The Experts below are selected from a list of 129 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Vassilios Liakopoulos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on postdialysis and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension a randomized cross over study
    Journal of Hypertension, 2019
    Co-Authors: Athanasios Bikos, Charalampos Loutradis, Elena Angeloudi, Antonios Karpetas, Vasilios Raptis, Rigas Kalaitzidis, Stylianos Panagoutsos, Ploumis Pasadakis, Ilias Balaskas, Vassilios Liakopoulos
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVES:Intradialytic hypertension is estimated at 5-15% of hemodialysis patients and is associated with poor prognosis. Studies on therapeutic interventions for this entity are extremely few. We aimed to evaluate the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on peridialytic, intradialytic, and ambulatory BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension. METHODS:This is a pilot randomized-cross-over study in 38 hemodialysis patients (age: 60.4 ± 11.1 years, men: 65.8%) with intradialytic hypertension (intradialytic SBP rise ≥10 mmHg at ≥4 over six consecutive sessions]. After baseline evaluation, patients were randomly assigned to nebivolol 5 mg and subsequently irbesartan 150 mg, or vice versa. Nineteen patients received a Single Drug-Dose 1 h before hemodialysis and 19 received the Drug for a week before evaluation. A 2-week wash-out period took place before the initiation of the second Drug. Patients had three respective 24-h ambulatory BP measurements starting before a midweek session. RESULTS:In total, 20 (52.6%) patients received nebivolol first and 18 (47.4%) received irbesartan. Patients receiving a Single Dose of either Drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 160.2 ± 17.8/93.2 ± 13.6 mmHg; nebivolol: 148.0 ± 20.8/84.5 ± 13.1 mmHg, P = 0.013/P = 0.027; irbesartan 142.9 ± 29.9/87.2 ± 18.1 mmHg, P = 0.003/P = 0.104 for SBP and DBP, respectively). The 24-h BP presented a trend towards reduction, but was significant only for 24-h DBP in the nebivolol arm. Patients on weekly administration of either Drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 162.5 ± 16.8/95.4 ± 12.7 mmHg; nebivolol: 146.7 ± 16.3/91.8 ± 12.2 mmHg, P = 0.001/P = 0.235; irbesartan: 146.0 ± 23.9/85.8 ± 12.9 mmHg, P = 0.004/ P = 0.007, respectively), lower intradialytic BP and lower 24-h BP (baseline: 148.3 ± 12.6/90.2 ± 9.0 mmHg; nebivolol: 139.2 ± 10.6/85.0 ± 7.7 mmHg, P < 0.001/P = 0.001; irbesartan: 142.4 ± 16.4/85.1 ± 9.9 mmHg, P = 0.156/P = 0.030). No significant differences were observed in comparisons between the two Drugs, with the exception of heart rate, being lower with nebivolol. CONCLUSION:Both nebivolol and irbesartan reduced postdialysis and 24-h BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension. Weekly administration had greater effect and nebivolol was numerically slightly more potent than irbesartan.

