Sixty-three patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with low and high doses of atorvastatin were included. Levels of total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol were measured at baseline and at 12 months of follow-up. Baseline levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) were classified as deficient (<30 nmol/L), insufficient (30-50 nmol/L), and normal (>50 nmol/L). In patients with 25-OHD <30 nmol/L, there were no significant changes in levels of total cholesterol (173 +/- 47 mg/dL versus
164 +/- 51 mg/dL), triglycerides (151 +/- 49 mg/dL versus 177 +/- 94 mg/dL), and LDL cholesterol (111 +/- 48 mg/dL versus 92 45 +/- mg/dL); whereas patients with insufficient (30-50 nmol/L) and normal vitamin D (>50 nmol/L) had Ganetespib molecular weight a good response to atorvastatin. We suggest that vitamin D concentrations >30 nmol/L may be required for atorvastatin to reduce lipid levels in patients with acute myocardial infarction.”
“Background: Network meta-analysis (NMA), a generalization of conventional MA, allows for assessing the relative effectiveness of multiple interventions. Reporting bias is a major threat to the validity of MA and NMA. Numerous methods
are available to assess the robustness of MA results to reporting bias. We aimed to extend such methods to NMA.
Methods: We introduced 2 adjustment models for Bayesian NMA. First, we extended a meta-regression model that allows the effect size to depend on its standard error. Second, we used a selection model that estimates the propensity of trial results being published MGCD0103 purchase and in which trials with lower propensity are weighted up in the NMA model. Both models
rely on the assumption that biases are exchangeable across the network. We applied the models to 2 networks of placebo-controlled trials of 12 antidepressants, with 74 trials in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database but only 51 with published results. NMA and adjustment models were used to estimate the effects of the 12 drugs relative to placebo, the 66 effect sizes for all possible pair-wise comparisons between drugs, probabilities of being the best drug and ranking of drugs. PF-00299804 chemical structure We compared the results from the 2 adjustment models applied to published data and NMAs of published data and NMAs of FDA data, considered as representing the totality of the data.
Results: Both adjustment models showed reduced estimated effects for the 12 drugs relative to the placebo as compared with NMA of published data. Pair-wise effect sizes between drugs, probabilities of being the best drug and ranking of drugs were modified. Estimated drug effects relative to the placebo from both adjustment models were corrected (i.e., similar to those from NMA of FDA data) for some drugs but not others, which resulted in differences in pair-wise effect sizes between drugs and ranking.