Explore the vast range of titles available.

To describe drug prescription for gastrointestinal symptoms during pregnancy. Using the French national health database, we identified pregnancies ending with a birth between April 2010 and December 2018, in France. We studied prescription of antacids, antispasmodics, antinauseants, laxatives and antidiarrheals during pregnancy, between two trimesters before and two trimesters after delivery. We also assessed hospitalization for gastrointestinal symptoms during pregnancy. Among 6,365,471 pregnancies, 4,452,779 (74.0%) received at least one gastrointestinal drug during pregnancy; 2,228,275 (37.0%) received an antacid, 3,096,858 (51.5%) an antispasmodic, 1,861,731 (31.0%) an antinauseant, 919,116 (15.3%) a laxative and 617,808 (10.3%) an antidiarrheal. Prescription of proton pump inhibitors doubled from 12.2% in 2010 to 26.0% in 2018, while domperidone use decreased from 18.3% in 2010 to 2.2% in 2018. In addition, prescription of antacids increased from 7.0% during the trimester before pregnancy to 11.8% during the 1st trimester, 17.0% during the 2nd trimester and 23.4% during the 3rd trimester. Antispasmodic use was 10.6% during the trimester before pregnancy, 23.1% during the 1st trimester, 25.2% during the 2nd trimester and 24.0% during the 3rd trimester. Prescription of antinauseant drugs increased from 5.0% during the trimester before pregnancy to 25.7% during the 1st trimester, then decreased to 6.4% during the 2nd trimester and 3.2% during the 3rd trimester. Nausea/vomiting was the most common cause of hospitalization for gastrointestinal symptoms or diseases during pregnancy, although it accounted for only 1.0% of pregnancies. Approximately three-quarters of women use drugs for gastrointestinal symptoms during pregnancy in France. Prescription of gastrointestinal drugs during pregnancy should be the subject of more detailed risk-benefit assessment and recommendations.

Background Data in the literature about HSV reactivation in COVID-19 patients are scarce, and the association between HSV-1 reactivation and mortality remains to be determined. Our objectives were to evaluate the impact of Herpes simplex virus (HSV) reactivation in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections primarily on mortality, and secondarily on hospital-acquired pneumonia/ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP) and intensive care unit-bloodstream infection (ICU-BSI). Methods We conducted an observational study using prospectively collected data and HSV-1 blood and respiratory samples from all critically ill COVID-19 patients in a large reference center who underwent HSV tests. Using multivariable Cox and cause-specific (cs) models, we investigated the association between HSV reactivation and mortality or healthcare-associated infections. Results Of the 153 COVID-19 patients admitted for ≥ 48 h from Feb-2020 to Feb-2021, 40/153 (26.1%) patients had confirmed HSV-1 reactivation (19/61 (31.1%) with HSV-positive respiratory samples, and 36/146 (24.7%) with HSV-positive blood samples. Day-60 mortality was higher in patients with HSV-1 reactivation (57.5%) versus without (33.6%, p  = 0.001). After adjustment for mortality risk factors, HSV-1 reactivation was associated with an increased mortality risk (hazard risk [HR] 2.05; 95% CI 1.16–3.62; p  = 0.01). HAP/VAP occurred in 67/153 (43.8%) and ICU-BSI in 42/153 (27.5%) patients. In patients with HSV-1 reactivation, multivariable cause-specific models showed an increased risk of HAP/VAP (csHR 2.38, 95% CI 1.06–5.39, p  = 0.037), but not of ICU-BSI. Conclusions HSV-1 reactivation in critically ill COVID-19 patients was associated with an increased risk of day-60 mortality and HAP/VAP.

Background: Patients with hematological malignancies are at greater risk of severe COVID-19 and have been prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination. A significant proportion of them have an impaired vaccine response, both due to the underlying disease and to the treatments. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study to identify the specific risks of the outpatient population with hematological diseases. Result: Between 22 December 2021 to 12 February 2022, we followed 338 patients of which 16.9% (n = 57) developed SARS-CoV-2 infection despite previous vaccination (94.7%). COVID-19 patients were more likely to have received immunotherapy (85.5% vs. 41%, p < 10−4), and particularly anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (40% vs. 14.9%, p < 10−4) and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) (7.3% vs. 0.7%, p < 10−2). There was no significant difference in demographic characteristics or hematological malignancies between COVID-19-positive and non-positive patients. Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 had more frequently received immunotherapy than patients with asymptomatic or benign forms (100% vs. 77.3%, p < 0.05). Hospitalized COVID-19 patients had a higher proportion of negative or weakly positive serologies than non-hospitalized patients (92.3% vs. 61%, p < 0.05). Patients who received tixagevimab/cilgavimab prophylaxis (n = 102) were less likely to be COVID-19-positive (4.9 vs. 22%, p < 0.05) without significant difference in hospitalization rates. Conclusion: In the immunocompromised population of patients with hematological malignancies, the underlying treatment of blood cancer by immunotherapy appears to be a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection and for developing a severe form.

