Lancet
-
Type 2 diabetes is a public health priority for the UK. A growing body of evidence has indicated ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in rates of diabetes prevalence and complications. Attendance at diabetes follow-up checks is key to ensuring complications are identified and managed at an early stage. The aim of this rapid review was to identify and summarise evidence of ways to improve diabetes management in ethnic minority groups. ⋯ Research for Patient and Public Benefit (RfPPB), Health and Care Research Wales.
-
The Lancet celebrates its 200th anniversary in 2023. In this survey of the journal's history, we explore how it has contributed to shaping medicine both in the UK and internationally, and how it has demonstrated a commitment to "The best science for better lives". For two centuries, the journal has published pioneering articles on key developments in medical science and the organisation of health care. ⋯ Themes include the raising of professional standards; environmental health in urbanising Britain; the transformation of surgery; the emergence of tropical medicine; the science and politics of vaccination; the advance towards universal health coverage; and the transition from international to global health. In the imperial era, both the journal's research reports and editorial stance were sometimes inflected with colonial attitudes, although it consistently presented medicine as an international endeavour. The Lancet's blend of science and advocacy demonstrates a track record of campaigning for medicine in the cause of social betterment.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab versus observation in completely resected Merkel cell carcinoma (ADMEC-O): disease-free survival results from a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.
Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an immunogenic but aggressive skin cancer. Even after complete resection and radiation, relapse rates are high. PD-1 and PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors showed clinical benefit in advanced MCC. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition in completely resected MCC (ie, a setting without an established systemic standard-of-care treatment). ⋯ Bristol Myers Squibb.
-
With increasing numbers of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), data on management of failed TAVR, including repeat TAVR procedure, are needed. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of redo-TAVR in a national registry. ⋯ Edwards Lifesciences.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia versus intramuscular pethidine for pain relief in labour (RESPITE): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.
What did they do?
Wilson et al randomized 401 laboring women across multiple centers to either remifentanil PCA or pethidine/meperidine IM, then compared the progression of these women to labour epidural.
On the surface... this might appear disingenuous, as it compares remifentanil PCA to widely-shown-to-be-ineffective parenteral pethidine – rather than to the gold standard labour epidural. But it's also a study of how the technique might practically be used in the real world.
What they found
Women with remifentanil PCA progressed half as often to require epidural analgesia than those receiving pethidine (19% vs 41%).
Though it's one of the secondary findings that is most interesting: the remifentanil group were less likely to need instrumental delivery (15% vs 26%).
But don't get carried away
Despite the demonstrated superiority of remi PCA to pethidine, the technique is not without it's issues:
- Safety concerns regarding respiratory depression cannot be ignored, and because managing this relies upon staff vigilance, increased PCA use may conversely lead to a normalisation of risk and institutional complacency, rather than safety improvement.
- Analgesia is still inferior to epidural, even if maternal satisfaction is comparable.
- Technique acceptability might not be as good in communities with high pre-existing epidural use.
And finally... why are we so eager to do away with the labour epidural? Serious complications are very uncommon to rare, the technique is widely acceptable to women, and it is more effective than any other modality.
Is this change driven by the needs of pregnant women, or the health system's limited resources?
summary