Search Results - EGA European Genome-Phenome Archive

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. ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of autologous mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and c-kit positive cardiac cells (CPCs), alone or in combination, in participants with ischemic heart failure.Background The prognosis of heart failure (HF) caused by chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy (coronary artery disease and prior myocardial infarction), hereby referred to as “ischemic HF”, remains poor. Many studies have explored the use of various types of stem or progenitor cells in participants with chronic ischemic HF, with encouraging results. Several clinical trials have suggested that MSCs and CPCs are both safe and beneficial in participants with ischemic HF. At the time of this study, no information was available on the efficacy of MSCs and CPCs in humans, however, both cell types have been shown to attenuate left ventricle (LV) dysfunction in animal models. Preclinical models indicate that combining MSCs and CPCs increases the therapeutic effects, but this had not yet been tested in humans. The CONCERT-HF study was initiated to assess whether autologous MSCs and CPCs, alone or in combination, can be manufactured and delivered to participants with ischemic HF; are well-tolerated; and improve LV function, quality of life, and functional capacity, and/or reduce scar size. Participants A total of 125 participants were randomized with 33 participants randomized to the MSCs and CPCs group, 29 participants to the MSCs alone group, 31 participants to the CPCs alone group, and 32 participants to the placebo group. Design The CONCERT-HF study was a multi-center Phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of MSCs alone, CPCs alone, and their combination compared with placebo as well as each other in patients with ischemic HF. In Stage 1 (open label, lead-in study) participants were randomized 1:1 to either a standard-of-care control group (i.e., they did not undergo harvest, mapping, or injection procedures) or combination therapy (MSCs + CPCs, as described for Stage 2) to complete safety assessments. Once approval was granted for Stage 2, participants were randomized (1:1:1:1) to one of four treatments: placebo, autologous MSCs (target dose, 150 × 106 cells), autologous CPCs (target dose, 5 × 106 cells), or a combination of autologous MSCs and CPCs. At the harvest visit, right ventricular endocardial biopsy (EMB) was performed in participants randomized to receive CPCs alone or a combination of MSCs and CPCs. Participants randomized to receive MSCs alone or placebo had a sham procedure (right heart catheterization without EMB). All participants underwent a bone marrow aspiration and approximately 14 weeks later had transendocardial, electromechanically-guided injections of study product. Visits occurred at 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after study product injection. A telephone contact took place at 24 months to assess the participant's current medications, as well as morbidity and mortality. Study endpoints included measures of safety, feasibility, and efficacy. Safety outcomes included all adverse events grade 2 and higher, including major adverse cardiac events (MACE) related to HF (death, hospitalization for worsening HF, and HF exacerbation not requiring hospitalization). Efficacy endpoints included quality of life, MRI measures of LV function and structure, functional capacity, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. Conclusions In patients with ischemic HF, autologous MSCs and CPCs, alone or in combination, are safe and feasible; CPCs were associated with a reduction in the incidence of MACE related to HF compared to placebo; MSCs, either alone or in combination with CPCs, were associated with improved quality of life; these seemingly beneficial effects of CPCs and MSCs on clinical outcome were not associated with changes in LV function or structure; and combination therapy with MSCs and CPCs was associated with the best clinical outcomes with respect to both MACE related to HF and quality of life.

Study phs004055

NHLBI Family Heart Study (FamHS-Visit1 and FamHS-Visit2)

