A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Safety and effectiveness of the LVIS and LVIS Jr devices for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms: Final results of the LEPI multicenter cohort study

International audienceBackground: The Low profile visualized intraluminal support (LVIS)/LVIS Jr is a self-expanding braiding stent for the treatment of intracranial aneurysm. This study is to determine the safety and effectiveness of the LVIS/LVIS Jr for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms in a real-world setting. Methods: This prospective, observational, multicenter study enrolled patients with unruptured, ruptured and recanalized intracranial aneurysms treated with the LVIS stents, between February 2018 to December 2019. Primary endpoint was the cumulative morbidity and mortality rate (CMMR) assessed at 12 months follow-up (FU). Results: A total of 130 patients were included (62.3 % women, mean age 55.9 ± 11.4) on an intention-to-treat basis. Four patients (3.1 %) had 2 target aneurysms; 134 total aneurysms were treated. The aneurysms were mainly located on the middle cerebral artery (41/134; 30.6 %) and the anterior communicating artery (31/134; 23.1 %). The CMMR at 1 year linked to the procedure and/or device was 4.6 % (6/130). The overall mortality was 1.5 % (2/130), none of these deaths adjudged as being linked to the procedure and/or device. All aneurysms (134/134, 100 %) were successfully treated with LVIS stent and/or other devices. At a mean FU of 16.8 months post-procedure, complete/nearly complete occlusion was achieved in 112 aneurysms (92.6 %), and only 3 patients (2.5 %) required aneurysm retreatment. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that the LVIS/LVIS Jr devices are safe and effective in the treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms, with very high rates of adequate occlusion at FU. These angiographic results are stable over time with an acceptable complication rate. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov under NCT 03553771

Effect of emergent carotid stenting during endovascular therapy for acute anterior circulation stroke patients with tandem occlusion: A multicenter, randomized, clinical trial (TITAN) protocol

International audienceBackground and hypothesis: There is no consensus on the optimal endovascular management of the extracranial internal carotid artery steno-occlusive lesion in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to tandem occlusion. We hypothesized that intracranial mechanical thrombectomy plus emergent internal carotid artery stenting (and at least one antiplatelet therapy) is superior to intracranial mechanical thrombectomy alone in patients with acute tandem occlusion. Study design: TITAN is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) study. Eligibility requires a diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke, pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS)≤2 (no upper age limit), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS)≥6, Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS)≥6, and tandem occlusion on the initial catheter angiogram. Tandem occlusion is defined as large vessel occlusion (intracranial internal carotid artery, M1 and/or M2 segment) and extracranial severe internal carotid artery stenosis ≥90% (NASCET) or complete occlusion. Patients are randomized in two balanced parallel groups (1:1) to receive either intracranial mechanical thrombectomy plus internal carotid artery stenting (and at least one antiplatelet therapy) or intracranial mechanical thrombectomy alone within 8 h of stroke onset. Up to 432 patients are randomized after tandem occlusion confirmation on angiogram. Study outcomes: The primary outcome measure is complete reperfusion rate at the end of endovascular procedure, assessed as a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) 3, and ≥4 point decrease in NIHSS at 24 h. Secondary outcomes include infarct growth, recurrent clinical ischemic event in the ipsilateral carotid territory, type and dose of antiplatelet therapy used, mRS at 90 (±15) days and 12 (±1) months. Safety outcomes are procedural complications, stent patency, intracerebral hemorrhage, and death. Economics analysis includes health-related quality of life, and costs utility comparison, especially with the need or not of endarterectomy. Discussion: TITAN is the first randomized trial directly comparing two types of treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to anterior circulation tandem occlusion, and especially assessing the safety and efficacy of emergent internal carotid artery stenting associated with at least one antiplatelet therapy in the acute phase of stroke reperfusion. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0397898

Successful Thrombectomy Improves Functional Outcome in Tandem Occlusions with a Large Ischemic Core

