CECOG experts' recommendations on the use of denosumab in the prevention of skeletal-related events in bone metastases of lung cancer

Purpose Skeletal-related events represent a substantial burden for patients with advanced cancer. Randomized, controlled studies suggested superiority of denosumab over zoledronic acid in the prevention of skeletal-related events in metastatic cancer patients, with a favorable safety profile. Experts gathered at the 2012 Skeletal Care Academy in Istanbul to bring forward practical recommendations, based on current evidence, for the use of denosumab in patients with bone metastases of lung cancer. Recommendations Based on current evidence, use of denosumab in lung cancer patients with confirmed bone metastases is recommended. It is important to note that clinical judgment should take into consideration the patient’s general performance status, overall prognosis, and live expectancy. Currently, the adverse event profile reported for denosumab includes hypocalcemia and infrequent occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw. Therefore, routine calcium and vitamin D supplementation, along with dental examination prior to denosumab initiation are recommended. There is no evidence for renal function impairment due to denosumab administration. At present, there is no rationale to discourage concomitant use of denosumab and surgery or radiotherapy.

Managing the risks of medical technology: Do hazard surveillance systems provide an early warning of medical device problems?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for risk assessment and risk management in the post-market surveillance of the U.S. medical device industry. One of the FDA regulatory mechanisms, the Medical Device Reporting System (MDR) is an adverse event reporting system intended to provide the FDA with advance warning of device problems. It includes voluntary reporting for individuals, and mandatory reporting for device manufacturers. ^ In a study of alleged breast implant safety problems, this research examines the organizational processes by which the FDA gathers data on adverse events and uses adverse event reporting systems to assess and manage risk. The research reviews the literature on problem recognition, risk perception, and organizational learning to understand the influence highly publicized events may have on adverse event reporting. Understanding the influence of an environmental factor, such as publicity, on adverse event reporting can provide insight into the question of whether the FDA's adverse event reporting system operates as an early warning system for medical device problems. ^ The research focuses on two main questions. The first question addresses the relationship between publicity and the voluntary and mandatory reporting of adverse events. The second question examines whether government agencies make use of these adverse event reports. ^ Using quantitative and qualitative methods, a longitudinal study was conducted of the number and content of adverse event reports regarding breast implants filed with the FDA's medical device reporting system during 1985–1991. To assess variation in publicity over time, the print media were analyzed to identify articles related to breast implant failures. ^ The exploratory findings suggest that an increase in media activity is related to an increase in voluntary reporting, especially following periods of intense media coverage of the FDA. However, a similar relationship was not found between media activity and manufacturers' mandatory adverse event reporting. A review of government committee and agency reports on the FDA published during 1976–1996 produced little evidence to suggest that publicity or MDR information contributed to problem recognition, agenda setting, or the formulation of policy recommendations. ^ The research findings suggest that the reporting of breast implant problems to FDA may reflect the perceptions and concerns of the reporting groups, a barometer of the volume and content of media attention. ^

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.

In the aftermath of medical error : Caring for patients, family, and the healthcare workers involved

Medical errors, in particular those resulting in harm, pose a serious situation for patients ("first victims") and the healthcare workers involved ("second victims") and can have long-lasting and distressing consequences. To prevent a second traumatization, appropriate and empathic interaction with all persons involved is essential besides error analysis. Patients share a nearly universal, broad preference for a complete disclosure of incidents, regardless of age, gender, or education. This includes the personal, timely and unambiguous disclosure of the adverse event, information relating to the event, its causes and consequences, and an apology and sincere expression of regret. While the majority of healthcare professionals generally support and honest and open disclosure of adverse events, they also face various barriers which impede the disclosure (e.g., fear of legal consequences). Despite its essential importance, disclosure of adverse events in practice occurs in ways that are rarely acceptable to patients and their families. The staff involved often experiences acute distress and an intense emotional response to the event, which may become chronic and increase the risk of depression, burnout and post-traumatic stress disorders. Communication with peers is vital for people to be able to cope constructively and protectively with harmful errors. Survey studies among healthcare workers show, however, that they often do not receive sufficient individual and institutional support. Healthcare organizations should prepare for medical errors and harmful events and implement a communication plan and a support system that covers the requirements and different needs of patients and the staff involved.

Eculizumab hepatotoxicity in pediatric aHUS.

