Improved relapse-free survival after autologous stem cell transplantation does not translate into better quality of life in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: lessons from the randomized European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation-Intergroup study

In chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) medical progress is driven by clinical studies with relapse-free survival (RFS) as the primary endpoint. The randomized EBMT-Intergroup trial compared high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) to observation and demonstrated a substantial improvement of RFS without showing improved overall survival for the transplant arm. Here we report quality of life (QoL) information of the first 3 years following randomization from that study. The main objective was to assess the impact of treatment on QoL over time. Two secondary analyses were performed to further investigate the impact of ASCT and relapse on QoL. In the primary analysis, we demonstrate an adverse impact of ASCT on QoL which was largest at 4 months and continued throughout the first year after randomization. Further, we demonstrated a sustained adverse impact of relapse on QoL which worsened over time. Despite better disease control by ASCT the side effects thus turned the net effect towards inferior QoL in the first year and comparable QoL in the following 2 years after randomization. This study emphasizes the importance of information concerning QoL impacts when patients are counseled about treatments aimed at improving RFS in the absence of a survival benefit.

Prophylactic antibiotics or G(M)-CSF for the prevention of infections and improvement of survival in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND Febrile neutropenia (FN) and other infectious complications are some of the most serious treatment-related toxicities of chemotherapy for cancer, with a mortality rate of 2% to 21%. The two main types of prophylactic regimens are granulocyte (macrophage) colony-stimulating factors (G(M)-CSF) and antibiotics, frequently quinolones or cotrimoxazole. Current guidelines recommend the use of colony-stimulating factors when the risk of febrile neutropenia is above 20%, but they do not mention the use of antibiotics. However, both regimens have been shown to reduce the incidence of infections. Since no systematic review has compared the two regimens, a systematic review was undertaken. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics in cancer patients receiving myelotoxic chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, databases of ongoing trials, and conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology (1980 to December 2015). We planned to include both full-text and abstract publications. Two review authors independently screened search results. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF versus antibiotics for the prevention of infection in cancer patients of all ages receiving chemotherapy. All study arms had to receive identical chemotherapy regimes and other supportive care. We included full-text, abstracts, and unpublished data if sufficient information on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes was available. We excluded cross-over trials, quasi-randomised trials and post-hoc retrospective trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard Cochrane methods. We did final interpretation together with an experienced clinician. MAIN RESULTS In this updated review, we included no new randomised controlled trials. We included two trials in the review, one with 40 breast cancer patients receiving high-dose chemotherapy and G-CSF compared to antibiotics, a second one evaluating 155 patients with small-cell lung cancer receiving GM-CSF or antibiotics.We judge the overall risk of bias as high in the G-CSF trial, as neither patients nor physicians were blinded and not all included patients were analysed as randomised (7 out of 40 patients). We considered the overall risk of bias in the GM-CSF to be moderate, because of the risk of performance bias (neither patients nor personnel were blinded), but low risk of selection and attrition bias.For the trial comparing G-CSF to antibiotics, all cause mortality was not reported. There was no evidence of a difference for infection-related mortality, with zero events in each arm. Microbiologically or clinically documented infections, severe infections, quality of life, and adverse events were not reported. There was no evidence of a difference in frequency of febrile neutropenia (risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.84). The quality of the evidence for the two reported outcomes, infection-related mortality and frequency of febrile neutropenia, was very low, due to the low number of patients evaluated (high imprecision) and the high risk of bias.There was no evidence of a difference in terms of median survival time in the trial comparing GM-CSF and antibiotics. Two-year survival times were 6% (0 to 12%) in both arms (high imprecision, low quality of evidence). There were four toxic deaths in the GM-CSF arm and three in the antibiotics arm (3.8%), without evidence of a difference (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.30 to 5.69; P = 0.71; low quality of evidence). There were 28% grade III or IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 18% in the antibiotics arm, without any evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.86 to 2.80; P = 0.15, low quality of evidence). There were 5 episodes out of 360 cycles of grade IV infections in the GM-CSF arm and 3 episodes out of 334 cycles in the cotrimoxazole arm (0.8%), with no evidence of a difference (RR 1.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 6.42; P = 0.55; low quality of evidence). There was no significant difference between the two arms for non-haematological toxicities like diarrhoea, stomatitis, infections, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac adverse events. Grade III and IV thrombopenia occurred significantly more frequently in the GM-CSF arm (60.8%) compared to the antibiotics arm (28.9%); (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.12; P = 0.0002; low quality of evidence). Neither infection-related mortality, incidence of febrile neutropenia, nor quality of life were reported in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS As we only found two small trials with 195 patients altogether, no conclusion for clinical practice is possible. More trials are necessary to assess the benefits and harms of G(M)-CSF compared to antibiotics for infection prevention in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

First international external quality assessment of molecular diagnostics for Mers-CoV

