Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Network medicine, a new field which developed from the application of systems biology approaches to human disease, embraces the complexity of multifactorial influences on disease, which can be driven by non-linear effects and molecular and statistical interactions.The development of comprehensive and affordable Omics platforms provides the data types for network medicine, and graph theory and statistical physics provide the theoretical framework to analyze networks. While network medicine provides a fundamentally different approach to understanding disease etiology, it will also lead to key differences in how diseases are treated--with multiple molecular targets that may require manipulation in a coordinated, dynamic fashion. Much remains to be learned regarding the optimal approaches to integrate different Omics data types and to perform network analyses; this book provides an overview of the progress that has been made and the challenges that remain.\"-- Provided by publisher

Treatment outcomes for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis remain poor. We aimed to estimate the association of treatment success and death with the use of individual drugs, and the optimal number and duration of treatment with those drugs in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify potentially eligible observational and experimental studies published between Jan 1, 2009, and April 30, 2016. We also searched reference lists from all systematic reviews of treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis published since 2009. To be eligible, studies had to report original results, with end of treatment outcomes (treatment completion [success], failure, or relapse) in cohorts of at least 25 adults (aged >18 years). We used anonymised individual patient data from eligible studies, provided by study investigators, regarding clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. Using propensity score-matched generalised mixed effects logistic, or linear regression, we calculated adjusted odds ratios and adjusted risk differences for success or death during treatment, for specific drugs currently used to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, as well as the number of drugs used and treatment duration. Of 12 030 patients from 25 countries in 50 studies, 7346 (61%) had treatment success, 1017 (8%) had failure or relapse, and 1729 (14%) died. Compared with failure or relapse, treatment success was positively associated with the use of linezolid (adjusted risk difference 0·15, 95% CI 0·11 to 0·18), levofloxacin (0·15, 0·13 to 0·18), carbapenems (0·14, 0·06 to 0·21), moxifloxacin (0·11, 0·08 to 0·14), bedaquiline (0·10, 0·05 to 0·14), and clofazimine (0·06, 0·01 to 0·10). There was a significant association between reduced mortality and use of linezolid (–0·20, –0·23 to –0·16), levofloxacin (–0·06, –0·09 to –0·04), moxifloxacin (–0·07, –0·10 to –0·04), or bedaquiline (–0·14, –0·19 to –0·10). Compared with regimens without any injectable drug, amikacin provided modest benefits, but kanamycin and capreomycin were associated with worse outcomes. The remaining drugs were associated with slight or no improvements in outcomes. Treatment outcomes were significantly worse for most drugs if they were used despite in-vitro resistance. The optimal number of effective drugs seemed to be five in the initial phase, and four in the continuation phase. In these adjusted analyses, heterogeneity, based on a simulated I2 method, was high for approximately half the estimates for specific drugs, although relatively low for number of drugs and durations analyses. Although inferences are limited by the observational nature of these data, treatment outcomes were significantly better with use of linezolid, later generation fluoroquinolones, bedaquiline, clofazimine, and carbapenems for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. These findings emphasise the need for trials to ascertain the optimal combination and duration of these drugs for treatment of this condition. American Thoracic Society, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, European Respiratory Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Aromatase inhibitors are somewhat more effective than tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. This benefit was extended to premenopausal women when they also received ovarian suppression to prevent ovarian compensation for aromatase inhibition. The most effective adjuvant endocrine therapy for premenopausal women with hormone-receptor (estrogen, progesterone, or both)–positive breast cancer is uncertain. Tamoxifen for at least 5 years is a standard of care. 1 – 3 Adjuvant suppression of ovarian function (hereafter, ovarian suppression) may be recommended in addition. For postmenopausal women, adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor, as compared with tamoxifen, improves outcomes. 2 – 9 In 2003, the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) initiated two randomized, phase 3 trials, the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT) and the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT), involving premenopausal women with hormone-receptor–positive early breast cancer, through collaboration with . . .

