Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at s = 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS

The measurement of the luminosity recorded by the CMS detector installed at LHC interaction point 5, using proton-proton collisions at s = 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016, is reported. The absolute luminosity scale is measured for individual bunch crossings using beam-separation scans (the van der Meer method), with a relative precision of 1.3 and 1.0% in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The dominant sources of uncertainty are related to residual differences between the measured beam positions and the ones provided by the operational settings of the LHC magnets, the factorizability of the proton bunch spatial density functions in the coordinates transverse to the beam direction, and the modeling of the effect of electromagnetic interactions among protons in the colliding bunches. When applying the van der Meer calibration to the entire run periods, the integrated luminosities when CMS was fully operational are 2.27 and 36.3 fb - 1 in 2015 and 2016, with a relative precision of 1.6 and 1.2%, respectively. These are among the most precise luminosity measurements at bunched-beam hadron colliders.

Nateglinide alone and in combination with metformin improves glycemic control by reducing mealtime glucose levels in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of nateglinide and metformin alone and in combination in type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled by diet, focusing on changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and mealtime glucose excursions.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this randomized double-blind study, patients with an HbA1c level between 6.8 and 11.0% during a 4-week placebo run-in received 24 weeks' treatment with 120 mg nateglinide before meals (n = 179), 500 mg metformin three times a day (n = 178), combination therapy (n = 172), or placebo (n = 172). HbA1c and FPG were evaluated regularly, and plasma glucose levels were determined after Sustacal challenge at weeks 0, 12, and 24. Hypoglycemia and other adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

At study end point, HbA1c was reduced from baseline with nateglinide and metformin but was increased with placebo (-0.5, -0.8, and +0.5%, respectively; P < or = 0.0001). Changes in FPG followed the same pattern (-0.7, -1.6, and +0.4 mmol/l; P < or = 0.0001). Combination therapy was additive (HbA1c -1.4% and FPG -2.4 mmol/l; P < or = 0.01 vs. monotherapy). After Sustacal challenge, there was a greater reduction in mealtime glucose with nateglinide monotherapy compared with metformin monotherapy or placebo (adjusted area under the curve [AUC]0-130 min -2.1, -1.1, and -0.6 mmol x h(-1) x l(-1); p < or = 0.0001). An even greater effect was observed with combination therapy (AUC0-130 min -2.5 mmol x h(-1) x l(-1); P < or = 0.0001 vs. metformin and placebo). All regimens were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Nateglinide and metformin monotherapy each improved overall glycemic control but by different mechanisms. Nateglinide decreased mealtime glucose excursions, whereas metformin primarily affected FPG. In combination, nateglinide and metformin had complementary effects, improving HbA1c, FPG, and postprandial hyperglycemia.

Valsartan, a new angiotensin II antagonist for the treatment of essential hypertension: efficacy, tolerability and safety compared to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, lisinopril

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of valsartan to an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, lisinopril, and placebo in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

DESIGN

A total of 734 men and women were randomised in this multicentre, double-blind, optional titration, parallel group trial. Volunteers received valsartan 80 mg (n = 364), lisinopril 10 mg (n = 187) or placebo (n = 183) daily for 4 weeks, with subsequent titration of dose depending on response to treatment (valsartan 80 mg titrated to valsartan 160 mg once daily or valsartan 80 mg twice daily, lisinopril 10 mg titrated to lisonopril 20 mg once daily). Patients were assessed at 4, 8 and 12 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary variable was change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP). Other efficacy variables included sitting systolic blood pressure (SSBP) and percentage of 'successful' responders (SDBP <90 mm Hg or > or =10 mm Hg reduction from baseline).

RESULTS

All active treatment groups were shown to demonstrate significant reductions in SDBP compared to placebo at endpoint of therapy (least mean square reduction from baseline: valsartan 80/160 mg: -5.25 mm Hg (Cl -7.17, -3.34, P< 0.001); valsartan 80/80 mg twice daily: -5.63 mm Hg (Cl -7.51, -3.75, P< 0.001); lisinopril 10/20 mg: -6.93 mm Hg, (Cl -8.81, -5.05, P< 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the active treatment groups at endpoint of therapy. In patients requiring titration to a higher dose (placebo n = 142, valsartan 80/80 twice daily n = 124, valsartan 80/160 n = 114, lisinopril 10/20 n = 120), there were no significant treatment differences between valsartan 160 mg given as a single daily dose or as 80 mg twice daily (P = 0.658). Both valsartan and lisinopril produced similarly high percentages of 'successful' responders at endpoint of therapy. A somewhat higher frequency of drug related cough was observed in lisinopril treated patients (8%) compared to valsartan (1.1%) or placebo (0.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Valsartan 80 mg daily, with titration to 160 mg daily as required, provides similar antihypertensive efficacy to lisinopril 10 mg daily with titration to 20 mg daily. Valsartan provides a new antihypertensive agent with comparable efficacy to lisinopril and appears to be associated with a reduced incidence of cough.

Safety profile of benazepril in essential hypertension

Data from clinical trials with benazepril suggest that the safety profile of benazepril is similar to that of other angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Treatment-related side effects occurred in 20% of benazepril-treated patients and in 18% of patients receiving placebo. The most commonly reported side effects with benazepril were headache, dizziness, and fatigue. The incidence of side effects was not affected by the degree of hypertension, age, gender, race, dosage, or the degree of renal impairment. Side effects believed to be related to the pharmacologic action of ACE inhibitors as a class include symptomatic hypotension, which occurred at a relatively low rate with benazepril, and hyperkalemia and elevation of serum creatinine, which occurred to the same extent with benazepril as has been noted with other ACE inhibitors. The mechanism of cough as an ACE inhibitor side effect is unknown; the incidence was similar to that with other ACE inhibitors. Rash and taste disturbance have occurred rarely with benazepril. The incidence of neutropenia and of proteinuria was the same in both the benazepril and placebo groups. Renal failure in hypertensive patients treated with benazepril has not been reported. Overall, benazepril is generally well tolerated by hypertensive patients. The incidence of most side effects is comparable to that with other ACE inhibitors and placebo.