Background The prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in Latin America is increasing and contributes importantly to the global burden of cardiovascular diseases. Advanced resources for the ...diagnosis and treatment of CAD are available in most of the region. However, preventive approaches such as cardiovascular rehabilitation programs (CVRP) may not be widely implemented. Methods We carried out a telephone-based survey to hospitals sampled in a random and population-weighted fashion from a list of 202 centers with cardiac catheterization laboratories in Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. We collected information of availability of cardiac procedures and imaging techniques and also extensive data about the presence, characteristics, and quality measures of CVRP. Results A total of 98 centers were contacted, and a complete survey was provided by 59 centers (60%) from 13 countries. Cardiovascular rehabilitation programs were available in only 56% of centers. There were no differences between centers with and without CVRP regarding type of hospital, availability of cardiac surgery, and annual volume of patients with myocardial infarction. Among centers with CVRP, 70% offered all phases of CVRP. The lack of CVRP was attributed to lack of qualified personnel in 41% of centers, financial constraints in 33%, and lack of physical space in 13%. All centers without CVRP performed cardiac surgery and percutaneous interventions. Conclusions Despite the presence of state-of-the-art technology for the diagnosis and treatment of CAD, availability of CVRP, a less expensive yet effective tool for the treatment of CAD, appears to be limited in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Summary Background Knowledge about the distribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in invasive cervical cancer is crucial to guide the introduction of prophylactic vaccines. We aimed to ...provide novel and comprehensive data about the worldwide genotype distribution in patients with invasive cervical cancer. Methods Paraffin-embedded samples of histologically confirmed cases of invasive cervical cancer were collected from 38 countries in Europe, North America, central South America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. Inclusion criteria were a pathological confirmation of a primary invasive cervical cancer of epithelial origin in the tissue sample selected for analysis of HPV DNA, and information about the year of diagnosis. HPV detection was done by use of PCR with SPF-10 broad-spectrum primers followed by DNA enzyme immunoassay and genotyping with a reverse hybridisation line probe assay. Sequence analysis was done to characterise HPV-positive samples with unknown HPV types. Data analyses included algorithms of multiple infections to estimate type-specific relative contributions. Findings 22 661 paraffin-embedded samples were obtained from 14 249 women. 10 575 cases of invasive cervical cancer were included in the study, and 8977 (85%) of these were positive for HPV DNA. The most common HPV types were 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, and 58 with a combined worldwide relative contribution of 8196 of 8977 (91%, 95% CI 90–92). HPV types 16 and 18 were detected in 6357 of 8977 of cases (71%, 70–72) of invasive cervical cancer. HPV types 16, 18, and 45 were detected in 443 of 470 cases (94%, 92–96) of cervical adenocarcinomas. Unknown HPV types that were identified with sequence analysis were 26, 30, 61, 67, 69, 82, and 91 in 103 (1%) of 8977 cases of invasive cervical cancer. Women with invasive cervical cancers related to HPV types 16, 18, or 45 presented at a younger mean age than did those with other HPV types (50·0 years 49·6–50·4, 48·2 years 47·3–49·2, 46·8 years 46·6–48·1, and 55·5 years 54·9–56·1, respectively). Interpretation To our knowledge, this study is the largest assessment of HPV genotypes to date. HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, and 58 should be given priority when the cross-protective effects of current vaccines are assessed, and for formulation of recommendations for the use of second-generation polyvalent HPV vaccines. Our results also suggest that type-specific high-risk HPV-DNA-based screening tests and protocols should focus on HPV types 16, 18, and 45. Funding Spanish grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca, Marató de TV3 Foundation, and unrestricted grants from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, and Merck.
We sought to explore the feasibility and diagnostic performance of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) versus single-energy computed tomography (SECT) for the evaluation of myocardial perfusion in ...patients with intermediate to high likelihood of coronary artery disease.
The present prospective study involved patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease referred for myocardial perfusion imaging by single-photon emission computed tomography. Forty patients were included in the study protocol and scanned using DECT imaging (n = 20) or SECT imaging (n = 20). The same pharmacologic stress was used for DECT, SECT, and single-photon emission computed tomography scans.
A total of 1360 left ventricular segments were evaluated by DECT and SECT. The contrast-to-noise ratio was similar between groups (DECT 8.8 ± 2.9 vs. SECT 7.7 ± 4.2; P = .22). The diagnostic performance of DECT was greater than that of SECT in identifying perfusion defects (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of DECT 0.90 0.86-0.94 vs SECT 0.80 0.76-0.84; P = .0004) and remained unaffected when including only segments affected by beam-hardening artifacts (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = DECT 0.90 0.84-0.96) vs. SECT 0.77 0.69-0.84; P = .007).
Our results suggest that myocardial perfusion by DECT imaging is feasible and might have improved diagnostic performance compared to SECT imaging for the assessment of myocardial CT perfusion. Furthermore, the diagnostic performance of DECT remained unaffected by the presence of beam-hardening artifacts.
Summary Background Although the risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is greatest in young women, women older than 25 years remain at risk. We present data from the VIVIANE study of the HPV ...16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine in adult women after 7 years of follow-up. Methods In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, healthy women older than 25 years were enrolled (age stratified: 26–35 years, 36–45 years, and ≥46 years). Up to 15% in each age stratum had a history of HPV infection or disease. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive HPV 16/18 vaccine or aluminium hydroxide control, with an internet-based system. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection or cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 or greater (CIN1+) associated with HPV 16/18. We did analyses in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy and total vaccinated cohort. Data for the combined primary endpoint in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy were considered significant when the lower limit of the 96·2% CI around the point estimate was greater than 30%. For all other endpoints and cohorts, data were considered significant when the lower limit of the 96·2% CI was greater than 0%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00294047. Findings The first participant was enrolled on Feb 16, 2006, and the last study visit took place on Jan 29, 2014. 4407 women were in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (n=2209 vaccine, n=2198 control) and 5747 women in the total vaccinated cohort (n=2877 vaccine, n=2870 control). At month 84, in women seronegative for the corresponding HPV type in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy, vaccine efficacy against 6-month persistent infection or CIN1+ associated with HPV 16/18 was significant in all age groups combined (90·5%, 96·2% CI 78·6–96·5). Vaccine efficacy against HPV 16/18-related cytological abnormalities (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) and CIN1+ was also significant. We also noted significant cross-protective efficacy against 6-month persistent infection with HPV 31 (65·8%, 96·2% CI 24·9–85·8) and HPV 45 (70·7%, 96·2% CI 34·2–88·4). In the total vaccinated cohort, vaccine efficacy against CIN1+ irrespective of HPV was significant (22·9%, 96·2% CI 4·8–37·7). Serious adverse events related to vaccination occurred in five (0·2%) of 2877 women in the vaccine group and eight (0·3%) of 2870 women in the control group. Interpretation In women older than 25 years, the HPV 16/18 vaccine continues to protect against infections, cytological abnormalities, and lesions associated with HPV 16/18 and CIN1+ irrespective of HPV type, and infection with non-vaccine types HPV 31 and HPV 45 over 7 years of follow-up. Funding GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.
PDF