METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, international registry on the management of H. pylori (European Registry on H. pylori Management). All infected and culture-diagnosed adult patients registered in the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology-Research Electronic Data Capture from 2013 to 2021 were included.

RESULTS: A total of 2,852 naive patients with culture results were analyzed. Resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and quinolones was 22%, 27%, and 18%, respectively. The most effective treatment, regardless of resistance, were the 3-in-1 single capsule with bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline (91%) and the quadruple with bismuth, offering optimal cure rates even in the presence of bacterial resistance to clarithromycin or metronidazole. The concomitant regimen with tinidazole achieved an eradication rate of 99% (90/91) vs 84% (90/107) with metronidazole. Triple schedules, sequential, or concomitant regimen with metronidazole did not achieve optimal results. A total of 1,118 non-naive patients were analyzed. Resistance to clarithromycin, metronidazole, and quinolones was 49%, 41%, and 24%, respectively. The 3-in-1 single capsule (87%) and the triple therapy with levofloxacin (85%) were the only ones that provided encouraging results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study design. All patients who received vildagliptin in the Pharmacy Integrated Health System (PHIS) registry database from 2016 to 2021 were included as study samples. The exclusion criteria were being less than 18 years old and having type 1 diabetes mellitus. Patients' medical records were retrieved after sampling, and data were collected. One medical record was missing, thus SPSS analysis were performed on 144 vildagliptin users.

RESULTS: In total, 84 females (58.3%) and 60 males (41.7%) with a mean age of 62.1 (±10.1) years were analysed in this study. Mean HbA1c pre-therapy was 8.5 ± 2.1%; while posttherapy 6 months demonstrated a mean HbA1c of 7.9 ± 1.8%. Use of vildagliptin alone or as an adjunct was associated with a mean reduction of 0.6% in HbA1c (p = 0.01). Factors influencing this HbA1c reduction were advancing age, specifically individuals aged 62 years and older (p = 0.02), patients who are already receiving insulin therapy (p=0.00) and those who express a willingness to commence insulin treatment during the counselling session prior to initiating the treatment plan (p = 0.00). Reasons for vildagliptin initiation documented by prescribers were non-insulin acceptance (n = 59, 40.97%), frequent hypoglycaemia (n = 6, 4.1%) and non-compliance with medications (n = 23, 15.9%). There was no association between demographic, medical background and reason for starting vildagliptin variables and HbA1c reduction (p < 0.001).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Physicians who managed H. pylori eradication in daily practice across 10 Southeast Asian countries were invited to participate in an online questionnaire, which included questions about the local availability of antimicrobial susceptibility tests (ASTs) and their preferred eradication regimens in real-world practice. An empiric regimen was considered inappropriate if it did not follow the local guidelines/consensus, particularly if it contained antibiotics with a high reported resistance rate or was recommended not to be empirically used worldwide.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial involved treatment-naïve H. pylori-positive patients. Ninety patients received standard triple therapy for 2 weeks before receiving either a probiotic or placebo for 4 weeks. The posttreatment eradication rate was assessed via a 14 C urea breath test in Week 8. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) questionnaire and an interview on treatment adverse effects were conducted during this study.

RESULTS: The eradication rate was higher in the probiotic group than in the placebo group, with a 22.2% difference in the intention-to-treat analysis (91.1% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.007) and 24.3% difference in the per-protocol analysis (93.2% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.007). The probiotic group showed significant pre- to post-treatment reductions in indigestion, constipation, abdominal pain, and total GSRS scores. The probiotic group showed significantly greater reductions in GSRS scores than the placebo group: indigestion (4.34 ± 5.00 vs. 1.78 ± 5.64; p = 0.026), abdominal pain (2.64 ± 2.88 vs. 0.89 ± 3.11; p = 0.007), constipation (2.34 ± 3.91 vs. 0.64 ± 2.92; p = 0.023), and total score (12.41 ± 12.19 vs. 4.24 ± 13.72; p = 0.004). The probiotic group reported significantly fewer adverse headache (0% vs. 15.6%; p = 0.012) and abdominal pain (0% vs. 13.3%; p = 0.026) effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive, retrospective study among epilepsy patients treated with perampanel. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of perampanel as an adjunctive in our hospital.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: From our cohort of 25 patients, most of the patients were either on one or three anti-seizure medications (ASMs) prior to initiation of perampanel. Perampanel was added in 88% of them due to persistent seizures. Twenty-two (88%) patients experienced reduction in seizure frequency. 12% experienced mild side effects, which were leg cramps, hyponatremia and drowsiness. Only 1 patient stopped perampanel due to its side effects.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients enrolled in COMPASS, 12 964 (mean age at baseline 67.2 years) from 455 sites in 32 countries were enrolled in LTOLE and treated with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for a median of 374 additional days (range 1-1191 days). During LTOLE, the incident events per 100 patient years were as follows: for the primary outcome [cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI)] 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-2.61], mortality 1.87 (1.65-2.10), stroke 0.62 (0.50-0.76), and MI 1.02 (0.86-1.19), with CIs that overlapped those seen during the randomized treatment phase with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The incidence rates for major and minor bleeding were 1.01 (0.86-1.19) and 2.49 (2.24-2.75), compared with 1.67 (1.48-1.87) and 5.11 (95% CI 4.77-5.47), respectively, during the randomized treatment phase with the combination.

METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed in a university hospital. Women with GDMA1 were recruited at 16-30 weeks of pregnancy and randomized to oral metformin 500 mg twice daily or identical placebo tablets to delivery. Level of HbA1c was taken at recruitment and at 36 weeks of pregnancy. The primary outcome was the change in level of HbA1c at recruitment and 36 weeks of pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes.

DATA SOURCES: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts.

STUDY SELECTION: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days.

Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed.

Results: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59–1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55–1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34–1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41–2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52–0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37–0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59–2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57–2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36–0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23–0.72]).

Conclusions: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated.