Eli Lilly and Company

About: Eli Lilly and Company is a company organization based out in Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Agonist. The organization has 17826 authors who have published 22835 publications receiving 946714 citations. The organization is also known as: Eli Lily.

Increased Protein Kinase C Activity and Expression of Ca2+-Sensitive Isoforms in the Failing Human Heart

Abstract: Background—Increased expression of Ca2+-sensitive protein kinase C (PKC) isoforms may be important markers of heart failure. Our aim was to determine the relative expression of PKC-β1, -β2, and -α in failed and nonfailed myocardium. Methods and Results—Explanted hearts of patients in whom dilated cardiomyopathy or ischemic cardiomyopathy was diagnosed were examined for PKC isoform content by Western blot, immunohistochemistry, enzymatic activity, and in situ hybridization and compared with nonfailed left ventricle. Quantitative immunoblotting revealed significant increases of >40% in PKC-β1 (P<0.05) and -β2 (P<0.04) membrane expression in failed hearts compared with nonfailed; PKC-α expression was significantly elevated by 70% in membrane fractions (P<0.03). PKC-e expression was not significantly changed. In failed left ventricle, PKC-β1 and -β2 immunostaining was intense throughout myocytes, compared with slight, scattered staining in nonfailed myocytes. PKC-α immunostaining was also more evident in card...

Facts and fictions about polymorphism.

Abstract: We present new facts about polymorphism based on (i) crystallographic data from the Cambridge Structural Database (CSD, a database built over 50 years of community effort), (ii) 229 solid form screens conducted at Hoffmann-La Roche and Eli Lilly and Company over the course of 8+ and 15+ years respectively and (iii) a dataset of 446 polymorphic crystals with energies and properties computed with modern DFT-d methods. We found that molecular flexibility or size has no correlation with the ability of a compound to be polymorphic. Chiral molecules, however, were found to be less prone to polymorphism than their achiral counterparts and compounds able to hydrogen bond exhibit only a slightly higher propensity to polymorphism than those which do not. Whilst the energy difference between polymorphs is usually less than 1 kcal mol(-1), conformational polymorphs are capable of differing by larger values (up to 2.5 kcal mol(-1) in our dataset). As overall statistics, we found that one in three compounds in the CSD are polymorphic whilst at least one in two compounds from the Roche and Lilly set display polymorphism with a higher estimate of up to three in four when compounds are screened intensively. Whilst the statistics provide some guidance of expectations, each compound constitutes a new challenge and prediction and realization of targeted polymorphism still remains a holy grail of materials sciences.

Epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy and macular oedema: a systematic review

Abstract: Aims To systematically review the literature on the prevalence and incidence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and macular oedema (MO). Methods A search of the bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL) was conducted up to October 2001. Selected relevant studies were scrutinized and included in the review. Results A total of 359 studies were included. The studies were reported in nearly 100 different journals and in over 50 countries. The majority of the studies were US-based, with large studies such as the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy dominating the literature. The studies were quite dated and highly heterogeneous in nature in terms of patient selection with variable inclusion criteria (age range, gender, diabetes duration and type, ethnicity, comorbidity, and DR status, assessment, and classification). Conclusions There are inconsistencies between epidemiological studies, and differences in study methods may contribute to conflicting reports of prevalence and incidence of DR and MO in diabetic populations. As new therapies for DR and its associated complications emerge, the need to capture and monitor new epidemiological data becomes increasingly important to be able to assess the impact and effectiveness of these therapies. Robust, longitudinal capture of patient data is, therefore, essential to evaluate the impact of current practice on the epidemiology of diabetic eye complications.

Baricitinib in Patients with Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis

Abstract: BackgroundIn phase 2 studies, baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had not previously received treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). MethodsIn this phase 3 study involving 527 patients with an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects associated with one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, other biologic DMARDs, or both, we randomly assigned the patients in a 1:1:1 ratio to baricitinib at a dose of 2 or 4 mg daily or placebo for 24 weeks. End points, tested hierarchically at week 12 to control type 1 error, were the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response (primary end point), the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, the 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP), and a Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score of 3.3 or less (on a scale of 0.1 to 86.0, with a score of 3.3 or less indicating rem...

A comparison of twice-daily exenatide and biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes who were suboptimally controlled with sulfonylurea and metformin: a non-inferiority study.

Abstract: The aim of this 52-week, open-label, non-inferiority trial was to compare the safety and efficacy of exenatide (an incretin mimetic) with that of biphasic insulin aspart. Patients on metformin and a sulfonylurea were randomised to exenatide (n = 253; 5 μg twice daily for 4 weeks, 10 μg thereafter) or biphasic insulin aspart (n = 248; twice-daily doses titrated for optimal glucose control), while continuing with metformin and sulfonylurea treatment. Glycaemic control achieved with exenatide was non-inferior to that achieved with biphasic insulin aspart (mean±SEM, HbA1c change: exenatide −1.04 ± 0.07%, biphasic insulin aspart −0.89 ± 0.06%; difference −0.15 [95% CI −0.32 to 0.01]%). Exenatide-treated patients lost weight, while patients treated with biphasic insulin aspart gained weight [between-group difference −5.4 (95% CI −5.9 to −5.0) kg]. Both treatments reduced fasting serum glucose (exenatide −1.8 ± 0.2 mmol/l, p < 0.001; biphasic insulin aspart −1.7 ± 0.2 mmol/l, p < 0.001). Greater reductions in postprandial glucose excursions following morning (p < 0.001), midday (p = 0.002) and evening meals (p < 0.001) were observed with exenatide. The withdrawal rate was 21.3% (54/253) for exenatide and 10.1% (25/248) for biphasic insulin aspart. Nausea (33% incidence, 3.5% discontinuation) was the most common adverse event observed with exenatide. Exenatide treatment resulted in HbA1c reduction similar to biphasic insulin aspart and provided better postprandial glycaemic control, making it a potential alternative for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Treatment with biphasic insulin aspart was associated with weight gain and lower risk of adverse gastrointestinal events. Although the availability of glucose-lowering agents associated with weight reduction may be considered a therapeutic advance, the long-term implications of progressive weight reduction observed with exenatide have yet to be defined.