14312 results for ""Pennsylvania+German"+ACS+study+'Socius'+open+access"

in 12.83 milliseconds.

• Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. ObjectivesHypertension Study: To determine whether treatment with a calcium channel blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lowers the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) or other cardiovascular disease (CVD) events vs treatment with a diuretic.Lipid Study: To determine whether pravastatin compared with usual care reduces all-cause mortality in older, moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive participants with at least an additional CHD risk factor. BackgroundHypertension Study: Antihypertensive therapy is well established to reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality, but the optimal first-step therapy is unknown.Lipid Study: Studies have demonstrated that statins administered to individuals with risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD) reduce CHD events. However, many of these studies were too small to assess all-cause mortality or outcomes in important subgroups.ParticipantsHypertension Study: A total of 33,357 participants. Lipid Study: A total of 10,355 participants. Baseline mean total cholesterol was 224 mg/dL; LDL-C, 146 mg/dL; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 48 mg/dL; and triglycerides, 152 mg/dL. Mean age was 66 years; 49% were women, 38% black and 23% Hispanic, 14% had a history of CHD, and 35% had type 2 diabetes. DesignHypertension Study: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial conducted from February 1994 through March 2002. Participants were randomly assigned to receive chlorthalidone, 12.5 to 25 mg/d (n = 15,255); amlodipine, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n = 9048); or lisinopril, 10 to 40 mg/d (n = 9054) for planned follow-up of approximately 4 to 8 years. The primary outcome was combined fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction, analyzed by intent-to-treat. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, combined CHD (primary outcome, coronary revascularization, or angina with hospitalization), and combined CVD (combined CHD, stroke, treated angina without hospitalization, heart failure (HF), and peripheral arterial disease).Lipid Study: Multicenter (513 primarily community-based North American clinical centers), randomized, non-blinded trial conducted from 1994 through March 2002 in a subset of participants from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). The interventions in the trial were pravastatin, 40 mg/d, vs usual care. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with follow-up for up to 8 years. Secondary outcomes included non-fatal myocardial infarction or fatal CHD (CHD events) combined, cause-specific mortality, and cancer.ConclusionsHypertension Study: Thiazide-type diuretics are superior in preventing one or more major forms of CVD and are less expensive. They should be preferred for first-step antihypertensive therapy.Lipid Study: Pravastatin did not reduce either all-cause mortality or CHD significantly when compared with usual care in older participants with well-controlled hypertension and moderately elevated LDL-C. The results may be due to the modest differential in total cholesterol (9.6%) and LDL-C (16.7%) between pravastatin and usual care compared with prior statin trials supporting cardiovascular disease prevention.

  Study phs004021

• All you need to know about our new DAC Portal

  With the DAC Portal, it is possible to streamline the process of managing access to sensitive data, ensuring that researchers have the necessary resources to advance scientific discovery while maintaining the highest standards of data protection and privacy. We know that, as a new tool, its first use can be complex. For this reason, in this article we will try to show all the elements of interest. Enjoy! Credentials: who needs to create a new user to access the DAC Portal and who doesn't? Only new users (since September the 12th) need to create an EGA account to access the DAC Portal. The EGA team went one step ahead by creating EGA accounts for former DAC members to login to the DAC Portal. These accounts are linked to the personal email used in the DAC structure: To check the linked email, DAC members can paste the DAC ID right after this link: https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/ (e.g. https://metadata.ega-archive.org/dacs/EGAC00001002543) In case of password oblivion, it is possible to set a new one. All the process is channelled through the personal email. Some DAC members may be interested in updating the DAC email. This action can be done contacting our Helpdesk team. For the correct functioning of the DAC Portal, users must add the missing information of the DAC Profile. For a deeper dive, check out our documentation. The first step: knowing your workspace on the Portal Once logged in to the platform using the EGA User credentials, note the sections available: DACs and Policies. In the first one it is possible to check all user's registered DACs by default. It provides a comprehensive overview of each DAC, including its EGA accessions (EGAC), title, status, and the number of data access requests associated with each DAC. Whereas the Policies section is where users can manage and view all their registered policies, along with their associated EGA accessions, links, and titles. A drop-down menu is available with shortcuts to the most useful pages in the top right corner. It is possible to check DACs and policies, as well as creating new ones. In this menu, users can also contact the Helpdesk team using the “Need Help?” section to make inquiries about DACs and policies. Comprehending the DACs list & making the most of all the features Colours are crucial in the DAC's section as they will indicate the user role and the status in every committee, namely: Yellow: you are the administrator of the DAC and have full control to add other contacts, modify the content, and manage data access requests. Orange: you are a member of the DAC and have the authority to manage data access requests but cannot make any changes to the content. Blue: you have been invited to join the DAC and need to either accept or decline the invitation. Grey: the DAC is currently pending validation by the EGA Helpdesk team. Red: the DAC has been declined by the EGA Helpdesk team. Discover more information on how to view the message from Helpdesk containing the declination reason or how to validate or reject a DAC invitation by taking the tour of the DAC Portal. How to create, register and edit a DAC Creating a DAC is an easy process that only requires users to complete the necessary information. After that, the EGA Helpdesk team will review the proposal and validate the proposal. Once the DAC is validated it is possible for authorised users with admin role to edit it at any time, ensuring that all information and contacts associated with the committee is accurate and up to date. Membership management is controlled by searching for the EGA user looking for their username, email, or organisation. Please, note that for a person's details to appear in this search engine, they must have registered as a EGA user. Data Access Committee administrators manage two types of permissions that apply to contacts: Main contact and Role. Both can be modified at any time: Main contact refers to the primary person we firstly contact for any inquiry about the DAC (please, note that we can contact all DAC members, and this refers to the person we will contact first). Role defines the actions that can be taken by each contact. There are two possible status, admin and member, details of which can be found in the Take the Tour. Keep in mind that, to save the modifications, it is always necessary to click on “Update”. Moreover, it is also possible to delete any contact in a DAC whenever it is needed. The data request process: how to manage access requests The data request process is now channelled through the EGA website. Once a user sends a request access, the petition will go directly to the DAC Portal profile of the DAC members liked to the requested dataset. Whenever a request is received, a sand clock symbol will be displayed next to the DAC responsible for the dataset involved. By clicking on the DAC, it is possible to discover more information about requester(s). In this section, DAC Portal users will also be able to modify the display of the data access requests. It is possible to group requests by dataset accession or username, depending on the user preferences. Additionally, it is possible to isolate specific requests by user or dataset. To accept a request, users must slide the button to the right. Once the button turns green, it signifies that the request is accepted; the requester will be granted access to the requested dataset. To make lives easier, we have implemented a “Select all” button to easily accept or revoke multiple requests at once. To decline requests, it is necessary to slide the button to the left. A red button means the requester will not be granted access to the dataset. The DAC Portal will always ask to submit the reason why the data access was denied. Please, note that any decision, grant or denial, must be confirmed clicking the "Apply" button. This will update the status of the request and notify the requester accordingly. Taking control of the activity in the DAC Portal: checking the requests history The History button is a useful feature that allows users to access a list of all the requests that have been granted. This is especially useful for auditing purposes, as it enables to keep track of who has been granted access to the data and when. To facilitate control for those users with several requests we have included a filtering option. It allows to filter requests by user, mail, dataset, EGA ID, and date (these are combinable to boost the search). Don't forget about policies: creation, management, and update Similarly to the DACs section, in the Policies one users can manage and view all their registered policies. By clicking on any policy, it is possible to view its details as well as making any necessary updates or modifications. The sheets symbol and its adjacent number indicate the quantity of objects using a policy. By clicking in the location symbol users will go directly to the DAC page on the DAC Portal to see more information about that DAC. DAC Portal users can create new policies. The first step requires to link the policy to a registered DAC. After defining the title, users can either add a link to an external URL containing terms & conditions or write the policy content directly on the DAC Portal. Keep in mind that both options can be included. Data Use Ontology (DUO) codes can be added to new policies. These codes are used to specify the permitted and prohibited uses of the data. Please, note that some of them require a modifier to provide additional specificity. Find out more by checking out this specific content on the DAC Portal Tour. Policies can be modified at any given time by clicking on one registered policy, which will display the current information.

