Explore the vast range of titles available.

The use of transvaginal mesh and biological graft material in prolapse surgery is controversial and has led to a number of enquiries into their safety and efficacy. Existing trials of these augmentations are individually too small to be conclusive. We aimed to compare the outcomes of prolapse repair involving either synthetic mesh inlays or biological grafts against standard repair in women. We did two pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trials for our study (PROSPECT [PROlapse Surgery: Pragmatic Evaluation and randomised Controlled Trials]) in 35 centres (a mix of secondary and tertiary referral hospitals) in the UK. We recruited women undergoing primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery by 65 gynaecological surgeons in these centres. We randomly assigned participants by a remote web-based randomisation system to one of the two trials: comparing standard (native tissue) repair alone with standard repair augmented with either synthetic mesh (the mesh trial) or biological graft (the graft trial). We assigned women (1:1:1 or 1:1) within three strata: assigned to one of the three treatment options, comparison of standard repair with mesh, and comparison of standard repair with graft. Participants, ward staff, and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation where possible; masking was obviously not possible for the surgeon. Follow-up was for 2 years after the surgery; the primary outcomes, measured at 1 year and 2 years, were participant-reported prolapse symptoms (i.e. the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score [POP-SS]) and condition-specific (ie, prolapse-related) quality-of-life scores, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN60695184. Between Jan 8, 2010, and Aug 30, 2013, we randomly allocated 1352 women to treatment, of whom 1348 were included in the analysis. 865 women were included in the mesh trial (430 to standard repair alone, 435 to mesh augmentation) and 735 were included in the graft trial (367 to standard repair alone, 368 to graft augmentation). Because the analyses were carried out separately for each trial (mesh trial and graft trial) some women in the standard repair arm assigned to all treatment options were included in the standard repair group of both trials. 23 of these women did not receive any surgery (15 in the mesh trial, 13 in the graft trial; five were included in both trials) and were included in the baseline analyses only. Mean POP-SS at 1 year did not differ substantially between comparisons (standard 5·4 [SD 5·5] vs mesh 5·5 [5·1], mean difference 0·00, 95% CI −0·70 to 0·71; p=0·99; standard 5·5 [SD 5·6] vs graft 5·6 [5·6]; mean difference −0·15, −0·93 to 0·63; p=0·71). Mean prolapse-related quality-of-life scores also did not differ between groups at 1 year (standard 2·0 [SD 2·7] vs mesh 2·2 [2·7], mean difference 0·13, 95% CI −0·25 to 0·51; p=0·50; standard 2·2 [SD 2·8] vs graft 2·4 [2·9]; mean difference 0·13, −0·30 to 0·56; p=0·54). Mean POP-SS at 2 years were: standard 4·9 (SD 5·1) versus mesh 5·3 (5·1), mean difference 0·32, 95% CI −0·39 to 1·03; p=0·37; standard 4·9 (SD 5·1) versus graft 5·5 (5·7); mean difference 0·32, −0·48 to 1·12; p=0·43. Prolapse-related quality-of-life scores at 2 years were: standard 1·9 (SD 2·5) versus mesh 2·2 (2·6), mean difference 0·15, 95% CI −0·23 to 0·54; p=0·44; standard 2·0 (2·5) versus graft 2·2 (2·8); mean difference 0·10, −0·33 to 0·52; p=0·66. Serious adverse events such as infection, urinary retention, or dyspareunia or other pain, excluding mesh complications, occurred with similar frequency in the groups over 1 year (mesh trial: 31/430 [7%] with standard repair vs 34/435 [8%] with mesh, risk ratio [RR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·68 to 1·72; p=0·73; graft trial: 23/367 [6%] with standard repair vs 36/368 [10%] with graft, RR 1·57, 0·95 to 2·59; p=0·08). The cumulative number of women with a mesh complication over 2 years in women actually exposed to synthetic mesh was 51 (12%) of 434. Augmentation of a vaginal repair with mesh or graft material did not improve women's outcomes in terms of effectiveness, quality of life, adverse effects, or any other outcome in the short term, but more than one in ten women had a mesh complication. Therefore, follow-up is vital to identify any longer-term potential benefits and serious adverse effects of mesh or graft reinforcement in vaginal prolapse surgery. UK National Institute of Health Research.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of long-acting progestogens (LAP), including levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), compared with the combined oral contraceptives pill (COCP) in preventing recurrence of endometriosis-related pain postsurgery.DesignWithin-trial economic evaluation alongside a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial (Preventing Recurrence of Endometriosis by means of Long-Acting Progestogen Therapy trial).SettingThirty-four UK hospitals recruiting participants from November 2015 to March 2019.PatientsFour hundred and five women aged 16–45 years undergoing conservative endometriosis surgery.InterventionsThe ratio of 1:1 randomisation to receive LAPs (LNG-IUS or DMPA) or COCP.Main outcome measuresThe primary evaluation was a cost-utility analysis based on cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 3 years. We adopted a UK National Health Service perspective. Secondary analyses in the form of cost-effectiveness analysis based on a range of outcomes were also undertaken.ResultsFor the primary analysis, the COCP group incurred an additional cost of £533 (95% CI £52 to £983) per woman compared with LAPs. Treatment with COCP generated additional QALYs of 0.031 (95% CI −0.079 to 0.139) compared with the LAP group over 36-month follow-up. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for COCP compared with LAPs is therefore approximately £17 193 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that there was a 54.7% probability that COCP would be cost-effective at the £20 000/QALY threshold. The secondary analyses revealed results more in favour of LAPs.ConclusionAlthough the COCP has a slightly higher probability of being cost-effective at £20 000/QALY threshold, there remains considerable uncertainty, with only marginal differences in outcomes between the two treatments. The lower rates of further surgery and second-line medical treatment for women allocated to LAPs may make this option preferable for some women.Trial registration numberISRCTN 97865475.

Background Endometriosis affects 190 million women and those assigned female at birth worldwide. For some, it is associated with debilitating chronic pelvic pain. Diagnosis of endometriosis is often achieved through diagnostic laparoscopy. However, when isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), the most common endometriosis subtype, is identified during laparoscopy, limited evidence exists to support the common decision to surgically remove it via excision or ablation. Improved understanding of the impact of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women is required. Here, we describe our protocol for a multi-centre trial to determine the effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of endometriosis-associated pain. Methods We plan to undertake a multi-centre participant-blind parallel-group randomised controlled clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot. We plan to randomise 400 participants from up to 70 National Health Service Hospitals in the UK. Participants with chronic pelvic pain awaiting diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis will be consented by the clinical research team. If isolated SPE is identified at laparoscopy, and deep or ovarian endometriosis is not seen, participants will be randomised intraoperatively (1:1) to surgical removal (by excision or ablation or both, according to surgeons’ preference) versus diagnostic laparoscopy alone. Randomisation with block-stratification will be used. Participants will be given a diagnosis but will not be informed of the procedure they received until 12 months post-randomisation, unless required. Post-operative medical treatment will be according to participants’ preference. Participants will be asked to complete validated pain and quality of life questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Our primary outcome is the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30), via a between randomised group comparison of adjusted means at 12 months. Assuming a standard deviation of 22 points around the pain score, 90% power, 5% significance and 20% missing data, 400 participants are required to be randomised to detect an 8-point pain score difference. Discussion This trial aims to provide high quality evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN27244948. Registered 6 April 2021.

Introduction and hypothesis Our aim was to compare the mid-term results of native tissue, biological xenograft and polypropylene mesh surgery for women with vaginal wall prolapse. Methods A total of 1348 women undergoing primary transvaginal repair of an anterior and/or posterior prolapse were recruited between January 2010 and August 2013 from 35 UK centres. They were randomised by remote allocation to native tissue surgery, biological xenograft or polypropylene mesh. We performed both 4- and 6-year follow-up using validated patient-reported outcome measures. Results At 4 and 6 years post-operation, there was no clinically important difference in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score for any of the treatments. Using a strict composite outcome to assess functional cure at 6 years, we found no difference in cure among the three types of surgery. Half the women were cured at 6 years but only 10.3 to 12% of women had undergone further surgery for prolapse. However, 8.4% of women in the mesh group had undergone further surgery for mesh complications. There was no difference in the incidence of chronic pain or dyspareunia between groups. Conclusions At the mid-term outcome of 6 years, there is no benefit from augmenting primary prolapse repairs with polypropylene mesh inlays or biological xenografts. There was no evidence that polypropylene mesh inlays caused greater pain or dyspareunia than native tissue repairs.

