BackgroundAlmost all patients with malignant mesothelioma eventually have disease progression after first-line therapy. Previous studies have investigated maintenance therapy, but none has shown a... Show moreBackgroundAlmost all patients with malignant mesothelioma eventually have disease progression after first-line therapy. Previous studies have investigated maintenance therapy, but none has shown a great effect. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of switch-maintenance gemcitabine in patients with malignant mesothelioma without disease progression after first-line chemotherapy.MethodsWe did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands (NVALT19). We recruited patients aged older than 18 years with unresectable malignant mesothelioma with no evidence of disease progression after at least four cycles of first-line chemotherapy (with platinum and pemetrexed), who had a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function, and measurable or evaluable disease. Exclusion criteria were active uncontrolled infection or severe cardiac dysfunction, serious disabling conditions, symptomatic CNS metastases, radiotherapy within 2 weeks before enrolment, and concomitant use of any other drugs under investigation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using the minimisation method, to maintenance intravenous gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, in cycles of 21 days) plus supportive care, or to best supportive care alone, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, serious intercurrent illness, patient request for discontinuation, or need for any other anticancer agent, except for palliative radiotherapy. A CT scan of the thorax or abdomen (or both) and pulmonary function tests were done at baseline and repeated every 6 weeks. The primary outcome was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all participants who received one or more doses of the study drug or had at least one visit for supportive care. Recruitment is now closed; treatment and follow-up are ongoing. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR4132/NL3847.FindingsBetween March 20, 2014, and Feb 27, 2019, 130 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to gemcitabine plus supportive care (65 patients [50%]) or supportive care alone (65 patients [50%]). No patients were lost to follow-up; median follow-up was 36·5 months (95% CI 34·2 to not reached), and one patient in the supportive care group withdrew consent. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the gemcitabine group (median 6·2 months [95% CI 4·6-8·7]) than in the supportive care group (3·2 months [2·8-4·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·48 [95% CI 0·33-0·71]; p=0·0002). The benefit was confirmed by masked independent central review (HR 0·49 [0·33-0·72]; p=0·0002). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 33 (52%) of 64 patients in the gemcitabine group and in ten (16%) of 62 patients in the supportive care group. The most frequent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, fatigue or asthenia, pain, and infection in the gemcitabine group, and pain, infection, and cough or dyspnoea in the supportive care group. One patient (2%) in the gemcitabine group died, due to a treatment-related infection.InterpretationSwitch-maintenance gemcitabine, after first-line chemotherapy, significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with malignant mesothelioma. This study confirms the activity of gemcitabine in treating malignant mesothelioma.FundingDutch Cancer Society (Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds voor de Nederlandse Kankerbestrijding) and Stichting NVALT studies. Show less
Background Lurbinectedin is a synthetic marine-derived anticancer agent that acts as a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Lurbinectedin monotherapy (3middot2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks)... Show moreBackground Lurbinectedin is a synthetic marine-derived anticancer agent that acts as a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Lurbinectedin monotherapy (3middot2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of efficacy in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who relapsed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The ATLANTIS trial assessed the efficacy and safety of combination lurbinectedin and the anthracycline doxorubicin as second-line treatment for SCLC.Methods In this phase 3, open-label, randomised study, adult patients aged 18 years or older with SCLC who relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy were recruited from 135 hospitals across North America, South America, Europe, and the Middle East. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by dynamic allocation to intravenous lurbinectedin 2middot0 mg/m2 plus doxorubicin 40middot0 mg/m2 administered on day 1 of 21-day cycles or physician's choice of control therapy (intravenous topotecan 1middot5 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of 21-day cycles; or intravenous cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2 , doxorubicin 45middot0 mg/m2 , and vincristine 2middot0 mg on day 1 of 21-day cycles [CAV]) administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in both treatment groups. Neither patients nor clinicians were masked to treatment allocation, but the independent review committee, which assessed outcomes, was masked to patients' treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02566993, and with EudraCT, 2015-001641-89, and is complete.Findings Between Aug 30, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 613 patients were randomly assigned to lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin (n=307) or control (topotecan, n=127; CAV, n=179) and comprised the intention-to-treat population; safety endpoints were assessed in patients who had received any partial or complete study treatment infusions (lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin, n=303; control, n=289). After a median follow-up of 24middot1 months (95% CI 21middot7-26middot3), 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 289 patients in the control group had discontinued study treatment; progressive disease was the most common reason for discontinuation (213 [70%] patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 152 [53%] in the control group). Median overall survival was 8middot6 months (95% CI 7middot1-9middot4) in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group versus 7middot6 months (6middot6-8middot2) in the control group (stratified log-rank p=0middot90; hazard ratio 0middot97 [95% CI 0middot82-1middot15], p=0middot70). 12 patients died because of treatment-related adverse events: two (<1%) of 303 in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and ten (3%) of 289 in the control group. 296 (98%) of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group had treatment-emergent adverse events compared with 284 (98%) of 289 patients in the control group; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 268 (88%) patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 266 (92%) patients in the control group.Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were less frequent in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than the control group (anaemia, 57 [19%] of 302 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 110 [38%] of 288 in the control group; neutropenia, 112 [37%] vs 200 [69%]; thrombocytopenia, 42 [14%] vs 90 [31%]). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was lower in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than in the control group (26 [9%] of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 47 [16%] of 289 in the control group).Interpretation Combination therapy with lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin did not improve overall survival versus control in patients with relapsed SCLC. However, lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin showed a favourable haematological safety profile compared with control. Show less
Health consequences that persist beyond the acute infection phase of COVID-19, termed post-COVID-19 condition (also commonly known as long COVID), vary widely and represent a growing global health... Show moreHealth consequences that persist beyond the acute infection phase of COVID-19, termed post-COVID-19 condition (also commonly known as long COVID), vary widely and represent a growing global health challenge. Research on post-COVID-19 condition is expanding but, at present, no agreement exists on the health outcomes that should be measured in people living with the condition. To address this gap, we conducted an international consensus study, which included a comprehensive literature review and classification of outcomes for post-COVID-19 condition that informed a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by an online consensus meeting to finalise the core outcome set (COS). 1535 participants from 71 countries were involved, with 1148 individuals participating in both Delphi rounds. Eleven outcomes achieved consensus for inclusion in the final COS: fatigue; pain; post-exertion symptoms; work or occupational and study changes; survival; and functioning, symptoms, and conditions for each of cardiovascular, respiratory, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes. Recovery was included a priori because it was a relevant outcome that was part of a previously published COS on COVID-19. The next step in this COS development exercise will be to establish the instruments that are most appropriate to measure these core outcomes. This international consensus-based COS should provide a framework for standardised assessment of adults with post-COVID-19 condition, aimed at facilitating clinical care and research worldwide. Show less
