University Hospital Münster
Hospital / health systemMünster, Germany
Research output, citation impact, and the most-cited recent papers from University Hospital Münster (Germany). Aggregated across the NobleBlocks index of 300M+ scholarly works.
Top-cited papers from University Hospital Münster
BACKGROUND: The use of warfarin reduces the rate of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but requires frequent monitoring and dose adjustment. Rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, may provide more consistent and predictable anticoagulation than warfarin. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 14,264 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were at increased risk for stroke to receive either rivaroxaban (at a daily dose of 20 mg) or dose-adjusted warfarin. The per-protocol, as-treated primary analysis was designed to determine whether rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the primary end point of stroke or systemic embolism. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, the primary end point occurred in 188 patients in the rivaroxaban group (1.7% per year) and in 241 in the warfarin group (2.2% per year) (hazard ratio in the rivaroxaban group, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.96; P<0.001 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary end point occurred in 269 patients in the rivaroxaban group (2.1% per year) and in 306 patients in the warfarin group (2.4% per year) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.03; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.12 for superiority). Major and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 1475 patients in the rivaroxaban group (14.9% per year) and in 1449 in the warfarin group (14.5% per year) (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.11; P=0.44), with significant reductions in intracranial hemorrhage (0.5% vs. 0.7%, P=0.02) and fatal bleeding (0.2% vs. 0.5%, P=0.003) in the rivaroxaban group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. There was no significant between-group difference in the risk of major bleeding, although intracranial and fatal bleeding occurred less frequently in the rivaroxaban group. (Funded by Johnson & Johnson and Bayer; ROCKET AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00403767.).
AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425, \nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981, \nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826, \nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376, \nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294, \nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198, \nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544, \nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107, \nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756, \nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6, \nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58, \nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007, \nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591, \nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930, \nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794, \nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727, \nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986, \nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409, \nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368, \nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884, \nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239, \nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997, \nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798, \nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909, \nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336, \nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419, \nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490, \nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401, \nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880, \nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913, \nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381, \nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112, \nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812, \nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287, \nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308, \nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901, \nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141, \nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374, \nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822, \nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480, \nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171, \nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789, \nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217, \nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24, \nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700, \nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983, \nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002, \nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318, \nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462, \nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884, \nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996, \nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628, \nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003, \nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434, \nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783, \nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514, \nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172, \nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113, \nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135, \nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702, \nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703, \nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308, \nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290, \nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105, \nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563, \nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936, \nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657, \nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254, \nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694, \nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781, \nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533, \nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829, \nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395, \nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566, \nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767, \nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301, \nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919, \nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576, \nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572, \nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940, \nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340, \nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254, \nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604, \nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182, \nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775, \nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,
Rhinosinusitis is a significant and increasing health problem which results in a large financial burden on society. This evidence based position paper describes what is known about rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, offers evidence based recommendations on diagnosis and treatment, and considers how we can make progress with research in this area. Rhinitis and sinusitis usually coexist and are concurrent in most individuals; thus, the correct terminology is now rhinosinusitis. Rhinosinusitis (including nasal polyps) is defined as inflammation of the nose and the paranasal sinuses characterised by two or more symptoms, one of which should be either nasal blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge (anterior/posterior nasal drip), +/- facial pain/pressure, +/- reduction or loss of smell; and either endoscopic signs of polyps and/or mucopurulent discharge primarily from middle meatus and/or; oedema/mucosal obstruction primarily in middle meatus, and/or CT changes showing mucosal changes within the ostiomeatal complex and/or sinuses. The paper gives different definitions for epidemiology, first line and second line treatment and for research. Furthermore the paper describes the anatomy and (patho)physiology, epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, evidence based diagnosis, medical and surgical treatment in acute and chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis in adults and children. Evidence based schemes for diagnosis and treatment are given for the first and second line clinicians. Moreover attention is given to complications and socio-economic cost of chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps. Last but not least the relation to the lower airways is discussed.
Abstract Somatic mutations in cancer genomes are caused by multiple mutational processes, each of which generates a characteristic mutational signature 1 . Here, as part of the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium 2 of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we characterized mutational signatures using 84,729,690 somatic mutations from 4,645 whole-genome and 19,184 exome sequences that encompass most types of cancer. We identified 49 single-base-substitution, 11 doublet-base-substitution, 4 clustered-base-substitution and 17 small insertion-and-deletion signatures. The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses 3–15 , enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated—but distinct—DNA damage, repair and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogues of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA-maintenance processes. However, many signatures are of unknown cause. This analysis provides a systematic perspective on the repertoire of mutational processes that contribute to the development of human cancer.
