responses to exercise, which could modulate training responsiveness.
OBJECTIVE: To assess acute and chronic effects of exercise performed before versus after nutrient ingestion on whole-body and intramuscular lipid utilization and postprandial glucose metabolism.
DESIGN: (1) Acute, randomized, crossover design (Acute Study); (2) 6-week, randomized, controlled design (Training Study).
SETTING: General community.
PARTICIPANTS: Men with overweight/obesity (mean ± standard deviation, body mass index: 30.2 ± 3.5 kg⋅m-2 for Acute Study, 30.9 ± 4.5 kg⋅m-2 for Training Study).
INTERVENTIONS: Moderate-intensity cycling performed before versus after mixed-macronutrient breakfast (Acute Study) or carbohydrate (Training Study) ingestion.
RESULTS: Acute Study-exercise before versus after breakfast consumption increased net intramuscular lipid utilization in type I (net change: -3.44 ± 2.63% versus 1.44 ± 4.18% area lipid staining, P < 0.01) and type II fibers (-1.89 ± 2.48% versus 1.83 ± 1.92% area lipid staining, P < 0.05). Training Study-postprandial glycemia was not differentially affected by 6 weeks of exercise training performed before versus after carbohydrate intake (P > 0.05). However, postprandial insulinemia was reduced with exercise training performed before but not after carbohydrate ingestion (P = 0.03). This resulted in increased oral glucose insulin sensitivity (25 ± 38 vs -21 ± 32 mL⋅min-1⋅m-2; P = 0.01), associated with increased lipid utilization during exercise (r = 0.50, P = 0.02). Regular exercise before nutrient provision also augmented remodeling of skeletal muscle phospholipids and protein content of the glucose transport protein GLUT4 (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Experiments investigating exercise training and metabolic health should consider nutrient-exercise timing, and exercise performed before versus after nutrient intake (ie, in the fasted state) may exert beneficial effects on lipid utilization and reduce postprandial insulinemia.
Fulltext Polymorphisms in a Putative Enhancer at the 10q21.2 Breast Cancer Risk Locus Regulate NRBF2 Expression

Darabi H, McCue K, Beesley J, Michailidou K, Nord S, Kar S, et al.

Am J Hum Genet, 2015 Jul 02;97(1):22-34.
PMID: 26073781 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.05.002

Genome-wide association studies have identified SNPs near ZNF365 at 10q21.2 that are associated with both breast cancer risk and mammographic density. To identify the most likely causal SNPs, we fine mapped the association signal by genotyping 428 SNPs across the region in 89,050 European and 12,893 Asian case and control subjects from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. We identified four independent sets of correlated, highly trait-associated variants (iCHAVs), three of which were located within ZNF365. The most strongly risk-associated SNP, rs10995201 in iCHAV1, showed clear evidence of association with both estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (OR = 0.85 [0.82-0.88]) and ER-negative (OR = 0.87 [0.82-0.91]) disease, and was also the SNP most strongly associated with percent mammographic density. iCHAV2 (lead SNP, chr10: 64,258,684:D) and iCHAV3 (lead SNP, rs7922449) were also associated with ER-positive (OR = 0.93 [0.91-0.95] and OR = 1.06 [1.03-1.09]) and ER-negative (OR = 0.95 [0.91-0.98] and OR = 1.08 [1.04-1.13]) disease. There was weaker evidence for iCHAV4, located 5' of ADO, associated only with ER-positive breast cancer (OR = 0.93 [0.90-0.96]). We found 12, 17, 18, and 2 candidate causal SNPs for breast cancer in iCHAVs 1-4, respectively. Chromosome conformation capture analysis showed that iCHAV2 interacts with the ZNF365 and NRBF2 (more than 600 kb away) promoters in normal and cancerous breast epithelial cells. Luciferase assays did not identify SNPs that affect transactivation of ZNF365, but identified a protective haplotype in iCHAV2, associated with silencing of the NRBF2 promoter, implicating this gene in the etiology of breast cancer.
Fulltext Identification of four novel susceptibility loci for oestrogen receptor negative breast cancer

Couch FJ, Kuchenbaecker KB, Michailidou K, Mendoza-Fandino GA, Nord S, Lilyquist J, et al.

Nat Commun, 2016 Apr 27;7:11375.
PMID: 27117709 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11375

Common variants in 94 loci have been associated with breast cancer including 15 loci with genome-wide significant associations (P<5 × 10(-8)) with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer and BRCA1-associated breast cancer risk. In this study, to identify new ER-negative susceptibility loci, we performed a meta-analysis of 11 genome-wide association studies (GWAS) consisting of 4,939 ER-negative cases and 14,352 controls, combined with 7,333 ER-negative cases and 42,468 controls and 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers genotyped on the iCOGS array. We identify four previously unidentified loci including two loci at 13q22 near KLF5, a 2p23.2 locus near WDR43 and a 2q33 locus near PPIL3 that display genome-wide significant associations with ER-negative breast cancer. In addition, 19 known breast cancer risk loci have genome-wide significant associations and 40 had moderate associations (P<0.05) with ER-negative disease. Using functional and eQTL studies we implicate TRMT61B and WDR43 at 2p23.2 and PPIL3 at 2q33 in ER-negative breast cancer aetiology. All ER-negative loci combined account for ∼11% of familial relative risk for ER-negative disease and may contribute to improved ER-negative and BRCA1 breast cancer risk prediction.
Fulltext Breast cancer risk variants at 6q25 display different phenotype associations and regulate ESR1, RMND1 and CCDC170

Dunning AM, Michailidou K, Kuchenbaecker KB, Thompson D, French JD, Beesley J, et al.

Nat Genet, 2016 Apr;48(4):374-86.
PMID: 26928228 DOI: 10.1038/ng.3521

We analyzed 3,872 common genetic variants across the ESR1 locus (encoding estrogen receptor α) in 118,816 subjects from three international consortia. We found evidence for at least five independent causal variants, each associated with different phenotype sets, including estrogen receptor (ER(+) or ER(-)) and human ERBB2 (HER2(+) or HER2(-)) tumor subtypes, mammographic density and tumor grade. The best candidate causal variants for ER(-) tumors lie in four separate enhancer elements, and their risk alleles reduce expression of ESR1, RMND1 and CCDC170, whereas the risk alleles of the strongest candidates for the remaining independent causal variant disrupt a silencer element and putatively increase ESR1 and RMND1 expression.