Test-retest reliability of a mobile application of the patient reported outcomes burdens and experiences (PROBE) study.

INTRODUCTION: The Patient Reported Outcomes, Burdens, and Experiences (PROBE) questionnaire is a patient-reported outcome tool that assesses quality of life and disease burden in people with haemophilia (PWH). AIM: To assesses the test-retest reliability of PROBE when completed using the mobile phone application. METHODS: We recruited PWH, including carriers, and individuals with no bleeding disorders who attended haemophilia-related workshops or via social media. Participants completed PROBE three times (twice on the app: T1 and T2, and once on the web, T3). Test-retest reliability was analysed for T1 versus T2 (app to app, time period one) and T2 versus T3 (app to web, time period two). RESULTS: We enrolled 48 participants (median age = 56 [range 27-78] years). Eighteen participants (37.5%) were PWH and seven (14.6%) were carriers. On general health domain questions, we found almost perfect agreement, except for a question on the frequency of use of pain medication in the last 12 months [Kappa coefficient (κ) .72 and .37 for time period one and two, respectively] and any use of pain medications (κ .75) for time period two. For haemophilia-related questions, we found substantial to perfect agreement, except for the questions on the number of joint bleeds in the previous 6 months for time period one (κ .49) and the number of bleeds in the previous two weeks for time period two (κ .34). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate the reliability of the PROBE app. The app can be used interchangeably with the paper and web platforms for PROBE administration.

coreNASH: Multi-stakeholder Consensus on Core Outcomes for Decision Making About Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Treatment.

The increasing prevalence and burden of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has spurred the development of new treatments and a need to consider outcomes used for NASH treatment decision making. Development of a NASH core outcome set (COS) can help prioritize outcomes of highest importance by incorporating the perspectives from a variety of decision makers. coreNASH was an initiative to develop a COS for NASH using a modified Delphi consensus process with a multi-stakeholder voting panel. A candidate outcome list was created based on a literature review and key informant interviews. The candidate outcome list was then condensed and prioritized through three rounds of online voting and through discussion at an in-person meeting. Outcomes were retained or eliminated based on predetermined consensus criteria, which included special weighting of patients' opinions in the first two voting rounds. The coreNASH Delphi panel included 53 participants (7 patients, 10 clinicians and researchers, 7 health technology assessors, 22 industry representatives, 2 regulators, and 5 payers) who considered outcomes for two NASH-related COS: one for NASH without cirrhosis (F2-F3) and one for NASH with cirrhosis (F4). The initial candidate outcome list for both disease stages included 86 outcomes. The panel agreed on including two core outcomes for NASH without cirrhosis and nine core outcomes for NASH with cirrhosis in the COS. Conclusion: A consensus-based COS has been developed that can be used across the life cycle of NASH treatments. Outcomes included can contribute to decision making for regulatory, market access, and on-market decision making. Including the coreNASH COS in clinical development programs will facilitate improved comparisons and help decision makers assess the value of new products.

Increasing the Patient-Centeredness of Health Economics and Outcomes Research Through Patient Engagement in Core Outcome Set Development.

Core outcome sets (COS) are becoming increasingly popular in clinical research and can provide important inputs for further health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) studies. Use of standard, consistently reported outcomes can demonstrate and allow differentiation of the effectiveness and value of different treatments. Incorporating patient values during COS development increases the patient centeredness of evidence available across decision-making contexts. However, the approach to meaningful patient engagement in the COS process is evolving and poses both unique challenges and opportunities. We describe an approach to patient-centered COS development and discuss challenges and adaptations to improve engagement across COS projects. We provide examples from our experience in patient engagement for COS development using three completed COS projects. This approach includes patient engagement in terms of partnering with patient organizations, orientation and training, and the consensus process. Including COS in clinical development programs and HEOR will ensure that relevant, consistent outcomes are available for healthcare decision making and should result in faster access to high-value and novel therapies for patients. Patient-centered COS development increases the likelihood that further HEOR studies and decisions made using the COS are relevant to patients.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus corticosteroids for controlling inflammation after uncomplicated cataract surgery.