  Blog new-dac-portal

• Data Access Committee of the MyPAC clinical research group (Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, GRC n°07, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur les Myéloproliférations Aiguës et Chroniques MyPAC)

  Dac EGAC00001000480

• Data access committee (DAC) in the Graduate School of Medical Science and Engineering (GSMSE) at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)

  Dac EGAC00001000587

• DAC - Department of Periodontology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

  Data Access Committee to manage external requests. Project: RNA-seq data from soft tissue biopsies harvested from dental implant sites with peri-implantitis

  Dac EGAC50000000241

• TenK10K project

  This DAC handles access to data from the TenK10K project, which is comprised of matched whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) datasets.

  Dac EGAC50000000931

• PLCO - Limited Use Pilot Test Data

  This is a sample of Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial data for limited use in a pilot test for remote data access. The PLCO is a randomized, controlled trial of screening tests for prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancers. Approximately 155,000 participants were enrolled between November 1993 and July 2001. Participants were individually randomized to the control arm or intervention arm in equal proportions. Participants assigned to the control arm received usual care, whereas participants assigned to the intervention arm were invited to receive screening exams for prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancers as outlined in the study protocol. The goal of the study was to assess whether these screening exams reduce mortality from prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancers. Data were collected on cancer diagnoses and deaths from all causes that occurred through December 31, 2009. Median follow-up time was 12.4 years.

  Study phs002011

• In this study, blood-brain barrier (BBB)-forming brain endothelial-like cells were generated from apolipoprotein E gene allele E4 (APOE4, high AD risk) and allele E3 (APOE3, lower AD risk) carrying patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Cells were subsequently exposed to focused ultrasound and microbubbles (FUS+MB) to induce BBB opening and their transcriptome analysed. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) results demonstrated minimal changes in the gene expression following FUS+MB suggesting safety of FUS+MB application in the clinical setting.

  The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a major impediment to therapeutic intracranial drug delivery for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Focused ultrasound applied together with microbubbles (FUS+MB) is a novel technique to transiently open the BBB and increase drug delivery. Evidence suggests that FUS+MB is safe, however the effects of FUS+MB on human BBB cells, especially in relation to AD, remain sparsely investigated. Here we developed a human sporadic AD BBB cell platform to investigate the effects of FUS+MB on BBB cells and screen for the delivery of two potentially therapeutic AD antibodies. We generated BBB cells from apolipoprotein E gene allele E4 (APOE4, high AD risk) and allele E3 (APOE3, lower AD risk) carrying patient-derived induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). We utilized this robust and reproducible platform to demonstrate increased delivery of potentially therapeutic antibodies across the BBB, including an analogue of Aducanumab (AduhelmTM) following FUS+MB treatment. Our results also demonstrate the safety of FUS+MB indicated by minimal changes in the cell transcriptome as well as little or no changes in cell viability and inflammatory responses within first 24 h post FUS+MB, with potentially important implications in a clinical setting. Finally, we report a more physiologically relevant hydrogel-based 2.5D BBB model as a key development for FUS+MB-mediated drug delivery screening, with potentially higher translational utility. Our results provide an important advancement for identifying FUS+MB-deliverable drugs and screening for cell- and patient-specific effects of FUS+MB, accelerating its use as a therapy in AD.

