Search

Percutaneous ablation is recommended in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0/A patients with HCC ≤3 cm as a curative treatment modality alongside surgical resection and liver transplantation. However, trans-arterial chemo-embolisation (TACE) is commonly used in the real-world as an initial treatment in patients with single small HCC in contrast to widely accepted clinical practice guidelines which typically describe TACE as a treatment for intermediate-stage HCC. We performed this real-world propensity-matched multi-centre cohort study in patients with single HCC ≤ 3 cm to assess for differences in survival outcomes between those undergoing initial TACE and those receiving upfront ablation. Patients with a new diagnosis of BCLC 0/A HCC with a single tumour ≤3 cm first diagnosed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020 who received initial TACE or ablation were included in the study. A total of 348 patients were included in the study, with 147 patients receiving initial TACE and 201 patients undergoing upfront ablation. After propensity score matching using key covariates, 230 patients were available for analysis with 115 in each group. There were no significant differences in overall survival (log-rank test p = 0.652) or liver-related survival (log-rank test p = 0.495) over a median follow-up of 43 months. While rates of CR were superior after ablation compared to TACE as a first treatment (74% vs. 56%, p < 0.004), there was no significant difference in CR rates when allowing for further subsequent treatments (86% vs. 80% p = 0.219). In those who achieved CR, recurrence-free survival and local recurrence-free survival were similar (log rank test p = 0.355 and p = 0.390, respectively). Our study provides valuable real-world evidence that TACE when offered with appropriate follow-up treatment is a reasonable initial management strategy in very early/early-stage HCC, with similar survival outcomes as compared to those managed with upfront ablation. Further work is needed to better define the role for TACE in BCLC 0/A HCC.

Introduction: A substantial proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on intravenous infliximab require dose intensification. Accessing additional intravenous infliximab is labour-intensive and expensive, depending on insurance and pharmaceutical reimbursement. Observational data suggest that subcutaneous infliximab may offer a convenient and safe alternative to maintain disease remission in patients requiring dose-intensified infliximab. A prospective, controlled trial is required to confirm that subcutaneous infliximab is as effective as dose-intensified intravenous infliximab, to identify predictors of disease flare and to establish the role of subcutaneous infliximab therapeutic drug monitoring., Methods and Analysis: The DISCUS-IBD trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label non-inferiority study comparing the rate of disease flares in participants randomised to continue dose-intensified intravenous infliximab to those switched to subcutaneous infliximab after 48 weeks. Participants are adult patients with IBD in sustained corticosteroid-free remission on any regimen of dose-intensified infliximab up to a maximum of 10 mg/kg 4-weekly intravenously. Participants allocated to intravenous infliximab will continue infliximab at the same dose-intensified regimen they were receiving at study enrolment. Subcutaneous infliximab dosing will be stratified by prior intravenous infliximab dosing. Clinical (Harvey-Bradshaw Index, partial Mayo score), biochemical (C reactive protein, faecal calprotectin), pharmacokinetic (drug-level±antidrug antibodies) and qualitative data are collected 12-weekly until study conclusion at week 48. 13 sites across Australia will participate in recruitment to reach a calculated sample size of 120 participants., Ethics and Dissemination: Multisite ethics approval was obtained from the Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) at The Alfred Hospital under a National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) agreement (HREC/90559/Alfred-2022; Local Reference: Project 618/22, version 1.6, 2 March 2023). Findings will be reported at national and international gastroenterology meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. DISCUS-IBD was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) prior to commencing recruitment., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12622001458729., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RDL has received conference fees from Janssen and Celltrion Healthcare. AS has received speaker fees from Sandoz and received research support and advisory fees from AbbVie, Pfizer, and Arrow Pharmaceuticals. GJW has served as a speaker, a consultant or an advisory board member for Janssen, Galapagos, AbbVie, Ferring, Dr Falk Pharma, Nova Labs and Sandoz. GTM has received educational grants or research support from GESA, The Gutsy Group, NHMRC, MRFF, AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Shire and Takeda; speaker fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, Orphan, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Shire and Takeda and has serve on advisory boards for AbbVie, Emerge, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Hospira, Janssen, Orphan, MSD, Pfizer, Shire