Objectives To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.Methods Two phase 3,... Show moreObjectives To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.Methods Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (contRAst 1) or conventional synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARDs; contRAst 2). Patients received background csDMARDs. Through a testing hierarchy, subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly) was compared with placebo for week 12 endpoints (after which, patients receiving placebo switched to active interventions) or oral tofacitinib (5 mg two times per day) for week 24 endpoints. Primary endpoint: proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology response ≥20% (ACR20) at week 12.Results The intention-to-treat populations comprised 1537 (contRAst 1) and 1625 (contRAst 2) patients. Primary endpoint: proportions of ACR20 responders were statistically significantly greater with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg vs placebo in contRAst 1 (54.7% (p=0.0023) and 50.9% (p=0.0362) vs 41.7%) and contRAst 2 (54.9% (p<0.0001) and 54.5% (p<0.0001) vs 32.5%). Secondary endpoints: in both trials, compared with placebo, otilimab increased the proportion of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) responders (not significant for otilimab 150 mg in contRAst 1), and reduced Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Benefits with tofacitinib were consistently greater than with otilimab across multiple endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups.Conclusions Although otilimab demonstrated superiority to placebo in ACR20, CDAI LDA and HAQ-DI, improved symptoms, and had an acceptable safety profile, it was inferior to tofacitinib. Show less
Background In the INSPIRATION-S trial, atorvastatin versus placebo was associated with a nonsignificant 16% reduction in 30-day composite of venous/arterial thrombosis or death in intensive care... Show moreBackground In the INSPIRATION-S trial, atorvastatin versus placebo was associated with a nonsignificant 16% reduction in 30-day composite of venous/arterial thrombosis or death in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19. Thrombo-inflammatory response in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may last beyond the first 30 days.Methods This article reports the effects of atorvastatin 20 mg daily versus placebo on 90-day clinical and functional outcomes from INSPIRATION-S, a double-blind multicenter randomized trial of adult ICU patients with COVID-19. The main outcome for this prespecified study was a composite of adjudicated venous/arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause mortality. Functional status was assessed with the Post-COVID-19 Functional Scale.Results In the primary analysis, 587 patients were included (age: 57 [Q1–Q3: 45–68] years; 44% women). By 90-day follow-up, the main outcome occurred in 96 (33.1%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and 113 (38.0%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60–1.05, p = 0.11). Atorvastatin in patients who presented within 7 days of symptom onset was associated with reduced 90-day hazard for the main outcome (HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42–0.86, p interaction = 0.02). Atorvastatin use was associated with improved 90-day functional status, although the upper bound CI crossed 1.0 (ORordinal: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.41–1.01, p = 0.05).Conclusion Atorvastatin 20 mg compared with placebo did not significantly reduce the 90-day composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous/arterial thrombosis. However, the point estimates do not exclude a potential clinically meaningful treatment effect, especially among patients who presented within 7 days of symptom onset (NCT04486508). Show less
Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn, S. von; Gupta, A.; Pablos, L.; Schiller, N.O. 2023
BackgroundEpidural blood patch is commonly used for management of post-dural puncture headache after accidental dural puncture. The primary aim was to determine factors associated with failed... Show moreBackgroundEpidural blood patch is commonly used for management of post-dural puncture headache after accidental dural puncture. The primary aim was to determine factors associated with failed epidural blood patch.MethodsIn this prospective, multicentre, international cohort study, parturients ≥18 yr receiving an epidural blood patch for treatment of post-dural puncture headache were included. Failed epidural blood patch was defined as headache intensity numeric rating scale (NRS) score ≥7 in the upright position at 4, 24, or 48 h, or the need for a second epidural blood patch, and complete success by NRS=0 at 0–48 h after epidural blood patch. All others were considered partial success. Multinominal logistic regression was used for statistical analyses with P<0.01 considered statistically significant.ResultsIn all, 643 women received an epidural blood patch. Complete data to classify failure were available in 591 (91.9%) women. Failed epidural blood patch occurred in 167 (28.3%) patients; 195 (33.0%) were completely successful and 229 (38.7%) partially successful. A total of 126 women (19.8%) received a second epidural blood patch. A statistically significant association with failure was observed in patients with a history of migraine, when the accidental dural puncture occurred between lumbar levels L1/L3 compared with L3/L5 and when epidural blood patch was performed <48 h compared with ≥48 h after accidental dural puncture. In patients having radiological investigations, three intracranial bleeds were diagnosed.ConclusionsFailed epidural blood patch occurred in 28.3% of women. Independent modifiable factors associated with failure were higher lumbar level of accidental dural puncture and short interval between accidental dural puncture and epidural blood patch. A history of migraine was associated with a higher risk of second epidural blood patch. Show less
Background Among sarcomas, which are rare cancers, many types are exceedingly rare; however, a definition of ultra-rare cancers has not been established. The problem of ultra-rare sarcomas is... Show moreBackground Among sarcomas, which are rare cancers, many types are exceedingly rare; however, a definition of ultra-rare cancers has not been established. The problem of ultra-rare sarcomas is particularly relevant because they represent unique diseases, and their rarity poses major challenges for diagnosis, understanding disease biology, generating clinical evidence to support new drug development, and achieving formal authorization for novel therapies.Methods The Connective Tissue Oncology Society promoted a consensus effort in November 2019 to establish how to define ultra-rare sarcomas through expert consensus and epidemiologic data and to work out a comprehensive list of these diseases. The list of ultra-rare sarcomas was based on the 2020 World Health Organization classification, The incidence rates were estimated using the Information Network on Rare Cancers (RARECARENet) database and NETSARC (the French Sarcoma Network's clinical-pathologic registry). Incidence rates were further validated in collaboration with the Asian cancer registries of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.Results It was agreed that the best criterion for a definition of ultra-rare sarcomas would be incidence. Ultra-rare sarcomas were defined as those with an incidence of approximately <= 1 per 1,000,000, to include those entities whose rarity renders them extremely difficult to conduct well powered, prospective clinical studies. On the basis of this threshold, a list of ultra-rare sarcomas was defined, which comprised 56 soft tissue sarcoma types and 21 bone sarcoma types.conclusions Altogether, the incidence of ultra-rare sarcomas accounts for roughly 20% of all soft tissue and bone sarcomas. This confirms that the challenges inherent in ultra-rare sarcomas affect large numbers of patients. Show less
Topic: The Collaborative Ocular Tuberculosis Study (COTS), supported by the International Ocular Inflammation Society, International Uveitis Study Group, and Foster Ocular Immunological Society,... Show moreTopic: The Collaborative Ocular Tuberculosis Study (COTS), supported by the International Ocular Inflammation Society, International Uveitis Study Group, and Foster Ocular Immunological Society, set up an international, expert-led consensus project to develop evidence- and experience-based guidelines for the management of tubercular uveitis (TBU).Clinical Relevance: The absence of international agreement on the use of antitubercular therapy (ATT) in patients with TBU contributes to a significant heterogeneity in the approach to the management of this condition.Methods: Consensus statements for the initiation of ATT in TBU were generated using a 2-step modified Delphi technique. In Delphi step 1, a smart web-based survey based on background evidence from published literature was prepared to collect the opinion of 81 international experts on the use of ATT in different clinical scenarios. The survey included 324 questions related to tubercular anterior uveitis (TAU), tubercular intermediate uveitis (TIU), tubercular panuveitis (TPU), and tubercular retinal vasculitis (TRV) administered by the experts, after which the COTS group met in November 2019 for a systematic and critical discussion of the statements in accordance with the second round of the modified Delphi process.Results: Forty-four consensus statements on the initiation of ATT in TAU, TIU, TPU, and TRV were obtained, based on ocular phenotypes suggestive of TBU and corroborative evidence of tuberculosis, provided by several combinations of immunologic and radiologic test results. Experts agreed on initiating ATT in recurrent TAU, TIU, TPU, and active TRV depending on the TB endemicity. In the presence of positive results for any 1 of the immunologic tests along with radiologic features suggestive of past evidence of tuberculosis infection. In patients with a first episode of TAU, consensus to initiate ATT was reached only if both immunologic and radiologic test results were positive.Discussion: The COTS consensus guidelines were generated based on the evidence from published literature, specialists' opinions, and logic construction to address the initiation of ATT in TBU. The guidelines also should inform public policy by adding specific types of TBU to the list of conditions that should be treated as tuberculosis. (C) 2020 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology Show less
Horne, K.; De Rosa, G.; Peterson, B.M.; Barth, A.J.; Ely, J.; Fausnaugh, M.M.; ... ; Zu, Y. 2021
