Alginate Microencapsulation of Human Islets Does Not Increase Susceptibility to Acute Hypoxia

Islet transplantation in diabetes is hampered by the need of life-long immunosuppression. Encapsulation provides partial immunoprotection but could possibly limit oxygen supply, a factor that may enhance hypoxia-induced beta cell death in the early posttransplantation period. Here we tested susceptibility of alginate microencapsulated human islets to experimental hypoxia (0.1–0.3% O2 for 8 h, followed by reoxygenation) on viability and functional parameters. Hypoxia reduced viability as measured by MTT by 33.8±3.5% in encapsulated and 42.9±5.2% in nonencapsulated islets (P<0.2). Nonencapsulated islets released 37.7% (median) more HMGB1 compared to encapsulated islets after hypoxic culture conditions (P<0.001). Glucose-induced insulin release was marginally affected by hypoxia. Basal oxygen consumption was equally reduced in encapsulated and nonencapsulated islets, by 22.0±6.1% versus 24.8±5.7%. Among 27 tested cytokines/chemokines, hypoxia increased the secretion of IL-6 and IL-8/CXCL8 in both groups of islets, whereas an increase of MCP-1/CCL2 was seen only with nonencapsulated islets. Conclusion. Alginate microencapsulation of human islets does not increase susceptibility to acute hypoxia. This is a positive finding in relation to potential use of encapsulation for islet transplantation

Effects on cycle control and bodyweight of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, versus an oral contraceptive containing 30 µg ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg drospirenone

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare cycle control, cycle-related characteristics and bodyweight effects of NuvaRing with those of a combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing 30 µg of ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg of drospirenone. METHODS: A randomized, multicentre, open-label trial in which 983 women were treated (intent-to-treat population) with NuvaRing or the COC for 13 cycles. RESULTS: Breakthrough bleeding or spotting during cycles 2-13 was in general less frequent with NuvaRing than that with the COC (4.7-10.4%) and showed a statistically significant odds ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval: 0.46, 0.80) with longitudinal analysis. Intended bleeding was significantly better for all cycles with NuvaRing (55.2-68.5%) than that with the COC (35.6-56.6%) (P < 0.01). Changes from baseline in mean bodyweight and body composition parameters were relatively small for both groups with no notable between-group differences. CONCLUSION: NuvaRing was associated with better cycle control than the COC, and there was no clinically relevant difference between the two groups in bodyweigh

Can antibiotic prescriptions in respiratory tract infections be improved? A cluster-randomized educational intervention in general practice – The Prescription Peer Academic Detailing (Rx-PAD) Study [NCT00272155]

BACKGROUND: More than half of all antibiotic prescriptions in general practice are issued for respiratory tract infections (RTIs), despite convincing evidence that many of these infections are caused by viruses. Frequent misuse of antimicrobial agents is of great global health concern, as we face an emerging worldwide threat of bacterial antibiotic resistance. There is an increasing need to identify determinants and patterns of antibiotic prescribing, in order to identify where clinical practice can be improved. METHODS/DESIGN: Approximately 80 peer continuing medical education (CME) groups in southern Norway will be recruited to a cluster randomized trial. Participating groups will be randomized either to an intervention- or a control group. A multifaceted intervention has been tailored, where key components are educational outreach visits to the CME-groups, work-shops, audit and feedback. Prescription Peer Academic Detailers (Rx-PADs), who are trained GPs, will conduct the educational outreach visits. During these visits, evidence-based recommendations of antibiotic prescriptions for RTIs will be presented and software will be handed out for installation in participants PCs, enabling collection of prescription data. These data will subsequently be linked to corresponding data from the Norwegian Prescription Database (NorPD). Individual feedback reports will be sent all participating GPs during and one year after the intervention. Main outcomes are baseline proportion of inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions for RTIs and change in prescription patterns compared to baseline one year after the initiation of the tailored pedagogic intervention. DISCUSSION: Improvement of prescription patterns in medical practice is a challenging task. A thorough evaluation of guidelines for antibiotic treatment in RTIs may impose important benefits, whereas inappropriate prescribing entails substantial costs, as well as undesirable consequences like development of antibiotic resistance. Our hypothesis is that an educational intervention program will be effective in improving prescription patterns by reducing the total number of antibiotic prescriptions, as well as reducing the amount of broad-spectrum antibiotics, with special emphasis on macrolides

