ATHENA: A Phase 3, Open-Label Study Of The Safety And Effectiveness Of Oliceridine (TRV130), A G-Protein Selective Agonist At The µ-Opioid Receptor, In Patients With Moderate To Severe Acute Pain Requiring Parenteral Opioid Therapy.

Background:Pain management with conventional opioids can be challenging due to dose-limiting adverse events (AEs), some of which may be related to the simultaneous activation of β-arrestin (a signaling pathway associated with opioid-related AEs) and G-protein pathways. The investigational analgesic oliceridine is a G-protein-selective agonist at the µ-opioid receptor with less recruitment of β-arrestin. The objective of this phase 3, open-label, multi-center study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability, of IV oliceridine for moderate to severe acute pain in a broad, real-world patient population, including postoperative surgical patients and non-surgical patients with painful medical conditions. Methods:Adult patients with a score ≥4 on 11-point NRS for pain intensity received IV oliceridine either by bolus or PCA; multimodal analgesia was permitted. Safety was assessed using AE reports, study discontinuations, clinical laboratory and vital sign measures. Results:A total of 768 patients received oliceridine. The mean age (SD) was 54.1 (16.1) years, with 32% ≥65 years of age. Most patients were female (65%) and Caucasian (78%). Surgical patients comprised the majority of the study population (94%), most common being orthopedic (30%), colorectal (15%) or gynecologic (15%) procedures. Multimodal analgesia was administered to 84% of patients. Oliceridine provided a rapid reduction in NRS pain score by 2.2 ± 2.3 at 30 mins from a score of 6.3 ± 2.1 (at baseline) which was maintained to the end of treatment. No deaths or significant cardiorespiratory events were reported. The incidence of AEs leading to early discontinuation and serious AEs were 2% and 3%, respectively. Nausea (31%), constipation (11%), and vomiting (10%) were the most common AEs. AEs were mostly of mild (37%) or moderate (25%) severity and considered possibly or probably related to oliceridine in 33% of patients. Conclusion:Oliceridine IV for the management of moderate to severe acute pain was generally safe and well tolerated in the patients studied. ClinicalTrialsgov identifier:NCT02656875

Evaluation of etoricoxib in patients undergoing total knee replacement surgery in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal postoperative pain management is important to ensure patient comfort and early mobilization. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated postoperative pain following knee replacement in patients receiving placebo, etoricoxib (90 or 120 mg), or ibuprofen 1800 mg daily for 7 days. Patients \u3e=18 years of age who had pain at rest \u3e=5 (0--10 Numerical Rating Scale [NRS]) after unilateral total knee replacement were randomly assigned to placebo (N = 98), etoricoxib 90 mg (N = 224), etoricoxib 120 mg (N = 230), or ibuprofen 1800 mg (N = 224) postoperatively. Co-primary endpoints included Average Pain Intensity Difference at Rest over Days 1--3 (0- to 10-point NRS) and Average Total Daily Dose of Morphine over Days 1--3. Pain upon movement was evaluated using Average Pain Intensity Difference upon Knee Flexion (0- to 10-point NRS). The primary objective was to demonstrate analgesic superiority for the etoricoxib doses vs. placebo; the secondary objective was to demonstrate that the analgesic effect of the etoricoxib doses was non-inferior to ibuprofen. Adverse experiences (AEs) including opioid-related AEs were evaluated. RESULTS: The least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) differences from placebo for Pain Intensity Difference at Rest over Days 1--3 were -0.54 (-0.95, -0.14); -0.49 (-0.89, -0.08); and -0.45 (-0.85, -0.04) for etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively (p \u3c 0.05 for etoricoxib vs. placebo). Differences in LS Geometric Mean Ratio morphine use over Days 1--3 from placebo were 0.66 (0.54, 0.82); 0.69 (0.56, 0.85); and 0.66 (0.53, 0.81) for etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively (p \u3c 0.001 for etoricoxib vs. placebo). Differences in LS Mean Pain Intensity upon Knee Flexion were -0.37 (-0.85, 0.11); -0.46 (-0.94, 0.01); and -0.42 (-0.90, 0.06) for etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively. Opioid-related AEs occurred in 41.8%, 34.7%, 36.5%, and 36.3% of patients on placebo, etoricoxib 90 mg, etoricoxib 120 mg, and ibuprofen, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative use of etoricoxib 90 and 120 mg in patients undergoing total knee replacement is both superior to placebo and non-inferior to ibuprofen in reducing pain at rest and also reduces opioid (morphine) consumption.Clinical trial registration: NCT00820027

Madness decolonized?: Madness as transnational identity in Gail Hornstein’s Agnes’s Jacket

The US psychologist Gail Hornstein’s monograph Agnes’s Jacket: A Psychologist’s Search for the Meanings of Madness (2009) is an important intervention in the identity politics of the mad movement. Hornstein offers a resignified vision of mad identity that embroiders the central trope of an “anti-colonial” struggle to reclaim the experiential world “colonized” by psychiatry. A series of literal and figurative appeals make recourse to the inner world and (corresponding) cultural world of the mad, as well as to the ethno-symbolic cultural materials of dormant nationhood. This rhetoric is augmented by a model in which the mad comprise a diaspora without an origin, coalescing into a single transnational community. The mad are also depicted as persons displaced from their metaphorical homeland, the “inner” world “colonized” by the psychiatric regime. There are a number of difficulties with Hornstein’s rhetoric, however. Her “ethnicity-and-rights” response to the oppression of the mad is symptomatic of Western parochialism, while her proposed transmutation of putative psychopathology from limit upon identity to parameter of successful identity is open to contestation. Moreover, unless one accepts Hornstein’s porous vision of mad identity, her self-ascribed insider status in relation to the mad community may present a problematic “re-colonization” of mad experience

