Trastuzumab-associated cardiac adverse effects in the herceptin adjuvant trial

PURPOSE: The purpose of this analysis was to investigate trastuzumab-associated cardiac adverse effects in breast cancer patients after completion of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Herceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial is a three-group, multicenter, open-label randomized trial that compared 1 or 2 years of trastuzumab given once every 3 weeks with observation in patients with HER-2-positive breast cancer. Only patients who after completion of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy had normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF > or = 55%) were eligible. A repeat LVEF assessment was performed in case of cardiac dysfunction. RESULTS: Data were available for 1,693 patients randomly assigned to 1 year trastuzumab and 1,693 patients randomly assigned to observation. The incidence of trastuzumab discontinuation due to cardiac disorders was low (4.3%). The incidence of cardiac end points was higher in the trastuzumab group compared with observation (severe congestive heart failure [CHF], 0.60% v 0.00%; symptomatic CHF, 2.15% v 0.12%; confirmed significant LVEF drops, 3.04% v 0.53%). Most patients with cardiac dysfunction recovered in fewer than 6 months. Patients with trastuzumab-associated cardiac dysfunction were treated with higher cumulative doses of doxorubicin (287 mg/m(2) v 257 mg/m(2)) or epirubicin (480 mg/m(2) v 422 mg/m(2)) and had a lower screening LVEF and a higher body mass index. CONCLUSION: Given the clear benefit in disease-free survival, the low incidence of cardiac adverse events, and the suggestion that cardiac dysfunction might be reversible, adjuvant trastuzumab should be considered for treatment of breast cancer patients who fulfill the HERA trial eligibility criteria.

Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: A novel stent platform eluting biolimus, a sirolimus analogue, from a biodegradable polymer showed promising results in preliminary studies. We compared the safety and efficacy of a biolimus-eluting stent (with biodegradable polymer) with a sirolimus-eluting stent (with durable polymer). METHODS: We undertook a multicentre, assessor-blind, non-inferiority study in ten European centres. 1707 patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were centrally randomised by a computer-generated allocation sequence to treatment with either biolimus-eluting (n=857) or sirolimus-eluting (n=850) stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation within 9 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. 427 patients were randomly allocated to angiographic follow-up, with in-stent percentage diameter stenosis as principal outcome measure at 9 months. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220. FINDINGS: We analysed all randomised patients. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for the primary endpoint at 9 months (79 [9%] patients vs 89 [11%], rate ratio 0.88 [95% CI 0.64-1.19], p for non-inferiority=0.003, p for superiority=0.39). Frequency of cardiac death (14 [1.6%] vs 21 [2.5%], p for superiority=0.22), myocardial infarction (49 [5.7%] vs 39 [4.6%], p=0.30), and clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (38 [4.4%] vs 47 [5.5%], p=0.29) were similar for both stent types. 168 (79%) patients in the biolimus-eluting group and 167 (78%) in the sirolimus-eluting group had data for angiographic follow-up available. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (20.9%vs 23.3%, difference -2.2% [95% CI -6.0 to 1.6], p for non-inferiority=0.001, p for superiority=0.26). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that a stent eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer represents a safe and effective alternative to a stent eluting sirolimus from a durable polymer in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes. FUNDING: Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.

Pain relief in ventilated preterms during endotracheal suctioning: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: In Switzerland approximately 8% of infants are born prematurely. Some of them undergo mechanical ventilation including endotracheal suctioning (ETS). ETS is one of the most frequently performed interventions and is linked to stress and pain, but its treatment is controversial. In Switzerland there is a lack of standardisation in pain relief for ETS. AIMS: To test the hypothesis that an intermittent dose of morphine reduces pain during ETS and that subsequent multisensorial stimulation (MSS), as a non pharmacological comforting intervention, helps infants to recover from experienced pain. METHOD: A randomized placebo controlled trial in two tertiary neonatal intensive care units (NICU) with a sample of 30 mechanically ventilated preterm infants was conducted. Pain was measured by three pain assessment tools (Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates, Premature Infant Pain Profile and Visual Analogue Scale) RESULTS: Morphine did not lead to any pain relief from ETS as measured by three pain scales. Nor did the comforting intervention of MSS show any effect. Repeated-measure analysis of variance for the within and between groups comparison showed no statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of morphine for pain relief in ventilated preterm neonates during ETS remains questionable and the use of MSS as a comforting intervention after painful stimulus cannot be recommended. The validity testing of the instruments for this patient population should undergo a systematic validation trajectory. Future research should focus on options among non pharmacological interventions for relieving pain during ETS.

Routine procedures in NICUs: factors influencing pain assessment and ranking by pain intensity

BACKGROUND: Pain associated with routine procedures in NICUs is often inadequately managed. Barriers to more appropriate pain management are nurses' and physicians' knowledge and the challenges of collaborative decision-making. Few studies describe the differing perceptions of procedural pain intensity among nurses and physicians in NICUs which could complicate common decision-making. This study set out to explore the factors influencing pain intensity assessment and to gain insight into a possible pain intensity classification of routine procedures in the NICU. METHOD: A survey was conducted among 431 neonatal health care professionals from 4 tertiary level NICUs. Each routine procedure was assessed on a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) assuming absence of analgesia. RESULTS: Multiple ANCOVA models showed that nurses rated 19 of the 27 procedures as significantly more painful than did physicians (p<0.05). We found no differences in pain assessment based on professional experience, gender or age. Of the 27 procedures listed, 70% were rated as painful and 44% were judged very painful. Ranking and classification of the pain intensity of routine procedures were drawn up. The general ranking of the median across all procedures shows that "insertion of a thoracic drain" is assessed as the most painful procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of routine procedures in an NICU are considered to be painful. Nurses generally rate procedures as more painful than do physicians. This difference in assessment deserves exploration in regard to its impact on collaborative decision-making in neonate pain management.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response.