Background Randomised controlled trials are considered the gold standard for testing the efficacy of novel therapeutic interventions, and typically report the average treatment effect as a summary... Show moreBackground Randomised controlled trials are considered the gold standard for testing the efficacy of novel therapeutic interventions, and typically report the average treatment effect as a summary result. As the result of treatment can vary between patients, basing treatment decisions for individual patients on the overall average treatment effect could be suboptimal. We aimed to develop an individualised decision making tool to select an optimal revascularisation strategy in patients with complex coronary artery disease.Methods The SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study is an investigator-driven extension follow-up of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 85 hospitals across 18 North American and European countries between March, 2005, and April, 2007. Patients with de-novo three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) group or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) group. The SYNTAXES study ascertained 10-year all-cause deaths. We used Cox regression to develop a clinical prognostic index for predicting death over a 10-year period, which was combined, in a second stage, with assigned treatment (PCI or CABG) and two prespecified effect-modifiers, which were selected on the basis of previous evidence: disease type (three-vessel disease or left main coronary artery disease) and anatomical SYNTAX score. We used similar techniques to develop a model to predict the 5-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal stroke, or non-fatal myocardial infarction) in patients receiving PCI or CABG. We then assessed the ability of these models to predict the risk of death or a major adverse cardiovascular event, and their differences (ie, the estimated benefit of CABG versus PCI by calculating the absolute risk difference between the two strategies) by cross-validation with the SYNTAX trial (n=1800 participants) and external validation in the pooled population (n=3380 participants) of the FREEDOM, BEST, and PRECOMBAT trials. The concordance (C)-index was used to measure discriminative ability, and calibration plots were used to assess the degree of agreement between predictions and observations.Findings At cross-validation, the newly developed SYNTAX score II, termed SYNTAX score II 2020, showed a helpful discriminative ability in both treatment groups for predicting 10-year all-cause deaths (C-index=0.73 [95% CI 0.69-0.76] for PCI and 0.73 [0.69-0.76] for CABG) and 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events (C-index=0.65 [0.61-0.69] for PCI and C-index=0.71 [0.67-0.75] for CABG). At external validation, the SYNTAX score II 2020 showed helpful discrimination (C-index=0.67 [0.63-0.70] for PCI and C-index=0.62 [0.58-0.66] for CABG) and good calibration for predicting 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events. The estimated treatment benefit of CABG over PCI varied substantially among patients in the trial population, and the benefit predictions were well calibrated.Interpretation The SYNTAX score II 2020 for predicting 10-year deaths and 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events can help to identify individuals who will benefit from either CABG or PCI, thereby supporting heart teams, patients, and their families to select optimal revascularisation strategies. Copyright (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Gimbel, M.; Qaderdan, K.; Willemsen, L.; Hermanides, R.; Bergmeijer, T.; Vrey, E. de; ... ; Berg, J. ten 2020
Background Current guidelines recommend potent platelet inhibition with ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients after an acute coronary syndrome. However, data about optimal platelet inhibition in... Show moreBackground Current guidelines recommend potent platelet inhibition with ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients after an acute coronary syndrome. However, data about optimal platelet inhibition in older patients are scarce. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor or prasugrel in older patients with non-STelevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).Methods We did the open-label, randomised controlled POPular AGE trial in 12 sites (ten hospitals and two university hospitals) in the Netherlands. Patients aged 70 years or older with NSTE-ACS were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio using an internet-based randomisation procedure with block sizes of six to receive a loading dose of clopidogrel 300 mg or 600 mg, or ticagrelor 180 mg or prasugrel 60 mg, and then a maintenance dose for the duration of 12 months (clopidogrel 75 mg once daily, ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, or prasugrel 10 mg once daily) on top of standard care. Patient and treating physicians were aware of the allocated treatment strategy, but the outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Primary bleeding outcome consisted of PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO; major or minor bleeding [superiority hypothesis]). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome consisted of allcause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, PLATO major and minor bleeding (non-inferiority hypothesis, margin of 2%). Follow-up duration was 12 months. Analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NL3804), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02317198), and EudraCT (2013-001403-37).Findings Between June 10, 2013, and Oct 17, 2018, 1002 patients were randomly assigned to clopidogrel (n=500) or ticagrelor or prasugrel (n=502). Because 475 (95%) patients received ticagrelor in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group, we will refer to this group as the ticagrelor group. Premature discontinuation of the study drug occurred in 238 (47%) of 502 ticagrelor group patients randomly assigned to ticagrelor, and in 112 (22%) of 500 patients randomly assigned to clopidogrel. Primary bleeding outcome was significantly lower in the clopidogrel group (88 [18%] of 500 patients) than in the ticagrelor group (118 [24%] of 502; hazard ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94; p=0.02 for superiority). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome was non-inferior for the use of clopidogrel (139 [28%]) versus ticagrelor (161 [32%]; absolute risk difference -4%, 95% CI -10.0 to 1.4; p=0.03 for non-inferiority). The most important reasons for discontinuation were occurrence of bleeding (n=38), dyspnoea (n=40), and the need for treatment with oral anticoagulation (n=35).Interpretation In patients aged 70 years or older presenting with NSTE-ACS, clopidogrel is a favourable alternative to ticagrelor, because it leads to fewer bleeding events without an increase in the combined endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. Clopidogrel could be an alternative P2Y12 inhibitor especially for elderly patients with a higher bleeding risk. Show less
