Scheduled versus Pro Re Nata Dosing in the VIEW Trials

PURPOSE To analyze visual acuity (VA) outcomes before and after preplanned treatment regimen change in the VIEW studies at week 52 (W52). DESIGN Multiple post hoc analyses for retrospectively defined subgroups in 2 multicenter, multinational, double-masked trials. PARTICIPANTS Two thousand four hundred fifty-seven neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) patients. METHODS Patients were randomized to treatment with 0.5 mg ranibizumab given monthly, a 0.5-mg or 2-mg intravitreal aflibercept injection given monthly, or 2 mg intravitreal aflibercept given every other month, after 3 initial monthly doses, up to W52. From W52 through W96, patients received their original dosing assignment using a capped pro re nata (PRN) regimen, with defined retreatment criteria based on VA and morphologic signs of disease activity and mandatory dosing at least every 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Best-corrected VA (BCVA) and optical coherence tomography assessments were mandatory at all visits from baseline to W96. Outcomes were changes in BCVA and central retinal thickness. Outcomes were evaluated in all patients who completed 2 years of the VIEW studies using the last observation carried forward method for missing data at interim visits. RESULTS After W52, approximately 20% of patients lost 5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters or more across all treatment arms with PRN treatment. Patients who met the retreatment criterion of loss of 5 ETDRS letters or more in the first quarter of the PRN dosing phase did not recover; mean final VA loss across the 4 study arms was -4.4 to -5.8 letters. Outcomes of these patients up to W52 were indistinguishable from those of the overall population. There were no differences between groups in serious ocular adverse events or Anti-Platelet Trialists' Collaboration arterial thromboembolic events through W96. CONCLUSIONS These analyses suggest that there are subgroups of patients for whom VA outcomes in the second year of the VIEW studies were less stable than in the first year and for whom W52 seems to be an important inflection point. Although alternate reasons specific to the nature of the underlying AMD cannot be fully excluded, the switch in treatment regimen at W52 is a plausible explanation.

Intra-articular corticosteroid for knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic pain, disability, and decreased quality of life. Despite the long-standing use of intra-articular corticosteroids, there is an ongoing debate about their benefits and safety. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and harms of intra-articular corticosteroids compared with sham or no intervention in people with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, physical function, quality of life, and safety. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (from inception to 3 February 2015), checked trial registers, conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham injection or no treatment in people with knee osteoarthritis. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain, function, quality of life, joint space narrowing, and risk ratios (RRs) for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 27 trials (13 new studies) with 1767 participants in this update. We graded the quality of the evidence as 'low' for all outcomes because treatment effect estimates were inconsistent with great variation across trials, pooled estimates were imprecise and did not rule out relevant or irrelevant clinical effects, and because most trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Intra-articular corticosteroids appeared to be more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.22), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 1.0 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale between corticosteroids and sham injection and translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 (95% CI 6 to 13). An I(2) statistic of 68% indicated considerable between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested some asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -1.21, 95%CI -3.58 to 1.17). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.21), small at 13 weeks (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00), and no evidence of an effect at 26 weeks (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.11). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 63% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.001), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.43). There was evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.05) or at least 100 participants per group (P=0.013), in trials that used concomittant viscosupplementation (P=0.08), and in trials that used concomitant joint lavage (P≤0.001).Corticosteroids appeared to be more effective in function improvement than control interventions (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.09), which corresponds to a difference in functions scores of -0.7 units on standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10 and translates into a NNTB of 10 (95% CI 7 to 33). An I(2) statistic of 69% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -4.07, 95% CI -8.08 to -0.05). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were small to moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.14), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.09), and no evidence of an effect at 13 weeks (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.10) or at 26 weeks (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.28). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 62% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.004), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.52). We found evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.023), in unpublished trials (P=0.023), in trials that used non-intervention controls (P=0.031), and in trials that used concomitant viscosupplementation (P=0.06).Participants on corticosteroids were 11% less likely to experience adverse events, but confidence intervals included the null effect (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.23, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 67% less likely to withdraw because of adverse events, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.07, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 27% less likely to experience any serious adverse event, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.67, I(2)=0%).We found no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on quality of life compared to control (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.28, I(2)=0%). There was also no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on joint space narrowing compared to control interventions (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.46). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Whether there are clinically important benefits of intra-articular corticosteroids after one to six weeks remains unclear in view of the overall quality of the evidence, considerable heterogeneity between trials, and evidence of small-study effects. A single trial included in this review described adequate measures to minimise biases and did not find any benefit of intra-articular corticosteroids.In this update of the systematic review and meta-analysis, we found most of the identified trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham or non-intervention control small and hampered by low methodological quality. An analysis of multiple time points suggested that effects decrease over time, and our analysis provided no evidence that an effect remains six months after a corticosteroid injection.