Various new endometrial ablation techniques have emerged for the treatment of menorrhagia. We undertook a randomised controlled trial comparing one new technique, microwave endometrial ablation (MEA), with a proven procedure, transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE), for women with heavy menstrual loss. 263 eligible and consenting women, referred for endometrial ablative surgery, were randomly assigned MEA (Microsulis plc, Waterlooville, Hampshire, UK; n=129) or TCRE (n=134). 230 participants were needed to give 80% power of demonstrating a 15% difference in satisfaction with treatment. All procedures were done under general anaesthesia 5 weeks after endometrial thinning with goserelin 3.6 mg. Questionnaires were completed at recruitment and at 12 months' follow-up. The primary outcome measures were patients' satisfaction with and the acceptability of treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat among women followed up to 12 months (n=116 MEA, n=124 TCRE). At 12 months, 89 (77%) women in the MEA group and 93 (75%) in the TCRE group were totally or generally satisfied with their treatment (95% CI for difference -12 to 17) and 109 (94%) versus 112 (90%) found it acceptable (-11 to 35). Mean operating times were shorter for MEA than for TCRE (11.4 vs 15.0 min, p=0·001) and the postoperative stay slightly but not significantly shorter. One blunt perforation occurred in each study group resulting in one immediate hysterectomy (TCRE group). Of eight health-related quality of life dimensions, all were improved after MEA (six significantly) and seven were improved after TCRE (all significantly). Both techniques achieved high rates of satisfaction and acceptability and both improved quality of life after 1 year. However, we cannot exclude a difference in satisfaction between the groups of less than 15%. MEA seems a suitable alternative to TCRE.

A novel new approach to correct vaginal vault prolapse using a Prolene mesh sling suspended between both sacrospinous ligaments is described. The technique utilises reusable equipment and the mesh repair is easily extended to repair posterior vaginal wall defects concurrently.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

The research described in this thesis endeavours to rationalise certain aspects of the secondary care management of women with heavy menstrual loss, particularly endometrial surgery. The work was undertaken in a gynaecology department with an established record in research evaluating endometrial ablative techniques. The hospital is the regional referral centre for all women with menstrual disorders; hence a centralised and stable study population was available. Chapter 1 outlines the aetiological and known epidemiological factors for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. A review of the medical treatment options for menorrhagia is undertaken. The equipment requirements and techniques of transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) and microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) are described. The randomised controlled trials evaluating TCRE that have been published to date, are discussed and critically reviewed. Chapter 2 presents the patterns of referral, socio-demographic and clinical details, primary care treatment, and effect on health related quality of life of women referred to this centre, over one year with heavy menstrual loss. Chapter 3 describes the subjects, methods and outcomes at four months of a prospective randomised comparison of medical management with TCRE for women with heavy menstrual loss. Chapter 4 outlines the clinical and quality of life outcomes at two years for the randomised trial of medical treatment versus TCRE. Chapter 5 describes the subjects and methods for a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing MEA with TCRE. Operative details and outcomes at four months are presented. MEA was a significantly faster technique than TCRE (11.4 v 15 minutes). Post operative stay was less with microwave, though not significantly so, and analgesia requirements were low and equivalent (<30%) for both techniques. Satisfaction rates were slightly lower following MEA (74% v. 81%), whilst acceptability of treatment rates were equivalent (92% v 94%). MEA lead to more significant improvements in health related quality of life measurements than TCRE. Chapter 6 concludes that: - Primary care management guidelines are required, whilst treatment preferences and expectations should be established prior to deciding on treatment. Quality of life measurements should be used to determine degree of debilitation and to ascertain treatment success. Medical treatment was less effective than TCRE, irrespective of previous treatment or type of medical management received.

