Use of Ceftriaxone and Benzylpenicillin in Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy: Spectrum vs Cost

Background

The application of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) principles may entail increased cost to allow for narrower-spectrum therapy. Prescribing benzylpenicillin (BP) and ceftriaxone (CRO) for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) demonstrates the complex challenge of this principle. The aim of this study is to analyze the use of BP and CRO in our OPAT program, including indications and relative cost.

Methods

We analyzed all adult patients in our OPAT program who received intravenous BP or CRO over 1 year. We identified a "crossover group" of patients who could have received either agent. Economic comparison was based on acquisition cost of the therapy (drug, infuser, and preparation costs).

Results

Of 105 eligible patients, 54 (51%) and 51 (49%) received BP and CRO, respectively. Forty (38%) patients were suitable for either agent; of these, the majority (n = 31, 78%) were treated with BP. Economic analysis demonstrated that the average daily cost of BP therapy was $93.76/d (AUD) vs $1.23/d for CRO. Thus, across our OPAT programs, we had an additional average cost of $92.53/patient/d to use BP instead of CRO. Program-wide the annual additional cost of using BP and thus applying this AMS strategy was $68 386.12.

Conclusions

BP is often selected over CRO by clinicians, where possible, as recommended by the Australian guidelines; however, BP is associated with higher daily acquisition costs. More broadly, a number of narrower-spectrum agents may involve significantly higher costs than comparators; as such, the $92.53/d to prevent CRO exposure can be considered when applying other antimicrobial-substitution AMS interventions in an acute health care setting.

Epidermal Inclusion Cyst Formation: Late Complication of Carpal Tunnel Release

Background  Epidermal inclusion cysts (EIC) are epidermally lined, keratin containing cysts which occur when keratinizing epithelium becomes imbedded in deeper subcutaneous tissue, usually following penetrating trauma, or, rarely, surgery. We describe a case of an EIC presenting as a late complication following open carpal tunnel release (CTR). Case Description  A 64-year-old woman with a history of left open CTR 17 years prior presented to our institution with unprovoked left palmar pain, swelling, and fluctuance. Computed tomography imaging confirmed the presence of a multiloculated abscess involving the hypothenar musculature. The abscess developed at the site of a small, pre-existing, asymptomatic mass that the patient recalls developed within months of CTR surgery. She was initially treated with antibiotics and bedside incision and drainage, but required further operative exploration in the setting of persistent erythema and drainage. An inflamed cystic structure consistent with an infected EIC was identified and completely excised. Her wound healed by secondary intention. Her postoperative course was uncomplicated. Pathology confirmed a diagnosis of EIC. Literature Review  Only one other case report was found in which the patient presented within 2 years following CTR surgery with what was later confirmed to be an EIC and recurrent median nerve compression symptoms. Clinical Relevance  To prevent a delay in definitive surgical care, EIC rupture and subsequent infection should be considered in the differential diagnosis when evaluating patients with a history of prior hand surgery who are presenting with an unprovoked hand abscess, as incision and drainage alone will not adequately treat an EIC.

Multicenter Assessment of Cryoanalgesia Use in Minimally Invasive Repair of Pectus Excavatum: A 20-center Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical implications of cryoanalgesia for pain management in children undergoing minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (MIRPE).

BACKGROUND

MIRPE entails significant pain management challenges, often requiring high postoperative opioid use. Cryoanalgesia, which blocks pain signals by temporarily ablating intercostal nerves, has been recently utilized as an analgesic adjunct. We hypothesized that the use of cryoanalgesia during MIRPE would decrease postoperative opioid use and length of stay (LOS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 20 US children's hospitals was conducted of children (age below 18 years) undergoing MIRPE from January 1, 2014, to August 1, 2019. Differences in total postoperative, inpatient, oral morphine equivalents per kilogram, and 30-day LOS between patients who received cryoanalgesia versus those who did not were assessed using bivariate and multivariable analysis. P value <0.05 is considered significant.

RESULTS

Of 898 patients, 136 (15%) received cryoanalgesia. Groups were similar by age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, and Haller index. Receipt of cryoanalgesia was associated with lower oral morphine equivalents per kilogram (risk ratio=0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.57) and a shorter LOS (risk ratio=0.66, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.87). Complications were similar between groups (29.8% vs 22.1, P =0.07), including a similar rate of emergency department visit, readmission, and/or reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of cryoanalgesia during MIRPE appears to be effective in lowering postoperative opioid requirements and LOS without increasing complication rates. With the exception of preoperative gabapentin, other adjuncts appear to increase and/or be ineffective at reducing opioid utilization. Cryoanalgesia should be considered for patients undergoing this surgery.

Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System Utilization in Patients with Developmental Delays

INTRODUCTION

Adolescent females with developmental delays (DDs) experience unique physical and emotional challenges related to menstruation. Providers often recommend hormonal medication for menstrual management. The objective of our study was to describe the utilization and safety of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in adolescents with DDs.

METHODS

We utilized the Pediatric Health Information System to identify females aged 10-25 with DDs who underwent an LNG-IUS insertion between 2011 and 2020. Using a gynecologic procedure and diagnosis codes, we assessed indications for and complications of LNG-IUS use. We also evaluated early LNG-IUS removal.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred and sixty female patients with DDs underwent LNG-IUS insertion. LNG-IUS insertion under anesthesia was most commonly performed in patients with autism and Down syndrome, and unspecified menstrual issues were documented for 40% of the cohort. Perforation was observed in 11 patients (1%), and mechanical complications (malpositioned IUS or lost threads) were observed in 23 patients (1%).