BACKGROUND Eculizumab is a humanized anti-C5 antibody approved for the treatment of atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS). Its use is increasing in children following reports of its safety and efficacy. METHODS We reviewed biochemical and clinical data related to possible drug-induced liver injury in 11 children treated with eculizumab for aHUS in a single center. RESULTS Elevated aminotransferases were observed in 7 children aged 6 to 11 years following eculizumab treatment for aHUS. Internationally accepted liver enzyme thresholds for drug-induced liver injury were exceeded in 5 cases. In all cases, liver injury was classified as mixed hepatocellular and cholestatic. Infectious and other causes were excluded in each case. One patient with no pre-existing liver disease developed tender hepatomegaly and liver enzyme derangement exceeding 20 times the upper limit of normal following initiation of eculizumab. Recurrent liver injury following re-challenge with eculizumab necessitated its discontinuation and transition to plasma therapy. CONCLUSIONS Hepatotoxicity in association with eculizumab is a potentially important yet previously unreported adverse event. We recommend monitoring liver enzymes in all patients receiving eculizumab. Further research is required to clarify the impact of this adverse event, to characterize the mechanism of potential hepatotoxicity, and to identify which patients are most at risk.

Immunologic response to the survivin-derived multi-epitope vaccine EMD640744 in patients with advanced solid tumors

PURPOSE Survivin is a member of the inhibitor-of-apoptosis family. Essential for tumor cell survival and overexpressed in most cancers, survivin is a promising target for anti-cancer immunotherapy. Immunogenicity has been demonstrated in multiple cancers. Nonetheless, few clinical trials have demonstrated survivin-vaccine-induced immune responses. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN This phase I trial was conducted to test whether vaccine EMD640744, a cocktail of five HLA class I-binding survivin peptides in Montanide(®) ISA 51 VG, promotes anti-survivin T-cell responses in patients with solid cancers. The primary objective was to compare immunologic efficacy of EMD640744 at doses of 30, 100, and 300 μg. Secondary objectives included safety, tolerability, and clinical efficacy. RESULTS In total, 49 patients who received ≥2 EMD640744 injections with available baseline- and ≥1 post-vaccination samples [immunologic-diagnostic (ID)-intention-to-treat] were analyzed by ELISpot- and peptide/MHC-multimer staining, revealing vaccine-activated peptide-specific T-cell responses in 31 patients (63 %). This cohort included the per study protocol relevant ID population for the primary objective, i.e., T-cell responses by ELISpot in 17 weeks following first vaccination, as well as subjects who discontinued the study before week 17 but showed responses to the treatment. No dose-dependent effects were observed. In the majority of patients (61 %), anti-survivin responses were detected only after vaccination, providing evidence for de novo induction. Best overall tumor response was stable disease (28 %). EMD640744 was well tolerated; local injection-site reactions constituted the most frequent adverse event. CONCLUSIONS Vaccination with EMD640744 elicited T-cell responses against survivin peptides in the majority of patients, demonstrating the immunologic efficacy of EMD640744.

The effectiveness and safety of rescue treatments in 108 patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis with sequential rescue therapies in a subgroup of patients

BACKGROUND: Among patients with steroid-refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) in whom a first rescue therapy has failed, a second line salvage treatment can be considered to avoid colectomy. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of second or third line rescue therapy over a one-year period. METHODS: Response to single or sequential rescue treatments with infliximab (5mg/kg intravenously (iv) at week 0, 2, 6 and then every 8weeks), ciclosporin (iv 2mg/kg/daily and then oral 5mg/kg/daily) or tacrolimus (0.05mg/kg divided in 2 doses) in steroid-refractory moderate to severe UC patients from 7 Swiss and 1 Serbian tertiary IBD centers was retrospectively studied. The primary endpoint was the one year colectomy rate. RESULTS: 60% of patients responded to the first rescue therapy, 10% went to colectomy and 30% non-responders were switched to a 2(nd) line rescue treatment. 66% of patients responded to the 2(nd) line treatment whereas 34% failed, of which 15% went to colectomy and 19% received a 3(rd) line rescue treatment. Among those, 50% patients went to colectomy. Overall colectomy rate of the whole cohort was 18%. Steroid-free remission rate was 39%. The adverse event rates were 33%, 37.5% and 30% for the first, second and third line treatment respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data show that medical intervention even with 2(nd) and 3(rd) rescue treatments decreased colectomy frequency within one year of follow up. A longer follow-up will be necessary to investigate whether sequential therapy will only postpone colectomy and what percentage of patients will remain in long-term remission.

STARTVerso1: A randomized trial of faldaprevir plus pegylated interferon/ribavirin for chronic HCV genotype-1 infection.

BACKGROUND & AIMS The efficacy and tolerability of faldaprevir, a potent hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor, plus peginterferon and ribavirin was assessed in a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype-1 infection. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned (1:2:2) to peginterferon/ribavirin plus: placebo (arm 1, n=132) for 24 weeks; faldaprevir (120 mg, once daily) for 12 or 24 weeks (arm 2, n=259); or faldaprevir (240 mg, once daily) for 12 weeks (arm 3, n=261). In arms 2 and 3, patients with early treatment success (HCV RNA <25 IU/mL at week 4 and undetectable at week 8) stopped all treatment at week 24. Other patients received peginterferon/ribavirin until week 48 unless they met futility criteria. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12). RESULTS SVR12 was achieved by 52%, 79%, and 80% of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (estimated difference for arms 2 and 3 versus arm 1: 27%, 95% confidence interval 17%-36%; and 29%, 95% confidence interval, 19%-38%, respectively; P<.0001 for both). Early treatment success was achieved by 87% (arm 2) and 89% (arm 3) of patients, of whom 86% and 89% achieved SVR12. Adverse event rates were similar among groups; few adverse events led to discontinuation of all regimen components. CONCLUSIONS Faldaprevir plus peginterferon/ribavirin significantly increased SVR12, compared with peginterferon/ribavirin, in treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype-1 infection. There do not seem to be any differences in responses of patients given once-daily 120 or 240 mg faldaprevir.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of an Aerosolized Vaccine against Measles.

Background Aerosolized vaccine can be used as a needle-free method of immunization against measles, a disease that remains a major cause of illness and death. Data on the immunogenicity of aerosolized vaccine against measles in children are inconsistent. Methods We conducted an open-label noninferiority trial involving children 9.0 to 11.9 months of age in India who were eligible to receive a first dose of measles vaccine. Children were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of vaccine by means of either aerosol inhalation or a subcutaneous injection. The primary end points were seropositivity for antibodies against measles and adverse events 91 days after vaccination. The noninferiority margin was 5 percentage points. Results A total of 1001 children were assigned to receive aerosolized vaccine, and 1003 children were assigned to receive subcutaneous vaccine; 1956 of all the children (97.6%) were followed to day 91, but outcome data were missing for 331 children because of thawed specimens. In the per-protocol population, data on 1560 of 2004 children (77.8%) could be evaluated. At day 91, a total of 662 of 775 children (85.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 82.5 to 88.0) in the aerosol group, as compared with 743 of 785 children (94.6%; 95% CI, 92.7 to 96.1) in the subcutaneous group, were seropositive, a difference of -9.2 percentage points (95% CI, -12.2 to -6.3). Findings were similar in the full-analysis set (673 of 788 children in the aerosol group [85.4%] and 754 of 796 children in the subcutaneous group [94.7%] were seropositive at day 91, a difference of -9.3 percentage points [95% CI, -12.3 to -6.4]) and after multiple imputation of missing results. No serious adverse events were attributable to measles vaccination. Adverse-event profiles were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Aerosolized vaccine against measles was immunogenic, but, at the prespecified margin, the aerosolized vaccine was inferior to the subcutaneous vaccine with respect to the rate of seropositivity. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Measles Aerosol Vaccine Project Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2009/091/000673 .).

Iron uptake and ferrokinetics in healthy male subjects of an iron-based oral phosphate binder (SBR759) labeled with the stable isotope 58 Fe

SBR759 is a novel polynuclear iron(III) oxide–hydroxide starch·sucrose·carbonate complex being developed for oral use in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients with hyperphosphatemia on hemodialysis. SBR759 binds inorganic phosphate released by food uptake and digestion in the gastro-intestinal tract increasing the fecal excretion of phosphate with concomitant reduction of serum phosphate concentrations. Considering the high content of ∼20% w/w covalently bound iron in SBR759 and expected chronic administration to patients, absorption of small amounts of iron released from the drug substance could result in potential iron overload and toxicity. In a mechanistic iron uptake study, 12 healthy male subjects (receiving comparable low phosphorus-containing meal typical for CKD patients: ≤1000 mg phosphate per day) were treated with 12 g (divided in 3 × 4 g) of stable 58Fe isotope-labeled SBR759. The ferrokinetics of [58Fe]SBR759-related total iron was followed in blood (over 3 weeks) and in plasma (over 26 hours) by analyzing with high precision the isotope ratios of the natural iron isotopes 58Fe, 57Fe, 56Fe and 54Fe by multi-collector inductively coupled mass spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS). Three weeks following dosing, the subjects cumulatively absorbed on average 7.8 ± 3.2 mg (3.8–13.9 mg) iron corresponding to 0.30 ± 0.12% (0.15–0.54%) SBR759-related iron which amounts to approx. 5-fold the basal daily iron absorption of 1–2 mg in humans. SBR759 was well-tolerated and there was no serious adverse event and no clinically significant changes in the iron indices hemoglobin, hematocrit, ferritin concentration and transferrin saturation.

Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine expressing Ebola surface glycoprotein: interim results from the Guinea ring vaccination cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND A recombinant, replication-competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus (rVSV-ZEBOV) is a promising Ebola vaccine candidate. We report the results of an interim analysis of a trial of rVSV-ZEBOV in Guinea, west Africa. METHODS For this open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial, suspected cases of Ebola virus disease in Basse-Guinée (Guinea, west Africa) were independently ascertained by Ebola response teams as part of a national surveillance system. After laboratory confirmation of a new case, clusters of all contacts and contacts of contacts were defined and randomly allocated 1:1 to immediate vaccination or delayed (21 days later) vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV (one dose of 2 × 10(7) plaque-forming units, administered intramuscularly in the deltoid muscle). Adults (age ≥18 years) who were not pregnant or breastfeeding were eligible for vaccination. Block randomisation was used, with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 vs >20 individuals). The study is open label and masking of participants and field teams to the time of vaccination is not possible, but Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of allocation to immediate or delayed vaccination. Taking into account the incubation period of the virus of about 10 days, the prespecified primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus disease with onset of symptoms at least 10 days after randomisation. The primary analysis was per protocol and compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals in immediate vaccination clusters with the incidence in eligible individuals in delayed vaccination clusters. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193. FINDINGS Between April 1, 2015, and July 20, 2015, 90 clusters, with a total population of 7651 people were included in the planned interim analysis. 48 of these clusters (4123 people) were randomly assigned to immediate vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV, and 42 clusters (3528 people) were randomly assigned to delayed vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV. In the immediate vaccination group, there were no cases of Ebola virus disease with symptom onset at least 10 days after randomisation, whereas in the delayed vaccination group there were 16 cases of Ebola virus disease from seven clusters, showing a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI 74·7-100·0; p=0·0036). No new cases of Ebola virus disease were diagnosed in vaccinees from the immediate or delayed groups from 6 days post-vaccination. At the cluster level, with the inclusion of all eligible adults, vaccine effectiveness was 75·1% (95% CI -7·1 to 94·2; p=0·1791), and 76·3% (95% CI -15·5 to 95·1; p=0·3351) with the inclusion of everyone (eligible or not eligible for vaccination). 43 serious adverse events were reported; one serious adverse event was judged to be causally related to vaccination (a febrile episode in a vaccinated participant, which resolved without sequelae). Assessment of serious adverse events is ongoing. INTERPRETATION The results of this interim analysis indicate that rVSV-ZEBOV might be highly efficacious and safe in preventing Ebola virus disease, and is most likely effective at the population level when delivered during an Ebola virus disease outbreak via a ring vaccination strategy. FUNDING WHO, with support from the Wellcome Trust (UK); Médecins Sans Frontières; the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Research Council of Norway; and the Canadian Government through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre, and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

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.

Rituximab Maintenance for a Maximum of 5 Years After Single-Agent Rituximab Induction in Follicular Lymphoma: Results of the Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial SAKK 35/03.

PURPOSE Rituximab maintenance therapy has been shown to improve progression-free survival in patients with follicular lymphoma; however, the optimal duration of maintenance treatment remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred seventy patients with untreated, relapsed, stable, or chemotherapy-resistant follicular lymphoma were treated with four doses of rituximab monotherapy in weekly intervals (375 mg/m(2)). Patients achieving at least a partial response were randomly assigned to receive maintenance therapy with one infusion of rituximab every 2 months, either on a short-term schedule (four administrations) or a long-term schedule (maximum of 5 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). Progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and toxicity were secondary end points. Comparisons between the two arms were performed using the log-rank test for survival end points. RESULTS One hundred sixty-five patients were randomly assigned to the short-term (n = 82) or long-term (n = 83) maintenance arms. Because of the low event rate, the final analysis was performed after 95 events had occurred, which was before the targeted event number of 99 had been reached. At a median follow-up period of 6.4 years, the median EFS was 3.4 years (95% CI, 2.1 to 5.3) in the short-term arm and 5.3 years (95% CI, 3.5 to not available) in the long-term arm (P = .14). Patients in the long-term arm experienced more adverse effects than did those in the short-term arm, with 76% v 50% of patients with at least one adverse event (P < .001), five versus one patient with grade 3 and 4 infections, and three versus zero patients discontinuing treatment because of unacceptable toxicity, respectively. There was no difference in OS between the two groups. CONCLUSION Long-term rituximab maintenance therapy does not improve EFS, which was the primary end point of this trial, or OS, and was associated with increased toxicity.