Since its recognition in 1994 as the causative agent of human flea-borne spotted fever, Rickettsia felis , has been detected worldwide in over 40 different arthropod species. The cat flea, Ctenocephalides felis , is a well-described biological vector of R . felis . Unique to insect-borne rickettsiae, R . felis can employ multiple routes of infection including inoculation via salivary secretions and potentially infectious flea feces into the skin of vertebrate hosts. Yet, little is known of the molecular interactions governing flea infection and subsequent transmission of R . felis . While the obligate intracellular nature of rickettsiae has hampered the function of large-scale mutagenesis strategies, studies have shown the efficiency of mariner -based transposon systems in Rickettsiales. Thus, this study aimed to assess R . felis genetic mutants in a flea transmission model to elucidate genes involved in vector infection. A Himar1 transposase was used to generate R . felis transformants, in which subsequent genome sequencing revealed a transposon insertion near the 3’ end of sca1 . Alterations in sca1 expression resulted in unique infection phenotypes. While the R . felis sca1 :: tn mutant portrayed enhanced growth kinetics compared to R . felis wild-type during in vitro culture, rickettsial loads were significantly reduced during flea infection. As a consequence of decreased rickettsial loads within infected donor fleas, R . felis sca1 :: tn exhibited limited transmission potential. Thus, the use of a biologically relevant model provides evidence of a defective phenotype associated with R . felis sca1 :: tn during flea infection.

Activation of the type 1 angiotensin II receptor (AT1) triggers proinflammatory signaling through pathways independent of classical Gq signaling that regulate vascular homeostasis. Here, we report that the AT1 receptor preformed a heteromeric complex with the receptor for advanced glycation endproducts (RAGE). Activation of the AT1 receptor by angiotensin II (Ang II) triggered transactivation of the cytosolic tail of RAGE and NF-κB-driven proinflammatory gene expression independently of the liberation of RAGE ligands or the ligand-binding ectodomain of RAGE. The importance of this transactivation pathway was demonstrated by our finding that adverse proinflammatory signaling events induced by AT1 receptor activation were attenuated when RAGE was deleted or transactivation of its cytosolic tail was inhibited. At the same time, classical homeostatic Gq signaling pathways were unaffected by RAGE deletion or inhibition. These data position RAGE transactivation by the AT1 receptor as a target for vasculoprotective interventions. As proof of concept, we showed that treatment with the mutant RAGE peptide S391A-RAGE362-404 was able to inhibit transactivation of RAGE and attenuate Ang II-dependent inflammation and atherogenesis. Furthermore, treatment with WT RAGE362-404 restored Ang II-dependent atherogenesis in Ager/Apoe-KO mice, without restoring ligand-mediated signaling via RAGE, suggesting that the major effector of RAGE activation was its transactivation.

Direct-acting antivirals are needed to combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The papain-like protease (PLpro) domain of Nsp3 from SARS-CoV-2 is essential for viral replication. In addition, PLpro dysregulates the host immune response by cleaving ubiquitin and interferon-stimulated gene 15 protein from host proteins. As a result, PLpro is a promising target for inhibition by small-molecule therapeutics. Here we design a series of covalent inhibitors by introducing a peptidomimetic linker and reactive electrophile onto analogs of the noncovalent PLpro inhibitor GRL0617. The most potent compound inhibits PLpro with k inact /K I  = 9,600 M −1 s −1 , achieves sub-μM EC 50 values against three SARS-CoV-2 variants in mammalian cell lines, and does not inhibit a panel of human deubiquitinases (DUBs) at >30 μM concentrations of inhibitor. An X-ray co-crystal structure of the compound bound to PLpro validates our design strategy and establishes the molecular basis for covalent inhibition and selectivity against structurally similar human DUBs. These findings present an opportunity for further development of covalent PLpro inhibitors. The development of direct-acting antivirals to combat COVID-19 remains an important goal. Here the authors design covalent inhibitors that target the papain-like protease from SARS-CoV-2. The most promising inhibitor blocks viral replication in mammalian cells.