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.

Mechanical Thrombectomy for Isolated M2 Occlusions: A Post Hoc Analysis of the STAR, SWIFT, and SWIFT PRIME Studies.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Mechanical thrombectomy is beneficial for patients with acute ischemic stroke and a proximal anterior occlusion, but it is unclear if these results can be extrapolated to patients with an M2 occlusion. The purpose of this study was to examine the technical aspects, safety, and outcomes of mechanical thrombectomy with a stent retriever in patients with an isolated M2 occlusion who were included in 3 large multicenter prospective studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS We included patients from the Solitaire Flow Restoration Thrombectomy for Acute Revascularization (STAR), Solitaire With the Intention For Thrombectomy (SWIFT), and Solitaire With the Intention for Thrombectomy as Primary Endovascular Treatment (SWIFT PRIME) studies, 3 large multicenter prospective studies on thrombectomy for ischemic stroke. We compared outcomes and technical details of patients with an M2 with those with an M1 occlusion. All patients were treated with a stent retriever. Imaging data and outcomes were scored by an independent core laboratory. Successful reperfusion was defined as modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b/3. RESULTS We included 50 patients with an M2 and 249 patients with an M1 occlusion. Patients with an M2 occlusion were older (mean age, 71 versus 67 years; P = .04) and had a lower NIHSS score (median, 13 versus 17; P < .001) compared with those with an M1 occlusion. Procedural time was nonsignificantly shorter in patients with an M2 occlusion (median, 29 versus 35 minutes; P = .41). The average number of passes with a stent retriever was also nonsignificantly lower in patients with an M2 occlusion (mean, 1.4 versus 1.7; P = .07). There were no significant differences in successful reperfusion (85% versus 82%, P = .82), symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages (2% versus 2%, P = 1.0), device-related serious adverse events (6% versus 4%, P = .46), or modified Rankin Scale score 0-2 at follow-up (60% versus 56%, P = .64). CONCLUSIONS Endovascular reperfusion therapy appears to be feasible in selected patients with ischemic stroke and an M2 occlusion.

Dose escalated intensity modulated radiotherapy in the treatment of cervical cancer.

PURPOSE Standard dose of external beam radiotherapy seems to be insufficient for satisfactory control of loco-regionally advanced cervical cancer. Aim of our study is to evaluate the outcome as well as early and chronic toxicities in patients with loco-regionally advanced cervical cancer, treated with dose escalated intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) combined with cisplatin chemotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty-nine patients with cervical carcinoma FIGO stage IB2 - IVA were treated with curative intent between 2006 and 2010. The dose of 50.4 Gy was prescribed to the elective pelvic nodal volume. Primary tumors < 4 cm in diameter (n = 6; 15.4 %) received an external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost of 5.4 Gy, primary tumors > 4 cm in diameter (n = 33; 84.6 %) received an EBRT boost of 9 Gy. Patients with positive lymph nodes detected with (18)FDG-PET/CT (n = 22; 56.4 %) received a boost to a total dose of 59.4 - 64.8 Gy. The para-aortic region was included in the radiation volume in 8 (20.5 %) patients and in 5 (12.8 %) patients the para-aortic macroscopic lymph nodes received an EBRT boost. IMRT was followed with a 3D planned high dose rate intrauterine brachytherapy given to 36 (92.3 %) patients with a total dose ranging between 15-18 Gy in three fractions (single fraction: 4-6.5 Gy). Patients without contraindications (n = 31/79.5 %) received concomitantly a cisplatin-based chemotherapy (40 mg/kg) weekly. Toxicities were graded according to the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE v 4.0). RESULTS Mean overall survival for the entire cohort was 61.1 months (±3.5 months). Mean disease free survival was 47.2 months (±4.9 months) and loco-regional disease free survival was 55.2 months (±4.4 months). 65 % of patients developed radiotherapy associated acute toxicities grade 1, ca. 30 % developed toxicities grade 2 and just two (5.2 %) patients developed grade 3 toxicities, one acute diarrhea and one acute cystitis. 16 % of patients had chronic toxicities grade 1, 9 % grade 2 and one patient (2.6 %) toxicities grade 3 in the form of vaginal dryness. CONCLUSION Dose escalated IMRT appears to have a satisfactory outcome with regards to mean overall survival, disease free and loco-regional disease free survival, whereas the treatment-related toxicities remain reasonably low.

