Search

Ulrich R Hengge,1 Kristina Röschmann,2 Henning Candler3 1Skin Center, Düsseldorf, 2Department of Clinical Research, 3Department of Medical Affairs, G. Pohl‑Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG, Hohenlockstedt, Germany Introduction: Psoriasis is a frequent inflammatory skin disease affecting ~2%–3% of the population in western countries. Scaling of the psoriatic lesions is the most impairing symptom in patients with psoriasis. In contrast to conventional keratolytic treatment concepts containing salicylic acid or urea, a dimeticone-based medical device (Loyon®) removes scales in a physical way without any pharmacological effect.Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of a dimeticone-based medical device in removal of scales in patients with psoriasis corporis/capitis under real-life conditions.Methods: Forty patients with psoriasis capitis or corporis were included and received once-daily treatments for 7 days. Clinical assessment of the psoriasis area severity index score (psoriasis corporis) and the psoriasis scalp severity index score (psoriasis capitis) was performed and evaluated at baseline, after 3 and 7 days of treatment. Baseline scaling scores and redness scores were calculated for two target lesions of the scalp or the body on a 5-point scale each.Results: For the primary efficacy variable scaling score, a statistically significant decrease was observed after treatment, with a relative reduction in scaling of 36.8% after 7 days of treatment within patients affected by psoriasis capitis. Treatment success was achieved in 76.8% of patients with psoriasis capitis, and time to treatment success was evaluated to be 4.14 days for these patients and 4.33 days for patients suffering from psoriasis corporis.Conclusion: In conclusion, this trial demonstrated that the dimeticone-based medical device is a safe, well-tolerated, practicable, and efficient keratolytic compound, which can be well implemented in and recommended for standard therapy of psoriasis. Keywords: psoriasis, keratolysis, scaling, PSSI, PASI

Kai-Michael Beeh,1 Jutta Beier,1 Henning Candler,2 Thomas Wittig2 1Insaf Respiratory Research Institute, Wiesbaden, Germany; 2G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co KG, Hohenlockstedt, Germany Background: Treating symptoms and preventing exacerbations are key components of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) long-term management. Recently, a more tailored treatment approach has been proposed, in particular for two well-established clinical phenotypes, frequent exacerbators and chronic bronchitis-dominant COPD. ELOM-080 has demonstrated clinical efficacy in treating symptoms and preventing exacerbations in subjects with chronic bronchitis. However, little is known about the potential effects of ELOM-080 in COPD patients. Aim: To evaluate the effect on exacerbation, cough sputum, and general state of health of long-term treatment with ELOM-080 in COPD patients with an exacerbation history and chronic bronchitis. Methods: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled parallel-group clinical trial of a 6-month treatment with ELOM-080 (3×300 mg) in patients with chronic bronchitis and concomitant COPD. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects with at least one exacerbation over the 6-month study period. Secondary outcomes included the total number of exacerbations (ie, cumulative occurrence of exacerbations during the study period) and the proportion of acute exacerbations necessitating an antibiotic treatment, monthly evaluations of sputum and cough symptoms, and the general state of health and a safety analysis. Results: Of 260 randomized subjects, 64 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria for COPD (ELOM-080: 35, placebo: 29). Compared to placebo, ELOM-080 reduced the percentage of subjects with at least one exacerbation (29% versus 55%, P=0.031) and a reduction in the overall occurrence of exacerbations (ELOM-080: 10, placebo: 21, P=0.012) during the winter season. The percentage of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients (sputum/expectoration and cough) was consistently higher in the ELOM-080 group compared to placebo, with statistical significant differences after 2 and 3 months of treatment (2 months: ELOM-080 25%, placebo 11%, P

