Combination of either omeprazole 20 or 40 mg b.d. plus amoxycillin 1 g b.d., is not sufficiently effective to be recommended as an anti-H. pylori therapy. Omeprazole 80 mg b.d. combined with amoxycillin is more efficient and well tolerated, but better treatment options now exist to cure H. pylori infection.
High-dose omeprazole does not alter the pharmacokinetics of amoxycillin. The significantly lower intragastric pH during combination therapy might be due to the H. pylori-suppressive effect of this treatment.
In an expansion of a previous study, we examined in which way depressive inpatients' views of psychiatrists' and significant others' attitudes toward the severity of their illness were related to outcome. Fifty-six patients were asked a two-part question--"Who regards your illness as being more severe: (a) you or your significant others; (b) you or your psychiatrist?" Two subsamples of patients were identified: those who viewed the psychiatrists' and significant others' attitudes as similar and those who viewed them as dissimilar. Both groups showed substantial and significant improvement during hospital treatment; but the group that viewed the attitudes held by psychiatrists and significant others as dissimilar had significantly fewer depressive symptoms by the end of a 3-month followup period. The findings were consistent with those of the original study, and with the hypothesis as derived from the Mental Research Institute brief therapy principles.
393 Background: We previously reported on the discovery and prospective validation of a blood based test (Detector C) for early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). Detector C measures 202 RNA markers in white blood cells as a response of the host to tumor formation and growth. Detector C was validated using a prospective, multicenter case-control study with 343 patients (pts), 210 cases with confirmed CRC and 133 controls undergoing a complete screening colonoscopy. Detector C has a validated sensitivity (S+) of 90% (95% CI 0.851-0.937) and specificity (S-) of 88% (95% CI 0.812-0.930) (Rosental A. et al, J Clin Oncol 28:7s, 2010 (suppl; abstr 3580)). We now present the discovery of Detector C 2.0 based on 445 samples representing most of the pts previously used in the discovery and validation sets of Detector C. Methods: We used Affymetrix U133 plus 2.0 expression data of 291 CRC cases and 154 controls for discovery of Detector C 2.0. Random forest was used for feature (gene) selection and the support vector machine algorithm was employed as classifier in 600 repetitions of double-nested bootstraps to discriminate between cases and controls. Within each repetition, randomly chosen 23 controls and 160 CRC cases served as prospective validation set. The most frequent chosen genes for discrimination between cases and controls formed the consensus signature, namely Detector C 2.0. Results: Choosing a signature length of 1000 genes resulted in the following second order unbiased prospective performance estimates: S+=0.916 (95% CI 0.863-0.954) and S-= 0.948 (95% CI 0.773-0.994). S+ for UICC stage I and stage II cases were 0.93 and 0.94. S+ for high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia was ∼ 0.67 and S+ for adenoma ≥ 10 mm was ∼ 0.45. Conclusions: Using a three times larger discovery set for Detector C 2.0 than for Detector C we improved S+ (cancer detection rate) by 1.6% to 91.6%. The most important enhancement is the high S- of 94.8% of Detector C 2.0 which is six percent higher than the S- of Detector C. Detector C 2.0 is based on a much larger pts set and should be even more robust than Detector C. We will prospectively validate this test in the largest case-control study ever performed in early detection of CRC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.