@article{ManchiaAdliAkulaetal.2013,
  author    = {Manchia, Mirko and Adli, Mazda and Akula, Nirmala and Arda, Raffaella and Aubry, Jean-Michel and Backlund, Lena and Banzato, Claudio E. M. and Baune, Bernhard T. and Bellivier, Frank and Bengesser, Susanne and Biernacka, Joanna M. and Brichant-Petitjean, Clara and Bui, Elise and Calkin, Cynthia V. and Cheng, Andrew Tai Ann and Chillotti, Caterina and Cichon, Sven and Clark, Scott and Czerski, Piotr M. and Dantas, Clarissa and Del Zompo, Maria and DePaulo, J. Raymond and Detera-Wadleigh, Sevilla D. and Etain, Bruno and Falkai, Peter and Fris{\´e}n, Louise and Frye, Mark A. and Fullerton, Jan and Gard, S{\´e}bastien and Garnham, Julie and Goes, Fernando S. and Grof, Paul and Gruber, Oliver and Hashimoto, Ryota and Hauser, Joanna and Heilbronner, Urs and Hoban, Rebecca and Hou, Liping and Jamain, St{\´e}phane and Kahn, Jean-Pierre and Kassem, Layla and Kato, Tadafumi and Kelsoe, John R. and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Kliwicki, Sebastian and Kuo, Po-Hsiu and Kusumi, Ichiro and Laje, Gonzalo and Lavebratt, Catharina and Leboyer, Marion and Leckband, Susan G. and L{\´o}pez Jaramillo, Carlos A. and Maj, Mario and Malafosse, Alain and Martinsson, Lina and Masui, Takuya and Mitchell, Philip B. and Mondimore, Frank and Monteleone, Palmiero and Nallet, Audrey and Neuner, Maria and Nov{\´a}k, Tom{\´a}s and O'Donovan, Claire and {\"O}sby, Urban and Ozaki, Norio and Perlis, Roy H. and Pfennig, Andrea and Potash, James B. and Reich-Erkelenz, Daniela and Reif, Andreas and Reininghaus, Eva and Richardson, Sara and Rouleau, Guy A. and Rybakowski, Janusz K. and Schalling, Martin and Schofield, Peter R. and Schubert, Oliver K. and Schweizer, Barbara and Seem{\"u}ller, Florian and Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Maria and Severino, Giovanni and Seymour, Lisa R. and Slaney, Claire and Smoller, Jordan W. and Squassina, Alessio and Stamm, Thomas and Steele, Jo and Stopkova, Pavla and Tighe, Sarah K. and Tortorella, Alfonso and Turecki, Gustavo and Wray, Naomi R. and Wright, Adam and Zandi, Peter P. and Zilles, David and Bauer, Michael and Rietschel, Marcella and McMahon, Francis J. and Schulze, Thomas G. and Alda, Martin},
  title     = {Assessment of Response to Lithium Maintenance Treatment in Bipolar Disorder: A Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) Report},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {6},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0065636},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-130938},
  pages     = {e65636},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Objective: The assessment of response to lithium maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder (BD) is complicated by variable length of treatment, unpredictable clinical course, and often inconsistent compliance. Prospective and retrospective methods of assessment of lithium response have been proposed in the literature. In this study we report the key phenotypic measures of the "Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with Bipolar Disorder" scale currently used in the Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) study. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine ConLiGen sites took part in a two-stage case-vignette rating procedure to examine inter-rater agreement [Kappa (\(\kappa\))] and reliability [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)] of lithium response. Annotated first-round vignettes and rating guidelines were circulated to expert research clinicians for training purposes between the two stages. Further, we analyzed the distributional properties of the treatment response scores available for 1,308 patients using mixture modeling. Results: Substantial and moderate agreement was shown across sites in the first and second sets of vignettes (\(\kappa\) = 0.66 and \(\kappa\) = 0.54, respectively), without significant improvement from training. However, definition of response using the A score as a quantitative trait and selecting cases with B criteria of 4 or less showed an improvement between the two stages (\(ICC_1 = 0.71\) and \(ICC_2 = 0.75\), respectively). Mixture modeling of score distribution indicated three subpopulations (full responders, partial responders, non responders). Conclusions: We identified two definitions of lithium response, one dichotomous and the other continuous, with moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement and reliability. Accurate phenotypic measurement of lithium response is crucial for the ongoing ConLiGen pharmacogenomic study.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HauserDornbergerMalzahnetal.2021,
  author    = {Hauser, T. and Dornberger, V. and Malzahn, U. and Grebe, S. J. and Liu, D. and St{\"o}rk, S. and Nauck, M. and Friedrich, N. and D{\"o}rr, M. and Wanner, C. and Krane, V. and Hammer, F.},
  title     = {The effect of spironolactone on diastolic function in haemodialysis patients},
  series = {The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging},
  volume    = {37},
  journal   = {The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging},
  number    = {6},
  issn      = {1573-0743},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10554-021-02176-5},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-269033},
  pages     = {1927-1936},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is highly prevalent in patients on maintenance haemodialysis (HD) and lacks effective treatment. We investigated the effect of spironolactone on cardiac structure and function with a specific focus on diastolic function parameters. The MiREnDa trial examined the effect of 50 mg spironolactone once daily versus placebo on left ventricular mass index (LVMi) among 97 HD patients during 40 weeks of treatment. In this echocardiographic substudy, diastolic function was assessed using predefined structural and functional parameters including E/e'. Changes in the frequency of HFpEF were analysed using the comprehensive 'HFA-PEFF score'. Complete echocardiographic assessment was available in 65 individuals (59.5 ± 13.0 years, 21.5\% female) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF > 50\%). At baseline, mean E/e' was 15.2 ± 7.8 and 37 (56.9\%) patients fulfilled the criteria of HFpEF according to the HFA-PEFF score. There was no significant difference in mean change of E/e' between the spironolactone group and the placebo group (+ 0.93 ± 5.39 vs. + 1.52 ± 5.94, p = 0.68) or in mean change of left atrial volume index (LAVi) (1.9 ± 12.3 ml/m\(^{2}\) vs. 1.7 ± 14.1 ml/m\(^{2}\), p = 0.89). Furthermore, spironolactone had no significant effect on mean change in LVMi (+ 0.8 ± 14.2 g/m\(^{2}\) vs. + 2.7 ± 15.9 g/m\(^{2}\); p = 0.72) or NT-proBNP (p = 0.96). Treatment with spironolactone did not alter HFA-PEFF score class compared with placebo (p = 0.63). Treatment with 50 mg of spironolactone for 40 weeks had no significant effect on diastolic function parameters in HD patients.},
  language  = {en}
}