Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundCataract surgery is the most common operation performed worldwide. A fixed topical corticosteroid-antibiotic combination is usually prescribed in clinical practice for 2 or more weeks to treat post surgical inflammation and prevent infection. However, this protracted schedule may increase the incidence of corticosteroid-related adverse events and notably promote antibiotic resistance.MethodsThis International, multicentre, randomized, blinded-assessor, parallel-group clinical study evaluated the non-inferiority of 1-week levofloxacin/dexamethasone eye drops, followed by 1-week dexamethasone alone, vs. 2-week gold-standard tobramycin/dexamethasone (one drop QID for all schedules) to prevent and treat ocular inflammation and prevent infection after uncomplicated cataract surgery. Non-inferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) around a treatment difference >–10%. The study randomized 808 patients enrolled in 53 centres (Italy, Germany, Spain and Russia). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without anterior chamber inflammation on day 15 defined as the end of treatment. Endophthalmitis was the key secondary endpoint. This study is registered with EudraCT code: 2018-000286-36.ResultsAfter the end of treatment, 95.2% of the patients in the test arm vs. 94.9% of the control arm had no signs of inflammation in the anterior chamber (difference between proportions of patients = 0.028; 95% CI: −0.0275/0.0331). No case of endophthalmitis was reported. No statistically significant difference was evident in any of the other secondary endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated.ConclusionsNon-inferiority of the new short pharmacological strategy was proven. One week of levofloxacin/dexamethasone prevents infection, ensures complete control of inflammation in almost all patients and may contain antibiotic resistance.

This study aimed to define the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of oral mannitol used as an osmotic laxative for bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The PKs of oral mannitol was evaluated in a substudy as part of a phase II dose‐finding, international, multicenter, randomized, parallel‐group, endoscopist‐blinded study. Patients were randomly assigned to take 50, 100, or 150 g mannitol. Venous blood samples were drawn at baseline (T0), 1 h (T1), 2 h (T2), 4 h (T4), and 8 h (T8) after completion of mannitol self‐administration. The mean mannitol plasma concentrations (mg/ml) were dose‐dependent with a consistent difference among doses. The mean maximum concentration (Cmax) ± SD was 0.63 ± 0.15, 1.02 ± 0.28, and 1.36 ± 0.39 mg/ml, in the three dosage groups, respectively. The mean area under the curve from zero to infinity (AUC0−∞) was 2.667 ± 0.668, 4.992 ± 1.706, and 7.403 ± 3.472 mg/ml*h in the 50, 100, and 150 g mannitol dose groups, respectively. Bioavailability was similar in the three dose groups and was just over 20% (0.243 ± 0.073, 0.209 ± 0.081, and 0.228 ± 0.093 in the 50, 100, and 150 g mannitol dose groups, respectively). The present study showed that the bioavailability of oral mannitol is just over 20% and is similar for the three tested doses (50, 100, and 150 g). The linear increase in Cmax, AUC0−t8, and AUC0−∞ must be considered when choosing the oral mannitol dose for bowel preparation to avoid its systemic osmotic effects.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

BackgroundSuccessful bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy depends on the instructions, diet, the laxative product, and patient adherence, which all affect colonoscopy quality. Nevertheless, there are no laxatives which combine effectiveness, safety, easy self-administration, good patient acceptance, and low cost. However, mannitol, a sugar alcohol, could be an attractive candidate for use in clinical practice if it is shown to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety.AimsThe present phase II dose-finding study compared three doses of mannitol (50, 100, and 150 g) to identify the best dose to be used in a subsequent phase III study.MethodsThe Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, caecal intubation rate, adherence, acceptability, and safety profile, including measurement of potentially dangerous colonic gas concentrations (CH4, H2, O2), were considered in all patients. A weighted algorithm was used to identify the best mannitol dose for use in the subsequent study.ResultsThe per-protocol population included 60 patients in the 50 g group, 54 in the 100 g group, and 49 in the 150 g group. The 100 g dose was the best as it afforded optimal colon cleansing efficacy (94.4% of patients had adequate BP), adherence, acceptability, and safety, including negligible gas concentrations.ConclusionsThe present study demonstrated that the colon cleansing efficacy and safety of mannitol were dose dependent. Conversely, gas concentrations were not dose dependent and negligible in all patients. Combined evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, using a weighted algorithm, determined that mannitol 100 g was the best dose for the phase III study.

This study tested the hypothesis that bowel preparation with mannitol should not affect the colonic concentration of H2 and CH4. Therefore, the SATISFACTION study, an international, multicenter, randomized, parallel‐group phase II–III study investigated this issue. The phase II dose‐finding part of the study evaluated H2, CH4, and O2 concentrations in 179 patients randomized to treatment with 50 g, 100 g, or 150 g mannitol. Phase III of the study compared the presence of intestinal gases in 680 patients randomized (1:1) to receive mannitol 100 g in single dose or a standard split‐dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG)‐Asc preparation (2 L PEG‐Asc). Phase II results showed that mannitol did not influence the concentration of intestinal gases. During phase III, no patient in either group had H2 or CH4 concentrations above the critical thresholds. In patients with H2 and/or CH4 levels above detectable concentrations, the mean values were below the risk thresholds by at least one order of magnitude. The results also highlighted the effectiveness of standard washing and insufflation maneuvers in removing residual intestinal gases. In conclusion, bowel cleansing with mannitol was safe as the concentrations of H2 and CH4 were the same as those found in patients prepared with 2 L PEG‐Asc. In both groups, the concentrations of gases were influenced more by the degree of cleansing achieved and the insufflation and washing maneuvers performed than by the preparation used for bowel cleansing. The trial protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04759885) and with EudraCT (eudract_number: 2019‐002856‐18).

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major health problem, with over one million events every year in Europe. However, there is a paucity of data on the current management in real life, including factors influencing treatment pathways, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and utilization of health care resources and the corresponding costs. The PREFER in VTE registry has been designed to address this and to understand medical care and needs as well as potential gaps for improvement. Methods/design The PREFER in VTE registry was a prospective, observational, multicenter study conducted in seven European countries including Austria, France Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK to assess the characteristics and the management of patients with VTE, the use of health care resources, and to provide data to estimate the costs for 12 months treatment following a first-time and/or recurrent VTE diagnosed in hospitals or specialized or primary care centers. In addition, existing anticoagulant treatment patterns, patient pathways, clinical outcomes, treatment satisfaction, and health related QoL were documented. The centers were chosen to reflect the care environment in which patients with VTE are managed in each of the participating countries. Patients were eligible to be enrolled into the registry if they were at least 18 years old, had a symptomatic, objectively confirmed first time or recurrent acute VTE defined as either distal or proximal deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism or both. After the baseline visit at the time of the acute VTE event, further follow-up documentations occurred at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Follow-up data was collected by either routinely scheduled visits or by telephone calls. Results Overall, 381 centers participated, which enrolled 3,545 patients during an observational period of 1 year. Conclusion The PREFER in VTE registry will provide valuable insights into the characteristics of patients with VTE and their acute and mid-term management, as well as into drug utilization and the use of health care resources in acute first-time and/or recurrent VTE across Europe in clinical practice. Trial registration Registered in DRKS register, ID number: DRKS00004795