BACKGROUND: Cataract is a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Cataract surgery is commonly performed but can result in postoperative inflammation of the eye. Inadequately controlled inflammation increases the risk of complications. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and corticosteroids are used to prevent and reduce inflammation following cataract surgery, but these two drug classes work by different mechanisms. Corticosteroids are effective, but NSAIDs may provide an additional benefit to reduce inflammation when given in combination with corticosteroids. A comparison of NSAIDs to corticosteroids alone or combination therapy with these two anti-inflammatory agents will help to determine the role of NSAIDs in controlling inflammation after routine cataract surgery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of topical NSAIDs (alone or in combination with topical corticosteroids) versus topical corticosteroids alone in controlling intraocular inflammation after uncomplicated phacoemulsification. To assess postoperative best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), patient-reported discomfort, symptoms, or complications (such as elevation of IOP), and cost-effectiveness with the use of postoperative NSAIDs or corticosteroids. SEARCH METHODS: To identify studies relevant to this review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to December 2016), Embase Ovid (1947 to 16 December 2016), PubMed (1948 to December 2016), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 16 December 2016), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com; last searched 17 June 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov; searched December 2016), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en; searched December 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants were undergoing phacoemulsification for uncomplicated cataract extraction. We included both trials in which topical NSAIDs were compared with topical corticosteroids and trials in which combination therapy (topical NSAIDs and corticosteroids) was compared with topical corticosteroids alone. The primary outcomes for this review were inflammation and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the full-text articles, extracted data from included trials, and assessed included trials for risk of bias according to Cochrane standards. The two review authors resolved any disagreements by discussion. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 48 RCTs conducted in 17 different countries and two ongoing studies. Ten included studies had a trial registry record. Fifteen studies compared an NSAID with a corticosteroid alone, and 19 studies compared a combination of an NSAID plus a corticosteroid with a corticosteroid alone. Fourteen other studies had more than two study arms. Overall, we judged the studies to be at unclear risk of bias. NSAIDs alone versus corticosteroids aloneNone of the included studies reported postoperative intraocular inflammation in terms of cells and flare as a dichotomous variable. Inflammation was reported as a continuous variable in seven studies. There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in mean cell value in the participants receiving an NSAID compared with the participants receiving a corticosteroid (mean difference (MD) -0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.19 to 0.99), and there was low-certainty evidence that the mean flare value was lower in the group receiving NSAIDs (MD -13.74, 95% CI -21.45 to -6.04). Only one study reported on corneal edema at one week postoperatively and there was uncertainty as to whether the risk of edema was higher or lower in the group that received NSAIDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.29). No included studies reported BCVA as a dichotomous outcome and no study reported time to cessation of treatment. None of the included studies reported the proportion of eyes with cystoid macular edema (CME) at one week postoperatively. Based on four RCTs that reported CME at one month, we found low-certainty evidence that participants treated with an NSAID alone had a lower risk of developing CME compared with those treated with a corticosteroid alone (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.41). No studies reported on other adverse events or economic outcomes. NSAIDs plus corticosteroids versus corticosteroids aloneNo study described intraocular inflammation in terms of cells and flare as a dichotomous variable and there was not enough continuous data for anterior chamber cell and flare to perform a meta-analysis. One study reported presence of corneal edema at various times. Postoperative treatment with neither a combination treatment with a NSAID plus corticosteroid or with corticosteroid alone was favored (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.16). We judged this study to have high risk of reporting bias, and the certainty of the evidence was downgraded to moderate. No included study reported the proportion of participants with BCVA better than 20/40 at one week postoperatively or reported time to cessation of treatment. Only one included study reported on the presence of CME at one week after surgery and one study reported on CME at two weeks after surgery. After combining findings from these two studies, we estimated with low-certainty evidence that there was a lower risk of CME in the group that received NSAIDs plus corticosteroids (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.97). Seven RCTs reported the proportion of participants with CME at one month postoperatively; however there was low-certainty evidence of a lower risk of CME in participants receiving an NSAID plus a corticosteroid compared with those receiving a corticosteroid alone (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.06). The few adverse events reported were due to phacoemulsification rather than the eye drops. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence from this review to inform practice for treatment of postoperative inflammation after uncomplicated phacoemulsification. Based on the RCTs included in this review, we could not conclude the equivalence or superiority of NSAIDs with or without corticosteroids versus corticosteroids alone. There may be some risk reduction of CME in the NSAID-alone group and the combination of NSAID plus corticosteroid group. Future RCTs on these interventions should standardize the type of medication used, dosing, and treatment regimen; data should be collected and presented using the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) outcome measures so that dichotomous outcomes can be analyzed.