ObjectiveTo describe and identify factors associated with articular manifestations occurring in patients treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs).MethodsRetrospective monocentric study, including all patients who received an anti-TNF for an IBD in our hospital. All incident articular manifestations occurring during treatment were analysed. Characteristics of patients with paradoxical articular manifestations were compared with that of patients without inflammatory articular manifestations.ResultsBetween February 2013 and May 2017, we identified 442 patients (36.2±15 years, 50.5% men) who had ever received an anti-TNF for an IBD: Crohn’s disease (n=277), ulcerative colitis (n=154) and undetermined colitis (n=11). 115 (26%) patients developed new articular manifestations after a mean of 20 (±22) months of treatment. Among them, 59 (13.3%) had inflammatory manifestations: paradoxical in 39%, concomitant of an IBD flare in 27%, linked to an immunisation against anti-TNF in 27% and 7% to another diagnosis. Among paradoxical articular manifestations, 19 (83%) were new articular symptoms, including 8 (35%) de novo spondyloarthritis. There were no predictive factors of paradoxical articular manifestation. Paradoxical manifestations spontaneously resolved in 16 (70%) patients despite continuation of anti-TNF.ConclusionInflammatory articular manifestations occurred in about 13% of patients treated with anti-TNF for IBD. More than a quarter were linked to an immunisation against anti-TNF, which has to be searched in this situation. About 40% were paradoxical. In most of cases, they were transitory and did not require anti-TNFs discontinuation.

An experiment on convective flows induced by the dielectrophoretic force was performed under the microgravity condition provided during a sounding rocket flight. The dielectrophoretic force possesses a non-conservative term that can be seen as resulting from an electric gravity. That gravity can be responsible for an electric Rayleigh–Bénard convection between a hot inner cylinder and a cold outer cylinder when an electric field is applied in the radial direction. Four cells with independent temperature and electric field controls allowed the investigation of eight different values of the electric Rayleigh number relatively close to the onset of the thermo-electric instability. A linear stability analysis is performed to predict the stability threshold and the evolution of the growth rate of the instability. The three-dimensional structure of the flow is captured by simultaneous particle image velocimetry and by shadowgraphy. The amplitude of the instability modes and the time evolution of the flow is analysed, and various methods are proposed to extrapolate the experimental critical value of the electric Rayleigh number for the onset of convection. The measured critical electric Rayleigh number is in agreement with the prediction of the linear stability theory. The comparison of the new experimental results with previous ones from parabolic flight campaigns highlights the importance of long-term microgravity for the achievement of thermal convection at low values of the control parameters.

BackgroundThe WallFlex® and Evolution® stents are the most widely used duodenal stents, but no study has compared them.AimsWe aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of WallFlex® and Evolution® stents for malignant gastric outlet obstruction.MethodsWe included all consecutive patients who were treated for malignant gastric outlet obstruction with WallFlex® or Evolution® self-expandable metal uncovered duodenal stents between 2013 and 2020. Multivariable Cox models were performed to assess duodenal stent failure, as defined by gastric outlet obstruction necessitating another duodenal stent.ResultsWe included 129 patients: 74 received a WallFlex® stent and 55 received an Evolution® stent. The non-failure rate was of 68% (95%CI 55–84) and 65% (95%CI 50–84) at 6 months and of 48% (95%CI 32–73) and 45% (95%CI 27–74) at 1 year, with the WallFlex® and Evolution® stents, respectively. The median time to duodenal stent failure was 10.5 months in the WallFlex® group and 9.3 months in the Evolution® group. The type of duodenal stent was not associated with duodenal stent failure (p logrank = 0.43, adjusted hazard ratio 1.55; 95%CI 0.77–3.14). The overall survival was similar between the two groups (p logrank = 0.92). Three patients had complications due to Evolution® stents; it consisted in dismantled stents that led to hemorrhage in one patient.ConclusionsWallFlex® and Evolution® duodenal stents had similar efficacy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. There were more adverse events with Evolution® stents.

Vedolizumab clinical decision support tool (VDZ-CDST) predicts response to vedolizumab, but whether this tool also predicts efficacy of other drugs in Crohn's disease (CD) is unknown. This study aimed to assess the value of VDZ-CDST to predict vedolizumab and ustekinumab efficacy in patients with CD. We included consecutive CD patients refractory or intolerant to anti-TNF who started either vedolizumab or ustekinumab in 5 university hospitals between May 2014 and August 2018. The main end points were the rates of clinical remission and steroid-free clinical remission (SFCR) in each group of VDZ-CDST at week 48. One hundred eighty patients were included; 94 received vedolizumab (VDZ-CDST ≤13: 32; VDZ-CDST >13 and ≤19: 52; VDZ-CDST >19: 10), and 86 received ustekinumab (VDZ-CDST ≤13: 16; VDZ-CDST >13 and ≤19: 60; VDZ-CDST >19: 10). At week 48 in the vedolizumab group, clinical remission and SFCR were reached in 9.4% with a VDZ-CDST ≤13, in 38.5% and 28.8% with a VDZ-CDST >13 and ≤19, respectively, and in 80.0% with a VDZ-CDST >19 (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively). In the ustekinumab cohort, clinical remission and SFCR were reached in 43.8% and 37.5% with a VDZ-CDST ≤13, in 55.0% and 50.0% with a VDZ-CDST >13 and ≤19, and 50.0% with a VDZ-CDST >19, respectively (P = 0.65 and P = 0.46, respectively). VDZ-CDST identified SFCR with an area under the curve of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57-0.82) for vedolizumab and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.65) for ustekinumab. The VDZ-CDST predicts clinical remission and SFCR at week 48 for vedolizumab but not for ustekinumab in CD patients refractory or intolerant to anti-TNF.

To explore the association between industry funding and network meta-analyses’ (NMAs) conclusion, and the use in Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) of NMAs. This was an overview of NMAs and CPGs. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and several guideline databases up to February 18th 2023. We included CPGs from the last 5 years and NMAs of randomized controlled trials that evaluated targeted therapies in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Data extraction and outcome assessments were done in duplicate by independent authors. We included 216 NMAs and 99 CPGs. 31% (67/216) were industry-funded. The proportion of industry-funded NMAs that cited one treatment as being best was 44% (25/57) compared to 26% (30/116) for nonindustry-funded (OR = 2.24 [1.15-4.39]; aOR = 1.76 [0.81-3.81]). The abstract's conclusion of 39/67 (58%) industry-funded and 69/149 (46%) nonindustry-funded NMAs were considered unsupported by the results (OR = 1.61 [0.90-2.89]; aOR = 1.40 [0.71-2.78]). All industry-funded NMAs that cited one treatment as best cited their own sponsored drug. 59/99 (60%) CPGs included at least one NMA, with 23/59 (39%) of them citing industry-funded NMAs. We did not find evidence that industry-funded NMAs were more likely to have unsupported conclusions or to cite only one treatment as being best in their conclusions compared to non-industry-funded NMAs. However, almost all industry-funded NMAs favored their own treatments. Even though 40% of the CPGs did not rely on NMA, over a third of those who did used industry-funded NMAs. Limitations include the possible misclassification due to undisclosed funding and potential confounders that have not been accounted for.

BackgroundIt is unknown which maintenance therapy is the most effective option for patients admitted for an acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) episode responding to intravenous steroids.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label randomised controlled trial among 23 French centres in thiopurine and biologics-naïve adults admitted for ASUC responding to intravenous steroids. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive infliximab (IFX) and azathioprine (AZA) with a 7-day steroid tapering scheme (IFX+AZA arm) or AZA and conventional standardised steroid tapering regimen (AZA arm). The primary composite endpoint was treatment failure at week 52, defined as the absence of steroid-free clinical remission, the absence of endoscopic response, the use of a prohibited treatment for relapse, severe adverse event leading to treatment interruption, colectomy or death. Multiple imputation for missing data was performed.FindingsAmong the 64 patients randomised (Lichtiger score 13.5±2.0; median age of 34.5 (P25–P75 26.3–50.3) years, median C reactive protein of 29.0 (12.8–96.8) mg/L at baseline): 32 were assigned to the IFX+AZA arm and 32 to the AZA arm. In the ITT population, treatment failure at week 52 was observed in 22/27 (81.5%) in the AZA arm and 16/30 (53.3%) in the IFX+AZA arm (risk ratio 3.85, 95% CI (1.15 to 12.88), p=0.03). 29 adverse events were severe, including 13 disease exacerbations, 6 severe infections without any difference between both arms.InterpretationCombination therapy with IFX+AZA was more effective at 1 year than AZA alone to avoid treatment failure in patients with ASUC responding to intravenous steroids.Trial registration number NCT02425852.

The first-line therapy of patients with RAS wild-type (WT) non-resectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is usually 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy with either bevacizumab or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The addition of anti-EGFR antibodies is commonly delayed in clinical practice because of late RAS testing results. Our objective was to evaluate the impact on overall survival (OS) of a delayed anti-EGFR introduction strategy. This study pooled the data of two large retrospective studies. Patients with RAS WT non-resectable mCRC, treated in first line by a doublet chemotherapy with an anti-EGFR introduced with a delay of 2 to 4 cycles, were compared to an anti-EGFR and to an anti-VEGF that was introduced immediately. Patients numbering 305 in the delayed anti-EGFR group, 401 in the immediate anti-EGFR group, and 129 in the immediate anti-VEGF group were analyzed. After propensity scoring, there was no difference between the characteristics of the three groups. Median OS was 28.6 months (95% CI: 23.5–34.1) in the immediate anti-EGFR group, 35.1 (95% CI: 29.9–43.5) in the delayed anti-EGFR group, and 32.4 (95% CI: 25.4–44.8) in the immediate anti-VEGF group. There was no significant difference concerning median OS (p = 0.24) or progression-free survival (p = 0.56). This study suggests that delaying the introduction of an anti-EGFR has no deleterious impact on survival compared to the immediate introduction of an anti-VEGF or of an anti-EGFR.