COgnitive behavioural therapy vs standardised medical care for adults with Dissociative non-Epileptic Seizures (CODES): a multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol

Background The evidence base for the effectiveness of psychological interventions for patients with dissociative non-epileptic seizures (DS) is currently extremely limited, although data from two small pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including from our group, suggest that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) may be effective in reducing DS occurrence and may improve aspects of psychological status and psychosocial functioning. Methods/Design The study is a multicentre, pragmatic parallel group RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of specifically-tailored CBT plus standardised medical care (SMC) vs SMC alone in reducing DS frequency and improving psychological and health-related outcomes. In the initial screening phase, patients with DS will receive their diagnosis from a neurologist/epilepsy specialist. If patients are eligible and interested following the provision of study information and a booklet about DS, they will consent to provide demographic information and fortnightly data about their seizures, and agree to see a psychiatrist three months later. We aim to recruit ~500 patients to this screening stage. After a review three months later by a psychiatrist, those patients who have continued to have DS in the previous eight weeks and who meet further eligibility criteria will be told about the trial comparing CBT + SMC vs SMC alone. If they are interested in participating, they will be given a further booklet on DS and study information. A research worker will see them to obtain their informed consent to take part in the RCT. We aim to randomise 298 people (149 to each arm). In addition to a baseline assessment, data will be collected at 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Our primary outcome is monthly seizure frequency in the preceding month. Secondary outcomes include seizure severity, measures of seizure freedom and reduction, psychological distress and psychosocial functioning, quality of life, health service use, cost effectiveness and adverse events. We will include a nested qualitative study to evaluate participants’ views of the intervention and factors that acted as facilitators and barriers to participation. Discussion This study will be the first adequately powered evaluation of CBT for this patient group and offers the potential to provide an evidence base for treating this patient group. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05681227 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0232554

SIRT6 interacts with TRF2 and promotes its degradation in response to DNA damage

Telomere repeat binding factor 2 (TRF2) has been increasingly recognized to be involved in telomere maintenance and DNA damage response. Here, we show that TRF2 directly binds SIRT6 in a DNA independent manner and that this interaction is increased upon replication stress. Knockdown of SIRT6 up-regulates TRF2 protein levels and counteracts its down-regulation during DNA damage response, leading to cell survival. Moreover, we report that SIRT6 deactetylates in vivo the TRFH domain of TRF2, which in turn, is ubiquitylated in vivo activating the ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis. Notably, overexpression of the TRF2(cT) mutant failed to be stabilized by SIRT6 depletion, demonstrating that the TRFH domain is required for its post-transcriptional modification. Finally, we report an inverse correlation between SIRT6 and TRF2 protein expression levels in a cohort of colon rectal cancer patients. Taken together our findings describe TRF2 as a novel SIRT6 substrate and demonstrate that acetylation of TRF2 plays a crucial role in the regulation of TRF2 protein stability, thus providing a new route for modulating its expression level during oncogenesis and damage response.Telomere repeat binding factor 2 (TRF2) has been increasingly recognized to be involved in telomere maintenance and DNA damage response. Here, we show that TRF2 directly binds SIRT6 in a DNA independent manner and that this interaction is increased upon replication stress. Knockdown of SIRT6 upregulates TRF2 protein levels and counteracts its down-regulation during DNA damage response, leading to cell survival. Moreover, we report that SIRT6 deactetylates in vivo the TRFH domain of TRF2, which in turn, is ubiquitylated in vivo activating the ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis. Notably, overexpression of the TRF2(cT) mutant failed to be stabilized by SIRT6 depletion, demonstrating that the TRFH domain is required for its post-transcriptional modification. Finally, we report an inverse correlation between SIRT6 and TRF2 protein expression levels in a cohort of colon rectal cancer patients. Taken together our findings describe TRF2 as a novel SIRT6 substrate and demonstrate that acetylation of TRF2 plays a crucial role in the regulation of TRF2 protein stability, thus providing a new route for modulating its expression level during oncogenesis and damage response

La jurisdicción y la protección internacional de los derechos humanos

La Jurisdicción y la Protección Internacional de los Derechos Humanos presenta a la comunidad académica y a los profesionales del derecho, una interesante reflexión teórico-práctica cuyo componente central es la protección de los derechos en el contexto internacional, que comprende discusiones desde la interacción de los sistemas jurídicos, hasta los mecanismos de protección del medioambiente, la defensa de los derechos humanos y los alcances de la Corte Penal Internacional

Efficacy of rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis after knee arthroscopy (ERIKA): A phase ii, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised study

Without thromboprophylaxis, knee arthroscopy (KA) carries a low to moderate risk of venous thromboembolism. Over 5 million arthroscopies are performed worldwide yearly. It was our study objective to assess the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis after therapeutic KA. Patients undergoing KA in nine Italian teaching or community hospitals were allocated to once-daily rivaroxaban (10 mg) or placebo for seven days in a phase II, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause death, symptomatic thromboembolism and asymptomatic proximal DVT at three months; major bleeding represented the primary safety outcome. All patients underwent whole-leg ultrasonography at day 7(+1), or earlier if symptomatic. A total of 241 patients were randomised (122 rivaroxaban, 119 placebo), and 234 completed the study. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 1/120 of the rivaroxaban group and in 7/114 of the placebo group (0.8% vs 6.1%, respectively, p=0.03; absolute risk difference, -5.3%, 95 °% CI, -11.4 to -0.8; crude relative risk 0.14, 95%> CI, 0.02 to 0.83; number-needed-to-treat=19). No major bleedings were observed. We found no association between different arthroscopic procedures and thrombotic events. Small sample size, high exclusion rate, and low number of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures are the main limitations of our study. In conclusion, a seven-day course of 10-mg rivaroxaban may be safely employed for thromboprophylaxis after KA. Whether prophylaxis after KA should be given to all patients, or to selected "high-risk" subjects, remains to be determined. A larger trial to verify our preliminary results is warranted