Conjunctival Autograft Versus Amniotic Membrane Transplantation for Treatment of Pterygium: Findings From a Cochrane Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To summarize key findings from a systematic review of the effectiveness and risks of conjunctival autograft (CAG) compared with amniotic membrane transplant (AMT) for pterygium. DESIGN: Cochrane systematic review. METHODS: We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CAG and AMT had been compared for primary or recurrent pterygia. The primary outcome was recurrence of pterygium ≥1 mm onto the cornea by 3 and 6 months post surgery. We adhered to Cochrane methods for trial selection, data extraction, risk of bias evaluation, and data synthesis. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs with 1866 participants (1947 eyes) were included. Pterygium recurrence 6 months after surgery ranged from 3.3% to 16.7% in the CAG group and 6.4% to 42.3% in the AMT group based on data from 1021 eyes in 10 RCTs. Estimated risk ratios from meta-analysis indicated that CAG-treated eyes had a 47% lower risk of recurrence 6 months after surgery compared with the AMT group (RR, 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.85). For 96 eyes with recurrent pterygium, the risk of recurrence 6 months after CAG was reduced by 55% compared with AMT (risk ratio [RR], 0.45, 95% CI, 0.21-0.99). Three-month recurrence rates were similar for CAG and AMT based on data from 538 eyes (6 RCTs). CONCLUSIONS: CAG was more effective than AMT to prevent pterygium recurrence by 6 months post surgery, especially in recurrent pterygia. CAG-treated eyes had half the recurrence rates of AMT-treated eyes. Future RCTs should assess changes in patient-reported outcomes (symptoms, cosmesis) and visual acuity, and evaluate effects of surgical variations.