Patient and caregiver involvement can enhance the uptake and impact of research, but the involvement of patients and caregivers who are underserved and marginalized is often limited. A better understanding of how to make involvement in research more broadly accessible, supportive, and inclusive for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and caregivers is needed. We conducted a national workshop involving patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers from across Australia to identify strategies to increase the diversity of patients and caregivers involved in CKD research. Six themes were identified. Building trust and a sense of safety was considered pivotal to establishing meaningful relationships to support knowledge exchange. Establishing community and connectedness was expected to generate a sense of belonging to motivate involvement. Balancing stakeholder goals, expectations, and responsibilities involved demonstrating commitment and transparency by researchers. Providing adequate resources and support included strategies to minimize the burden of involvement for patients and caregivers. Making research accessible and relatable was about nurturing patient and caregiver interest by appealing to intrinsic motivators. Adapting to patient and caregiver needs and preferences required tailoring the approach for individuals and the target community. Strategies and actions to support these themes may support more diverse and equitable involvement of patients and caregivers in research in CKD., (Copyright © 2024 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Peritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections, such as peritonitis, exit site, and tunnel infections, substantially impair the sustainability of PD. Accordingly, PD-related infection is the top-priority research outcome for patients and caregivers. While PD nurse trainers teach patients to perform their own PD, PD training curricula are not standardized or informed by an evidentiary base and may offer a potential approach to prevent PD infections. The Targeted Education ApproaCH to improve Peritoneal Dialysis outcomes (TEACH-PD) trial evaluates whether a standardized training curriculum for PD nurse trainers and incident PD patients based on the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) guidelines reduces PD-related infections compared to usual training practices., Methods: The TEACH-PD trial is a registry-based, pragmatic, open-label, multi-center, binational, cluster-randomized controlled trial. TEACH-PD will recruit adults aged 18 years or older who have not previously undergone PD training at 42 PD treatment units (clusters) in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) between July 2019 and June 2023. Clusters will be randomized 1:1 to standardized TEACH-PD training curriculum or usual training practice. The primary trial outcome is the time to the first occurrence of any PD-related infection (exit site infection, tunnel infection, or peritonitis). The secondary trial outcomes are the individual components of the primary outcome, infection-associated catheter removal, transfer to hemodialysis (greater than 30 days and 180 days), quality of life, hospitalization, all-cause death, a composite of transfer to hemodialysis or all-cause death, and cost-effectiveness. Participants are followed for a minimum of 12 months with a targeted average follow-up period of 2 years. Participant and outcome data are collected from the ANZ Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA) and the New Zealand Peritoneal Dialysis (NZPD) Registry. This protocol follows the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines., Discussion: TEACH-PD is a registry-based, cluster-randomized pragmatic trial that aims to provide high-certainty evidence about whether an ISPD guideline-informed standardized PD training curriculum for PD nurse trainers and adult patients prevents PD-related infections., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03816111. Registered on 24 January 2019., (© 2023. Crown.)

Introduction: The objective of this prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, non-interventional clinical trial (NIT) was to characterize the effectiveness of a treatment with the phytomedicines ELOM-080 and BNO 1016 in patients with acute rhinosinusitis (ARS)., Methods: A total of 228 patients suffering from ARS took part in this NIT and were treated for a maximum of 14 days with either BNO 1016 or ELOM-080. Focus was on improvement of rhinosinusitis-associated pain/discomfort and nasal congestion in real-life conditions of primary care setting, as assessed by numeric and verbal rating scale, and five-point Likert scale., Results: The course of the key ARS symptom facial pain demonstrated a faster recovery in patients with ELOM-080, when compared to BNO 1016. ELOM-080 tended to be superior for several ancillary criteria and induced significantly higher patient satisfaction with regard to the improvement of feeling of general illness. Physicians assessed both products to be very effective and well tolerated. Adverse drug reactions classified as gastrointestinal disorders occurred in both groups to a comparable extent., Conclusion: This trial demonstrated comparable effectiveness of a therapy of ARS with the phytomedicines ELOM-080 and BNO 1016, although the treatment with ELOM-080 resulted in a more rapid and more complete recovery in ARS key symptoms and tended to be superior for several ancillary criteria. Both treatments were well tolerated., Trial Registration Number: NIS-6471., Funding: G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG.

