Incontinence pessaries: size, POPQ measures, and successful fitting

The aim of the study was to determine whether successful incontinence pessary fitting or pessary size can be predicted by specific POPQ measurements in women without advanced pelvic organ prolapse. In a multicenter study, women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and POPQ stage ≤2 were randomized to three treatment arms: (1) incontinence pessary, (2) behavioral therapy, or (3) both. This study evaluates incontinence pessary size, POPQ measures, and successful fitting in the 266 women assigned to treatment arms 1 and 3. Two hundred thirty-five women (92%) were successfully fitted with an incontinence ring (n = 122) or dish (n = 113). Hysterectomy, genital hiatus (GH), and GH/total vaginal length (TVL) ratios did not predict unsuccessful fitting (p > 0.05). However, mean TVL was greater in women successfully fitted (9.6 vs. 8.8 cm, p < 0.01). Final pessary diameter was not predicted by TVL, point D, or point C (p > 0.05). The vast majority of women with SUI can be successfully fitted with an incontinence pessary, but specific POPQ measures were not helpful in determining incontinence pessary size

Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05346588

A multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study to assess the efficacy and safety of riociguat in systemic sclerosis-associated digital ulcers

Abstract Background To determine the effect of riociguat, an oral, selective soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, on the net digital ulcer (DU) burden in systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods Participants with SSc-related active or painful indeterminate DUs were recruited in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept trial. Eligible participants were required to have at least one visible, active ischemic DU or painful indeterminate DU at screening, located at or distal to the proximal interphalangeal joint and that developed or worsened within 8 weeks prior to screening. Participants were randomized 1:1 to placebo or riociguat in individualized doses (maximum of 2.5 mg three times daily) during an 8-week titration period, followed by an 8-week stable dosing period. This was followed by an optional 16-week open-label extension phase for participants with active DU/reoccurrence of DUs within 1 month of the end of the main treatment phase. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 16 in net ulcer burden (NUB), analyzed using ANCOVA. Other endpoints included plasma biomarkers and proportion of participants with treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). Results Seventeen participants (eight placebo, nine riociguat) were randomized at five centers. Six participants in each group transitioned to the open-label extension. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the treatment groups, except participants randomized to placebo were older and had longer disease duration (p < 0.05). At baseline, the mean (SD) NUB was 2.5 (2.0) in the placebo and 2.4 (1.4) in the riociguat. No significant treatment difference was observed in the change from baseline to 16 weeks in NUB (adjusted mean treatment difference − 0.24, 95% CI (− 1.46, 0.99), p = 0.70). Four participants experienced five serious AE (four in riociguat and one in placebo); none was considered related to study medication. Statistically significant elevation of cGMP was observed at 16 weeks in the riociguat group (p = 0.05); no other biomarkers showed significant changes. In the open-label extension, participants in the riociguat-riociguat arm had complete healing of their DUs. Conclusion In participants with SSc-DU, treatment with riociguat did not reduce the number of DU net burden compared with placebo at 16 weeks. Open-label extension suggests that longer duration is needed to promote DU healing, which needs to be confirmed in a new trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02915835 . Registered on September 27, 2016.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152243/1/13075_2019_Article_1979.pd

Randomized Clinical Trial Design to Assess Abatacept in Resistant Nephrotic Syndrome

Introduction: Treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome is a rare form of glomerular disease that occurs in children and adults. No Food and Drug Administration−approved treatments consistently achieve remission of proteinuria and preservation of kidney function. CD80 (B7-1) can be expressed on injured podocytes, and administration of abatacept (modified CTLA4-Ig based on a natural ligand to CD80) has been associated with sustained normalization of urinary protein excretion and maintenance of glomerular filtration rate in experimental and clinical settings. Methods: In this report, we describe the rationale for and design of a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of abatacept in patients with treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome caused by focal segmental glomerulosclerosis or minimal change disease. The design is a hybrid of a parallel-group and crossover design (switchover) with the primary objectives assessed in the first period of the study and the secondary objectives assessed using data from both periods. All participants will receive the active agent in 1 of the periods. The duration of treatment will be 4 months per period. Results: The primary outcome will be improvement in nephrotic-range proteinuria to subnephrotic range, that is, reduction from baseline to 4 months in urine protein:creatinine ratio ≥ 50% and to a level < 3. The projected sample size is 90 patients, which has 80% power to detect a treatment difference of 28%. Conclusion: This study advances efforts to validate CD80 as a therapeutic target for treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome, and implements a precision medicine-based approach to this serious kidney condition in which the selection of a therapeutic agent is guided by the underlying disease mechanism operating in individual patients