Open-label study of faldaprevir plus peginterferon and ribavirin in hepatitis C virus genotype 1-infected patients who failed placebo plus peginterferon and ribavirin.

Faldaprevir, a hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor, was evaluated in HCV genotype 1-infected patients who failed peginterferon and ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) treatment during one of three prior faldaprevir trials. Patients who received placebo plus PegIFN/RBV and had virological failure during a prior trial were enrolled and treated in two cohorts: prior relapsers (n = 43) and prior nonresponders (null responders, partial responders and patients with breakthrough; n = 75). Both cohorts received faldaprevir 240 mg once daily plus PegIFN/RBV for 24 weeks. Prior relapsers with early treatment success (ETS; HCV RNA <25 IU/mL detectable or undetectable at week 4 and <25 IU/mL undetectable at week 8) stopped treatment at week 24. Others received PegIFN/RBV through week 48. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virological response (HCV RNA <25 IU/mL undetectable) 12 weeks post treatment (SVR12). More prior nonresponders than prior relapsers had baseline HCV RNA ≥800 000 IU/mL (80% vs 58%) and a non-CC IL28B genotype (91% vs 70%). Rates of SVR12 (95% CI) were 95.3% (89.1, 100.0) among prior relapsers and 54.7% (43.4, 65.9) among prior nonresponders; corresponding ETS rates were 97.7% and 65.3%. Adverse events led to faldaprevir discontinuations in 3% of patients. The most common Division of AIDS Grade ≥2 adverse events were anaemia (13%), nausea (10%) and hyperbilirubinaemia (9%). In conclusion, faldaprevir plus PegIFN/RBV achieved clinically meaningful SVR12 rates in patients who failed PegIFN/RBV in a prior trial, with response rates higher among prior relapsers than among prior nonresponders. The adverse event profile was consistent with the known safety profile of faldaprevir.

Ramucirumab versus placebo as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib (REACH): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND VEGF and VEGF receptor-2-mediated angiogenesis contribute to hepatocellular carcinoma pathogenesis. Ramucirumab is a recombinant IgG1 monoclonal antibody and VEGF receptor-2 antagonist. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ramucirumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib. METHODS In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial (REACH), patients were enrolled from 154 centres in 27 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had hepatocellular carcinoma with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease or stage B disease that was refractory or not amenable to locoregional therapy, had Child-Pugh A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had previously received sorafenib (stopped because of progression or intolerance), and had adequate haematological and biochemical parameters. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks, plus best supportive care, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Randomisation was stratified by geographic region and cause of liver disease with a stratified permuted block method. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01140347. FINDINGS Between Nov 4, 2010, and April 18, 2013, 565 patients were enrolled, of whom 283 were assigned to ramucirumab and 282 were assigned to placebo. Median overall survival for the ramucirumab group was 9·2 months (95% CI 8·0-10·6) versus 7·6 months (6·0-9·3) for the placebo group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·72-1·05]; p=0·14). Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring in 5% or more of patients in either treatment group were ascites (13 [5%] of 277 patients treated with ramucirumab vs 11 [4%] of 276 patients treated with placebo), hypertension (34 [12%] vs ten [4%]), asthenia (14 [5%] vs five [2%]), malignant neoplasm progression (18 [6%] vs 11 [4%]), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (15 [5%] vs 23 [8%]), thrombocytopenia (13 [5%] vs one [<1%]), hyperbilirubinaemia (three [1%] vs 13 [5%]), and increased blood bilirubin (five [2%] vs 14 [5%]). The most frequently reported (≥1%) treatment-emergent serious adverse event of any grade or grade 3 or more was malignant neoplasm progression. INTERPRETATION Second-line treatment with ramucirumab did not significantly improve survival over placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. No new safety signals were noted in eligible patients and the safety profile is manageable. FUNDING Eli Lilly and Co.