The randomized HD2000 trial compared six cycles of ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine), four escalated plus two standard cycles of BEACOPP (bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, ...cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone), and six cycles of COPP-EBV-CAD (cyclophosphamide, lomustine, vindesine, melphalan, prednisone, epidoxorubicin, vincristine, procarbazine, vinblastine, and bleomycin; CEC) in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. After a median follow-up of 42 months, patients who received BEACOPP were reported to have experienced better progression-free survival (PFS) but not better overall survival (OS) results than those receiving ABVD. We here report a post hoc analysis of this trial after a median follow-up of 10 years.
Three hundred seven patients were enrolled, 295 of whom were evaluable. At the time of our analysis, the median follow-up for the entire group was 120 months (range, 4 to 169 months).
The 10-year PFS results for the ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC arms were 69%, 75%, and 76%, respectively; corresponding OS results were 85%, 84%, and 86%. Overall, 13 second malignancies were reported: one in the ABVD arm and six each in the BEACOPP and CEC arms. The cumulative risk of developing second malignancies at 10 years was 0.9%, 6.6%, and 6% with ABVD, BEACOPP, and CEC, respectively; the risk with either BEACOPP or CEC was significantly higher than that reported with ABVD (P = .027 and .02, respectively).
With these mature results, we confirm that patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma have similar OS results when treated with ABVD, BEACOPP, or CEC. However, with longer follow-up, we were not able to confirm the superiority of BEACOPP over ABVD in terms of PFS, mainly because of higher mortality rates resulting from second malignancies observed after treatment with BEACOPP and CEC.
Background and Aims
Multiple direct‐acting antiviral (DAA) regimens are available to treat HCV genotype 1 infection. However, comparative effectiveness from randomized controlled trials of DAA ...regimens is unavailable.
Approach and Results
We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (NCT02786537) to compare the effectiveness of DAAs for HCV genotype 1a or 1b on viral response, safety, tolerability, and medication nonadherence. Adults with compensated liver disease, HCV genotype 1, not pregnant or breastfeeding, and with health insurance likely to cover ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) were recruited from 34 US viral hepatitis clinics. Participants were randomized (± ribavirin) to LDV/SOF, elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR), and paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir+dasabuvir (PrOD; treatment arm stopped early). Primary outcomes included sustained viral response at 12 weeks (SVR12), clinician‐recorded adverse events, patient‐reported symptoms, and medication nonadherence. Between June 2016 and March 2018, 1,609 participants were randomized. Among 1,128 participants who received ≥1 dose of EBR/GZR or LDV/SOF (± ribavirin), SVR12 was 95.2% (95% CI, 92.8%‐97.6%) and 97.4% (95% CI, 95.5%‐99.2%), respectively, with a difference estimate of 2.2% (−0.5% to 4.7%), falling within the “equivalence” interval (−5% to 5%). While most (56%) participants experienced adverse events, few were serious (4.2%) or severe (1.8%). In the absence of ribavirin, discontinuations due to adverse events were rare. Patient‐reported symptoms and medication nonadherence were similar. Study limitations were dropout due to insurance denial and loss to follow‐up after treatment, limiting the ability to measure SVR12.
Conclusions
This pragmatic trial demonstrated high SVR12 for participants treated with EBR/GZR and LDV/SOF with few adverse effects. Overall, the two regimens were equivalent in effectiveness. The results support current HCV guidelines that do not distinguish between ribavirin‐free EBR/GZR and LDV/SOF.
Following on from the success of the editors' previous book, New Public Management: The Transformation of Ideas and Practice, which examined the public reform process up to the end of the last ...decade, this new volume draws on the previous knowledge both theoretically and empirically. It examines and debates the post-new public management reform development in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. The ideal follow-up to the previous volume, this book includes many of the same contributors in addition to some fresh voices, and is a must for anyone looking for an integrated framework of analysis. Comprehensive and analytical, it is an important contribution to the study of public administration and particularly to the reform of public management.
Tom Christensen is from the University of Oslo and Per Lægreid is from the University of Bergen, both in Norway.
