University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

About: University of Modena and Reggio Emilia is a education organization based out in Modena, Italy. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 8179 authors who have published 22418 publications receiving 671337 citations. The organization is also known as: Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia & Universita degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia.

Effects of antenatal diet and physical activity on maternal and fetal outcomes: Individual patient data meta-analysis and health economic evaluation

Abstract: Background: Diet- and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy have the potential to alter maternal and child outcomes. Objectives: To assess whether or not the effects of diet and lifestyle interventions vary in subgroups of women, based on maternal body mass index (BMI), age, parity, Caucasian ethnicity and underlying medical condition(s), by undertaking an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. We also evaluated the association of gestational weight gain (GWG) with adverse pregnancy outcomes and assessed the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment database were searched from October 2013 to March 2015 (to update a previous search). Review methods: Researchers from the International Weight Management in Pregnancy Collaborative Network shared the primary data. For each intervention type and outcome, we performed a two-step IPD random-effects meta-analysis, for all women (except underweight) combined and for each subgroup of interest, to obtain summary estimates of effects and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and synthesised the differences in effects between subgroups. In the first stage, we fitted a linear regression adjusted for baseline (for continuous outcomes) or a logistic regression model (for binary outcomes) in each study separately; estimates were combined across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. We quantified the relationship between weight gain and complications, and undertook a decision-analytic model-based economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Results: Diet and lifestyle interventions reduced GWG by an average of 0.70 kg (95% CI-0.92 to-0.48 kg; 33 studies, 9320 women). The effects on composite maternal outcome [summary odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 24 studies, 8852 women] and composite fetal/neonatal outcome (summary OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 18 studies, 7981 women) were not significant. The effect did not vary with baseline BMI, age, ethnicity, parity or underlying medical conditions for GWG, and composite maternal and fetal outcomes. Lifestyle interventions reduce Caesarean sections (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99), but not other individual maternal outcomes such as gestational diabetes mellitus (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10), pre-eclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16) and preterm birth (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13). There was no significant effect on fetal outcomes. The interventions were not cost-effective. GWG, including adherence to the Institute of Medicine-recommended targets, was not associated with a reduction in complications. Predictors of GWG were maternal age (summary estimate-0.10 kg, 95% CI-0.14 to-0.06 kg) and multiparity (summary estimate-0.73 kg, 95% CI-1.24 to-0.23 kg). Limitations: The findings were limited by the lack of standardisation in the components of intervention, residual heterogeneity in effects across studies for most analyses and the unavailability of IPD in some studies. Conclusion: Diet and lifestyle interventions in pregnancy are clinically effective in reducing GWG irrespective of risk factors, with no effects on composite maternal and fetal outcomes. Future work: The differential effects of lifestyle interventions on individual pregnancy outcomes need evaluation. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003804.

R-CVP Versus R-CHOP Versus R-FM for the Initial Treatment of Patients With Advanced-Stage Follicular Lymphoma: Results of the FOLL05 Trial Conducted by the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi

Abstract: Purpose Although rituximab (R) is commonly used for patients with advanced follicular lymphoma (FL) requiring treatment, the optimal associated chemotherapy regimen has yet to be clarified. Patients and Methods We conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial among adult patients with previously untreated stages II to IV FL to compare efficacy of eight doses of R associated with eight cycles of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP) or six cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) or six cycles of fludarabine and mitoxantrone (FM). The principal end point of the study was time to treatment failure (TTF). Results There were 534 patients enrolled onto the study. Overall response rates were 88%, 93%, and 91% for R-CVP, R-CHOP, and R-FM, respectively (P .247). After a median follow-up of 34 months, 3-year TTFs were 46%, 62%, and 59% for the respective treatment groups (R-CHOP v R-CVP, P .003; R-FM v R-CVP, P .006; R-FM v R-CHOP, P .763). Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 52%, 68%, and 63% (overall P .011), respectively, and 3-year overall survival was 95% for the whole series. R-FM resulted in higher rates of grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (64%) compared with R-CVP (28%) and R-CHOP (50%; P .001). Overall, 23 second malignancies were registered during follow-up: four in R-CVP, five in R-CHOP, and 14 in R-FM. Conclusion In this study, R-CHOP and R-FM were superior to R-CVP in terms of 3-year TTF and PFS. In addition, R-CHOP had a better risk-benefit ratio compared with R-FM. J Clin Oncol 31:1506-1513. © 2013 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Efficacy of antidepressants for late-life depression: a meta-analysis and meta-regression of placebo-controlled randomized trials.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE Late-life depression is an important public health issue, given the growing proportion of the elderly relative to the general population in the developed world. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in elderly patients. DATA SOURCES PubMed/MEDLINE was searched for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants for treatment of both adult (nonelderly) MDD (patients aged < 65 years) and late-life MDD (patients aged ≥ 55 years). The search was limited to articles published between January 1, 1980, and March 3, 2010 (inclusive). The year 1980 was used as a cutoff in our search to decrease diagnostic variability, since the DSM-III was introduced in 1980. Our search cross-referenced the term placebo with each of the following antidepressants: amitriptyline, nortriptyline, imipramine, desipramine, clomipramine, trimipramine, protriptyline, dothiepin, doxepin, lofepramine, amoxapine, maprotiline, amineptine, nomifensine, bupropion, phenelzine, tranylcypromine, isocarboxazid, moclobemide, brofaromine, fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, zimelidine, tianeptine, trazodone, nefazodone, agomelatine, venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, milnacipran, reboxetine, mirtazapine, and mianserin. We also reviewed the reference lists of all studies identified through the PubMed/MEDLINE search. STUDY SELECTION Articles were selected that reported on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants used as monotherapy for treatment of MDD and that met numerous a priori criteria pertaining to MDD diagnosis criteria, study duration, study design, drug formulation, original data, age thresholds, primary and secondary outcome measures, and exclusions of other disorders. Final inclusion of articles was determined by consensus between the authors. Seventy-four articles were found eligible for inclusion in our analysis (15 late-life MDD trials and 59 adult MDD trials). RESULTS Antidepressants were found to be efficacious for late-life MDD (age 55 and older; P < .0001), although there was evidence for heterogeneity across studies (Q22 = 67.302, P < .001). However, antidepressants were not found to be efficacious in the subset of studies using age thresholds of 65 years or older (older late-life MDD) (P = .265). Finally, when we controlled for study design characteristics, antidepressant but not placebo response rates were lower among late-life MDD patients than among adult MDD patients. CONCLUSIONS The present meta-analysis suggests that antidepressants are efficacious in late-life MDD, but significant study heterogeneity suggests that other factors may contribute to these findings. A secondary analysis raises the possibility that efficacy of these agents may be reduced in trials involving patients aged 65 years or older. Why antidepressants may be less efficacious in elderly versus younger subjects remains unclear.