and Takeda. KL declares speaker fees, advisory Board fees and/or conference travel/registration support from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Dr Falk, Ferring, Gilead, Guidepoint, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Norgine, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda and the RAH Research Fund. JA has served as a speaker, a consultant and an advisory board member for, and has received research funding from, Abbott, AbbVie, Allergan, Anatara, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, Falk, Ferring, Gilead, Hospira, Immunic, ImmunsanT, Janssen, MSD, Nestle, Progenity, Pfizer, Sandoz, Shire, Takeda, Vifor, RAH Research Fund, The Hospital Research Fund with all monies received by her department for research support. YKA reports grants from Janssen, during the conduct of the study; has received speaking and consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Chiesi, Dr Falk, Ferring, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Shire and Takeda; served on advisory boards for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Janssen, NPS Medicine wise, Microba and received research and educational funding from Abbvie, Celltrion, Dr Falk, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz and Takeda. RVB has received grant/research support/speaker fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, Shire, Takeda, Bristol Myer Squibb and Emerge Health; and is a shareholder in Biomebank. SC declares advisory board participation, speaker fees, educational support and/or research support for Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney Local Health District (SWSLHD) Academic Unit or Crohn’s Colitis Cure from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Chiesi, Eli-Lilly, Dr Falk, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Sandoz, Takeda and non-pharmacological research support from Agency for Clinical Innovation, Gastroenterological Society of Australia, The Leona M and Harry B Helmsley Charitable Trust, Medical Research Future Fund, SWSLHD, Sydney Partnership for Health, Research and Enterprise (SPHERE). MG has served on the advisory board of Pfizer and has received speaker fees, research or travel grants from AbbVie, Celltrion, Dr Falk, Janssen, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Takeda. EKW declares speaker and consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Falk, Ferring, Janssen, Pfizer and research funding/support from AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen. JPS has received conference fees from Janssen, BMS, Takeda, educational grants from Pfizer, speaker fees from AbbVie, Takeda and Pfizer and an unrestricted grant from Tillots. PDC has served as a consultant, an advisory board member or a speaker for AbbVie, Baxter, Ferring, Janssen, Celltrion, Emerge Health, Shire and Takeda and received research support from Ferring, Shire, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda. MGW has received educational grants and speakers fees from AbbVie, Takeda and Ferring; travel grants from Pfizer; and has served on advisory boards for AbbVie. MPS has received educational grants or research support from Ferring, Orphan and Gilead; speakers fees from Janssen, AbbVie, Ferring, Takeda, Pfizer and Shire; and has served on advisory boards for Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, Celgene, AbbVie, MSD, Emerge Health, Gilead and BMS. JM, PH, RBG, DC, MS, EC, LT, GH and AB declare no relevant competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Non-responsive coeliac disease (NRCD), where symptoms and enteropathy persist despite a prolonged gluten-free diet (GFD), is common. Refractory coeliac disease (RCD), characterised by malabsorption and extensive enteropathy, is rare but serious. In both, treatment options are limited. Topical budesonide may help and an open capsule format promoting proximal small intestinal delivery may be advantageous., Aim: To describe the effect of budesonide and its presentation on mucosal healing, symptoms, and tolerability in NRCD and RCD., Methods: A retrospective cohort study of NRCD and RCD patients who received budesonide for enteropathy despite a strict GFD for over 12 months. Primary outcome was improvement in histology. Symptoms and adverse treatment effects were recorded., Results: 50 patients with NRCD (n = 14; 86% F), RCD type 1 (n = 30; 60% F), and RCD type 2 (n = 6 based on aberrant duodenal T cells; 33% F) were identified. Common RCD symptoms were diarrhoea (68%), fatigue (40%), and weight loss (34%). 