The Cliniques universitaires Saint-Luc (UCLouvain Saint-Luc) is a non-profit academic hospital of the University of Louvain (UCLouvain), located on the university campus of UCLouvain Bruxelles Woluwe in Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Brussels, Belgium. The hospital opened on 23 August 1976, moving from Leuven to Brussels.
There is limited data available on short-term outcomes on a cut-block positioning robotic system. The purpose of this study was to compare 12-month clinical outcomes between robotic-assisted (raTKA) and conventional total knee arthroplasty (cTKA) with multiple outcomes and surgical centers. This was a non-randomized controlled trial of patients who received either raTKA (n = 120) or cTKA (n = 101) at 6 different surgical centers. Variables of interest included occurrence of soft tissue release, complications and revisions at minimum one-year follow-up. Satisfaction, pain (numeric rating scale [NRS]), 5-dimensional European Quality of Life (EQ-5D-5 L) questionnaire (index and visual analog scale [VAS]), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) were collected pre-operatively, and at six weeks, three months, and 12 months post-operative. There were significantly less soft tissue releases with raTKA (28/120, 23.3
La dermatitis alérgica de contacto, también conocida como eccema de contacto, es una reacción de hipersensibilidad retardada de tipo IV según la clasificación de Gell y Coombs. Las reacciones de hipersensibilidad inmediata no se tratan en este artículo. El diagnóstico etiológico de la dermatitis alérgica de contacto se basa idealmente en pruebas epicutáneas, que reproducen la lesión inicial (eccematosa) en contacto con las sustancias a las que el paciente se ha sensibilizado. Se presentan los alérgenos incluidos en la batería europea estándar, así como los que figuran en las principales baterías adicionales. También se propone un enfoque topográfico de la dermatitis de contacto. Algunos casos especiales se tratan en una sección aparte, en particular las alergias relacionadas con el uso de zapatos o guantes. Por último, el artículo concluye con los principios de la conducta terapéutica y las recomendaciones prácticas para los pacientes.
BACKGROUND:Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have been shown to improve glycaemic outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes managed with insulin pump therapy. No randomised studies have evaluated the benefits of tubeless AID in both adults and children with suboptimal glycaemia compared with multiple daily injections. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a tubeless AID system compared with multiple daily injections in this population. METHODS:RADIANT was a multicentre, international, parallel-group, open-label, randomised, controlled trial done in 19 hospitals in the UK, Belgium, and France. Participants aged 4-70 years with type 1 diabetes managed with multiple daily injections and continuous glucose monitoring and who had HbA1c levels of 7·5-11% (58-97 mmol/mol) were randomly assigned (2:1) to tubeless AID or control (multiple daily injections) using a permuted-block design. Participant and study teams were not masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was the adjusted between-group difference in HbA1c at 13 weeks assessed for superiority. Primary and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned participants). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05923827, and has been completed. FINDINGS:Between Sept 11, 2023, and April 26, 2024, 188 participants were randomly assigned to the AID group (n=125) or the control group (n=63). The AID group had a greater reduction in HbA1c, from 8·1% (SD 0·7; 65 mmol/mol [SD 7·7]) at baseline to 7·2% (0·6; 55 mmol/mol [6·6]) at 13 weeks, compared with the control group, from 8·1% (0·6; 65mmol/mol [6·6]) at baseline to 8·0% (0·7; 64 mmol/mol [7·7]) at 13 weeks, with an adjusted mean difference of -0·8% (95% CI -1·0 to -0·6; -8·7 mmol/mol [95% CI -10·9 to -6·6]; p<0·0001). During the 13-week trial, no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia or diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in either treatment group. 39 adverse events were reported among 28 participants in the AID group, and three adverse events among three participants in the control group. Two serious adverse events (Kawasaki disease and acute coronary syndrome) occurred in the AID group unrelated to the study device or procedure. INTERPRETATION:Results from this trial show the clinical efficacy of direct transition from multiple daily injections to tubeless AID in adults and children with type 1 diabetes, with no safety concerns, supporting AID as a therapeutic option within standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes. FUNDING:Insulet Corporation.
BACKGROUND:Oral and ocular medications are frequently used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). As part of the update of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)-EAACI guidelines, this manuscript presents the ARIA-EAACI 2024-2025 recommendations for oral and ocular treatments. METHODS:The ARIA-EAACI 2024-2025 guideline panel issued recommendations following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision framework. Several sources of evidence were used to inform panel judgements and recommendations, including systematic reviews, mHealth and pharmacovigilance data as well as a survey on costs. RESULTS:Eight guideline questions concerning oral treatments for AR and three questions concerning ocular treatments were addressed. These questions led to the recommendations. Overall, these questions concern the choice between different classes of medication. They also discuss the role of oral antihistamines (OAH), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), ocular antihistamines (OcAH) and ocular mast cell stabilisers. Four questions had not been previously evaluated in ARIA guidelines, while, for the other four, there was a change in the strength or directionality of the recommendations. Overall, these guidelines recommend using intranasal corticosteroids over OAH and using OAH over LTRA. Moreover, they suggest using OAH over OcAH and suggest being against adding LTRA to OAH. Finally, considerations for choosing between different individual OAHs are presented. CONCLUSION:This ARIA-EAACI 2024-2025 article supports patients, their caregivers and healthcare professionals in choosing oral and ocular treatments for AR. Decisions on treatment should consider the clinical variability of the disease, patients' values and the affordability of medications.
