#acc2020

[aiiaiiiyo]

I don't do breakfast Check this blog!

[tom--22--felton]

📷: @atlantacomiccon - Tom Felton will be a guest at the July 31-August 2, 2020, Atlanta Comic Con at the Georgia World Congress Center! Tom is best known for portraying Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter film series. Appearing Saturday and Sunday only. To pre-order tickets for the July 31-August 2, 2020, Atlanta Comic Con, please visit: AtlantaComicCon.com/tickets #TomFelton #HarryPotter #DracoMalfoy #Draco #Malfoy #Slytherin #SlytherinHouse #Hogwarts #JKRowling #Celebrity #Actor #AtlantaComicCon #ACC2020 #Atlanta #ATL #Georgia #DiscoverAtlanta #ExploreGeorgia https://www.instagram.com/p/B9S6Eosg3_J/?igshid=1hubx0hpgqz9l

[mariebenz]

Monoclonal Antibody Evinacumab is a Major Benefit to Patients with Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Professor F. J. Raal Professor F. J. Raal, FRCP, FCP(SA), Cert Endo, MMED, PhD Director, Carbohydrate & Lipid Metabolism Research Unit Professor & Head, Division of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? How does Evinacumab differ from the three drugs used in triple therapy for this severe form of hypercholesterolemia? Response:      Despite available lipid lowering therapies, the vast majority of patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia are unable to achieve desirable LDL-cholesterol levels and remain at high risk for premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Unlike statins and PCSK9-inhibitors which act mainly by upregulating LDL receptor activity on the cell surface, evinacumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibitor of ANGPTL3, acts independent of the LDL receptor. MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings? Response:     In this phase III study in 65 subjects with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia  randomized to evinacumab or placebo, evinacumab reduced LDL-cholesterol by 49% compared to placebo, an absolute reduction in LDL-cholesterol of 132 mg/dL (3.4 mmol/L)  which is remarkable. The drug was equally effective in those homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia patients with minimal or no residual LDL receptor function. MedicalResearch.com: What should readers take away from your report? Response: Evinacumab can substantially reduce LDL-cholesterol levels in homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia patients regardless of LDL receptor function and is an effective treatment option for these high risk patients who are unable to reach LDL-cholesterol target despite multiple lipid-lowering therapies with or without apheresis.  MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have for future research as a result of this work? Response: The addition of evinacumab is of major benefit to patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia as it halves their LDL-cholesterol levels and with ongoing treatment, provided there are no long-term safety issues, this is likely to markedly reduce their risk for premature cardiovascular disease and improve survival. MedicalResearch.com: Is there anything else you would like to add? Response: With the addition of evinacumab to the other lipid lowering therapies available (statins, ezetimibe plus PCSK9 inhibitors) we will change the natural history of homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia from one that is often lethal in childhood to a manageable and treatable lipid disorder. My disclosures: I have received research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for professional input and/or delivered lectures from Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen and The Medicines Company.  Citation: Raal F. Evinacumab in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Presented on: March 30, 2020. ACC 2020. The information on MedicalResearch.com is provided for educational purposes only, and is in no way intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any medical or other condition. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health and ask your doctor any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. In addition to all other limitations and disclaimers in this agreement, service provider and its third party providers disclaim any liability or loss in connection with the content provided on this website.   Read the full article

[mariebenz]

Benefit in Heart Failure Demonstrates Dapagliflozin - FARXIGA is Not Just a Diabetes Drug

