Refine
Document Type
- Article (7)
Language
- English (7) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- prophylaxis (7) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (6)
Background: Using data from the COHERE collaboration, we investigated whether primary prophylaxis for pneumocystis pneumonia (PcP) might be withheld in all patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) with suppressed plasma human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA (≤400 copies/mL), irrespective of CD4 count.
Methods: We implemented an established causal inference approach whereby observational data are used to emulate a randomized trial. Patients taking PcP prophylaxis were eligible for the emulated trial if their CD4 count was ≤200 cells/µL in line with existing recommendations. We compared the following 2 strategies for stopping prophylaxis: (1) when CD4 count was >200 cells/µL for >3 months or (2) when the patient was virologically suppressed (2 consecutive HIV RNA ≤400 copies/mL). Patients were artificially censored if they did not comply with these stopping rules. We estimated the risk of primary PcP in patients on ART, using the hazard ratio (HR) to compare the stopping strategies by fitting a pooled logistic model, including inverse probability weights to adjust for the selection bias introduced by the artificial censoring.
Results: A total of 4813 patients (10 324 person-years) complied with eligibility conditions for the emulated trial. With primary PcP diagnosis as an endpoint, the adjusted HR (aHR) indicated a slightly lower, but not statistically significant, different risk for the strategy based on viral suppression alone compared with the existing guidelines (aHR, .8; 95% confidence interval, .6–1.1; P = .2).
Conclusions: This study suggests that primary PcP prophylaxis might be safely withheld in confirmed virologically suppressed patients on ART, regardless of their CD4 count.
Background: Berotralstat (BCX7353) is an oral, once-daily inhibitor of plasma kallikrein in development for the prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks.
Objective: Our aim was to determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of berotralstat in patients with HAE over a 24-week treatment period (the phase 3 APeX-2 trial).
Methods: APeX-2 was a double-blind, parallel-group study that randomized patients at 40 sites in 11 countries 1:1:1 to receive once-daily berotralstat in a dose of 110 mg or 150 mg or placebo (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03485911). Patients aged 12 years or older with HAE due to C1 inhibitor deficiency and at least 2 investigator-confirmed HAE attacks in the first 56 days of a prospective run-in period were eligible. The primary efficacy end point was the rate of investigator-confirmed HAE attacks during the 24-week treatment period.
Results: A total of 121 patients were randomized; 120 of them received at least 1 dose of the study drug (n = 41, 40, and 39 in the 110-mg dose of berotralstat, 150-mg of dose berotralstat, and placebo groups, respectively). Berotralstat demonstrated a significant reduction in attack rate at both 110 mg (1.65 attacks per month; P = .024) and 150 mg (1.31 attacks per month; P < .001) relative to placebo (2.35 attacks per month). The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred more with berotralstat than with placebo were abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and back pain. No drug-related serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred.
Conclusion: Both the 110-mg and 150-mg doses of berotralstat reduced HAE attack rates compared with placebo and were safe and generally well tolerated. The most favorable benefit-to-risk profile was observed at a dose of 150 mg per day.
BACKGROUND: Patients with hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency or dysfunction have burdensome recurrent angioedema attacks. The safety, efficacy, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes of C1 inhibitor (C1-INH) prophylaxis (intravenously administered) in patients aged 6-11 years were investigated.
METHODS: Eligible patients were enrolled in a randomized, single-blind, crossover, phase 3 trial. After a 12-week baseline observation period (BOP), patients received 500 or 1000 U C1-INH, twice weekly, for 12 weeks before crossing over to the alternate dose for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end-point was the monthly normalized number of angioedema attacks (NNA). HRQoL was assessed using the EuroQoL 5-dimensional descriptive system youth version and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS).
RESULTS: Twelve randomized patients had a median (range) age of 10.0 (7-11) years. Mean (SD) percentage reduction in monthly NNA from BOP was 71.1% (27.1%) with 500 U and 84.5% (20.0%) with 1000 U C1-INH. Mean (SD) within-patient difference (-0.4 [0.58]) for monthly NNA with both doses was significant (P = 0.035 [90% CI, -0.706 to -0.102]). Cumulative attack severity, cumulative daily severity, and number of acute attacks treated were reduced. No serious adverse events or discontinuations occurred. Mean EQ-VAS change from BOP to week 9 of treatment (500 U C1-INH, 10.4; 1000 U C1-INH, 21.6) was greater than the minimal important difference, indicating a meaningful HRQoL change.
