METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm, observational study, patients received flexible doses of Vortioxetine for a period of six months. All participants were assessed at baseline and scheduled for monitoring at weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. Depression severity was assessed using Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale. The Perceived Deficiency Questionnaire (PDQ-5) assessed the perceived cognitive difficulties in concentration, executive functioning, and memory. The European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC) was used to assess the patients' quality of life. Side effects of vortioxetine were monitored using the Antidepressant Side-Effect Checklist (ASEC).
RESULTS: Patients experienced a reduction in MADRS scores from 29.89 ± 5.997 at baseline to 11.59 ± 4.629 by Week 24. The PDQ-5 scores showed significant change from Week-4, whereas the EORTC role, emotional, and cognitive functioning scores showed a significant change from Week 2 onwards. CGI-Severity scores decreased from a baseline of 4.39 ± 0.746 to 2.41 ± 1.085 by Week 24. During the 24-Weeks of therapy, around three-quarters of the patients (73.3%) had one or more adverse events reported on the ASEC. The most frequently reported TEAEs were dry mouth, insomnia, somnolence, and headache, with more than a 30% incidence rate.
CONCLUSION: Vortioxetine seems promising in the management of depression and enhancement of cognitive function and quality of life of cancer patients with Major Depressive Disorder.
.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A customized web-based 28 items questionnaire was created. All participation was voluntary. The survey was hosted on Google Forms between 15th November 2023 and 25th November 2023. Descriptive statistics were applied to demographic details and categorical responses.
RESULTS: 632 responses were received. 56.5% were from Asia. 41.6% of respondents underwent an endourology fellowship. Personal experience of suction for PCNL was noted in 55.4% and 42.7% for RIRS. 34.9% believe that currently there is enough evidence that suction can improve stone free rates and lower complications for both endourology surgeries. 55.69% believe that as evidence evolves, suction has the potential to be a game changer in endourology management of urolithiasis. 55.7% believe that the leading barrier to the adoption of suction in endourology is the lack of availability of technology. Other barriers include lack of procedural standardization (37.65%), lack of evidence (34.9%), lack of proper training (29.58%) and lack of advocation in the current guidelines (17.72%).
CONCLUSION: Our survey shows that urologists are keen to adopt suction for PCNL and RIRS but the lack of definitive evidence, standardization, equipment availability and training preclude them from using so. More high-level evidence regarding the utility of suction in endourology is required for its routine adoption in clinical practice.
METHODS: To develop this tool, published literature on assessment tools was searched on various databases. A panel of 12 steering committee members conducted an advisory board meeting to review the findings. Specific outcome measures to be included in a comprehensive assessment tool and follow-up sheet were then collated following consensus approval from the panel. The tool was further validated for content and revised with expert recommendations to arrive at the finalized Nasal Polyp Patient Assessment Scoring Sheet (N-PASS) tool.
RESULTS: The N-PASS tool was developed by integrating the subjective and objective measures for CRS assessment. Based on expert opinions, N-PASS was revised to be used as an easy-to-use guidance tool that captures patient-reported and physician-assessed components for comprehensively assessing disease status and response to treatment.
CONCLUSION: The N-PASS tool can be used to aid in the diagnosis and management of CRS cases with nasal polyps. The tool would also aid in improved monitoring of patients and pave the way for an international disease registry.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Oxford Level 3.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Outcomes of 736 patients with T2DM who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) at an academic center (2004-2012) and had ≥5 years' glycemic follow-up were assessed. Of 736 patients, 425 (58%) experienced diabetes remission (HbA1c <6.5% [48 mmol/mol] with patients off medications) in the 1st year after surgery. These 425 patients were followed for a median of 8 years (range 5-14) to characterize late relapse of diabetes.
RESULTS: In 136 (32%) patients who experienced late relapse, a statistically significant improvement in glycemic control, number of diabetes medications including insulin use, blood pressure, and lipid profile was still observed at long-term. Independent baseline predictors of late relapse were preoperative number of diabetes medications, duration of T2DM before surgery, and SG versus RYGB. Furthermore, patients who relapsed lost less weight during the 1st year after surgery and regained more weight afterward. Prediction models were constructed and externally validated.
CONCLUSIONS: While late relapse of T2DM is a real phenomenon (one-third of our cohort), it should not be considered a failure, as the trajectory of the disease and its related cardiometabolic risk factors is changed favorably after bariatric surgery. Earlier surgical intervention, RYGB (compared with SG) and more weight loss (less late weight regain) are associated with less diabetes relapse in the long-term.