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a contributor to embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Subgroup analyses from previous studies suggest that anticoagulation could reduce recurrent stroke compared with antiplatelet therapy. We hypothesised that anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, would reduce the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke compared with aspirin among patients with PFO enrolled in the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. NAVIGATE ESUS was a double-blinded, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 459 centres in 31 countries that assessed the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with ESUS. For this prespecified subgroup analysis, cohorts with and without PFO were defined on the basis of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE). The primary efficacy outcome was time to recurrent ischaemic stroke between treatment groups. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, according to the criteria of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Additionally, we did a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of studies in which patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO were randomly assigned to receive anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Between Dec 23, 2014, and Sept 20, 2017, 7213 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=3609) or aspirin (n=3604). Patients were followed up for a mean of 11 months because of early trial termination. PFO was reported as present in 534 (7·4%) patients on the basis of either TTE or TOE. Patients with PFO assigned to receive aspirin had a recurrent ischaemic stroke rate of 4·8 events per 100 person-years compared with 2·6 events per 100 person-years in those treated with rivaroxaban. Among patients with known PFO, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference in risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke between rivaroxaban and aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·22–1·36), and the risk was similar for those without known PFO (1·06; 0·84–1·33; pinteraction=0·18). The risks of major bleeding with rivaroxaban versus aspirin were similar in patients with PFO detected (HR 2·05; 95% CI 0·51–8·18) and in those without PFO detected (HR 2·82; 95% CI 1·69–4·70; pinteraction=0·68). The random-effects meta-analysis combined data from NAVIGATE ESUS with data from two previous trials (PICSS and CLOSE) and yielded a summary odds ratio of 0·48 (95% CI 0·24–0·96; p=0·04) for ischaemic stroke in favour of anticoagulation, without evidence of heterogeneity. Among patients with ESUS who have PFO, anticoagulation might reduce the risk of recurrent stroke by about half, although substantial imprecision remains. Dedicated trials of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy or PFO closure, or both, are warranted. Bayer and Janssen.

Background Current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) offer contradictory recommendations regarding use of medications or psychotherapy as first‐line treatment. Direct head‐to‐head comparisons are lacking. Methods Systemic review of Medline, EMBASE, PILOTS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and Global Health Library was conducted without language restrictions. Randomized clinical trials ≥8 weeks in duration using structured clinical interview‐based outcome measures, active‐control conditions (e.g. supportive psychotherapy), and intent‐to‐treat analysis were selected for analyses. Independent review, data ion, and bias assessment were performed using standardized processes. Study outcomes were grouped around conventional follow‐up time periods (3, 6, and 9 months). Combined effect sizes were computed using meta‐analyses for medication versus control, medication pre‐/posttreatment, psychotherapy versus control, and psychotherapy pre‐/posttreatment. Results Effect sizes for trauma‐focused psychotherapies (TFPs) versus active control conditions were greater than medications versus placebo and other psychotherapies versus active controls. TFPs resulted in greater sustained benefit over time than medications. Sertraline, venlafaxine, and nefazodone outperformed other medications, although potential for methodological biases were high. Improvement following paroxetine and fluoxetine treatment was small. Venlafaxine and stress inoculation training (SIT) demonstrated large initial effects that decreased over time. Bupropion, citalopram, divalproex, mirtazapine, tiagabine, and topiramate failed to differentiate from placebo. Aripiprazole, divalproex, guanfacine, and olanzapine failed to differentiate from placebo when combined with an antidepressant. Conclusions Study findings support use of TFPs over nontrauma‐focused psychotherapy or medication as first‐line interventions. Second‐line interventions include SIT, and potentially sertraline or venlafaxine, rather than entire classes of medication, such as SSRIs. Future revisions of CPGs should prioritize studies that utilize active controls over waitlist or treatment‐as‐usual conditions. Direct head‐to‐head trials of TFPs versus sertraline or venlafaxine are needed.

Electronic data capture (EDC) systems have been widely used in clinical research, but mobile device-based electronic data capture (mEDC) system has not been well evaluated. The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility, advantages, and challenges of mEDC in data collection, project management, and telemonitoring in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We developed an mEDC to support an RCT called \"Telmisartan and Hydrochlorothiazide Antihypertensive Treatment (THAT)\" study, which was a multicenter, double-blinded, RCT, with the purpose of comparing the efficacy of telmisartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) monotherapy in high-sodium-intake patients with mild to moderate hypertension during a 60 days follow-up. Semistructured interviews were conducted during and after the trial to evaluate the feasibility, advantage, and challenge of mEDC. Nvivo version 9.0 (QSR International) was used to analyze records of interviews, and a thematic framework method was used to obtain outcomes. The mEDC was successfully used to support the data collection and project management in all the 14 study hospitals. A total of 1333 patients were recruited with support of mEDC, of whom 1037 successfully completed all 4 visits. Across all visits, the average time needed for 141 questions per patient was 53 min, which were acceptable to both doctors and patients. All the interviewees, including 24 doctors, 53 patients, 1 clinical research associate (CRA), 1 project manager (PM), and 1 data manager (DM), expressed their satisfaction to nearly all the functions of the innovative mEDC in randomization, data collection, project management, quality control, and remote monitoring in real time. The average satisfaction score was 9.2 (scale, 0-10). The biggest challenge came from the stability of the mobile or Wi-Fi signal although it was not a problem in THAT study. The innovative mEDC has many merits and is well acceptable in supporting data collection and project management in a timely manner in clinical trial.

