Fourteen years of the Pregnancy Registry on maternal immunisation with a reduced-antigen-content tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccine

BackgroundGSK initiated a Pregnancy Registry in the United States (US) for the reduced-antigen-content tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis (Tdap; Boostrix, GSK) vaccine with the aim to detect and describe pregnancy outcomes in women vaccinated with Boostrix 28 days before estimated conception or during pregnancy.MethodsVoluntary reports of pregnancy exposure to Boostrix received from spontaneous and post-marketing surveillance sources in the US were assessed. Reports were classified as prospective or retrospective based on the knowledge of pregnancy outcomes at the time of reporting. For completeness, reports of exposure to Boostrix or to the Tdap-inactivated poliovirus vaccine (Boostrix-IPV, GSK) reported to the global safety database from countries outside the US were also evaluated.ResultsFrom May 2005 to August 2019, 1517 (1455 prospective and 62 retrospective) pregnancy reports were received in the Boostrix US Pregnancy Registry. Of the prospective reports, 250 had known outcomes: 244 live infants with no apparent birth defects (BDs), three live infants with BDs, and three spontaneous abortions with no apparent BDs. Of the retrospective reports, 55 had known outcomes: 33 live infants with no apparent BDs, 16 live infants with BDs, one spontaneous abortion with no apparent BDs, four stillbirths with no apparent BDs, and one stillbirth with BDs. Cumulatively, 1321 pregnancy reports (1006 for Boostrix; 315 for Boostrix-IPV) were received from countries outside the US. Of these, 163 prospective reports and 551 retrospective reports had known outcomes. Results were in line with those from the Boostrix US Pregnancy Registry.ConclusionsData currently available from the Boostrix US Pregnancy Registry and from countries outside the US suggested that exposure to Boostrix or Boostrix-IPV during pregnancy does not raise safety concerns related to adverse pregnancy outcomes or BDs.     

The role of the sonographer – An investigation into the scope of practice for the sonographer internationally

IntroductionThere is global variance in the role of a practicing sonographer. Literature examining global sonographic roles and scope of practice is limited, despite the international applicability of ultrasound imaging. This study aimed to examine the common and divergent features of a practicing sonographer internationally, and their impact upon the development of a global standard of practice.MethodsAn ethically approved mixed-methods online survey was conducted. The purposive sample included all 75 current elected council members of the ISRRT [International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists], an international professional organisation.ResultsThirty-six individuals from at least 32 different countries responded, reflecting the sonography profession in all four ISRRT regions. The results suggest that sonographer education requirements differ widely, from on the job training (16%, 6/36) to undergraduate or postgraduate schooling (44%, 16/36). Registration and accreditation bodies were present in the jurisdiction of 41% (14/34) and 35% (12/33) of respondents respectively, though many were voluntary, physician-focused or non-specific to sonographers. Five of 11 (45%) respondents suggested that the sonographer–radiologist relationship is individual-dependent, and not primarily positive or negative. Ten of 28 (36%) suggested that other professionals do not know the role of the sonographer.ConclusionThe majority of ISRRT council member respondents believe that an international scope of practice could benefit and be implemented in their jurisdiction (26/28, 93% and 22/33, 67%). The key advantages noted were standardisation of education and improved professional mobility. However, lack of sonographer education and radiologist acceptance are important potential barriers.Implications for practiceAn international scope of practice could be beneficial and implementable in most ISRRT jurisdictions. Professional mobility and education standardization are the primary advantages. Insufficient sonographer education and physician acceptance are the key potential obstacles.     

