Impact of the diagnostic label for a low-risk prostate lesion: protocol for two online factorial randomised experiments.

INTRODUCTION: Many types of prostate cancer present minimal risk to a man's lifespan or well-being, but existing terminology makes it difficult for men to distinguish these from high-risk prostate cancers. This study aims to explore whether using an alternative label for low-risk prostate cancer influences management choice and anxiety levels among Australian men and their partners. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will run two separate studies for Australian men and Australian women with a male partner. Both studies are between-subjects factorial (3×2) randomised online hypothetical experiments. Following consent, eligible participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to three labels: 'low-risk prostate cancer, Gleason Group 1', 'low-risk prostate neoplasm' or 'low-risk prostate lesion'. Participants will then undergo a second randomisation step with 1:1 allocation to the provision of detailed information on the benefits and harms of different management choices versus the provision of less detailed information about management choices. The required sample sizes are 1290 men and 1410 women. The primary outcome is the participant choice of their preferred management strategy: no immediate treatment (prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based monitoring or active surveillance using PSA, MRI, biopsy with delayed treatment for disease progression) versus immediate treatment (prostatectomy or radiation therapy). Secondary outcomes include preferred management choice (from the four options listed above), diagnosis anxiety, management choice anxiety and management choice at a later time point (for participants who initially choose a monitoring strategy). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been received from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/572). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and a plain language summary of the findings will be shared on the Wiser Healthcare publications page http://www.wiserhealthcare.org.au/category/publications/ TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ID 386701 and 386889).

Possible etiology of improvements in both quality of life and overlapping gastroesophageal reflux disease by proton pump inhibitor treatment in a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms suggestive of functional dyspepsia (FD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) frequently overlap with those of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Despite the high prevalence of symptomatic overlap, the underlying etiology remains poorly defined. We assessed the correlation of symptomatic relief and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with healing of reflux esophagitis to further derive insights into the underlying etiology. METHODS: 626 patients with reflux esophagitis were enrolled into one of two treatment groups (classical healing concept or the complete remission concept) to investigate differences in treatment intensity. Patients were treated with pantoprazole until esophageal mucosal healing. Remission was followed for up to 6 months without treatment. Gastro-intestinal symptoms and HRQoL were analyzed using disease-specific, psychometrically validated patient-reported outcome instruments (ReQuest™, GERDyzer™). RESULTS: Symptomatic burden reflected by ReQuest™ substantially decreased from baseline to end of treatment by 83% and 88% in either treatment group, respectively. ReQuest™ scores significantly decreased in patients with or without heartburn and in those with symptoms suggestive of FD and IBS, indicating response of all symptom categories to treatment (p < 0.005). Therapy-associated relief of symptoms was paralleled by substantial gains in HRQoL, which continued to stabilize post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Pantoprazole is effective in relieving upper and lower gastro-intestinal symptoms overlapping with erosive esophagitis, and provides sustained improvement in HRQoL post-treatment. Our results propose a link between both healing of erosive esophagitis and the slower remission of upper and lower gastro-intestinal symptoms. Since the improvement observed is likely to be multifactorial, the possibility for an immune-mediated etiology and identification of putative susceptibility factors by genome-wide association study may provide focus for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00325676.

Barriers that prevent adults living with HBV infection from participating in clinical research: experience from South Africa.

High profile international goals have been set for the elimination of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection as a public health threat by the year 2030. Developing and expanding equitable, accessible translational HBV research programmes that represent real-world populations are therefore an urgent priority for clinical and academic communities. We present experiences and insights by an expert interdisciplinary group focusing on barriers that impede adults living with HBV infection from participating in clinical studies. Our viewpoint describes barriers we have identified through working in a variety of settings across South Africa, including lack of education and awareness, experiences of stigma and discrimination, challenges for governance and data management, and a burden of complex morbidity. Through identifying these challenges, we propose solutions and interventions, highlight new approaches, and provide a framework for future research.

Treatment advantage in HBV/HIV coinfection compared to HBV monoinfection in a South African cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Prompted by international targets for elimination of hepatitis B virus (HBV), we set out to characterise individuals with HBV monoinfection vs. those coinfected with HBV/HIV, to evaluate the impact of therapy and to guide improvements in clinical care. METHODS: We report observational data from a real world cross-sectional cohort of 115 adults with chronic hepatitis B infection (CHB), at a university hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. HIV coinfection was present in 39 (34%) subjects. We recorded cross-sectional demographic, clinical and laboratory data. RESULTS: Compared to those with HIV coinfection, HBV monoinfected adults were less likely to be HBeAg-positive (p=0.01), less likely to have had assessment with elastography (p<0.0001), and less likely to be on antiviral treatment (p<0.0001); they were more likely to have detectable HBV viraemia (p=0.04), and more likely to have features of liver disease including moderate/severe thrombocytopaenia (p=0.007), elevated bilirubin (p=0.004), and elevated APRI score (p=0.02). Three cases of hepatocellular carcinoma all arose in HBV monoinfection. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that individuals with HBV monoinfection may be disadvantaged compared to those with HIV coinfection, highlighting potential systematic inequities in referral, monitoring and treatment.

