Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Show IgG Immune Responses Towards Specific Intestinal Bacterial Genera

Introduction: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is characterized by a disturbed gut microbiota composition. Patients with IBD have both elevated mucosal and serum levels of IgG-antibodies directed against bacterial antigens, including flagellins. In this study, we aimed to determine to which intestinal bacteria the humoral immune response is directed to in patients with IBD. Methods: Fecal and serum samples were collected from patients with IBD (n=55) and age- and sex-matched healthy controls (n=55). Fecal samples were incubated with autologous serum and IgG-coated fractions were isolated by magnetic-activated cell sorting (MACS) and its efficiency was assessed by flow cytometry. The bacterial composition of both untreated and IgG-coated fecal samples was determined by 16S rRNA-gene Illumina sequencing. Results: IgG-coated fecal samples were characterized by significantly lower microbial diversity compared to the fecal microbiome. Both in patients with IBD and controls, serum IgG responses were primarily directed to Streptococcus, Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Enterococcus, Veillonella and Enterobacteriaceae, as well as against specific Lachnospiraceae bacteria, including Coprococcus and Dorea (all P<0.001), and to Ruminococcus gnavus-like bacteria (P<0.05). In contrast, serological IgG responses against typical commensal, anaerobic and colonic microbial species were rather low, e.g. to the Lachnospiraceae members Roseburia and Blautia, to Faecalibacterium, as well as to Bacteroides. Patients with IBD showed more IgG-coating of Streptococcus, Lactobacillus, and Lactococcus bacteria compared to healthy controls (all P<0.05). No differences in IgG-coated bacterial fractions were observed between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, between active or non-active disease, nor between different disease locations. Conclusion: The IgG immune response is specifically targeted at distinct intestinal bacterial genera that are typically associated with the small intestinal microbiota, whereas responses against more colonic-type commensals are lower, which was particularly the case for patients with IBD. These findings may be indicative of a strong immunological exposure to potentially pathogenic intestinal bacteria in concordance with relative immune tolerance against commensal bacteria

Frovatriptan versus almotriptan for acute treatment of menstrual migraine: analysis of a double-blind, randomized, cross-over, multicenter, Italian, comparative study

The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan and almotriptan in women with menstrually related migraine (IHS Classification of Headache disorders) enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Patients received frovatriptan 2.5 mg or almotriptan 12.5 mg in a randomized sequence: after treating 3 episodes of migraine in no more than 3 months with the first treatment, the patient was switched to the other treatment. 67 of the 96 female patients of the intention-to-treat population of the main study had regular menstrual cycles and were thus included in this subgroup analysis. 77 migraine attacks classified as related to menses were treated with frovatriptan and 78 with almotriptan. Rate of pain relief at 2 and 4 h was 36 and 53 % for frovatriptan and 41 and 50 % for almotriptan (p = NS between treatments). Rate of pain free at 2 and 4 h was 19 and 47 % with frovatriptan and 29 and 54 % for almotriptan (p = NS). At 24 h, 62 % of frovatriptan-treated and 67 % of almotriptan-treated patients had pain relief, while 60 versus 67 % were pain free (p = NS). Recurrence at 24 h was significantly (p < 0.05) lower with frovatriptan (8 vs. 21 % almotriptan). This was the case also at 48 h (9 vs. 24 %, p < 0.05). Frovatriptan was as effective as almotriptan in the immediate treatment of menstrually related migraine attacks. However, it showed a more favorable sustained effect, as shown by a lower rate of migraine recurrence

Long-read sequencing-based in silico phage typing of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium

Abstract Background Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are successful nosocomial pathogens able to cause hospital outbreaks. In the Netherlands, core-genome MLST (cgMLST) based on short-read sequencing is often used for molecular typing. Long-read sequencing is more rapid and provides useful information about the genome’s structural composition but lacks the precision required for SNP-based typing and cgMLST. Here we compared prophages among 50 complete E. faecium genomes belonging to different lineages to explore whether a phage signature would be usable for typing and identifying an outbreak caused by VRE. As a proof of principle, we investigated if long-read sequencing data would allow for identifying phage signatures and thereby outbreak-related isolates. Results Analysis of complete genome sequences of publicly available isolates showed variation in phage content among different lineages defined by MLST. We identified phage present in multiple STs as well as phages uniquely detected within a single lineage. Next, in silico phage typing was applied to twelve MinION sequenced isolates belonging to two different genetic backgrounds, namely ST117/CT24 and ST80/CT16. Genomic comparisons of the long-read-based assemblies allowed us to correctly identify isolates of the same complex type based on global genome architecture and specific phage signature similarity. Conclusions For rapid identification of related VRE isolates, phage content analysis in long-read sequencing data is possible. This allows software development for real-time typing analysis of long-read sequencing data, which will generate results within several hours. Future studies are required to assess the discriminatory power of this method in the investigation of ongoing outbreaks over a longer time period

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or rizatriptan by preference questionnaire. 148 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack per month in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg treating 1–3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At the end of the study, patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain-free and pain relief episodes at 2 h, and recurrent and sustained pain-free episodes within 48 h. 104 of the 125 patients (83%, intention-to-treat population) expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (2.9 ± 1.3) and rizatriptan (3.2 ± 1.1). The rates of pain-free (33% frovatriptan vs. 39% rizatriptan) and pain relief (55 vs. 62%) episodes at 2 h were not significantly different between the two treatments. The rate of recurrent episodes was significantly (p < 0.001) lower under frovatriptan (21 vs. 43% rizatriptan). No significant differences were observed in sustained pain-free episodes (26% frovatriptan vs. 22% rizatriptan). The number of patients with adverse events was not significantly different between rizatriptan (34) and frovatriptan (25, p = NS). The results suggest that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy to rizatriptan, but a more prolonged duration of action

A double-blind, randomized, multicenter, Italian study of frovatriptan versus almotriptan for the acute treatment of migraine

The objective of this study was to evaluate patients’ satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or almotriptan by preference questionnaire. One hundred and thirty three subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or almotriptan 12.5 mg, treating 1–3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At study end patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain free and pain relief episodes at 2 and 4 h, and recurrent and sustained pain free episodes within 48 h. Of the 133 patients (86%, intention-to-treat population) 114 of them expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (3.1 ± 1.3) and almotriptan (3.4 ± 1.3). The rates of pain free (30% frovatriptan vs. 32% almotriptan) and pain relief (54% vs. 56%) episodes at 2 h did not significantly differ between treatments. This was the case also at 4 h (pain free: 56% vs. 59%; pain relief: 75% vs. 72%). Recurrent episodes were significantly (P < 0.05) less frequent under frovatriptan (30% vs. 44%), also for the attacks treated within 30 min. No significant differences were observed in sustained pain free episodes (21% vs. 18%). The tolerability profile was similar between the two drugs. In conclusion, our study suggests that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy of almotriptan in the short-term, while some advantages are observed during long-term treatment

Focus on the management of thunderclap headache: from nosography to treatment

Thunderclap headache (TCH) is an excruciating headache characterized by a very sudden onset. Recognition and accurate diagnosis of TCH are important in order to rule out the various, serious underlying brain disorders that, in a high percentage of cases, are the real cause of the headache. Primary TCH, which may recur intermittently and generally has a spontaneous, benign evolution, can thus be diagnosed only when all other potential underlying causes have been excluded through accurate diagnostic work up. In this review, we focus on the management of TCH, paying particular attention to the diagnostic work up and treatment of the condition

Italian guidelines for primary headaches: 2012 revised version

The first edition of the Italian diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines for primary headaches in adults was published in J Headache Pain 2(Suppl. 1):105–190 (2001). Ten years later, the guideline committee of the Italian Society for the Study of Headaches (SISC) decided it was time to update therapeutic guidelines. A literature search was carried out on Medline database, and all articles on primary headache treatments in English, German, French and Italian published from February 2001 to December 2011 were taken into account. Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analyses were analysed for each drug. If RCT were lacking, open studies and case series were also examined. According to the previous edition, four levels of recommendation were defined on the basis of levels of evidence, scientific strength of evidence and clinical effectiveness. Recommendations for symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine and cluster headache were therefore revised with respect to previous 2001 guidelines and a section was dedicated to non-pharmacological treatment. This article reports a summary of the revised version published in extenso in an Italian version