DISCUSSION

This is the largest analysis of LNG-IUS use in patients with DDs to our knowledge and shows the utilization of LNG-IUS in patients with DDs. We provide descriptive information that providers can use to accurately advise their patients with DDs on the risks and benefits of LNG-IUS use for menstrual management.

POS0299 EFFECT OF SECUKINUMAB ON RADIOGRAPHIC PROGRESSION AND INFLAMMATION IN SACROILIAC JOINTS AND SPINE IN PATIENTS WITH NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: 2-YEAR IMAGING OUTCOMES FROM A PHASE III RANDOMISED TRIAL

Background

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is characterised by inflammation of the sacroiliac joints (SIJ) and the spine. Secukinumab (SEC) treatment was clinically efficacious and reduced SIJ bone marrow oedema as detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients (pts) with non-radiographic (nr)-axSpA through 52 weeks in the PREVENT (NCT02696031) study.1

Objectives

To report radiographic progression and the course of inflammation as assessed by X-ray and MRI of SIJ and spine over 2 years in the PREVENT study.

Methods

Study design and key endpoints have been reported earlier.1 In total, 555 pts were randomised (1:1:1) to receive SEC 150 mg, with (LD) or without loading (NL) doses, or placebo (PBO). Switch to open-label (OL) SEC or standard of care (SoC) was permitted after Week (Wk) 20. All pts (except those who switched to SoC) received OL SEC from Wk 52. Radiographs of the spine and SIJ were collected at baseline (BL) and Wk 104; MR images of the spine and SIJ were collected at BL, Wk 16, 52, and 104. Spinal radiographs were scored using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score (mSASSS) and SIJ radiographs according to modified New York criteria (mNYC). Pts whose screening SI joint radiographs fulfilled mNY criteria during the eligibility reading session were excluded from the study. Spinal MR images were assessed for signs of inflammation with the Berlin score. SIJ bone marrow oedema was assessed according to the Berlin Active Inflammatory Lesions Scoring. All images were evaluated in blinded fashion independently by 2 central readers. All data are reported from the Wk 104 reading session and are presented as observed.

Results

The vast majority (98%) of pts treated with SEC 150 mg (pooled LD and NL) showed no structural progression, defined as change in total mSASSS score ≤ smallest detectable change (SDC) of 0.76 (80% agreement level) over 2 years. At BL, 62 pts (43 in SEC, 19 in PBO) presented with ≥1 syndesmophyte (≥1 vertebral unit scored by ≥1 reader). Among these pts, 9 in SEC (20.9%) and 7 in PBO (36.8%) groups had developed ≥1 new syndesmophyte by Wk 104. Among 237 SEC and 117 PBO pts without syndesmophytes at BL, only 4 pts on SEC (1.7%) and 4 pts on PBO (3.4%) developed ≥1 new syndesmophyte by Wk 104. SIJ radiographs showed that 88% of pts on SEC and 86% on PBO had no progression in SIJ (defined as change ≤ SDC (0.46) in total mNYC score) by Wk 104. No patient had an increase in total mNYC score of 2 or more. When screening radiographs of eligible pts were scored alongside post-BL images in the final reading campaign, approximately 25% of pts (68/277 and 34/139 pts in the SEC and PBO groups, respectively) were evaluated as mNY-positive at screening (pts were considered mNY-positive if ≥1 reader evaluated them as mNY-positive). Of these, 11/68 pts in the SEC (16.2%) and 5/34 in the PBO (14.7%) groups were evaluated as mNY-negative at Wk 104. In the SEC and PBO groups, 202 (96.7%) and 102 (97.1%) pts who were mNY-negative at screening stayed negative through Wk 104, respectively. Only 7 pts in the SEC (3.3%) and 3 in the PBO (2.9%) groups who were mNY-negative at BL were scored as mNY-positive at Wk 104. In both groups, fewer pts progressed from mNY-negative to mNY-positive than had a change in the opposite direction (from positive to negative), resulting in an overall negative net progression. Spinal inflammation on MRI (Berlin score) was low at BL with a mean of 0.82 in SEC and 1.07 in PBO groups with no meaningful change up to Wk 104 (mean of 0.56, SEC). SEC reduced SIJ bone marrow oedema score versus PBO at Wk 16 and Wk 52 with sustained reduction through Wk 104 in the overall patient population, with greater reduction in pts with BL score >2 (Figure 1).

Conclusion

Most pts initially randomised to SEC or PBO showed no radiographic progression through 2 years. There was some discrepancy between SIJ eligibility and efficacy reads. SEC reduced SIJ inflammation (bone marrow oedema) on MRI in pts with active nr-axSpA.

References

[1]Deodhar A, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021;73:110–20.

Disclosure of Interests

Juergen Braun Speakers bureau: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB pharma, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Eli Lilly, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB pharma, MSD, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB pharma, MSD, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, Helena Marzo-Ortega Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, UCB, Grant/research support from: Janssen, Novartis, UCB, Lianne S. Gensler Consultant of: Gilead, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: UCB, Pfizer, Filip van den Bosch Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Galapagos, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Stephen Hall Speakers bureau: Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, UCB, Consultant of: Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB, Janssen, Merck, Hideto Kameda Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Asahi-Kasei, Astellas, BMS, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Astellas, Boehringer, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Asahi-Kasei, Boehringer, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Marleen G.H. van de Sande Speakers bureau: Novartis, MSD, Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Eli Lily, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, UCB, Désirée van der Heijde Paid instructor for: Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, BMS, Cyxone, Eisai, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, and Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Tingting Zhuang Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Anna Stefanska Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Aimee Readie Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Hanno Richards Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

Green turtle population recovery at Aldabra Atoll continues after 50 yr of protection

Green turtles Chelonia mydas have been subject to high levels of anthropogenic exploitation, with harvesting at their nesting sites especially pronounced throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, leading to worldwide declines. Due to their delayed sexual maturity, long-term protection and monitoring is crucial to allow and accurately demonstrate population recovery. Subsequent to their exploitation, Aldabra Atoll (Republic of Seychelles) has offered the longest continuous protection for nesting green turtles anywhere in the Western Indian Ocean, beginning in 1968. Here, we document the continuing recovery of that population by estimating clutch production within 12 mo nesting seasons over 50 yr of monitoring. An estimated mean of 15297 clutches were laid annually between December 2014 and November 2019. This represents an increase of 173% since Aldabra’s intensive monitoring programme was initiated in 1980, and 410-�665% since 1968. Clutch number increases were recorded at all but 1 of 6 monitored beach groups around the atoll but were most pronounced at Settlement Beach, where exploitation of nesting females was historically most intense. Seasonality data since 2000 showed a year-round nesting season, with elevated activity in April-June peaking on average in May, and a potential shift to later in the year over time. This study highlights the considerable contribution of Aldabra Atoll to regional green turtle numbers and the benefit of long-term protection and monitoring at what can be considered a global reference site for this species.

127 Electronic Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Discharge After Surgery: A Systematic Review

Aim

Little is known about the electronic collection and clinical feedback of patient reported outcomes (ePROs) post-surgical discharge. This review summarised the evidence on the collection and uses of electronic systems to collect PROs after discharge from hospital following surgery.

Method

Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central were undertaken from database inception to July 2019 using terms for “patient reported outcomes”, “electronic”, “surgery” and “at home”. Primary research of all study designs was included if they used electronic systems to collect PRO data away from formal health care settings. Only studies in adult patients admitted for surgery then discharged from hospital were eligible.

Results

From 9,474 records identified, 15 studies were reviewed including three randomised controlled trials. Seven studies were in orthopaedic surgery. Most studies used commercial ePRO systems (n = 9/12). Six studies reported types of electronic devices used to collect data: tablets or other portable devices (n = 3), smartphones (n = 2), combination of smartphones, tablets/portable devices and computers (n = 1). Systems had limited features or functions such as real-time feedback to clinicians (n = 6) and messaging service for patients to communicate with care teams (n = 3). No studies described integration of the ePRO system with electronic health records to support clinical feedback.

Conclusions

There is limited reporting of ePRO systems in the surgical literature. ePRO systems lack integration with hospital clinical systems. Future research should describe the ePRO system and ePRO questionnaires used, and challenges encountered during the study, to support efficient upscaling of ePRO systems using tried and tested approaches.

Comparative analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Despite increased utilization of robotic-assisted surgery in the pediatric population during the past decade, reports of comparative analysis between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery are lacking. Our aim was to evaluate outcomes between pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

A single institution retrospective analysis of 299 patients undergoing either RC or LC, between January 2015 and December 2018 was performed. Demographic data as well as clinical characteristics and related outcomes were abstracted and compared using univariate analysis. Related hospital costs were estimated using a charge to cost methodology.

RESULTS

The median age of the cohort was 15.5 years (IQR 14.0-17.0); 76% females and 70% white, with 74% (n = 220) undergoing LC and 26% (n = 79) undergoing RC. The majority of RC were performed using single-site technique and RC proportion increased with time (10% in 2015 vs. 41% in 2018, p<0.001). The majority of RC were more commonly attributed to patients with nonacute indications for cholecystectomy compared to acute clinical indications (87% vs. 13%). Median operative time was 98 min vs. 79 min for RC and LC respectively (p<0.001). Median postoperative LOS was similar between groups (22 h). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, in-hospital opioid utilization and 30-day readmissions. Average total hospital costs for RC were $15,519 compared to $11,197 for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is feasible with similar outcomes compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, it is associated with longer operative times and higher costs. The single-site RC technique may provide a potential cosmetic benefit.

POS0900 SECUKINUMAB 150 MG PROVIDES SUSTAINED IMPROVEMENT IN SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS OF NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: 2-YEAR RESULTS FROM THE PREVENT STUDY

Background:

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is an inflammatory disease characterised by chronic back pain, and it comprises radiographic axSpA and non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA).1 Secukinumab (SEC) 150 mg, with (LD) or without loading (NL), dose significantly improved the signs and symptoms of patients with nr-axSpA in the PREVENT (NCT02696031) study through Week 52.2

Objectives:

To report the long-term clinical efficacy and safety of secukinumab from the PREVENT study through 2 years.

