A longitudinal analysis of urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome flares in the Multidisciplinary Approach to the Study of Chronic Pelvic Pain (MAPP) Research Network

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151272/1/bju14783.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151272/2/bju14783_am.pd

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e. a controlling message) compared to no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly-internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared to the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly-internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing: Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Opciones terap\ue9uticas en la incontinencia urinaria de la mujer

La incontinencia urinaria en las mujeres es un problema frecuente y oneroso (desde el punto de vista psicol\uf3gico, f\uedsico y econ\uf3mico) y no debe aceptarse como parte natural e inevitable del envejecimiento. El diagn\uf3stico preciso del tipo de incontinencia es importante para llevar a cabo las medidas terap\ue9uticas apropiadas y fruct\uedferas. En t\ue9rminos generales. todo lo que se necesita para corroborar el diagn\uf3stico exacto es la anamnesis y la exploraci\uf3n f\uedsica orientadas a aspectos m\ue9dicos y sintom\ue1ticos. Los tipos m\ue1s frecuentes de incontinencia en la mujer son: de urgencia, de esfuerzo y mixta. El tratamiento logrado de este trastorno en las mujeres puede mejorar de modo notable su calidad global de vida

Can surgical reconstruction of vaginal and ligamentous laxity cure overactive bladder symptoms in women with pelvic organ prolapse?

Objective: To examine the extent and intensity of the coexistence of overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to evaluate the likelihood of OAB symptom improvement after surgical POP reconstruction over a period of 2 years. Patients and Methods: The effectiveness of the transvaginal, single-incision 'Elevate' technique for anatomical cure of anterior/apical and posterior/apical vaginal prolapse has been previously reported in a prospective, multicentre study. This technique uses mesh arms attached to the sacrospinous ligaments to recreate apical ligamentous support. Using the same sample population as that used in the multicentre study (n = 281), we conducted the present sub-analysis focusing on estimating the extent of comorbidity between POP and OAB symptoms, as well as the effects of subsequent pelvic floor reconstruction on OAB symptoms over a long period. Assessments of POP and OAB symptom severity before and after surgery at 6, 12 and 24 months were obtained using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) questionnaire. Results: Preoperatively, 70% of all POP patients reported moderate to severe OAB symptoms, with almost half (49.5%) noting severe OAB bother ('quite a bit bothersome') for one or more of the classic OAB symptom domains on the PFDI: 'daytime urinary frequency'; 'urinary urgency'; 'urinary urgency incontinence'; and/or 'nocturia'. In fact, across all four OAB symptom domains evaluated, there were significantly more severe symptoms ('quite a bit bothersome') than moderate ('moderately bothersome') or mild ('somewhat bothersome'): 26-31%, 13-21%, and 17-19% of patients, respectively. In patients with symptomatic POP >stage 2, there was no relationship between further degree of prolapse and presence of severity of OAB symptoms; however, patients with POP stage 2 had significantly more complaints regarding the items 'daytime urinary frequency' and 'urinary urgency incontinence' compared with those with stage 3-4 POP. Pelvic floor reconstructive surgery resulted in significant improvement in all OAB symptoms, which seemed to be stable over time. The cure rate of moderate-to-severe OAB complaints ranged between 60% and 80%, which was a durable improvement noted throughout 24 months. Conclusion: Results showed that POP was to a high degree accompanied by moderate-to-severe OAB complaints. Significant long-lasting improvements in bothersome OAB symptoms occurred after adequate surgical reconstruction of anterior/apical and posterior/apical vaginal support

The impact of sacrospinous ligament fixation on pre-existing nocturia and co-existing pelvic floor dysfunction symptoms

Introduction and hypothesis: To evaluate whether nocturia and coexisting pelvic floor symptoms in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) can be improved by ligamentous fixation of apical vaginal prolapse to the sacrospinous ligament. Methods: We evaluated the PROPEL study data from 281 women with pelvic organ prolapse stage > 2. Bothersome nocturia and coexisting pelvic floor symptoms were assessed with the Pelvic Floor Disorder Inventory (PFDI) questionnaire preoperatively and at 6, 12 and 24 months after successful vaginal prolapse repair. Women with successful reconstruction (POP-Q stage < 1 at all compartments throughout the 2-year follow-up), defined as anatomical “responders,” were compared to the anatomical “non-responders.” Results: Among the patients completing all PFDI questions (N = 277), anatomical responders and non-responders were the groups of interest for our analysis. We found the occurrence rates of “moderate” or “quite a bit” of nocturia was significantly reduced after surgery in all subgroups (48.7% at baseline vs. 19.5% after 24 months). The occurrence of nocturia was halved for responders compared to non-responders (45.4% and 48.3% at baseline vs. 14% and 29.5% after 24 months). Anatomical non-responders still had a relevant improvement of POP-Q stages, especially in the apical compartment. Prevalence rates of co-existing over- and underactive bladder, fecal incontinence, defecation disorders and pain symptoms were also significantly reduced postoperatively. Conclusion: Nocturia can be associated with symptomatic POP, with improvements seen following vaginal ligamentous prolapse repair. We caution providers, however, when advising patients of the possible resolution of nocturia following POP reconstruction, that all other traditional etiologies of nocturia must first be ruled out

Elevate and Uterine Preservation: Two-Year Results

To evaluate efficacy of the Elevate Anterior and Apical (EAA) in the repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when performed after previous hysterectomy and with or without uterine preservation during POP surgery. One hundred forty-two women with anterior vaginal prolapse and/or apical descent ≥ stage II were enrolled. The primary outcome was treatment failure defined as > stage II POP-Q during follow-up using the Last observed Failure Carried Forward method. Three sub-groups were analysed: baseline previous hysterectomy (N = 61); concomitant hysterectomy (N = 29), and preserved uterus/no hysterectomy (N = 51). Demographics, primary and secondary outcomes, and extrusion were compared between the groups. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Anatomic success shows significant and durable improvement at 24 months. The success for the apical compartment ranged between 93.8% and 100%. Success was slightly lower for the anterior compartment (70.8-89.1%). No statistically significant difference between the 3 subgroups. Age was the only patient characteristic to be found different between the 3 subgroups. In addition, there was no difference in overall intraoperative complications (P = 0.263). Mesh extrusion was found in all groups: 3 of 61 (4.9%) had previous hysterectomy; 4 of 29 (13.8%) had concomitant hysterectomy; and 1 of 51 (2.0%) had uterus preserved (P = 0.094). There appears to be a trend toward higher extrusion when a hysterectomy was performed with the EAA. Anatomic success and complications for the EAA do not appear to be significantly impacted when the uterus is removed before or during surgery or preserved. There may be a trend toward increased mesh extrusion when a hysterectomy is performed. However, larger cohort studies are needed to determine if concomitant hysterectomy impact extrusio