BACKGROUND: Since the discovery of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012, diagnostic protocols were quickly published and deployed globally. OBJECTIVES: We set out to assess the quality of MERS-CoV molecular diagnostics worldwide. STUDY DESIGN: Both sensitivity and specificity were assessed using 12 samples containing different viral loads of MERS-CoV or common coronaviruses (OC43, 229E, NL63, HKU1). RESULTS: The panel was sent to more than 106 participants, of which 99 laboratories from 6 continents returned 189 panel results.Scores ranged from 100% (84 laboratories) to 33% (1 laboratory). 15% of respondents reported quantitative results, 61% semi-quantitative (Ct-values or time to positivity) and 24% reported qualitative results. The major specific technique used was real-time RT-PCR using the WHO recommended targets upE, ORF1a and ORF1b. The evaluation confirmed that RT-PCRs targeting the ORF1b are less sensitive, and therefore not advised for primary diagnostics. CONCLUSIONS: The first external quality assessment MERS-CoV panel gives a good insight in molecular diagnostic techniques and their performances for sensitive and specific detection of MERS-CoV RNA globally. Overall, all laboratories were capable of detecting MERS-CoV with some differences in sensitivity. The observation that 8% of laboratories reported false MERS-CoV positive single assay results shows room for improvement, and the importance of using confirmatory targets.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis: relationship of quality of life with clinical, endoscopic and histological activity.

BACKGROUND Knowledge about determinants of quality of life (QoL) in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoO) patients helps to identify patients at risk of experiencing poor QoL and to tailor therapeutic interventions accordingly. AIM To evaluate the impact of symptom severity, endoscopic and histological activity on EoE-specific QoL in adult EoE patients. METHODS Ninety-eight adult EoE patients were prospectively included (64% male, median age 39 years). Patients completed two validated instruments to assess EoE-specific QoL (EoO-QoL-A) and symptom severity (adult EoE activity index patient-reported outcome) and then underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy sampling. Physicians reported standardised information on EoE-associated endoscopic and histological alterations. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was calculated to determine the relationship between QoL and symptom severity. Linear regression and analysis of variance was used to quantify the extent to which variations in severity of EoE symptoms, endoscopic and histological findings explain variations in QoL. RESULTS Quality of life strongly correlated with symptom severity (r = 0.610, P < 0.001). While the variation in severity of symptoms, endoscopic and histological findings alone explained 38%, 35% and 22% of the variability in EoE-related QoL, respectively, these together explained 60% of variation. Symptom severity explained 18-35% of the variation in each of the five QoL subscale scores. CONCLUSIONS Eosinophilic oesophagitis symptom severity and biological disease activity determine QoL in adult patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis. Therefore, reduction in both eosinophilic oesophagitis symptoms as well as biological disease activity is essential for improvement of QoL in adult patients. Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT00939263.

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trials published in prosthodontic and implantology journals

The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in prosthodontic and implantology journals. Thirty issues of nine journals in prosthodontics and implant dentistry were searched for RCTs, covering the years 2005-2012: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry & Related Research, The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Implant Dentistry and Journal of Dentistry. The reporting quality was assessed using a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement checklist. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics followed by univariable and multivariable examination of statistical associations (α = 0·05). A total of 147 RCTs were identified with a mean CONSORT score of 69·4 (s.d. = 9·7). Significant differences were found among journals with the Journal of Oral Rehabilitation achieving the highest score (80·6, s.d. = 5·5) followed by Clinical Oral Implants Research (73·7, s.d. = 8·3). Involvement of a statistician/methodologist was significantly associated with increased CONSORT scores. Overall, the reporting quality of RCTs in major prosthodontic and implantology journals requires improvement. This is of paramount importance considering that optimal reporting of RCTs is an important prerequisite for clinical decision-making.

Taking up national safety alerts to improve patient safety in hospitals: The perspective of healthcare quality and risk managers.

BACKGROUND National safety alert systems publish relevant information to improve patient safety in hospitals. However, the information has to be transformed into local action to have an effect on patient safety. We studied three research questions: How do Swiss healthcare quality and risk managers (qm/rm(1)) see their own role in learning from safety alerts issued by the Swiss national voluntary reporting and analysis system? What are their attitudes towards and evaluations of the alerts, and which types of improvement actions were fostered by the safety alerts? METHODS A survey was developed and applied to Swiss healthcare risk and quality managers, with a response rate of 39 % (n=116). Descriptive statistics are presented. RESULTS The qm/rm disseminate and communicate with a broad variety of professional groups about the alerts. While most respondents felt that they should know the alerts and their contents, only a part of them felt responsible for driving organizational change based on the recommendations. However, most respondents used safety alerts to back up their own patient safety goals. The alerts were evaluated positively on various dimensions such as usefulness and were considered as standards of good practice by the majority of the respondents. A range of organizational responses was applied, with disseminating information being the most common. An active role is related to using safety alerts for backing up own patient safety goals. CONCLUSIONS To support an active role of qm/rm in their hospital's learning from safety alerts, appropriate organizational structures should be developed. Furthermore, they could be given special information or training to act as an information hub on the issues discussed in the alerts.