In a randomized trial involving children with severe systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, the anti–interleukin-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab was effective (response rate, 85% with tocilizumab vs. 24% with placebo). Adverse events included serious infections and neutropenia. Systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is characterized by chronic arthritis, systemic manifestations (spiking fever, rash, hepatosplenomegaly, lymphadenopathy, and serositis), and substantially elevated inflammatory markers. 1 It is the most severe subtype of JIA; approximately half the patients have an unremitting course of chronic polyarthritis (with or without persistent systemic features). Substantial joint damage and disability often develop in these patients. 2 , 3 Treatment remains challenging because of the limited efficacy of methotrexate 4 and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors 5 , 6 and because of the major toxicity of high-dose glucocorticoids. Efficacy of the interleukin-1 inhibitor anakinra has been reported in a subset of patients. 7 – . . .

Bezlotoxumab is human monoclonal antibody against Clostridium difficile toxin B. In two controlled trials, a single intravenous dose of bezlotoxumab, given in addition to antibiotic treatment, provided protection against recurrent infection for up to 12 weeks.

Alectinib, a potent, highly selective, CNS-active inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), showed promising efficacy and tolerability in the single-arm phase 1/2 AF-001JP trial in Japanese patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Given those promising results, we did a phase 3 trial to directly compare the efficacy and safety of alectinib and crizotinib. J-ALEX was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial that recruited ALK inhibitor-naive Japanese patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, who were chemotherapy-naive or had received one previous chemotherapy regimen, from 41 study sites in Japan. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive web response system using a permuted-block method stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, treatment line, and disease stage to receive oral alectinib 300 mg twice daily or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, death, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review facility. The efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The study is ongoing and patient recruitment is closed. This study is registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center (number JapicCTI-132316). Between Nov 18, 2013, and Aug 4, 2015, 207 patients were recruited and assigned to the alectinib (n=103) or crizotinib (n=104) groups. At data cutoff for the second interim analysis, 24 patients in the alectinib group had discontinued treatment compared with 61 in the crizotinib group, mostly due to lack of efficacy or adverse events. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff date Dec 3, 2015), an independent data monitoring committee determined that the primary endpoint of the study had been met (hazard ratio 0·34 [99·7% CI 0·17–0·71], stratified log-rank p<0·0001) and recommended an immediate release of the data. Median progression-free survival had not yet been reached with alectinib (95% CI 20·3–not estimated) and was 10·2 months (8·2–12·0) with crizotinib. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred at a greater frequency with crizotinib (54 [52%] of 104) than alectinib (27 [26%] of 103). Dose interruptions due to adverse events were also more prevalent with crizotinib (77 [74%] of 104) than with alectinib (30 [29%] of 103), and more patients receiving crizotinib (21 [20%]) than alectinib (nine [9%]) discontinued the study drug because of an adverse event. No adverse events with a fatal outcome occurred in either treatment group. These results provide the first head-to-head comparison of alectinib and crizotinib and have the potential to change the standard of care for the first-line treatment of ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. The dose of alectinib (300 mg twice daily) used in this study is lower than the approved dose in countries other than Japan; however, this limitation is being addressed in the ongoing ALEX study. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.

THPdb (http://crdd.osdd.net/raghava/thpdb/) is a manually curated repository of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved therapeutic peptides and proteins. The information in THPdb has been compiled from 985 research publications, 70 patents and other resources like DrugBank. The current version of the database holds a total of 852 entries, providing comprehensive information on 239 US-FDA approved therapeutic peptides and proteins and their 380 drug variants. The information on each peptide and protein includes their sequences, chemical properties, composition, disease area, mode of activity, physical appearance, category or pharmacological class, pharmacodynamics, route of administration, toxicity, target of activity, etc. In addition, we have annotated the structure of most of the protein and peptides. A number of user-friendly tools have been integrated to facilitate easy browsing and data analysis. To assist scientific community, a web interface and mobile App have also been developed.