Early Improvement As a Predictor of Later Response to Antipsychotics in Schizophrenia: A Diagnostic Test Review

OBJECTIVE How long clinicians should wait before considering an antipsychotic ineffective and changing treatment in schizophrenia is an unresolved clinical question. Guidelines differ substantially in this regard. The authors conducted a diagnostic test meta-analysis using mostly individual patient data to assess whether lack of improvement at week 2 predicts later nonresponse. METHOD The search included EMBASE, MEDLINE, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and reference lists of relevant articles, supplemented by requests to authors of all relevant studies. The main outcome was prediction of nonresponse, defined as <50% reduction in total score on either the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (corresponding to at least much improved) from baseline to endpoint (4-12 weeks), by <20% PANSS or BPRS improvement (corresponding to less than minimally improved) at week 2. Secondary outcomes were absent cross-sectional symptomatic remission and <20% PANSS or BPRS reduction at endpoint. Potential moderator variables were examined by meta-regression. RESULTS In 34 studies (N=9,460) a <20% PANSS or BPRS reduction at week 2 predicted nonresponse at endpoint with a specificity of 86% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 90%. Using data for observed cases (specificity=86%, PPV=85%) or lack of remission (specificity=77%, PPV=88%) yielded similar results. Conversely, using the definition of <20% reduction at endpoint yielded worse results (specificity=70%, PPV=55%). The test specificity was significantly moderated by a trial duration of <6 weeks, higher baseline illness severity, and shorter illness duration. CONCLUSIONS Patients not even minimally improved by week 2 of antipsychotic treatment are unlikely to respond later and may benefit from a treatment change.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Anticoagulation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The Randomized BRAVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND Anticoagulation is required during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. Although an optimal regimen has not been determined, heparin is mainly used. Direct thrombin inhibition with bivalirudin may be an effective alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in this setting. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to determine whether bivalirudin offers an alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS A total of 802 patients with aortic stenosis were randomized to undergo transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during the procedure. The 2 primary endpoints were major bleeding within 48 h or before hospital discharge (whichever occurred first) and 30-day net adverse clinical events, defined as the combination of major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding. RESULTS Anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin did not meet superiority because it did not result in significantly lower rates of major bleeding at 48 h (6.9% vs. 9.0%; relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48 to 1.23; p = 0.27) or net adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days (14.4% vs. 16.1%; relative risk: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.24; risk difference: -1.72; 95% CI: -6.70 to 3.25; p = 0.50); regarding the latter, the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis was met (pnoninferiority < 0.01). Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 48 h were not significantly different (3.5% vs. 4.8%; relative risk: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.43; p = 0.35). At 48 h, the bivalirudin group had significantly fewer myocardial infarctions but more acute kidney injury events than the heparin group; at 30 days, these differences were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial of TAVR procedural pharmacotherapy, bivalirudin did not reduce rates of major bleeding at 48 h or net adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days compared with heparin. Although superiority was not shown, the noninferiority hypothesis was met with respect to the latter factor. Given the lower cost, heparin should remain the standard of care, and bivalirudin can be an alternative anticoagulant option in patients unable to receive heparin in TAVR. (International, Multi-center, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients Undergoing TAVR to Determine the Treatment Effect [Both Safety and Efficacy] of Using Bivalirudin Instead of UFH [BRAVO-2/3]; NCT01651780).

The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a multidisciplinary consensus.

OBJECTIVE We endeavored to develop an unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) treatment score (UIATS) model that includes and quantifies key factors involved in clinical decision-making in the management of UIAs and to assess agreement for this model among specialists in UIA management and research. METHODS An international multidisciplinary (neurosurgery, neuroradiology, neurology, clinical epidemiology) group of 69 specialists was convened to develop and validate the UIATS model using a Delphi consensus. For internal (39 panel members involved in identification of relevant features) and external validation (30 independent external reviewers), 30 selected UIA cases were used to analyze agreement with UIATS management recommendations based on a 5-point Likert scale (5 indicating strong agreement). Interrater agreement (IRA) was assessed with standardized coefficients of dispersion (vr*) (vr* = 0 indicating excellent agreement and vr* = 1 indicating poor agreement). RESULTS The UIATS accounts for 29 key factors in UIA management. Agreement with UIATS (mean Likert scores) was 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-4.3) per reviewer for both reviewer cohorts; agreement per case was 4.3 (95% CI 4.1-4.4) for panel members and 4.5 (95% CI 4.3-4.6) for external reviewers (p = 0.017). Mean Likert scores were 4.2 (95% CI 4.1-4.3) for interventional reviewers (n = 56) and 4.1 (95% CI 3.9-4.4) for noninterventional reviewers (n = 12) (p = 0.290). Overall IRA (vr*) for both cohorts was 0.026 (95% CI 0.019-0.033). CONCLUSIONS This novel UIA decision guidance study captures an excellent consensus among highly informed individuals on UIA management, irrespective of their underlying specialty. Clinicians can use the UIATS as a comprehensive mechanism for indicating how a large group of specialists might manage an individual patient with a UIA.

Medikamentöse Behandlung des metastasierten Prostatakarzinoms

In den letzten Jahren sind für Männer mit fortgeschrittenem Prostatakarzinom neue Therapieoptionen zugelassen worden. Mit diesen zusätzlichen Möglichkeiten stehen behandelnde Ärzte vor der Herausforderung, zwischen multiplen Therapie­optionen auswählen zu müssen. Natio­nale und internationale Organisationen formulieren aus der vorhandenen Evidenz Richtlinien und Empfehlungen. Nicht selten steht man im klinischen Alltag aber vor Fragestellungen, für die es entweder keine oder dann widersprüchliche Evidenz gibt. Um diese Situationen zu beleuchten, hat im März 2015 in St. Gallen die erste internationale Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) stattgefunden.