16 received closed capsule budesonide (CCB) 9 mg OD and 35 open capsule budesonide (OCB) 3 mg 3 times a day. Complete and partial mucosal healing was significantly higher after OCB compared to CCB (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Symptom improvement was also significantly higher after OCB compared to CCB (p = 0.002, Mann-Whitney U test). Side effects were mild and self-limiting and were reported in 25% of both cohorts., Conclusion: OCB was well tolerated and associated with improvements in enteropathy (83%) and symptoms (90%) in NRCD and RCD. Our findings support OCB as the preferred 1st-line therapy for NRCD and RCD type 1., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The management of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is complex, with multiple treatment strategies available. There is a paucity of literature regarding variations in the patterns of care and outcomes between transplant and non-transplant centres. We conducted this real-world multi-centre cohort study in two liver cancer referral centres with an integrated liver transplant program and an additional eight non-transplant HCC referral centres across Australia to identify variation in patterns of care and key survival outcomes. Patients with stage Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) 0/A HCC, first diagnosed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020, who were managed at a participating site, were included in the study. Patients were excluded if they had a history of prior HCC or if they received upfront liver transplantation. A total of 887 patients were included in the study, with 433 patients managed at a liver cancer centre with a transplant program (LTC) and 454 patients managed at a non-transplant centre (NTC). Management at an LTC did not significantly predict allocation to resection (adjusted OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.11, p = 0.148). However, in those not receiving resection, LTC and NTC patients were systematically managed differently, with LTC patients five times less likely to receive upfront ablation than NTC patients (adjusted OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.28, p < 0.001), even after adjusting for tumour burden, as well as for age, gender, liver disease aetiology, liver disease severity, and medical comorbidities. LTCs exhibited significantly higher proportions of patients undergoing TACE for every tumour burden category, including those with a single tumour measuring 2 cm or less ( p < 0.001). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, management at a transplant centre was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98, p = 0.036), and competing-risk regression analysis, considering liver transplant as a competing event, demonstrated a similar reduction in risk (adjusted HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.99, p = 0.041), suggesting that the reduced risk of death is not fully explained by higher rates of transplantation. Our study highlights systematic differences in HCC care between large volume liver transplant centres and other sites, which has not previously been well-described. Further work is needed to better define the reasons for differences in treatment allocation and to aim to minimise unwarranted treatment variation to maximise patient outcomes across Australia.

Because its impact in plant development and growth and its interaction with Na + and Cl - , the supply of different N-forms to crops can be an easy-to-use tool with effective results on salinity tolerance. Here the effect of four N-NO 3 - /N-NH 4 + ratios (mM; 2/0, 1.6/0.4, 0.4/1.6, 0/2) on adaptation to salt conditions (15 mM NaCl in a first experiment and 40 mM NaCl in a second experiment) was studied in young lettuce (cv "Summer wonder") plants. The experiments were carried out in greenhouse and under hydroponics conditions. The results show that this cultivar tolerates and adapts to moderate salinity by deploying several structural and physiological mechanisms; (i) increasing allocation of biomass to the root, (ii) increasing root Na + uptake and storing it in the shoot and root tissues, (iii) increasing intrinsic water use efficiency and (iv) increasing root N and P uptake. The beneficial effect of salt exposure on growth was greater when the predominant N-form was N-NO 3 - . These plants with higher tissue N-NO 3 - concentration, decreased Cl - uptake and shoot and root Cl - concentration. Regardless of salt conditions, plants with a high proportion of N-NH 4 + (1.6 mM) and a low proportion of N-NO 3 - (0.4 mM) had a greater growth and nitrogen use efficiency, that was associated with the improved uptake of nutrients, and the maintenance of water status., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier GmbH.. All rights reserved.)

The optimal treatment approach in very-early and early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is not precisely defined, and there is ambiguity in the literature around the comparative efficacy of surgical resection versus ablation as curative therapies for limited disease. We performed this real-world propensity-matched, multi-centre cohort study to assess for differences in survival outcomes between those undergoing resection and those receiving ablation. Patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) 0/A HCC first diagnosed between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020 who received ablation or resection as initial treatment were included in the study. A total of 450 patients were included in the study from 10 major liver centres including two transplant centres. Following propensity score matching using key covariates, 156 patients were available for analysis with 78 in each group. Patients who underwent resection had significantly improved overall survival (log-rank test p = 0.023) and local recurrence-free survival (log rank test p = 0.027) compared to those who received ablation. Based on real-world data, our study supports the use of surgical resection in preference to ablation as first-line curative therapy in appropriately selected BCLC 0/A HCC patients.