Methods:

A detailed study design, key primary and secondary endpoints have been reported previously.2 In total, 555 patients fulfilling ASAS criteria for axSpA plus abnormal C-reactive protein (CRP) and/or MRI, without evidence of radiographic changes in sacroiliac (SI) joints according to modified New York Criteria for AS were randomised (1:1:1) to receive SEC 150 mg with LD, NL, or placebo (PBO) at baseline. LD patients received SEC 150 mg at Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4, and then every 4 weeks (q4wk) starting at Week 4. NL patients received SEC 150 mg at baseline and PBO at weeks 1, 2, and 3, and then 150 mg q4wk. 90% patients were anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) naïve, 57% had elevated CRP and 73% had evidence of SI joint inflammation on MRI. All images were assessed centrally before inclusion. All patients continued to receive open-label SEC 150 mg treatment after Week 52. Efficacy assessments through Week 104 included ASAS40 in anti-TNF-naïve patients, ASAS40, BASDAI change from baseline, BASDAI50, ASAS partial remission, and ASDAS-CRP inactive disease in the overall population. The safety analyses included all patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment for the entire treatment period up to Week 104. Data are presented as observed.

Results:

Overall, 438 patients completed 104 weeks of study: 78.9% (146/185; LD), 77.7% (143/184; NL) and 80.1% (149/186; PBO). Efficacy results at Week 52 were sustained through Week 104 and are reported in the Table 1. The safety profile was consistent with the previous reports with no deaths reported during the entire treatment period up to Week 104.2

Conclusion:

Secukinumab 150 mg demonstrated sustained improvement in the signs and symptoms of patients with nr-axSpA through 2 years. Secukinumab was well tolerated with no new or unexpected safety signals.

References:

[1]Strand V, et al. J Clin Rheumatol. 2017; 23(7):383–91.

[2]Deodhar A, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020. Online ahead of print.

Figure 1.

ASAS40 response was maintained through Week 104 in the overall population

Table 1.

Summary of clinical efficacy (Observed data)

EndpointsWeekSEC 150 mg LD(N=185)SEC 150 mg NL(N=184)PBO-SEC 150 mg(N=186)*ASAS40 in anti-TNF-naïve patients, n/M (%)52a90/137 (65.7)95/145 (65.5)85/151 (56.3)10478/123 (63.4)83/123 (67.5)83/134 (61.9)BASDAI change from baseline, mean±SD52a−3.7±2.8−3.7±2.6−3.3±2.4104−4.1±2.6−3.9±2.6−3.7±2.5BASDAI50, n/M (%)52a90/153 (58.8)92/163 (56.4)90/161 (55.9)10488/137 (64.2)84/136 (61.8)87/142 (61.3)ASAS partial remission,n/M (%)52a46/152 (30.3)56/163 (34.4)46/161 (28.6)10451/137 (37.2)50/135 (37.0)50/142 (35.2)ASDAS CRP inactive disease, n/M (%)52a49/152 (32.2)58/163 (35.6)48/160 (30.0)10450/132 (37.9)53/133 (39.8)53/142 (37.3)

*For anti-TNF-naïve patients, N=164, LD; 166, NL; 171, PBO-SEC.

a total number of evaluable patients including open-label SEC and standard of care (SOC; 2 patients in LD, 1 patient in NL continued on SOC). After Week 52, only patients who continued to receive open-label SEC are presented.

ASAS, Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society; ASDAS, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score; BASDAI, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index; M, number of patients with evaluation; N, total randomised patients; n, number of patients who are responders; SD, standard deviation

Disclosure of Interests:

Denis Poddubnyy Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biocad, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Atul Deodhar Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Gilead, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Novartis, Ricardo Blanco Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB pharma and MSD and Eli Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB pharma and MSD, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, and Roche, Eva Dokoupilova Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Affibody AB, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Hexal AG, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, R-Pharm, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB, Stephen Hall Speakers bureau: Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and UCB, Consultant of: Novartis, Merck, Janssen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB, Janssen, and Merck, Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: Pfizer, Sanofi, Novartis, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Speakers bureau: Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion, AbbVie, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Marleen G.H. van de Sande Speakers bureau: Novartis, MSD, Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Eli Lily, Grant/research support from: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, UCB, Anna Stefanska Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Patricia Pertel Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Hanno Richards Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Juergen Braun Speakers bureau: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB pharma, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB, Eli Lilly, Grant/research support from: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB, Eli Lilly

Electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes following discharge after surgery: systematic review

Background

Little is known about the electronic collection and clinical feedback of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) following surgical discharge. This systematic review summarized the evidence on the collection and uses of electronic systems to collect PROs after discharge from hospital after surgery.

Method

Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central were undertaken from database inception to July 2019 using terms for ‘patient reported outcomes’, ‘electronic’, ‘surgery’ and ‘at home’. Primary research of all study designs was included if they used electronic systems to collect PRO data in adults after hospital discharge following surgery. Data were collected on the settings, patient groups and specialties, ePRO systems (including features and functions), PRO data collected, and integration with health records.

Results

Fourteen studies were included from 9474 records, including two RCTs and six orthopaedic surgery studies. Most studies (9 of 14) used commercial ePRO systems. Six reported types of electronic device were used: tablets or other portable devices (3 studies), smartphones (2), combination of smartphones, tablets, portable devices and computers (1). Systems had limited features and functions such as real-time clinical feedback (6 studies) and messaging service for patients with care teams (3). No study described ePRO system integration with electronic health records to support clinical feedback.

Conclusion

There is limited reporting of ePRO systems in the surgical literature, and ePRO systems lack integration with hospital clinical systems. Future research should describe the ePRO system and ePRO questionnaires used, and challenges encountered during the study, to support efficient upscaling of ePRO systems using tried and tested approaches.

FRI0272 SECUKINUMAB DEMONSTRATES A CONSISTENT SAFETY PROFILE IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIASIS, PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS OVER LONG TERM: UPDATED POOLED SAFETY ANALYSES

Background:

Pooled safety data has been reported with secukinumab (SEC) in patients (pts) with Psoriatic arthritis (PsA), Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) and Psoriasis (PsO).1

Objectives:

To report longer-term safety data of SEC treatment in PsA, AS, PsO pts up to 5 years.

