In vivo safety and efficacy testing of a thermally triggered injectable hydrogel scaffold for bone regeneration and augmentation in a rat model

Bone loss resulting from degenerative diseases and trauma is a significant clinical burden which is likely to grow exponentially with the aging population. In a number of conditions where pre-formed materials are clinically inappropriate an injectable bone forming hydrogel could be beneficial. The development of an injectable hydrogel to stimulate bone repair and regeneration would have broad clinical impact and economic benefit in a variety of orthopedic clinical applications. We have previously reported the development of a Laponite® crosslinked pNIPAMco- DMAc (L-pNIPAM-co-DMAc) hydrogel delivery system, loaded with hydroxyapatite nanoparticles (HAPna), which was capable of inducing osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) without the need for additional growth factors in vitro. However to enable progression towards clinical acceptability, biocompatibility and efficacy of the L-pNIPAM-co-DMAc hydrogel to induce bone repair in vivo must be determined. Biocompatibility was evaluated by subcutaneous implantation for 6 weeks in rats, and efficacy to augment bone repair was evaluated within a rat femur defect model for 4 weeks. No inflammatory reactions, organ toxicity or systemic toxicity were observed. In young male rats where hydrogel was injected, defect healing was less effective than sham operated controls when rat MSCs were incorporated. Enhanced bone healing was observed however, in aged exbreeder female rats where acellular hydrogel was injected, with increased deposition of collagen type I and Runx2. Integration of the hydrogel with surrounding bone was observed without the need for delivered MSCs; native cell infiltration was also seen and bone formation was observed within all hydrogel systems investigated. This hydrogel can be delivered directly into the target site, is biocompatible, promotes increased bone formation and facilitates migration of cells to promote integration with surrounding bone, for safe and efficacious bone repai

Multivariate Age-related Analysis of Variance in quantitative MRI maps: Widespread age-related differences revisited

AbstractThis study utilized multivariate ANOVA analysis to investigate age-related microstructural changes in the brain tissues driven primarily by myelin, iron, and water content. Voxel-wise analyses were performed on gray matter (GM) and white matter (WM), in addition to region of interest (ROI) analyses. The multivariate approach identified brain regions showing coordinated alterations in multiple tissue properties and demonstrated bidirectional correlations between age and all examined modalities in various brain regions, including the caudate nucleus, putamen, insula, cerebellum, lingual gyri, hippocampus, and olfactory bulb. The multivariate model was more sensitive than univariate analyses as evidenced by detecting a larger number of significant voxels within clusters in the supplementary motor area, frontal cortex, hippocampus, amygdala, occipital cortex, and cerebellum bilaterally. The examination of normalized, smoothed, and z-transformed maps within the ROIs revealed age-dependent differences in myelin, iron, and water content. These findings contribute to our understanding of age-related brain differences and provide insights into the underlying mechanisms of aging. The study emphasizes the importance of multivariate analysis for detecting subtle microstructural changes associated with aging that may motivate interventions to mitigate cognitive decline in older adults

HMRI-vQC : A visualization Quality Control toolbox for Multi-Parameter Mapping

peer reviewe

The Grizzly, September 13, 2001

Eating in Wismer: The Crunch at Lunch • America. No Longer the Beautiful • Collegeville Police Crack Down on Ursinus Students • A New Look and New Menu at Wismer • Service Woes for Select Residents • Opinions: Wismer Bussing: A Major Problem; New Social Host Policy a Wet Blanket • International Film Festival Brings Foreign Flair to Ursinus College Campus • Review of the Restaurant La Fontana • Unconventional Fringe Fest Takes Over Philly • Like Old Movies? Then the Colonial Theater is the Place to Be • Pizza: Where\u27s the Best Buy for Your Money? • Ursinus Webpage is Getting a Makeover • Colonization of Sigma Sigma Sigma • Duncan Breaks Record as Ursinus Downs Waynesburg • Cross Country Breezes Through LBV Invitational • Two Tough Teams Equal First Two Losses for Men\u27s Soccer • UC Women\u27s Volleyball Defeats Wilkes for Third Win • Bears Fall to Montclair; Tie with Widener • UC Field Hockey Takes Slap Shot • Soccer Teams Without a Home Fieldhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1493/thumbnail.jp

Treatment options for patients with pilonidal sinus disease:PITSTOP, a mixed-methods evaluation

