Comparative effectiveness of gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, plus cisplatin as neoadjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) has been adopted as a neoadjuvant regimen for muscle-invasive bladder cancer despite the lack of Level I evidence in this setting. METHODS: Data were collected using an electronic data-capture platform from 28 international centers. Eligible patients had clinical T-classification 2 (cT2) through cT4aN0M0 urothelial cancer of the bladder and received neoadjuvant GC or methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, plus cisplatin (MVAC) before undergoing cystectomy. Logistic regression was used to compute propensity scores as the predicted probabilities of patients being assigned to MVAC versus GC given their baseline characteristics. These propensity scores were then included in a new logistic regression model to estimate an adjusted odds ratio comparing the odds of attaining a pathologic complete response (pCR) between patients who received MVAC and those who received GC. RESULTS: In total, 212 patients (146 patients in the GC cohort and 66 patients in the MVAC cohort) met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. The majority of patients in the MVAC cohort (77%) received dose-dense MVAC. The median age of patients was 63 years, they were predominantly men (74%), and they received a median of 3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The pCR rate was 29% in the MVAC cohort and 31% in the GC cohort. There was no significant difference in the pCR rate when adjusted for propensity scores between the 2 regimens (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-1.72; P = .77). In an exploratory analysis evaluating survival, the hazard ratio comparing hazard rates for MVAC versus GC adjusted for propensity scores was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.54; P = .48). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received neoadjuvant GC and MVAC achieved comparable pCR rates in the current analysis, providing evidence to support what has become routine practice. Cancer 2015;121:2586-2593. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Demonstration of the effectiveness of zinc in diarrhoea of children living in Switzerland.

We designed a double-blinded randomized clinical trial of zinc (10 or 20 mg of zinc sulphate for 2-5 month-old or 6-59 month-old children, respectively, during 10 days) vs. placebo in otherwise healthy children aged 2 months to 5 years who presented with acute diarrhoea (i.e. ≥3 stools/day for less than 72 h). Eighty-seven patients (median age 14 months; range 3.1-58.3) were analysed in an intention-to-treat approach. Forty-two patients took zinc and 45 placebo. There was no difference in the duration nor in the frequency of diarrhoea, but only 5% of the zinc group still had diarrhoea at 120 h of treatment compared to 20% in the placebo group (P = 0.05). Thirty-one patients (13 zinc and 18 placebo) were available for per-protocol analyses. The median (IQR) duration of diarrhoea in zinc-treated patients was 47.5 h (18.3-72) and differed significantly from the placebo group (median 76.3; IQR 52.8-137) (P = 0.03). The frequency of diarrhoea was also lower in the zinc group (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: zinc treatment decreases the frequency and severity of diarrhoea in children aged 2 months to 5 years living in Switzerland. However, the intention-to-treat analysis reveals compliance issues that question the proper duration of treatment and the choice of optimal pharmaceutical formulation.

Predicting the future effectiveness of protected areas for bird conservation in Mediterranean ecosystems under climate change and novel fire regime scenarios

AimGlobal environmental changes challenge traditional conservation approaches based on the selection of static protected areas due to their limited ability to deal with the dynamic nature of driving forces relevant to biodiversity. The Natura 2000 network (N2000) constitutes a major milestone in biodiversity conservation in Europe, but the degree to which this static network will be able to reach its long-term conservation objectives raises concern. We assessed the changes in the effectiveness of N2000 in a Mediterranean ecosystem between 2000 and 2050 under different combinations of climate and land cover change scenarios. LocationCatalonia, Spain. MethodsPotential distribution changes of several terrestrial bird species of conservation interest included in the European Union's Birds Directive were predicted within an ensemble-forecasting framework that hierarchically integrated climate change and land cover change scenarios. Land cover changes were simulated using a spatially explicit fire-succession model that integrates fire management strategies and vegetation encroachment after the abandonment of cultivated areas as the main drivers of landscape dynamics in Mediterranean ecosystems. ResultsOur results suggest that the amount of suitable habitats for the target species will strongly decrease both inside and outside N2000. However, the effectiveness of N2000 is expected to increase in the next decades because the amount of suitable habitats is predicted to decrease less inside than outside this network. Main conclusionsSuch predictions shed light on the key role that the current N2000may play in the near future and emphasize the need for an integrative conservation perspective wherein agricultural, forest and fire management policies should be considered to effectively preserve key habitats for threatened birds in fire-prone, highly dynamic Mediterranean ecosystems. Results also show the importance of considering landscape dynamics and the synergies between different driving forces when assessing the long-term effectiveness of protected areas for biodiversity conservation.

Cost-effectiveness of Tenofovir / Emtricitabine / Efavirenz versus Zidovudine / Lamivudine / Efavirenz as fist-line regimens for the treatment of HIV-infected patients in low-income settings

The Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) is the combination of at least three antiretroviral compounds. The combination purpose is to reduce the likelihood of drug resistance. However in the long-term the resistance to the first-line combination occurs and leads to treatment failure. Thus, a second-line and even a third-line regimen are recommended in the long run. [...] [P. 5] The two treatment alternatives under comparison: Tenofovir (300 mg) CO-formulated with Emtricitabine (200 mg) and Efavirenz (600 mg) currently known under the brand name Atripla (R) was introduced in July 2006 in the United States market. The excellent safety profile and ease of use make this combination a perfect first-line regimen in low-income settings. Therefore, this treatment option was recommended in WHO 2006 reviewed guidelines. Unfortunately, Tenofovir and Emtricitabine compounds are still costly and not yet widely available. For a matter of simplification this regimen is referred in this report as "the recent" therapy. Initially, we had in mind to consider the most frequently used first-line regimen in low-income countries (Stavudine / Larnivudme / Nevirapine) as a comparator for this economic evaluation. Unfortunately, according to the literature review results (see Annex 3); there was no data available comparing head to head the effectiveness of this regimen with the recent one. Instead, we selected a less frequently but commonly used first-line regimen in low-income countries as a comparator: Zidovudine, Lamivudine, Efavirenz. This combination has extensive experience in durability, safety and toxicity and seems to be an optimal choice for a first-line regimen according to the clinical trial group 384 team. Furthermore, Zidovudine, one of the compounds of this combination is now recommended as one of the preferred NNRTI [Non Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors] options to be considered by countries instead of Stavudine (the most used NNRTI in limited-income countries). As this combination has been included in the WHO guidelines as a first-line therapy since 2003 when WHO launched the "3 by 5" scaling-up initiative, this combination of drugs is referred in this report as the "old" therapy. Objectives: The primary objective of this economic evaluation is to compare the two first-line HAARTs introduced above, in a low-income setting context. Both of these combinations are recommended by the 2006 WHO guidelines as potential first-line regimens. The secondary objective is to provide a simplified and comprehensible cost-effectiveness modeling tool in order to help policy makers, in resource-limited settings, make decisions about which first-line HAART to fund using the scarce resources available. [P. 6-7]