Aflibercept for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Central vision loss caused by age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness among the elderly in developed countries. Neovascular AMD is characterized by choroidal neovascularization (CNV). Growth of new blood vessels in patients with neovascular AMD is driven by a complex process that involves a signal protein called vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A). Anti-VEGF drugs that block this protein include ranibizumab, bevacizumab, and aflibercept. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of intravitreal injections of aflibercept versus ranibizumab, bevacizumab, or sham for treatment of patients with neovascular AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 11, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), PubMed (1948 to November 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to November 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched December 4, 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on November 30, 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which aflibercept monotherapy was compared with ranibizumab, bevacizumab, or sham for participants with neovascular AMD who were treatment-naive. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures of The Cochrane Collaboration for screening, data abstraction, and study assessment. Two review authors independently screened records, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies; we resolved discrepancies by discussion or with the help of a third review author when needed. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs (total of 2457 participants, 2457 eyes). Trial participants had neovascular AMD with active subfoveal choroidal neovascular lesions. Both trials followed the same protocol and compared aflibercept at various doses versus ranibizumab, but they were carried out in different countries. One trial enrolled participants from the United States and Canada, and the second trial was conducted at 172 sites in Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East. The overall quality of the evidence was high, and included trials were at low risk for most bias domains assessed; however, both trials were funded by the manufacturers of aflibercept. For the purposes of analysis, we combined aflibercept groups regardless of dosing and analyzed them as a single group.Visual acuity outcomes were similar between aflibercept and ranibizumab groups; at one year, participants in the aflibercept groups showed mean change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline similar to that of participants in the ranibizumab groups (mean difference (MD) -0.15 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1.47 to 1.17; high-quality evidence). At two years, the mean change in BCVA from baseline was 7.2 ETDRS letters for aflibercept groups versus 7.9 for ranibizumab groups. Sufficient data were not available for calculation of confidence intervals.The proportion of participants who gained 15 or more letters of BCVA by one year of follow-up was approximately 32% for both aflibercept and ranibizumab (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11; high-quality evidence), and by two years of follow-up was approximately 31% (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12; high-quality evidence). Similar small proportions of participants in the aflibercept and ranibizumab groups lost 15 or more letters of BCVA at one year (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.30; high-quality evidence); this outcome was not reported for two-year follow-up. Data were not reported on the proportion of participants with BCVA worse than 20/200 at one- or two-year follow-up.Participants treated with aflibercept or ranibizumab showed similar improvement in morphological outcomes, as assessed from images (central retinal thickness and CNV size). At one year, the proportion of eyes that achieved dry retina was similar between aflibercept and ranibizumab groups (absence of cystic intraretinal fluid and subretinal fluid on optical coherence tomography (OCT); RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.14; high-quality evidence). In addition, investigators reported no difference in reduction of CNV area between aflibercept- and ranibizumab-treated eyes at one year (MD -0.24 mm(2), 95% CI -0.78 to 0.29; high-quality evidence). Data were not reported for the proportion of eyes with absence of leakage on fluorescein angiography at one- or two-year follow-up.Overall, occurrence of serious systemic adverse events was similar and comparable in aflibercept- and ranibizumab-treated groups at one year (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.25). Risk of any serious ocular adverse event was lower in the aflibercept group than in the ranibizumab group, but the risk estimate is imprecise (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.07). As the result of imprecision, we graded the quality of evidence for all adverse events as moderate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results of this review document the comparative effectiveness of aflibercept versus ranibizumab for visual acuity and morphological outcomes in eyes with neovascular AMD. Current available information on adverse effects of each medication suggests that the safety profile of aflibercept is comparable with that of ranibizumab; however, the number of participants who experienced adverse events was small, leading to imprecise estimates of absolute and relative effect sizes. The eight-week dosing regimen of aflibercept represents reduced treatment requirements in comparison with monthly dosing regimens and thus has the potential to reduce treatment burden and risks associated with frequent injections.

Conjunctival autograft for pterygium.

