Psoriasis vulgaris flare during efalizumab therapy does not preclude future use: a case series

BACKGROUND: Severe psoriasis vulgaris can be extremely difficult to treat in some patients, even with the newer biological therapies available today. CASE PRESENTATIONS: We present two patients with severe chronic plaque psoriasis who received numerous systemic anti-psoriatic therapies with varied results. Both responded well to initial treatment with efalizumab (anti-CD11a), but then experienced a flare of their disease after missing a dose. However, after disease stablization, both patients responded well to re-introduction of efalizumab, one patient requiring concurrent treatment with infliximab (anti-TNF-α). CONCLUSION: These cases are presented to characterize this "flare" reaction, and to inform health care providers that efalizumab can still be administered after disease flare, and again may be a successful therapy

Efficacy and safety of zibotentan and dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease: study design and baseline characteristics of the ZENITH-CKD trial

Background: Sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) are part of the standard of care for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), both with and without type 2 diabetes. Endothelin A (ETA) receptor antagonists have also been shown to slow progression of CKD. Differing mechanisms of action of SGLT2 and ETA receptor antagonists may enhance efficacy. We outline a study to evaluate the effect of combination zibotentan/dapagliflozin versus dapagliflozin alone on albuminuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). // Methods: We are conducting a double-blind, active-controlled, Phase 2b study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ETA receptor antagonist zibotentan and SGLT2i dapagliflozin in a planned 415 adults with CKD (Zibotentan and Dapagliflozin for the Treatment of CKD; ZENITH-CKD). Participants are being randomized (1:2:2) to zibotentan 0.25 mg/dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily (QD), zibotentan 1.5 mg/dapagliflozin 10 mg QD and dapagliflozin 10 mg QD alone, for 12 weeks followed by a 2-week off-treatment wash-out period. The primary endpoint is the change in log-transformed urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) from baseline to Week 12. Other outcomes include change in blood pressure from baseline to Week 12 and change in eGFR the study. The incidence of adverse events will be monitored. Study protocol–defined events of special interest include changes in fluid-related measures (weight gain or B-type natriuretic peptide). // Results: A total of 447 patients were randomized and received treatment in placebo/dapagliflozin (n = 177), zibotentan 0.25 mg/dapagliflozin (n = 91) and zibotentan 1.5 mg/dapagliflozin (n = 179). The mean age was 62.8 years, 30.9% were female and 68.2% were white. At baseline, the mean eGFR of the enrolled population was 46.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 and the geometric mean UACR was 538.3 mg/g. // Conclusion: This study evaluates the UACR-lowering efficacy and safety of zibotentan with dapagliflozin as a potential new treatment for CKD. The study will provide information about an effective and safe zibotentan dose to be further investigated in a Phase 3 clinical outcome trial. // Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT0472483

Effectiveness of a symptom-clinic intervention delivered by general practitioners with an extended role for people with multiple and persistent physical symptoms in England:the Multiple Symptoms Study 3 pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: People with multiple and persistent physical symptoms have impaired quality of life and poor experiences of health care. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based symptom-clinic intervention in people with multiple and persistent physical symptoms, hypothesising that this symptoms clinic plus usual care would be superior to usual care only.METHODS: The Multiple Symptoms Study 3 was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial conducted in 108 general practices in the UK National Health Service in four regions of England between Dec 6, 2018, and June 30, 2023. Participants were individually randomised (1:1) to the symptom-clinic intervention plus usual care or to usual care only via a computer-generated, pseudo-random list stratified by trial centre. Allocation was done by the trial statistician and concealed with a centralised, web-based randomisation system; masking participants was not possible due to the nature of the intervention. The symptom-clinic intervention was a sequence of up to four medical consultations that aimed to elicit a detailed clinical history, fully hear and validate the participant, offer rational explanations for symptoms, and assist the participant to develop ways of managing their symptoms; it was delivered by general practitioners with an extended role. The primary outcome was Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) score 52 weeks after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN57050216).FINDINGS: 354 participants were randomly assigned; 178 (50%) were assigned to receive the community-based symptoms clinic plus usual care and 176 (50%) were assigned to receive usual care only. At the primary-outcome point of 52 weeks, PHQ-15 scores were 14·1 (SD 3·7) in the group receiving usual care and 12·2 (4·5) in the group receiving the intervention. The adjusted between-group difference of -1·82 (95% CI -2·67 to -0·97) was statistically significantly in favour of the intervention group (p&lt;0·0001). There were 39 adverse events in the group receiving usual care and 36 adverse events in the group receiving the intervention. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the proportion of participants who had non-serious adverse events (-0·03, 95% CI -0·11 to 0·05) or serious adverse events (0·02, -0·02 to 0·07). No serious adverse event was deemed to be related to the trial intervention.INTERPRETATION: Our symptom-clinic intervention, which focused on explaining persistent symptoms to participants in order to support self-management, led to sustained improvement in multiple and persistent physical symptoms.FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.</p