  • The effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on postdialysis and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension: a randomized cross-over study.
    Journal of Hypertension, 2019
    Co-Authors: Athanasios Bikos, Charalampos Loutradis, Elena Angeloudi, Antonios Karpetas, Vasilios Raptis, Rigas Kalaitzidis, Stylianos Panagoutsos, Ploumis Pasadakis, Ilias Balaskas, Vassilios Liakopoulos
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVES: Intradialytic hypertension is estimated at 5-15% of hemodialysis patients and is associated with poor prognosis. Studies on therapeutic interventions for this entity are extremely few. We aimed to evaluate the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on peridialytic, intradialytic, and ambulatory BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension. METHODS: This is a pilot randomized-cross-over study in 38 hemodialysis patients (age: 60.4 ± 11.1 years, men: 65.8%) with intradialytic hypertension (intradialytic SBP rise ≥10 mmHg at ≥4 over six consecutive sessions]. After baseline evaluation, patients were randomly assigned to nebivolol 5 mg and subsequently irbesartan 150 mg, or vice versa. Nineteen patients received a Single Drug-Dose 1 h before hemodialysis and 19 received the Drug for a week before evaluation. A 2-week wash-out period took place before the initiation of the second Drug. Patients had three respective 24-h ambulatory BP measurements starting before a midweek session. RESULTS: In total, 20 (52.6%) patients received nebivolol first and 18 (47.4%) received irbesartan. Patients receiving a Single Dose of either Drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 160.2 ± 17.8/93.2 ± 13.6 mmHg; nebivolol: 148.0 ± 20.8/84.5 ± 13.1 mmHg, P = 0.013/P = 0.027; irbesartan 142.9 ± 29.9/87.2 ± 18.1 mmHg, P = 0.003/P = 0.104 for SBP and DBP, respectively). The 24-h BP presented a trend towards reduction, but was significant only for 24-h DBP in the nebivolol arm. Patients on weekly administration of either Drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 162.5 ± 16.8/95.4 ± 12.7 mmHg; nebivolol: 146.7 ± 16.3/91.8 ± 12.2 mmHg, P = 0.001/P = 0.235; irbesartan: 146.0 ± 23.9/85.8 ± 12.9 mmHg, P = 0.004/ P = 0.007, respectively), lower intradialytic BP and lower 24-h BP (baseline: 148.3 ± 12.6/90.2 ± 9.0 mmHg; nebivolol: 139.2 ± 10.6/85.0 ± 7.7 mmHg, P 

Athanasios Bikos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on postdialysis and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension a randomized cross over study
    Journal of Hypertension, 2019
    Co-Authors: Athanasios Bikos, Charalampos Loutradis, Elena Angeloudi, Antonios Karpetas, Vasilios Raptis, Rigas Kalaitzidis, Stylianos Panagoutsos, Ploumis Pasadakis, Ilias Balaskas, Vassilios Liakopoulos
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVES:Intradialytic hypertension is estimated at 5-15% of hemodialysis patients and is associated with poor prognosis. Studies on therapeutic interventions for this entity are extremely few. We aimed to evaluate the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on peridialytic, intradialytic, and ambulatory BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension. METHODS:This is a pilot randomized-cross-over study in 38 hemodialysis patients (age: 60.4 ± 11.1 years, men: 65.8%) with intradialytic hypertension (intradialytic SBP rise ≥10 mmHg at ≥4 over six consecutive sessions]. After baseline evaluation, patients were randomly assigned to nebivolol 5 mg and subsequently irbesartan 150 mg, or vice versa. Nineteen patients received a Single Drug-Dose 1 h before hemodialysis and 19 received the Drug for a week before evaluation. A 2-week wash-out period took place before the initiation of the second Drug. Patients had three respective 24-h ambulatory BP measurements starting before a midweek session. RESULTS:In total, 20 (52.6%) patients received nebivolol first and 18 (47.4%) received irbesartan. Patients receiving a Single Dose of either Drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 160.2 ± 17.8/93.2 ± 13.6 mmHg; nebivolol: 148.0 ± 20.8/84.5 ± 13.1 mmHg, P = 0.013/P = 0.027; irbesartan 142.9 ± 29.9/87.2 ± 18.1 mmHg, P = 0.003/P = 0.104 for SBP and DBP, respectively). The 24-h BP presented a trend towards reduction, but was significant only for 24-h DBP in the nebivolol arm. Patients on weekly administration of either Drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 162.5 ± 16.8/95.4 ± 12.7 mmHg; nebivolol: 146.7 ± 16.3/91.8 ± 12.2 mmHg, P = 0.001/P = 0.235; irbesartan: 146.0 ± 23.9/85.8 ± 12.9 mmHg, P = 0.004/ P = 0.007, respectively), lower intradialytic BP and lower 24-h BP (baseline: 148.3 ± 12.6/90.2 ± 9.0 mmHg; nebivolol: 139.2 ± 10.6/85.0 ± 7.7 mmHg, P < 0.001/P = 0.001; irbesartan: 142.4 ± 16.4/85.1 ± 9.9 mmHg, P = 0.156/P = 0.030). No significant differences were observed in comparisons between the two Drugs, with the exception of heart rate, being lower with nebivolol. CONCLUSION:Both nebivolol and irbesartan reduced postdialysis and 24-h BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension. Weekly administration had greater effect and nebivolol was numerically slightly more potent than irbesartan.

  • The effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on postdialysis and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension: a randomized cross-over study.
    Journal of Hypertension, 2019
    Co-Authors: Athanasios Bikos, Charalampos Loutradis, Elena Angeloudi, Antonios Karpetas, Vasilios Raptis, Rigas Kalaitzidis, Stylianos Panagoutsos, Ploumis Pasadakis, Ilias Balaskas, Vassilios Liakopoulos
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVES: Intradialytic hypertension is estimated at 5-15% of hemodialysis patients and is associated with poor prognosis. Studies on therapeutic interventions for this entity are extremely few. We aimed to evaluate the effects of nebivolol and irbesartan on peridialytic, intradialytic, and ambulatory BP in patients with intradialytic hypertension. METHODS: This is a pilot randomized-cross-over study in 38 hemodialysis patients (age: 60.4 ± 11.1 years, men: 65.8%) with intradialytic hypertension (intradialytic SBP rise ≥10 mmHg at ≥4 over six consecutive sessions]. After baseline evaluation, patients were randomly assigned to nebivolol 5 mg and subsequently irbesartan 150 mg, or vice versa. Nineteen patients received a Single Drug-Dose 1 h before hemodialysis and 19 received the Drug for a week before evaluation. A 2-week wash-out period took place before the initiation of the second Drug. Patients had three respective 24-h ambulatory BP measurements starting before a midweek session. RESULTS: In total, 20 (52.6%) patients received nebivolol first and 18 (47.4%) received irbesartan. Patients receiving a Single Dose of either Drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 160.2 ± 17.8/93.2 ± 13.6 mmHg; nebivolol: 148.0 ± 20.8/84.5 ± 13.1 mmHg, P = 0.013/P = 0.027; irbesartan 142.9 ± 29.9/87.2 ± 18.1 mmHg, P = 0.003/P = 0.104 for SBP and DBP, respectively). The 24-h BP presented a trend towards reduction, but was significant only for 24-h DBP in the nebivolol arm. Patients on weekly administration of either Drug had lower postdialysis BP (baseline: 162.5 ± 16.8/95.4 ± 12.7 mmHg; nebivolol: 146.7 ± 16.3/91.8 ± 12.2 mmHg, P = 0.001/P = 0.235; irbesartan: 146.0 ± 23.9/85.8 ± 12.9 mmHg, P = 0.004/ P = 0.007, respectively), lower intradialytic BP and lower 24-h BP (baseline: 148.3 ± 12.6/90.2 ± 9.0 mmHg; nebivolol: 139.2 ± 10.6/85.0 ± 7.7 mmHg, P 

Stephen J. Heishman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Laboratory validation study of Drug evaluation and classification program: alprazolam, d-amphetamine, codeine, and marijuana
    Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 1998
    Co-Authors: Stephen J. Heishman, Edward G. Singleton, Dennis J. Crouch
    Abstract:

