255 research outputs found

    Long-Term Efficacy of T3 Analogue Triac in Children and Adults With MCT8 Deficiency: A Real-Life Retrospective Cohort Study

    Full text link
    Context Patients with mutations in thyroid hormone transporter MCT8 have developmental delay and chronic thyrotoxicosis associated with being underweight and having cardiovascular dysfunction. Objective Our previous trial showed improvement of key clinical and biochemical features during 1-year treatment with the T3 analogue Triac, but long-term follow-up data are needed. Methods In this real-life retrospective cohort study, we investigated the efficacy of Triac in MCT8-deficient patients in 33 sites. The primary endpoint was change in serum T3 concentrations from baseline to last available measurement. Secondary endpoints were changes in other thyroid parameters, anthropometric parameters, heart rate, and biochemical markers of thyroid hormone action. Results From October 15, 2014 to January 1, 2021, 67 patients (median baseline age 4.6 years; range, 0.5-66) were treated up to 6 years (median 2.2 years; range, 0.2-6.2). Mean T3 concentrations decreased from 4.58 (SD 1.11) to 1.66 (0.69) nmol/L (mean decrease 2.92 nmol/L; 95% CI, 2.61-3.23; P < 0.0001; target 1.4-2.5 nmol/L). Body-weight-for-age exceeded that of untreated historical controls (mean difference 0.72 SD; 95% CI, 0.36-1.09; P = 0.0002). Heart-rate-for-age decreased (mean difference 0.64 SD; 95% CI, 0.29-0.98; P = 0.0005). SHBG concentrations decreased from 245 (99) to 209 (92) nmol/L (mean decrease 36 nmol/L; 95% CI, 16-57; P = 0.0008). Mean creatinine concentrations increased from 32 (11) to 39 (13) µmol/L (mean increase 7 µmol/L; 95% CI, 6-9; P < 0.0001). Mean creatine kinase concentrations did not significantly change. No drug-related severe adverse events were reported. Conclusions Key features were sustainably alleviated in patients with MCT8 deficiency across all ages, highlighting the real-life potential of Triac for MCT8 deficiency

    Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia versus epidural analgesia in labour. A multicentre randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background Pain relief during labour is a topic of major interest in the Netherlands. Epidural analgesia is considered to be the most effective method of pain relief and recommended as first choice. However its uptake by pregnant women is limited compared to other western countries, partly as a result of non-availability due to logistic problems. Remifentanil, a synthetic opioid, is very suitable for patient controlled analgesia. Recent studies show that epidural analgesia is superior to remifentanil patient controlled analgesia in terms of pain intensity score; however there was no difference in satisfaction with pain relief between both treatments. Methods/design The proposed study is a multicentre randomized controlled study that assesses the cost-effectiveness of remifentanil patient controlled analgesia compared to epidural analgesia. We hypothesize that remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is as effective in improving pain appreciation scores as epidural analgesia, with lower costs and easier achievement of 24 hours availability of pain relief for women in labour and efficient pain relief for those with a contraindication for epidural analgesia. Eligible women will be informed about the study and randomized before active labour has started. Women will be randomly allocated to a strategy based on epidural analgesia or on remifentanil patient controlled analgesia when they request pain relief during labour. Primary outcome is the pain appreciation score, i.e. satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcome parameters are costs, patient satisfaction, pain scores (pain-intensity), mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal side effects. The economic analysis will be performed from a short-term healthcare perspective. For both strategies the cost of perinatal care for mother and child, starting at the onset of labour and ending ten days after delivery, will be registered and compared. Discussion This study, considering cost effectiveness of remifentanil as first choice analgesia versus epidural analgesia, could strongly improve the care for 180.000 women, giving birth in the Netherlands yearly by giving them access to pain relief during labour, 24 hours a day.Liv M Freeman, Kitty WM Bloemenkamp, Maureen TM Franssen, Dimitri NM Papatsonis, Petra J Hajenius, Marloes E van Huizen, Henk A Bremer, Eline SA van den Akker, Mallory D Woiski, Martina M Porath, Erik van Beek, Nico Schuitemaker, Paulien CM van der Salm, Bianca F Fong, Celine Radder, Caroline J Bax, Marko Sikkema, M Elske van den Akker-van Marle, Jan MM van Lith, Enrico Lopriore, Renske J Uildriks, Michel MRF Struys, Ben Willem J Mol, Albert Dahan, and Johanna M Middeldor

    Multimorbidity and comorbidity in the Dutch population - data from general practices

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Multimorbidity is increasingly recognized as a major public health challenge of modern societies. However, knowledge about the size of the population suffering from multimorbidity and the type of multimorbidity is scarce. The objective of this study was to present an overview of the prevalence of multimorbidity and comorbidity of chronic diseases in the Dutch population and to explore disease clustering and common comorbidities.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used 7 years data (2002–2008) of a large Dutch representative network of general practices (212,902 patients). Multimorbidity was defined as having two or more out of 29 chronic diseases. The prevalence of multimorbidity was calculated for the total population and by sex and age group. For 10 prevalent diseases among patients of 55 years and older (N = 52,014) logistic regressions analyses were used to study disease clustering and descriptive analyses to explore common comorbid diseases.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Multimorbidity of chronic diseases was found among 13% of the Dutch population and in 37% of those older than 55 years. Among patients over 55 years with a specific chronic disease more than two-thirds also had one or more other chronic diseases. Most disease pairs occurred more frequently than would be expected if diseases had been independent. Comorbidity was not limited to specific combinations of diseases; about 70% of those with a disease had one or more extra chronic diseases recorded which were not included in the top five of most common diseases.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Multimorbidity is common at all ages though increasing with age, with over two-thirds of those with chronic diseases and aged 55 years and older being recorded with multimorbidity. Comorbidity encompassed many different combinations of chronic diseases. Given the ageing population, multimorbidity and its consequences should be taken into account in the organization of care in order to avoid fragmented care, in medical research and healthcare policy.</p

    Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: Randomised multicentre equivalence trial

    Get PDF
    Objective To determine women’s satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. Design Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. Setting 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. Intervention Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. Results 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −2.8, 95% confidence interval −6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −10.4, −13.9 to −7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. Conclusion In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia.L.M. Freeman, K.W. Bloemenkamp, M.T. Franssen, D.N. Papatsonis, P.J. Hajenius, M.W. Hollmann, M.D. Woiski, M. Porath, H.J. van den Berg, E. van Beek, O.W.H.M. Borchert, N. Schuitemaker, J.M. Sikkema, A.H.M. Kuipers, S.L.M. Logtenberg, P.C.M van der Salm, K.O. Rengerink, E. Lopriore, M.E. van den Akker-van Marle, S. le Cessie, J.M van Lith, M.M. Struys, B.W.J. Mol, A. Dahan, J.M. Middeldor
    corecore