Abstract Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale 1–3 . Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter 4 ; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation 5,6 ; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution 7 ; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity 8,9 ; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes 8,10–18 .
BACKGROUND: Patisiran, an investigational RNA interference therapeutic agent, specifically inhibits hepatic synthesis of transthyretin. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis with polyneuropathy, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive intravenous patisiran (0.3 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo once every 3 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the modified Neuropathy Impairment Score+7 (mNIS+7; range, 0 to 304, with higher scores indicating more impairment) at 18 months. Other assessments included the Norfolk Quality of Life-Diabetic Neuropathy (Norfolk QOL-DN) questionnaire (range, -4 to 136, with higher scores indicating worse quality of life), 10-m walk test (with gait speed measured in meters per second), and modified body-mass index (modified BMI, defined as [weight in kilograms divided by square of height in meters]×albumin level in grams per liter; lower values indicated worse nutritional status). RESULTS: A total of 225 patients underwent randomization (148 to the patisiran group and 77 to the placebo group). The mean (±SD) mNIS+7 at baseline was 80.9±41.5 in the patisiran group and 74.6±37.0 in the placebo group; the least-squares mean (±SE) change from baseline was -6.0±1.7 versus 28.0±2.6 (difference, -34.0 points; P<0.001) at 18 months. The mean (±SD) baseline Norfolk QOL-DN score was 59.6±28.2 in the patisiran group and 55.5±24.3 in the placebo group; the least-squares mean (±SE) change from baseline was -6.7±1.8 versus 14.4±2.7 (difference, -21.1 points; P<0.001) at 18 months. Patisiran also showed an effect on gait speed and modified BMI. At 18 months, the least-squares mean change from baseline in gait speed was 0.08±0.02 m per second with patisiran versus -0.24±0.04 m per second with placebo (difference, 0.31 m per second; P<0.001), and the least-squares mean change from baseline in the modified BMI was -3.7±9.6 versus -119.4±14.5 (difference, 115.7; P<0.001). Approximately 20% of the patients who received patisiran and 10% of those who received placebo had mild or moderate infusion-related reactions; the overall incidence and types of adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, patisiran improved multiple clinical manifestations of hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis. (Funded by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; APOLLO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01960348 .).
BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential. METHODS: To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups' findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved. RESULTS: There is no change in the classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" IFD, although the definition of "probable" has been expanded and the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses. CONCLUSIONS: These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.
autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
BACKGROUND: Lu)-PSMA-617 is a radioligand therapy that delivers beta-particle radiation to PSMA-expressing cells and the surrounding microenvironment. METHODS: Ra), and investigational drugs. The alternate primary end points were imaging-based progression-free survival and overall survival, which were powered for hazard ratios of 0.67 and 0.73, respectively. Key secondary end points were objective response, disease control, and time to symptomatic skeletal events. Adverse events during treatment were those occurring no more than 30 days after the last dose and before subsequent anticancer treatment. RESULTS: Lu-PSMA-617 than without (52.7% vs. 38.0%), but quality of life was not adversely affected. CONCLUSIONS: Lu-PSMA-617 prolonged imaging-based progression-free survival and overall survival when added to standard care in patients with advanced PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. (Funded by Endocyte, a Novartis company; VISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03511664.).
