Factors Associated with Durable Response to Infliximab in Crohnʼs Disease 5 Years and Beyond: A Multicenter International Cohort

BACKGROUND: Infliximab (IFX) has been used for over a decade worldwide. Less is known about the natural history of IFX use beyond a few years and which patients are more likely to sustain benefits. METHODS: Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) exposed to IFX from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, and the Swiss IBD Cohort Study were identified through retrospective and prospective data collection, complemented by chart abstraction of electronic medical records. We compared long-term users of IFX (>5 yr of treatment, long-term users of infliximab [LTUI]), with non-LTUI patients to identify prognostic factors. RESULTS: We pooled data on 1014 patients with CD from 3 different databases, of whom 250 were defined as LTUI. The comparison group comprised 290 patients with CD who discontinued IFX: 48 primary nonresponses, 95 loss of responses, and 147 adverse events. Factors associated with LTUI were colonic involvements and an earlier age at the start of IFX. The prevalence of active smokers and obese patients differed markedly, but inversely, between American and European centers but did not impact outcome. The discontinuation rate was stable around 3% to 6%, each year from years 3 to 10. CONCLUSIONS: Young age at start of IFX and colonic CD are factors associated with a beneficial long-term use of IFX. After 5 years of IFX, there is still a 3% to 5% discontinuation rate annually. Several factors associated with a good initial response such as nonsmoker and shorter disease duration at IFX initiation do not seem associated with a longer term response.

Clinical Outcomes According to Diabetic Status in Patients Treated With Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) proved noninferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) for a composite clinical end point in a population with minimal exclusion criteria. We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE) trial to compare the performance of BP-SES and DP-EES in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS AND RESULTS BIOSCIENCE trial was an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing BP-SES versus DP-EES. The primary end point, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Among a total of 2119 patients enrolled between February 2012 and May 2013, 486 (22.9%) had diabetes mellitus. Overall diabetic patients experienced a significantly higher risk of target lesion failure compared with patients without diabetes mellitus (10.1% versus 5.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-2.56; P=0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences between BP-SES versus DP-EES in terms of the primary end point in both diabetic (10.9% versus 9.3%; HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.67-2.10; P=0.56) and nondiabetic patients (5.3% versus 6.0%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.33; P=0.55). Similarly, no significant differences in the risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis were recorded according to treatment arm in both study groups (4.0% versus 3.1%; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.49-3.41; P=0.60 for diabetic patients and 2.4% versus 3.4%; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39-1.25; P=0.23, in nondiabetics). CONCLUSIONS In the prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, clinical outcomes among diabetic patients treated with BP-SES or DP-EES were comparable at 1 year. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Guide pour la formation de modérateurs en approche ALS sur le thème de la gestion durable des ressources naturelles

Le présent guide contient une méthodologie et des exercices pour réaliser des formations de modérateurs en approche ALS et sur le thème de la GDRN. Il se veut un outil qui permette aux futurs modérateurs de (1) intégrer une approche participative et interactive dans ses formations diverses, (2) appliquer des techniques de modération basées sur l'apprentissage commun, en groupe d'acteurs mixtes et dans le contexte local et (3) acquérir une base de connaissance de la gestion durable des ressources naturelles et de traiter cette thématique de façon participative et interactive.

Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary revascularisation of acute myocardial infarction.

AIMS Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) with a thin strut, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in a pre-specified subgroup of patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) enrolled in the BIOSCIENCE trial. METHODS AND RESULTS The BIOSCIENCE trial is an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial (NCT01443104). Randomisation was stratified according to the presence or absence of STEMI. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure (TLF), is a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation within 12 months. Between February 2012 and May 2013, 407 STEMI patients were randomly assigned to treatment with BP-SES or DP-EES. At one year, TLF occurred in seven (3.4%) patients treated with BP-SES and 17 (8.8%) patients treated with DP-EES (RR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.91, p=0.024). Rates of cardiac death were 1.5% in the BP-SES group and 4.7% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.08-1.14, p=0.062); rates of target vessel myocardial infarction were 0.5% and 2.6% (RR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.02-1.57, p=0.082), respectively, and rates of clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation were 1.5% in the BP-SES group versus 2.1% in the DP-EES group (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.16-3.10, p=0.631). There was no difference in the risk of definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS In this pre-specified subgroup analysis, BP-SES was associated with a lower rate of target lesion failure at one year compared to DP-EES in STEMI patients. These findings require confirmation in a dedicated STEMI trial.

Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial.

