Oral Ibandronate in Postmenopausal Osteoporotic Women Alters Micromechanical Properties Independently of Changes in Mineralization

Postmenopausal osteoporotic (PMOP) women treated with ibandronate had higher bone mineral density, lower bone turnover, and decreased incidence of new vertebral fractures. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of daily or intermittent oral ibandronate on the degree of mineralization (DMB) of bone and microhardness (Hv) at the bone tissue and bone structural unit (BSU) levels. A total of 110 iliac biopsies were taken from patients treated for 22 or 34 months with an oral placebo (n = 36), 2.5 mg daily oral ibandronate (n = 40), or 20 mg intermittent oral ibandronate (n = 34). These regimens provide annual cumulative exposures (ACEs) that are about half of the therapeutic doses currently licensed for PMOP women. DMB and Hv were measured at the global level (i.e., cortical or cancellous) and the focal level (i.e., BSU). At the global level, DMB and its distribution were not significantly different from placebo after 22 and 34 months of treatment. Hv was significantly higher in the cortical, cancellous, and total bone after 22 and 34 months of ibandronate versus placebo for both regimens. At the focal level, DMB and Hv, measured simultaneously in 3,760 BSUs, were significantly and positively correlated in all groups (r = 0.59–0.65, p < 0.0001). However, analysis of covariance highlighted the differences in the y intercepts of the linear regressions of the placebo- and ibandronate-treated groups. We infer that a low ACE of oral ibandronate altered the bone micromechanical properties irrespective of changes in secondary mineralization.     

Comparison of survival outcomes between Expanded Criteria Donor and Standard Criteria Donor kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

In 2002, the United Network for Organ Sharing proposed increasing the pool of donor kidneys to include Expanded Criteria Donor (ECD). Outside the USA, the ECD definition remains the one used without questioning whether such a graft allocation criterion is valid worldwide. We performed a meta‐analysis to quantify the differences between ECD and Standard Criteria Donor (SCD) transplants. We paid particular attention to select studies in which the methodology was appropriate and we took into consideration the geographical area. Thirty‐two publications were included. Only five studies, all from the USA, reported confounder‐adjusted hazard ratios comparing the survival outcomes between ECD and SCD kidney transplant recipients. These five studies confirmed that ECD recipients seemed to have poorer prognosis. From 29 studies reporting appropriate survival curves, we estimated the 5‐year pooled nonadjusted survivals for ECD and SCD recipients. The relative differences between the two groups were lower in Europe than in North America, particularly for death‐censored graft failure. It is of primary importance to propose appropriate studies for external validation of the ECD criteria in non‐US kidney transplant recipients.     

Direct Transfer to a Tertiary Care Hospital After Traumatic Injury is Associated with a Survival Benefit in a Resource-Limited Setting

World Journal of Surgery - Trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and patients in low- and middle-income countries are disproportionately affected. Organized trauma...     

Fetuin-A and thyroxin binding globulin predict rituximab response in rheumatoid arthritis patients with insufficient response to anti-TNFα

Clinical Rheumatology - Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a debilitating disease, but patient management and treatment have been revolutionized since the advent of bDMARDs. However, about one third of...