Search

Background: Real-world evidence is needed to determine the value of tofacitinib (TOFA) for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC)., Aim: To assess the safety and effectiveness of TOFA in clinical practice., Methods: TOFA-UC is a multicenter, observational study performed among the Sicilian Network for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SN-IBD). All consecutive patients with UC starting TOFA from its introduction in Sicily (July 2021) to July 2022 were included., Results: 111 patients were included (mean follow-up: 31.7 ± 14.9 weeks; biologic-experienced: 92.8%). Nineteen adverse events were reported (17.1%; incidence rate: 28.2 per 100 patient years), including 11 cases of hypercholesterolemia and 3 infections (no cases of herpes zoster reactivation. At week 8, the rates of clinical response, steroid free clinical remission, and CRP normalization were 74.8%, 45.0%, and 56.9%, respectively, and 68.5%, 51.4%, and 65.2%, respectively, at the end of follow-up. Eighteen patients experienced a loss of response after successful induction (21.7%; incidence rate: 33.2 per 100 patient years). Twenty-six patients (23.4%) discontinued TOFA over time, of whom 3 due to AEs, and 23 to non response or loss of response., Conclusions: TOFA is safe and effective in patients with UC, including those with history of multiple failures to biological therapies., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Fabio Salvatore Macaluso served as an advisory board member and/or received lecture grants from Biogen, Ferring, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Walter Fries served as an advisory board member and/or received lecture grants from Abbvie, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Biogen, Sandoz, Zambon, Ferring Italia, Sofar. Anna Viola received lecture grants from Pfizer. Maria Cappello served as an advisory board member for AbbVie, MSD, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and received lecture grants from AbbVie, MSD, Chiesi, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Filippo Mocciaro served as an advisory board member for Janssen and Galapagos, and received lecture grants from Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Antonino Carlo Privitera served as consultant to Mundipharma, Abbvie, MSD, Takeda, and Janssen, and received lecture fees from Abbvie, Sara Renna served as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Janssen, and MSD Pharmaceuticals, and received lecture grants from AbbVie, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Ambrogio Orlando served as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Galapagos, MSD, Janssen, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and received lecture grants from AbbVie, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, MSD, Sofar, Chiesi, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals., (Copyright © 2023 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (L-PM) have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but real-world data on patient selection, implantation technique, and peri-procedural patient management in a clinical practice setting are lacking., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing L-PM implantation in 14 Italian centers were followed in a prospective, multicentre, observational project. Data on baseline patient characteristics, clinical indications, implantation procedure, and peri-procedural patient management were collected. The rate and nature of device-related complications were also recorded., Results: A total of 782 L-PM patients (68.4% male, 75.6 ± 12.4 years) were included in the analysis. The main patients-related reason leading to the choice of implanting a L-PM rather than a conventional PM was the high-risk of device infection (29.5% of cases). The implantation success rate was 99.2%. The median duration of the procedure was 46 min. In 90% of patients the device was implanted in the septum. Of patients on oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) (n = 498) the implantation procedure was performed without interrupting (17.5%) or transiently interrupting OAT without heparin bridging (60.6%). During a median follow-up of 20 months major device-related complications occurred in 7 patients (0.9%): vascular access-site complications in 3 patients, device malfunction in 2 patients, pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade in one patient, device migration in one patient., Conclusions: In the real world setting of Italian clinical practice L-PM is often reserved for patients at high-risk of infection. The implantation success rate was very high and the risk of major complications was low. Peri-procedural management of OAT was consistent with available scientific evidence., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been demonstrated to improve outpatient clinic workflow and patient management. However, few data are available on the socioeconomic impact of RM., Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the costs and benefits of RM compared with standard care (SC)., Methods: We used 12-month patient data from the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study (N = 209; RM: n = 102 (48.81%); SC: n = 107 (51.19%)). Cost comparison was made from 2 perspectives: the health care system (HCS) and patients. The use of health care resources was defined on the basis of hospital clinical folders. Out-of-pocket expenses were reported directly by patients., Results: HCS perspective: The overall mean annual cost per patient in the SC group (€1044.89 ± €1990.47) was significantly higher than in the RM group (€482.87 ± €2488.10) (P < .0001), with a reduction of 53.87% being achieved in the RM group. The primary driver of cost reduction was the cost of cardiovascular hospitalizations (SC: €`886.67 ± €1979.13 vs RM: €432.34 ± €2488.10; P = .0030). Patient and caregiver perspective: The annual cost incurred by patients was significantly higher in the SC group than in the RM group (SC: €169.49 ± €189.50 vs RM: €56.87 ± €80.22; P < .0001). Patients' quality-adjusted life-years were not significantly different between the groups. Provider perspective: The total number of inhospital device follow-up visits was reduced by 58.78% in the RM group., Conclusion: RM of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is cost saving from the perspectives of the HCS, patients, and caregivers. Introducing appropriate reimbursements will make RM sustainable even for the provider, i.e. the hospitals which provide the service and encourage widespread adoption of RM., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The dopaminergic drugs, ropinirole and dihydroergocryptine (DHECP) were injected subcutaneously (s.c.) at doses of 0.5 and 1 mg/kg/day for 7 days into male rats of the Sprague-Dawley strain. The drug pretreatment reverted amnesia induced in rats by hypobaric hypopxia and tested in active and passive avoidance tasks. Furthermore, a partial restoration of memory retention was found in animals with a 2-month brain occlusive ischemia induced by manipulation of the four major arteries of the brain. No major changes were found in spontaneous motor activity, but drug treatment increased ambulation of animals subjected to acute or chronic experimental manipulation. In a model of kainate-induced epilepsy, ropinirole or DHECP did not affect seizure parameters, but reduced mortality rate. At the end of behavioral procedures, in all animals subjected to hypobaric hypoxia or to brain occlusive ischemia glutathione redox index (glutathione reduced/glutathione oxidized ratio) was measured in the frontal cortex, striatum and hippocampus. It was found that experimental models of brain injury were followed by a decrease of reduced glutathione content in all brain areas. The glutathione redox index was augmented by ropinirole or DHECP treatment in all brain areas. These behavioral and neurochemical findings suggest that ropinirole and DHECP may exert either protective activity (as found in animals pretreated with these drugs and exposed to hypobaric hypoxia) or reversal of brain injury (as found in animals treated after two-month occlusive brain ischemia). Thus, both drugs may be studied as therapeutic agents in brain injuries of various origin.