Methods:

The integrated clinical trial safety dataset included data pooled from 28 randomised controlled clinical trials of SEC 300 or 150 or 75 mg in PsO (11 Phase 3 and 8 Phase 4 trials), PsA (5 Phase 3 trials), and AS (4 Phase 3 trials), along with post-marketing safety surveillance data with a cut-off date of 25 December 2018. Adverse events (AEs) were reported as exposure-adjusted incident rates (EAIRs) per 100 pt-years. Analyses included all pts who received ≥1 dose of SEC.

Results:

A total of 12637 pts (8819, 2678 and 1140 pts with PsO, PsA and AS, with an exposure of 15063.1, 5984.6 and 3527.2 pt-years, respectively) were included. The most frequent AE was upper respiratory tract infection and EAIR per 100 pt-years for IBD, malignancies and MACE remained low. The EAIR per 100 pt-years for adverse events (AEs) of special interest are reported in Table 1. The cumulative post-marketing exposure to SEC was estimated to be ~285,811 pt-years across the approved indications. Safety data from post-marketing surveillance are reported in Table 2.

Table 1.

Selected AEs of interest with SEC across pooled clinical trials

VariablePsOPsAASSECN=8819SECN=2678SECN=1140Exposure (Days), Mean (SD)623.9 (567.7)816.2 (580.7)1130.1 (583.0)Death, n (%)15 (0.2)13 (0.5)10 (0.9)Selected AE’s of interest, EAIR (95% CI)Serious infections11.4 (1.2, 1.6)1.8 (1.5, 2.2)1.2 (0.9, 1.6)Candidainfections22.9 (2.7, 3.2)1.5 (1.2, 1.9)0.7 (0.5, 1.1)IBD3Crohn’s disease3Ulcerative colitis30.01 (0.0, 0.05)0.1 (0.05, 0.2)0.1 (0.08, 0.2)0.03 (0.0, 0.1)0.1 (0.04, 0.2)0.1 (0.04, 0.2)0.03 (0.0, 0.2)0.4 (0.24, 0.7)0.2 (0.1, 0.5)MACE40.4 (0.31, 0.5)0.4 (0.3, 0.6)0.7 (0.4, 1.0)Uveitis30.01 (0.0, 0.05)0.1 (0.04, 0.2)1.2 (0.9, 1.7)Malignancy50.9 (0.7, 1.0)1.0 (0.77, 1.3)0.5 (0.3, 0.8)

1Rates for system organ class;2Rates for high level term;3Rates for preferred term (PT; IBD for unspecified IBD);4Rates for Novartis MedDRA Query term;5Rates for standardized MedDRA query term – ‘malignancies and unspecified tumour’; EAIR, exposure adjusted incidence rate per 100 pt-years; N, number of pts in the analysis

Table 2.

Summary of SEC post-marketing safety

Exposure (PTY)PSUR126Dec14 -25Jun15PSUR226 Jun - 25Dec15PSUR326Dec15 -25Jun16PSUR426Jun -25Dec16PSUR526Dec16 -25Dec17PSUR626Dec17 -25Dec18Cumulative18387450168712854993744137325285811                    n (Reporting rate PTY)Serious infections89 (4.8)149 (2.0)232 (1.4)475 (1.7)649 (0.7)1841 (1.3)3980 (1.4)Malignancy2 (0.1)15 (0.2)21 (0.1)50 (0.2)225 (0.2)422 (0.3)788 (0.3)Total IBD4 (0.2)12 (0.2)37(0.2)46 (0.2)185 (0.2)340 (0.3)693 (0.2)MACE6 (0.3)15 (0.2)16 (0.1)39 (0.1)151 (0.2)238 (0.2)504 (0.2)

PSUR, periodic safety update report; PTY, pt-treatment years

Conclusion:

In this long-term analysis across clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance, of pts with PsO, PsA and AS, SEC was well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with previous reports.1

Reference:

[1]Deodhar et al. Arthritis Research & Therapy (2019) 21:111.

Disclosure of Interests:

Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Iain McInnes Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, and UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Xenofon Baraliakos Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Chugai, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB and Werfen, Kristian Reich Grant/research support from: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Consultant of: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Speakers bureau: Affibody; Almirall; Amgen; Biogen; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Centocor; Covagen; Eli Lilly; Forward Pharma; Fresenius Medical Care; GlaxoSmithKline; Janssen; Kyowa Kirin; LEO Pharma; Medac; Merck; Novartis; Miltenyi Biotec; Ocean Pharma; Pfizer; Regeneron; Samsung Bioepis; Sanofi Genzyme; Takeda; UCB; Valeant and Xenoport., Alice B Gottlieb Grant/research support from:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Consultant of:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Speakers bureau:: Research grants, consultation fees, or speaker honoraria for lectures from: Pfizer, AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sandoz, Nordic, Celltrion and UCB., Mark Lebwohl Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Arcutis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Clinuvel, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Kadmon Corp., LLC, Leo Pharmaceutucals, Medimmune, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer, Sciderm, UCB, Inc., and ViDac, Consultant of: Allergan, Almirall, Arcutis, Inc., Avotres Therapeutics, BirchBioMed Inc., Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Corrona, Dermavant Sciences, Evelo, Foundation for Research and Education in Dermatology, Inozyme Pharma, LEO Pharma, Meiji Seika Pharma, Menlo, Mitsubishi, Neuroderm, Pfizer, Promius/Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Theravance, and Verrica, Stefan Schreiber Consultant of: AbbVie, Arena, BMS, Biogen, Celltrion, Celgene, IMAB, Gilead, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Fresenius, Janssen, Takeda, Theravance, provention Bio, Protagonist and Falk, Weibin Bao Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Kwaku Marfo Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Hanno Richards Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Luminita Pricop Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Abhijit Shete Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Jorge Safi Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Philip J Mease Grant/research support from: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – grant/research support, Consultant of: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceutical, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Abbott, Amgen, Biogen Idec, BMS, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau

The pediatric surgery match by the numbers: Defining the successful application

BACKGROUND

Pediatric surgery remains the most competitive general surgery subspecialty. The authors suspected significant inflation in academic metrics since the last published paper. This study aimed to identify factors associated with applicant success in the match.

METHODS

After IRB approval, all applications to a single accredited pediatric surgery fellowship program were reviewed for match years 2014-2018. Matched and unmatched applicants were compared in an unadjusted and adjusted analysis.

RESULTS

This training program received 414 of 425 total applications (97%). Match results were available for 388 (94%). Matched applicants were more likely to train in programs with pediatric surgery fellowships (64% vs. 28%) and to have dedicated research time (55% vs. 21%; all p < 0.01). Matched applicants had more total publications (median: 12 vs. 7, p < 0.01) and higher ABSITE scores (median: 64th vs. 59th percentile, p < 0.01). Training in multiple programs negatively impacted the chance to match (p < 0.01). The median number of publications per applicant increased over the study time period from 7 to 11 (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The likelihood of matching into a pediatric surgery fellowship was related to the type of residency attended, dedicated research time, ABSITE scores, and number of publications. Overall, the total number of publications reported by all applicants increased.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective Comparative Study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

OP0106 SECUKINUMAB 150 MG SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS OF NON-RADIOGRAPHIC AXIAL SPONDYLOARTHRITIS: 52-WEEK RESULTS FROM THE PHASE III PREVENT STUDY

Background:

Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) spectrum covers radiographic axSpA and non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA). PREVENT (NCT02696031) is the first phase III, placebo (PBO) controlled study evaluating secukinumab (SEC) 150 mg with (LD) or without loading (NL) dose, in patients (pts) with nr-axSpA.1The study had 2 independent analysis plans as per EU (Wk 16) and US (Wk 52) regulatory requirements.

Objectives:

To report efficacy through Wk 52 and safety up to two years for the PREVENT study.

Methods:

555 pts fulfilling ASAS criteria for axSpA plus abnormal CRP and/or MRI, without evidence of radiographic changes in sacroiliac (SI) joints according to modified New York Criteria for AS were enrolled. All images were assessed centrally before inclusion. Pts were randomised (1:1:1) to SEC 150 mg with LD, NL, or PBO at baseline (BL). LD pts received SEC 150 mg at Wks 1, 2, 3, and 4, and then every 4 wks (q4wk) starting at Wk 4. NL pts received SEC 150 mg at BL and PBO at Wks 1, 2, and 3, and then 150 mg q4wk. Switch to open-label (OL) SEC 150 mg or standard of care (SoC) was permitted after Wk 20. Primary endpoint was ASAS40 at Wk 16 (LD) and at Wk 52 (NL) in anti-TNF-naïve pts. Secondary endpoints (overall population) included ASAS40, BASDAI50, SI joint bone marrow edema (BME) score by MRI at Wks 16 and 52 and ASDAS-CRP inactive disease (ID) at Wk 52. Endpoints were analysed according to statistical hierarchy. Analysis used non responder imputation through Wk 52. Safety analyses included all pts who received ≥1 dose of study treatment.

Results:

Overall, 481 pts completed 52 wks with no major differences in retention across groups: 84.3% (156/185; LD), 89.7% (165/184; NL) and 86.0% (160/186; PBO). BL characteristics were similar across groups; 90% pts were anti-TNF-naïve, 56-58% pts had elevated CRP, 71-75% pts had evidence of SI joint inflammation by MRI. Proportion of pts who switched to OL or SoC between Wks 20 and 48 was 52.1% (LD), 49.2% (NL), and 67.4% (PBO). Primary endpoints at Wk 16 and Wk 52 were met (Table). SEC 150 mg LD or NL significantly improved secondary endpoints at Wk 16 and 52 vs PBO (Table). SEC significantly reduced SI joint MRI BME score vs PBO at Wk 16 (-1.68 and -1.03 vs -0.39;P= 0.0197 and 0.026, LD and NL respectively). No unexpected safety signals were reported.

Conclusion:

SEC 150 mg provided significant and sustained improvement in signs and symptoms of pts with nr-axSpA through Wk 52. MRI BME scores were reduced accordingly. There was no major difference between LD and NL. Safety of SEC was consistent with previous reports.2

References:

[1]Deodhar A, et al.Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10).

[2]Deodhar A, et al. Arth Res Ther. 2019;21:111.