BACKGROUND: A pterygium is a fleshy, wing-shaped growth from the conjunctiva, crossing over the limbus onto the cornea. Prevalence ranges widely around the world. Evidence suggests that ultraviolet light is a major contributor in the formation of pterygia. Pterygia impair vision, limit eye movements, and can cause eye irritation, foreign body sensation, and dryness. In some susceptible patients, the pterygium can grow over the entire corneal surface, blocking the visual axis.Surgery is the only effective treatment for pterygium, though recurrences are common. With simple excision techniques (that is, excising the pterygium and leaving bare sclera), the risk of recurrence has been reported to be upwards of 80%. Pterygium excision combined with a tissue graft has a lower risk of recurrence. In conjunctival autograft surgery, conjunctival tissue from another part of the person's eye along with limbal tissue is resected in one piece and used to cover the area from which the pterygium was excised. Another type of tissue graft surgery for pterygium is amniotic membrane graft, whereby a piece of donor amniotic membrane is fixed to the remaining limbus and bare sclera area after the pterygium has been excised. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the safety and effectiveness of conjunctival autograft (with or without adjunctive therapy) compared with amniotic membrane graft (with or without adjunctive therapy) for pterygium. We also planned to determine whether use of MMC yielded better surgical results and to assess the direct and indirect comparative costs of these procedures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 10, 2015), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to November 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2015), PubMed (1948 to November 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to November 2015), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 21 November 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 23 November 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included in this review randomized controlled trials that had compared conjunctival autograft surgery (with or without adjunctive therapy) with amniotic membrane graft surgery (with or without adjunctive therapy) in people with primary or recurrent pterygium. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results and assessed full-text reports from among the potentially eligible trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials and assessed the trial characteristics and risk of bias. The primary outcome was the risk of recurrence of pterygium at 3 months and 6 months after surgery. We combined results from individual studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models. Risk of recurrence of pterygium was reported using risk ratios to compare conjunctival autograft with amniotic membrane transplant. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 20 studies that had analyzed a total of 1947 eyes of 1866 participants (individual studies ranged from 8 to 346 participants who were randomized). The studies were conducted in eight different countries: one in Brazil, three in China, three in Cuba, one in Egypt, two in Iran, two in Thailand, seven in Turkey, and one in Venezuela. Overall risk of bias was unclear, as many studies did not provide information on randomization methods or masking to prevent performance and detection bias.The risk ratio for recurrence of pterygium using conjunctival autograft versus amniotic membrane transplant was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.77) and 0.53 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.85) at 3 months and 6 months, respectively. These estimates include participants with primary and recurrent pterygia. We performed a subgroup analysis to compare participants with primary pterygia with participants with recurrent pterygia. For participants with primary pterygia, the risk ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.37 to 2.30) and 0.58 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.27) at 3 months and 6 months, respectively. We were only able to estimate the recurrence of pterygia at 6 months for participants with recurrent pterygia, and the risk ratio comparing conjunctival autograft with amniotic membrane transplant was 0.45 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.99). One included study was a doctoral thesis and did not use allocation concealment. When this study was excluded in a sensitivity analysis, the risk ratio for pterygium recurrence at 6 months' follow-up was 0.43 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) for participants with primary and recurrent pterygium. One of the secondary outcomes, the proportion of participants with clinical improvement, was analyzed in only one study. This study reported clinical outcome as the risk of non-recurrence, which was seen in 93.8% of participants in the conjunctival limbal autograft group and 93.3% in the amniotic membrane transplant group at 3 months after surgery.We did not analyze data on the need for repeat surgery, vision-related quality of life, and direct and indirect costs of surgery due to an insufficient number of studies reporting these outcomes.Thirteen studies reported adverse events associated with conjunctival autograft surgery and amniotic membrane transplant surgery. Adverse events that occurred in more than one study were granuloma and pyogenic granuloma and increased intraocular pressure. None of the included studies reported that participants had developed induced astigmatism. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In association with pterygium excision, conjunctival autograft is associated with a lower risk of recurrence at six months' after surgery than amniotic membrane transplant. Participants with recurrent pterygia in particular have a lower risk of recurrence when they receive conjunctival autograft surgery compared with amniotic membrane transplant. There are few studies comparing the two techniques with respect to visual acuity outcomes, and we identified no studies that reported on vision-related quality of life or direct or indirect costs. Comparison of these two procedures in such outcome measures bears further investigation. There were an insufficient number of studies that used adjunctive mitomycin C to estimate the effects on pterygium recurrence following conjunctival autograft or amniotic membrane transplant.

Young children's perceptions of fire-safety messages: do framing and parental mediation matter?

