ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In the past 5 years, there have been several advances in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aim for a new guideline to update the most recent guideline published in 2019. We present the prospective operating procedure and technical summary protocol in the manuscript. METHODS: 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) will be followed in the development of the guideline, approach as laid out in the GRADE handbook, supported by the WHO. The guideline development group is formed by a variety of disciplines, across both primary and secondary care that took part in an online Delphi process and split into key areas. A final consensus list of thematic questions within a 'patient, intervention, comparison, outcome' format has been produced and agreed in the final phase of the Delphi process.There will be a detailed technical evidence review with source data including systematic reviews appraised with AMSATAR 2 tool (Assessment of multiple systematic reviews), randomised controlled trial data that will be judged for risk of bias with the Cochrane tool and observational studies for safety concerns assessed through the Robins-I tool. Based on the available evidence, some of the recommendations will be based on GRADE while others will be best practice statements.A full Delphi process will be used to make recommendations using online response systems.This set of procedures has been approved by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee, the British Society of Gastroenterology executive board and aligned with IBD UK standards.
Subject(s)
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , Humans , Prospective Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
Since May 2022, Monkeypox, a zoonotic Orthopox DNA virus was reported in more than 102 countries indicating expansion of its geographic range. We analyzed the complete genomes sequences of Monkeypox cases from Kerala (n=5 travelled from UAE) and Delhi (n=5 no travel history), India confirmed during July to August 2022. All the retrieved MPXV sequences from India covering 90 to 99% genome belong to A.2 lineage of clade IIb. The A.2 MPXV lineage divided in three sub clusters; first cluster Kerala n=5, Delhi n=2 aligned with the USA-2022 ON674051.1; while second of Delhi n=3 aligned with USA-2022 ON675438.1 and third consists of the UK, USA and Thailand. Recent update in MPXV lineage designated all the five sequences from Kerala as A.2.1. In addition to known 16 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) along with 13 APOBEC3 cytosine deaminase activity determined specific lineage defining mutations in A.2 lineage, 25 additional APOBEC3 mutations were found in 10 reported sequences. The study emphasizes need of enhancing genomic surveillance to understand the mutation and its linkage.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Very late (aged ≥60 years) onset schizophrenia-like psychosis occurs frequently but no placebo-controlled, randomised trials have assessed the efficacy and risks of antipsychotic treatment. We investigated whether low-dose amisulpride (100 mg daily) is superior to placebo in reducing psychosis symptoms over 12 weeks and whether any benefit is maintained by continuing treatment after 12 weeks. METHODS: The ATLAS double-blind controlled trial enrolled participants from 25 old age psychiatry services in the UK. Eligible participants (ie, those with a diagnosis of very late-onset schizophrenia-like psychosis and a Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS] score of ≥30, without cognitive impairment) were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of three groups in a two-stage trial: amisulpride in stage 1 and 2 (group A), amisulpride then placebo (group B), or placebo then amisulpride (group C). Treatment (100 mg oral amisulpride daily vs placebo) was given for 12 weeks in stage 1 and, initially, 24 weeks then reduced to 12 weeks in stage 2. Participants, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Primary outcomes were psychosis symptoms assessed by the BPRS at 4, 12, and 24, or 36 weeks, and trial treatment discontinuation for non-efficacy. The primary, secondary, and safety endpoints were all analysed in participants given at least one dose of study treatment in modified intention-to-treat analyses. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2010-022184-35, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN45593573. FINDINGS: Between Sept 27, 2012, and June 28, 2016, we recruited 101 participants. 92 (91%) of 101 participants took trial medication, of whom 59 (64%) completed stage 1 and 34 (58%) of these 59 participants completed stage 2 treatment. Despite suboptimal compliance, improvements in BPRS scores at 12 weeks were 7·7 points (95% CI 3·8-11·5, p=0·0002) greater with amisulpride (mean 11·9 points [SE 1·3]) than with placebo (4·2 points [1·0]). In stage 2, BPRS scores improved by a mean of 1·1 points (1·6) from 12 weeks to the final assessment in those who continued amisulpride but deteriorated by 5·2 points (2·0) in those who switched from amisulpride to placebo (difference 6·3 points [95% CI 0·9-11·7], p=0·024). Fewer participants who were allocated amisulpride than placebo stopped treatment because of non-efficacy in stage 1 (p=0·010) and stage 2 (p=0·031). Serious adverse events were reported more frequently in the amisulpride group than in the placebo group in stage 1 (p=0·057) and stage 2 (p=0·19). The most common serious adverse events were infection (five patients in the amisulpride group, three in the placebo group) and extrapyramidal side-effects (three patients in the amisulpride group, none in the placebo group). Five patients died during the study, one from a gastric ulcer bleed before treatment started (group B), two while taking stage 2 treatment (one in group A and one in group C), and two who stopped trial treatment in stage 1 and died many weeks later (one in group B and one in group C). No deaths were related to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Low-dose amisulpride is effective and well tolerated as a treatment for very late-onset schizophrenia-like psychosis, with benefits maintained by prolonging treatment. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.