TableEndpoints, % respondersWkSEC150 mg LD(N = 185)SEC150 mg NL(N = 184)PBO(N = 186)PrimaryASAS40 in anti-TNF-naïve pts1641.5‡42.2‡29.25235.4‡39.8‡19.9SecondaryASAS401640.0‡40.8‡28.05233.5‡38.0‡19.4BASDAI501637.3‡37.5‡21.05230.8‡35.3‡19.9ASDAS-CRP ID1620.5†21.7†8.15215.723.9‡10.2

†P< 0.001;‡P< 0.05 vs PBO (Pvalues are adjusted for multiplicity of testing at Wks 16 and 52. UnadjustedPvalue for ASDAS-CRP ID at Wk 16). Missing values were imputed as non-response.

N, number of randomised pts

Disclosure of Interests:

Juergen Braun Grant/research support from: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi- Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: Abbvie (Abbott), Amgen, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Celltrion, Centocor, Chugai, EBEWE Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Medac, MSD (Schering-Plough), Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer (Wyeth), Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and UCB Pharma, Ricardo Blanco Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma and MSD, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma. MSD, Eva Dokoupilova Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Novartis, Lianne S. Gensler Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, UCB, Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, UCB, Paid instructor for: Celgene, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Flexion, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, Stephen Hall Grant/research support from: Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, Merck, Hideto Kameda Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Asahi-Kasei, Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe and Novartis, Consultant of: Abbvie, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Asahi-Kasei, BMS, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis and Pfizer, Denis Poddubnyy Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Marleen van de Sande Grant/research support from: Novartis, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Speakers bureau: Novartis, MSD, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Anna Wiksten Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Brian Porter Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Hanno Richards Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Sibylle Haemmerle Shareholder of: Novartis, Employee of: Novartis, Atul Deodhar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myer Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB

A laminated energetic electrostatic analyzer for 0-5 keV charged particles

A compact electrostatic energy bandpass filter based on a laminated analyzer design has been developed to measure charged particle fluxes at energies ranging from 0 to 5 keV. The sensor head has been successfully tested against a low energy magnetically filtered plasma source and an ion beam source capable of producing energetic ions in the range of 100-1250 eV. Additionally, the instrument has demonstrated the ability to accurately measure negative spacecraft frame charging using a low Earth orbit plasma simulator. The effects of the spacecraft frame charging on the measured energy distribution measurements and the impact regarding the derived charged particle density and temperature parameters are also examined.

Effects of Surgical Anaesthesia on the Viability of Nigral Grafts in the Rat Striatum

Only a small proportion of dopamine neurons in nigral grafts typically survive transplantation into the adult striatum. Since many anaesthetics reduce blood flow and disturb a variety of brain metabolites, surgical anaesthesia may be one of the factors that compromise graft survival. Conversely, the lowered core body temperature induced by some anaesthetics might promote the survival of grafted cells by slowing their metabolism. In an initial screen, the widely-used surgical anaesthetic, equithesin, was found to reduce core temperature, mean arterial blood pressure, and to increase the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood without producing any significant alteration in arterial pH or the partial pressure of carbon dioxide. In the main experiment, rats with unilateral 6-hydroxydopamine lesions of the nigrostriatal bundle received dopamine-rich embryonic nigral grafts injected into the deafferented neostriatum via previously implanted guide cannulae, which allowed comparison to be made of graft survival after transplantation into awake and in re-anaesthetised animals. There were no significant differences between groups in either the functional effects of the grafts to compensate amphetamine-induced rotation, or in the survival and growth of the grafts as measured in post mortem histology. We therefore conclude that anaesthesia per se is not a major contributory factor in the relatively poor survival of dopamine neurons following transplantation into the rat striatum.

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetic studies of tramadol immediate-release tablets in children and adolescents

In these combined analyzes from 3 open-label, phase-1 studies, the pharmacokinetic profile of tramadol and its metabolite (M1) following administration of tramadol immediate-release (IR) tablets in children and adolescents, 7-16 years old (studies 1 and 2: n = 38; study 3: n = 21) with painful conditions following single oral dose of tramadol IR (25-100 mg) (studies 1 and 2) or multiple oral doses of tramadol IR tablets every 6 hours for 3 days (study 3) were compared with that of healthy adults following similar treatment. Area under the curve of tramadol and its metabolite M1 in children and adolescents was lower compared with adults (Dose-normalized [DN] AUC, h ng/mL: tramadol: 1316.87 [children]; 1418.02 [adolescents];1838.29 [adults]; M1: 342.56 [children]; 475.4 [adolescents]; 636.13 [adults]) while the Cmax remained similar (DN Cmax , ng/mL: tramadol: 203.75 [children]; 165.35 [adolescents]; 226.92 [adults]; M1: 34.93 [children]; 38.42 [adolescents]; 52.14 [adults]). The DN AUC was further lower in children and adolescents with a lower body weight (<50 kg). The weight normalized oral clearance of tramadol was higher in children and adolescents compared with adults (CL/F, mL/min/kg: 12.66 [children]; 11.75 [adolescents]; 9.06 [adults]). No new safety findings emerged. Tramadol was generally safe and well-tolerated by children and adolescents with painful conditions.

Classwork and homework in early adolescence: The ecology of achievement

Recent studies have questioned whether the nation's educational system is adequately preparing children to function productively in today's society. To examine this issue, the present study utilized the Experience Sampling Method to investigate the amount of time young adolescents spent doing classwork and homework, their inner subjective experience while doing so, and their companions while doing homework. The relationship between these variables and students' academic performance was also examined. Results revealed that students spent only 15.5 hours per week engaged in school work and only 6 hours per week doing homework, with increased homework time associated with better academic achievement. In addition, students were found to complete homework primarily alone or in classes, although doing homework with their parents was associated with better academic performance. Lastly, students' affect was found to be relatively neutral when doing classwork, but comparatively more negative while doing homework, particularly when doing homework alone. The implications of these findings for understanding the socializing influence of school are discussed.

