First-Intention Incisional Wound Healing in Dogs and Cats: A Controlled Trial of Dermapliq and Manuka Honey

This study aimed to compare incisional wound healing in cats and dogs after the topical application of Μanuka honey and a new medical device, Dermapliq. Comparisons were made between each treatment and control, between the two treatments, and between dogs and cats. Twelve cats and twelve dogs were included in this study, and the impact of the two substances was examined through cosmetic, clinical, ultrasonographical, and histological evaluation. The use of Dermapliq in first-intention wound healing achieved a significantly better cosmetic evaluation score and better total clinical score at days 20–41, compared to the control, in both dogs and cats. The ultrasonographically estimated wound area was smaller with Dermapliq compared to the control. Wounds treated with Dermapliq showed histologically less inflammation compared to the control. The use of Manuka honey did not show a significantly better cosmetic score compared to the control. Skin thickening was significantly higher after using Manuka honey compared to the control and so was the total clinical score. However, the median wound area, as was evaluated ultrasonographically, was significantly smaller when wounds were treated with Manuka honey, the difference being more apparent in dogs. Dermapliq was proven to be a better choice in achieving favorable wound healing than Manuka honey in dogs and cats in first-intention healing. In our study, cats had a statistically better cosmetic score and less skin thickening and scar width compared to dogs. Histologically, cats showed significantly less edema, higher inflammation and angiogenesis scores, and lower fibroblast and epidermis thickening scores when compared to dogs

Real-World Use and Adverse Events of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Greek Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Since inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients were excluded from vaccine authorization studies, limited knowledge exists regarding perceptions and unfavorable effects of COVID-19 vaccination in this group. We aimed to investigate the real-world use and adverse events (AEs) of COVID-19 vaccines in Greek IBD patients. Fully vaccinated IBD patients followed in Greek centers were invited to participate. All patients filled out an anonymous online survey concerning the vaccination program, which included information regarding demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment, vaccination perceptions and potential AEs. Overall, 1007 IBD patients were included. Vaccine hesitancy was reported by 49%. Total AEs to vaccination were reported by 81% after dose 1 (D1) and 76% after dose 2 (D2), including isolated injection site reactions (36% and 24% respectively). Systemic AEs were more common after D2 (51%, D2 vs. 44%, D1, p < 0.0001). Very few patients reported new onset abdominal symptoms (abdominal pain 4% (D1), 6% (D2) and diarrhea 5% (D1), 7% (D2)). There were no serious AEs leading to emergency room visit or hospitalization. In multivariate analysis, AEs occurrence was positively associated with young age and female gender (p < 0.0005 for both doses), whereas inactive disease was negatively associated with AE in D1 (p = 0.044). SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in Greek IBD patients demonstrated a favorable and reassuring safety profile

Real-World Use and Adverse Events of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Greek Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Since inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients were excluded from vaccine authorization studies, limited knowledge exists regarding perceptions and unfavorable effects of COVID-19 vaccination in this group. We aimed to investigate the real-world use and adverse events (AEs) of COVID-19 vaccines in Greek IBD patients. Fully vaccinated IBD patients followed in Greek centers were invited to participate. All patients filled out an anonymous online survey concerning the vaccination program, which included information regarding demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment, vaccination perceptions and potential AEs. Overall, 1007 IBD patients were included. Vaccine hesitancy was reported by 49%. Total AEs to vaccination were reported by 81% after dose 1 (D1) and 76% after dose 2 (D2), including isolated injection site reactions (36% and 24% respectively). Systemic AEs were more common after D2 (51%, D2 vs. 44%, D1, p < 0.0001). Very few patients reported new onset abdominal symptoms (abdominal pain 4% (D1), 6% (D2) and diarrhea 5% (D1), 7% (D2)). There were no serious AEs leading to emergency room visit or hospitalization. In multivariate analysis, AEs occurrence was positively associated with young age and female gender (p < 0.0005 for both doses), whereas inactive disease was negatively associated with AE in D1 (p = 0.044). SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in Greek IBD patients demonstrated a favorable and reassuring safety profile

Clinical implementation of preemptive pharmacogenomics in psychiatryResearch in context

Summary: Background: Pharmacogenomics (PGx) holds promise to revolutionize modern healthcare. Although there are several prospective clinical studies in oncology and cardiology, demonstrating a beneficial effect of PGx-guided treatment in reducing adverse drug reactions, there are very few such studies in psychiatry, none of which spans across all main psychiatric indications, namely schizophrenia, major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. In this study we aim to investigate the clinical effectiveness of PGx-guided treatment (occurrence of adverse drug reactions, hospitalisations and re-admissions, polypharmacy) and perform a cost analysis of the intervention. Methods: We report our findings from a multicenter, large-scale, prospective study of pre-emptive genome-guided treatment named as PREemptive Pharmacogenomic testing for preventing Adverse drug REactions (PREPARE) in a large cohort of psychiatric patients (n = 1076) suffering from schizophrenia, major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. Findings: We show that patients with an actionable phenotype belonging to the PGx-guided arm (n = 25) present with 34.1% less adverse drug reactions compared to patients belonging to the control arm (n = 36), 41.2% less hospitalisations (n = 110 in the PGx-guided arm versus n = 187 in the control arm) and 40.5% less re-admissions (n = 19 in the PGx-guided arm versus n = 32 in the control arm), less duration of initial hospitalisations (n = 3305 total days of hospitalisation in the PGx-guided arm from 110 patients, versus n = 6517 in the control arm from 187 patients) and duration of hospitalisation upon readmission (n = 579 total days of hospitalisation upon readmission in the PGx-guided arm, derived from 19 patients, versus n = 928 in the control arm, from 32 patients respectively). It was also shown that in the vast majority of the cases, there was less drug dose administrated per drug in the PGx-guided arm compared to the control arm and less polypharmacy (n = 124 patients prescribed with at least 4 psychiatric drugs in the PGx-guided arm versus n = 143 in the control arm) and smaller average number of co-administered psychiatric drugs (2.19 in the PGx-guided arm versus 2.48 in the control arm. Furthermore, less deaths were reported in the PGx-guided arm (n = 1) compared with the control arm (n = 9). Most importantly, we observed a 48.5% reduction of treatment costs in the PGx-guided arm with a reciprocal slight increase of the quality of life of patients suffering from major depressive disorder (0.935 versus 0.925 QALYs in the PGx-guided and control arm, respectively). Interpretation: While only a small proportion (∼25%) of the entire study sample had an actionable genotype, PGx-guided treatment can have a beneficial effect in psychiatric patients with a reciprocal reduction of treatment costs. Although some of these findings did not remain significant when all patients were considered, our data indicate that genome-guided psychiatric treatment may be successfully integrated in mainstream healthcare. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020