Switching from Dose-Intensified intravenous to SubCutaneoUS infliximab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (DISCUS-IBD): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: A substantial proportion of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on intravenous infliximab require dose intensification. Accessing additional intravenous infliximab is labour-intensive and expensive, depending on insurance and pharmaceutical reimbursement. Observational data suggest that subcutaneous infliximab may offer a convenient and safe alternative to maintain disease remission in patients requiring dose-intensified infliximab. A prospective, controlled trial is required to confirm that subcutaneous infliximab is as effective as dose-intensified intravenous infliximab, to identify predictors of disease flare and to establish the role of subcutaneous infliximab therapeutic drug monitoring. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DISCUS-IBD trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label non-inferiority study comparing the rate of disease flares in participants randomised to continue dose-intensified intravenous infliximab to those switched to subcutaneous infliximab after 48 weeks. Participants are adult patients with IBD in sustained corticosteroid-free remission on any regimen of dose-intensified infliximab up to a maximum of 10 mg/kg 4-weekly intravenously. Participants allocated to intravenous infliximab will continue infliximab at the same dose-intensified regimen they were receiving at study enrolment. Subcutaneous infliximab dosing will be stratified by prior intravenous infliximab dosing. Clinical (Harvey-Bradshaw Index, partial Mayo score), biochemical (C reactive protein, faecal calprotectin), pharmacokinetic (drug-level±antidrug antibodies) and qualitative data are collected 12-weekly until study conclusion at week 48. 13 sites across Australia will participate in recruitment to reach a calculated sample size of 120 participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Multisite ethics approval was obtained from the Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) at The Alfred Hospital under a National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) agreement (HREC/90559/Alfred-2022; Local Reference: Project 618/22, version 1.6, 2 March 2023). Findings will be reported at national and international gastroenterology meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. DISCUS-IBD was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) prior to commencing recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001458729.

A comparative study on prophylactic efficacy of cinnarizine and amitriptyline in childhood migraine: a randomized double-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric migraine prophylaxis is indicated when headaches are frequent and/or disabling. We aimed to conduct a study to compare the efficacy of cinnarizine and amitriptyline in pediatric migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients aged 4-17 years with migraine who were eligible for prophylaxis enrolled. The primary outcome was a reduction response rate of ≥50% with p < 0.005 with respect to headache characteristics. The secondary outcome was migraine disability assessment. We evaluated patients every four weeks for three months: T1: week 4, T2: week 8 and T3: week 12. The safety profile was also assessed. RESULTS: Thirty patients were randomly assigned to each group. However, 43 patients completed the trial. Headache frequency decreased in amitriptyline group more effectively in T1 (p = 0.004). Amitriptyline was more successful in reducing the headache duration in all three periods (p < 0.005). There was no significant difference in severity improvement and reducing disability score between the two groups (p > 0.005). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Both medications are effective in ameliorating migraine headaches and related disabilities. However, amitriptyline appears be a preferable option over cinnarizine, given its faster onset of action, efficacy in reducing headache duration and longer-lasting effects.Trial Registration: The study was registered with the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) under the code IRCT-20191112045413N1.

Potassium-Switch Signaling Pathway Dictates Acute Blood Pressure Response to Dietary Potassium.

BACKGROUND: Potassium (K+)-deficient diets, typical of modern processed foods, increase blood pressure (BP) and NaCl sensitivity. A K+-dependent signaling pathway in the kidney distal convoluted tubule, coined the K+ switch, that couples extracellular K+ sensing to activation of the thiazide-sensitive NaCl cotransporter (NCC) and NaCl retention has been implicated, but causality has not been established. METHODS: To test the hypothesis that small, physiological changes in plasma K+ (PK+) are translated to BP through the switch pathway, a genetic approach was used to activate the downstream switch kinase, SPAK (SPS1-related proline/alanine-rich kinase), within the distal convoluted tubule. The CA-SPAK (constitutively active SPS1-related proline/alanine-rich kinase mice) were compared with control mice over a 4-day PK+ titration (3.8-5.1 mmol) induced by changes in dietary K+. Arterial BP was monitored using radiotelemetry, and renal function measurements, NCC abundance, phosphorylation, and activity were made. RESULTS: As PK+ decreased in control mice, BP progressively increased and became sensitive to dietary NaCl and hydrochlorothiazide, coincident with increased NCC phosphorylation and urinary sodium retention. By contrast, BP in CA-SPAK mice was elevated, resistant to the PK+ titration, and sensitive to hydrochlorothiazide and salt at all PK+ levels, concomitant with sustained and elevated urinary sodium retention and NCC phosphorylation and activity. Thus, genetically locking the switch on drives NaCl sensitivity and prevents the response of BP to potassium. CONCLUSIONS: Low K+, common in modern ultraprocessed diets, presses the K+-switch pathway to turn on NCC activity, increasing sodium retention, BP, and salt sensitivity.