Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.

Investigating the effect of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) on postoperative pain intensity in adolescents undergoing surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Aim To investigate the efficacy of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing for postoperative pain management in adolescents. Background Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing is an inexpensive, non-pharmacological intervention that has successfully been used to treat chronic pain. It holds promise in the treatment of acute, postsurgical pain based on its purported effects on the brain and nervous system. Design A randomized controlled trial was used. Methods Fifty-six adolescent surgical patients aged between 12-18 years were allocated to gender-balanced Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (treatment) or non-Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (control) groups. Pain was measured using the Wong-Baker FACES® Pain Rating Scale (WBFS) before and after the intervention (or non-intervention for the control group). Findings A Wilcoxon signed-rank test demonstrated that the Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing group experienced a significant reduction in pain intensity after treatment intervention, whereas the control group did not. Additionally, a Mann–Whitney U-test showed that, while there was no significant difference between the two groups at time 1, there was a significant difference in pain intensity between the two groups at time 2, with the Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing group experiencing lower levels of pain. Conclusion These results suggest that Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing may be an effective treatment modality for postoperative pain.

Trial of the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool: Building organisational performance in Australian general practice and primary health care

Objective: To nationally trial the Primary Care Practice Improvement Tool (PC-PIT), an organisational performance improvement tool previously co-created with Australian primary care practices to increase their focus on relevant quality improvement (QI) activities. Design: The study was conducted from March to December 2015 with volunteer general practices from a range of Australian primary care settings. We used a mixed-methods approach in two parts. Part 1 involved staff in Australian primary care practices assessing how they perceived their practice met (or did not meet) each of the 13 PC-PIT elements of high-performing practices, using a 1–5 Likert scale. In Part 2, two external raters conducted an independent practice visit to independently and objectively assess the subjective practice assessment from Part 1 against objective indicators for the 13 elements, using the same 1–5 Likert scale. Concordance between the raters was determined by comparing their ratings. In-depth interviews conducted during the independent practice visits explored practice managers’ experiences and perceived support and resource needs to undertake organisational improvement in practice. Results: Data were available for 34 general practices participating in Part 1. For Part 2, independent practice visits and the inter-rater comparison were conducted for a purposeful sample of 19 of the 34 practices. Overall concordance between the two raters for each of the assessed elements was excellent. Three practice types across a continuum of higher- to lower-scoring practices were identified, with each using the PC-PIT in a unique way. During the in-depth interviews, practice managers identified benefits of having additional QI tools that relate to the PC-PIT elements. Conclusions: The PC-PIT is an organisational performance tool that is acceptable, valid and relevant to our range of partners and the end users (general practices). Work is continuing with our partners and end users to embed the PC-PIT in existing organisational improvement programs.

Making sense of a trial maths intervention program for teachers of students with disability in Australia: Interim report

The Disability Standards for Education (2005) and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority relevant standards underscore the right of students with disability to access the curriculum on the same basis as students without disability. Students with disability are entitled to rigorous, relevant and engaging learning opportunities drawn from the Australian curriculum content. Taking this context into account, this paper provides a work-in-progress report on a two-year mathematics intervention project conducted in 12 special schools (Preparatory-Year 12) in Queensland, Australia. The project aims to build the capacity of teachers to teach mathematics to their students and to identify and make sense of the intervention program’s impact. It combines two approaches—appreciative inquiry and action research to monitor schools’ change processes. The interim findings demonstrated that teachers were concerned about their students’ underachievement in mathematics and that the multi-sensory forms of teaching advocated in the program increased student engagement and performance.