International audienceBackground: Emergent stenting in tandem occlusions and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) of acute ischemic stroke related to large vessel occlusion (LVO-AIS) with a large core are tested independently. We aim to assess the impact of reperfusion with MT in patients with LVO-AIS with a large core and a tandem occlusion and to compare the safety of reperfusion between large core with tandem and nontandem occlusions in current practice. Methods: We analyzed data of all consecutive patients included in the prospective Endovascular Treatment in Ischemic Stroke Registry in France between January 2015 and March 2023 who presented with a pretreatment ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score) of 0–5 and angiographically proven tandem occlusion. The primary end point was a favorable outcome defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0–3 at 90 days. Results: Among 262 included patients with a tandem occlusion and ASPECTS 0–5, 203 patients (77.5%) had a successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction grade 2b-3). Reperfused patients had a favorable shift in the overall mRS score distribution (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.57 [1.22–2.03]; P < 0.001), higher rates of mRS score 0–3 (aOR, 7.03 [2.60–19.01]; P < 0.001) and mRS score 0–2 at 90 days (aOR, 3.85 [1.39–10.68]; P = 0.009) compared with nonreperfused. There was a trend between the occurrence of successful reperfusion and a decreased rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (aOR, 0.5 [0.22–1.13]; P = 0.096). Similar safety outcomes were observed after large core reperfusion in tandem and nontandem occlusions. Conclusions: Successful reperfusion was associated with a higher rate of favorable outcome in large core LVO-AIS with a tandem occlusion, with a safety profile similar to nontandem occlusion

Women and health professionals’ perspectives on a conditional cash transfer programme to improve pregnancy follow-up: a qualitative analysis of the NAITRE randomised controlled study

Objectives Women of low socioeconomic status have been described as having suboptimal prenatal care, which in turn has been associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. Many types of conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes have been developed, including programmes to improve prenatal care or smoking cessation during pregnancy, and their effects demonstrated. However, ethical critiques have included paternalism and lack of informed choice. Our objective was to determine if women and healthcare professionals (HPs) shared these concerns.Design Prospective qualitative research.Setting We included economically disadvantaged women, as defined by health insurance data, who participated in the French NAITRE randomised trial assessing a CCT programme during prenatal follow-up to improve pregnancy outcomes. The HP worked in some maternities participating in this trial.Participants 26 women, 14 who received CCT and 12 who did not, mostly unemployed (20/26), and - 7 HPs.Interventions We conducted a multicentre cross-sectional qualitative study among women and HPs who participated in the NAITRE Study to assess their views on CCT. The women were interviewed after childbirth.Results Women did not perceive CCT negatively. They did not mention feeling stigmatised. They described CCT as a significant source of aid for women with limited financial resources. HP described the CCT in less positive terms, for example, expressing concern about discussing cash transfer at their first medical consultation with women. Though they emphasised ethical concerns about the basis of the trial, they recognised the importance of evaluating CCT.Conclusions In France, a high-income country where prenatal follow-up is free, HPs were concerned that the CCT programme would change their relationship with patients and wondered if it was the best use of funding. However, women who received a cash incentive said they did not feel stigmatised and indicated that these payments helped them prepare for their baby’s birth.Trial registration number NCT0240285

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p&lt;0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons

Management practices for postdural puncture headache in obstetrics: a prospective, international, cohort study

© 2020 British Journal of AnaesthesiaBackground: Accidental dural puncture is an uncommon complication of epidural analgesia and can cause postdural puncture headache (PDPH). We aimed to describe management practices and outcomes after PDPH treated by epidural blood patch (EBP) or no EBP. Methods: Following ethics committee approval, patients who developed PDPH after accidental dural puncture were recruited from participating countries and divided into two groups, those receiving EBP or no EBP. Data registered included patient and procedure characteristics, headache symptoms and intensity, management practices, and complications. Follow-up was at 3 months. Results: A total of 1001 patients from 24 countries were included, of which 647 (64.6%) received an EBP and 354 (35.4%) did not receive an EBP (no-EBP). Higher initial headache intensity was associated with greater use of EBP, odds ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.19–1.41) per pain intensity unit increase. Headache intensity declined sharply at 4 h after EBP and 127 (19.3%) patients received a second EBP. On average, no or mild headache (numeric rating score≤3) was observed 7 days after diagnosis. Intracranial bleeding was diagnosed in three patients (0.46%), and backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in the EBP group. Conclusions: Management practices vary between countries, but EBP was more often used in patients with greater initial headache intensity. EBP reduced headache intensity quickly, but about 20% of patients needed a second EBP. After 7 days, most patients had no or mild headache. Backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in patients receiving an EBP