CONCLUSIONS: C1-INH prophylaxis was effective, safe, and well tolerated in children aged 6-11 years experiencing recurrent angioedema attacks. A post hoc analysis indicated a meaningful improvement in HRQoL with C1-INH.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02052141.
Background: Effective inhibition of plasma kallikrein may have significant benefits for patients with hereditary angioedema due to deficiency of C1 inhibitor (C1‐INH‐HAE) by reducing the frequency of angioedema attacks. Avoralstat is a small molecule inhibitor of plasma kallikrein. This study (OPuS‐2) evaluated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic avoralstat 300 or 500 mg compared with placebo.
Methods: OPuS‐2 was a Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study. Subjects were administered avoralstat 300 mg, avoralstat 500 mg, or placebo orally 3 times per day for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the angioedema attack rate based on adjudicator‐confirmed attacks.
Results: A total of 110 subjects were randomized and dosed. The least squares (LS) mean attack rates per week were 0.589, 0.675, and 0.593 for subjects receiving avoralstat 500 mg, avoralstat 300 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall, 1 subject in each of the avoralstat groups and no subjects in the placebo group were attack‐free during the 84‐day treatment period. The LS mean duration of all confirmed attacks was 25.4, 29.4, and 31.4 hours for the avoralstat 500 mg, avoralstat 300 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Using the Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire (AE‐QoL), improved QoL was observed for the avoralstat 500 mg group compared with placebo. Avoralstat was generally safe and well tolerated.
Conclusions: Although this study did not demonstrate efficacy of avoralstat in preventing angioedema attacks in C1‐INH‐HAE, it provided evidence of shortened angioedema episodes and improved QoL in the avoralstat 500 mg treatment group compared with placebo.
Background: Prophylactic mesh-augmented reinforcement during closure of abdominal wall incisions has been proposed in patients with increased risk for development of incisional hernias (IHs). As part of the BioMesh consensus project, a systematic literature review has been performed to detect those studies where MAR was performed with a non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic).
Methods: A computerized search was performed within 12 databases (Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Scopus, Cochrane, CINAHL, Pubmed publisher, Lilacs, Scielo, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google Scholar) with appropriate search terms. Qualitative evaluation was performed using the MINORS score for cohort studies and the Jadad score for randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
Results: For midline laparotomy incisions and stoma reversal wounds, two RCTs, two case–control studies, and two case series were identified. The studies were very heterogeneous in terms of mesh configuration (cross linked versus non-cross linked), mesh position (intraperitoneal versus retro-muscular versus onlay), surgical indication (gastric bypass versus aortic aneurysm), outcome results (effective versus non-effective). After qualitative assessment, we have to conclude that the level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of biological meshes for prevention of IHs is very low. No comparative studies were found comparing biological mesh with synthetic non-absorbable meshes for the prevention of IHs.
Conclusion: There is no evidence supporting the use of non-permanent absorbable mesh (biological or biosynthetic) for prevention of IHs when closing a laparotomy in high-risk patients or in stoma reversal wounds. There is no evidence that a non-permanent absorbable mesh should be preferred to synthetic non-absorbable mesh, both in clean or clean-contaminated surgery.
Background: The evaluation of local mental health care remains difficult. For this reason systematic development of appropriate services is barely possible.
Methods: We examined involuntary hospitalization in the city of Frankfurt/Main with regard to diagnoses, socio-demographic data, complementary psychosocial outpatient care, and circumstances of hospitalization. There are four psychiatric clinics, each serving a catchment area of more than 165.000 inhabitants. These clinics are responsible for all psychiatric in-patient treatments regardless of the admission modus. During a one year period, 677 patients were involuntarily hospitalized. Statistical analyses were performed subsequent to pooling the data.
Results: During a period of one year, 103 out of 100.000 inhabitants of Frankfurt/Main were admitted involuntarily. The rate of involuntary admissions related to all admissions was 10.98 percent. Any complementary psychosocial care was missing in more than 70 percent of patients admitted involuntarily. Only about 10 percent of patients were examined by a physician before reaching the hospital and in disappointing 1.3 percent the municipal mental health service had been consulted prior to involuntarily admission.
Conclusion: Our results show that a systematic improvement of precautionary complementary psychosocial care for risk patients is needed as well as the obligation of psychiatric emergency consultation before involuntary hospitalization.