AIMS Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) feature thrombus-rich lesions with large necrotic core, which are usually associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (Absorb) has the potential to overcome these limitations owing to restoration of native vessel lumen and physiology at long term. The purpose of this randomized trial was to compare the arterial healing response at short term, as a surrogate for safety and efficacy, between the Absorb and the metallic everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS ABSORB-STEMI TROFI II was a multicentre, single-blind, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated 1:1 to treatment with the Absorb or EES. The primary endpoint was the 6-month optical frequency domain imaging healing score (HS) based on the presence of uncovered and/or malapposed stent struts and intraluminal filling defects. Main secondary endpoint included the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) according to the Academic Research Consortium definition. Between 06 January 2014 and 21 September 2014, 191 patients (Absorb [n = 95] or EES [n = 96]; mean age 58.6 years old; 17.8% females) were enrolled at eight centres. At 6 months, HS was lower in the Absorb arm when compared with EES arm [1.74 (2.39) vs. 2.80 (4.44); difference (90% CI) -1.06 (-1.96, -0.16); Pnon-inferiority <0.001]. Device-oriented composite endpoint was also comparably low between groups (1.1% Absorb vs. 0% EES). One case of definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the Absorb arm (1.1% vs. 0% EES; P = ns). CONCLUSION Stenting of culprit lesions with Absorb in the setting of STEMI resulted in a nearly complete arterial healing which was comparable with that of metallic EES at 6 months. These findings provide the basis for further exploration in clinically oriented outcome trials.

Arterial healing following primary PCI using the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) versus the durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent (XIENCE) in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the randomised TROFI II study

AIMS The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) provides similar clinical outcomes compared with a durable polymer-based everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES) in stable coronary artery disease patients. ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) lesions have been associated with delayed arterial healing and impaired stent-related outcomes. The purpose of the present study is to compare directly the arterial healing response, angiographic efficacy and clinical outcomes between the Absorb BVS and metallic EES. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 191 patients with acute STEMI were randomly allocated to treatment with the Absorb BVS or a metallic EES 1:1. The primary endpoint is the neointimal healing (NIH) score, which is calculated based on a score taking into consideration the presence of uncovered and malapposed stent struts, intraluminal filling defects and excessive neointimal proliferation, as detected by optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI) six months after the index procedure. The study will provide 90% power to show non-inferiority of the Absorb BVS compared with the EES. CONCLUSIONS This will be the first randomised study investigating the arterial healing response following implantation of the Absorb BVS compared with the EES. The healing response assessed by a novel NIH score in conjunction with results on angiographic efficacy parameters and device-oriented events will elucidate disease-specific applications of bioresorbable scaffolds.

A Randomized Comparison of Reservoir-Based Polymer-Free Amphilimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: The RESERVOIR Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of amphilimus-eluting stents (AES) with that of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). BACKGROUND The AES is a polymer-free drug-eluting stent that elutes sirolimus formulated with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells. This technology could be associated with a high efficacy in patients with DM. METHODS This was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. Patients with DM medically treated with oral glucose-lowering agents or insulin and de novo coronary lesions were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to AES or EES. The primary endpoint was the neointimal (NI) volume obstruction assessed by optical coherence tomography at 9-month follow-up. RESULTS A total of 116 lesions in 112 patients were randomized. Overall, 40% were insulin-treated patients, with a median HbA1c of 7.3% (interquartile range: 6.7% to 8.0%). The primary endpoint, NI volume obstruction, was 11.97 ± 5.94% for AES versus 16.11 ± 18.18% for EES, meeting the noninferiority criteria (p = 0.0003). Pre-specified subgroup analyses showed a significant interaction between stent type and glycemic control (p = 0.02), with a significant reduction in NI hyperplasia in the AES group in patients with the higher HbA1c (p = 0.03). By quantitative coronary angiography, in-stent late loss was 0.14 ± 0.24 for AES versus 0.24 ± 0.57 mm for EES (p = 0.27), with a larger minimal lumen diameter at follow-up for AES (p = 0.02), mainly driven by 2 cases of occlusive restenosis in the EES group. CONCLUSIONS AES are noninferior to EES for the coronary revascularization of patients with DM. These results suggest a high efficacy of the AES and may support the potential benefit of this stent in patients with DM. (A Randomized Comparison of Reservoir-Based Polymer-Free Amphilimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents With Durable Polymer in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus [RESERVOIR]; NCT01710748).

Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: 2-Year Results of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND No data are available on the long-term performance of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES). We reported 2-year clinical outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation) trial, which compared BP-SES with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 2119 patients with minimal exclusion criteria were assigned to treatment with BP-SES (n=1063) or DP-EES (n=1056). Follow-up at 2 years was available for 2048 patients (97%). The primary end point was target-lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. At 2 years, target-lesion failure occurred in 107 patients (10.5%) in the BP-SES arm and 107 patients (10.4%) in the DP-EES arm (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, P=0.979). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and DP-EES with respect to cardiac death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62-1.63, P=0.984), target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.39, P=0.669), target-lesion revascularization (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81-1.71, P=0.403), and definite stent thrombosis (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.56-3.44, P=0.485). There were 2 cases (0.2%) of definite very late stent thrombosis in the BP-SES arm and 4 cases (0.4%) in the DP-EES arm (P=0.423). In the prespecified subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, BP-SES was associated with a lower risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP-EES (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99, P=0.043, Pinteraction=0.026). CONCLUSIONS Comparable safety and efficacy profiles of BP-SES and DP-EES were maintained throughout 2 years of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.