| 1. |
- Aad, G, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2015
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Ruilope, LM, et al.
(författare)
-
Design and Baseline Characteristics of the Finerenone in Reducing Cardiovascular Mortality and Morbidity in Diabetic Kidney Disease Trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: American journal of nephrology. - : S. Karger AG. - 1421-9670 .- 0250-8095. ; 50:5, s. 345-356
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- <b><i>Background:</i></b> Among people with diabetes, those with kidney disease have exceptionally high rates of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality and progression of their underlying kidney disease. Finerenone is a novel, nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist that has shown to reduce albuminuria in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) while revealing only a low risk of hyperkalemia. However, the effect of finerenone on CV and renal outcomes has not yet been investigated in long-term trials. <b><i>Patients and</i></b> <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The Finerenone in Reducing CV Mortality and Morbidity in Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIGARO-DKD) trial aims to assess the efficacy and safety of finerenone compared to placebo at reducing clinically important CV and renal outcomes in T2D patients with CKD. FIGARO-DKD is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, event-driven trial running in 47 countries with an expected duration of approximately 6 years. FIGARO-DKD randomized 7,437 patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥25 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> and albuminuria (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 to ≤5,000 mg/g). The study has at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in the risk of the primary outcome (overall two-sided significance level α = 0.05), the composite of time to first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> FIGARO-DKD will determine whether an optimally treated cohort of T2D patients with CKD at high risk of CV and renal events will experience cardiorenal benefits with the addition of finerenone to their treatment regimen. Trial Registration: EudraCT number: 2015-000950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02545049.
|
|
| 4. |
- Giubilato, E, et al.
(författare)
-
Risk Management Framework for Nano-Biomaterials Used in Medical Devices and Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Materials (Basel, Switzerland). - : MDPI AG. - 1996-1944. ; 13:20
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The convergence of nanotechnology and biotechnology has led to substantial advancements in nano-biomaterials (NBMs) used in medical devices (MD) and advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP). However, there are concerns that applications of NBMs for medical diagnostics, therapeutics and regenerative medicine could also pose health and/or environmental risks since the current understanding of their safety is incomplete. A scientific strategy is therefore needed to assess all risks emerging along the life cycles of these products. To address this need, an overarching risk management framework (RMF) for NBMs used in MD and ATMP is presented in this paper, as a result of a collaborative effort of a team of experts within the EU Project BIORIMA and with relevant inputs from external stakeholders. The framework, in line with current regulatory requirements, is designed according to state-of-the-art approaches to risk assessment and management of both nanomaterials and biomaterials. The collection/generation of data for NBMs safety assessment is based on innovative integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA). The framework can support stakeholders (e.g., manufacturers, regulators, consultants) in systematically assessing not only patient safety but also occupational (including healthcare workers) and environmental risks along the life cycle of MD and ATMP. The outputs of the framework enable the user to identify suitable safe(r)-by-design alternatives and/or risk management measures and to compare the risks of NBMs to their (clinical) benefits, based on efficacy, quality and cost criteria, in order to inform robust risk management decision-making.
|
|
| 5. |
- Prins, J. T. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Surgical stabilization versus nonoperative treatment for flail and non-flail rib fracture patterns in patients with traumatic brain injury
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1863-9933 .- 1863-9941. ; 48:4, s. 3327-3338
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose Literature on outcomes after SSRF, stratified for rib fracture pattern is scarce in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI; Glasgow Coma Scale <= 12). We hypothesized that SSRF is associated with improved outcomes as compared to nonoperative management without hampering neurological recovery in these patients. Methods A post hoc subgroup analysis of the multicenter, retrospective CWIS-TBI study was performed in patients with TBI and stratified by having sustained a non-flail fracture pattern or flail chest between January 1, 2012 and July 31, 2019. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation-free days and secondary outcomes were in-hospital outcomes. In multivariable analysis, outcomes were assessed, stratified for rib fracture pattern. Results In total, 449 patients were analyzed. In patients with a non-flail fracture pattern, 25 of 228 (11.0%) underwent SSRF and in patients with a flail chest, 86 of 221 (38.9%). In multivariable analysis, ventilator-free days were similar in both treatment groups. For patients with a non-flail fracture pattern, the odds of pneumonia were significantly lower after SSRF (odds ratio 0.29; 95% CI 0.11-0.77; p = 0.013). In patients with a flail chest, the ICU LOS was significantly shorter in the SSRF group (beta, - 2.96 days; 95% CI - 5.70 to - 0.23; p = 0.034). Conclusion In patients with TBI and a non-flail fracture pattern, SSRF was associated with a reduced pneumonia risk. In patients with TBI and a flail chest, a shorter ICU LOS was observed in the SSRF group. In both groups, SSRF was safe and did not hamper neurological recovery.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Gerhards, R, et al.
