Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization

Objectives This study sought to compare the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between EES and SES during long-term follow-up. Methods Using propensity score matching, clinical outcome was compared among 1,342 propensity score–matched pairs of patients treated with EES and SES. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, and target vessel revascularization. Results The median follow-up was 1.5 years with a maximum of 3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 14.9% of EES- and 18.0% of SES-treated patients up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 1.00, p = 0.056). All-cause mortality (6.0% vs. 6.5%, HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.25, p = 0.59) was similar, risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (3.3% vs. 5.0%, HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.92, p = 0.017), and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 9.6%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.039) were lower with EES than SES. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01) was less frequent among patients treated with EES. The reduced rate of MI with EES was explained in part by the lower risk of definite ST and the corresponding decrease in events associated with ST (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.75, p = 0.013). Conclusions The unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved clinical long-term outcome compared with SES. Differences in favor of EES are driven in part by a lower risk of MI associated with ST.

Rituximab, bendamustine, and lenalidomide in patients with aggressive B cell lymphoma not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or anthracycline-based therapy: phase I results of the SAKK 38/08 trial

This phase I trial was designed to develop a new effective and well-tolerated regimen for patients with aggressive B cell lymphoma not eligible for front-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy or aggressive second-line treatment strategies. The combination of rituximab (375 mg/m(2) on day 1), bendamustine (70 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2), and lenalidomide was tested with a dose escalation of lenalidomide at three dose levels (10, 15, or 20 mg/day) using a 3 + 3 design. Courses were repeated every 4 weeks. The recommended dose was defined as one level below the dose level identifying ≥2/6 patients with a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first cycle. Thirteen patients were eligible for analysis. Median age was 77 years. WHO performance status was 0 or 1 in 12 patients. The Charlson Comorbidity Index showed relevant comorbidities in all patients. Two DLTs occurred at the second dose level (15 mg/day) within the first cycle: one patient had prolonged grade 3 neutropenia, and one patient experienced grade 4 cardiac adverse event (myocardial infarction). Additional grade 3 and 4 toxicities were as follows: neutropenia (31 %), thrombocytopenia (23 %), cardiac toxicity (31 %), fatigue (15 %), and rash (15 %). The dose of lenalidomide of 10 mg/day was recommended for a subsequent phase II in combination with rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on day 1 and bendamustine 70 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2.

Efficacy of cetuximab in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer might depend on EGFR and PTEN expression: results from a phase II trial (SAKK 08/07)

The EGF receptor (EGFR) is overexpressed in the majority of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPC) and might represent a valid therapeutic target. The combination of docetaxel and cetuximab, the monoclonal antibody against EGFR, has not been tested in patients with prostate cancer.

Clinical and microbiological analysis of subjects treated with Brånemark or AstraTech implants: a 7-year follow-up study

AIMS: To assess the impact of different implant systems on the clinical conditions and the microbiota at implants, and whether the presence of bacteria at tooth sites was predictive of the presence at implant sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects with either AstraTech or Brånemark in function for 7 years were enrolled. Sub-gingival bacterial samples at tooth and implant sites were collected with sterile endodontic paper points, and analyzed by the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method (40 species). RESULTS: Fifty-four subjects, 27 supplied with AstraTech (n=132 implants) and 27 with Brånemark (n=102) implants, were studied. Test tooth sites had significantly less evidence of bleeding on probing (P<0.001) and presence of plaque (P<0.001) than implant test sites. Implant sites presented with deeper probing pocket depth than tooth sites (mean difference: 1.1 mm, standard error of differences: 0.08, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.9-1.3, P<0.001). Tannerella forsythia (P<0.05), Capnocytophaga sputigena (P<0.05), Actinomyces israelii (P<0.05) and Lactobacillus acidophilus (P<0.05) were found at higher levels at tooth surfaces. No differences in bacterial load for any species were found between the two implant systems. The odds of being present/absent at tooth and implants sites were only significant for Staphylococcus aureus [odds ratio (OR): 5.2 : 1, 95% CI: 1.4-18.9, P<0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: After 7 years in function, implants presented with deeper probing depths than teeth. S. aureus was commonly present at both teeth and implants sites. S. aureus at tooth sites was predictive of also being present at implant sites.