Rapid, Label-Free Detection of Brain Tumors with Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy

Surgery is an essential component in the treatment of brain tumors. However, delineating tumor from normal brain remains a major challenge. We describe the use of stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) microscopy for differentiating healthy human and mouse brain tissue from tumor-infiltrated brain based on histoarchitectural and biochemical differences. Unlike traditional histopathology, SRS is a label-free technique that can be rapidly performed in situ. SRS microscopy was able to differentiate tumor from nonneoplastic tissue in an infiltrative human glioblastoma xenograft mouse model based on their different Raman spectra. We further demonstrated a correlation between SRS and hematoxylin and eosin microscopy for detection of glioma infiltration (κ = 0.98). Finally, we applied SRS microscopy in vivo in mice during surgery to reveal tumor margins that were undetectable under standard operative conditions. By providing rapid intraoperative assessment of brain tissue, SRS microscopy may ultimately improve the safety and accuracy of surgeries where tumor boundaries are visually indistinct.Chemistry and Chemical Biolog

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) – a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct – and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough. Trial registration NCT02476279, registered June 2015

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) - a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct - and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design: The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion: The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough

Safety and efficacy of abatacept in early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (ASSET): open-label extension of a phase 2, double-blind randomised trial

Background Abatacept was well tolerated by patients with early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis in a phase 2, double-blind randomised trial, with potential efficacy at 12 months. We report here the results of an open-label extension for 6 months. Methods Patients (aged ≥18 years) with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis of less than 3 years' duration from their first non-Raynaud's symptom were enrolled into the ASSET trial (A Study of Subcutaneous Abatacept to Treat DiffuseCutaneous Systemic Sclerosis), which is a double-blind trial at 22 sites in Canada, the UK, and the USA. Aftercompletion of 12 months of treatment with either abatacept or placebo, patients received a further 6 months ofabatacept (125 mg subcutaneous every week) in an open-label extension. The primary endpoint of the double-blind trial was modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) at 12 months, which was reassessed at 18 months in the open-label extension. The primary analysis included all participants who completed the double-blind trial and received at least one dose of open-label treatment (modified intention to treat). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02161406. Findings Between Sept 22, 2014, and March 15, 2017, 88 participants were randomly allocated in the double-blind trial either abatacept (n=44) or placebo (44); 32 patients from each treatment group completed the 6-month open-labelextension. Among patients assigned abatacept, a mean improvement from baseline in mRSS was noted at 12 months (-6·6 [SD 6·4]), with further improvement seen during the open-label extension period (-9·8 [8·1] at month 18). Participants assigned placebo had a mean improvement from baseline in mRSS at 12 months (-3·7 [SD 7·6]), with a further improvement at month 18 (-6·3 [9·3]). Infections during the open-label extension phase occurred in nine patients in the placebo-abatacept group (12 adverse events, one serious adverse event) and in 11 patients in theabatacept-abatacept group (14 adverse events, one serious adverse event). Two deaths occurred during the 12-month double-blind period in the abatacept group, which were related to scleroderma renal crisis; no deaths were recorded during the open-label extension. Interpretation During the 6-month open-label extension, no new safety signals for abatacept were identified in the treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis. Clinically meaningful improvements in mRSS and other outcome measures were observed in both the abatacept and placebo groups when patients transitioned to open-label treatment. These data support further studies of abatacept in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb and National Institutes of Health