Patterns in Vulvodynia Treatments and 6-Month Outcomes for Women Enrolled in the National Vulvodynia Registry—An Exploratory Prospective Study

Background

Vulvodynia is a poorly characterized condition with multiple treatment options that have been described as largely ineffective in research settings.

The impact of continuous positive airway pressure on cardiac mechanics: Findings from a meta‐analysis of echocardiographic studies

Current evidence on the effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on cardiac mechanics in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is based on a few single studies. The authors investigated this topic through a meta‐analysis of speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) studies that provided data on left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) mechanics as assessed by global longitudinal strain (GLS). The PubMed, OVID‐MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases were systematically analyzed to search English‐language review papers published from inception to January 31, 2022. Studies were identified by crossing the following terms: “obstructive sleep apnea”, “sleep quality”, “sleep disordered breathing”, “continuous positive airway pressure therapy”, “noninvasive ventilation”, “left ventricular hypertrophy”, “systolic dysfunction”, “global longitudinal strain”, “left ventricular mechanics”, “right ventricular mechanics”, “echocardiography” and “STE echocardiography”. The meta‐analysis, including a total of 337 patients with OSA from nine studies (follow‐up 2–24 months) showed a significant GLS improvement in both LV and RV after CPAP, standard mean difference (SMD) being 0.51±0.08, CI:0.36–0.66, p = .0001 and 0.28±0.07, CI:0.15–0.42, p = .0001), respectively. Corresponding SMD values for LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) were 0.20±0.06, CI:0.08–0.33, p = .001 and 0.08±0.06, CI: ‐0.04/0.20, p = .21. Our meta‐analysis suggests that: I) CPAP treatment exerts beneficial effects on biventricular function in patients with OSA; II) the assessment of cardiac mechanics by STE should be routinely recommended for monitoring cardiac function in this setting, due to limitations of conventional echocardiography in evaluating biventricular performance.     

Experience with comprehensive pharmacogenomic multi-gene panel in clinical practice: a retrospective single-center study

AimTo assess the prevalence of actionable pharmacogenetic interventions in patients who underwent pharmacogenetic testing with a multi-gene panel.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed single-center electronic health records. A total of 319 patients were enrolled who underwent pharmacogenomic testing with the RightMed test panel using TaqMan quantitative real-time PCR method and copy number variation analysis to determine the SNPs in the 27 target genes.ResultsActionable drug-gene pairs were found in 235 (73.7%) patients. Relevant guidelines on genotype-based prescribing were available for 133 (56.7%) patients at the time of testing. Based on the patients’ genotype, 139 (43.6%) patients were using at least one drug with significant pharmacogenetic interactions.ConclusionTwo out of three patients had at least one drug-gene pair in their therapy. Further studies should assess the clinical effectiveness of integrating pharmacogenomic data into patients’ electronic health records.

The field of pharmacogenetics has been booming in the past decades, with research being focused on studying novel genetic variants that impact drug metabolism or pharmacological effect, which ultimately affects the patient’s response to a given dose of medication. Pharmacogenetics examines gene-drug interactions that change pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic properties of a drug (1). It is impossible to implement any of the principles of personalized medicine without determining the patients'' pharmacogenetic profile before starting a new therapy (2).Several professional organizations, namely, Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) and Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG), provide comprehensive and understandable guidelines on genotype-based drug prescribing (3,4). Pharmacogenomic prescribing guidelines are growing in number and are available for various drug classes including the cardiovascular drugs, drugs affecting the central nervous system, gastrointestinal drugs, drugs that treat infectious and malignant diseases, immunosuppressives, analgesics, and other (5,6).Several companies specialize in pharmacogenetic panels, making it easily accessible for patients and clinicians of various specialties to obtain the test results in a matter of days or weeks. These commercial tests are developed by industry stakeholders and can be implemented in various settings during the diagnostic or treatment process (7,8). They are comprehensive and include a number of genes that are important for the pharmacologic profile across drug groups, or targeted for a certain category of drugs, ie, psychiatric, analgesics, oncologic drugs, etc. Data on the rate of utilization and clinical utility of such tests are lacking. A recent study found that from 2013 until 2017 only 5712 insured US patients performed pharmacogenetic testing of at least one gene (9). The field of pharmacogenomics is still in its early stages. One of the principal problems is the education of health care providers responsible for ordering and interpreting the test results. In a recent survey, 84.3% of doctors from seven European countries deemed pharmacogenomics relevant for their practice, however 65.7% did not order a pharmacogenomic test in the last year (10). Potential implementation of pharmacogenomics in the clinical practice should be complemented with a clinical decision support tool integrated into the patient’s electronic health record (11,12). In Croatia, pharmacogenomic testing has been available for over a decade, with multiple studies examining population genetics and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomic guided therapies (13,14). However, commercial panel-based tests targeting multiple genes known to influence drug response is a new concept that was implemented in 2018 at St. Catherine Hospital in Zagreb (8,15,16).The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the proportion of patients with actionable pharmacogenetic interventions in a single center from 2018 to 2021 who had undergone pharmacogenetic testing of 27 genes by using a commercial gene panel.     