Contents: Preface; Introduction - theoretical approach and research questions, Tom Christensen and Per Lægreid; Still fragmented government or reassertion of the centre?, Tom Christensen, Amund Lie and Per Lægreid; Reform design and performance in Australia and New Zealand, John Halligan; Types of state organisations: arguments, doctrines and changes beyond new public management, Paul G. Roness; Convergence and standardization in telecommunications regulation: trajectories of change and reform in the Asian Pacific regulatory state, Martin Painter; Organizing immigration - a comparison of New Zealand and Norway , Tom Christensen, Per Lægreid and Richard Norman; Central banking reform across the world: only by night are all cats grey, Martin Marcussen; Quests for transparency: signs of a new institutional era in the health care field, Maria Blomgren and Kirstin Sahlin-Andersson; Public-private partnerships: a comparative perspective on Victoria and Denmark, Carsten Greve and Graeme Hodge; (The difficult art of) outsourcing welfare services: experiences from Sweden and New Zealand, Anders Forssell and Lars Norén; New public management and the ghost of Max Weber: exorcised or still haunting?, Robert Gregory; Bibliography; Index.
Background
Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. ...Opioid (morphine‐like) drugs are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. The most commonly‐used opioid drugs are buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and tapentadol.
Objectives
To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy of opioids in cancer pain, and to report on adverse events associated with their use.
Methods
We identified systematic reviews examining any opioid for cancer pain published to 4 May 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were no or mild pain within 14 days of starting treatment, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.
Main results
We included nine reviews with 152 included studies and 13,524 participants, but because some studies appeared in more than one review the number of unique studies and participants was smaller than this. Most participants had moderate or severe pain associated with a range of different types of cancer. Studies in the reviews typically compared one type of opioid or formulation with either a different formulation of the same opioid, or a different opioid; few included a placebo control. Typically the reviews titrated dose to effect, a balance between pain relief and adverse events. Various routes of administration of opioids were considered in the reviews; oral with most opioids, but transdermal administration with fentanyl, and buprenorphine. No review included studies of subcutaneous opioid administration. Pain outcomes reported were varied and inconsistent. The average size of included studies varied considerably between reviews: studies of older opioids, such as codeine, morphine, and methadone, had low average study sizes while those involving newer drugs tended to have larger study sizes.
Six reviews reported a GRADE assessment (buprenorphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and tramadol), but not necessarily for all comparisons or outcomes. No comparative analyses were possible because there was no consistent placebo or active control. Cohort outcomes for opioids are therefore reported, as absolute numbers or percentages, or both.
Reviews on buprenorphine, codeine with or without paracetamol, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol with or without paracetamol, tapentadol, and oxycodone did not have information about the primary outcome of mild or no pain at 14 days, although that on oxycodone indicated that average pain scores were within that range. Two reviews, on oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl, reported that 96% of 850 participants achieved that goal.
Adverse event withdrawal was reported by five reviews, at rates of between 6% and 19%. Participants with at least one adverse event were reported by three reviews, at rates of between 11% and 77%.
Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because many studies in the reviews were at high risk of bias from several sources, including small study size.
Authors' conclusions
The amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence we have indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days. This accords with the clinical experience in treating many people with cancer pain, but overstates to some extent the effectiveness found for the WHO pain ladder. Most people will experience adverse events, and help may be needed to manage the more common undesirable adverse effects such as constipation and nausea. Perhaps between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 people treated with opioids will find these adverse events intolerable, leading to a change in treatment.
Abstract Objective Combination therapy, specifically with aspirin, cholesterol and blood pressure-lowering drugs, substantially reduces the risk of coronary heart disease, but the full preventive ...effect is only realized if treatment continues indefinitely. Our objective was to provide a summary estimate of adherence to drugs that prevent coronary heart disease, according to drug class and use in people who have had a myocardial infarction (secondary prevention) and people who have not (primary prevention). Methods A meta-analysis of data on 376,162 patients from 20 studies assessing adherence using prescription refill frequency for the following 7 drug classes was performed: aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, thiazides, and statins. Meta-regression was used to examine the effects of age, payment, and treatment duration. Results The summary estimate for adherence across all studies was 57% (95% confidence interval CI, 50-64) after a median of 24 months. There were statistically significant differences in adherence between primary and secondary prevention: 50% (CI, 45-56) and 66% (CI, 56-75), respectively ( P =. 012). Adherence was lower for thiazides (42%) than for angiotensin receptor blockers (61%) in primary prevention ( P =. 02). There were no other statistically significant differences between any of the drug classes in primary or secondary prevention studies. Adherence decreased by 0.15% points/month ( P = .07) and was unrelated to age or whether patients paid for their pills. Conclusion Adherence to preventive treatment is poor and little related to class of drug, suggesting that side effects are not the main cause. General, rather than class-specific, measures at improving adherence are needed.