Acute Toxicity and Quality of Life After Dose-Intensified Salvage Radiation Therapy for Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Prostatectomy: First Results of the Randomized Trial SAKK 09/10

PURPOSE Patients with biochemical failure (BF) after radical prostatectomy may benefit from dose-intensified salvage radiation therapy (SRT) of the prostate bed. We performed a randomized phase III trial assessing dose intensification. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with BF but without evidence of macroscopic disease were randomly assigned to either 64 or 70 Gy. Three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy/rotational techniques were used. The primary end point was freedom from BF. Secondary end points were acute toxicity according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) and quality of life (QoL) according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and PR25. RESULTS Three hundred fifty patients were enrolled between February 2011 and April 2014. Three patients withdrew informed consent, and three patients were not eligible, resulting in 344 patients age 48 to 75 years in the safety population. Thirty patients (8.7%) had grade 2 and two patients (0.6%) had grade 3 genitourinary (GU) baseline symptoms. Acute grade 2 and 3 GU toxicity was observed in 22 patients (13.0%) and one patient (0.6%), respectively, with 64 Gy and in 29 patients (16.6%) and three patients (1.7%), respectively, with 70 Gy (P = .2). Baseline grade 2 GI toxicity was observed in one patient (0.6%). Acute grade 2 and 3 GI toxicity was observed in 27 patients (16.0%) and one patient (0.6%), respectively, with 64 Gy, and in 27 patients (15.4%) and four patients (2.3%), respectively, with 70 Gy (P = .8). Changes in early QoL were minor. Patients receiving 70 Gy reported a more pronounced and clinically relevant worsening in urinary symptoms (mean difference in change score between arms, 3.6; P = .02). CONCLUSION Dose-intensified SRT was associated with low rates of acute grade 2 and 3 GU and GI toxicity. The impact of dose-intensified SRT on QoL was minor, except for a significantly greater worsening in urinary symptoms.

Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. METHODS Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. INTERPRETATION Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

Patient safety in dialysis access

Not only are dialysis access creation and maintenance prone to complications, but patients suffering from end-stage renal disease and its comorbidities generally have a high risk of adverse events during their continuous treatment. Preventive strategies are key to avoid harm and to improve the outcome of the treatment of the growing number of patients with chronic kidney failure, especially as doctors and nurses are not always aware of the consequences of unsafe behavior. This publication is intended for health care professionals – nurses as well as doctors – and aims to raise the awareness of patient safety aspects, combining medical education with evidence-based medicine. After a general overview of the topic, an international panel of authors provides a diversified insight into important concepts and technical tricks essential to create and maintain a functional dialysis access. Contributions to Nephrology, Vol. 184

Long-term ticagrelor monotherapy versus standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by aspirin monotherapy in patients undergoing biolimus-eluting stent implantation: rationale and design of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial

AIMS The GLOBAL LEADERS trial is a superiority study in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, with a uniform use of Biolimus A9-eluting stents (BES) and bivalirudin. GLOBAL LEADERS was designed to assess whether a 24-month antithrombotic regimen with ticagrelor and one month of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), compared to conventional dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), improves outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients (n >16,000) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily for 24 months plus ASA ≤100 mg for one month versus DAPT with either ticagrelor (acute coronary syndrome) or clopidogrel (stable coronary artery disease) for 12 months plus ASA ≤100 mg for 24 months. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause mortality or non-fatal, new Q-wave myocardial infarction at 24 months. The key safety endpoint is investigator-reported class 3 or 5 bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definitions. Sensitivity analysis will be carried out to explore potential differences in outcome across geographic regions and according to specific angiographic and clinical risk estimates. CONCLUSIONS The GLOBAL LEADERS trial aims to assess the role of ticagrelor as a single antiplatelet agent after a short course of DAPT for the long-term prevention of cardiac adverse events, across a wide spectrum of patients, following BES implantation.

