Top News From American Heart Association (AHA) 2010 scientific sessions

The American Heart Association (AHA) 2010 Scientific Sessions took place in Chicago, Illinois, November 13-17, 2010.
Key trials presented at the sessions include:

• ADVANCE: New LVAD equivalent to HeartMate II, nonrandomized study shows
• RAFT: CRT shows survival benefit for patients with class 2 and 3 HF who have low EF and wide QRS
• EMPHASIS-HF: Eplerenone shows large benefits in milder heart failure
• ASCEND HF: Nesiritide safe but of limited dyspnea benefit in acute HF
• ROCKET AF: Rivaroxaban noninferior to warfarin, but superiority analyses at odds
• CLOSURE I: No overall benefit, no reduction in stroke or TIA with PFO closure
• GRAVITAS: No benefit of doubling dose in clopidogrel nonresponders
• P-OM3: Omega-3 PUFA caps don't suppress paroxysmal AF in randomized trial
• BASKET-PROVE: DES as safe as bare-metal stents in larger coronary arteries, with less TVR 
• DEFINE: Large effects on LDL and HDL cholesterol with CETP inhibitor anacetrapib
• SYMPLICITY HTN: Catheter-based renal denervation reduces BP in patients with resistant hypertension
• ASCOT CRP: Analysis fuels debate over JUPITER-based CRP indication for statins
• ACT: No benefit of N-acetylcysteine to reduce contrast-induced nephropathy

Acceptability and safety profile of oral and sublingual misoprostol for uterine evacuation following early fetal demise

Background: It has been established that sublingual (SL) route of misoprostol has a great potential to be developed for medical abortion, but there is dearth of evidence to reveal satisfaction rate and safety profile among patients of oral and SL routes. Thus, this study was conducted to provide an insight into the acceptability and safety profile of the same.
Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was carried out by giving 200 mg mifepristone orally, followed by administration of 600 ΅g misoprostol orally to 50 women and sublingually to 50 women. The primary endpoints of study were measurements of acceptability and safety profile parameters (average blood loss, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hot flushes, fever) of both the groups. The secondary endpoints of the study were number of doses required for complete abortion, success rate and the induction to evacuation interval in both the groups.
Results: SL route of administration was more acceptable than the oral route (P = 0.009). Average blood loss was higher in the oral group than in the SL group (P = 0.001). Amongst the side effects, 34% in the SL group and 52% in the oral group had nausea (P = 0.264), 22% in the SL group and 44% in the oral group had vomiting (P = 0.031), 48% in the SL group and 86% in the oral group had diarrhea (P < 0.05), hot flushes were presented by 24% in the SL group and 50% in the oral group (P < 0.05), fever was presented by 20% in the SL group and 44% in the oral group (P < 0.05), and the number of cases aborted with only one dose was higher (86%) in the SL group as compared to 63% in the oral group (P = 0.004). The evacuation (success) rates were 92% in the SL group and 84% in the oral group (P = 0.218) and the mean ± SD induction to evacuation intervals in the SL and oral groups were 5.6 ± 4.54 hours and 9.44 ± 5.61 hours, respectively (P = 0.0002).Conclusion: The SL route had fewer undesirable effects, was more satisfactory, required less number of doses and was more acceptable to the patient compared to the oral route.


Kushwah DS, Kushwah B, Salman MT, Verma VK. Acceptability and safety profile of oral and sublingual misoprostol for uterine evacuation following early fetal demise. Indian J Pharmacol [serial online] 2011 [cited 2011 May 24];43:306-10. Available from: http://www.ijp-online.com/text.asp?2011/43/3/306/81513

Free Business and Tech Magazines and eBooks

Promising Therapies in Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes mellitus (DM) results from defects in insulin secretion (type 1) or insulin resistance (type 2). Insulin is used to manage type 1 DM, and oral hypoglycemic agents are used to manage type 2 DM. These therapies are inconsistent in maintaining glycemic control and cause some severe adverse effects such as undue weight gain and hypoglycemia. New and appropriate therapies are needed to overcome these problems. Drugs that are in the pipeline include oral insulins for type 1 DM and incretin mimetics, incretin enhancers, gastric inhibitory peptides, amylin analogues, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α/γ ligands, sodium-dependent glucose transporter inhibitors, and fructose 1,6-bisphosphatase inhibitors for type 2 DM.

Free Business and Tech Magazines and eBooks

Measures of Obesity

There are several measures of obesity. Each  has its own strengths and limitations. The gold standard is dual-energy X-ray absorption (DEXA). Body mass index (BMI) is calculated as mass (kg) per height² (m²). Waist circumference is widely thought to be a better indicator of cardiovascular risk than BMI, although some studies have shown them to be equally predictive. Other measures include the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and the waist-to-hip-to-height index, which have both been forwarded as potentially better measures of obesity than BMI. Using measurements of hip circumference and height, the new body adiposity index (BAI) can be used to reflect percentage of body fat for adult men and women of differing ethnicities, without numerical correction or assessment of weight. BAI, calculated as (hip circumference/height^1.5)–18, is a good predictor of percent fat and works for men and women.  The BAI also yields the percentage of fat itself, rather than just a correlate (or index) of it, which is what the BMI does. Body fat percentage is estimated from three skinfold thicknesses (biceps, triceps, and subscapular).