  Study EGAS00001005944

• Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives The primary aim of the RESTORE clinical trial was to determine whether critically ill children managed with a nurse-implemented, goal-directed sedation protocol would experience fewer days of mechanical ventilation than participants receiving usual care. Background Ensuring the safety and comfort of critically ill infants and children supported by mechanical ventilation is integral to the practice of pediatric critical care. Although sedation therapy benefits young participants who cannot understand the imperative nature of invasive life-sustaining therapies, sedative use is also associated with untoward adverse effects. Specifically, opioids and benzodiazepines commonly used for pediatric sedation may impair bedside neurological assessment, depress spontaneous ventilation, and prolong mechanical ventilation. Over time, drug tolerance develops, which may precipitate iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome when sedation therapy is no longer necessary.Numerous studies in adult critical care support a minimal yet effective approach to sedation management. Sedation goals for mechanically ventilated adults have shifted from an unresponsive state to a calm, easily aroused, readily evaluated participant. Studies in adult participants evaluating targeted sedation, daily interruption and/or titration of sedation, pairing of spontaneous awakening with breathing, and no sedation have reported improved clinical outcomes, including decreased length of mechanical ventilation when compared with usual care. In contrast, few data inform sedation practices in pediatric critical care, and international studies describe significant practice variation. Given unique biobehavioral differences, knowledge generated in adult critical care may not translate to the care of critically ill children. The RESTORE study was conducted to test the effect of a nurse-implemented, goal-directed sedation protocol on clinical outcomes in pediatric participants with acute respiratory failure. Participants There was a total of 2,449 participants (mean age: 4.7 years; range: 2 weeks to 17 years). Design The RESTORE study was a cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 31 US PICUs. Intervention PICUs (17 sites; 1,225 participants) used a protocol that included targeted sedation, arousal assessments, extubation readiness testing, sedation adjustment every 8 hours, and sedation weaning. Control PICUs (14 sites; 1,224 participants) managed sedation per usual care. The primary outcome variable was duration of mechanical ventilation. Conclusions Among children undergoing mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure, the use of a sedation protocol compared with usual care did not reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation. Exploratory analyses of secondary outcomes suggest a complex relationship among wakefulness, pain, and agitation (JAMA 2015; 313(4):379-89).

  Study phs003783

• Acute Respiratory Distress Network (ARDSNet) Study 04 Assessment of Low Tidal Volume and Elevated End-Expiratory Volume to Obviate Lung Injury (ALVEOLI-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. BiospecimensAccess to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from ARDSNet-ALVEOLI include Plasma and DNA. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Available Data Outcome data regarding organ failure free days are not available. Objectives The ARDS Network is a consortium of clinical centers and a coordinating center to design and test novel therapies for the treatment of Acute Lung Injury (ALI) and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). The ARDS Network 01/03 trials included an investigation of the efficacy and safety of Ketoconazole and Respiratory Management in the treatment of ALI and ARDS (KARMA). The Ketoconazole arm of the KARMA study was later stopped due to an inability to show efficacy. Participants continued to be randomized to the respiratory management arms of the study (ARMA), which compared two ventilator strategies: a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg versus 12 mL/kg. The LARMA phase of the study investigated the efficacy of Lisofylline and Respiratory Management. The objective of the ALVEOLI study was to compare clinical outcomes of participants with ALI and ARDS treated with a higher end-expiratory lung volume/lower FiO2 versus a lower end-expiratory lung volume/higher FiO2 ventilation strategy. The ALVEOLI study tested the hypothesis that mortality from ALI and ARDS would be reduced with a mechanical ventilation strategy designed to prevent lung injury from repeated collapse of bronchioles and alveoli at end-expiration. Background Most participants requiring mechanical ventilation for ALI and ARDS receive positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 to 12 cm of water. Higher PEEP levels may improve oxygenation and reduce ventilator-induced lung injury but may also cause circulatory depression and lung injury from overdistention. PEEP levels higher than traditional levels may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury by decreasing the proportion of nonaerated lung and higher PEEP levels may allow arterial-oxygenation goals to be met at a lower level of inspired oxygen (FiO2). Participants A total of 550 participants were randomized to receive mechanical ventilation with either lower or higher PEEP levels, which were set according to different tables of predetermined combinations of PEEP and fraction of inspired oxygen. Conclusions Participants with acute lung injury and ARDS who receive mechanical ventilation with a tidal-volume goal of 6 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight and an end-inspiratory plateau-pressure limit of 30 cm of water, clinical outcomes were statistically similar whether lower or higher PEEP levels are used. (Brower, et al., 1004; PMID: 15269312).

  Study phs003714