Publications

The Pneumonia Etiology Research for Child Health (PERCH) project is the largest multicountry etiology study of childhood pneumonia since the Board on Science and Technology in International Development studies of the 1980s. However, it is not the only recent or ongoing pneumonia etiology study, and even with seven sites, it cannot capture all epidemiologic settings in the developing world. Funding providers, researchers and policymakers rely on the best available evidence to strategically plan programs, new research directions and interventions. We aimed to describe the current landscape of recent pneumonia etiology studies in children under 5 years of age in the developed and developing world, as ascertained by a literature review of relevant studies with data since the year 2000 and a survey of researchers in the field of childhood pneumonia. We collected information on the study population, study design, case definitions, laboratory samples and methods and identified pathogens. A literature review identified 88 studies with child pneumonia etiology results. As of June 2010, our survey of researchers identified an additional 65 ongoing and recently completed child pneumonia etiology studies. This demonstrates the broad existing context into which the PERCH study must be placed. However, the landscape analysis also reveals a multiplicity of case definitions, levels of clinician involvement, facility types, specimen collection, and laboratory techniques. It reinforces the need for the standardization of methods and analyses for present and future pneumonia etiology studies in order to optimize their cumulative potential to accurately describe the microbial causes of childhood pneumonia.

BACKGROUND

Antihypertensive agents lower the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether they affect pathways important in inflammation and plaque remodeling in atherosclerosis is uncertain. We assessed whether 2 commonly used antihypertensive agents affected plasma biomarkers reflecting specific inflammatory and remodeling processes over 2 years in the Comparison of Amlodipine versus Enalapril to Limit Occurrences of Thrombosis (CAMELOT) study.

METHODS

The study was a randomized controlled trial of 2 antihypertensives (amlodipine and enalapril) compared with placebo in patients with coronary artery disease and diastolic blood pressure less than 100 mm Hg. In 196 subjects who had baseline and 2-year intravascular coronary ultrasound examinations, we measured plasma interleukin 18, interleukin 1 receptor antagonist, matrix metalloproteinase 9, neopterin, and C-reactive protein. Results for both treatment groups were pooled and compared with placebo.

RESULTS

Antihypertensive treatment with either agent significantly lowered diastolic blood pressure (-4.7 vs placebo 1.3 mm Hg, P = .002) and progression of coronary atheroma (Δ percent atheroma volume 0.6 vs placebo 2.1, P = .031). Antihypertensive therapy did not affect plasma biomarkers of inflammation or plaque remodeling in the 135 subjects with baseline and 2-year biomarker samples. Progression in percent atheroma volume was significantly less in subjects taking statins at baseline (-2.5%, P = .0008).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with coronary artery disease and well-controlled risk factors, antihypertensive therapy lowered blood pressure and progression of coronary atherosclerosis but did not affect plasma biomarkers of inflammation and remodeling. Antihypertensives may decrease atheroma progression by mechanisms other than those reflected by these plasma biomarkers.