Background:There is no consensus on optimal management of pilonidal disease. Surgical practice is varied, and existing literature is mainly single-centre cohort studies of varied disease severity, interventions and outcome assessments.Objectives:A prospective cohort study to determine:•disease severity and intervention relationship•most valued outcomes and treatment preference by patients•recommendations for policy and future research.Design:Observational cohort study with nested mixed-methods case study. Discrete choice experiment. Clinician survey. Three-stage Delphi survey for patients and clinicians. Inter-rater reliability of classification system.Setting:Thirty-one National Health Service trusts.Participants:Patients aged > 16 years referred for elective surgical treatment of pilonidal disease.Interventions:Surgery.Main outcome measures: Pain postoperative days 1 and 7, time to healing and return to normal activities, complications, recurrence. Outcomes compared between major and minor procedures using regression modelling, propensity score-based approaches and augmented inverse probability weighting to account for measured potential confounding features.Results: Clinician survey: There was significant heterogeneity in surgeon practice preference. Limited training opportunities may impede efforts to improve practice.Cohort study: Over half of patients (60%; N = 667) had a major procedure. For these procedures, pain was greater on day 1 and day 7 (mean difference day 1 pain 1.58 points, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.01 points, n = 536; mean difference day 7 pain 1.53 points, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.95 points, n = 512). There were higher complication rates (adjusted risk difference 17.5%, 95% confidence interval 9.1 to 25.9%, n = 579), lower recurrence (adjusted risk difference −10.1%, 95% confidence interval −18.1 to −2.1%, n = 575), and longer time to healing (>34 days estimated difference) and time to return to normal activities (difference 25.9 days, 95% confidence interval 18.4 to 33.4 days).Mixed-methods analysis: Patient decision-making was influenced by prior experience of disease and anticipated recovery time. The burden involved in wound care and the gap between expected and actual time for recovery were the principal reasons given for decision regret.Discrete choice experiment: The strongest predictors of patient treatment choice were risk of infection/persistence (attribute importance 70%), and shorter recovery time (attribute importance 30%). Patients were willing to trade off these attributes. Those aged over 30 years had a higher risk tolerance (22.35–34.67%) for treatment failure if they could experience rapid recovery. There was no strong evidence that younger patients were willing to accept higher risk of treatment failure in exchange for a faster recovery. Patients were uniform in rejecting excision-and-leave-open because of the protracted nursing care it entailed.Wysocki classification analysis: There was acceptable inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.61).Consensus exercise: Five research and practice priorities were identified. The top research priority was that a comparative trial should broadly group interventions. The top practice priority was that any interventions should be less disruptive than the disease itself.LimitationsIncomplete recruitment and follow-up data were an issue, particularly given the multiple interventions. Assumptions were made regarding risk adjustment.Conclusions and future workResults suggest the burden of pilonidal surgery is greater than reported previously. This can be mitigated with better selection of intervention according to disease type and patient desired goals. Results indicate a framework for future higher-quality trials that stratify disease and utilise broad groupings of common interventions with development of a patient-centred core outcome set.Trial registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN95551898.FundingThis award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/17/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

Patient decision‐making and regret in pilonidal sinus surgery: a mixed‐methods study

Aim Little is known about optimal management strategies for pilonidal sinus disease (PSD). We conducted a mixed‐methods study to understand why patients make, and sometimes regret, treatment decisions. Method We conducted longitudinal semi‐structured interviews at the time of surgery and 6 months later with 20 patients from 13 UK hospitals. Framework analysis was performed, and themes were mapped to (1) the coping in deliberation framework and (2) an acceptability framework. Results were triangulated with those from structured survey instruments evaluating shared decision‐making (SDM, best = 9) at baseline and decision regret (DR, most regret = 100) at 6 months. Results Nine of 20 patients were not offered a choice of treatment, but this was not necessarily seen as negative (SDM median 4; range 2–4). Factors that influenced decision‐making included previous experience and anticipated recovery time. Median (range) DR was 5 (0–50). Those with the highest DR (scores 40–50) were, paradoxically, also amongst the highest scores on SDM (scores 4). Burden of wound care and the disparity between anticipated and actual recovery time were the main reasons for decision regret. Conclusion To minimize regret about surgical decisions, people with PSD need better information about the burden of wound care and the risks of recurrence associated with different surgical approaches

Cognitive–behavioural therapy compared with standardised medical care for adults with dissociative non-epileptic seizures: the CODES RCT