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Prof. McMurray John J. V. McMurray,  MD FRCP FESC FACC FAHA FRSE FMedSci British Heart Foundation Cardiovascular Research Centre University of Glasgow Glasgow, United Kingdom  MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Response: DAPA-HF was a double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily with placebo in 4744 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The primary outcome was a composite of time to occurrence of a worsening heart failure event (principally heart failure hospitalization) or cardiovascular death, whichever came first. Dapagliflozin reduced the primary outcome by 26% and reduced the risk of each of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death individually, as well as overall mortality. Patient symptoms were also improved. The aim of the present report was to examine the effect of dapagliflozin separately in patients with and without type 2 diabetes at baseline (45/55% split in the trial). The reason for this was that dapagliflozin was originally introduced as a glucose-lowering medication for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We find that dapagliflozin was equally beneficial in patients with and without diabetes and was as well tolerated in patients without diabetes as in those with diabetes. More remarkably, among the patients without diabetes, dapagliflozin was as effective in participants with a completely normal glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as in those with prediabetes. In patients with a normal HbA1c, dapagliflozin did not lead to any reduction in HbA1c, but did improve clinical outcomes.  MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings? Response: We find that dapagliflozin was equally beneficial in patients with and without diabetes and was as well tolerated in patients without diabetes as in those with diabetes. More remarkably, among the patients without diabetes, dapagliflozin was as effective in participants with a completely normal glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as in those with prediabetes. In patients with a normal HbA1c, dapagliflozin did not lead to any reduction in HbA1c, but did improve clinical outcomes. MedicalResearch.com: What should readers take away from your report?  Response: These findings show 2 key things: 1) Dapagliflozin is not just a diabetes drug – it is clearly a treatment for HFrEF too. 2) The beneficial effect of dapagliflozin on cardiovascular outcomes is not explained by glucose lowering. Therefore, even though dapagliflozin was originally introduced as a glucose-lowering therapy for type 2 diabetes, it clearly has a much broader therapeutic role. Indeed, it is one of the most effective treatments for heart failure that we have seen in many years. The recent news that Data Monitoring Committee recommended stopping DAPA-CKD early for efficacy supports the view that this class of drugs have wider therapeutic benefits. MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have for future research as a result of this work? Response: These exciting results raise the question of whether dapagliflozin might also be beneficial in the other major type of heart failure, that is heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). There are two large trials currently underway establishing whether SGLT2 inhibitors are effective in this other heart failure phenotype. Disclosures: DAPA-HF was funded by AstraZeneca ,my employer, Glasgow University, was paid for my time working on the trial. Citation: Petrie MC, Verma S, Docherty KF, et al. Effect of Dapagliflozin on Worsening Heart Failure and Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Heart Failure With and Without Diabetes. JAMA. Published online March 27, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.1906 The information on MedicalResearch.com is provided for educational purposes only, and is in no way intended to diagnose, cure, or treat any medical or other condition. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health and ask your doctor any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. In addition to all other limitations and disclaimers in this agreement, service provider and its third party providers disclaim any liability or loss in connection with the content provided on this website.   Read the full article

[mariebenz]

Stable Coronary Heart Disease: Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy?

MedicalResearch.com Interview with:

Dr. Maron David J. Maron, MD, FACC, FAHA Clinical Professor of Medicine Chief, Stanford Prevention Research Center Director, Preventive Cardiology Stanford University School of Medicine  MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Response: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. The goals of treating patients with stable coronary disease are to reduce their risk of death and ischemic events and to improve their quality of life. All patients with coronary disease should be treated with guideline-based medical therapy (GBMT) to achieve these objectives. Before the widespread availability of drug-eluting stents, strategy trials that tested the incremental effect of revascularization added to medical therapy did not show a reduction in the incidence of death or myocardial infarction. In one trial, fractional flow reserve–guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents, added to medical therapy, decreased the incidence of urgent revascularization but not the incidence of death from any cause or myocardial infarction at a mean of 7 months, whereas the 5-year follow-up showed marginal evidence of a decrease in the incidence of myocardial infarction. MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings?  Response: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval , 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, −1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive strategy and 144 deaths in the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). Patients assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. MedicalResearch.com: How might these findings change recommendations for invasive procedures in ischemic heart disease?   Response A conservative strategy should be recommended for people with stable coronary disease and no symptoms, assuming they meet eligibility criteria for the trial (no recent acute coronary syndrome, unprotected left main coronary artery disease, EF Read the full article

[xzelfie]

I was able to meet @official_habergram today! . . . #albuquerquecomiccon2020 #albuquerquecomiccon #acc #acc2020 #startrekcontinues #startrek #startrekcosplay #redshirt (at Albuquerque Comic Con) https://www.instagram.com/p/B7g1n22j1EC/?igshid=14t72mg19ohh5