Purpose: To examine the acceptability of the methods used to evaluate Coping-Together, one of the first self-directed coping skill intervention for couples facing cancer, and to collect preliminary efficacy data., Methods: Forty-two couples, randomized to a minimal ethical care (MEC) condition or to Coping-Together, completed a survey at baseline and 2 months after, a cost diary, and a process evaluation phone interview., Results: One hundred seventy patients were referred to the study. However, 57 couples did not meet all eligibility criteria, and 51 refused study participation. On average, two to three couples were randomized per month, and on average it took 26 days to enrol a couple in the study. Two couples withdrew from MEC, none from Coping-Together. Only 44 % of the cost diaries were completed, and 55 % of patients and 60 % of partners found the surveys too long, and this despite the follow-up survey being five pages shorter than the baseline one. Trends in favor of Coping-Together were noted for both patients and their partners., Conclusions: This study identified the challenges of conducting dyadic research, and a number of suggestions were put forward for future studies, including to question whether distress screening was necessary and what kind of control group might be more appropriate in future studies.

Introduction: While there is good evidence of the effectiveness of a variety of interventions and services to prevent and/or relieve distress experienced by people affected by cancer, much of this psychosocial morbidity is undetected and untreated, with consequent exacerbated suffering, decreased satisfaction with care, impaired adherence to treatment regimens and poorer morbidity and mortality outcomes. The objective of this study is to develop, implement and assess the impact, acceptability and cost of an integrated, patient-centred Psychosocial Assessment, Care and Treatment (PACT) model of care for patients with urological and head and neck cancers., Methods and Analysis: A time series research design will be used to test the PACT model of care, newly introduced in an Australian tertiary hospital. The primary outcome is system-level impact, assessed through audit of patients' medical records and Medicare claims for follow-up care. The secondary outcomes are impact of the model on patients' experience and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) knowledge and confidence, assessed via patient and HCP surveys at baseline and at follow-up. Acceptability of the intervention will be assessed through HCP interviews at follow-up, and cost will be assessed from Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme claims information and information logged pertaining to intervention activities (eg, time spent by the newly appointed psycho-oncology staff in direct patient contact, providing training sessions, engaging in case review) and their associated costs (eg, salaries, training materials and videoconferencing)., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committees of Hunter New England Local Health District and the University of NSW., Results: The results will be widely disseminated to the funding body and through peer-reviewed publications, HCP and consumer publications, oncology conferences and meetings., Trial Registration: The study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry with registration number ACTRN12613000916741.

Purpose: This study aims to report on the acceptability of a self-directed coping skills intervention, called Coping-Together, for patients affected by cancer and their partners, including the strengths and limitations of the intervention design., Methods: This initial version of Coping-Together included a series of four booklets, which aimed to provide practical coping strategies for the day-to-day management of common physical and psychosocial challenges. Thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 patients and/or 14 partners. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for content., Results: Participants endorsed the self-directed format, and the focus of Coping-Together on practical information was a feature that set it apart from other resources. The majority of participants interviewed felt that the proposed coping strategies were "doable"; however, only half of the participants reported learning new coping skills after reading the booklets. Additional benefits of reading the booklets were increasing awareness of challenges to prepare for, giving hope that something can help you "pull through", providing a sense of normality, connecting patients and partners to people and services, and complementing support received from health professionals. Despite the general acceptability of the intervention, some aspects of its design were criticized, including the workbook-like exercises, expectations about using the resource together, level of guidance provided, and amount of information included. In general, most participants felt that too much negative information was included, whereas more experiential information was desired., Conclusions: Preliminary evaluation of Coping-Together supported its practical approach and highlighted improvements to enhance its contribution to patient and partner coping.