The Family Heart Study (FamHS) was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). It was begun in 1992 with the ascertainment of 1,200 families, half randomly sampled, and half selected because of an excess of coronary heart disease (CHD) or risk factor abnormalities as compared with age- and sex-specific population rates (Higgins et al. 1996). The families, with approximately 6,000 individuals, were sampled on the basis of information on probands from four population-based parent studies: the Framingham Heart Study, the Utah Family Tree Study, and two Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) centers (Minneapolis, and Forsyth County, NC). A broad range of phenotypes were assessed at a clinic examination in broad domains of CHD, atherosclerosis, cardiac and vascular function, inflammation and hemostasis, lipids and lipoproteins, blood pressure, diabetes and insulin resistance, pulmonary function, and anthropometry (FamHS Visit 1). Approximately 8 years later, study participants belonging to the largest pedigrees were invited for a second clinical exam (FamHS Visit 2). A total of 2,756 Caucasian subjects in 508 extended families were examined. A two-phase design was adopted for the genome wide association (GWA) study. In phase-1, 1007 subjects were chosen, equally distributed between the upper and lower quartile of age- and sex-adjusted values for coronary artery calcification, assessed by CT scan in Visit 2. These subjects were chosen to be largely unrelated; 34% of the subjects were from unique families, while 200 other subjects had 1 or more siblings selected into the sample, yielding a sample of 465 unrelated subjects. The remaining family members (N=1749) were genotyped in the phase-2 for replication of the top hits from the phase-1. The results presented here represent those for the analysis of the phase-1 case-control sample for variables assessed in FamHS Visit 1 (from 1992 to 1995) and for the variables assessed in FamHS Visit 2 (from 2002 to 2003). All subjects were typed on the Illumina HumMap 550 chip (Phase 1 genotype). Of these, 33 (3.3%) were excluded due to technical errors, call rates below 98%, and discrepancies between reported sex and sex-diagnostic markers. The final sample of 974 subjects have Visit 2 phenotypes, approximately 100 of these do not have Visit 1 phenotypes. There was no significant plate-to-plate variation in allele frequencies. The covariate adjustments were performed separately by sex using cubic polynomial age and clinical centers, and retaining the terms in the stepwise regression analysis that were significant at the 5% level. Extreme outliers (>4 SD from the mean) were set aside, temporarily, for the adjustments. The final phenotypes were computed for all individuals using the best mean regression models and standardizing to 0 mean and unit variance. The FamHS has contributed GWA results in many phenotype domains (antropometric and adiposity, atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease, lipid profile, diabetes and glicemic traits, metabolic syndrome etc) to meta-analyses and various consortia, including Heard-Costa et al. 2009, Köttgen et al. 2010, Teslovich et al. 2010, Nettleton et al. 2010, Lango et al. 2010, Heid et al. 2010, Speliotes et al. 2010, Dupuis et al. 2010, Kraja et al. 2011.

Study phs000221

6365 results for "11+1双色球多少钱一注"

in 18.41 milliseconds.

LP2100098-DNA_G01

LP2100098-DNA_F01

LP2100030-DNA_A02

LP2100082-DNA_F02

LP2100082-DNA_A05

LP2100100-DNA_G01

Lifelines-CH: core phenotypic variables

LP2100082-DNA_C01

LP2100098-DNA_A01

LP2100100-DNA_H03

LP2100098-DNA_E09

LP2100082-DNA_E02

LP2100030-DNA_A03

LP2100030-DNA_A06

LP2100030-DNA_A07

LP2100030-DNA_A09

LP2100082-DNA_B07

LP2100082-DNA_A07

LP2100082-DNA_D06

LP2100082-DNA_B02

LP2100082-DNA_B03

LP2100082-DNA_A04

LP2100082-DNA_B04

LP2100082-DNA_A03

LP2100098-DNA_F05

LP2100098-DNA_G07

LP2100100-DNA_A03

LP2100100-DNA_E01

LP2100100-DNA_E03

LP2100082-DNA_H01

LP2100082-DNA_B01

LP2100098-DNA_D07

LP2100098-DNA_F03

LP2100098-DNA_F07

LP2100082-DNA_A01

LP2100030-DNA_A08

LP2100098-DNA_C03

LP2100030-DNA_A01

LP2100030-DNA_A05

LP2100082-DNA_B05

LP2100082-DNA_B06

LP2100082-DNA_F04

LP2100082-DNA_G01

LP2100082-DNA_G02

LP2100082-DNA_G03

LP2100082-DNA_H02

LP2100098-DNA_G05

LP2100098-DNA_H01

LP2100100-DNA_A01

LP2100100-DNA_C01

LP2100100-DNA_C03

LP2100098-DNA_C07

LP2100098-DNA_D05

LP2100098-DNA_E05

LP2100082-DNA_A02

LP2100082-DNA_F05

LP2100030-DNA_A04

LP2100082-DNA_F06

LP2100098-DNA_H05

LP2100098-DNA_H07

LP2100098-DNA_H03

LP2100082-DNA_F01

LP2100098-DNA_D01

LP2100082-DNA_C02

LP2100082-DNA_C03

LP2100082-DNA_C05

LP2100082-DNA_D02

LP2100082-DNA_D01

LP2100082-DNA_D03

LP2100082-DNA_D05

LP2100082-DNA_E01

LP2100082-DNA_E03

LP2100082-DNA_E04

LP2100082-DNA_E05

LP2100082-DNA_E06

LP2100082-DNA_F03

LP2100082-DNA_H03

LP2100098-DNA_C09