NCX-1000, a nitric oxide-releasing derivative of UDCA, does not decrease portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis: results of a randomized, double-blind, dose-escalating study

NCX-1000 (2(acetyloxy) benzoic acid-3(nitrooxymethyl)phenyl ester) is an nitric oxide (NO)-releasing derivative of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), which showed selective vasodilatory effect on intrahepatic circulation in animal models of cirrhosis. This study was aimed at testing the efficacy and tolerability of this compound in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

The EVIDENT-trial: protocol and rationale of a multicenter randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of an online-based psychological intervention

BACKGROUND: Depressive disorders are among the leading causes of worldwide disability with mild to moderate forms of depression being particularly common. Low-intensity treatments such as online psychological treatments may be an effective way to treat mild to moderate depressive symptoms and prevent the emergence or relapse of major depression. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a currently recruiting multicentre parallel-groups pragmatic randomized-controlled single-blind trial. A total of 1000 participants with mild to moderate symptoms of depression from various settings including in- and outpatient services will be randomized to an online psychological treatment or care as usual (CAU). We hypothesize that the intervention will be superior to CAU in reducing depressive symptoms assessed with the Personal Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9, primary outcome measure) following the intervention (12 wks) and at follow-up (24 and 48 wks). Further outcome parameters include quality of life, use of health care resources and attitude towards online psychological treatments. DISCUSSION: The study will yield meaningful answers to the question of whether online psychological treatment can contribute to the effective and efficient prevention and treatment of mild to moderate depression on a population level with a low barrier to entry. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registration Number: NCT01636752.

Directional deep brain stimulation: an intraoperative double-blind pilot study.

Deep brain stimulation of different targets has been shown to drastically improve symptoms of a variety of neurological conditions. However, the occurrence of disabling side effects may limit the ability to deliver adequate amounts of current necessary to reach the maximal benefit. Computed models have suggested that reduction in electrode size and the ability to provide directional stimulation could increase the efficacy of such therapies. This has never been demonstrated in humans. In the present study, we assess the effect of directional stimulation compared to omnidirectional stimulation. Three different directions of stimulation as well as omnidirectional stimulation were tested intraoperatively in the subthalamic nucleus of 11 patients with Parkinson's disease and in the nucleus ventralis intermedius of two other subjects with essential tremor. At the trajectory chosen for implantation of the definitive electrode, we assessed the current threshold window between positive and side effects, defined as the therapeutic window. A computed finite element model was used to compare the volume of tissue activated when one directional electrode was stimulated, or in case of omnidirectional stimulation. All but one patient showed a benefit of directional stimulation compared to omnidirectional. A best direction of stimulation was observed in all the patients. The therapeutic window in the best direction was wider than the second best direction (P = 0.003) and wider than the third best direction (P = 0.002). Compared to omnidirectional direction, the therapeutic window in the best direction was 41.3% wider (P = 0.037). The current threshold producing meaningful therapeutic effect in the best direction was 0.67 mA (0.3-1.0 mA) and was 43% lower than in omnidirectional stimulation (P = 0.002). No complication as a result of insertion of the directional electrode or during testing was encountered. The computed model revealed a volume of tissue activated of 10.5 mm(3) in omnidirectional mode, compared with 4.2 mm(3) when only one electrode was used. Directional deep brain stimulation with a reduced electrode size applied intraoperatively in the subthalamic nucleus as well as in the nucleus ventralis intermedius of the thalamus significantly widened the therapeutic window and lowered the current needed for beneficial effects, compared to omnidirectional stimulation. The observed side effects related to direction of stimulation were consistent with the anatomical location of surrounding structures. This new approach opens the door to an improved deep brain stimulation therapy. Chronic implantation is further needed to confirm these findings.

Protocol for a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial investigating sacral neuromodulation for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction

BACKGROUND Sacral neuromodulation has become a well-established and widely accepted treatment for refractory non-neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, but its value in patients with a neurological cause is unclear. Although there is evidence indicating that sacral neuromodulation may be effective and safe for treating neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, the number of investigated patients is low and there is a lack of randomized controlled trials. METHODS AND DESIGN This study is a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind multicenter trial including 4 sacral neuromodulation referral centers in Switzerland. Patients with refractory neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction are enrolled. After minimally invasive bilateral tined lead placement into the sacral foramina S3 and/or S4, patients undergo prolonged sacral neuromodulation testing for 3-6 weeks. In case of successful (defined as improvement of at least 50% in key bladder diary variables (i.e. number of voids and/or number of leakages, post void residual) compared to baseline values) prolonged sacral neuromodulation testing, the neuromodulator is implanted in the upper buttock. After a 2 months post-implantation phase when the neuromodulator is turned ON to optimize the effectiveness of neuromodulation using sub-sensory threshold stimulation, the patients are randomized in a 1:1 allocation in sacral neuromodulation ON or OFF. At the end of the 2 months double-blind sacral neuromodulation phase, the patients have a neuro-urological re-evaluation, unblinding takes place, and the neuromodulator is turned ON in all patients. The primary outcome measure is success of sacral neuromodulation, secondary outcome measures are adverse events, urodynamic parameters, questionnaires, and costs of sacral neuromodulation. DISCUSSION It is of utmost importance to know whether the minimally invasive and completely reversible sacral neuromodulation would be a valuable treatment option for patients with refractory neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. If this type of treatment is effective in the neurological population, it would revolutionize the management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. TRIAL REGISTRATION TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT02165774.