Examining diabetic heel ulcers through an ecological lens: microbial community dynamics associated with healing and infection

Purpose: While some micro-organisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus, are clearly implicated in causing tissue damage in diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), our knowledge of the contribution of the entire microbiome to clinical outcomes is limited. We profiled the microbiome of a longitudinal sample series of 28 people with diabetes and DFUs of the heel in an attempt to better characterize the relationship between healing, infection and the microbiome.Methodology: In total, 237 samples were analysed from 28 DFUs, collected at fortnightly intervals for 6 months or until healing. Microbiome profiles were generated by 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis, supplemented by targeted nanopore sequencing.Result/Key findings: DFUs which failed to heal during the study period (20/28, 71.4 %) were more likely to be persistently colonized with a heterogeneous community of micro-organisms including anaerobes and Enterobacteriaceae (log-likelihood ratio 9.56, P=0.008). During clinically apparent infection, a reduction in the diversity of micro-organisms in a DFU was often observed due to expansion of one or two taxa, with recovery in diversity at resolution. Modelling of the predicted species interactions in a single DFU with high diversity indicated that networks of metabolic interactions may exist that contribute to the formation of stable communities.Conclusion: Longitudinal profiling is an essential tool for improving our understanding of the microbiology of chronic wounds, as community dynamics associated with clinical events can only be identified by examining changes over multiple time points. The development of complex communities, particularly involving Enterobacteriaceae and strict anaerobes, may be contributing to poor outcomes in DFUs and requires further investigation

Mendelian adult-onset leukodystrophy genes in Alzheimer´s disease. Critical influence of CSF1R and NOTCH3

Mendelian adult-onset leukodystrophies are a spectrum of rare inherited progressive neurodegenerative disorders affecting the white matter of the central nervous system. Among these, Cerebral Autosomal Dominant and Recessive Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL and CARASIL), Cerebroretinal vasculopathy (CRV), Metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD), Hereditary diffuse Leukoencephalopathy with spheroids (HDLS), Vanishing white matter disease (VWM) present with rapidly progressive dementia as dominant feature and are caused by mutations in NOTCH3, HTRA1, TREX1, ARSA, CSF1R, EIF2B1, EIF2B2, EIF2B3, EIF2B4, EIF2B5, respectively. Given the rare incidence of these disorders and the lack of unequivocally diagnostic features, leukodystrophies are frequently misdiagnosed with common sporadic dementing diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), raising the question of whether these overlapping phenotypes may be explained by shared genetic risk factors. To investigate this intriguing hypothesis, we have combined gene expression analysis 1) in 6 different AD mouse strains (APPPS1, HOTASTPM, HETASTPM, TPM, TAS10 and TAU), at 5 different developmental stages (Embryo [E15], 2 months, 4 months, 8 months and 18 months), 2) in APPPS1 primary cortical neurons under stress conditions (oxygen-glucose deprivation) and single-variant and single-gene (c-alpha and SKAT tests) based genetic screening in a cohort composed of 332 Caucasian late-onset AD patients and 676 Caucasian elderly controls. Csf1r was significantly overexpressed (Log2FC>1, adj. p-val<0.05) in the cortex and hippocampus of aged HOTASTPM mice with extensive Aβ core dense plaque pathology. We identified 3 likely pathogenic mutations in CSF1R TK domain (p.L868R, p.Q691H and p.H703Y) in our discovery and validation cohort, composed of 465 AD and MCI Caucasian patients from the UK. Moreover, NOTCH3 was a significant hit in the c-alpha test (adj p-val = 0.01). Adult onset Mendelian leukodystrophy genes are not common factors implicated in AD. Nevertheless, our study suggests a potential pathogenic link between NOTCH3, CSF1R and sporadic LOAD, that warrants further investigation

