Impact Of Bariatric Surgery on Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: To assess the occurrence of GERD after bariatric surgery and surgery impact on GERD. Methods: This research employs a cross-sectional study design to investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) among individuals who have undergone various types of bariatric surgeries. Results: The study included 302 participants. The most frequent weight among them was more than 96 kg (n= 130, 43%) followed by 76-85 kg (n= 51, 16.9%). The most frequent height among study participants was 1.61-1.70 m (n= 100, 33.1%) followed by 1.51-1.60 m (n= 99, 32.8%). The most frequent body mass index (BMI) value among study participants was more than 35 kg/m2 (n= 126, 41.7%) followed by 25-29.9 kg/m2 (n= 67, 22.2%). The most frequent age among study participants was 26-36 years (n= 104, 34.4%) followed by 15-25 years (n= 83, 27.5%). The most frequent gender among study participants was Female (n= 162, 53.6%) followed by Male (n= 140, 46.4%). Participants were asked about the type of obesity surgery. The most frequent was Gastric sleeve (n=222, 73.5%), followed by Gastric bypass (n=33, 10.9%).   Conclusion: Study results showed that most of the study participants are extremely obese according to their BMI. The most common obesity surgery type was a Gastric sleeve followed by a Gastric bypass. The most of participants were a non-smoker. Most of them had weight loss. In addition, most of the study participants had good social connection

Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article

Design, Physical Characterizations, and Biocompatibility of Cationic Solid Lipid Nanoparticles in HCT-116 and 16-HBE Cells: A Preliminary Study

In this study, pEGFP-LUC was used as a model plasmid and three distinct cationic lipids (dioleyloxy-propyl-trimethylammonium chloride [DOTMA], dioleoyl trimethylammonium propane [DOTAP], and cetylpyridinium chloride [CPC]) were tested along with PEG 5000, as a nonionic surfactant, to prepare glyceryl monostearate (GMS)-based cationic solid lipid nanoparticles (cSLNs). Both the type and quantity of surfactant had an impact on the physicochemical characteristics of the cSLNs. Thermal analysis of the greater part of the endothermic peaks of the cSLNs revealed they were noticeably different from the individual pure compounds based on their zeta potential (ZP ranging from +17 to +56 mV) and particle size (PS ranging from 185 to 244 nm). The addition of cationic surfactants was required to produce nanoparticles (NPs) with a positive surface charge. This suggested that the surfactants and extensive entanglement of the lipid matrix GMS provided support for the behavioral diversity of the cSLNs and their capacity to interface with the plasmid DNA. Additionally, hemolytic assays were used to show that the cSLNs were biocompatible with the human colon cancer HCT-116 and human bronchial epithelial 16-HBE cell lines. The DOTMA 6-based cSLN was selected as the lead cSLN for further ex vivo and in vivo investigations. Taken together, these new findings might provide some guidance in selecting surfactants to prepare extremely efficient and non-toxic cSLN-based therapeutic delivery systems (e.g., gene therapy)

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

Introduction: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal