Intrapartum non-invasive electrophysiological monitoring: A prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Doppler ultrasound cardiotocography is a non-invasive alternative that, despite its poor specificity, is often first choice for intrapartum monitoring. Doppler ultrasound suffers from signal loss due to fetal movements and is negatively correlated with maternal body mass index (BMI). Reported accuracy of fetal heart rate monitoring by Doppler ultrasound varies between 10.6 and 14.3 bpm and reliability between 62.4% and 73%. The fetal scalp electrode (FSE) is considered the reference standard for fetal monitoring but can only be applied after membranes have ruptured with sufficient cervical dilatation and is sometimes contra-indicated. A non-invasive alternative that overcomes the shortcomings of Doppler ultrasound, providing reliable information on fetal heart rate, could be the answer. Non-invasive fetal electrocardiography (NI-fECG) uses a wireless electrode patch on the maternal abdomen to obtain both fetal and maternal heart rate signals as well as an electrohysterogram. We aimed to validate a wireless NI-fECG device for intrapartum monitoring in term singleton pregnancies, by comparison with the FSE. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter cross-sectional observational study at labor wards of 6 hospitals located in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain. Laboring women with a healthy singleton fetus in cephalic presentation and gestational age between 36 and 42 weeks were included. Participants received an abdominal electrode patch and FSE after written informed consent. Accuracy, reliability, and success rate of fetal heart rate readings were determined, using FSE as reference standard. Analysis was performed for the total population and measurement period as well as separated by labor stage and BMI class (≤30 and >30 kg/m2 ). RESULTS: We included a total of 125 women. Simultaneous registrations with NI-fECG and FSE were available in 103 women. Overall accuracy is -1.46 bpm and overall reliability 86.84%. Overall success rate of the NI-fECG is around 90% for the total population as well as for both BMI subgroups. Success rate dropped to 63% during second stage of labor, similar results are found when looking at the separate BMI groups. CONCLUSIONS: Performance measures of the NI-fECG device are good in the overall group and the separate BMI groups. Compared with Doppler ultrasound performance measures from the literature, NI-fECG is a more accurate alternative. Especially, when women have a higher BMI, NI-fECG performs well, resembling FSE performance measures.

Estetrol Cotreatment of Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Infiltrating or Metastatic, Castration-sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase II Trial (PCombi).

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists can be improved. OBJECTIVE: To assess safety, the frequency and severity of hot flushes (HFs), bone health, and antitumor effects of high-dose estetrol (HDE4) when combined with ADT. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study was conducted in advanced prostate cancer patients requiring ADT (the PCombi study). INTERVENTION: Patients receiving LHRH agonist treatment were randomized 2:1 to 40 mg HDE4 (n = 41) or placebo (n = 21) cotreatment for 24 wk. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Coprimary endpoints were frequency/severity of HFs and levels of total and free testosterone (T). Secondary endpoints included assessments of bone metabolism (osteocalcin and type I collagen telopeptide [CTX1]), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). Efficacy analysis was based on the selected per-protocol (PP) population. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 62 patients included in the study, 57 were suitable for a PP analysis (37 HDE4; 20 placebo). No E4-related serious cardiovascular adverse events occurred at 24 wk. Weekly HFs were reported by 13.5% of patients with HDE4 and 60.0% with placebo (p < 0.001). Daily HFs occurred in 5.9% versus 55%. Bone turnover parameters decreased significantly with HDE4 (p < 0.0001). Total and free T decreased earlier (p < 0.05), and free T was suppressed further (p < 0.05). PSA suppression was more profound and earlier (p < 0.005). FSH levels were suppressed by 98% versus 57% (p < 0.0001). Estrogenic side effects were nipple sensitivity (34%) and gynecomastia (17%). CONCLUSIONS: HDE4 cotreatment of ADT patients with advanced prostate cancer was well tolerated, and no treatment-related cardiovascular adverse events were observed at 24 wk. HFs and bone turnover were substantially reduced. Suppression of free T, PSA, and FSH was more rapid and profound, suggesting enhanced disease control by HDE4 cotreatment. Larger and longer-lasting studies are needed to confirm the results of the study reported here. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cotreatment of androgen deprivation therapy with high-dose estetrol in advanced prostate cancer patients results in fewer occurrences of hot flushes, bone protection, and other antitumor benefits. Nipple sensitivity and gynecomastia may occur as side effects.