BACKGROUND: Dissociative (non-epileptic) seizures are potentially treatable by psychotherapeutic interventions; however, the evidence for this is limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-arm, mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. SETTING: This took place in 27 UK-based neurology/epilepsy services, 17 liaison psychiatry/neuropsychiatry services and 18 cognitive-behavioural therapy services. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous year and meeting other eligibility criteria were recruited to a screening phase from neurology/epilepsy services between October 2014 and February 2017. After psychiatric assessment around 3 months later, eligible and interested participants were randomised between January 2015 and May 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Standardised medical care consisted of input from neurologists and psychiatrists who were given guidance regarding diagnosis delivery and management; they provided patients with information booklets. The intervention consisted of 12 dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy 1-hour sessions (plus one booster session) that were delivered by trained therapists, in addition to standardised medical care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was monthly seizure frequency at 12 months post randomisation. The secondary outcomes were aspects of seizure occurrence, quality of life, mood, anxiety, distress, symptoms, psychosocial functioning, clinical global change, satisfaction with treatment, quality-adjusted life-years, costs and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In total, 698 patients were screened and 368 were randomised (standardised medical care alone, n = 182; and cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care, n = 186). Primary outcome data were obtained for 85% of participants. An intention-to-treat analysis with multivariate imputation by chained equations revealed no significant between-group difference in dissociative seizure frequency at 12 months [standardised medical care: median of seven dissociative seizures (interquartile range 1-35 dissociative seizures); cognitive-behavioural therapy and standardised medical care: median of four dissociative seizures (interquartile range 0-20 dissociative seizures); incidence rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.09; p = 0.144]. Of the 16 secondary outcomes analysed, nine were significantly better in the arm receiving cognitive-behavioural therapy at a p-value < 0.05, including the following at a p-value ≤ 0.001: the longest dissociative seizure-free period in months 7-12 inclusive post randomisation (incidence rate ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.20; p = 0.001); better psychosocial functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale, standardised treatment effect -0.39, 95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.18; p < 0.001); greater self-rated and clinician-rated clinical improvement (self-rated: standardised treatment effect 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.62; p = 0.001; clinician rated: standardised treatment effect 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.57; p < 0.001); and satisfaction with treatment (standardised treatment effect 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.73; p < 0.001). Rates of adverse events were similar across arms. Cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care produced 0.0152 more quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval -0.0106 to 0.0392 quality-adjusted life-years) than standardised medical care alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life-year) for cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care versus standardised medical care alone based on the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, and imputed data was £120,658. In sensitivity analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between £85,724 and £206,067. Qualitative and quantitative process evaluations highlighted useful study components, the importance of clinical experience in treating patients with dissociative seizures and potential benefits of our multidisciplinary care pathway. LIMITATIONS: Unlike outcome assessors, participants and clinicians were not blinded to the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant additional benefit of dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy in reducing dissociative seizure frequency, and cost-effectiveness over standardised medical care was low. However, this large, adequately powered, multicentre randomised controlled trial highlights benefits of adjunctive dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy for several clinical outcomes, with no evidence of greater harm from dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy. FUTURE WORK: Examination of moderators and mediators of outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05681227 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02325544. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

A qualitative study of professional and client perspectives on information flows and decision aid use

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This paper explores the meanings given by a diverse range of stakeholders to a decision aid aimed at helping carers of people in early to moderate stages of dementia (PWD) to select community based respite services. Decision aids aim to empower clients to share decision making with health professionals. However, the match between health professionals' perspectives on decision support needs and their clients' perspective is an important and often unstudied aspect of decision aid use.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A secondary analysis was undertaken of qualitative data collected as part of a larger study. The data included twelve interviews with carers of people with dementia, three interviews with expert advisors, and three focus groups with health professionals. A theoretical analysis was conducted, drawing on theories of 'positioning' and professional identity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Health professionals are seen to hold varying attitudes and beliefs about carers' decision support needs, and these appeared to be grounded in the professional identity of each group. These attitudes and beliefs shaped their attitudes towards decision aids, the information they believed should be offered to dementia carers, and the timing of its offering. Some groups understood carers as needing to be protected from realistic information and consequently saw a need to filter information to carer clients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Health professionals' beliefs may cause them to restrict information flows, which can limit carers' ability to make decisions, and limit health services' ability to improve partnering and shared decision making. In an era where information is freely available to those with the resources to access it, we question whether health professionals should filter information.</p