Reproducibility of microvessel counts in breast cancer specimens

Assessment of tumour vascularity in core biopsy specimens may be a useful predictor of response to primary therapy. This study addresses practical methodological issues regarding accuracy of tumour vascularity assessments in different breast cancer specimens. Issues addressed in the study are variation caused by (i) inherent observer variation in the method, (ii) tumour heterogeneity and (iii) previous surgical manipulation of tumours. Microvessel counts were performed by two observers on separate occasions and by two different observers. Counts were performed on core biopsies and tumour sections taken simultaneously (n = 16) and with an intervening time interval (n = 21). In addition core biopsies were obtained from the same tumour on two separate occasions (n = 10). A highly significant correlation was found in counts performed by the same observers at different times and between two different observers. No significant correlation was found in counts of core biopsies and tumour sections taken either simultaneously or subsequently. No correlation was found between counts of sequential core biopsies. Study findings suggest that, although microvessel counts may be assessed reproducibly by the same and different observers, counts performed in core biopsies do not accurately reflect those of overall tumour, limiting their potential as predictive or prognostic markers. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Outcome analysis following removal of locking plate fixation of the proximal humerus

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Concerning surgical management experience with locking plates for proximal humeral fractures has been described with promising results. Though, distinct hardware related complaints after fracture union are reported. Information concerning the outcome after removal of hardware from the proximal humerus is lacking and most studies on hardware removal are focused on the lower extremity. Therefore the aim of this study was to analyze the functional short-term outcome following removal of locking plate fixation of the proximal humerus.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients undergoing removal of a locking plate of the proximal humerus were prospectively followed. Patients were subdivided into the following groups: Group HI: symptoms of hardware related subacromial impingement, Group RD: persisting rotation deficit, Group RQ: patients with request for a hardware removal. The clinical (Constant-Murley score) and radiologic (AP and axial view) follow-up took place three and six months after the operation. To evaluate subjective results, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), was completed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>59 patients were included. The mean length of time with the hardware in place was 15.2 ± 3.81 months. The mean of the adjusted overall Constant score before hardware removal was 66.2 ± 25.2% and increased significantly to 73.1 ± 22.5% after 3 months; and to 84.3 ± 20.6% after 6 months (p < 0.001). The mean of preoperative pain on the VAS-scale before hardware removal was 5.2 ± 2.9, after 6 months pain in all groups decreased significantly (p < 0.001). The SF-36 physical component score revealed a significant overall improvement in both genders (p < 0.001) at six months.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A significant improvement of clinical outcome following removal was found. However, a general recommendation for hardware removal is not justified, as the risk of an anew surgical and anesthetic procedure with all possible complications has to be carefully taken into account. However, for patients with distinct symptoms it might be justified.</p

Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature

Introduction: The aim of this review was to collect and summarize published data on the indications for implant removal after fracture healing, since these are not well defined and guidelines hardly exist. Methods: A literature search was performed. Results: Though there are several presumed benefits of implant removal, such as functional improvement and pain relief, the surgical procedure can be very challenging and may lead to complications or even worsening of the complaints. Research has focused on the safety of metal implants (e.g., risk of corrosion, allergy, and carcinogenesis). For these reasons, implants have been removed routinely for decades. Along with the introduction of titanium alloy implants, the need for implant removal became a subject of debate in view of potential (dis)advantages since, in general, implants made of titanium alloys are more difficult to remove. Currently, the main indications for removal from both the upper and lower extremity are mostly 'relative' and patient-driven, such as pain, prominent material, or simply the request for removal. True medical indications like infection or intra-articular material are minor reasons. Conclusion: This review illustrates the great variety of view points in the literature, with large differences in opinions and practices about the indications for implant removal after fracture healing. Since some studies have described asymptomatic patients developing complaints after removal, the general advice nowadays is to remove implants after fracture healing only in symptomatic patients and after a proper informed consent. Well-designed prospective studies on this subject are urgently needed in order to form guidelines based on scientific evidence

Contesting the psychiatric framing of ME / CFS

ME/CFS is a medically contested illness and its understanding, framing and treatment has been the subject of heated debate. This paper examines why framing the condition as a psychiatric issue—what we refer to as ‘psychiatrisation’—has been so heavily contested by patients and activists. We argue that this contestation is not simply about stigmatising mental health conditions, as some have suggested, but relates to how people diagnosed with mental illness are treated in society, psychiatry and the law. We highlight the potentially harmful consequences of psychiatrisation which can lead to people’s experiential knowledge being discredited. This stems, in part, from a psychiatric-specific form of ‘epistemic injustice’ which can result in unhelpful, unwanted and forced treatments. This understanding helps explain why the psychiatrisation of ME/CFS has become the focus of such bitter debate and why psychiatry itself has become such a significant field of contention, for both ME/CFS patients and mental health service users/survivors. Notwithstanding important differences, both reject the way psychiatry denies patient explanations and understandings, and therefore share a collective struggle for justice and legitimation. Reasons why this shared struggle has not resulted in alliances between ME and mental health activists are noted