The construct validity of the WHIIRS was supported because it was successfully used to detect self-reported sleep disturbance differences in women taking HT versus those taking a placebo as well as in groups known to differ in severity of their vasomotor symptoms.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo assess adverse event (AE) resolution, delivery mode and neonatal outcomes after misoprostol or dinoprostone vaginal insert (MVI or DVI) retrieval due to AE during induction of labour (IOL).DesignRandomised, double‐blind trial, EXPEDITE.SettingThirty five obstetric departments, USA.PopulationConsisted of 1358 pregnant women with modified Bishop score ≤4 eligible for pharmacological IOL.Methods Post hoc analysis.Main outcome measures AEs prompting insert retrieval, times to AE resolution, delivery, delivery mode and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions.Results77/678 (11.4%) and 27/680 (4.0%) women had MVI and DVI retrieved due to AE, respectively (P < 0.001). The most common AEs prompting retrieval were uterine tachysystole with fetal heart rate (FHR) involvement and category II/III FHR pattern. Time to AE resolution varied for both treatments depending on the type of AE. For uterine tachysystole with FHR involvement, median resolution times were 1 hour 34.5 minutes (n = 36) and 8.5 minutes (n = 8) for MVI and DVI, respectively. Caesarean delivery occurred in a high proportion of women with insert retrieved due to AE (MVI: 44/77 (57.1%); DVI: 19/27 (70.4%)); the majority of caesareans were performed at least several hours after insert retrieval. Median times from retrieval to any delivery were not increased for women with insert retrieved due to AE. NICU admissions were 8/77 (10.4%) and 1/27 (3.7%) for MVI and DVI, respectively (P = 0.440).Conclusions AEs leading to insert retrieval were primarily uterine tachysystole with FHR involvement and category II/III FHR patterns. Insert retrieval due to an AE did not prolong time to delivery for either prostaglandin insert.Tweetable abstractInduction with prostaglandin vaginal inserts: outcomes following retrieval due to intrapartum adverse event.

No abstract

No abstract

SummaryIn response to reports of discrepant in vitro assays of high-purity concentrates, a double-blind crossover study of in vivo recovery and half-life of two brands of monoclonal-antibody-purified factor VIII concentrates (Monoclate and Hemofil-M) was performed in 23 patients with hemophilia A. In vivo recoveries were close to values predicted from the labelled unitage when plasma samples were assayed by a one-stage method. When a two-stage assay was used, lower recoveries were calculated and the recovery with Hemofil-M was slightly but significantly lower than that with Monoclate. The concentrates were re-assayed in vitro by the two-stage method. Monoclate (which is assayed by the manufacturer using a two-stage method) contained 97% of the labelled potency and Hemofil-M (which is assayed by the manufacturer using a one-stage method) contained 81% of the labelled potency. Differences in in vitro and in vivo assay methods contribute to disparities between expected and observed factor VIII recovery. Clearance of Hemofil-M was significantly faster than that of Monoclate, but volume of distribution at the steady state, mean residence time, and plasma half-disappearance times of the two concentrates were not significantly different.

No abstract

OBJECTIVETo investigate relationships between baseline factors and treatment-associated efficacy changes in type 2 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSMultivariable analyses of treatment response in 1,229 type 2 diabetic patients with hypercholesterolemia who received ezetimibe/simvastatin or atorvastatin in a randomized double-blind 6-week study.RESULTSIncreasing age was related to improvements in all lipid assessments. Men had greater triglyceride and non-HDL cholesterol reductions than women, and black/Hispanic patients had less favorable lipid effects than other races/ethnicities. Increasing baseline LDL cholesterol was associated with improvements in most lipids; higher baseline non-HDL cholesterol with improved HDL cholesterol and triglycerides; higher baseline HDL cholesterol with greater non-HDL cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) reductions; and higher baseline hs-CRP with smaller LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B reductions. Patients with high baseline non-HDL cholesterol or triglycerides less frequently attained LDL cholesterol targets. Obesity was inversely related to HDL cholesterol and hs-CRP changes, and higher baseline A1C to smaller apolipoprotein B reductions. Metabolic syndrome was not a significant predictor.CONCLUSIONSTreatment responses in type 2 diabetic patients were related to baseline factors, although treatment effects (ezetimibe/simvastatin being more effective than atorvastatin) remained consistent. The presence of predictive factors should be considered in planning lipid-altering therapy.