(författare)
-
Oligodendrocyte myelin glycoprotein as a novel target for pathogenic autoimmunity in the CNS
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Acta neuropathologica communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2051-5960. ; 8:1, s. 207-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Autoimmune disorders of the central nervous system (CNS) comprise a broad spectrum of clinical entities. The stratification of patients based on the recognized autoantigen is of great importance for therapy optimization and for concepts of pathogenicity, but for most of these patients, the actual target of their autoimmune response is unknown. Here we investigated oligodendrocyte myelin glycoprotein (OMGP) as autoimmune target, because OMGP is expressed specifically in the CNS and there on oligodendrocytes and neurons. Using a stringent cell-based assay, we detected autoantibodies to OMGP in serum of 8/352 patients with multiple sclerosis, 1/28 children with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis and unexpectedly, also in one patient with psychosis, but in none of 114 healthy controls. Since OMGP is GPI-anchored, we validated its recognition also in GPI-anchored form. The autoantibodies to OMGP were largely IgG1 with a contribution of IgG4, indicating cognate T cell help. We found high levels of soluble OMGP in human spinal fluid, presumably due to shedding of the GPI-linked OMGP. Analyzing the pathogenic relevance of autoimmunity to OMGP in an animal model, we found that OMGP-specific T cells induce a novel type of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis dominated by meningitis above the cortical convexities. This unusual localization may be directed by intrathecal uptake and presentation of OMGP by meningeal phagocytes. Together, OMGP-directed autoimmunity provides a new element of heterogeneity, helping to improve the stratification of patients for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.
|
|
| 8. |
- Prins, Jonne T H, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcome after surgical stabilization of rib fractures versus nonoperative treatment in patients with multiple rib fractures and moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (CWIS-TBI).
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The journal of trauma and acute care surgery. - 2163-0763. ; 90:3, s. 492-500
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Outcomes after surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) have not been studied in patients with multiple rib fractures and traumatic brain injury (TBI). We hypothesized that SSRF, as compared to nonoperative management, is associated with favorable outcomes in patients with TBI.A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed in patients with rib fractures and TBI between January 2012 and July 2019. Patients who underwent SSRF were compared to those managed nonoperatively. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation-free days. Secondary outcomes were Intensive Care Unit (ICU-LOS) and hospital length of stay (HLOS), tracheostomy, occurrence of complications, neurologic outcome, and mortality. Patients were further stratified into moderate (GCS 9-12) and severe (GCS ≤8) TBI.The study cohort consisted of 456 patients of which 111 (24.3%) underwent SSRF. SSRF was performed at a median of 3 days and SSRF-related complication rate was 3.6%. In multivariable analyses, there was no difference in mechanical ventilation-free days between the SSRF and nonoperative groups. The odds of developing pneumonia (OR 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.98), p=0.043) and 30-day mortality (OR 0.32 (95% CI 0.11-0.91), p=0.032) were significantly lower in the SSRF group. Patients with moderate TBI had similar outcome in both groups. In patients with severe TBI, the odds of 30-day mortality was significantly lower after SSRF (0.19 (95% CI 0.04-0.88), p=0.034).In patients with multiple rib fractures and TBI, the mechanical ventilation-free days did not differ between the two treatment groups. In addition, SSRF was associated with a significantly lower risk of pneumonia and 30-day mortality. In patients with moderate TBI, outcome was similar. In patients with severe TBI a lower 30-day mortality was observed. There was a low SSRF-related complication risk. These data suggest a potential role for SSRF in select patients with TBI.Therapeutic, level IV.
|
|
| 9. |
- Zannad, F., et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical outcome endpoints in heart failure trials: a European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association consensus document
- 2013
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : Wiley. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 15:10, s. 1082-1094
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Endpoint selection is a critically important step in clinical trial design. It poses major challenges for investigators, regulators, and study sponsors, and it also has important clinical and practical implications for physicians and patients. Clinical outcomes of interest in heart failure trials include all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, relevant non-fatal morbidity (e.g. all-cause and cause-specific hospitalization), composites capturing both morbidity and mortality, safety, symptoms, functional capacity, and patient-reported outcomes. Each of these endpoints has strengths and weaknesses that create controversies regarding which is most appropriate in terms of clinical importance, sensitivity, reliability, and consistency. Not surprisingly, a lack of consensus exists within the scientific community regarding the optimal endpoint(s) for both acute and chronic heart failure trials. In an effort to address these issues, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) convened a group of expert heart failure clinical investigators, biostatisticians, regulators, and pharmaceutical industry scientists (Nice, France, 12-13 February 2012) to evaluate the challenges of defining heart failure endpoints in clinical trials and to develop a consensus framework. This report summarizes the group's recommendations for achieving common views on heart failure endpoints in clinical trials.
|
|
