PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Michel Lièvre

Publications and source records attributed to Michel Lièvre.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Endarterectomy versus stenting in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Carotid stenting is less invasive than endarterectomy, but it is unclear whether it is as safe in patients with symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial to compare stenting with endarterectomy in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis of at least 60%. The primary end point was the incidence of any stroke or death within 30 days after treatment. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely after the inclusion of 527 patients for reasons of both safety and futility. The 30-day incidence of any stroke or death was 3.9% after endarterectomy (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0 to 7.2) and 9.6% after stenting (95% CI, 6.4 to 14.0); the relative risk of any stroke or death after stenting as compared with endarterectomy was 2.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 5.1). The 30-day incidence of disabling stroke or death was 1.5% after endarterectomy (95% CI, 0.5 to 4.2) and 3.4% after stenting (95% CI, 1.7 to 6.7); the relative risk was 2.2 (95% CI, 0.7 to 7.2). At 6 months, the incidence of any stroke or death was 6.1% after endarterectomy and 11.7% after stenting (P=0.02). There were more major local complications after stenting and more systemic complications (mainly pulmonary) after endarterectomy, but the differences were not significant. Cranial-nerve injury was more common after endarterectomy than after stenting. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of 60% or more, the rates of death and stroke at 1 and 6 months were lower with endarterectomy than with stenting. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00190398 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Assessment of patients' and physicians' compliance to an ACE inhibitor treatment based on urinary N-acetyl Ser-Asp-Lys-Pro determination in the Noninsulin-Dependent Diabetes, Hypertension, Microalbuminuria, Proteinuria, Cardiovascular Events, and Ramipril (DIABHYCAR) study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess patients' and physicians' compliance with ACE inhibitor treatment, by measuring an endogenous biomarker of ACE inhibition, urinary N-acetyl-Ser-Asp-Lys-Pro (AcSDKP), in the Noninsulin-Dependent Diabetes, Hypertension, Microalbuminuria, Proteinuria, Cardiovascular Events, and Ramipril (DIABHYCAR) trial, which compared ramipril (1.25 mg o.d.) with placebo in 4,912 patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria/proteinuria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The urine AcSDKP-to-creatinine ratio was measured blind to treatment in all participants who completed follow-up and provided spot urine samples (n = 1,871). RESULTS: The median urinary AcSDKP-to-creatinine ratio was six times higher for ramipril than for placebo. Urinary AcSDKP-to-creatinine ratios displayed a bimodal distribution in both groups, with a very large intergroup overlap. Based on cluster analysis, we defined truly adherent ramipril patients as those with a ratio > or =4 nmol/mmol and truly adherent placebo patients as those with a ratio < 4 nmol/mmol. After excluding patients withdrawing prematurely from the study or known to have used a nonstudy ACE inhibitor, 27.3% of the 597 ramipril patients had ratios <4, indicating poor compliance, and 9.7% of the 621 placebo patients had ratios > or =4, indicating intake of a nonstudy ACE inhibitor. Correcting for compliance by using AcSDKP-guided analysis affected surrogate outcome results (decrease in systolic blood pressure and urinary albumin excretion) only slightly. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic use of spot urinary AcSDKP determination facilitated the detection of defects in compliance with ACE inhibitor treatment in both patients and physicians. Urinary AcSDKP measurement could be a useful biomarker for assessing compliance with ACE inhibition in the routine care of diabetic patients.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

Pooling, meta-analysis, and the evaluation of drug safety.

BACKGROUND: The "integrated safety report" of the drug registration files submitted to health authorities usually summarizes the rates of adverse events observed for a new drug, placebo or active control drugs by pooling the safety data across the trials. Pooling consists of adding the numbers of events observed in a given treatment group across the trials and dividing the results by the total number of patients included in this group. Because it considers treatment groups rather than studies, pooling ignores validity of the comparisons and is subject to a particular kind of bias, termed "Simpson's paradox." In contrast, meta-analysis and other stratified analyses are less susceptible to bias. METHODS: We use a hypothetical, but not atypical, application to demonstrate that the results of a meta-analysis can differ greatly from those obtained by pooling the same data. In our hypothetical model, a new drug is compared to 1) a placebo in 4 relatively small trials in patients at high risk for a certain adverse event and 2) an active reference drug in 2 larger trials of patients at low risk for this event. RESULTS: Using meta-analysis, the relative risk of experiencing the adverse event with the new drug was 1.78 (95% confidence interval [1.02; 3.12]) compared to placebo and 2.20 [0.76; 6.32] compared to active control. By pooling the data, the results were, respectively, 1.00 [0.59; 1.70] and 5.20 [2.07; 13.08]. CONCLUSIONS: Because these findings could mislead health authorities and doctors, regulatory agencies should require meta-analyses or stratified analyses of safety data in drug registration files.

Editorial↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Discontinuation of Vioxx.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Short-term efficacy and safety of extended-release fluvastatin in a large cohort of elderly patients.

The efficacy and safety of lipid-lowering agents in elderly individuals have not been extensively assessed. This population generally takes more drugs concurrently than middle-aged patients, and are therefore at higher risk of drug-drug interactions. This large-scale, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study investigated the efficacy and safety of extended-release (XL) fluvastatin 80 mg once daily for up to 1 year in elderly patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. A total of 1229 patients (mean age, 75.5 years) were randomized. After 2 months of treatment, fluvastatin XL 80 mg significantly decreased plasma lipid levels from baseline compared with placebo; fluvastatin reduced total cholesterol by 25% compared with a decrease of 2.5% in the placebo group, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was -33% vs. -2.5%, respectively, and triglycerides were -13.3% vs. 2.9%, respectively (p<0.00001). The safety profile of fluvastatin XL was similar to that of placebo. Fluvastatin XL 80 mg once daily was well tolerated and effectively managed plasma lipid profiles in a large cohort of elderly patients. These findings are consistent with data obtained previously in younger recipients of fluvastatin XL 80 mg, and reinforce the safety of fluvastatin in a population at high risk of drug-drug interactions.

Aged↗