Incontinence pessaries: size, POPQ measures, and successful fitting

The aim of the study was to determine whether successful incontinence pessary fitting or pessary size can be predicted by specific POPQ measurements in women without advanced pelvic organ prolapse. In a multicenter study, women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and POPQ stage ≤2 were randomized to three treatment arms: (1) incontinence pessary, (2) behavioral therapy, or (3) both. This study evaluates incontinence pessary size, POPQ measures, and successful fitting in the 266 women assigned to treatment arms 1 and 3. Two hundred thirty-five women (92%) were successfully fitted with an incontinence ring (n = 122) or dish (n = 113). Hysterectomy, genital hiatus (GH), and GH/total vaginal length (TVL) ratios did not predict unsuccessful fitting (p > 0.05). However, mean TVL was greater in women successfully fitted (9.6 vs. 8.8 cm, p < 0.01). Final pessary diameter was not predicted by TVL, point D, or point C (p > 0.05). The vast majority of women with SUI can be successfully fitted with an incontinence pessary, but specific POPQ measures were not helpful in determining incontinence pessary size

Feasibility pilot trial for the Trajectories of Recovery after Intravenous propofol versus inhaled VolatilE anesthesia (THRIVE) pragmatic randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: Millions of patients receive general anaesthesia for surgery annually. Crucial gaps in evidence exist regarding which technique, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhaled volatile anaesthesia (INVA), yields superior patient experience, safety and outcomes. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large comparative effectiveness trial assessing patient experiences and outcomes after receiving propofol TIVA or INVA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was cocreated by a diverse team, including patient partners with personal experience of TIVA or INVA. The design is a 300-patient, two-centre, randomised, feasibility pilot trial. Patients 18 years of age or older, undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery requiring general anaesthesia with a tracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway will be eligible. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to propofol TIVA or INVA, stratified by centre and procedural complexity. The feasibility endpoints include: (1) proportion of patients approached who agree to participate; (2) proportion of patients who receive their assigned randomised treatment; (3) completeness of outcomes data collection and (4) feasibility of data management procedures. Proportions and 95% CIs will be calculated to assess whether prespecified thresholds are met for the feasibility parameters. If the lower bounds of the 95% CI are above the thresholds of 10% for the proportion of patients agreeing to participate among those approached and 80% for compliance with treatment allocation for each randomised treatment group, this will suggest that our planned pragmatic 12 500-patient comparative effectiveness trial can likely be conducted successfully. Other feasibility outcomes and adverse events will be described. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the ethics board at Washington University (IRB# 202205053), serving as the single Institutional Review Board for both participating sites. Recruitment began in September 2022. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications, internet-based educational materials and mass media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05346588

Population pharmacokinetics and dosing recommendations for the use of deferiprone in children younger than 6 years

AIMS: Despite long clinical experience with deferiprone, there is limited information on its pharmacokinetics in children < 6 years of age. Here we assess the impact of developmental growth on the pharmacokinetics of deferiprone in this population using a population approach. Based on pharmacokinetic bridging concepts, we also evaluate whether the recommended doses yield appropriate systemic exposure in this group of patients. METHODS: Data from a study in which 18 paediatric patients were enrolled were available for the purposes of this analysis. Patients were randomised to three deferiprone dose levels (8.3, 16.7 and 33.3 mg/kg). Blood samples were collected according to an optimised sampling scheme in which each patient contributed to a maximum of five samples. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed using NONMEM v.7.2. Model selection criteria were based on graphical and statistical summaries. RESULTS: A one-compartment model with first-order absorption and first-order elimination best described the pharmacokinetics of deferiprone. Drug disposition parameters were affected by body weight, with both clearance and volume increasing allometrically with size. Simulation scenarios show that comparable systemic exposure (AUC) is achieved in children and adults after similar dose levels in mg/kg, with median (5-95(th) quantiles) AUC values respectively of 340.6 (223.2-520.0) and 318.5 (200.4-499.0) µmol/L*h at 75 mg/kg/day and 453.7 (297.3-693.0) and 424.2 (266.9-664.0) at 100 mg/kg/day t.i.d. doses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current findings, a dosing regimen of 25 mg/kg t.i.d. is recommended in children below 6 years of age, with the possibility of titration up to 33.3 mg/kg t.i.d