蒙药绿松石的质量标准研究＊

目的 建立蒙药绿松石的质量标准。方法 收集不同产地绿松石，共10批。观察绿松石样品和粉末的性状并进行理化鉴别；按2020年版《中国药典》（四部）通则方法测定绿松石样品中水分、浸出物含量；采用原子吸收光谱法测定绿松石样品铜元素含量。结果 绿松石为不规则、周围带有黑石的块状物，表面蓝绿色，体重，质硬脆，难砸碎，断面呈贝壳状，蜡样光泽，粉末呈灰绿色，无臭，味淡；理化鉴别结果显示，呈铜盐反应；10批次样品中水分含量为0.41%-3.94%（SD=1.37%），浸出物含量为0.21%-0.81%（SD=0.21%），铜元素含量为3.03%-4.63%（SD=0.63%）。结论 初步拟定绿松石中水分含量不得超多5.0%、浸出物含量不得低于0.10%，铜元素含量应为2.60%-4.84%，制定的标准可用于蒙药材绿松石的质量控制。     

Health-related quality of life after isolated limb perfusion compared to extended resection,or amputation for locally advanced extremity sarcoma: Is a limb salvage strategy worth the effort?

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare long-term patient reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with locally advanced extremity soft tissue sarcoma (eSTS) after isolated limb perfusion followed by resection (IR), compared to extended resection (ER), primary amputation (A) or secondary amputation after IR (IR-A).MethodsPatients were selected from the respondents of a multi-institutional cross-sectional cohort survivorship study (SURVSARC) conducted among sarcoma survivors registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR), 2–10 years after diagnosis. Used PROs were the EORTC QLQ-C30, the Cancer worry scale (CWS), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS).ResultsWe identified 97 eSTS survivors: IR = 20, ER = 49, A = 20, IR-A = 8. While there were no differences in PROs between IR and ER, results showed better functioning and functionality in both groups versus the amputation groups. The amputation groups scored significantly lower on physical functioning (A = 62.7, IR-A = 65.7 versus IR = 78.0, ER = 82.7, p = 0.001) and role functioning (A = 67.5, IR-A = 52.8 versus IR = 79.2, ER = 80.6, p = 0.039), both EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Also for the TESS, the scores were significantly lower for the amputation groups compared to the limb sparing groups (upper extremity p = 0.007 with A = 68.9, IR-A = 71.6 versus IR = 93.3, ER = 91.1; lower extremity p < 0.001 with A = 72.2, IR-A50.9 versus IR = 84.5 and ER = 85.5). There were no significant differences between the groups on cancer worry, anxiety and depression.ConclusionHRQoL in eSTS survivors treated with IR or ER is equal; for maintenance of physical functioning and functionality IR and ER outperform an amputation.     

Pain in desmoid-type fibromatosis: Prevalence,determinants and prognosis value

The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence, determinants and prognostic value of pain at diagnosis in patients with desmoid-type fibromatosis (DF). We selected patients from the ALTITUDES cohort (NCT02867033), managed by surgery, active surveillance or systemic treatments, with pain assessment at diagnosis. Patients were invited to fill QLQ-C30 questionnaire and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale. Determinants were identified using logistic models. Prognostic value on event-free survival (EFS) was evaluated using the Cox model. Overall, 382 patients were included in the current study (median age: 40.2 years; 117 men). The prevalence of pain was 36%, without significant difference according to first-line treatment (P = .18). In the multivariate analysis, pain was significantly associated with tumor size >50 mm (P = .013) and tumor site (P < .001); pain was more frequent in the neck and shoulder locations (odds ratio: 3.05 [1.27-7.29]). Pain at baseline was significantly associated with poor quality of life (P < .001), depression (P = .02), lower performance status (P = .03) and functional impairment (P = .001); we also observed a nonsignificant association with anxiety (P = .10). In the univariate analysis, baseline pain was associated with poor EFS; the 3-year EFS was 54% in patients with pain compared to 72% in those without pain. After adjustment for sex, age, size and line of treatment, pain was still associated with poor EFS (hazard ratio: 1.82 [1.23-2.68], P = .003). One third of recently diagnosed patients with DF experienced pain, especially those with larger tumors and neck/shoulder locations. Pain was associated with unfavorable EFS after adjustment for the confounders.