Background The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase... Show moreBackground The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor imatinib reverses pulmonary capillary leak.Methods This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was done at 13 academic and non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitalised patients (aged >= 18 years) with COVID-19, as confirmed by an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain a peripheral oxygen saturation of greater than 94% were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had severe pre-existing pulmonary disease, had pre-existing heart failure, had undergone active treatment of a haematological or non-haematological malignancy in the previous 12 months, had cytopenia, or were receiving concomitant treatment with medication known to strongly interact with imatinib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral imatinib, given as a loading dose of 800 mg on day 0 followed by 400 mg daily on days 1-9, or placebo. Randomisation was done with a computer-based clinical data management platform with variable block sizes (containing two, four, or six patients), stratified by study site. The primary outcome was time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours, while being alive during a 28-day period. Secondary outcomes included safety, mortality at 28 days, and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in all randomised patients who had received at least one dose of study medication (modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2020-001236-10).Findings Between March 31, 2020, and Jan 4, 2021, 805 patients were screened, of whom 400 were eligible and randomly assigned to the imatinib group (n=204) or the placebo group (n=196). A total of 385 (96%) patients (median age 64 years [IQR 56-73]) received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 h was not significantly different between the two groups (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.95 [95% CI 0.76-1.20]). At day 28, 15 (8%) of 197 patients had died in the imatinib group compared with 27 (14%) of 188 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR 0.51 [0.27-0.95]). After adjusting for baseline imbalances between the two groups (sex, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) the HR for mortality was 0.52 (95% CI 0.26-1.05). The HR for mechanical ventilation in the imatinib group compared with the placebo group was 1.07 (0.63-1.80; p=0.81). The median duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was 7 days (IQR 3-13) in the imatinib group compared with 12 days (6-20) in the placebo group (p=0.0080). 91 (46%) of 197 patients in the imatinib group and 82 (44%) of 188 patients in the placebo group had at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. The safety evaluation revealed no imatinib-associated adverse events.Interpretation The study failed to meet its primary outcome, as imatinib did not reduce the time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours in patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. The observed effects on survival (although attenuated after adjustment for baseline imbalances) and duration of mechanical ventilation suggest that imatinib might confer clinical benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but further studies are required to validate these findings. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Background Pulmonary embolism (PE)-related mortality is decreasing in Europe. However, time trends in the USA and Canada remain uncertain because the most recent analyses of PE-related mortality... Show moreBackground Pulmonary embolism (PE)-related mortality is decreasing in Europe. However, time trends in the USA and Canada remain uncertain because the most recent analyses of PE-related mortality were published in the early 2000s.Methods For this retrospective epidemiological study, we accessed medically certified vital registration data from the WHO Mortality Database (USA and Canada, 2000-17) and the Multiple Cause of Death database produced by the Division of Vital Statistics of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; US, 2000-18). We investigated contemporary time trends in PE-related mortality in the USA and Canada and the prevalence of conditions contributing to PE-related mortality reported on the death certificates. We also estimated PE-related mortality by age group and sex. A subgroup analysis by race was performed for the USA.Findings In the USA, the age-standardised annual mortality rate (PE as the underlying cause) decreased from 6.0 deaths per 100 000 population (95% CI 5.9-6.1) in 2000 to 4.4 deaths per 100 000 population (4.3-4.5) in 2006. Thereafter, it continued to decrease to 4.1 deaths per 100 000 population (4.0-4.2) in women in 2017 and plateaued at 4.5 deaths per 100 000 population (4.4-4.7) in men in 2017. Among adults aged 25-64 years, it increased after 2006. The median age at death from PE decreased from 73 years to 68 years (2000-18). The prevalence of cancer, respiratory diseases, and infections as a contributing cause of PE-related death increased in all age categories from 2000 to 2018. The annual age-standardised PE-related mortality was consistently higher by up to 50% in Black individuals than in White individuals; these rates were approximately 50% higher in White individuals than in those of other races. In Canada, the annual age-standardised mortality rate from PE as the underlying cause of death decreased from 4.7 deaths per 100 000 population (4.4-5.0) in 2000 to 2.6 deaths per 100 000 population (2.4-2.8) in 2017; this decline slowed after 2006 across age groups and sexes.Interpretation After 2006, the initially decreasing PE-related mortality rates in North America progressively reached a plateau in Canada, while a rebound increase was observed among young and middle-aged adults in the USA. These findings parallel recent upward trends in mortality from other cardiovascular diseases and might reflect increasing inequalities in the exposure to risk factors and access to health care. Show less
