Randomized Controlled Trial of Fish Oil and Montelukast and Their Combination on Airway Inflammation and Hyperpnea-Induced Bronchoconstriction

Both fish oil and montelukast have been shown to reduce the severity of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB). The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of fish oil and montelukast, alone and in combination, on airway inflammation and bronchoconstriction induced by eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH) in asthmatics. In this model of EIB, twenty asthmatic subjects with documented hyperpnea-induced bronchoconstriction (HIB) entered a randomized double-blind trial. All subjects entered on their usual diet (pre-treatment, n = 20) and then were randomly assigned to receive either one active 10 mg montelukast tablet and 10 placebo fish oil capsules (n = 10) or one placebo montelukast tablet and 10 active fish oil capsules totaling 3.2 g EPA and 2.0 g DHA (n = 10) taken daily for 3-wk. Thereafter, all subjects (combination treatment; n = 20) underwent another 3-wk treatment period consisting of a 10 mg active montelukast tablet or 10 active fish oil capsules taken daily. While HIB was significantly inhibited (p0.017) between treatment groups; percent fall in forced expiratory volume in 1-sec was −18.4±2.1%, −9.3±2.8%, −11.6±2.8% and −10.8±1.7% on usual diet (pre-treatment), fish oil, montelukast and combination treatment respectively. All three treatments were associated with a significant reduction (p0.017) in these biomarkers between treatments. While fish oil and montelukast are both effective in attenuating airway inflammation and HIB, combining fish oil with montelukast did not confer a greater protective effect than either intervention alone. Fish oil supplementation should be considered as an alternative treatment for EIB

Abstracts from the 8th International Conference on cGMP Generators, Effectors and Therapeutic Implications

This work was supported by a restricted research grant of Bayer AG

Précautions empiriques et consensus épistémologiques dans la comparaison européenne : une enquête qualitative sur la santé et les activités physiques dans des quartiers pauvres

Dans le cadre d’un programme de recherche sur les représentations et les usages sociaux de santé et d’activité physique d’enfants et de leur famille, habitant des quartiers pauvres situés dans quatre pays européens (France, Allemagne, Suisse et Italie), nous présentons les conditions d’accès aux données et de recueil du matériel, les divergences rencontrées et les outils de systématisation et de mise en cohérence utilisés dans ce protocole de recherche collective. Afin de permettre l’analyse interprétative comparée de ces études de cas, l’équipe a mis en place un arsenal de standardisation de la recherche dans une démarche collaborative. Nous proposons de discuter de l’articulation d’une vigilance interprétative, amarrée à un comparatisme réflexif et relationnel contextualisé

Palliative care as a digital working world (PALLADiUM) - A mixed-method research protocol

Abstract Background In Palliative Care, actors from different professional backgrounds work together and exchange case-specific and expert knowledge and information. Since Palliative Care is traditionally distant from digitalization due to its holistically person-centered approach, there is a lack of suitable concepts enabling digitalization regarding multi-professional team processes. Yet, a digitalised information and collaboration environment geared to the requirements of palliative care and the needs of the members of the multi-professional team might facilitate communication and collaboration processes and improve information and knowledge flows. Taking this chance, the presented three-year project, PALLADiUM, aims to improve the effectiveness of Palliative Care teams by jointly sharing available inter-subjective knowledge and orientation-giving as well as action-guiding practical knowledge. Thus, PALLADiUM will explore the potentials and limitations of digitally supported communication and collaboration solutions. Methods PALLADiUM follows an open and iterative mixed methods approach. First, ethnographic methods – participant observations, interviews, and focus groups – aim to explore knowledge and information flow in investigating Palliative Care units as well as the requirements and barriers to digitalization. Second, to extend this body, the analysis of the historical hospital data provides quantitative insights. Condensing all findings results in a to-be work system. Adhering to the work systems transformation method, a technical prototype including artificial intelligence components will enhance the collaborative teamwork in the Palliative Care unit. Discussion PALLADiUM aims to deliver decisive new insights into the preconditions, processes, and success factors of the digitalization of a medical working environment as well as communication and collaboration processes in multi-professional teams. Trial registration The study was registered prospectively at DRKS (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien) Registration-ID: DRKS0025356 Date of registration: 03.06.21

Overall morbidity after total minimally invasive keyhole oesophagectomy versus hybrid oesophagectomy (the MICkey trial): study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background: Oesophageal cancer (EC) is the sixth leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Oesophageal resection is the only curative treatment option for EC which is frequently performed via an abdominal and right thoracic approach (Ivor-Lewis operation). This 2-cavity operation is associated with a high risk of major complications. To reduce postoperative morbidity, several minimally invasive techniques have been developed that can be broadly classified into either hybrid oesophagectomy (HYBRID-E) via laparoscopic/robotic abdominal and open thoracic surgery or total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E). Both, HYBIRD-E and MIN-E, compare favourable to open oesophagectomy. However, there is still an evidence gap comparing HYBRID-E with MIN-E with regard to postoperative morbidity. Methods: The MICkey trial is a multicentre randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 152 patients with oesophageal cancer scheduled for elective oesophagectomy will be randomly assigned 1:1 to the control group (HYBRID-E) or to the intervention group (MIN-E). The primary endpoint will be overall postoperative morbidity assessed via the comprehensive complication index (CCI) within 30 days after surgery. Specific perioperative parameters, as well as patient-reported and oncological outcomes, will be analysed as secondary outcomes. Discussion: The MICkey trial will address the yet unanswered question whether the total minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIN-E) is superior to the HYBRID-E procedure regarding overall postoperative morbidity. Trial registration: DRKS00027927 U1111-1277-0214

Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy (MEGA): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (DRKS00025765)

Introduction The only curative treatment for most gastric cancer is radical gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy (LAD). Minimally invasive total gastrectomy (MIG) aims to reduce postoperative morbidity, but its use has not yet been widely established in Western countries. Minimally invasivE versus open total GAstrectomy is the first Western multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare postoperative morbidity following MIG vs open total gastrectomy (OG). Methods and analysis This superiority multicentre RCT compares MIG (intervention) to OG (control) for oncological total gastrectomy with D2 or D2+LAD. Recruitment is expected to last for 2 years. Inclusion criteria comprise age between 18 and 84 years and planned total gastrectomy after initial diagnosis of gastric carcinoma. Exclusion criteria include Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status >2, tumours requiring extended gastrectomy or less than total gastrectomy, previous abdominal surgery or extensive adhesions seriously complicating MIG, other active oncological disease, advanced stages (T4 or M1), emergency setting and pregnancy. The sample size was calculated at 80 participants per group. The primary endpoint is 30-day postoperative morbidity as measured by the Comprehensive Complications Index. Secondary endpoints include postoperative morbidity and mortality, adherence to a fast-track protocol and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) scores (QoR-15, EUROQOL EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D), EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-STO22, activities of daily living and Body Image Scale). Oncological endpoints include rate of R0 resection, lymph node yield, disease-free survival and overall survival at 60-month follow-up. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been received by the independent Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg (S-816/2021) and will be received from each responsible ethics committee for each individual participating centre prior to recruitment. Results will be published open access