Stable coronary artery disease: revascularisation and invasive strategies

Stable coronary artery disease is the most common clinical manifestation of ischaemic heart disease and a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Myocardial revascularisation is a mainstay in the treatment of symptomatic patients or those with ischaemia-producing coronary lesions, and reduces ischaemia to a greater extent than medical treatment. Documentation of ischaemia and plaque burden is fundamental in the risk stratification of patients with stable coronary artery disease, and several invasive and non-invasive techniques are available (eg, fractional flow reserve or intravascular ultrasound) or being validated (eg, instantaneous wave-free ratio and optical coherence tomography). The use of new-generation drug-eluting stents and arterial conduits greatly improve clinical outcome in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). PCI is feasible, safe, and effective in many patients with stable coronary artery disease who remain symptomatic despite medical treatment. In patients with multivessel and left main coronary artery disease, the decision between PCI or CABG is guided by the local Heart Team (team of different cardiovascular specialists, including non-invasive and invasive cardiologists, and cardiac surgeons), who carefully judge the possible benefits and risks inherent to PCI and CABG. In specific subsets, such as patients with diabetes and advanced, multivessel coronary artery disease, CABG remains the standard of care in view of improved protection against recurrent ischaemic adverse events.

Republished: Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease

The choice and duration of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) is determined by the clinical context and treatment strategy. Oral antiplatelet agents for secondary prevention include the cyclo-oxygenase-1 inhibitor aspirin, and the ADP dependent P2Y12 inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor. Aspirin constitutes the cornerstone in secondary prevention of CAD and is complemented by clopidogrel in patients with stable CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, prasugrel and ticagrelor improve net clinical outcome by reducing ischaemic adverse events at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Prasugrel appears particularly effective among patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with clopidogrel, and offered a greater net clinical benefit among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. Ticagrelor is associated with reduced mortality without increasing the rate of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Dual antiplatelet therapy should be continued for a minimum of 1 year among patients with acute coronary syndrome irrespective of stent type; among patients with stable CAD treated with new generation drug-eluting stents, available data suggest no benefit to prolong antiplatelet treatment beyond 6 months.

Development of an Interleukin-1β Vaccine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Interleukin-1β (IL-1β) is a key cytokine involved in inflammatory illnesses including rare hereditary diseases and common chronic inflammatory conditions as gout, rheumatoid arthritis, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, suggesting reduction of IL-1β activity as new treatment strategy. The objective of our study was to assess safety, antibody response, and preliminary efficacy of a novel vaccine against IL-1β. The vaccine hIL1bQb consisting of full-length, recombinant IL-1β coupled to virus-like particles was tested in a preclinical and clinical, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study in patients with type 2 diabetes. The preclinical simian study showed prompt induction of IL-1β-specific antibodies upon vaccination, while neutralizing antibodies appeared with delay. In the clinical study with 48 type 2 diabetic patients, neutralizing IL-1β-specific antibody responses were detectable after six injections with doses of 900 µg. The development of neutralizing antibodies was associated with higher number of study drug injections, lower baseline body mass index, improvement of glycemia, and C-reactive protein (CRP). The vaccine hIL1bQb was safe and well-tolerated with no differences regarding adverse events between patients receiving hIL1bQb compared to placebo. This is the first description of a vaccine against IL-1β and represents a new treatment option for IL-1β-dependent diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00924105).Molecular Therapy (2016); doi:10.1038/mt.2015.227.

First-in-Human Proof-of-Concept Study: Intralesional Administration of BQ788, an Endothelin Receptor B Antagonist, to Melanoma Skin Metastases

BACKGROUND This first-in-human proof-of-concept study aimed to check whether safety and preclinical results obtained by intratumoral administration of BQ788, an endothelin receptor B (EDNRB) antagonist, can be repeated in human melanoma patients. METHODS Three patients received a single intralesional BQ788 application of 3 mg. After 3-7 days, the lesions were measured and removed for analysis. The administered dose was increased to a cumulative dosage of 8 mg in patient 4 (4 × 2.0 mg, days 0-3; lesion removed on day 4) and to 10 mg in patient 5 (3 × 3.3 mg, days 0, 3, and 10; lesion removed after 14 days). Control lesions were simultaneously treated with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). All samples were processed and analyzed without knowledge of the clinical findings. RESULTS No statistical evaluation was possible because of the number of patients (n = 5) and the variability in the mode of administration. No adverse events were observed, regardless of administered dose. All observations were in accordance with results obtained in preclinical studies. Accordingly, no difference in degree of tumor necrosis was detected between BQ788- and PBS-treated samples. In addition, both EDNRB and Ki67 showed decreased expression in patients 2 and 5 and, to a lesser extent, in patient 1. Similarly, decreased expression of EDNRB mRNA in patients 2 and 5 and of BCL2A1 and/or PARP3 in patients 2, 3, and 5 was found. Importantly, semiquantitatively scored immunohistochemistry for CD31 and CD3 revealed more blood vessels and lymphocytes, respectively, in BQ788-treated tumors of patients 2 and 4. Also, in all patients, we observed inverse correlation in expression levels between EDNRB and HIF1A. Finally, in patient 5 (the only patient treated for longer than 1 week), we observed inhibition in lesion growth, as shown by size measurement. CONCLUSION The intralesional applications of BQ788 were well tolerated and showed signs of directly and indirectly reducing the viability of melanoma cells.