Background: Noncardiac chest pain (NCCP) is a diagnosis usually made after cardiac investigations have failed to demonstrate a specific diagnosis to explain either a single episode or recurrent episodes of chest pain., Objective: The aim of this article is to describe the major causes and management of NCCP, with a focus on gastrointestinal conditions., Discussion: Despite its generally benign prognosis, NCCP is a cause of significant morbidity and can be responsible for a high personal cost and healthcare burden. NCCP is commonly associated with gastrointestinal conditions, including gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and oesophageal spasm. However, the differential diagnosis extends to musculoskeletal, neurological and psychiatric conditions, and the broad range of causes of the syndrome, which are not mutually exclusive, means that clinicians need to remain vigilant for changes in clinical pattern.

Background: Despite the introduction of tobacco control measures, smoking remains highly prevalent in most EU countries. In Italy, one in four adults were still regular smokers in 2017. Increasing use of combustion-free delivering nicotine technologies for cigarette substitution may accelerate the current downward trends in smoking prevalence. Whether Heated Tobacco Products (HTPs) are more effective tobacco smoking substitutes that may potentially facilitate adoption and full conversion compared to e-cigarettes (ECs) is not known.We have designed a prospective study to compare changes in cigarette consumption and adoption rates among smokers randomized to either HTPs or ECs. Product acceptability, tolerability, and their tobacco harm reduction potential will be also compared., Methods: 220 healthy smokers, not motivated to quit, will be randomized into a 12-weeks single-center, open label, non-inferiority trial comparing study outcomes from HTPs vs. ECs use. The primary outcome will be biochemically verified self-reported continuous abstinence at 12-weeks from the previous visit. Secondary outcomes will include: smoking reduction from baseline, adoption rates and product acceptability, tolerability, changes in step test values and in the level of selected biomarkers of exposure in exhaled breath (i.e. eCO) and in spot urine samples. A follow-up visit will be also included at 24-weeks to review product usage and smoking behavior under naturalistic condition of use.Recruitment of participants started in May 2019 and enrolment is expected to be completed in November 2019., Discussion: This will be the first study directly comparing Heated Tobacco Products with Electronic Cigarettes in term of reduction in cigarette consumption, adoption rates, product acceptability, tolerability, and tobacco harm reduction potential. This knowledge can contribute to a better understanding of the potential role of this new technology in the evolving nicotine consumer market., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03569748.Registered June 25, 2018.https://register.clinicaltrials.gov/prs/app/action/LoginUser?ts=1&cx=-jg9qo4., Competing Interests: EM, DS and RP are full-time employee of the University of Catania, Italy. PC, MC and RE are fixed-term researcher at University of Catania, Italy. MM is fixed-term researcher at Centro per la Prevenzione e Cura del Tabagismo, University of Catania. BB is full-time employee of ARNAS Garibaldi, Catania, Italy. AP is full-time employee of Casa di Cura Musumeci-Gecas, Gravina di Catania, Italy. UP is full-time employee of Ospedale “San Vincenzo” - Taormina, Italy. In relation to his work in the area of tobacco control, RP has received lecture fees and research funding from Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of stop smoking medications. He has also received support from The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives (CASAA) for publication and open access costs of one paper. He has also served as a consultant for Pfizer, Global Health Alliance for treatment of tobacco dependence, ECITA (Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association, in the UK), Arbi Group Srl., and Health Diplomats (consulting company that delivers solutions to global health problems with special emphasis on harm minimization). Lectures fees from a number of European electronic cigarette industry and trade associations (including FIVAPE in France and FIESEL in Italy) were directly donated to vapers advocacy no-profit organizations. He is also currently involved in the following pro bono activities: scientific advisor for LIAF, Lega Italiana Anti Fumo (Italian acronym for Italian Anti Smoking League) and for The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives (CASAA); Chair of the European Technical Committee for standardization on “Requirements and test methods for emissions of electronic cigarettes” (CEN/TC 437; WG4). The other authors have no conflict of interests to declare., (© 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The article presents the results of research consisting of the application of deficit irrigation (DI) criteria, combined with the adoption of micro-irrigation methods, on orange orchards ( Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) in Sicily (Italy) during the irrigation season of 2015. Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI, T3) and partial root-zone drying (PRD, T4) strategies were compared with full irrigation (T1) and sustained deficit irrigation (SDI, T2) treatments in terms of physiological, biochemical, and productive crop response. A geophysical survey (electrical resistivity tomography, ERT) was carried out to identify a link between the percentages of drying soil volume in T4 with leaves abscisic acid (ABA) signal. Results highlight that the orange trees physiological response to water stress conditions did not show particular differences among the different irrigation treatments, not inducing detrimental effects on crop production features. ABA levels in leaves were rather constant in all the treatments, except in T4 during late irrigation season. ERT technique identified that prolonged drying cycles during alternate PRD exposed more roots to severe soil drying, thus increasing leaf ABA accumulation., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Besides nicotine replacement therapies, a realistic alternative for smoking cessation or for smoking substitution may come from electronic cigarettes (ECs), whose popularity has been steadily growing. As for any emerging behaviour associated with exposure to inhalational agents, there is legitimate cause for concern and many health organizations and policy makers have pushed for restrictive policy measures ranging from complete bans to tight regulations of these products. Nonetheless, it is important to reframe these concerns in context of the well-known harm caused by cigarette smoking. In this article, we discuss key public health principles that should be considered when regulating ECs. These include the concept of tobacco harm reduction, importance of relative risk and risk continuum, renormalization of smoking, availability of low-risk product, proportionate taxation, and reassessment of the role of non-tobacco flavours. These public health principles may be systematically scrutinized using a risk assessment matrix that allows: (1) to determine the measure of certainty that a risk will occur; and (2) to estimate the impact of such a risk on public health. Consequently, the ultimate goal of responsible ECs regulation should be that of maximizing the favourable impact of these reduced-risk products whilst minimizing further any potential risks. Consumer perspectives, sound EC research, continuous post-marketing surveillance and reasonable safety and quality product standards should be at the very heart of future regulatory schemes that will address concerns while minimizing unintended consequences of ill-informed regulation.

Many public health experts, medical research societies, large health organizations and policy makers have expressed concerns about the increased popularity of electronic cigarettes and have pushed for more restrictive measures ranging from complete bans to tight regulations of these products either as medicines or as tobacco products. But these concerns have never been adequately qualified nor quantified. Without judicious assessment and thorough evaluation, regulations may have unintended consequences that can do more damage than good in public health terms. In this article, we will appraise the existing prominent regulatory frameworks for e-cigarettes, namely, general consumer product, medicinal product and tobacco product regulation, to highlight their pros and cons. Moreover, we provide concrete examples of the unintended consequences which may arise from inappropriate regulatory action., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) are experiencing a great popularity and their market has surprisingly grown in a few years. However, the rapidly evolving phenomenon is raising concerns about the safety and efficacy of these products. Opinions and information from the popular press, but also from the scientific community, are often divergent, confused, warning and sometimes purposely false, raising inconsistent doubts and disproportionate concerns for the public health. This can be easily overcome by the application of rational, plausible, evidence-based regulations for e-cigs. In this short article, we will consider the doubts, evaluate the evidence and formulate some proposals for a more equitable and balanced regulation of these products.

A growing body of scientific studies show that e-cigarettes may serve as an acceptable substitute for smoking tobacco cigarettes, thereby reducing or eliminating exposure to harmful elements in smoke. The success of e-cigarettes is such that sales of these products are rapidly gaining on traditional cigarettes. The rapidly evolving phenomenon is raising concerns for the health community, pharmaceutical industry, health regulators and state governments. Obviously, these products need to be adequately regulated, primarily to protect users. Depending on the form and intended scope, certain regulatory decisions may have diverse unintended consequences on public health and may face many different challenges. Ideally, before any regulations are enacted, the regulatory body will require sufficient scientific research to verify that a problem does exist, quantify the problem, explore all potential solutions including making no change at all, determine the possible consequences of each, and then select the solution that is best for public health. Here we present an overview on the existing and deeming regulatory decisions for electronic cigarettes. We challenge them, based on the mounting scientific evidence with the ultimate goal of proposing appropriate recommendations while minimizing potential unintended consequences of ill-informed regulation.