Investigating therapeutic usage of combined Ticagrelor and Aspirin through solid-state and analytical studies

The mainstay treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome is an oral route dual antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y12-receptor antagonist and Aspirin (ASA). To improve patient adherence to such treatments, combination therapies (polypill) are envisioned. Physicochemical solid-state studies have been carried out to develop a preformulation strategy of ASA with the P2Y12-receptor antagonist Ticagrelor (TIC). The investigations were carried out using differential scanning calorimetry, liquid chromatography-high resolution-multistage mass spectrometry (LC-HR-MSn) and as complementary techniques Fourier transform infrared measurements and thermogravimetric analysis. A simple eutectic transition at 98 °C with a mole fraction for the eutectic liquid of 0.457 has been observed and the mixing of ASA and TIC molecules in each other's crystal structures appears to be limited. No cocrystals of TIC and ASA have been found. The appearance of the eutectic liquid was linked with a clear onset of chemical instability of the two pharmaceuticals. The decomposition mechanism in the liquid phase involves prior decomposition of ASA, whose residues react with well-identified TIC interaction sites. Seven interaction products were observed by LC-HR-MSn linked to corresponding degradation products. The most important degradation pathway is N-dealkylation. In conclusion, polypills of ASA and TIC are a viable approach, but the decomposition of ASA should be avoided by eliminating high temperatures and high humidity.Peer ReviewedPreprin

Utilité et qualité du veilleur professionnel dans la société de l\u27information : le cas de la veille collaborative.

Mémoire de fin d\u27études de l\u27Enssib. Promotion Sciences de l\u27information et des bibliothèques et information scientifique et technique de l\u27année universitaire 2020-2021

The HubBLe Trial: haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) versus rubber band ligation (RBL) for symptomatic second- and third-degree haemorrhoids: a multicentre randomised controlled trial and health-economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Optimal surgical intervention for low-grade haemorrhoids is unknown. Rubber band ligation (RBL) is probably the most common intervention. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) is a novel alternative that may be more efficacious. OBJECTIVE: The comparison of HAL with RBL for the treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids. DESIGN: A multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. PERSPECTIVE: UK NHS and Personal Social Services. SETTING: 17 NHS Trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years presenting with grade II/III (second- and third-degree) haemorrhoids, including those who have undergone previous RBL. INTERVENTIONS: HAL with Doppler probe compared with RBL. OUTCOMES: Primary outcome - recurrence at 1 year post procedure; secondary outcomes - recurrence at 6 weeks; haemorrhoid severity score; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, 5-level version (EQ-5D-5L); Vaizey incontinence score; pain assessment; complications; and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 370 participants entered the trial. At 1 year post procedure, 30% of the HAL group had evidence of recurrence compared with 49% after RBL [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.51; p = 0.0005]. The main reason for the difference was the number of extra procedures required to achieve improvement/cure. If a single HAL is compared with multiple RBLs then only 37.5% recurred in the RBL arm (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15; p = 0.20). Persistence of significant symptoms at 6 weeks was lower in both arms than at 1 year (9% HAL and 29% RBL), suggesting significant deterioration in both groups over the year. Symptom score, EQ-5D-5L and Vaizey score improved in both groups compared with baseline, but there was no difference between interventions. Pain was less severe and of shorter duration in the RBL group; most of the HAL group who had pain had mild to moderate pain, resolving by 3 weeks. Complications were low frequency and not significantly different between groups. It appeared that HAL was not cost-effective compared with RBL. In the base-case analysis, the difference in mean total costs was £1027 higher for HAL. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for HAL; however, the difference was very small (0.01) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £104,427 per additional QALY. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, although HAL resulted in fewer recurrences, recurrence was similar to repeat RBL. Symptom scores, complications, EQ-5D-5L and continence score were no different, and patients had more pain in the early postoperative period after HAL. HAL is more expensive and unlikely to be cost-effective in terms of incremental cost per QALY. LIMITATIONS: Blinding of participants and site staff was not possible. FUTURE WORK: The incidence of recurrence may continue to increase with time. Further follow-up would add to the evidence regarding long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The polysymptomatic nature of haemorrhoidal disease requires a validated scoring system, and the data from this trial will allow further assessment of validity of such a system. These data add to the literature regarding treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids. The results dovetail with results from the eTHoS study [Watson AJM, Hudson J, Wood J, Kilonzo M, Brown SR, McDonald A, et al. Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016, in press.] comparing stapled haemorrhoidectomy with excisional haemorrhoidectomy. Combined results will allow expansion of analysis, allowing surgeons to tailor their treatment options to individual patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41394716. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Systematic review of surgical interventions for Crohn's anal fistula

Background Anal fistula occurs in approximately one in three patients with Crohn's disease and is typically managed through a multimodal approach. The optimal surgical therapy is not yet clear. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and assess the literature on surgical treatments of Crohn's anal fistula. Methods A systematic review was conducted that analysed studies relating to surgical treatment of Crohn's anal fistula published on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases between January 1995 and March 2016. Studies reporting specific outcomes of patients treated for Crohn's anal fistula were included. The primary outcome was fistula healing rate. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS‐I and ROB tool as appropriate. Results A total of 1628 citations were reviewed. Sixty‐three studies comprising 1584 patients were ultimately selected in the analyses. There was extensive reporting on the use of setons, advancement flaps and fistula plugs. Randomized trials were available only for stem cells and fistula plugs. There was inconsistency in outcome measures across studies, and a high degree of bias was noted. Conclusion Data describing surgical intervention for Crohn's anal fistula are heterogeneous with a high degree of bias. There is a clear need for standardization of outcomes and description of study cohorts for better understanding of treatment options

Development of a Connected Sensor System in Colorectal Surgery:User-Centered Design Case Study

BACKGROUND: A successful innovative medical device is not only technically challenging to develop but must also be readily usable to be integrated into health care professionals’ daily practice. Through a user-centered design (UCD) approach, usability can be improved. However, this type of approach is not widely implemented from the early stages of medical device development. OBJECTIVE: The case study presented here shows how UCD may be applied at the very early stage of the design of a disruptive medical device used in a complex hospital environment, while no functional device is available yet. The device under study is a connected sensor system to detect colorectal anastomotic leakage, the most detrimental complication following colorectal surgery, which has a high medical cost. We also aimed to provide usability guidelines for the initial design of other innovative medical devices. METHODS: UCD was implemented by actively involving health care professionals and all the industrial partners of the project. The methodology was conducted in 2 European hospitals: Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital (France) and Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands). A total of 6 elective colorectal procedures and 5 ward shifts were observed. In total, 4 workshops were conducted with project partners and clinicians. A formative evaluation was performed based on 5 usability tests using nonfunctional prototype systems. The case study was completed within 12 months. RESULTS: Functional specifications were defined for the various components of the medical device: device weight, size, design, device attachment, and display module. These specifications consider the future integration of the medical device into current clinical practice (for use in an operating room and patient follow-up inside the hospital) and interactions between surgeons, nurses, nurse assistants, and patients. By avoiding irrelevant technical development, this approach helps to promote cost-effective design. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents the successful deployment over 12 months of a UCD methodology for the design of an innovative medical device during its early development phase. To help in reusing this methodology to design other innovative medical devices, we suggested best practices based on this case

Obstructed defaecation syndrome: European consensus guidelines on the surgical management.

Not availabl

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users.

Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion. We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons' characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis. The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy. Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery:an international Delphi study of expert users

Background: Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion. Methods: We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons’ characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis. Results: The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy. Conclusion: Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.</p