Evidence of tenofovir resistance in chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection: An observational case series of South African adults.

INTRODUCTION: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is widely recommended for treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection because it is safe, affordable and has a high genetic barrier to resistance. TDF resistance associated mutations (RAMs) have been reported, but data are limited, particularly for Africa. We set out to identify potential RAMs in individuals with detectable HBV viraemia on TDF treatment. METHODS: We recruited adults with chronic HBV infection from Cape Town, South Africa, identifying individuals with a TDF resistance phenotype, defined as persistent HBV vireamia despite >12 months of TDF treatment. We sequenced HBV DNA using MiSeq Illumina with whole genome target enrichment, and sought potential TDF RAMs, based on a pre-defined list of polymorphisms. RESULTS: Among 66 individuals with chronic HBV (genotypes A and D), three met our clinical definition for TDF resistance, of whom two were coinfected with HIV. In one participant, the consensus HBV sequence contained nine polymorphisms that have been described in association with TDF resistance. Significant treatment non-adherence in this individual was unlikely, as HIV RNA was suppressed. TDF RAMs were also present in HBV sequences from the other two participants, but other factors including treatment non-adherence may also have had a role in failure of HBV DNA suppression in these cases. DISCUSSION: Our findings add to the evidence that RAMs in HBV reverse transcriptase may underpin a TDF resistant phenotype. This is the first time these RAMs have been reported from Africa in association with clinical evidence of TDF resistance.

Reliability and validity of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire in dyspepsia: a six-country study.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of dyspepsia significantly disrupt patients' lives and reliable methods of assessing symptom status are important for patient management. The aim of the current study was to document the psychometric characteristics of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) and the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire (QOLRAD) in Afrikaans, German, Hungarian, Italian, Polish and Spanish patients with dyspepsia. METHODS: 853 patients with symptoms of dyspepsia completed the GSRS, the QOLRAD, the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. RESULTS: The internal consistency reliability of the GSRS was 0.43-0.87 and of the QOLRAD 0.79-0.95. Test-retest reliability of the GSRS was 0.36-0.75 and of the QOLRAD 0.41-0.82. GSRS Abdominal pain domain correlated significantly with all QOLRAD domains in most language versions, and with SF-36 Bodily pain in all versions. QOLRAD domains correlated significantly with the majority of SF-36 domains in most versions. Both questionnaires were able to differentiate between patients whose health status differed according to symptom frequency and severity. CONCLUSION: The psychometric characteristics of the different language versions of the GSRS and QOLRAD were found to be good, with acceptable reliability and validity. The GSRS and QOLRAD were found to be useful for evaluating dyspeptic symptoms and their impact on patients' daily lives in multinational clinical trials.

A randomized, double-blind trial of anidulafungin versus fluconazole for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis.

Anidulafungin is a novel antifungal agent of the echinocandin class. This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous anidulafungin to that of oral fluconazole in 601 patients with endoscopically and microbiologically documented esophageal candidiasis. Patients received intravenous anidulafungin (100 mg on day 1, followed by 50 mg per day) or oral fluconazole (200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg per day) for 7 days beyond resolution of symptoms (range, 14-21 days). At the end of therapy, the rate of endoscopic success for anidulafungin (242 [97.2%] of 249 treated patients) was found to be statistically noninferior to that for fluconazole (252 [98.8%] of 255 treated patients; treatment difference, -1.6%; 95% confidence interval, -4.1 to 0.8). The safety profile of anidulafungin was similar to that of fluconazole; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9.3% and 12.0% of patients, respectively. Laboratory parameters were similar between treatment arms. Anidulafungin is as safe and effective as oral fluconazole for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis, when assessed at the completion of therapy.

Pantoprazole for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding and prevention of rebleeding.

Adding proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to endoscopic therapy has become the mainstay of treatment for peptic ulcer bleeding, with current consensus guidelines recommending high-dose intravenous (IV) PPI therapy (IV bolus followed by continuous therapy). However, whether or not high-dose PPI therapy is more effective than low-dose PPI therapy is still debated. Furthermore, maintaining pH ≥ 4 appears to prevent mucosal bleeding in patients with acute stress ulcers; thus, stress ulcer prophylaxis with acid-suppressing therapy has been increasingly recommended in intensive care units (ICUs). This review evaluates the evidence for the efficacy of IV pantoprazole, a PPI, in preventing ulcer rebleeding after endoscopic hemostasis, and in controlling gastric pH and protecting against upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in high-risk ICU patients. The review concludes that IV pantoprazole provides an effective option in the treatment of upper GI bleeding, the prevention of rebleeding, and for the prophylaxis of acute bleeding stress ulcers.

APRI: a simple bedside marker for advanced fibrosis that can avoid liver biopsy in patients with NAFLD/NASH.