Findings Overall, 148 patients were included in the pooled analysis, 76 of whom had been assigned pembrolizumab and 72 who had been assigned pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy. Median follow-up for... Show moreFindings Overall, 148 patients were included in the pooled analysis, 76 of whom had been assigned pembrolizumab and 72 who had been assigned pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy. Median follow-up for all patients was 33 months (IQR 32?4?33?6). 124 (84%) of 148 patients had non-squamous histological features and 111 (75%) had previously received chemotherapy. Baseline variables did not differ between treatment groups, including PD-L1 status and metastatic disease volume. The most frequently irradiated sites were lung metastases (28 of 72 [39%]), intrathoracic lymph nodes (15 of 72 [21%]), and lung primary disease (12 of 72 [17%]). Best ARR was 19?7% (15 of 76) with pembrolizumab versus 41?7% (30 of 72) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 2?96, 95% CI 1?42?6?20; p=0?0039), and best ACR was 43?4% (33 of 76) with pembrolizumab versus 65?3% (47 of 72) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (2?51, 1?28?4?91; p=0?0071). Median progression-free survival was 4?4 months (IQR 2?9?5?9) with pembrolizumab alone versus 9?0 months (6?8?11?2) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0?67, 95% CI 0?45?0?99; p=0?045), and median overall survival was 8?7 months (6?4?11?0) with pembrolizumab versus 19?2 months (14?6?23?8) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (0?67, 0?54?0?84; p=0?0004).Methods Inclusion criteria for the PEMBRO-RT and MDACC trials were patients (aged ?18 years) with metastatic nonsmall-cell lung cancer and at least one unirradiated lesion to monitor for out-of-field response. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, patients had previously received chemotherapy, whereas in the MDACC trial, patients could be either previously treated or newly diagnosed. Patients in both trials were immunotherapy-naive. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) and stratified by smoking status (<10 vs ?10 pack-years). In the MDACC trial, patients were entered into one of two cohorts based on radiotherapy schedule feasibility and randomly assigned (1:1). Because of the nature of the intervention in the combination treatment arm, blinding to radiotherapy was not feasible in either trial. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously (200 mg every 3 weeks) with or without radiotherapy in both trials. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, the first dose of pembrolizumab was given sequentially less than 1 week after the last dose of radiotherapy (24 Gy in three fractions), whereas in the MDACC trial, pembrolizumab was given concurrently with the first dose of radiotherapy (50 Gy in four fractions or 45 Gy in 15 fractions). Only unirradiated lesions were measured for response. The endpoints for this pooled analysis were best out-of-field (abscopal) response rate (ARR), best abscopal disease control rate (ACR), ARR at 12 weeks, ACR at 12 weeks, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The intention-to-treat populations from both trials were included in analyses. The PEMBRO-RT trial (NCT02492568) and the MDACC trial (NCT02444741) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.Summary Background Radiotherapy might augment systemic antitumoral responses to immunotherapy. In the PEMBRO-RT (phase 2) and MDACC (phase 1/2 ) trials, patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly allocated immunotherapy (pembrolizumab) with or without radiotherapy. When the trials were analysed individually, a potential benefit was noted in the combination treatment arm. However, owing to the small sample size of each trial, differences in response rates and outcomes were not statistically significant but remained clinically notable. We therefore did a pooled analysis to infer whether radiotherapy improves responses to immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods Inclusion criteria for the PEMBRO-RT and MDACC trials were patients (aged ?18 years) with metastatic non small-cell lung cancer and at least one unirradiated lesion to monitor for out-of-field response. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, patients had previously received chemotherapy, whereas in the MDACC trial, patients could be either previously treated or newly diagnosed. Patients in both trials were immunotherapy-naive. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) and stratified by smoking status (<10 vs ?10 pack-years). In the MDACC trial, patients were entered into one of two cohorts based on radiotherapy schedule feasibility and randomly assigned (1:1). Because of the nature of the intervention in the combination treatment arm, blinding to radiotherapy was not feasible in either trial. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously (200 mg every 3 weeks) with or without radiotherapy in both trials. In the PEMBRO-RT trial, the first dose of pembrolizumab was given sequentially less than 1 week after the last dose of radiotherapy (24 Gy in three fractions), whereas in the MDACC trial, pembrolizumab was given concurrently with the first dose of radiotherapy (50 Gy in four fractions or 45 Gy in 15 fractions). Only unirradiated lesions were measured for response. The endpoints for this pooled analysis were best out-of-field (abscopal) response rate (ARR), best abscopal disease control rate (ACR), ARR at 12 weeks, ACR at 12 weeks, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The intention-to-treat populations from both trials were included in analyses. The PEMBRO-RT trial (NCT02492568) and the MDACC trial (NCT02444741) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Findings Overall, 148 patients were included in the pooled analysis, 76 of whom had been assigned pembrolizumab and 72 who had been assigned pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy. Median follow-up for all patients was 33 months (IQR 32?4?33?6). 124 (84%) of 148 patients had non-squamous histological features and 111 (75%) had previously received chemotherapy. Baseline variables did not differ between treatment groups, including PD-L1 status and metastatic disease volume. The most frequently irradiated sites were lung metastases (28 of 72 [39%]), intrathoracic lymph nodes (15 of 72 [21%]), and lung primary disease (12 of 72 [17%]). Best ARR was 19?7% (15 of 76) with pembrolizumab versus 41?7% (30 of 72) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 2?96, 95% CI 1?42?6?20; p=0?0039), and best ACR was 43?4% (33 of 76) with pembrolizumab versus 65?3% (47 of 72) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (2?51, 1?28?4?91; p=0?0071).Median progression-free survival was 4?4 months (IQR 2?9?5?9) with pembrolizumab alone versus 9?0 months (6?8?11?2) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0?67, 95% CI 0?45?0?99; p=0?045), and median overall survival was 8?7 months (6?4?11?0) with pembrolizumab versus 19?2 months (14?6?23?8) with pembrolizumab plus radiotherapy (0?67, 0?54?0?84; p=0?0004). No new safety concerns were noted in the pooled analysis. Interpretation Adding radiotherapy to pembrolizumab immunotherapy significantly increased responses and outcomes in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. These results warrant validation in a randomised phase 3 trial. Show less
BackgroundEuropean estimates of the burden imposed by pulmonary embolism are not available to this date. We aimed to assess pulmonary embolism-related mortality and time trends in the WHO European... Show moreBackgroundEuropean estimates of the burden imposed by pulmonary embolism are not available to this date. We aimed to assess pulmonary embolism-related mortality and time trends in the WHO European Region.MethodsWe analysed vital registration data from the WHO Mortality Database (2000–15) covering subregions of the WHO European Region: Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Western Europe, and Central Asia. Deaths were considered pulmonary embolism-related if International Classification of Disease-10 code for acute pulmonary embolism (I26) or any code for deep or superficial vein thrombosis was listed as the primary cause of death. We used locally estimated scatterplot smoothing weighted by size of the Member State population to calculate proportionate mortality and time trends in age-standardised mortality.FindingsIn the 3-year period between 2013 and 2015, an average of 38 929 pulmonary embolism-related deaths occurred annually in the 41 Member States with available data and a population of 650 950 921; among individuals aged 15–55 years, pulmonary embolism accounted for 8–13 per 1000 deaths in women and 2–7 per 1000 deaths in men. Between 2000 and 2015, age-standardised annual pulmonary embolism-related mortality rates decreased linearly from 12·8 (95% CI 11·4–14·2) to 6·5 (5·3–7·7) deaths per 100 000 population without substantial sex-specific differences.InterpretationThe observed decreasing trends in pulmonary embolism-related mortality might reflect improved management of the disease, in line with case fatality data from cohort studies. Additional, or alternative, explanations might include the absence of a uniform case definition and changes in coding practices and performing autopsy. Pulmonary embolism still imposes a relevant medical and societal burden. Continuing efforts are warranted to improve awareness and implement effective preventive and therapeutic measures. Show less
