1,734,673 research outputs found
Digital Immune Gene Expression Profiling Discriminates Allergic Rhinitis Responders from Non-Responders to Probiotic Supplementation
No full textProbiotic supplementation for eight weeks with a multi-strain probiotic by individuals with allergic rhinitis (AR) reduced overall symptom severity, the frequency of medication use and improved quality of life. The purported mechanism of action is modulation of the immune system. This analysis examined changes in systemic and mucosal immune gene expression in a subgroup of individuals, classified as either responders or non-responders based on improvement of AR symptoms in response to the probiotic supplement. Based on established criteria of a beneficial change in the mini-rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (mRQLQ), individuals with AR were classified as either responders or non-responders. Systemic and mucosal immune gene expression was assessed using nCounter PanCancer Immune Profiling (Nanostring Technologies, Seattle, WA, USA) kit on blood samples and a nasal lysate. There were 414 immune genes in the blood and 312 immune genes in the mucosal samples expressed above the limit of detection. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of immune genes separated responders from non-responders in blood and mucosal samples at baseline and after supplementation, with key T-cell immune genes differentially expressed between the groups. Striking differences in biological processes and pathways were evident in nasal mucosa but not blood in responders compared to non-responders. These findings support the use of network approaches to understand probiotic-induced changes to the immune system
Responders and non-responders characteristics.
No full textResponders and non-responders characteristics.</p
Non-responders in a quitline evaluation are more likely to be smokers – a drop-out and long-term follow-up study of the Swedish National Tobacco Quitline
No full textIntroduction
A previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the Swedish National Tobacco Quitline detected no significant differences in smoking cessation outcomes between proactive and reactive services at 12-month follow-up. However, the response rate was only 59 % and non-responders were over-represented in the proactive service. We performed a drop-out analysis to assess the smoking status of initial responders and non-responders.
Material and Methods
At 29–48 months after the first call, a postal questionnaire with six questions was sent to 150 random clients from the RCT database, with equal numbers from the proactive and reactive services as well as responders and non-responders at 12-month follow-up. Clients who did not return the questionnaire were contacted by telephone. The outcome measures were point prevalence (PP) and 6-month continuous abstinence (CA), and their associations with response status at 12 months were assessed by logistic regression.
Results
The response rate was 74 % (111/150). Abstinence was significantly higher among initial responders than non-responders (PP 54 % vs. 32 %, p = .023 and CA 49 % vs. 21 %, p = .003). The odds ratios for initial responders vs. initial non-responders were, for PP = 2.5 (95 % CI 1.1–5.6, p = .024), and for CA = 3.7 (95 % CI 1.5–8.9, p = .004), after adjusting for proactive/reactive service.
Conclusions
Non-responders to a 12-month follow-up smoking cessation questionnaire in a quitline setting were more likely to be smokers 1.5–3 years later. We propose a conservative correction factor of 0.8 for self-reported abstinence in telephone-based cessation studies if the response rate is approximately 55–65 %
Survival comparison between responders and non-responders.
No full textResponders (n = 45, decrease in T1Gd volume during adjuvant TMZ) had significantly longer overall survival than non-responders (n = 45, increase in T1Gd volume during adjuvant TMZ). Among patients with dates of progression, responders (n = 21) tended to have longer times to progression than non-responders (n = 22).</p
Comparison between responders and non-responders.
No full textComparison between responders and non-responders.</p
Characteristics of responders and non-responders.
No full textCharacteristics of responders and non-responders.</p
Comparison of responders and non-responders.
No full textComparison of responders and non-responders.</p
Characteristics of responders and non-responders.
No full textCharacteristics of responders and non-responders.</p
Characteristics of interviewees compared with non-responders.
No full textCharacteristics of interviewees compared with non-responders.</p
- …