The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were arrived at after careful consideration of the available evidence at the time they were written. Health professionals are encouraged to take them fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. The guidelines do not, however, override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate decisions in the circumstances
STUDY QUESTION: What is the optimal management of women with endometriosis based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER: Using the structured methodology of the Manual for ESHRE Guideline Development, 83 recommendations were formulated that answered the 22 key questions on optimal management of women with endometriosis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis (2005) has been a reference point for best clinical care in endometriosis for years, but this guideline was in need of updating. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This guideline was produced by a group of experts in the field using the methodology of the Manual for ESHRE Guideline Development, including a thorough systematic search of the literature, quality assessment of the included papers up to January 2012 and consensus within the guideline group on all recommendations. To ensure input from women with endometriosis, a patient representative was part of the guideline development group. In addition, patient and additional clinical input was collected during the scoping and review phase of the guideline. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: NA. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The guideline provides 83 recommendations on diagnosis of endometriosis and on the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain and infertility, on the management of women in whom the disease is found incidentally (without pain or infertility), on prevention of recurrence of disease and/or painful symptoms, on treatment of menopausal symptoms in patients with a history of endometriosis and on the possible association of endometriosis and malignancy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We identified several areas in care of women with endometriosis for which robust evidence is lacking. These areas were addressed by formulating good practice points (GPP), based on the expert opinion of the guideline group members. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since 32 out of the 83 recommendations for the management of women with endometriosis could not be based on high level evidence and therefore were GPP, the guideline group formulated research recommendations to guide future research with the aim of increasing the body of evidence. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the implementation of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. All guideline group members disclosed any relevant conflicts of interest (see Conflicts of interest). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NA.
The current manuscript is the second update of the original Practical Guide, published in 2013 [Heidbuchel et al. European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of new oral anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2013;15:625-651; Heidbuchel et al. Updated European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non-vitamin K antagonist anticoagulants in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Europace 2015;17:1467-1507]. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are an alternative for vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and have emerged as the preferred choice, particularly in patients newly started on anticoagulation. Both physicians and patients are becoming more accustomed to the use of these drugs in clinical practice. However, many unresolved questions on how to optimally use these agents in specific clinical situations remain. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) set out to coordinate a unified way of informing physicians on the use of the different NOACs. A writing group identified 20 topics of concrete clinical scenarios for which practical answers were formulated, based on available evidence. The 20 topics are as follows i.e., (1) Eligibility for NOACs; (2) Practical start-up and follow-up scheme for patients on NOACs; (3) Ensuring adherence to prescribed oral anticoagulant intake; (4) Switching between anticoagulant regimens; (5) Pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions of NOACs; (6) NOACs in patients with chronic kidney or advanced liver disease; (7) How to measure the anticoagulant effect of NOACs; (8) NOAC plasma level measurement: rare indications, precautions, and potential pitfalls; (9) How to deal with dosing errors; (10) What to do if there is a (suspected) overdose without bleeding, or a clotting test is indicating a potential risk of bleeding; (11) Management of bleeding under NOAC therapy; (12) Patients undergoing a planned invasive procedure, surgery or ablation; (13) Patients requiring an urgent surgical intervention; (14) Patients with AF and coronary artery disease; (15) Avoiding confusion with NOAC dosing across indications; (16) Cardioversion in a NOAC-treated patient; (17) AF patients presenting with acute stroke while on NOACs; (18) NOACs in special situations; (19) Anticoagulation in AF patients with a malignancy; and (20) Optimizing dose adjustments of VKA. Additional information and downloads of the text and anticoagulation cards in different languages can be found on an EHRA website (www.NOACforAF.eu).
BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in the management of atrial fibrillation, patients with this condition remain at increased risk for cardiovascular complications. It is unclear whether early rhythm-control therapy can reduce this risk. METHODS: In this international, investigator-initiated, parallel-group, open, blinded-outcome-assessment trial, we randomly assigned patients who had early atrial fibrillation (diagnosed ≤1 year before enrollment) and cardiovascular conditions to receive either early rhythm control or usual care. Early rhythm control included treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs or atrial fibrillation ablation after randomization. Usual care limited rhythm control to the management of atrial fibrillation-related symptoms. The first primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, stroke, or hospitalization with worsening of heart failure or acute coronary syndrome; the second primary outcome was the number of nights spent in the hospital per year. The primary safety outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or serious adverse events related to rhythm-control therapy. Secondary outcomes, including symptoms and left ventricular function, were also evaluated. RESULTS: In 135 centers, 2789 patients with early atrial fibrillation (median time since diagnosis, 36 days) underwent randomization. The trial was stopped for efficacy at the third interim analysis after a median of 5.1 years of follow-up per patient. A first-primary-outcome event occurred in 249 of the patients assigned to early rhythm control (3.9 per 100 person-years) and in 316 patients assigned to usual care (5.0 per 100 person-years) (hazard ratio, 0.79; 96% confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.94; P = 0.005). The mean (±SD) number of nights spent in the hospital did not differ significantly between the groups (5.8±21.9 and 5.1±15.5 days per year, respectively; P = 0.23). The percentage of patients with a primary safety outcome event did not differ significantly between the groups; serious adverse events related to rhythm-control therapy occurred in 4.9% of the patients assigned to early rhythm control and 1.4% of the patients assigned to usual care. Symptoms and left ventricular function at 2 years did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Early rhythm-control therapy was associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes than usual care among patients with early atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular conditions. (Funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research and others; EAST-AFNET 4 ISRCTN number, ISRCTN04708680; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01288352; EudraCT number, 2010-021258-20.).
