首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
文章检索
  按 检索   检索词:      
出版年份:   被引次数:   他引次数: 提示:输入*表示无穷大
  收费全文   4篇
  免费   0篇
口腔科学   1篇
临床医学   1篇
内科学   2篇
  2013年   1篇
  2012年   1篇
  2009年   1篇
  2007年   1篇
排序方式: 共有4条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
Background Maintaining a therapeutic level of anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin remains a major challenge for clinicians because of the wide variability of patient responses, which may be explained by variable binding of heparin to plasma proteins. Direct thrombin inhibitors may offer an advantage in more predictable anticoagulation. Methods Plasma samples from normal volunteers, stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients, unstable angina patients, and acute myocardial infarction patients were obtained. A fixed concentration of heparin (.13 U/ml) or bivalirudin (1.6 μg/ml) was added to plasma from each of the four study groups and measurement of the APTT was performed. In addition, a pool of plasma from patients with acute MI was diluted in pooled normal plasma, and heparin or bivalirudin was added to the plasma preparation and APTT measurements performed. Results In heparin-treated plasma samples, mean APTT values were 443 ± 137% baseline for normal volunteers, 347 ± 116% for patients with stable CAD, 290 ± 124% for patients with unstable angina (p < 0.05), and 230 ± 120% for patients with acute MI (p < 0.05). APTT did not differ across the four groups treated with bivalirudin. There was a much higher degree of variability in APTT values in heparin treated controls (272%–671%, SD ∼30%) compared to bivalirudin treated controls (284–499%, SD ∼12%). When the “acute MI pool” was diluted in pooled normal plasma at fixed concentrations of either bivalirudin (1.6 μg/ml) or heparin (0.13 U/ml), there was a sharp decrease in heparin activity from 407% baseline (at 0% acute MI pool) to values as low as 126% baseline (at 100% acute MI pool). A markedly different pattern was seen in the bivalirudin treated samples, where a trend towards decreased APTT values was seen only at the 100% acute MI pool. Conclusion Both heparin variability and resistance may limit optimal antithrombotic therapy with heparin in patients with ACS and constitutes a potential advantage of direct antithrombin blockade with bivalirudin.  相似文献   
2.
3.
Please cite this paper as: Sheldon et al. (2013) Immunogenicity of a quadrivalent Ann Arbor strain live attenuated influenza vaccine delivered using a blow‐fill‐seal device in adults: a randomized, active‐controlled study. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses 7(6), 1142–1150. Background  Influenza B strains from two distinct lineages (Yamagata and Victoria) have cocirculated over recent years. Current seasonal vaccines contain a single B lineage resulting in frequent mismatches between the vaccine strain and the circulating strain. An Ann Arbor strain quadrivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine (Q/LAIV) containing B strains from both lineages is being developed to address this issue. Objectives  The goal of this study was to evaluate whether Q/LAIV administered intranasally as a single dose to a single nostril, using a blow‐fill‐seal (BFS) delivery system had a similar immunogenicity and safety profile compared with the licensed trivalent vaccine delivered using the Accuspray device. Patients/Methods  Adults aged 18–49 years were randomized to receive one intranasal dose of Q/LAIV delivered using a BFS device (Q/LAIV‐BFS; n = 1202) or one of two trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccines (T/LAIV) containing one of the corresponding B strains (total T/LAIV, n = 598). Primary endpoints were the post‐vaccination strain‐specific serum hemagglutination inhibition antibody geometric mean titers for each strain. Secondary immunogenicity endpoints, safety, and acceptability of the BFS device were also assessed. Results  Q/LAIV was immunogenically non‐inferior to T/LAIV for all four influenza strains. Secondary immunogenicity outcomes were consistent with the primary endpoint. Solicited symptoms and AEs were comparable in both groups. Subjects considered the BFS device to be acceptable. Conclusions  Immune responses to vaccination with Ann Arbor strain Q/LAIV‐BFS were non‐inferior to those with T/LAIV. Q/LAIV may confer broader protection against seasonal influenza B by targeting both major influenza B lineages.  相似文献   
4.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of adding mealtime pramlintide or rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAIAs) to basal insulin for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a 24-week open-label, multicenter study, 113 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to addition of mealtime pramlintide (120 μg) or a titrated RAIA to basal insulin and prior oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs). At screening, patients were insulin naive or had been receiving <50 units/day basal insulin for <6 months. The basal insulin dosage was titrated from day 1, seeking fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥70–<100 mg/dl. Pramlintide and an RAIA were initiated on day 1 and week 4, respectively. The proportion of patients achieving A1C ≤7.0% without weight gain or severe hypoglycemia at week 24 was the primary end point.

