Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Daniel Warren

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel Warren.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A parallel group placebo controlled study of prazosin for trauma nightmares and sleep disturbance in combat veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder.

BACKGROUND: Excessive brain responsiveness to norepinephrine appears to contribute to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), particularly at night. Prazosin, a brain active alpha-1 adrenergic receptor antagonist, significantly reduced trauma nightmares and sleep disturbance in 10 Vietnam War combat veterans in a previous placebo-controlled crossover study. The current parallel group trial in a larger sample of veterans evaluated prazosin effects on trauma nightmares, sleep quality, global clinical status, dream characteristics, and comorbid depression. METHODS: Forty veterans (mean age 56 +/- 9) with chronic PTSD and distressing trauma nightmares and sleep disturbance were randomized to evening prazosin (13.3 +/- 3 mg/day) or placebo for 8 weeks. RESULTS: In the evaluable sample (n = 34), primary outcome measures demonstrated that prazosin was significantly superior to placebo for reducing trauma nightmares and improving sleep quality and global clinical status with large effect sizes. Prazosin shifted dream characteristics from those typical of trauma-related nightmares toward those typical of normal dreams. Blood pressure changes from baseline to end study did not differ significantly between prazosin and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Prazosin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for trauma nightmares, sleep disturbance and global clinical status in veterans with chronic PTSD.

Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists↗

Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms.

Microarray technology is a powerful tool for measuring RNA expression for thousands of genes at once. Various studies have been published comparing competing platforms with mixed results: some find agreement, others do not. As the number of researchers starting to use microarrays and the number of cross-platform meta-analysis studies rapidly increases, appropriate platform assessments become more important. Here we present results from a comparison study that offers important improvements over those previously described in the literature. In particular, we noticed that none of the previously published papers consider differences between labs. For this study, a consortium of ten laboratories from the Washington, DC-Baltimore, USA, area was formed to compare data obtained from three widely used platforms using identical RNA samples. We used appropriate statistical analysis to demonstrate that there are relatively large differences in data obtained in labs using the same platform, but that the results from the best-performing labs agree rather well.

Baltimore↗