Objective
This study was undertaken to evaluate functional and safety outcomes for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) versus medical management (MM) in patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) and ...mild neurological deficits, stratified by perfusion imaging mismatch.
Methods
The pooled cohort consisted of patients with National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) < 6 and internal carotid artery (ICA), M1, or M2 occlusions from the Extending the Time for Thrombolysis in Emergecy Neurological Deficits ‐ Intra‐Arterial (EXTEND‐IA) Trial, Tenecteplase vs Alteplase before Endovascular Thrombectomy in Ischemic Stroke (EXTEND‐IA TNK) trials Part I/II and prospective data from 15 EVT centers from October 2010 to April 2020. RAPID software estimated ischemic core and mismatch. Patients receiving primary EVT (EVTpri) were compared to those who received primary MM (MMpri), including those who deteriorated and received rescue EVT, in overall and propensity score (PS)‐matched cohorts. Patients were stratified by target mismatch (mismatch ratio ≥ 1.8 and mismatch volume ≥ 15ml). Primary outcome was functional independence (90‐day modified Rankin Scale = 0–2). Secondary outcomes included safety (symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage sICH, neurological worsening, and mortality).
Results
Of 540 patients, 286 (53%) received EVTpri and demonstrated larger critically hypoperfused tissue (Tmax > 6 seconds) volumes (median IQR: 64 26–96 ml vs MMpri: 40 14–76 ml, p < 0.001) and higher presentation NIHSS (median IQR: 4 2–5 vs MMpri: 3 2–4, p < 0.001). Functional independence was similar (EVTpri: 77.4% vs MMpri: 75.6%, adjusted odds ratio aOR = 1.29, 95% confidence interval CI = 0.82–2.03, p = 0.27). EVT had worse safety regarding sICH (EVTpri: 16.3% vs MMpri: 1.3%, p < 0.001) and neurological worsening (EVTpri: 19.6% vs MMpri: 6.7%, p < 0.001). In 414 subjects (76.7%) with target mismatch, EVT was associated with improved functional independence (EVTpri: 77.4% vs MMpri: 72.7%, aOR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.01–2.81, p = 0.048), whereas there was a trend toward less favorable outcomes with primary EVT (EVTpri: 77.4% vs MMpri: 83.3%, aOR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.12–1.34, p = 0.13) without target mismatch (pinteraction = 0.06). Similar findings were observed in a propensity score‐matched subpopulation.
Interpretation
Overall, EVT was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in mild strokes due to LVO, and sICH was increased. However, in patients with target mismatch profile, EVT was associated with increased functional independence. Perfusion imaging may be helpful to select mild stroke patients for EVT. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:364–378
Venetoclax + hypomethylating agent (Ven‐HMA) is currently the standard frontline therapy for older/unfit patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (ND‐AML). Our objective in the current ...retrospective study of 301 adult patients (median age 73 years; 62% de novo) with ND‐AML was to identify molecular predictors of treatment response to Ven‐HMA and survival; European LeukemiaNet (ELN) genetic risk assignment was favorable 15%, intermediate 16%, and adverse 69%. Complete remission, with (CR) or without (CRi), count recovery, was documented in 182 (60%) patients. In multivariable analysis, inclusive of mutations only, “favorable” predictors of CR/CRi were NPM1 (86% vs. 56%), IDH2 (80% vs. 58%), and DDX41 (100% vs. 58%) and “unfavorable” TP53 (40% vs. 67%), FLT3‐ITD (36% vs. 63%), and RUNX1 (44% vs. 64%) mutations; significance was sustained for each mutation after adjustment for age, karyotype, and therapy‐related qualification. CR/CRi rates ranged from 36%, in the presence of unfavorable and absence of favorable mutation, to 91%, in the presence of favorable and absence of unfavorable mutation. At median follow‐up of 8.5 months, 174 deaths and 41 allogeneic stem cell transplants (ASCT) were recorded. In multivariable analysis, risk factors for inferior survival included failure to achieve CR/CRi (HR 3.4, 95% CI 2.5–4.8), adverse karyotype (1.6, 1.1–2.6), TP53 mutation (1.6, 1.0–2.4), and absence of IDH2 mutation (2.2, 1.0–4.7); these risk factors were subsequently applied to construct an HR‐weighted risk model that performed better than the ELN genetic risk model (AIC 1661 vs. 1750): low (n = 130; median survival 28.9 months), intermediate (n = 105; median 9.6 months), and high (n = 66; median 3.1 months; p < .001); survival in each risk category was significantly upgraded by ASCT. The current study identifies genotype signatures for predicting response and proposes a 3‐tiered, CR/CRi‐based, and genetics‐enhanced survival model for AML patients receiving upfront therapy with Ven‐HMA.
Overall survival of 301 patients with acute myeloid leukemia receiving frontline venetoclax and hypomethylating agent, (a) stratified by low, intermediate and high risk, and (b) substratified by transplant.
Overall survival and response rates of 270 patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia receiving venetoclax (Ven) plus hypomethylating agent, stratified by Ven dosing schedule (Cycle 1 Ven ...14 vs. 21 vs. 28 days).
Retinal vein occlusion is the second most common retinal vascular disease. Bevacizumab was demonstrated in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2) to be noninferior ...to aflibercept with respect to visual acuity in study participants with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) following 6 months of therapy. In this study, the cost-utility of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of CRVO is evaluated.
To investigate the relative cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab vs aflibercept for treatment of macular edema associated with CRVO or HRVO.
This economic evaluation study used a microsimulation cohort of patients with clinical and demographic characteristics similar to those of SCORE2 participants and a Markov process. Parameters were estimated and validated using a split-sample approach of the SCORE2 population. The simulated cohort included 5000 patients who were evaluated 100 times, each with a different set of characteristics randomly selected based on the SCORE2 trial. SCORE2 data were collected from September 2014 October 2019, and data were analyzed from October 2019 to July 2021.
Bevacizumab (followed by aflibercept among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to bevacizumab at month 6) vs aflibercept (followed by a dexamethasone implant among patients with a protocol-defined poor or marginal response to aflibercept at month 6).
Incremental cost-utility ratio.
The simulation demonstrated that patients treated with aflibercept will have an expected cost $18 127 greater than those treated with bevacizumab in the year following initiation. When coupled with the lack of clinical superiority over bevacizumab (ie, patients treated with bevacizumab had a gain over aflibercept in visual acuity letter score of 4 in the treated eye and 2 in the fellow eye), these results demonstrate that first-line treatment with bevacizumab dominated aflibercept in the simulated cohort of SCORE2 participants. At current price levels, aflibercept would be considered the preferred cost-effective option only if treatment restored the patient to nearly perfect health.
While there will be some patients with CRVO-associated or HRVO-associated macular edema who will benefit from first-line treatment with aflibercept rather than bevacizumab, given the minimal differences in visual acuity outcomes and large cost differences for bevacizumab vs aflibercept, first-line treatment with bevacizumab is cost-effective for this condition.
Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections are used to treat a variety of posterior segment conditions, including some associated with glaucoma, such as macular edema ...due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO). Therefore, information regarding intraocular pressure (IOP)-related events associated with anti-VEGF therapies is important to help balance the risks and benefits over the course of therapy.
To investigate IOP-related events among participants in the Study of Comparative Treatments for Retinal Vein Occlusion 2 (SCORE2).
Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial that included 312 participants with macular edema secondary to CRVO or hemiretinal vein occlusion (HRVO) who were not taking IOP-lowering medications at baseline. First randomization occurred on September 14, 2014, and contained data through data freeze on April 1, 2020. Analysis took place from April 2020 through December 2020.
Study participants were initially randomized to 6 monthly intravitreal injections of aflibercept or bevacizumab. At month 6, protocol-defined good responders were rerandomized to continued monthly or treat-and-extend dosing of their originally assigned study drug, and protocol-defined poor or marginal responders were switched to alternative treatment. After month 12, participants were treated as per investigator discretion.
Three different outcomes: (1) IOP elevation more than 10 mm Hg from baseline, (2) IOP to a level higher than 35 mm Hg, and (3) IOP-lowering incisional or laser surgery.
Of the 312 participants meeting inclusion criteria (138 44.2% were female; mean SD age, 67.8 12.1 years), 25 (8.0%) had IOP elevation more than 10 mm Hg over baseline through month 60, and 5 (1.6%) had IOP higher than 35 mm Hg. The 60-month Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence of IOP elevation more than 10 mm Hg over baseline was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.08-0.19), and the 60-month Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence of IOP higher than 35 mm Hg was 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.06), and did not differ among participants initially randomly assigned to receive aflibercept or bevacizumab. Three participants (1.0%) underwent IOP-lowering incisional surgery, and 3 participants (1.0%) underwent IOP-lowering glaucoma laser surgery.
Intravitreal anti-VEGF injections are used to treat some conditions associated with glaucoma, such as macular edema due to CRVO, and the rates of IOP-related events in this trial support monitoring IOP in eyes treated with anti-VEGF therapy for macular edema associated with CRVO or HRVO for up to 60 months.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01969708.
PDF
