Randomized, controlled clinical trial of the DIALIVE liver dialysis device versus standard of care in patients with acute-on- chronic liver failure.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is characterized by severe systemic inflammation, multi-organ failure and high mortality rates. Its treatment is an urgent unmet need. DIALIVE is a novel liver dialysis device that aims to exchange dysfunctional albumin and remove damage- and pathogen-associated molecular patterns. This first-in-man randomized-controlled trial was performed with the primary aim of assessing the safety of DIALIVE in patients with ACLF, with secondary aims of evaluating its clinical effects, device performance and effect on pathophysiologically relevant biomarkers. METHODS: Thirty-two patients with alcohol-related ACLF were included. Patients were treated with DIALIVE for up to 5 days and end points were assessed at Day 10. Safety was assessed in all patients (n = 32). The secondary aims were assessed in a pre-specified subgroup that had at least three treatment sessions with DIALIVE (n = 30). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in 28-day mortality or occurrence of serious adverse events between the groups. Significant reduction in the severity of endotoxemia and improvement in albumin function was observed in the DIALIVE group, which translated into a significant reduction in the CLIF-C (Chronic Liver Failure consortium) organ failure (p = 0.018) and CLIF-C ACLF scores (p = 0.042) at Day 10. Time to resolution of ACLF was significantly faster in DIALIVE group (p = 0.036). Biomarkers of systemic inflammation such as IL-8 (p = 0.006), cell death [cytokeratin-18: M30 (p = 0.005) and M65 (p = 0.029)], endothelial function [asymmetric dimethylarginine (p = 0.002)] and, ligands for Toll-like receptor 4 (p = 0.030) and inflammasome (p = 0.002) improved significantly in the DIALIVE group. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that DIALIVE appears to be safe and impacts positively on prognostic scores and pathophysiologically relevant biomarkers in patients with ACLF. Larger, adequately powered studies are warranted to further confirm its safety and efficacy. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: This is the first-in-man clinical trial which tested DIALIVE, a novel liver dialysis device for the treatment of cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure, a condition associated with severe inflammation, organ failures and a high risk of death. The study met the primary endpoint, confirming the safety of the DIALIVE system. Additionally, DIALIVE reduced inflammation and improved clinical parameters. However, it did not reduce mortality in this small study and further larger clinical trials are required to re-confirm its safety and to evaluate efficacy. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT03065699.

Reduction of pain and anxiety prior to botulinum toxin injections with a new topical anesthetic method.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vapocoolants (topical skin refrigerants) to induce skin anesthesia and relieve patient anxiety and pain prior to cosmetic botulinum injections. METHODS: A paired (split-face) design was used in 52 patients where patient side (left vs. right) was randomized to receive either vapocoolant spray or no treatment control to test the study hypothesis of better anesthetic efficacy of vapocoolant spray versus no treatment control. A pain and anxiety questionnaire was administered before, during, and after the injections. RESULTS: A considerable percentage of patients either expected pain (35% of naïve patients expected moderate pain) or had experienced pain from their prior treatment (35% had experienced moderate pain). Among naïve patients, 15% had moderate or severe anxiety and among experienced patients, 31% had moderate anxiety. Pain was a factor in delaying the scheduling of cosmetic botulinum toxin treatments in 19% of naïve patients and 31% of experienced patients. Pain reported from actual injections was higher than what was anticipated prior to treatment. There was a significant reduction in pain at injection sites treated with vapocoolant (p < 0.001, paired t test). Overall, 67% of all patients reported that the vapocoolant method had less pain than no anesthesia and 54% preferred vapocoolant for their next treatment. Overall, 6% of all patients would schedule their next botulinum toxin treatment sooner if vapocoolant were available. CONCLUSIONS: Vapocoolants represent a safe and effective means to reduce patient discomfort and anxiety before and during botulinum toxin type A treatments for glabellar area indications.