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) can lead to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The NASH fibrosis score (NFS) has proven to be a reliable, non-invasive marker for prediction of advanced fibrosis. Aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) is a simpler calculation than NFS, but has never been studied in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). AIM: To validate APRI as a non-invasive marker of liver fibrosis in subjects with NAFLD to be used in clinical practice. DESIGN/METHODS: The cohort consisted of 111 patients with histological diagnoses of NAFLD. The biopsy samples were staged and graded according to the NASH clinical research network (CRN) criteria. These were grouped into fatty liver disease (FLD), NASH, no/mild fibrosis, and advanced fibrosis. The sensitivity and specificity of APRI were compared with NFS and aspartate aminotransferase-to-alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT) ratio. RESULTS: The APRI was significantly higher in the advanced fibrosis group. The area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for APRI was 0.85 with an optimal cut-off of 0.98, giving a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 86%. The NFS was significantly lower in the advanced fibrosis group. The ROC for NFS gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.77 and a cut-off value of -1.3 with a sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 69%. The positive predictive value for APRI was 54% as opposed to 34% for NFS. The negative predictive value was 93% for APRI and 94% for NFS. CONCLUSION: APRI compared favourably to NFS and was superior to AST/ALT for the prediction of advanced fibrosis. We therefore propose the use of APRI in a new algorithm for the detection of advanced fibrosis.

Efficacy and safety of pantoprazole 20 mg once daily treatment in patients with ulcer-like functional dyspepsia.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of pantoprazole 20 mg once daily (o.d.) in relieving epigastric pain associated with ulcer-like functional dyspepsia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, patients experiencing ulcer-like functional dyspepsia, with epigastric pain as the predominant symptom, were randomised to receive pantoprazole 20 mg or placebo o.d. for 28 days. Primary endpoint was the complete relief (i.e. absence) from epigastric pain after 28 days' treatment. The odds ratio (OR) for pantoprazole/placebo and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined. Significant superiority of pantoprazole was concluded if the value 1.0 was above this interval. RESULTS: Of 419 patients (intention-to-treat [ITT]) randomised to treatment, 207 received pantoprazole and 212 received placebo. Epigastric pain relief was achieved after 28 days' treatment in 55% of pantoprazole recipients and 45% of placebo recipients (per-protocol [PP]: 58% and 47%, respectively). Pantoprazole demonstrated statistically significant superiority compared with placebo in the ITT (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46-0.99) and PP populations (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.98). Pantoprazole was more efficacious than placebo in relieving heartburn and acid regurgitation after 7, 14 and 28 days of treatment. The sum score of gastrointestinal symptoms after 28 days was statistically significantly lower in the pantoprazole than placebo group. Fewer patients receiving concomitant psychotropic medication experienced relief from epigastric pain than those not receiving such medication. Adverse events did not significantly differ between pantoprazole and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study suggest that pantoprazole 20 mg is more efficacious than placebo, and is a well-tolerated treatment for relieving epigastric pain in patients with ulcer-like functional dyspepsia. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Intragastric pH during continuous infusion with pantoprazole in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.

OBJECTIVES: In managing patients with bleeding peptic ulcers, prevention of rebleeding is a particular challenge to hemostasis and fibrinolysis, both of which involve reactions that are impaired in acidic gastric environment. Therefore, such patients are expected to benefit from profound acid suppression. The present investigation aimed to establish a safe and, with regard to pH elevation, effective treatment that, based on in vitro evidence, should provide clinical benefit in this patient population. METHODS: Patients with acute bleeding peptic ulcers (Forrest Ia, Ib, IIa) after successful endoscopic hemostasis were enrolled in two pilot studies (N = 20 each). They were given an intravenous bolus injection of 80 mg of pantoprazole immediately followed by continuous infusion of either 6 mg/h or 8 mg/h pantoprazole for 72 h. Intragastric pH was measured continuously over 24 h and, if possible, for up to 48 h. RESULTS: Intragastric pH increased rapidly to values of about 6 with both treatments. For the 0-24 h period, the median pH values were 6.1 (68% range 4.5-7.4) and 6.1 (68% range 5.2-6.7) in patients receiving 6 mg/h and 8 mg/h continuous infusion, respectively; the values for the 0-48 h period were 5.9 (4.9-6.7) and 6.3 (5.5-7.0), respectively. The median percentage time that pH was > or =6 during the 0-48 h interval was 47% (68% range 28-89) for the 6 mg/h treatment group and 64% (68% range 41-84) for the 8 mg/h treatment group. Both treatment regimens with pantoprazole were well tolerated based on electrocardiographic measurements, vital signs, clinical laboratory values, and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the infusion with 6 mg/h pantoprazole, the continuous infusion of 8 mg/h pantoprazole showed a lower interindividual variability of the intragastric pH and a greater percentage of time that pH was >/ or =6. Thus, with regard to safety and efficacy, an initial 80-mg bolus injection, followed by 8 mg/h continuous infusion, seems to be the adequate treatment in patients with a high risk of rebleeding.