RESULTS

More pramlintide- than RAIA-treated patients achieved the primary end point (30 vs. 11%, P = 0.018) with a similar dose of basal insulin. Pramlintide and an RAIA yielded similar mean ± SEM values for FPG and A1C at 24 weeks (122 ± 7 vs. 123 ± 5 mg/dl and 7.2 ± 0.2 vs. 7.0 ± 0.1%, respectively) and similar least squares mean reductions from baseline to end point (−31 ± 6 vs. −34 ± 6 mg/dl and −1.1 ± 0.2 vs. −1.3 ± 0.2%, respectively). RAIAs but not pramlintide caused weight gain (+4.7 ± 0.7 vs. +0.0 ± 0.7 kg, P < 0.0001). Fewer patients reported mild to moderate hypoglycemia with pramlintide than with the RAIA (55 vs. 82%), but more patients reported nausea (21 vs. 0%). No severe hypoglycemia occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients taking basal insulin and OADs, premeal fixed-dose pramlintide improved glycemic control as effectively as titrated RAIAs. The pramlintide regimen sometimes caused nausea but no weight gain and less hypoglycemia.Adding basal insulin therapy to oral agents improves glycemic control for many patients with type 2 diabetes, but up to 50% of patients continue to have A1C values >7% (1,2,3,4,5). Persistent after-meal hyperglycemia is generally observed in such patients (6). The usual next step in treatment is addition of mealtime insulin injections, but this approach increases risks of weight gain and hypoglycemia (4,6).Previous studies have shown that defects in addition to insulin deficiency contribute to after-meal hyperglycemia. Both insulin and amylin are secreted by β-cells, and, in individuals with abnormal β-cell function, glucose- and mixed meal–stimulated secretion of both hormones is delayed and reduced (7,8,9). Insulin deficiency impairs suppression of hepatic glucose production and enhancement of glucose uptake by tissues that normally limit postmeal hyperglycemia. Amylin deficiency accelerates gastric emptying, increases glucagon secretion, and alters satiety mechanisms (10,11).Pramlintide, an injectable synthetic analog of amylin, slows gastric emptying, attenuates postprandial glucagon secretion, enhances satiety, and reduces food intake (12,13,14). Pramlintide is approved as adjunctive treatment for patients with diabetes who use mealtime insulin with or without oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OADs) and have not achieved desired glucose control. Recently, a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of patients with type 2 diabetes showed that pramlintide reduces A1C and weight without increasing insulin-induced hypoglycemia when added to basal insulin ± OADs without mealtime insulin (15).Pramlintide may offer an additional therapeutic option for mealtime use by patients with type 2 diabetes already using basal insulin. Rapid-acting insulin analogs (RAIAs) and pramlintide have different mechanisms of action and different patterns of desired and unwanted effects. Although both can limit after-meal hyperglycemia, RAIAs often cause weight gain and hypoglycemia (6), whereas pramlintide is associated with weight loss and nausea (15,16). This study was designed to compare the efficacy and side effects of pramlintide versus RAIAs when added to basal insulin to intensify treatment of type 2 diabetes.  相似文献   
1
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号