Understanding the challenges, unmet needs, and expectations of mucopolysaccharidoses I, II and VI patients and their caregivers in France: a survey study.

BACKGROUND: Mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) are a group of inherited lysosomal storage diseases caused by defective enzyme activity involved in the catalysis of glycosaminoglycans. Published data on adult patients with MPS remains scarce. Therefore, the present qualitative survey study was aimed at understanding knowledge of the disease, unmet needs, expectations, care, and overall medical management of adult/adolescent patients with MPS I, II and VI and their caregivers in France. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients (MPS I, np = 11; MPS II, np = 9; MPS VI, np = 5) were included and about 36 in-depth interviews (caregivers alone, nc = 8; patients-caregiver pair, nc+p = 22; patients alone, np = 6) were conducted. Except one (aged 17 years), all patients were adults (median age: 29 years [17-50]) and diagnosed at median age of 4 years [0.4-30], with mainly mothers as caregivers (nc = 16/19). Patients were classified into three groups: Group A, Patients not able to answer the survey question because of a severe cognitive impairment (np = 8); Group B, Patients able to answer the survey question with low or no cognitive impairment and high motor disability (np = 10); and Group C, Patients able to answer the survey question with low or no cognitive impairment and low motor disability (np = 7). All groups were assessed for impact of disease on their daily lives based on a scale of 0-10. Caregivers in Group A were found to be most negatively affected by the disease, except for professional activity, which was most significantly impacted in Group B (4.7 vs. 5.4). The use of orthopaedic/medical equipments, was more prevalent in Groups A and B, versus Group C. Pain management was one of the global unmet need expressed by all groups. Group A caregivers expected better support from childcare facilities, disability clinics, and smooth transition from paediatric care to adult medicine. Similarly, Group B caregivers expected better specialised schools, whereas Group C caregivers expected better psychological support and greater flexibility in weekly infusion schedules for their patients. CONCLUSIONS: The survey concluded that more attention must be paid to the psychosocial status of patients and caregivers. The preference for reference centre for follow-up and treatment, hospitalizations and surgeries were evident. The most significant needs expressed by the patients and caregivers include better understanding of the disease, pain management, monitoring of complications, flexibility in enzyme replacement therapy, home infusions especially for attenuated patients, and improved transitional support from paediatric to adult medicine.

Recombinant Thyrotropin vs Levothyroxine Withdrawal in 131I Therapy of N1 Thyroid Cancer: A Large Matched Cohort Study (ThyrNod).

CONTEXT: Recombinant human thyrotropin (rhTSH) has been shown to be an effective stimulation method for radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy in differentiated thyroid cancer, including in those with nodal metastases (N1 DTC). OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the noninferiority of rhTSH vs thyroid hormone withdrawal (THW) in preparation to RAI regarding disease status at the first evaluation in the real-life setting in patients with N1 DTC. DESIGN: This was a French multicenter retrospective study. Groups were matched according to age (<45/≥45 years), number of N1 nodes (≤5/>5 lymph nodes), and stage (pT1-T2/pT3). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 404 patients pT1-T3/N1/M0 DTC treated with rhTSH (n = 205) or THW (n = 199). Pathological characteristics and initially administrated RAI activities (3.27 ± 1.00 GBq) were similar between the two groups. At first evaluation (6 to 18 months post-RAI), disease-free status was defined by thyroglobulin levels below threshold and a normal ultrasound. Disease-free rate was not inferior in the rhTSH group (75.1%) compared with the THW group (71.9%). The observed difference between the success rates was 3.3% (-6.6 to 13.0); rhTSH was therefore considered noninferior to THW because the upper limit of this interval was <15%. At the last evaluation (29.7 ± 20.7 months for rhTSH; 36.7 ± 23.8 months for THW), 83.5% (rhTSH) and 81.5% (THW) of patients achieved a complete response. This result was not influenced by any of the known prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: A preparation for initial RAI treatment with rhTSH was noninferior to that with THW in our series of pT1-T3/N1/M0-DTC on disease-free status outcomes at the first evaluation and after 3 years.

A multicentre, randomised, controlled trial to assess the safety, ease of use, and reliability of hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose powder adhesion barrier versus no barrier in colorectal laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Intra-peritoneal adhesions are frequent following abdominal surgery and are the most common cause of small bowel obstructions. A hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose (HA/CMC) film adhesion barrier has been shown to reduce adhesion formation in abdominal surgery. An HA/CMC powder formulation was developed for application during laparoscopic procedures. METHODS: This was an exploratory, prospective, randomised, single-blind, parallel-group, Phase IIIb, multicentre study conducted at 15 hospitals in France to assess the safety of HA/CMC powder versus no adhesion barrier following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Subjects ≥18 years of age who were scheduled for colorectal laparoscopy (Mangram contamination class I‒III) within 8 weeks of selection were eligible, regardless of aetiology. Participants were randomised 1:1 to the HA/CMC powder or no adhesion barrier group using a centralised randomisation list. Patients assigned to HA/CMC powder received a single application of 1 to 10 g on adhesion-prone areas. In the no adhesion barrier group, no adhesion barrier or placebo was applied. The primary safety assessments were the incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events, and surgical site infections (SSIs) for 30 days following surgery. Between-group comparisons were made using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of those randomised to the HA/CMC powder (n = 105) or no adhesion barrier (n = 104) groups, one patient in each group discontinued prior to the study end (one death in each group). Adverse events were more frequent in the HA/CMC powder group versus the no adhesion barrier group (63% vs. 39%; P <0.001), as were serious adverse events (28% vs. 11%; P <0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the HA/CMC powder group and the no adhesion barrier group in SSIs (21% vs. 14%; P = 0.216) and serious SSIs (12% vs. 9%; P = 0.38), or in the most frequent serious SSIs of pelvic abscess (5% and 2%; significance not tested), anastomotic fistula (3% and 4%), and peritonitis (2% and 3%). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study found significantly higher rates of adverse events and serious adverse events in the HA/CMC powder group compared with the no adhesion barrier group in laparoscopic colorectal resection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00813397. Registered 19 December 2008.