Interleukin-17 Expression in the Barrett’s Metaplasia-Dysplasia-Adenocarcinoma Sequence

Original Research ArticleIntroduction. This pilot study evaluated the expression of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-17 along the Barrett’s metaplasia-dysplasia-adenocarcinoma sequence by establishing the expression levels of IL-17 in columnar epithelium, intestinal metaplastic cells, and dysplastic/glandular neoplastic cells. Immunohistochemical techniques were used to examine the accumulation of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-17 in forty () formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded oesophageal archived specimens across a range of endoscopic diagnostic categories, and a highly significant difference was found, where , in IL-17 expression (Kruskall Wallis and Mann-Whitney ) between all the cell types examined. There was also a strong positive correlation (Spearman's rank correlation) between disease progression and IL-17 expression (, , ), IL-17 expression was absent or absent/weak in columnar epithelium, weak to moderate in columnar metaplastic cells, and moderate to strong in dysplastic/neoplastic cells, which demonstrated that the elevation of IL-17 expression occurs in the progression of the disease. Understanding the differential expression of IL-17 between benign and malignant tissue potentially has a significant diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic value. Ultimately, this selective biomarker may be employed in routine clinical practice for the screening of oesophageal adenocarcinoma.The authors thankfully acknowledge the University of Chester for their financial support

EZH2 inhibition: a promising strategy to prevent cancer immune editing

Immunotherapies are revolutionizing the clinical management of a wide range of cancers. However, intrinsic or acquired unresponsiveness to immunotherapies does occur due to the dynamic cancer immunoediting which ultimately leads to immune escape. The evolutionarily conserved histone modifier enhancer of zeste 2 (EZH2) is aberrantly overexpressed in a number of human cancers. Accumulating studies indicate that EZH2 is a main driver of cancer cells’ immunoediting and mediate immune escape through downregulating immune recognition and activation, upregulating immune checkpoints and creating an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. In this review, we overviewed the roles of EZH2 in cancer immunoediting, the preclinical and clinical studies of current pharmacologic EZH2 inhibitors and the prospects for EZH2 inhibitor and immunotherapy combination for cancer treatment

B-type natriuretic peptide trumps other prognostic markers in patients assessed for coronary disease

Background: Risk prediction for patients with suspected coronary artery disease is complex due to the common occurrence of prior cardiovascular disease and extensive risk modification in primary care. Numerous markers have the potential to predict prognosis and guide management, but we currently lack robust 'real-world' evidence for their use. Methods: Prospective, multicentre observational study of consecutive patients referred for elective coronary angiography. Clinicians were blinded to all risk assessments, consisting of conventional factors, radial artery pulse wave analysis, 5-minute heart rate variability, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). Blinded, independent adjudication was performed for all-cause mortality and the composite of death, myocardial infarction or stroke, analysed with Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Five hundred twenty-two patients were assessed with median age 66 years and 21% prior revascularization. Median baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was 64%, and 62% had ≥ 50% stenosis on angiography. During 5.0 years median follow-up, 30% underwent percutaneous and 16% surgical revascularization. In multivariate analysis, only age and BNP were independently associated with outcomes. The adjusted hazard ratio per log unit increase in BNP was 2.15 for mortality (95% CI 1.45-3.19; p = 0.0001) and 1.27 for composite events (1.04-1.54; p = 0.018). Patients with baseline BNP > 100 pg/mL had substantially higher mortality and composite events (20.9% and 32.2%) than those with BNP ≤ 100 pg/mL (5.6% and 15.5%). BNP improved both classification and discrimination of outcomes (p ≤ 0.003), regardless of left ventricular systolic function. Conversely, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, pulse wave analysis and heart rate variability were unrelated to prognosis at 5 years after risk modification and treatment of coronary disease. Conclusions: Conventional risk factors and other markers of arterial compliance, inflammation and autonomic function have limited value for prediction of outcomes in risk-modified patients assessed for coronary disease. BNP can independently identify patients with subtle impairment of cardiac function that might benefit from more intensive management. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00403351 Registered on 22 November 200

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines for pain management: an overview of systematic reviews