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to enable person-centred care for people with dementia and their carers (DCM-EPIC) in care homes: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Up to 90 % of people living with dementia in care homes experience one or more behaviours that staff may describe as challenging to support (BSC). Of these agitation is the most common and difficult to manage. The presence of agitation is associated with fewer visits from relatives, poorer quality of life and social isolation. It is recommended that agitation is treated through psychosocial interventions. Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM™) is an established, widely used observational tool and practice development cycle, for ensuring a systematic approach to providing person-centred care. There is a body of practice-based literature and experience to suggests that DCM™ is potentially effective but limited robust evidence for its effectiveness, and no examination of its cost-effectiveness, as a UK health care intervention. Therefore, a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of DCM™ in the UK is urgently needed. Methods/design A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised controlled trial of Dementia Care Mapping (DCM™) plus Usual Care (UC) versus UC alone, where UC is the normal care delivered within the care home following a minimum level of dementia awareness training. The trial will take place in residential, nursing and dementia-specialist care homes across West Yorkshire, Oxfordshire and London, with residents with dementia. A random sample of 50 care homes will be selected within which a minimum of 750 residents will be registered. Care homes will be randomised in an allocation ratio of 3:2 to receive either intervention or control. Outcome measures will be obtained at 6 and 16 months following randomisation. The primary outcome is agitation as measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, at 16 months post randomisation. Key secondary outcomes are other BSC and quality of life. There will be an integral cost-effectiveness analysis and a process evaluation. Discussion The protocol was refined following a pilot of trial procedures. Changes include replacement of a questionnaire, whose wording caused some residents distress, to an adapted version specifically designed for use in care homes, a change to the randomisation stratification factors, adaption in how the staff measures are collected to encourage greater compliance, and additional reminders to intervention homes of when mapping cycles are due, via text message. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. Registered on 16 January 2014. Full protocol version and date: v7.1: 18 December 2015

Effects on cycle control and bodyweight of the combined contraceptive ring, NuvaRing, versus an oral contraceptive containing 30 microg ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg drospirenone

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare cycle control, cycle-related characteristics and bodyweight effects of NuvaRing with those of a combined oral contraceptive (COC) containing 30 microg of ethinyl estradiol and 3 mg of drospirenone. METHODS: A randomized, multicentre, open-label trial in which 983 women were treated (intent-to-treat population) with NuvaRing or the COC for 13 cycles. RESULTS: Breakthrough bleeding or spotting during cycles 2-13 was in general less frequent with NuvaRing than that with the COC (4.7-10.4%) and showed a statistically significant odds ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval: 0.46, 0.80) with longitudinal analysis. Intended bleeding was significantly better for all cycles with NuvaRing (55.2-68.5%) than that with the COC (35.6-56.6%) (P < 0.01). Changes from baseline in mean bodyweight and body composition parameters were relatively small for both groups with no notable between-group differences. CONCLUSION: NuvaRing was associated with better cycle control than the COC, and there was no clinically relevant difference between the two groups in bodyweight

Prescribing drugs in primary health care - Thoughts, information strategy and outcome

Aims: General aim; to investigate whether tailored evidence-based drug information provided to general practitioners can be implemented more effectively than evidence-based drug information provided as usual. Specific aims; to describe general practitioners’ (GPs) thoughts on prescribing medication and evidence-based drug information: to explore GPs’ attitudes on drug information: to investigate whether tailored evidence-based drug information can influence these attitudes differently or the prescribing behaviour more effectively than drug information provided as usual.Methods: Focus-group interviews with a descriptive qualitative approach (I), a cross sectional survey using an attitude questionnaire analysed in a multilevel mode and by multiple logistic regression (II), and a randomised controlled study (RCTs, III and IV) were used. In the two latter medical information officers (MIOs) providing drug information to GPs were matched pair-wise and randomised into intervention or control groups. The GPs were cluster randomised by their MIOs. The intervention MIOs were trained to provide evidence-based drug information tailored with motivational interviewing and to focus on the benefit aspect. The control MIOs provided evidence-based drug information as usual. Data was collected by an attitude questionnaire (III), analysed by the Mann-Whitney test and intention-to-treat. Prescriptions for antihypertensive drugs were collected (IV). The change in proportion of ACE inhibitor prescriptions relative to the sum of ACE inhibitors and Angiotensin II receptor blockers, during 0–3 and 4–6 months after the intervention, was analysed with multiple linear regression, by intention-to-treat and per protocol.Results: GPs thoughts on prescribing medication and on evidence-based medicine dealt much with benefit. The core category ‘prompt and pragmatic benefit’ was the utmost benefit (I). A majority of the GPs perceived the information from the industry as too excessive; that the main task of the industry was to promote sales. The quality of public information was regarded as high and useful. Female GPs valued public information to a much greater extent than did male GPs (II). The changes in attitudes to drug information did not differ between the two groups (III). Information was given to 29% of GPs in both groups (IV). The GPs’ average change in proportion of prescribed ACE inhibitors increased in both groups after the intervention. General conclusions and implications: GPs’ thoughts on evidence-based drug information and prescribing medication relates predominantly to ‘prompt and pragmatic benefit’; delivered immediately, useful and handy. Female GPs valued public drug information much more than male GPs did, which might be useful to know in future implementation. GPs’ attitudes on drug information did not differ between the groups after the intervention. Neither did the change in proportion of prescribed ACE inhibitors differ. This indicates no benefit in using tailored evidence-based drug information compared to drug information provided as usual