Explore the vast range of titles available.

There is a growing body of evidence for the role of deprivation in a broad spectrum of diseases including renal disease. Deprivation has been demonstrated to be associated with poorer outcomes across a range of renal diseases including acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease and transplantation. In this issue of Clinical Kidney Journal, Hounkpatin et al. describe the association of socioeconomic deprivation with incidence, mortality and resolution of AKI in a large UK cohort. Investigating deprivation as a factor influencing either incidence or outcome of disease is challenging due to variations in measures of deprivation used and other confounding factors that may be contributing to the observed differences. In this editorial, we review the current literature examining the role of deprivation in renal disease.

Biliary atresia (BA) is a pediatric liver disease that often necessitates parenteral nutrition (PN) to support growth due to impaired liver function. While soy-based lipid emulsions (SLE) are commonly used in PN, they may contribute to cholestatic liver injury. In contrast, mixed lipid emulsions (MLE) show promise in preventing cholestasis in infants without BA, potentially by restoring bile flow. However, their effectiveness in patients of complete bile duct obstruction, as seen in BA, remains uncertain. To explore the potential benefits of MLE in BA, we utilized a neonatal pig model of bile duct ligation (BDL). Pigs underwent either BDL or sham surgery and were subsequently fed either MLE or SLE via PN, or enterally with formula. The MLE-BDL pigs exhibited significantly greater weight gain compared with those fed SLE or formula enterally. Additionally, MLE-BDL pigs showed higher serum bile acid and γ-glutamyl transferase concentrations compared with SLE-BDL pigs. However, no significant differences in liver injury, assessed by ductular reaction or fibrosis, were observed between MLE- and SLE-BDL pigs. Based on weight gain alone, MLE may be a superior lipid emulsion for use in neonates with obstructive cholestasis.

ObjectivesTo describe the incidence of adverse events (AEs), reactogenicity symptoms, menstrual changes and overall self-rated improvement in health and well-being after COVID-19 vaccination.DesignVAC4COVID is an ongoing prospective, active observational, post-authorisation cohort safety study (PASS) of UK-approved vaccines for COVID-19 disease.SettingThe study is conducted through a secure website (www.vac4covid.com) by MEMO Research, University of Dundee, UK.Participants16 265 adult (18 years or older) UK residents with a valid email address and internet access.InterventionsAny UK-authorised COVID-19 vaccination.Main outcome measuresThe outcomes reported in this interim analysis include AEs, reactogenicity-type AEs (headache, fatigue, muscle or joint pain, fever, nausea, dizziness or local vaccine reaction), menstrual changes and reported improvement in overall health and well-being.Results11 475 consented participants (mean age 54.8 years) provided follow-up data between 2 February and 5 October 2021 (mean follow-up duration 184 days), by which date 89.2% of participants had received two vaccine doses. 89.8% of 5222 participants who completed a follow-up questionnaire in the 7 days after any COVID-19 vaccination reported no AEs. The risk of experiencing any event (not necessarily vaccine-related) requiring hospitalisation was less than 0.2%. 43.7% of post-vaccination follow-up records reported improvement in health and well-being. Reactogenicity-type reactions were more common in the week after the first dose of ChAdOx1 than BNT162b2 (7.8% vs 1.6%), but this relationship was reversed after the second dose (1.3% vs 3.1%). 0.3% of women reported menstrual symptoms after vaccination; no differences between vaccine type or dose order were detected.ConclusionsThe study provides reassuring data on low rates of AEs after COVID-19 vaccination. Differences in reactogenicity-type AE profiles between ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 and between first and second doses of these vaccines were observed.Trial registration numberISRCTN95881792; Pre-results.