This new diagnostic consensus guideline is a joint project of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology [ESGAR] that now merges the former ECCO-ESGAR Imaging Guideline and the former ECCO Endoscopy Guideline, also including laboratory parameters. It has been drafted by 30 ECCO and ESGAR members from 17 European countries. All the authors recognize th e work of and are grateful to previous ECCO and ESGAR members who contributed tocreating the earlier consensus guidelines on imaging and endoscopy. The former guidelines have been condensed into this new diagnostic consensus guideline which consists of two papers: the first detailing assessment at initial diagnosis, to monitor treat ment and for the detection of complications; the second dealing with the available scoring systems and general considerations regarding the different diagnostic tools. The strategy to define consensus was similar to that previously described in other ECCO consensus guidelines [available at www.ecco-ibd.eu]. Briefly, an open call for participants was made, with ECCO participants selected by the Guidelines’ Committee of ECCO [known as GuiCom] on the basis of their publication record and a personal statement and ESGAR participants nominated by ESGAR. The following working parties were established: diagnostics at initial diagnosis, diagnostics for monitoring treatment in patients with known IBD, diagnostics for the detect ion of complications, scores for IBD, and general principles and technical aspects. Provisional guideline statements and supporting text were written following a comprehensive literature review, then refined following two voting rounds. The first voting round introduced a more comprehensive voting procedure, in which each Guidelines participants voted on all statements by explicitly reviewing those statements together with their respective supporting text and references. The second voting round included optional national representative participation of ECCO’s 36 member countries and ESGAR’s 28 member countries. The level of evidence was graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [www.cebm.net]. The ECCO statements were finalized by the authors at a face-to-face meeting in Barcelona in October 2017 and represent consensus with agreement of at least 80% of the present participants. Consensus statements are intended to be read in context with their qualifying comments and not in isolation. The supporting text was then finalised under the direction of each working group leader [SV, TK, GF, VA, EC], before being integrated by the consensus leaders [CM, JS, AS].
The Bioperl project is an international open-source collaboration of biologists, bioinformaticians, and computer scientists that has evolved over the past 7 yr into the most comprehensive library of Perl modules available for managing and manipulating life-science information. Bioperl provides an easy-to-use, stable, and consistent programming interface for bioinformatics application programmers. The Bioperl modules have been successfully and repeatedly used to reduce otherwise complex tasks to only a few lines of code. The Bioperl object model has been proven to be flexible enough to support enterprise-level applications such as EnsEMBL, while maintaining an easy learning curve for novice Perl programmers. Bioperl is capable of executing analyses and processing results from programs such as BLAST, ClustalW, or the EMBOSS suite. Interoperation with modules written in Python and Java is supported through the evolving BioCORBA bridge. Bioperl provides access to data stores such as GenBank and SwissProt via a flexible series of sequence input/output modules, and to the emerging common sequence data storage format of the Open Bioinformatics Database Access project. This study describes the overall architecture of the toolkit, the problem domains that it addresses, and gives specific examples of how the toolkit can be used to solve common life-sciences problems. We conclude with a discussion of how the open-source nature of the project has contributed to the development effort. [Supplemental material is available online at www.genome.org . Bioperl is available as open-source software free of charge and is licensed under the Perl Artistic License ( http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/misc/Artistic.html ). It is available for download at http://www.bioperl.org . Support inquiries should be addressed to bioperl-l@bioperl.org .]