    The Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program is used by police agencies to identify drivers impaired because of Drug use and to determine the class(es) of Drug causing the impairment. The primary goal of this study was to determine the validity of the DEC evaluation in predicting whether research volunteers were administered alprazolam, d-amphetamine, codeine, or marijuana. A secondary goal was to determine the accuracy of Drug Recognition Examiners (DREs) in detecting if subjects were Dosed with these Drugs. Community volunteers (n = 48) were administered alprazolam (0, 1, 2 mg), d-amphetamine (0, 12.5, 25 mg), codeine (0, 60, 120 mg), or marijuana (0, 3.58% THC) in a double-blind, randomized, between-subject design. A Single Drug Dose or placebo was administered at each experimental session, and blood samples were obtained before and after dosing. With the exception of marijuana, plasma Drug concentration was at or near maximum during the DEC evaluation. The ability of the DEC evaluation to predict the intake of alprazolam, d-amphetamine, codeine, or marijuana was optimal when using 2-7 variables from the evaluation. DREs' decisions of impairment were consistent with the administration of any active Drug in 76% of cases, and their Drug class decisions were consistent with toxicology in 32% of cases, according to standards of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. These findings suggest that the DEC evaluation can be used to predict accurately acute administration of alprazolam, d-amphetamine, codeine, and marijuana and that predictions of Drug use may be improved by focusing on a subset of variables.

  • Laboratory Validation Study of Drug Evaluation and Classification Program: Ethanol, Cocaine, and Marijuana
    Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 1996
    Co-Authors: Stephen J. Heishman, Edward G. Singleton, Dennis J. Crouch
    Abstract:

    The Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program is used by police agencies to determine if individuals are behaviorally impaired because of Drug use, and, if impaired, to determine the class of Drug(s) causing the impairment. Although widely used, the validity of the DEC evaluation has not been rigorously tested. The primary goal of this study was to determine the validity of the variables of the DEC evaluation in predicting whether research volunteers had been administered ethanol, cocaine, or marijuana; a secondary goal was to determine the accuracy of trained police officers (Drug Recognition Examiner, DRE) in detecting whether subjects had been Dosed with ethanol, cocaine, or marijuana. Community volunteers (n = 18) with histories of Drug use received ethanol (0, 0.28, 0.52 g/kg), cocaine (4, 48, 96 mg/70 kg), and marijuana (0, 1.75, 3.55% THC) in a double-blind, randomized, within-subjects design. A Single Drug Dose or placebo was administered during each of nine experimental sessions, and blood samples were obtained before and periodically after dosing. With the exception of marijuana, plasma Drug concentration was at or near the observed maximum during the DEC evaluation. The ability of the DEC evaluation to predict the intake of ethanol, cocaine, or marijuana was optimal when using 17-28 variables from the evaluation. When DREs concluded impairment was due to Drugs other than ethanol, their opinions were consistent with toxicology in 44% of cases. These findings suggest that the DEC evaluation can be used to predict accurately acute administration of ethanol, cocaine, or marijuana, and that predictions of Drug use may be improved if DREs focused on a subset of variables.

  • Discriminative stimulus effects of d-amphetamine, methylphenidate, and diazepam in humans.
    Psychopharmacology, 1991
    Co-Authors: Stephen J. Heishman, Jack E. Henningfield
    Abstract:

    Eight male community volunteers, who reported current psychomotor stimulant use, were trained to discriminate between the presence and absence of orally administeredd-amphetamine 30 mg. During daily experimental sessions, in which a Single Drug Dose or placebo was tested, physiological and subjective measures were assessed and subjects indicated their discrimination by responding on an operant color-tracking procedure. During four test of acquisition sessions, discriminative responding indicated that all subjects learned the discrimination, andd-amphetamine produced physiological and subjective effects typical of psychomotor stimulants. Generalization testing then followed in which Dose-response curves were determined for the following Drugs:d-amphetamine (3.75, 7.5, 15 and 30 mg), diazepam (5, 10, 20 and 40 mg), and methylphenidate (7.5, 15, 30 and 60 mg).d-Amphetamine and methylphenidate produced Dose-related increases ind-amphetamine-appropriate responding, whereas no Dose of diazepam substituted ford-amphetamine in any subject.d-Amphetamine and methylphenidate produced a similar pattern of subjective changes, including increased ratings of euphoria and Drug liking and decreased sedation. In contrast, diazepam increased subjective scales of sedation and dysphoria. These results are consistent with similar studies testing animals and humans and demonstrate the utility of human Drug discrimination research as an integral component of Drug abuse liability testing.

