Search

Objective To evaluate how different methods for storage and preservation of urine samples affected the outcome of analysis of risk factors for stone formation. Methods Spot urine samples were collected from 21 healthy volunteers. Each fresh urine sample was divided into ten 10-mL aliquots: 2 without preservative, 2 with thymol, 2 with toluene, 2 with hydrochloric acid (HCl), and 2 with sodium azide. One sample of each pair was stored at 4°C and the other at room temperature. The concentrations of calcium, magnesium, sodium, phosphate, urate, oxalate, citrate, and pH in each urine sample were analyzed immediately after collection (0 hour) and after 24 and 48 hours. Results There were no significant differences in calcium, oxalate, magnesium, phosphate, sodium, urate or pH (without acidification) between samples with different preservation methods ( P >.05). Urinary citrate, however, was significantly lower in the urine collected with HCl than when other preservatives were used, both at room temperature and at 4°C. Urine pH was significantly higher after 48 hours than after 24 hours, whether the samples were stored at room temperature or at 4°C. Conclusion Antibacterial preservatives (eg, thymol or toluene) can be recommended as preservatives for 24-hour urine collections. Ideally, the samples should be stored at 4°C. When HCl is used as a preservative, it seems essential to neutralize the samples before analysis. This is particularly obvious with the chromatographic method used for analysis of citrate that was used in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous randomised trials have shown an overwhelming benefit of mechanical thrombectomy for treating patients with stroke caused by large vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation. Whether endovascular treatment is beneficial for vertebrobasilar artery occlusion remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment of acute strokes due to vertebrobasilar artery occlusion.Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial, with blinded outcome assessment of thrombectomy in patients presenting within 8 h of vertebrobasilar occlusion at 28 centres in China. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to endovascular therapy plus standard medical therapy (intervention group) or standard medical therapy alone (control group). The randomisation sequence was computer-generated and stratified by participating centres. Allocation concealment was implemented by use of sealed envelopes. The primary outcome was a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 3 or lower (indicating ability to walk unassisted) at 90 days, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary safety outcome was mortality at 90 days. Secondary safety endpoints included the rates of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, device-related complications, and other severe adverse events. The BEST trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02441556.Findings: Between April 27, 2015, and Sept 27, 2017, we assessed 288 patients for eligibility. The trial was terminated early after 131 patients had been randomly assigned (66 patients to the intervention group and 65 to the control group) because of high crossover rate and poor recruitment. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants with mRS 0-3 at 90 days according to treatment (28 [42%] of 66 patients in the intervention group vs 21 [32%] of 65 in the control group; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·74, 95% CI 0·81-3·74). Secondary prespecified analyses of the primary outcome, done to assess the effect of crossovers, showed higher rates of mRS 0-3 at 90 days in patients who actually received the intervention compared with those who received standard medical therapy alone in both per-protocol (28 [44%] of 63 patients with intervention vs 13 [25%] of 51 with standard therapy; adjusted OR 2·90, 95% CI 1·20-7·03) and as-treated (36 [47%] of 77 patients with intervention vs 13 [24%] of 54 with standard therapy; 3·02, 1·31-7·00) populations. The 90-day mortality was similar between groups (22 [33%] of 66 patients in the intervention vs 25 [38%] of 65 in the control group; p=0·54) despite a numerically higher prevalence of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in the intervention group.Interpretation: There was no evidence of a difference in favourable outcomes of patients receiving endovascular therapy compared with those receiving standard medical therapy alone. Results might have been confounded by loss of equipoise over the course of the trial, resulting in poor adherence to the assigned study treatment and a reduced sample size due to the early termination of the study.Funding: Jiangsu Provincial Special Program of Medical Science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective treatments to alleviate depression in Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been scarce.Objective: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in the treatment of depression in AD.Methods: In this 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with open-label, 12-week extension, AD subjects over 50 years of age, with depression defined by Olin's provisional diagnostic criteria, were enrolled. The Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), and other measures of depression and cognition were repeated.Results: 91 subjects were screened, and 84 were randomized into either the study group or placebo group (n = 42 for both groups). Twenty-four subjects (29%) were unable to finish the study, yielding a per protocol population of 60 subjects (study group: n = 27; placebo group: n = 33). At week 12, differences in measures of depression and cognition between the two groups were not statistically significant. However, exploratory analysis suggested that further research on a subset of subjects with 'definite major depression' (baseline CSDD score ≥18) is needed. The number of treatment-related adverse-events (AE) did not differ between groups (p = 0.83) and no serious treatment-related AE were observed.Conclusion: The use of escitalopram was well tolerated in depressive dementia patients. Future studies focusing on subjects with more severe levels of depression, and with more statistical power, will be needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]