SARS-CoV-2 Specific Immune Response and Inflammatory Profile in Advanced HIV-Infected Persons during a COVID-19 Outbreak

The main aim of this study was to describe the clinical and immunological outcomes, as well as the inflammatory profile, of patients with advanced HIV in an assisted-living facility in which an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 occurred. SARS-CoV-2 humoral and specific T-cell response were analyzed in patients with HIV infection and COVID-19; as a secondary objective of the analysis, levels of the inflammatory markers (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and TNFα) were tested in the HIV/COVID-19 group, in HIV-positive patients without COVID-19, and in HIV-negative patients with mild/moderate COVID-19. Antibody kinetics and ability to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 were evaluated by ELISA assay, as well as the inflammatory cytokines; SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cell response was quantified by ELISpot assay. Mann–Whitney or Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for comparisons. Thirty patients were included with the following demographics: age, 57 years old (IQR, 53–62); 76% male; median HIV duration of infection, 18 years (15–29); nadir of CD4, 57/mmc (23–100) current CD4 count, 348/mmc (186–565). Furthermore, 83% had at least one comorbidity. The severity of COVID-19 was mild/moderate, and the overall mortality rate was 10% (3/30). Additionally, 90% of patients showed positive antibody titers and neutralizing activity, with a 100% positive SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cell response over time, suggesting the ability to induce an effective specific immunity. Significantly higher levels of IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α in COVID-19 without HIV vs. HIV/COVID-19 patients (p < 0.05) were observed. HIV infection did not seem to negatively impact COVID-19-related inflammatory state and immunity. Further data are mandatory to evaluate the persistence of these immunity and its ability to expand after exposure and/or vaccination.     

Coaxial Drainage versus Standard Chest Tube after Pulmonary Lobectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study

Chest tubes are routinely inserted after thoracic surgery procedures in different sizes and numbers. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of Smart Drain Coaxial drainage compared with two standard chest tubes in patients undergoing thoracotomy for pulmonary lobectomy. Ninety-eight patients (57 males and 41 females, mean age 68.3 ± 7.4 years) with lung cancer undergoing open pulmonary lobectomy were randomized in two groups: 50 received one upper 28-Fr and one lower 32-Fr standard chest tube (ST group) and 48 received one 28-Fr Smart Drain Coaxial tube (SDC group). Hospitalization, quantity of fluid output, air leaks, radiograph findings, pain control and costs were assessed. SDC group showed shorter hospitalization (7.3 vs. 6.1 days, p = 0.02), lower pain in postoperative day-1 (p = 0.02) and a lower use of analgesic drugs (p = 0.04). Pleural effusion drainage was lower in SDC group in the first postoperative day (median 400.0 ± 200.0 mL vs. 450.0 ± 193.8 mL, p = 0.04) and as a mean of first three PODs (median 325.0 ± 137.5 mL vs. 362.5 ± 96.7 mL, p = 0.01). No difference in terms of fluid retention, residual pleural space, subcutaneous emphysema and complications after chest tubes removal was found. In conclusion, Smart Drain Coaxial chest tube seems a feasible option after thoracotomy for pulmonary lobectomy. The SDC group showed a shorter hospitalization and decreased analgesic drugs use and, thus, a reduction of costs.