Macrodactyly - options and outcomes

We report the outcomes of 32 patients diagnosed with macrodactyly. The average age at presentation was 46 months and there was an equal distribution across the sexes, although there was a male predominance in the upper limb and female predominance in the lower limb. There were 20 cases of upper limb macrodactyly and 13 cases affecting the lower limb. Multiple digits were more commonly affected than isolated digits, with an average of 2.5 digits affected. Static disease required significantly fewer operations than progressive disease. The need for repeated procedures must be highlighted in cases of progressive macrodactyly. In the vast majority of cases the functional and cosmetic outcome is good, with good patient acceptance.

Topical negative pressure for the treatment of neonatal post-sternotomy wound dehiscence

The use of topical negative pressure (TNP) dressings for sternal wound dehiscence or mediastinitis in the neonatal population is rare. The majority of case reports have focused on wound healing as an endpoint and have not discussed the physiological advantage that TNP dressings may impart with regard to sternal stabilisation, improved respiratory function and early weaning from mechanical ventilation. We present a case of the use of TNP in neonatal post-sternotomy wound dehiscence and mediastinitis, from a UK perspective, with an emphasis on wound healing and physiological optimisation. As well as an improvement in sternal wound healing due to the local effects of the TNP system, serial arterial blood gas analysis revealed a significant improvement in systemic physiological parameters, including a reduction in pCO(2) in the period (days 20-31) after application of TNP (p<0.0001) compared to the period before where simple occlusive dressings were applied. Hydrogen ion concentration also significantly reduced in this period (p=0.0058). The use of the TNP system in association with systemic antibiotics successfully treated the mediastinitis. A sealed, controlled wound environment also allowed ease of nursing and an expedited return to care by the parents. We would recommend the consideration of TNP dressings in similar cases of neonatal and paediatric sternal wound dehiscence. Not only do we observe the local effects of improved wound healing, the systemic effects of improved lung function are also valuable in the early management of such complex cases.

Blackawton bees

BACKGROUND

Real science has the potential to not only amaze, but also transform the way one thinks of the world and oneself. This is because the process of science is little different from the deeply resonant, natural processes of play. Play enables humans (and other mammals) to discover (and create) relationships and patterns. When one adds rules to play, a game is created.

THIS IS SCIENCE

the process of playing with rules that enables one to reveal previously unseen patterns of relationships that extend our collective understanding of nature and human nature. When thought of in this way, science education becomes a more enlightened and intuitive process of asking questions and devising games to address those questions. But, because the outcome of all game-playing is unpredictable, supporting this 'messyness', which is the engine of science, is critical to good science education (and indeed creative education generally). Indeed, we have learned that doing 'real' science in public spaces can stimulate tremendous interest in children and adults in understanding the processes by which we make sense of the world. The present study (on the vision of bumble-bees) goes even further, since it was not only performed outside my laboratory (in a Norman church in the southwest of England), but the 'games' were themselves devised in collaboration with 25 8- to 10-year-old children. They asked the questions, hypothesized the answers, designed the games (in other words, the experiments) to test these hypotheses and analysed the data. They also drew the figures (in coloured pencil) and wrote the paper. Their headteacher (Dave Strudwick) and I devised the educational programme (we call 'i,scientist'), and I trained the bees and transcribed the childrens' words into text (which was done with smaller groups of children at the school's local village pub). So what follows is a novel study (scientifically and conceptually) in 'kids speak' without references to past literature, which is a challenge. Although the historical context of any study is of course important, including references in this instance would be disingenuous for two reasons. First, given the way scientific data are naturally reported, the relevant information is simply inaccessible to the literate ability of 8- to 10-year-old children, and second, the true motivation for any scientific study (at least one of integrity) is one's own curiousity, which for the children was not inspired by the scientific literature, but their own observations of the world. This lack of historical, scientific context does not diminish the resulting data, scientific methodology or merit of the discovery for the scientific and 'non-scientific' audience. On the contrary, it reveals science in its truest (most naive) form, and in this way makes explicit the commonality between science, art and indeed all creative activities.

PRINCIPAL FINDING

'We discovered that bumble-bees can use a combination of colour and spatial relationships in deciding which colour of flower to forage from. We also discovered that science is cool and fun because you get to do stuff that no one has ever done before. (Children from Blackawton)'.

European S3-guidelines on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris

Of the 131 studies on monotherapy or combination therapy assessed, 56 studies on the different forms of phototherapy fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the guidelines. Approximately three-quarters of all patients treated with phototherapy attained at least a PASI 75 response after 4 to 6 weeks, and clearance was frequently achieved (levels of evidence 2 and 3). Phototherapy represents a safe and very effective treatment option for moderate to severe forms of psoriasis vulgaris. The onset of clinical effects occurs within 2 weeks. Of the unwanted side effects, UV erythema from overexposure is by far the most common and is observed frequently. With repeated or long-term use, the consequences of high, cumulative UV doses (such as premature aging of the skin) must be taken into consideration. In addition, carcinogenic risk is associated with oral PUVA and is probable for local PUVA and UVB. The practicability of the therapy is limited by spatial, financial, human, and time constraints on the part of the physician, as well as by the amount of time required by the patient. From the perspective of the cost-bearing institution, phototherapy has a good cost-benefit ratio. However, the potentially significant costs for, and time required of, the patient must be considered.