The effect of 8 or 5 years of denosumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the FREEDOM Extension study

UNLABELLED The FREEDOM study and its Extension provide long-term information about the effects of denosumab for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Treatment for up to 8 years was associated with persistent reduction of bone turnover, continued increases in bone mineral density, low fracture incidence, and a favorable benefit/risk profile. INTRODUCTION This study aims to report the results through year 5 of the FREEDOM Extension study, representing up to 8 years of continued denosumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS Women who completed the 3-year FREEDOM study were eligible to enter the 7-year open-label FREEDOM Extension in which all participants are scheduled to receive denosumab, since placebo assignment was discontinued for ethical reasons. A total of 4550 women enrolled in the Extension (2343 long-term; 2207 cross-over). In this analysis, women in the long-term and cross-over groups received denosumab for up to 8 and 5 years, respectively. RESULTS Throughout the Extension, sustained reduction of bone turnover markers (BTMs) was observed in both groups. In the long-term group, mean bone mineral density (BMD) continued to increase significantly at each time point measured, for cumulative 8-year gains of 18.4 and 8.3 % at the lumbar spine and total hip, respectively. In the cross-over group, mean BMD increased significantly from the Extension baseline for 5-year cumulative gains of 13.1 and 6.2 % at the lumbar spine and total hip, respectively. The yearly incidence of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures remained low in both groups. The incidence of adverse and serious adverse events did not increase over time. Through Extension year 5, eight events of osteonecrosis of the jaw and two events of atypical femoral fracture were confirmed. CONCLUSIONS Denosumab treatment for up to 8 years was associated with persistent reductions of BTMs, continued BMD gains, low fracture incidence, and a consistent safety profile.

Efficacy, Acceptability, and Tolerability of Antipsychotics in Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: A Network Meta-analysis.

Importance In treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is considered the standard treatment. However, clozapine use has restrictions owing to its many adverse effects. Moreover, an increasing number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of other antipsychotics have been published. Objective To integrate all the randomized evidence from the available antipsychotics used for treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Trial Registry, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to June 30, 2014. Study Selection At least 2 independent reviewers selected published and unpublished single- and double-blind RCTs in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (any study-defined criterion) that compared any antipsychotic (at any dose and in any form of administration) with another antipsychotic or placebo. Data Extraction and Synthesis At least 2 independent reviewers extracted all data into standard forms and assessed the quality of all included trials with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects model in a Bayesian setting. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was efficacy as measured by overall change in symptoms of schizophrenia. Secondary outcomes included change in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, categorical response to treatment, dropouts for any reason and for inefficacy of treatment, and important adverse events. Results Forty blinded RCTs with 5172 unique participants (71.5% men; mean [SD] age, 38.8 [3.7] years) were included in the analysis. Few significant differences were found in all outcomes. In the primary outcome (reported as standardized mean difference; 95% credible interval), olanzapine was more effective than quetiapine (-0.29; -0.56 to -0.02), haloperidol (-0. 29; -0.44 to -0.13), and sertindole (-0.46; -0.80 to -0.06); clozapine was more effective than haloperidol (-0.22; -0.38 to -0.07) and sertindole (-0.40; -0.74 to -0.04); and risperidone was more effective than sertindole (-0.32; -0.63 to -0.01). A pattern of superiority for olanzapine, clozapine, and risperidone was seen in other efficacy outcomes, but results were not consistent and effect sizes were usually small. In addition, relatively few RCTs were available for antipsychotics other than clozapine, haloperidol, olanzapine, and risperidone. The most surprising finding was that clozapine was not significantly better than most other drugs. Conclusions and Relevance Insufficient evidence exists on which antipsychotic is more efficacious for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and blinded RCTs-in contrast to unblinded, randomized effectiveness studies-provide little evidence of the superiority of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics. Future clozapine studies with high doses and patients with extremely treatment-refractory schizophrenia might be most promising to change the current evidence.