Efficacy and safety of esmirtazapine in adult outpatients with chronic primary insomnia: a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study and open-label extension.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Esmirtazapine (1.5-4.5 mg) has demonstrated short-term sleep-promoting effects in nonelderly outpatients with chronic insomnia. This phase 3, randomized, double-blind study (NCT00631657) and its open-label extension (NCT00750919) investigated efficacy and safety of long-term esmirtazapine treatment in adult outpatients with chronic insomnia. METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive esmirtazapine 4.5 mg or placebo for 6 months; those receiving esmirtazapine were then rerandomized to esmirtazapine or placebo for an additional 7 days. Participants could enter the 6-month open-label extension with esmirtazapine 4.5 mg. The primary objective of the double-blind study was to assess long-term efficacy of esmirtazapine vs placebo on self-reported total sleep time. Assessing long-term safety and tolerability were secondary and primary objectives of the double-blind and extension studies, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 457 participants received treatment in the double-blind study (esmirtazapine, n = 342; placebo, n = 115) and 184 participants (prior esmirtazapine, n = 136; prior placebo, n = 48) received esmirtazapine in the extension. In the double-blind study, a 48.7-minute increase in average nightly total sleep time was observed for esmirtazapine vs placebo (95% confidence interval, 35.0-62.5; P < .0001) at months 4-6. There was no evidence of residual effects on next-day alertness or daytime functioning and no evidence of rebound insomnia or withdrawal symptoms upon treatment discontinuation. Esmirtazapine was generally well tolerated; somnolence and weight gain were the most common adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Esmirtazapine improved sleep duration vs placebo over at least 6 months. There was no evidence of next-day residual effects or of withdrawal symptoms or rebound insomnia following abrupt treatment discontinuation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: A 6-Month Efficacy and Safety Study of Org 50081 in Adult Patients With Chronic Primary Insomnia (21106/P05701/MK-8265-002); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00631657; Identifier: NCT00631657; and Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Name: Twenty-Six Week Extension Trial of Org 50081 (Esmirtazapine) in Outpatients With Chronic Primary Insomnia (176003/P05721/MK-8265-007); URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00750919); Identifier: NCT00750919.

Maintenance of ovulation inhibition with the 75-microg desogestrel-only contraceptive pill (Cerazette) after scheduled 12-h delays in tablet intake.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to traditional progestagen-only pills (POPs), the desogestrel-only pill Cerazette consistently inhibits ovulation. This study was performed to test the hypothesis that desogestrel alone will keep inhibiting ovulation even when pills are taken 12 h late, indicating that delays in tablet intake of up to 12 h do not jeopardize contraceptive efficacy. METHODS: Women aged between 19 and 40 years with confirmed ovulation were admitted to this open-label pharmacodynamic study. They were treated with Cerazette for 56 days with three tablets to be taken 12 h late, having been randomized to a regimen with scheduled late tablets on Days 39, 42 and 49 (Group A) or on Days 11, 14 and 21 (Group B). The occurrence of ovulation during treatment was determined by measuring progesterone serum levels every 2 days. RESULTS: One of the 103 treated subjects ovulated during treatment. The ovulation incidence thus amounts to 1.0% (two-sided 95% confidence interval 0.02-5.29%). There was no apparent relationship between these ovulations and scheduled late tablets. The minimum time to first posttreatment ovulation was 7 days, whereas it took 17.2 days on average from last tablet intake until ovulation. CONCLUSIONS: Ovulation inhibition with Cerazette is maintained after 12-h delays in tablet intake and return of ovulation takes at least 7 days. These properties distinguish Cerazette from all other POPs.