OBJECTIVES: We aimed to establish the impact of including/excluding pregnancies with adverse neonatal outcomes when constructing GWG charts.
METHODS: This is an individual participant data analysis from 31 studies from low- and middle-income countries. We created a dataset that included all participants and a dataset restricted to those with no adverse neonatal outcomes: preterm < 37 wk, small or large for gestational age, low birth weight < 2500 g, or macrosomia > 4000 g. Quantile regression models were used to create GWG curves from 9 to 40 wk, stratified by prepregnancy BMI, in each dataset.
RESULTS: The dataset without the exclusion criteria applied included 14,685 individuals with normal weight and 4831 with overweight. After removing adverse neonatal outcomes, 10,479 individuals with normal weight and 3466 individuals with overweight remained. GWG distributions at 13, 27, and 40 wk were virtually identical between the datasets with and without the exclusion criteria, except at 40 wk for normal weight and 27 wk for overweight. For the 10th and 90th percentiles, the differences between the estimated GWG were larger for overweight (∼1.5 kg) compared with normal weight (<1 kg). Removal of adverse neonatal outcomes had minimal impact on GWG trajectories of normal weight. For overweight, the percentiles estimated in the dataset without the criteria were slightly higher than those in the dataset with the criteria applied. Nevertheless, differences were <1 kg and virtually nonexistent at the end of pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS: Removing pregnancies with adverse neonatal outcomes has little or no influence on the GWG trajectories of individuals with normal and overweight.
METHODS: We reviewed the literature on prophylaxis in haemophilia since its inception in the 1950s to the present, the development of more and less intense factor prophylaxis regimens and their outcomes and additionally the published outcomes of prophylaxis with low dose emicizumab.
RESULTS: What these experiences collectively show is that low dose emicizumab does result in significant benefits to patients whilst being much less expensive than a "one size fits all" emicizumab prophylaxis approach. We also took note that some non-factor therapies still in development are individualized given that high doses of these can potentially put patients at risk.
CONCLUSIONS: Prophylaxis is now clearly accepted as standard of care for PWH with a severe phenotype but now in a very short time a large assortment of different treatment options for prophylaxis have become/are becoming available and the haemophilia community will need to determine how to best use these recognizing that no 'one treatment fits all'.
METHODS: An advisory board meeting was conducted with experts in haemophilia care from Asia to understand the heterogeneity in clinical practices and care provision in the region.
FINDINGS: The overall prevalence of haemophilia in Asia ranges between 3 and 8.58/100,000 patients. Haemophilia A was more prevalent as compared to haemophilia B with a ratio of around 5:1. There is under-diagnosis in the region due to lack of diagnosis, registries and/or lack of appropriate facilities in suburban areas. Most patients are referred to the haematologists by their families or primary care physicians, while some are identified during bleeding episodes. Genetic testing faces obstacles like resource constraints, services available at limited centres and unwillingness of patients to participate. Prophylaxis is offered for people with haemophilia (PWH) with a severe bleeding phenotype. Recombinant factors are approved in most countries across the region and are the preferred therapy. The challenges highlighted for not receiving a high standard of care include patients' reluctance to use an intravenous treatment, poor patient compliance due to frequency of infusions, budget constraints and lack of funding, insurance, availability and accessibility of factor concentrates. Prevalence of neutralizing antibodies ranged from 5% to 20% in the region. Use of immune tolerance induction and bypassing agents to treat inhibitors depends on their cost and availability.
CONCLUSION: Haemophilia care in Asia has evolved to a great extent. However, some challenges remain for which a strategic approach along with multi-stakeholder involvement are needed.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Here, we analysed the neuropharmacological effects of mitragynine compared with morphine withdrawal in rats and searched for a pharmacological treatment option that may reverse the occurring cognitive deficits that usually aggravate withdrawal.
KEY RESULTS: We found that withdrawal from 14-day mitragynine (1-10 mg·kg-1·day-1) treatment caused dose-dependent behavioural withdrawal signs resembling those of morphine (5 mg·kg-1·day-1) withdrawal. However, mitragynine (5 and 10 mg·kg-1·day-1) withdrawal also induced impairments in a passive avoidance task. Mitragynine withdrawal not only reduced hippocampal field excitatory postsynaptic potential (fEPSP) amplitudes in basal synaptic transmission and long-term potentiation (LTP) but also reduced epigenetic markers, such as histone H3K9 and H4K12 expression. At the same time, it up-regulates HDAC2 expression. Targeting the epigenetic adaptations with the HDAC inhibitor, SAHA, reversed the effects of mitragynine withdrawal on epigenetic dysregulation, hippocampal input/output curves, paired-pulse facilitation, LTP and attenuated the cognitive deficit. However, SAHA amplified the effects of morphine withdrawal.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The data from this work show that changes in histone expression and downstream hippocampal plasticity may explain mitragynine, but not morphine, withdrawal behaviours and cognitive impairments. Thus, it may provide a new treatment approach for aversive Kratom/mitragynine withdrawal and addiction.
METHODS: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCABs to PPIs in the maintenance of healing rates of endoscopically proven healed EE and indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until 3 February 2024, were included. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis was performed to pool primary efficacy outcome (maintenance of healing rates at week 24) and safety data (any treatment-emergent adverse event or TEAE). The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool.
RESULTS: Four RCTs with a total of 2554 patients were eligible for inclusion. All trials were of low risk of bias. Compared to lansoprazole 15 mg, the maintenance rates of healed EE at week 24 were significantly higher with vonoprazan 10 mg (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.07-1.19) and vonoprazan 20 mg (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.10-1.21). Likewise, compared to lansoprazole 15 mg, any TEAEs were significantly greater with vonoprazan 20 mg (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.01-1.20) but not vonoprazan 10 mg.
CONCLUSION: Vonoprazan 10 and 20 mg were superior to lansoprazole 15 mg in the maintenance of the healing of EE. Any TEAEs were greater with vonoprazan 20 mg.
METHODS: Demographics, diagnosis, comorbidities, disease activity, treatments and PROMIS instrument data were analysed. Primary outcomes were PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores. Factors affecting GPH and GMH scores in IIMs were identified using multivariable regression analysis.
RESULTS: We analysed responses from 1582 IIM, 4700 non-IIM AIRD and 545 nrAID patients and 3675 controls gathered through 23 May 2022. The median GPH scores were the lowest in IIM and non-IIM AIRD patients {13 [interquartile range (IQR) 10-15] IIMs vs 13 [11-15] non-IIM AIRDs vs 15 [13-17] nrAIDs vs 17 [15-18] controls, P