Simeprevir added to peginterferon and ribavirin lessens time with fatigue,depressive symptoms and functional limitations in patients with chronic hepatitis C compared with peginterferon and ribavirin: results from 1161 patients in the QUEST‐1, QUEST‐2 and PROMISE studies

The value of adding simeprevir (SMV) vs placebo (PBO) to peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection was examined using patient‐reported outcomes (PROs); further, concordance of PROs with virology endpoints and adverse events (AEs) was explored. Patients (n = 768 SMV/PR, n = 393 PBO/PR) rated fatigue (FSS), depressive symptoms (CES‐D) and functional impairment (WPAI: Hepatitis C Productivity, Daily Activity and Absenteeism) at baseline and throughout treatment in three randomised, double‐blind trials comparing the addition of SMV or PBO during initial 12 weeks of PR. PR was administered for 48 weeks (PBO group) and 24/48 weeks (SMV group) using a response‐guided therapy (RGT) approach. Mean PRO scores (except Absenteeism) worsened from baseline to Week 4 to the same extent in both groups but reverted after Week 24 for SMV/PR and only after Week 48 for PBO/PR. Accordingly, there was a significantly lower area under the curve (baseline–Week 60, AUC₆₀) and fewer weeks with clinically important worsening of scores in the SMV/PR group at any time point. Incidences of patients with fatigue and anaemia AEs were similar in both groups, but FSS scores showed that clinically important increases in fatigue lasted a mean of 6.9 weeks longer with PBO/PR (P < 0.001). PRO score subgroup analysis indicated better outcomes for patients who met the criteria for RGT or achieved sustained virological response 12 weeks post‐treatment (SVR12); differences in mean PRO scores associated with fibrosis level were only observed with PBO/PR. Greater efficacy of SMV/PR enabled reduced treatment duration and reduced time with PR‐related AEs without adding to AE severity.     

Repeat resection in recurrent glioblastoma (3rGBM) Trial: A randomized care trial

BackgroundThe prognosis for patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) is dismal, and the question of repeat surgery at time of recurrence is common. Re-operation in the management of these patients remains controversial, as there is no randomized evidence of benefit. An all-inclusive pragmatic care trial is needed to evaluate the role of repeat resection.Methods3rGBM is a multicenter, pragmatic, prospective, parallel-group randomized care trial, with 1:1 allocation to repeat resection or standard care with no repeat resection. To test the hypothesis that repeat resection can improve overall survival by at least 3 months (from 6 to 9 months), 250 adult patients with prior resection of pathology-proven glioblastoma for whom the attending surgeon believes repeat resection may improve quality survival will be enrolled. A surrogate measure of quality of life, the number of days outside of hospital/nursing/palliative care facility, will also be compared. Centers are invited to participate without financial compensation and without contracts. Clinicians may apply to local authorities to approve an investigator-led in-house trial, using a common protocol, web-based randomization platform, and simple standardized case report forms.DiscussionThe 3rGBM trial is a modern transparent care research framework with no additional risks, tests, or visits other than what patients would encounter in normal care. The burden of proof remains on repeat surgical management of recurrent GBM, because this management has yet to be shown beneficial. The trial is designed to help patients and surgeons manage the uncertainty regarding optimal care.Clinical Trial Registrationhttp://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04838782.     

Mixed Reality Combined with Three‐Dimensional Printing Technology in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Updated Review with a Preliminary Case Presentation

Three‐dimensional (3D) printing technology, virtual reality, and augmented reality technology have been used to help surgeons to complete complex total hip arthroplasty, while their respective shortcomings limit their further application. With the development of technology, mixed reality (MR) technology has been applied to improve the success rate of complicated hip arthroplasty because of its unique advantages. We presented a case of a 59‐year‐old man with an intertrochanteric fracture in the left femur, who had received a prior left hip fusion. After admission to our hospital, a left total hip arthroplasty was performed on the patient using a combination of MR technology and 3D printing technology. Before surgery, 3D reconstruction of a certain bony landmark exposed in the surgical area was first performed. Then a veneer part was designed according to the bony landmark and connected to a reference registration landmark outside the body through a connecting rod. After that, the series of parts were made into a holistic reference registration instrument using 3D printing technology, and the patient's data for bone and surrounding tissue, along with digital 3D information of the reference registration instrument, were imported into the head‐mounted display (HMD). During the operation, the disinfected reference registration instrument was installed on the selected bony landmark, and then the automatic real‐time registration was realized by HMD through recognizing the registration landmark on the reference registration instrument, whereby the patient's virtual bone and other anatomical structures were quickly and accurately superimposed on the real body of the patient. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report to use MR combined with 3D printing technology in total hip arthroplasty.