Pan-cancer analyses that examine commonalities and differences among various cancer types have emerged as a powerful way to obtain novel insights into cancer biology. Here we present a comprehensive analysis of genetic alterations in a pan-cancer cohort including 961 tumours from children, adolescents, and young adults, comprising 24 distinct molecular types of cancer. Using a standardized workflow, we identified marked differences in terms of mutation frequency and significantly mutated genes in comparison to previously analysed adult cancers. Genetic alterations in 149 putative cancer driver genes separate the tumours into two classes: small mutation and structural/copy-number variant (correlating with germline variants). Structural variants, hyperdiploidy, and chromothripsis are linked to TP53 mutation status and mutational signatures. Our data suggest that 7-8% of the children in this cohort carry an unambiguous predisposing germline variant and that nearly 50% of paediatric neoplasms harbour a potentially druggable event, which is highly relevant for the design of future clinical trials.
The definition of the heterogeneous group of coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) is still based on diagnostic procedures that fulfill the clinical need to differentiate between Staphylococcus aureus and those staphylococci classified historically as being less or nonpathogenic. Due to patient- and procedure-related changes, CoNS now represent one of the major nosocomial pathogens, with S. epidermidis and S. haemolyticus being the most significant species. They account substantially for foreign body-related infections and infections in preterm newborns. While S. saprophyticus has been associated with acute urethritis, S. lugdunensis has a unique status, in some aspects resembling S. aureus in causing infectious endocarditis. In addition to CoNS found as food-associated saprophytes, many other CoNS species colonize the skin and mucous membranes of humans and animals and are less frequently involved in clinically manifested infections. This blurred gradation in terms of pathogenicity is reflected by species- and strain-specific virulence factors and the development of different host-defending strategies. Clearly, CoNS possess fewer virulence properties than S. aureus, with a respectively different disease spectrum. In this regard, host susceptibility is much more important. Therapeutically, CoNS are challenging due to the large proportion of methicillin-resistant strains and increasing numbers of isolates with less susceptibility to glycopeptides.
BACKGROUND: The absolute risk of an acute coronary event depends on the totality of risk factors exhibited by an individual, the so-called global risk profile. Although several scoring schemes have been suggested to calculate this profile, many omit information on important variables such as family history of coronary heart disease or LDL cholesterol. METHODS AND RESULTS: Based on 325 acute coronary events occurring within 10 years of follow-up among 5389 men 35 to 65 years of age at recruitment into the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study, we developed a Cox proportional hazards model using the following 8 independent risk variables, ranked in order of importance: age, LDL cholesterol, smoking, HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, family history of premature myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and triglycerides. We then derived a simple point scoring system based on the beta-coefficients of this model. The accuracy of this point scoring scheme was comparable to coronary event prediction when the continuous variables themselves were used. The scoring system accurately predicted observed coronary events with an area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of 82.4% compared with 82.9% for the Cox model with continuous variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoring system is a simple and accurate way of predicting global risk of myocardial infarction in clinical practice and will therefore allow more accurate targeting of preventive therapy.
Consensus definitions have been reached for both acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) and these definitions are now routinely used in research and clinical practice. The KDIGO guideline defines AKI as an abrupt decrease in kidney function occurring over 7 days or less, whereas CKD is defined by the persistence of kidney disease for a period of >90 days. AKI and CKD are increasingly recognized as related entities and in some instances probably represent a continuum of the disease process. For patients in whom pathophysiologic processes are ongoing, the term acute kidney disease (AKD) has been proposed to define the course of disease after AKI; however, definitions of AKD and strategies for the management of patients with AKD are not currently available. In this consensus statement, the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) proposes definitions, staging criteria for AKD, and strategies for the management of affected patients. We also make recommendations for areas of future research, which aim to improve understanding of the underlying processes and improve outcomes for patients with AKD.
Since the publication of the Revised European-American Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms in 1994, subsequent updates of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms have been generated through iterative international efforts to achieve broad consensus among hematopathologists, geneticists, molecular scientists, and clinicians. Significant progress has recently been made in the characterization of malignancies of the immune system, with many new insights provided by genomic studies. They have led to this proposal. We have followed the same process that was successfully used for the third and fourth editions of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematologic Neoplasms. The definition, recommended studies, and criteria for the diagnosis of many entities have been extensively refined. Some categories considered provisional have now been upgraded to definite entities. Terminology for some diseases has been revised to adapt nomenclature to the current knowledge of their biology, but these modifications have been restricted to well-justified situations. Major findings from recent genomic studies have impacted the conceptual framework and diagnostic criteria for many disease entities. These changes will have an impact on optimal clinical management. The conclusions of this work are summarized in this report as the proposed International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid, histiocytic, and dendritic cell tumors.