Academic literature on the topic 'Alano di Lilla'

Background:EQUATOR (NCT03101670) was a Phase 2, double-blind, randomised placebo (PBO)- controlled trial of the preferential Janus kinase 1 inhibitor filgotinib (FIL) for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA); EQUATOR2 (NCT03320876) is the open-label extension (OLE).Objectives:This post-hoc analysis assessed the effect of FIL on individual Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) components; and the association between PASDAS disease activity (DA) levels and DA levels achieved for each PASDAS component and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) up to OLE Week (Wk) 100.Methods:In EQUATOR, patients with active moderate-to-severe PsA were randomised 1:1 to oral FIL 200 mg or PBO once daily (QD) for 16 wks.1 At Wk 16, patients could continue into the 304-wk OLE, in which all patients received FIL 200 mg QD. The proportions of patients with PASDAS of very low DA (VLDA; ≤1.9), LDA (>1.9–<3.2), moderate DA (MoDA; ≥3.2–<5.4), and high DA (HDA; ≥5.4) at core Wk 16 and OLE Wk 52 and 100 were assessed. The proportion with improved PASDAS status vs baseline (BL) at OLE Wk 52 and 100 was calculated. Percent change from BL in PASDAS components and PROs were assessed at core Wk 16 and OLE Wk 52 and 100 by PASDAS status (VLDA, LDA, other). Multivariate logistic regression analyses performed cross-sectionally identified PASDAS components and PROs associated with not achieving VLDA or LDA at core Wk 16 and OLE Wk 52 and 100; all analyses were observed cases.Results:At OLE Wk 52, LDA and VLDA were achieved by 27.5% and 16.8% of randomised patients, respectively (44.3% combined). At OLE Wk 100, LDA and VLDA were achieved by 26.0% and 17.6% of patients (43.6% combined; Figure 1). Of patients with HDA at BL, 69% improved to MoDA/LDA/VLDA, <4% remained in HDA and 27% did not reach Wk 100; of those in MoDA at BL, 63% improved to VLDA/LDA, 11% remained stable, <4% worsened and 22% did not reach Wk 100. Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGDA), Short Form-36 physical component scale (SF-36 PCS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index were found to be important components/PRO measures in achieving VLDA vs LDA (Table 1). Logistic regression indicated that factors associated with not achieving LDA at Wk 52 were PtGDA (odds ratio [OR]: 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07–1.35), physician GDA (PhGDA; OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18–2.12), and SF-36 PCS (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67–0.95); PtGDA was associated with not achieving VLDA (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.15–1.47).Conclusion:The proportion of patients achieving PASDAS VLDA or LDA increased over time and remained stable between OLE Wk 52 and 100. Important factors in determining whether VLDA/LDA was met were PtGDA, PhGDA, and SF-36 PCS, although the low patient numbers is a limitation.References:[1]Mease P, et al. Lancet. 2018;392:2367–77Table 1.Mean % change from baseline in PASDAS components and PROs (observed cases)Core Wk 16 (FIL + PBO groups combined)n=122OLE Wk 52n=110OLE Wk 100n=97VLDAn=8(7%)LDAn=22(18%)Othersn=92(75%)VLDAn=22(20%)LDAn=36(33%)Othersn=52(47%)VLDA n=23(24%)LDAn=34(35%)Othersn=40(41%)PhGDA−93−75−44−94−82−56−96−84−54PtGDA−87−69−13−86−58−24−90−57−13Tender joint count 68−94−80−42−99−84−64−98−87−61Swollen joint count 66−99−80−64−99−96−78−99−94−80LEI−100−86−32−96−100−78−100−99−78Dactylitis−100−100−73−100−100−97−100−100−98C-reactive protein−66−2217138*−32−25−12−1324SF-36 PCS53261133239472316FACIT1195032975134994636HAQ-DI−84−68−18−85−51−18−88−45−19PASI−84−66−29−54−59−56−49−76−42Components or PRO measures in bold are those for which numerical differences between VLDA and LDA are greatest across timepoints*Due to outlier (3784)FACIT, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index; LEI, Leeds Enthesitis Index; PASI, Psoriasis Area Severity Index; PhGDA, Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity; PtGDA, Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity; SF-36 PCS, Short Form-36 physical component summary; (V)LDA, (very) low disease activityAcknowledgements:EQUATOR and EQUATOR2 were sponsored by Galapagos NV Mechelen, Belgium) and co-funded by Galapagos NV and Gilead Sciences, Inc (Foster City, CA, USA). Benjamin Pett and his team, employees of Galapagos, provided assistance with statistical analyses. Medical writing/editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), and was funded by Galapagos NV.Disclosure of Interests:Laura C Coates Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer, Philip J Mease Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN, and UCB, Philip Helliwell Paid instructor for: Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Filip van den Bosch Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck, and UCB, Mona Trivedi Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Amgen, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Muhsen Alani Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Employee of: Gilead Sciences, Franck Olivier Le Brun Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Robin Besuyen Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Lien Gheyle Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Emilia Gvozdenovic Employee of: Galapagos, Dafna D Gladman Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB., Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

The thesis aims to analyze and place in comparison some allegorical-didactic poems, composed in the European area between the 12th and 14th centuries; the analysis focuses on the relation between body and soul within the human individual. The four poems examined (Architrenius by John of Hauville, Anticlaudianus by Alain of Lille, Dante's Commedia, and Petrarch's Triumphi) have in common the ascensional structure and the final reunion of man with the divine: the thesis is concerned with observing how this path develops within the four narratives, through which linguistic patterns it is defined, whether or not it admits the goodness of the bodily part along with the spiritual part, and in general whether the goodness of corporeality in the human individual's path to perfection is acknowledged or denied. This theoretical discussion moves through a constellation of intertextual echoes between the analyzed works, to show the existence of a common semantic substratum signifying a shared theological problem that medieval intellectuals attempt to solve.
La tesi si prefigge l'obiettivo di analizzare e porre in comparazione alcuni poemi allegorico-didascalici composti in area europea tra il XII e il XIV secolo riguardo il tema della relazione tra corpo e anima all'interno dell'individuo umano. I quattro poemi esaminati (Architrenius di Giovanni di Altavilla, Anticlaudianus di Alano di Lilla, la Commedia di Dante, i Triumphi di Petrarca) hanno in comune la struttura ascensiva e il finale ricongiungimento dell'uomo con il divino: la tesi si occupa di osservare come questo percorso avvenga all'interno delle quattro narrazioni, attraverso quali modelli linguistici è definito, se ammetta o no la bontà della parte corporea insieme a quella spirituale, in generale se venga ammessa o negata la bontà della corporeità nel percorso di perfezionamento dell'individuo umano. Questa discussione teoretica si muove attraverso una costellazione di rimandi intertestuali tra le opere, a mostrare l'esistenza di un sostrato semantico comune che significhi un problema teologico condiviso che l'intellettuale medievale tenta di risolvere.