Merck Frosst/CIHR Research Chair in Obesity, Centre de recherche de l'Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada. Denis.Richard@criucpq.ulaval.ca
Recent data from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) indicated that A1C variability is associated with the risk of diabetes microvascular complications. However, these results might have been influenced by the interventional study design. Therefore, we investigated the longitudinal associations between A1C variability and diabetes complications in patients with type 1 diabetes in the observational Finnish Diabetic Nephropathy (FinnDiane) Study.
A total of 2,107 patients in the FinnDiane Study had complete data on renal status and serial measurements of A1C from baseline to follow-up (median 5.7 years), and 1,845 patients had similar data on cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Intrapersonal SD of serially measured A1C was considered a measure of variability.
During follow-up, 10.2% progressed to a higher albuminuria level or to end-stage renal disease, whereas 8.6% had a CVD event. The SD of serial A1C was 1.01 versus 0.75 (P
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2005 Dec 22;353(25):2643-5316371630
Acarbose for the prevention of Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance: facts and interpretations concerning the critical analysis of the STOP-NIDDM Trial data.
Research Centre, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal-Hôtel-Dieu, Department of Medicine, University of Montreal, 3850 St. Urbain Street, Rm 8-202, Montreal, Quebec H2W 1T7, Canada. email@example.com
The STOP-NIDDM Trial has shown that acarbose treatment in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance is associated with a significant risk reduction in the development of diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular complications. Kaiser and Sawicki have accused the investigators of the STOP-NIDDM Trial of major biases in the conduct of the study, of manipulating the data and of conflict of interest. The aim of this paper is to present data and explanations refuting these allegations. In the STOP-NIDDM Trial, 61 subjects were excluded from the efficacy analysis before unblinding for legitimate reasons: failure to satisfy major entry criteria (n=17) and lack of post-randomisation data (n=44). Blinding and randomisation were carried out by an independent biostatistician. Titration of placebo/acarbose is well described in the protocol and in the study design paper. Of the study population, 9.3% had a fasting plasma glucose of > or =7.0 mmol/l at screening and could have been diabetic according to the new diagnostic criteria. However, even if these subjects are excluded, patients having acarbose treatment still saw a significant risk reduction in the development of diabetes (p=0.0027). The changes in weight are consistent in different publications and are related to different times of follow-up and assessment. Weight change does have an effect on the development of diabetes, but acarbose treatment is still effective even after adjusting for this (p=0.0063). The cardiovascular endpoints were a clearly designated assessment in the original protocol, and only those defined in the protocol and ascertained by the independent Cardiovascular Event Adjudication Committee were used in the analysis. Hypertension was defined according to the most recent diagnostic criteria. The STOP-NIDDM Trial results are scientifically sound and credible. The investigators stand strongly behind these results demonstrating that acarbose treatment is associated with a delay in the development of diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular complications in a high-risk population with IGT.
There is scarce information in literature about the decisions made by ethics committees concerning the clinical studies they have reviewed. A retrospective, detailed review of 666 applications, their amendments and the ethics committees' statements was undertaken. All protrocols of clinical studies on medicinal products submitted to and reviewed by the ethics committees of two university hospitals during the years 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1998 were investigated. Most of the studies were international (50%), multicenter (71%), phase III trials (41%) on a new clinical entity, (38%). Validity of the clinical drug study applications was acceptable in more than half of the cases (364; 55%), while 91 (14%) were approved with advisory comments, 153 (23%) had to be amended, 35 (5%) were left pending and 23 (3%) were rejected. Most of the questions pertained to informed consent and the study protcol. In accordance with precious results, our findings support the opinion that the submitted documents need to be improved, especially with regard to informed consent and study protocols, in order to gain better Good Clinical Practice (GCP) compliance. Well-defined, documented operating procedures of the ethics committees would have facilitated the practical issues in the review process.