ABCA7 p.G215S as potential protective factor for Alzheimer’s disease

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have been effective approaches to dissect common genetic variability underlying complex diseases in a systematic and unbiased way. Recently, GWASs have led to the discovery of over 20 susceptibility loci for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Despite the evidence showing the contribution of these loci to AD pathogenesis, their genetic architecture has not been extensively investigated, leaving the possibility that low frequency and rare coding variants may also occur and contribute to the risk of disease. We have used exome and genome sequencing data to analyse the single independent and joint effect of rare and low frequency protein coding variants in 9 AD GWAS loci with the strongest effect sizes after APOE (BIN1, CLU, CR1, PICALM, MS4A6A, ABCA7, EPHA1, CD33, CD2AP) in a cohort of 332 sporadic AD cases and 676 elderly controls of British and North American ancestry. We identified coding variability in ABCA7 as contributing to AD risk. This locus harbors a low frequency coding variant (p.G215S, rs72973581, MAF=4.3%) conferring a modest but statistically significant protection against AD (p-value= 6x10-4, OR=0.57, 95% CI 0.41-0.80). Notably, our results are not driven by an enrichment of loss of function variants in ABCA7, recently reported as main pathogenic factor underlying AD risk at this locus. In summary, our study confirms the role of ABCA7 in AD and provide new insights that should address functional studies

Supporting physical activity through co-production in people with severe mental ill health (SPACES): protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Background Severe mental ill health (SMI) includes schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder and is associated with premature deaths when compared to people without SMI. Over 70% of those deaths are attributed to preventable health conditions, which have the potential to be positively affected by the adoption of healthy behaviours, such as physical activity. People with SMI are generally less active than those without and face unique barriers to being physically active. Physical activity interventions for those with SMI demonstrate promise, however, there are important questions remaining about the potential feasibility and acceptability of a physical activity intervention embedded within existing NHS pathways. Method This is a two-arm multi-site randomised controlled feasibility trial, assessing the feasibility and acceptability of a co-produced physical activity intervention for a full-scale trial across geographically dispersed NHS mental health trusts in England. Participants will be randomly allocated via block, 1:1 randomisation, into either the intervention arm or the usual care arm. The usual care arm will continue to receive usual care throughout the trial, whilst the intervention arm will receive usual care plus the offer of a weekly, 18-week, physical activity intervention comprising walking and indoor activity sessions and community taster sessions. Another main component of the intervention includes one-to-one support. The primary outcome is to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and to scale it up to a full-scale trial, using a short proforma provided to all intervention participants at follow-up, qualitative interviews with approximately 15 intervention participants and 5 interventions delivery staff, and data on intervention uptake, attendance, and attrition. Usual care data will also include recruitment and follow-up retention. Secondary outcome measures include physical activity and sedentary behaviours, body mass index, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, healthcare resource use, and adverse events. Outcome measures will be taken at baseline, three, and six-months post randomisation. Discussion This study will determine if the physical activity intervention is feasible and acceptable to both participants receiving the intervention and NHS staff who deliver it. Results will inform the design of a larger randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of the intervention. Trial registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN83877229. Registered on 09.09.2022

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT

Background: The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared. Objectives: To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Design: A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis. Setting: Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK. Participants: Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0–10). Interventions: Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using overencapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory – Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0–10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients’ preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A withintrial cost–utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective. Results: A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of –0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval –0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of –0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval –0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval –0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6–16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval –0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin –0.002 (95% confidence interval –0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline –0.006 (95% confidence interval –0.002 to 0.014) qualityadjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin −£113 (95% confidence interval −£381 to £90), ABSTRACT NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk viii amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval −£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval −£13 to £398)]. Limitations: Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable. Future work: Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief. Conclusions: The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients’ preference in terms of side effects. Trial registration: The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information