Entity

Time filter

Source Type

San Francisco, CA, United States

Stumbo P.J.,Clinical Translational Science Institute
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society | Year: 2013

Methods for conducting dietary assessment in the United States date back to the early twentieth century. Methods of assessment encompassed dietary records, written and spoken dietary recalls, FFQ using pencil and paper and more recently computer and internet applications. Emerging innovations involve camera and mobile telephone technology to capture food and meal images. This paper describes six projects sponsored by the United States National Institutes of Health that use digital methods to improve food records and two mobile phone applications using crowdsourcing. The techniques under development show promise for improving accuracy of food records. Copyright © 2013 The Author. Source


Nelson D.R.,Clinical Translational Science Institute
Liver International | Year: 2011

With the introduction of direct-acting oral antiviral agents we are on the verge of a new era that will transform the treatment landscape. This review discusses recent developments in drug discovery for hepatitis C protease inhibitors. First generation protease inhibitors will offer higher sustained viral response rates in naïve populations when combined with standard pegylated interferon and ribavirin. However, these dramatic gains will be partially offset by new challenges in viral resistance and increased adverse events. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Source


Carmichael K.,Clinical Translational Science Institute
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews | Year: 2013

The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic agent, but up to 30% develop refractory epilepsy, especially those with partial seizures. In this review we summarise the current evidence regarding zonisamide, when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (12 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1) (January 2013), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 February 2013), SCOPUS (13 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (12 February 2013) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (13 February 2013). In addition, we contacted Eisai Limited (makers and licensees of zonisamide) and experts in the field to seek any ongoing/unpublished studies. Randomised, placebo-controlled, add-on trials of zonisamide in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes were: (1) 50% or greater reduction in total seizure frequency; (2) treatment withdrawal; (3) adverse effects. Primary analyses were intention-to-treat. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) for each outcome. All studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and presented in a summary of findings table. Five trials (949 participants) were included. The overall RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for 300 to 500 mg/day of zonisamide was 2.00 (95% CI 1.58 to 2.54). The RR for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for any dose of zonisamide (100 to 500 mg per day) was 1.92 (95% CI 1.52 to 2.42). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 6 for this outcome. Two trials provide evidence of a dose response relationship for this outcome. The RR for treatment withdrawal for 300 to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.64 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.25) and for 100 to 500 mg per day was 1.47 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.01). NNT for this outcome was 21. The CIs of the following adverse effects indicate that they are significantly associated with zonisamide: ataxia 3.77 (99% CI 1.28 to 11.11); somnolence 1.83 (99% CI 1.08 to 3.11); agitation 2.35 (99% CI 1.05 to 5.27) and anorexia 2.71 (99% CI 1.29 to 5.69). Across the 5 studies, risk of bias domains were rated as low is bias or unclear. None of the evidence for outcomes was downgraded for quality. Zonisamide has efficacy as an add-on treatment in people with drug-resistant partial epilepsy. In this review minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses cannot be identified. The trials reviewed were of a maximum stable-dose phase of 18 weeks in duration and results cannot be used to confirm longer periods of effectiveness in seizure control. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy or to people with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes. Source


Steele S.J.,Clinical Translational Science Institute
Science Translational Medicine | Year: 2010

In 2006, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiated the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program to establish premier academic sites designed to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of translational research at the local, regional, and national levels. In February 2010, the NIH sponsored a national CTSA forum on "Promoting Efficient and Effective Collaborations Among Academia, Government, and Industry." This forum brought together a broad set of stakeholders who were charged with developing a path for promoting such partnerships. One theme, discussed in this meeting report, focused on opportunities and approaches to leverage CTSA institutions as a consortium in fostering public-private partnerships. Source


Teoh D.G.,Clinical Translational Science Institute
American journal of obstetrics and gynecology | Year: 2015

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate adherence to the 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines among health care providers in a large health maintenance organization.STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey evaluating knowledge, reported practices, and views of the 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines was distributed to 325 health care providers within HealthPartners. The survey was divided into 3 sections: (1) provider demographics; (2) knowledge of the 2012 age-specific cancer screening guidelines; and (3) provider practice. Comparisons based on appropriate knowledge and practice of the guidelines were made using Fisher exact tests.RESULTS: The response rate was 42%. Of 124 respondents, 15 (12.1%) reported they were not aware of the 2012 guideline changes. Only 7 (5.7%) respondents answered all the knowledge questions correctly. A majority of respondents reported correct screening practices in the 21-29 year patient age group (65.8%) and in the >65 year patient age group (74.3%). Correct screening intervals in the 30-65 year patient age group varied by modality, with 89.3% correctly screening every 3 years with Pap smear alone, but only 57.4% correctly screening every 5 years with Pap smear + human papillomavirus cotesting. The most frequently cited reasons for not adhering were lack of knowledge of the guidelines and patient demand for a different screening interval.CONCLUSION: Adherence to the 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines is poor due, in part, to a lack of knowledge of the guidelines. Efforts should focus on improved provider and patient education, and methods that facilitate adherence to the guidelines such as electronic health record order sets. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Source

Discover hidden collaborations