  • Discriminative stimulus effects ofd-amphetamine, methylphenidate, and diazepam in humans
    Psychopharmacology, 1991
    Co-Authors: Stephen J. Heishman, Jack E. Henningfield
    Abstract:

    Eight male community volunteers, who reported current psychomotor stimulant use, were trained to discriminate between the presence and absence of orally administered d -amphetamine 30 mg. During daily experimental sessions, in which a Single Drug Dose or placebo was tested, physiological and subjective measures were assessed and subjects indicated their discrimination by responding on an operant color-tracking procedure. During four test of acquisition sessions, discriminative responding indicated that all subjects learned the discrimination, and d -amphetamine produced physiological and subjective effects typical of psychomotor stimulants. Generalization testing then followed in which Dose-response curves were determined for the following Drugs: d -amphetamine (3.75, 7.5, 15 and 30 mg), diazepam (5, 10, 20 and 40 mg), and methylphenidate (7.5, 15, 30 and 60 mg). d -Amphetamine and methylphenidate produced Dose-related increases in d -amphetamine-appropriate responding, whereas no Dose of diazepam substituted for d -amphetamine in any subject. d -Amphetamine and methylphenidate produced a similar pattern of subjective changes, including increased ratings of euphoria and Drug liking and decreased sedation. In contrast, diazepam increased subjective scales of sedation and dysphoria. These results are consistent with similar studies testing animals and humans and demonstrate the utility of human Drug discrimination research as an integral component of Drug abuse liability testing.

Jing Tang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Drug combination sensitivity scoring facilitates the discovery of synergistic and efficacious Drug combinations in cancer.
    PLOS Computational Biology, 2019
    Co-Authors: Alina Malyutina, Muntasir Mamun Majumder, Wenyu Wang, Alberto Pessia, Caroline A Heckman, Jing Tang
    Abstract:

    High-throughput Drug screening has facilitated the discovery of Drug combinations in cancer. Many existing studies adopted a full matrix design, aiming for the characterization of Drug pair effects for cancer cells. However, the full matrix design may be suboptimal as it requires a Drug pair to be combined at multiple concentrations in a full factorial manner. Furthermore, many of the computational tools assess only the synergy but not the sensitivity of Drug combinations, which might lead to false positive discoveries. We proposed a novel cross design to enable a more cost-effective and simultaneous testing of Drug combination sensitivity and synergy. We developed a Drug combination sensitivity score (CSS) to determine the sensitivity of a Drug pair, and showed that the CSS is highly reproducible between the replicates and thus supported its usage as a robust metric. We further showed that CSS can be predicted using machine learning approaches which determined the top pharmaco-features to cluster cancer cell lines based on their Drug combination sensitivity profiles. To assess the degree of Drug interactions using the cross design, we developed an S synergy score based on the difference between the Drug combination and the Single Drug Dose-response curves. We showed that the S score is able to detect true synergistic and antagonistic Drug combinations at an accuracy level comparable to that using the full matrix design. Taken together, we showed that the cross design coupled with the CSS sensitivity and S synergy scoring methods may provide a robust and accurate characterization of both Drug combination sensitivity and synergy levels, with minimal experimental materials required. Our experimental-computational approach could be utilized as an efficient pipeline for improving the discovery rate in high-throughput Drug combination screening, particularly for primary patient samples which are difficult to obtain.

  • Drug combination sensitivity scoring facilitates the discovery of synergistic and efficacious Drug combinations in cancer
    bioRxiv, 2019
    Co-Authors: Alina Malyutina, Muntasir Mamun Majumder, Wenyu Wang, Alberto Pessia, Caroline A Heckman, Jing Tang
    Abstract:

    High-throughput Drug sensitivity screening has been utilized for facilitating the discovery of Drug combinations in cancer. Many existing studies adopted a Dose-response matrix design, aiming for the characterization of Drug combination sensitivity and synergy. However, there is lack of consensus on the definition of sensitivity and synergy, leading to the use of different mathematical models that do not necessarily agree with each other. We proposed a cross design to enable a more cost-effective testing of sensitivity and synergy for a Drug pair. We developed a Drug combination sensitivity score (CSS) to summarize the Drug combination Dose-response curves. Using a high-throughput Drug combination dataset, we showed that the CSS is highly reproducible among the replicates. With machine learning approaches such as Elastic Net, Random Forests and Support Vector Machines, the CSS can also be predicted with high accuracy. Furthermore, we defined a synergy score based on the difference between the Drug combination and the Single Drug Dose-response curves. We showed that the CSS-based synergy score is able to detect true synergistic and antagonistic Drug combinations. The cross Drug combination design coupled with the CSS scoring facilitated the evaluation of Drug combination sensitivity and synergy using the same scale, with minimal experimental material that is required. Our approach could be utilized as an efficient pipeline for improving the discovery rate in high-throughput Drug combination screening. The R scripts for calculating and predicting CSS are available at https://github.com/amalyutina/CSS.

Jack E. Henningfield - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Discriminative stimulus effects of d-amphetamine, methylphenidate, and diazepam in humans.
    Psychopharmacology, 1991
    Co-Authors: Stephen J. Heishman, Jack E. Henningfield
    Abstract:

    Eight male community volunteers, who reported current psychomotor stimulant use, were trained to discriminate between the presence and absence of orally administeredd-amphetamine 30 mg. During daily experimental sessions, in which a Single Drug Dose or placebo was tested, physiological and subjective measures were assessed and subjects indicated their discrimination by responding on an operant color-tracking procedure. During four test of acquisition sessions, discriminative responding indicated that all subjects learned the discrimination, andd-amphetamine produced physiological and subjective effects typical of psychomotor stimulants. Generalization testing then followed in which Dose-response curves were determined for the following Drugs:d-amphetamine (3.75, 7.5, 15 and 30 mg), diazepam (5, 10, 20 and 40 mg), and methylphenidate (7.5, 15, 30 and 60 mg).d-Amphetamine and methylphenidate produced Dose-related increases ind-amphetamine-appropriate responding, whereas no Dose of diazepam substituted ford-amphetamine in any subject.d-Amphetamine and methylphenidate produced a similar pattern of subjective changes, including increased ratings of euphoria and Drug liking and decreased sedation. In contrast, diazepam increased subjective scales of sedation and dysphoria. These results are consistent with similar studies testing animals and humans and demonstrate the utility of human Drug discrimination research as an integral component of Drug abuse liability testing.

  • Discriminative stimulus effects ofd-amphetamine, methylphenidate, and diazepam in humans
    Psychopharmacology, 1991
    Co-Authors: Stephen J. Heishman, Jack E. Henningfield
    Abstract:

    Eight male community volunteers, who reported current psychomotor stimulant use, were trained to discriminate between the presence and absence of orally administered d -amphetamine 30 mg. During daily experimental sessions, in which a Single Drug Dose or placebo was tested, physiological and subjective measures were assessed and subjects indicated their discrimination by responding on an operant color-tracking procedure. During four test of acquisition sessions, discriminative responding indicated that all subjects learned the discrimination, and d -amphetamine produced physiological and subjective effects typical of psychomotor stimulants. Generalization testing then followed in which Dose-response curves were determined for the following Drugs: d -amphetamine (3.75, 7.5, 15 and 30 mg), diazepam (5, 10, 20 and 40 mg), and methylphenidate (7.5, 15, 30 and 60 mg). d -Amphetamine and methylphenidate produced Dose-related increases in d -amphetamine-appropriate responding, whereas no Dose of diazepam substituted for d -amphetamine in any subject. d -Amphetamine and methylphenidate produced a similar pattern of subjective changes, including increased ratings of euphoria and Drug liking and decreased sedation. In contrast, diazepam increased subjective scales of sedation and dysphoria. These results are consistent with similar studies testing animals and humans and demonstrate the utility of human Drug discrimination research as an integral component of Drug abuse liability testing.