Media can deliver health and safety messages promoting child health and injury prevention. This study examined the effects of message framing and parental mediation on children's perceptions of fire-safety messages. Using a 2 × 3 randomized experimental design, this study considered both message framing (gain or loss) and parental mediation (no mediation/control, unscripted, or scripted) with 320 children who were 4 and 5 years of age. Children saw two messages (burn and smoke inhalation) embedded in a cartoon. Afterward, researchers assessed children's recall, understanding, and perceptions of self-efficacy and social norms. Children were more likely to recall the safety messages if they were older (burn: adjusted odds ration [AOR] = 2.74 and smoke: AOR = 2.58), and could recall the smoke inhalation message if they had unscripted mediation (AOR = 3.16). Message understanding was poor, with only about 50% of children choosing a correct behavior in a similar scenario. For the burn message, correct understanding was associated with gain-framing and scripted mediation (AOR = 3.22 and 5.77, respectively). Only the scripted mediation group was significantly associated with an increase in perceived social norms (burn: coefficient =.37 and smoke: coefficient =.55; P <.001. Gain-framing was associated with increased odds of self-efficacy for both behaviors (burn: AOR = 1.77 and smoke: AOR = 1.77). Messages that show positive outcomes combined with scripted parental mediation appear most effective in communicating safety behaviors, but the overall effectiveness of video-based messages to teach children safety behaviors needs to be enhanced.

Design, synthesis, and biological evaluation of triazolo-pyrimidine derivatives as novel inhibitors of hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg) secretion.

The high levels of hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen (HBsAg)-bearing subviral particles in the serum of chronically infected individuals play an important role in suppressing HBV-specific immune response and are only mildly affected by the current small molecule therapies. Thus, a therapy that specifically reduces HBsAg serum levels could be used in combination therapy with nucleos(t)ide drugs or permit therapeutic vaccination for the treatment of HBV infection. Herein, we report the design, synthesis, and evaluation of novel triazolo-pyrimidine inhibitors (1, 3, and 4) of HBsAg cellular secretion, with activity against drug-resistant HBV variants. Extensive SAR led to substantial improvements in the EC(50) of the parent compound, 5 (HBF-0259), with the best being 3c, with EC(50) = 1.4 ± 0.4 µM, SI ≥ 36. The lead candidates, both 1a (PBHBV-001) and 3c (PBHBV-2-15), were well-tolerated in both normal and HBV-transgenic mice and exhibited acceptable pharmacokinetics and bioavailability in Sprague-Dawley rats.

Association of single nucleotide polymorphisms on chromosome 9p21.3 with platelet reactivity: a potential mechanism for increased vascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have identified a locus on chromosome 9p21.3 to be strongly associated with myocardial infarction/coronary artery disease and ischemic stroke. To gain insights into the mechanisms underlying these associations, we hypothesized that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in this region would be associated with platelet reactivity across multiple populations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Subjects in the initial population included 1402 asymptomatic Amish adults in whom we measured platelet reactivity (n=788) and coronary artery calcification (CAC) (n=939). Platelet reactivity on agonist stimulation was measured by impedance aggregometry, and CAC was measured by electron beam CT. Twenty-nine SNPs at the 9p21.3 locus were genotyped using the Affymetrix 500K array. Twelve correlated SNPs in the locus were significantly associated with platelet reactivity (all P≤0.001). The SNP most strongly associated with platelet reactivity, rs10965219 (P=0.0002), also was associated with CAC (P=0.002) along with 9 other SNPs (all P<0.004). Association of rs10965219 with platelet reactivity persisted after adjustment for CAC, a measure of underlying atherosclerotic burden known to affect platelet reactivity. We then tested rs10965219 for association with platelet function in 2364 subjects from the Framingham Heart Study and 1169 subjects from the Genetic Study of Aspirin Responsiveness. The rs10965219 G allele (frequency ≈51% across all 3 populations) was significantly associated with higher platelet reactivity in the Framingham Heart Study (P=0.001) and trended toward higher reactivity in the Genetic Study of Aspirin Responsiveness (P=0.087); the combined P value for metaanalysis was 0.0002. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that risk alleles at 9p21.3 locus may have pleiotropic effects on myocardial infarction/coronary artery disease and stroke risk, possibly through their influence on platelet reactivity.