We analyzed subfraction composition of HDL and cholesterol-acceptor properties of the plasma in Russian men with high and low HDL cholesterol. HDL were subfractionated by two-dimensional electrophoresis in agarose-polyacrylamide gel. The content of pre-beta1 HDL increased in individuals with high concentration of HDL cholesterol and strictly correlated with acception of cellular cholesterol in both groups.
Although there is extensive information about why people participate in clinical trials, studies are largely based on quantitative evidence and typically focus on single conditions. Over the last decade investigations into why people volunteer for health research have become increasingly prominent across diverse research settings, offering variable based explanations of participation patterns driven primarily by recruitment concerns. Therapeutic misconception and altruism have emerged as predominant themes in this literature on motivations to participate in health research. This paper contributes to more recent qualitative approaches to understanding how and why people come to participate in various types of health research. We focus on the experience of participating and the meanings research participation has for people within the context of their lives and their health and illness biographies.
This is a qualitative exploratory study informed by grounded theory strategies. Thirty-nine participants recruited in British Columbia and Manitoba, Canada, who had taken part in a diverse range of health research studies participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants described their experiences of health research participation including motivations for volunteering. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using constant comparisons. Coding and data management was supported by Nvivo-7.
A predominant theme to emerge was 'participation in health research to access health services.' Participants described research as ways of accessing: (1) Medications that offered (hope of) relief; (2) better care; (3) technologies for monitoring health or illness. Participants perceived standard medical care to be a "trial and error" process akin to research, which further blurred the boundaries between research and treatment.
Our findings have implications for recruitment, informed consent, and the dichotomizing of medical/health procedures as either research or treatment. Those with low health status may be more vulnerable to potential coercion, suggesting the need for a more cautious approach to obtaining consent. Our findings also indicate the need for boundary work in order to better differentiate treatment and research. It is important however to acknowledge a categorical ambiguity; it is not always the case that people are misinformed about the possible benefits of research procedures (i.e., therapeutic misconception); our participants were aware that the primary purpose of research is to gain new knowledge yet they also identified a range of actual health benefits arising from their participation.
To describe the substantive and procedural criteria used for placing patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation and for allocating available livers to patients on the waiting list; to identify principal decision-makers and the main factors limiting liver transplantation in Canada; and to examine how closely cadaveric liver allocation resembles theoretic models of source allocation.
Medical directors of all seven Canadian adult liver transplantation centres, or their designates. Six of the questionnaires were completed.
Relative importance of substantive and procedural criteria used to place patients in the waiting list for liver transplantation and to allocate available livers. Identification of principal decision-makers and main limiting factors to adult liver transplantation.
Alcoholism, drug addiction, HIV positivity, primary liver cancer, noncompliance and hepatitis B were the most important criteria that had a negative influence on decisions to place patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation. Severity of disease and urgency were the most important criteria used for selecting patients on the waiting list for transplantation. Criteria that were inconsistent across the centres included social support (for deciding who is placed on the waiting list) and length of time on the waiting list (for deciding who is selected from the list). Although a variety of people were reported as being involved in these decisions, virtually all were reported to be health to be health care professionals. Thirty-seven patients died while waiting for liver transplantation in 1991; the scarcity of cadaveric livers was the main limiting factor.
Criteria for resource allocation decisions regarding liver transplantation are generally consistent among the centres across Canada, although some important inconsistencies remain. Because patients die while on the waiting list and because the primary limiting factor is organ supply, increased organ acquisition efforts are needed.
Since kidney transplantation (KTX) is the preferred means of treating kidney failure, ensuring that all patients who may benefit from KTX have equal access to this scarce resource is an important objective. Studies focusing on this issue will become increasingly important as the gap between the demand and supply of organs continues to increase, and changes to the United Network of Organ Sharing organ allocation policy are actively debated. However, it is clear that current methods used to study access to KTX have serious limitations. This review highlights the shortcomings of the methods currently used to assess access to KTX, and the limitations of registry data and national wait-list data as information sources to study patient access to KTX. The review also provides suggestions for research and analytical approaches that might be utilized to improve our future understanding of patient access to KTX. The information provided will aid the reader to critically assess issues related to patient access to KTX.