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBM) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We assessed methodological quality, scope, and results of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of these treatments. Several search strategies sought self-declared systematic reviews. Methodological quality was assessed using both AMSTAR-2 and techniques important for bias reduction in pain studies. Of the 106 articles read, 57 were self-declared systematic reviews, most published since 2010. They included any type of cannabinoid, cannabis, or CBM, at any dose, however administered, in a broad range of pain conditions. No review examined the effects of a particular cannabinoid, at a particular dose, using a particular route of administration, for a particular pain condition, reporting a particular analgesic outcome. Confidence in the results in the systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 definitions was critically low (41), low (8), moderate (6), or high (2). Few used criteria important for bias reduction in pain. Cochrane reviews typically provided higher confidence; all industry-conflicted reviews provided critically low confidence. Meta-analyses typically pooled widely disparate studies, and, where assessable, were subject to potential publication bias. Systematic reviews with positive or negative recommendation for use of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain typically rated critically low or low (24/25 [96%] positive; 10/12 [83%] negative). Current reviews are mostly lacking in quality and cannot provide a basis for decision-making. A new high-quality systematic review of randomised controlled trials is needed to critically assess the clinical evidence for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents

Background Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important. We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents. As the leading cause of morbidity in children and adolescents in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications: nociceptive, neuropathic, idiopathic, visceral, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and other unknown reasons. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is one of the most widely used analgesics in both adults and children. The recommended dosage in the UK, Europe, Australia, and the USA for children and adolescents is generally 10 to 15 mg/kg every four to six hours, with specific age ranges from 60 mg (6 to 12 months old) up to 500 to 1000 mg (over 12 years old). Paracetamol is the only recommended analgesic for children under 3 months of age. Paracetamol has been proven to be safe in appropriate and controlled dosages, however potential adverse effects of paracetamol if overdosed or overused in children include liver and kidney failure. Objectives To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of paracetamol (acetaminophen) used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of StudiesOnline, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing paracetamol with placebo or an active comparator. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat, using standard methods where data were available. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a ' Summary of findings' table. Main results No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome. Authors' conclusions There was no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of paracetamol to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We know from adult randomised controlled trials that paracetamol, can be effective, in certain doses, and in certain pain conditions (not always chronic). This means that no conclusions could be made about efficacy or harm in the use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat chronic noncancer pain in children and adolescents

The STAR care pathway for patients with pain at 3 months after total knee replacement:a multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of people experience chronic pain after total knee replacement, but effective treatments are not available. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new care pathway for chronic pain after total knee replacement. METHODS: We did an unmasked, parallel group, pragmatic, superiority, randomised, controlled trial at eight UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. People with chronic pain at 3 months after total knee replacement surgery were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway plus usual care, or to usual care alone. The STAR intervention aimed to identify underlying causes of chronic pain and enable onward referrals for targeted treatment through a 3-month post-surgery assessment with an extended scope practitioner and telephone follow-up over 12 months. Co-primary outcomes were self-reported pain severity and pain interference in the replaced knee, assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference scales at 12 months (scored 0–10, best to worst) and analysed on an as-randomised basis. Resource use, collected from electronic hospital records and participants, was valued with UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from EQ-5D-5L responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN92545361. FINDINGS: Between Sept 6, 2016, and May 31, 2019, 363 participants were randomly assigned to receive the intervention plus usual care (n=242) or to receive usual care alone (n=121). Participants had a median age of 67 years (IQR 61 to 73), 217 (60%) of 363 were female, and 335 (92%) were White. 313 (86%) patients provided follow-up data at 12 months after randomisation (213 assigned to the intervention plus usual care and 100 assigned to usual care alone). At 12 months, the mean between-group difference in the BPI severity score was −0·65 (95% CI −1·17 to −0·13; p=0·014) and the mean between-group difference in the BPI interference score was −0·68 (−1·29 to −0·08; p=0·026), both favouring the intervention. From an NHS and personal social services perspective, the intervention was cost-effective (greater improvement with lower cost), with an incremental net monetary benefit of £1256 (95% CI 164 to 2348) at £20 000 per QALY threshold. One adverse reaction of participant distress was reported in the intervention group. INTERPRETATION: STAR is a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention to improve pain outcomes over 1 year for people with chronic pain at 3 months after total knee replacement surgery. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research

Better post-operative prediction and management of chronic pain in adults after total knee replacement:the multidisciplinary STAR research programme including RCT

Background: The treatment of osteoarthritis with knee replacement aims to reduce pain and disability. However, some people experience chronic pain. Objectives: To improve outcomes for people with chronic pain after knee replacement by identifying post-surgical predictors and effective interventions, characterising patient pathways and resource use, developing and evaluating a new care pathway, and exploring non-use of services. Design: The programme comprised systematic reviews, national database analyses, a cohort study, intervention development, a randomised controlled trial, health economic analyses, qualitative studies and stakeholder engagement. Extensive and meaningful patient and public involvement underpinned all studies. Setting: NHS, secondary care, primary care. Participants: People with, or at risk of, chronic pain after knee replacement and health-care professionals involved in the care of people with pain. Interventions: A care pathway for the management of people with pain at 3 months after knee replacement. Main outcome measures: Patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness over 12 months. Data sources: Literature databases, the National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, patient- reported outcomes, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, the Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty Study, the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement randomised trial, interviews with 90 patients and 14 health-care professionals, and stakeholder events. Review methods: Systematic reviews of cohort studies or randomised trials, using meta-analysis or narrative synthesis. Results: In the Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty Study cohort, 14% of people experienced chronic pain 1 year after knee replacement. By 5 years, 65% reported no pain, 31% fluctuated and 4% remained in chronic pain. People with chronic pain had a worse quality of life, higher primary care costs, and more frequent analgesia prescriptions, particularly for opioids, than those not in chronic pain. People with chronic pain after knee replacement who made little or no use of services often felt nothing more could be done, or that further treatments may have no benefit or cause harm. People described a feeling of disconnection from their replaced knee. Analysis of UK databases identified risk factors for chronic pain after knee replacement. Pre- operative predictors were mild knee pain, smoking, deprivation, body mass index between 35 and 40 kg/m2 and knee arthroscopy. Peri- and post-operative predictors were mechanical complications, infection, readmission, revision, extended hospital stay, manipulation under anaesthetic and use of opioids or antidepressants. In systematic reviews, pre-operative exercise and education showed no benefit in relation to chronic pain. Peri-operative interventions that merit further research were identified. Common peri- operative treatments were not associated with chronic pain. There was no strong evidence favouring specific post-operative physiotherapy content. We evaluated the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement care pathway in a multicentre randomised controlled trial. We randomised 363 people with pain at 3 months after knee replacement from eight NHS Trusts in England and Wales. At 12 months’ follow-up, the intervention group had lower mean pain severity (adjusted difference –0.65, 95% confidence interval –1.17 to -0.13; p = 0.014) and pain interference (adjusted difference –0.68, 95% confidence interval –1.29 to -0.08; p = 0.026), as measured on the Brief Pain Inventory subscales (scale 0–10). People receiving the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway had lower NHS and Personal Social Services costs (–£724, 95% confidence interval –£150 to £51) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.03, 95% confidence interval –0.008 to 0.06) than those with usual care. The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway was cost-effective with an incremental net monetary benefit at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold of £1256 (95% confidence interval £164 to £2348), indicating a 98.79% probability that the intervention is the cost-effective option. Participants found the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway acceptable, with opportunities to receive information and discuss concerns while ensuring further treatment and support. In systematic reviews considering treatments for chronic pain after surgery we identified some unifactorial interventions that merit further research after knee replacement. Health-care professionals delivering and implementing the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway valued its focus on neuropathic pain and psychosocial issues, enhanced patient care, formalised referrals, and improved pain management. Stakeholders supported pathway implementation. Limitations: Database analyses were limited to factors recorded in data sets. Pain was only measured 6 months after surgery. However, analyses including large numbers of centres and patients should be generalisable across the NHS. In many studies found in systematic reviews, long-term pain was not a key outcome. Conclusions: The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway is a clinically effective and cost-effective, acceptable intervention for the management of chronic pain after knee replacement. Unifactorial interventions merit further study before inclusion in patient care. People with pain should be empowered to seek health care, with the support of health-care professionals. Future work: Future work should include research relating to the implementation of the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway into the NHS, an assessment of its long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and wider application, and an evaluation of new interventions for incorporation in the pathway. It will also be important to design and conduct research to improve communication between patients and health-care professionals before surgery; explore whether or not education and support can enable earlier recognition of chronic pain; consider research that may identify how to support people’s feelings of disconnectedness from their new knee; and design and evaluate a pre-surgical intervention based on risk factors. Study registration: All systematic reviews were registered on PROSPERO (CRD42015015957, CRD42016041374 and CRD42017041382). The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement randomised trial was registered as ISRCTN92545361. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information