Safety and efficacy of abatacept in early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (ASSET): open-label extension of a phase 2, double-blind randomised trial

Background: Abatacept was well tolerated by patients with early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis in a phase 2, double-blind randomised trial, with potential efficacy at 12 months. We report here the results of an open-label extension for 6 months. / Methods: Patients (aged ≥18 years) with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis of less than 3 years' duration from their first non-Raynaud's symptom were enrolled into the ASSET trial (A Study of Subcutaneous Abatacept to Treat Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis), which is a double-blind trial at 22 sites in Canada, the UK, and the USA. After completion of 12 months of treatment with either abatacept or placebo, patients received a further 6 months of abatacept (125 mg subcutaneous every week) in an open-label extension. The primary endpoint of the double-blind trial was modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS) at 12 months, which was reassessed at 18 months in the open-label extension. The primary analysis included all participants who completed the double-blind trial and received at least one dose of open-label treatment (modified intention to treat). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02161406. / Findings: Between Sept 22, 2014, and March 15, 2017, 88 participants were randomly allocated in the double-blind trial either abatacept (n=44) or placebo (44); 32 patients from each treatment group completed the 6-month open-label extension. Among patients assigned abatacept, a mean improvement from baseline in mRSS was noted at 12 months (−6·6 [SD 6·4]), with further improvement seen during the open-label extension period (−9·8 [8·1] at month 18). Participants assigned placebo had a mean improvement from baseline in mRSS at 12 months (−3·7 [SD 7·6]), with a further improvement at month 18 (−6·3 [9·3]). Infections during the open-label extension phase occurred in nine patients in the placebo–abatacept group (12 adverse events, one serious adverse event) and in 11 patients in the abatacept–abatacept group (14 adverse events, one serious adverse event). Two deaths occurred during the 12-month double-blind period in the abatacept group, which were related to scleroderma renal crisis; no deaths were recorded during the open-label extension. / Interpretation: During the 6-month open-label extension, no new safety signals for abatacept were identified in the treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis. Clinically meaningful improvements in mRSS and other outcome measures were observed in both the abatacept and placebo groups when patients transitioned to open-label treatment. These data support further studies of abatacept in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis. / Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb and National Institutes of Health

Hepatic Hilar Lymph Node Reactivity at Kasai Portoenterostomy for Biliary Atresia: Correlations With Age, Outcome, and Histology of Proximal Biliary Remnant

We hypothesized that if infection is the proximate cause of congenital biliary atresia, an appropriate response to antigen would occur in lymph nodes contiguous with the biliary remnant. We compared the number of follicular germinal centers (GC) in 79 surgically excised hilar lymph nodes (LN) and 27 incidentally discovered cystic duct LNs in 84 subjects at the time of hepatic portoenterostomy (HPE) for biliary atresia (BA) to autopsy controls from the pancreaticobiliary region of non-septic infants >3 months old at death. All 27 control LN lacked GC, a sign in infants of a primary response to antigenic stimulation. GC were found in 53% of 106 LN in 56 of 84 subjects. Visible surgically excised LN contiguous with the most proximal biliary remnants had 1 or more well-formed reactive GC in only 26/51 subjects. Presence of GC and number of GC/LN was unrelated to age at onset of jaundice or to active fibroplasia in the biliary remnant but was related to older age at HPE. Absent GC in visible and incidentally removed cystic duct LNs predicted survival with the native liver at 2 and 3 years after HPE, P = .03, but significance was lost at longer intervals. The uncommon inflammatory lesions occasionally found in remnants could be secondary either to bile-induced injury or secondary infection established as obstruction evolves. The absence of consistent evidence of antigenic stimulation in LN contiguous with the biliary remnant supports existence of at least 1 major alternative to infection in the etiology of biliary atresia

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) – a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct – and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough. Trial registration NCT02476279, registered June 2015

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) - a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct - and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design: The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion: The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough