The use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis in COMFORT-II: an open-label, phase 3 study assessing efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy in the treatment of myelofibrosis

BACKGROUND: Anemia is considered a negative prognostic risk factor for survival in patients with myelofibrosis. Most patients with myelofibrosis are anemic, and 35-54 % present with anemia at diagnosis. Ruxolitinib, a potent inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2, was associated with an overall survival benefit and improvements in splenomegaly and patient-reported outcomes in patients with myelofibrosis in the two phase 3 COMFORT studies. Consistent with the ruxolitinib mechanism of action, anemia was a frequently reported adverse event. In clinical practice, anemia is sometimes managed with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of concomitant ruxolitinib and ESA administration in patients enrolled in COMFORT-II, an open-label, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib with best available therapy for treatment of myelofibrosis. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive ruxolitinib 15 or 20 mg twice daily or best available therapy. Spleen volume was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan.

RESULTS: Thirteen of 146 ruxolitinib-treated patients had concomitant ESA administration (+ESA). The median exposure to ruxolitinib was 114 weeks in the +ESA group and 111 weeks in the overall ruxolitinib arm; the median ruxolitinib dose intensity was 33 mg/day for each group. Six weeks before the first ESA administration, 10 of the 13 patients had grade 3/4 hemoglobin abnormalities. These had improved to grade 2 in 7 of the 13 patients by 6 weeks after the first ESA administration. The rate of packed red blood cell transfusions per month within 12 weeks before and after first ESA administration remained the same in 1 patient, decreased in 2 patients, and increased in 3 patients; 7 patients remained transfusion independent. Reductions in splenomegaly were observed in 69 % of evaluable patients (9/13) following first ESA administration.

CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of an ESA with ruxolitinib was well tolerated and did not affect the efficacy of ruxolitinib. Further investigations evaluating the effects of ESAs to alleviate anemia in ruxolitinib-treated patients are warranted (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00934544; July 6, 2009).

Good Practice in Achieving Best Evidence Interview with Child Witnesses in Northern Ireland – Criminal Justice Perspectives

This report outlines the findings from a research project examining what works well in investigative interviews (ABE interviews) with child witnesses in Northern Ireland. The project was developed in collaboration with key stakeholders and was joint funded by the Department of Justice NI, NSPCC, SBNI and PSNI. While there is substantial a research literature examining the practice of forensic interview both internationally and within the UK there has been little in the way of exploration of this issue in Northern Ireland. Equally, the existing literature has tended to focus on a ‘deficit’ approach, identifying areas of poor practice with limited recognition of the practical difficulties interview practitioners face or what works well for them in practice. This study aimed to address these gaps by adopting an ‘appreciative inquiry’ approach to explore stakeholder perspectives on what is working well within ABE current practice and identify what can be built on to deliver optimal practice.

Strange, But True? Object-oriented Programming Is Best Taught, And Learnt, While Sitting On The Floor.

There is a perception amongst some of those learning computer programming that the principles of object-oriented programming (where behaviour is often encapsulated across multiple class files) can be difficult to grasp, especially when taught through a traditional, didactic ‘talk-and-chalk’ method or in a lecture-based environment.
We propose a non-traditional teaching method, developed for a government funded teaching training project delivered by Queen’s University, we call it bigCode. In this scenario, learners are provided with many printed, poster-sized fragments of code (in this case either Java or C#). The learners sit on the floor in groups and assemble these fragments into the many classes which make-up an object-oriented program.
Early trials indicate that bigCode is an effective method for teaching object-orientation. The requirement to physically organise the code fragments imitates closely the thought processes of a good software developer when developing object-oriented code.
Furthermore, in addition to teaching the principles involved in object-orientation, bigCode is also an extremely useful technique for teaching learners the organisation and structure of individual classes in Java or C# (as well as the organisation of procedural code). The mechanics of organising fragments of code into complete, correct computer programs give the users first-hand practice of this important skill, and as a result they subsequently find it much easier to develop well-structured code on a computer.
Yet, open questions remain. Is bigCode successful only because we have unknowingly predominantly targeted kinesthetic learners? Is bigCode also an effective teaching approach for other forms of learners, such as visual learners? How scalable is bigCode: in its current form can it be used with large class sizes, or outside the classroom?