Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND Adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS In two phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression for a period of 5 years. Suppression of ovarian estrogen production was achieved with the use of the gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary analysis combined data from 4690 patients in the two trials. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 68 months, disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.1% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 87.3% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 92.8% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, as compared with 88.8% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001). With 194 deaths (4.1% of the patients), overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio for death in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.51; P=0.37). Selected adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported for 30.6% of the patients in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 29.4% of those in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, with profiles similar to those for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS In premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence. (Funded by Pfizer and others; TEXT and SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066703 and NCT00066690, respectively.).

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Background Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. Methods We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. Results The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). Conclusions In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627 .).

Telomerase Inhibitor Imetelstat in Patients with Essential Thrombocythemia.

BACKGROUND Imetelstat, a 13-mer oligonucleotide that is covalently modified with lipid extensions, competitively inhibits telomerase enzymatic activity. It has been shown to inhibit megakaryocytic proliferation in vitro in cells obtained from patients with essential thrombocythemia. In this phase 2 study, we investigated whether imetelstat could elicit hematologic and molecular responses in patients with essential thrombocythemia who had not had a response to or who had had unacceptable side effects from prior therapies. METHODS A total of 18 patients in two sequential cohorts received an initial dose of 7.5 or 9.4 mg of imetelstat per kilogram of body weight intravenously once a week until attainment of a platelet count of approximately 250,000 to 300,000 per cubic millimeter. The primary end point was the best hematologic response. RESULTS Imetelstat induced hematologic responses in all 18 patients, and 16 patients (89%) had a complete hematologic response. At the time of the primary analysis, 10 patients were still receiving treatment, with a median follow-up of 17 months (range, 7 to 32 [ongoing]). Molecular responses were seen in 7 of 8 patients who were positive for the JAK2 V617F mutation (88%; 95% confidence interval, 47 to 100). CALR and MPL mutant allele burdens were also reduced by 15 to 66%. The most common adverse events during treatment were mild to moderate in severity; neutropenia of grade 3 or higher occurred in 4 of the 18 patients (22%) and anemia, headache, and syncope of grade 3 or higher each occurred in 2 patients (11%). All the patients had at least one abnormal liver-function value; all persistent elevations were grade 1 or 2 in severity. CONCLUSIONS Rapid and durable hematologic and molecular responses were observed in patients with essential thrombocythemia who received imetelstat. (Funded by Geron; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01243073.).

Outcome discrepancies and selective reporting: impacting the leading journals?

BACKGROUND Selective outcome reporting of either interesting or positive research findings is problematic, running the risk of poorly-informed treatment decisions. We aimed to assess the extent of outcome and other discrepancies and possible selective reporting between registry entries and published reports among leading medical journals. METHODS Randomized controlled trials published over a 6-month period from July to December 31st, 2013, were identified in five high impact medical journals: The Lancet, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were obtained. Discrepancies between published studies and registry entries were identified and related to factors including registration timing, source of funding and presence of statistically significant results. RESULTS Over the 6-month period, 137 RCTs were found. Of these, 18% (n = 25) had discrepancies related to primary outcomes with the primary outcome changed in 15% (n = 20). Moreover, differences relating to non-primary outcomes were found in 64% (n = 87) with both omission of pre-specified non-primary outcomes (39%) and introduction of new non-primary outcomes (44%) common. No relationship between primary or non-primary outcome change and registration timing (prospective or retrospective; P = 0.11), source of funding (P = 0.92) and presence of statistically significant results (P = 0.92) was found. CONCLUSIONS Discrepancies between registry entries and published articles for primary and non-primary outcomes were common among trials published in leading medical journals. Novel approaches are required to address this problem.

Caplacizumab for Acquired Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura.

BACKGROUND Acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is caused by aggregation of platelets on ultralarge von Willebrand factor multimers. This microvascular thrombosis causes multiorgan ischemia with potentially life-threatening complications. Daily plasma exchange and immunosuppressive therapies induce remission, but mortality and morbidity due to microthrombosis remain high. METHODS Caplacizumab, an anti-von Willebrand factor humanized single-variable-domain immunoglobulin (Nanobody), inhibits the interaction between ultralarge von Willebrand factor multimers and platelets. In this phase 2, controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with acquired TTP to subcutaneous caplacizumab (10 mg daily) or placebo during plasma exchange and for 30 days afterward. The primary end point was the time to a response, defined as confirmed normalization of the platelet count. Major secondary end points included exacerbations and relapses. RESULTS Seventy-five patients underwent randomization (36 were assigned to receive caplacizumab, and 39 to receive placebo). The time to a response was significantly reduced with caplacizumab as compared with placebo (39% reduction in median time, P=0.005). Three patients in the caplacizumab group had an exacerbation, as compared with 11 patients in the placebo group. Eight patients in the caplacizumab group had a relapse in the first month after stopping the study drug, of whom 7 had ADAMTS13 activity that remained below 10%, suggesting unresolved autoimmune activity. Bleeding-related adverse events, most of which were mild to moderate in severity, were more common with caplacizumab than with placebo (54% of patients vs. 38%). The frequencies of other adverse events were similar in the two groups. Two patients in the placebo group died, as compared with none in the caplacizumab group. CONCLUSIONS Caplacizumab induced a faster resolution of the acute TTP episode than did placebo. The platelet-protective effect of caplacizumab was maintained during the treatment period. Caplacizumab was associated with an increased tendency toward bleeding, as compared with placebo. (Funded by Ablynx; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01151423.).

Zika Virus as a Cause of Neurologic Disorders.

Zika virus infections have been known in Africa and Asia since the 1940s, but the virus's geographic range has expanded dramatically since 2007. Between January 1, 2007, and March 1, 2016, local transmission was reported in an additional 52 countries and territories, mainly in the Americas and the western Pacific, but also in Africa and southeast Asia. Zika virus infections acquired by travelers visiting those countries have been discovered at sites worldwide. Aedes aegypti mosquitoes are the principal vectors, though other mosquito species may contribute to transmission. The virus was found to be neurotropic in animals in experiments conducted in . . .