Abstract Background Intranasal (IN) medication delivery is a viable alternative to other routes of administration, including intravenous (IV) and intramuscular (IM) administration. The IN route ...bypasses the risk of needle-stick injuries and alleviates the emotional trauma that may arise from the insertion of an IV catheter. Objective This review aims to evaluate published literature on medications administered via the IN route that are applicable to practice in emergency medicine. Discussion The nasal mucosa is highly vascularized, and the olfactory tissues provide a direct conduit to the central nervous system, bypass first-pass metabolism, and lead to an onset of action similar to IV drug administration. This route of administration has also been shown to decrease delays in drug administration, which can have a profound impact in a variety of emergent scenarios, such as seizures, acutely agitated or combative patients, and trauma management. IN administration of midazolam, lorazepam, flumazenil, dexmedetomidine, ketamine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, butorphanol, naloxone, insulin, and haloperidol has been shown to be a safe, effective alternative to IM or IV administration. As the use of IN medications becomes a more common route of administration in the emergency department setting, and in prehospital and outpatient settings, it is increasingly important for providers to become more familiar with the nuances of this novel route of medication delivery. Conclusions IN administration of the reviewed medications has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to IM or IV administration. Use of IN is becoming more commonplace in the emergency department setting and in prehospital settings.
Combined-modality treatment consisting of chemotherapy and consolidation radiotherapy is standard of care for patients with early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma. However, the use of radiotherapy ...can have long-term sequelae, which is of particular concern, as Hodgkin lymphoma is frequently diagnosed in young adults with a median age of approximately 30 years. In the German Hodgkin Study Group HD17 trial, we investigated whether radiotherapy can be omitted without loss of efficacy in patients who have a complete metabolic response after receiving two cycles of escalated doses of etoposide, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin, and regular doses of bleomycin, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (eBEACOPP) plus two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD) chemotherapy (2 + 2).
In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, patients (aged 18–60 years) with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma (all histologies) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less were enrolled at 224 hospitals and private practices in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either standard combined-modality treatment, consisting of the 2 + 2 regimen (eBEACOPP consisted of 1250 mg/m2 intravenous cyclophosphamide on day 1, 35 mg/m2 intravenous doxorubicin on day 1, 200 mg/m2 intravenous etoposide on days 1–3, 100 mg/m2 oral procarbazine on days 1–7, 40 mg/m2 oral prednisone on days 1–14, 1·4 mg/m2 intravenous vincristine on day 8 maximum dose of 2 mg per cycle, and 10 mg/m2 intravenous bleomycin on day 8; ABVD consisted of 25 mg/m2 intravenous doxorubicin, 10 mg/m2 intravenous bleomycin, 6 mg/m2 intravenous vinblastine, and 375 mg/m2 intravenous dacarbazine, all given on days 1 and 15) followed by 30 Gy involved-field radiotherapy (standard combined-modality treatment group) or PET4-guided treatment, consisting of the 2 + 2 regimen followed by 30 Gy of involved-node radiotherapy only in patients with positive PET at the end of four cycles of chemotherapy (PET4; PET4-guided treatment group). Randomisation was done centrally and used the minimisation method and seven stratification factors (centre, age, sex, clinical symptoms, disease localisation, albumin concentration, and bulky disease), and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until central review of the PET4 examination had been completed. With the final analysis presented here, the primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the PET4-guided strategy in a per-protocol analysis of the primary endpoint of progression-free survival. We defined non-inferiority as an absolute difference of 8% in the 5-year progression-free survival estimates between the two groups. Safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01356680.
Between Jan 13, 2012, and March 21, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 1100 patients to the standard combined-modality treatment group (n=548) or to the PET4-guided treatment group (n=552); two patients in each group were found ineligible after randomisation. At a median follow-up of 46·2 months (IQR 32·7–61·2), 5-year progression-free survival was 97·3% (95% CI 94·5–98·7) in the standard combined-modality treatment group and 95·1% (92·0–97·0) in the PET4-guided treatment group (hazard ratio 0·523 95% CI 0·226–1·211). The between-group difference was 2·2% (95% CI −0·9 to 5·3) and excluded the non-inferiority margin of 8%. The most common grade 3 or 4 acute haematological adverse events were leucopenia (436 83% of 528 patients in the standard combined-modality treatment group vs 443 84% of 529 patients in the PET4-guided treatment group) and thrombocytopenia (139 26% vs 176 33%), and the most frequent acute non-haematological toxic effects were infection (32 6% vs 40 8%) and nausea or vomiting (38 7% vs 29 6%). The most common acute radiotherapy-associated adverse events were dysphagia (26 6% in the standard combined-modality treatment group vs three 2% in the PET4-guided treatment group) and mucositis (nine 2% vs none). 229 serious adverse events were reported by 161 (29%) of 546 patients in the combined-modality treatment group, and 235 serious adverse events were reported by 164 (30%) of 550 patients in the PET4-guided treatment group. One suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction (infection) leading to death was reported in the PET4-guided treatment group.
PET4-negativity after treatment with 2 + 2 chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed early-stage unfavourable Hodgkin lymphoma allows omission of consolidation radiotherapy without a clinically relevant loss of efficacy. PET4-guided therapy could thereby reduce the proportion of patients at risk of the late effects of radiotherapy.
Deutsche Krebshilfe.
The prognosis of young patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma at high risk (age-adjusted International Prognostic Index aa-IPI score 2 or 3) treated with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, ...vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone) is poor. The aim of this study was to investigate the possible benefit of intensification with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation as part of first-line treatment in these patients.
We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design to compare, at two different R-CHOP dose levels, a full course of rituximab-dose-dense chemotherapy (no transplantation group) versus an abbreviated course of rituximab-dose-dense chemotherapy followed by consolidation with R-MAD (rituximab plus high-dose cytarabine plus mitoxantrone plus dexamethasone) and high-dose BEAM chemotherapy (carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan) plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (transplantation group) in young patients (18–65 years) with untreated high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (aa-IPI score 2–3). At enrolment, patients were stratified according to aa-IPI score and randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive R-CHOP (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, and vincristine 1·4 mg/m2 on day 1, plus oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1–5) delivered in a 14-day cycle (R-CHOP-14) for eight cycles; high-dose R-CHOP-14 (R-MegaCHOP-14; R-CHOP-14 except for cyclophosphamide 1200 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 70 mg/m2) for six cycles; R-CHOP-14 for four cycles followed by R-MAD (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1 or 4 plus intravenous cytarabine 2000 mg/m2 and dexamethasone 4 mg/m2 every 12 h on days 1–3 plus intravenous mitoxantrone 8 mg/m2 on days 1–3) plus BEAM (intravenous carmustine 300 mg/m2 on day −7, intravenous cytarabine 200 mg/m2 twice a day on days −6 to −3, intravenous etoposide 100 mg/m2 twice a day on days −6 to −3, plus intravenous melphalan 140 mg/m2 on day −2) and autologous stem-cell transplantation (day 0); or R-MegaCHOP-14 for four cycles followed by R-MAD plus BEAM and autologous stem-cell transplantation. The primary endpoint was failure-free survival at 2 years in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with EudraCT (2005-002181-14; 2007-000275-42) and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00499018.
Between Jan 10, 2006, and Sept 8, 2010, 399 patients were randomly assigned to receive transplantation (n=199) or no transplantation (n=200); 203 patients were assigned to receive R-CHOP-14 and 196 were assigned to receive R-MegaCHOP-14. With a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 57–88), 2-year failure-free survival was 71% (95% CI 64–77) in the transplantation group versus 62% (95% CI 55–68) in the no transplantation group (hazard ratio HR 0·65 95% CI 0·47–0·91; stratified log-rank test p=0·012). No difference in 5-year overall survival was observed between these groups (78% 95% CI 71–83 versus 77% 71–83; HR 0·98 0·65–1·48; stratified log-rank test p=0·91). Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were reported in 183 (92%) of 199 patients in the transplantation group versus 135 (68%) of 200 patients in the no transplantation group. Grade 3 or worse non-haematological adverse events were reported in 90 (45%) versus 31 (16%); the most common grade 3 or worse non-haematological adverse event was gastrointestinal (49 25% vs 19 10%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 13 (3%) patients; eight in the transplantation group and five in the no transplantation group.
Abbreviated rituximab-dose-dense chemotherapy plus R-MAD plus BEAM and autologous stem-cell transplantation reduced the risk of treatment failure compared with full course rituximab-dose-dense chemotherapy in young patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma at high risk. However, these results might not be clinically meaningful, since this improvement did not reflect an improvement in overall survival. These results do not support further consideration of the use of intensification of R-CHOP as an upfront strategy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with poor prognosis.
Fondazione Italiana Linfomi.
The frequency of COPD exacerbations during treatment with a triple inhaler — delivering a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled glucocorticoid — ...was compared with that with a LABA–LAMA or LABA–inhaled glucocorticoid.
PDF