Studies have suggested that evening dosing with antihypertensive therapy might have better outcomes than morning dosing. The Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aimed to investigate whether evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication improves major cardiovascular outcomes compared with morning dosing in patients with hypertension. The TIME study is a prospective, pragmatic, decentralised, parallel-group study in the UK, that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with hypertension and taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), without restriction, stratification, or minimisation, to take all of their usual antihypertensive medications in either the morning (0600–1000 h) or in the evening (2000–0000 h). Participants were followed up for the composite primary endpoint of vascular death or hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Endpoints were identified by participant report or record linkage to National Health Service datasets and were adjudicated by a committee masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was assessed as the time to first occurrence of an event in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants who submitted at least one follow-up questionnaire. The study is registered with EudraCT (2011-001968-21) and ISRCTN (18157641), and is now complete. Between Dec 17, 2011, and June 5, 2018, 24 610 individuals were screened and 21 104 were randomly assigned to evening (n=10 503) or morning (n=10 601) dosing groups. Mean age at study entry was 65·1 years (SD 9·3); 12 136 (57·5%) participants were men; 8968 (42·5%) were women; 19 101 (90·5%) were White; 98 (0·5%) were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British (ethnicity was not reported by 1637 [7·8%] participants); and 2725 (13·0%) had a previous cardiovascular disease. By the end of study follow-up (March 31, 2021), median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9–5·7), and 529 (5·0%) of 10 503 participants assigned to evening treatment and 318 (3·0%) of 10 601 assigned to morning treatment had withdrawn from all follow-up. A primary endpoint event occurred in 362 (3·4%) participants assigned to evening treatment (0·69 events [95% CI 0·62–0·76] per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3·7%) assigned to morning treatment (0·72 events [95% CI 0·65–0·79] per 100 patient-years; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·83–1·10]; p=0·53). No safety concerns were identified. Evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication was not different from morning dosing in terms of major cardiovascular outcomes. Patients can be advised that they can take their regular antihypertensive medications at a convenient time that minimises any undesirable effects. British Heart Foundation.

Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89–1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87–1·20], p=0·77). In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

BackgroundThere is an acknowledged performance gap that students experience when transiting from academia to practice.1 Mentorship is a core component of undergraduate teaching and is a catalyst for academic success and productivity.2 We present findings from a pilot study designed to support the transition from undergraduate study to becoming a Foundation Doctor (FD). The Medical Mentorship Programme (MMP) supports the professional development of final year medical students via a programme of clinical mentorship and simulation based workshops.MethodologyThe authors explored the perceptions of a ‘gap’ with FD’s within NHS Tayside. FD’s completed a short anonymous questionnaire which asked them to critique their experiences of becoming a doctor. The results of this questionnaire informed the development of the MMP. MMP consists of 3 workshops:Preparing to be a Mentor (For FD’s only)Improving your Clinical PracticeBecoming an Effective Practitioner7 FD’s were recruited to this pilot study and trained to become mentors. Each FD was allocated 2–3 medical students. These mentorship groups attended a programme of simulation workshops. To encourage skill transference, mentors then conducted teaching shifts within their clinical area. We examined the effectiveness of this approach using a modified capabilities and transference questionnaire which gathered data at specific time intervals.3Expected resultsThe pilot study will conclude in June 2014. We anticipate that the construct of the mentorship group will have a positive impact on a student’s professional development. We expect that FD’s will recognise the importance of effective mentorship.ConclusionMMP has been designed to improve the confidence and capabilities of senior medical students and subsequently to be better prepared to become FD’s. Our institution and external organisations are keen to explore the possibility of rolling this model out to increase patient safety, and work efficiency particularly during the early transition phase.ReferencesYardley S, Irvine A, Lefroy J. Minding the gap between communication skills simulation and authentic experience. Medical Education 2013;47:495–510Sambunjak D, Straus S, Marušic´ A. Mentoring in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review. JAMA 2006;296(9):1103–1115The Canadian Society for Training and Development. Investing In People: Tools and Resources. [Accessed 03.06.14]

Cholangioscopy refers to the insertion of an endoscope into the biliary system with subsequent direct visualization of the bile ducts. It has existed for many years and in many different forms-percutaneously by radiologists, intraoperatively by surgeons, and endoscopically as an extension of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This later endoscopic form is often referred to as \"peroral\" approach and is accomplished via retrograde insertion of miniature endoscopes through the ampulla of Vater. The peroral approach will be the main focus of the remainder of this chapter (Figures 38-1 and 38-2). Figure 38-1 Fluoroscopic image of pancreatoscopy with Spy Glass (Boston Scientific Corp, Marlboro, MA). Figure 38-2 Endoscopic view of the pancreatic duct from Spy Glass (Boston Scientific Corp, Marlboro, MA) showing early adenocarcinoma. Direct endoscopic biopsy confirmed diagnosis.