Deodhar, A.; Heijde, D. van der; Gensler, L.S.; Kim, T.H.; Maksymowych, W.P.; Ostergaard, M.; ... ; Coast-X Study Grp 2020
Background The JAK pathway is a potential therapeutic target in ankylosing spondylitis. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, in patients with... Show moreBackground The JAK pathway is a potential therapeutic target in ankylosing spondylitis. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.Methods This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period, parallel-group, phase 2/3 study, SELECT-AXIS 1, enrolled adults in 62 sites in 20 countries. Eligible patients had active ankylosing spondylitis, fulfilled modified New York criteria, were previously untreated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and had inadequate response to at least two or intolerance or contraindication to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 using interactive response technology to take oral upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or oral placebo for the 14-week period 1; only period 1 data are reported here. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome measure of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 response at week 14. Analyses were done in the full analysis set of patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03178487.Findings Between Nov 30, 2017, and Oct 15, 2018, 187 patients were randomly assigned to upadacitinib 15 mg (93 patients) or to placebo (94 patients), and 178 (95%) patients (89 in the upadacitinib group and 89 in the placebo group) completed period 1 on study drug (by the completion date of Jan 21, 2019). Significantly more patients had an Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society 40 response in the upadacitinib group versus in the placebo group at week 14 (48 [52%] of 93 patients vs 24 [26%] of 94 patients; p=0.0003; treatment difference 26% [95% CI 13-40]). Adverse events were reported in 58 (62%) of 93 patients in the upadacitinib group versus 52 (55%) of 94 in the placebo group. The most common adverse event in the upadacitinib group was increased creatine phosphokinase (eight [9%] of 93 patients in the upadacitinib group vs two [2%] of 94 patients with placebo). No serious infections, herpes zoster, malignancy, venous thromboembolic events, or deaths were reported; one serious adverse event was reported in each group.Interpretation Upadacitinib 15 mg was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis who had an inadequate response or contraindication to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. These data support the further investigation of upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Kroon, F.P.B.; Kortekaas, M.C.; Boonen, A.; Bohringer, S.; Reijnierse, M.; Rosendaal, F.R.; ... ; Kloppenburg, M. 2019
Background Hand osteoarthritis is a prevalent joint condition that has a high burden of disease and an unmet medical need for effective therapeutic options. Since local inflammation is recognised... Show moreBackground Hand osteoarthritis is a prevalent joint condition that has a high burden of disease and an unmet medical need for effective therapeutic options. Since local inflammation is recognised as contributing to osteoarthritic complaints, the Hand Osteoarthritis Prednisolone Efficacy (HOPE) study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of short-term prednisolone in patients with painful hand osteoarthritis and synovial inflammation.Methods The HOPE study is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. We recruited eligible adults from rheumatology outpatient clinics at two sites in the Netherlands. Patients were considered eligible if they had symptomatic hand osteoarthritis and signs of inflammation in their distal and proximal interphalangeal (DIP/PIP) joints. For inclusion, patients were required to have four or more DIP/PIP joints with osteoarthritic nodes; at least one DIP/PIP joint with soft swelling or erythema; at least one DIP/PIP joint with a positive power Doppler signal or synovial thickening of at least grade 2 on ultrasound; and finger pain of at least 30 mm on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) that flared up during a 48-h non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) washout (defined as worsening of finger pain by at least 20 mm on the VAS). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 10 mg prednisolone or placebo orally once daily for 6 weeks, followed by a 2-week tapering scheme, and a 6-week follow-up without study medication. The patients and study team were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was finger pain, assessed on a VAS, at 6 weeks in participants who had been randomly assigned to groups and attended the baseline visit. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, number NTR5263.Findings We screened patients for enrolment between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2018. Patients completed baseline visits and started treatment between Dec 14, 2015, and July 2, 2018, and the last study visit of the last patient was Oct 4, 2018. Of 149 patients assessed for eligibility, 57 (38%) patients were excluded (predominantly because they did not meet one or several inclusion criteria, most often because of an absence of synovial inflammation or of flare-ups after NSAID washout) and 92 (62%) patients were eligible for inclusion. We randomly assigned 46 (50%) patients to receive prednisolone and 46 (50%) patients to receive placebo, all of whom were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis of the primary endpoint. 42 (91%) patients in the prednisolone group and 42 (91%) in the placebo group completed the 14-week study. The mean change between baseline and week 6 on VAS-reported finger pain was -21.5 (SD 21.7) in the prednisolone group and -5.2 (24.3) in the placebo group, with a mean between-group difference (of prednisolone vs placebo) of -16.5 (95% CI -26.1 to -6.9; p=0.0007). The number of non-serious adverse events was similar between the groups. Five serious adverse events were reported during our study: one serious adverse event in the prednisolone group (a myocardial infarction) and four serious adverse events in the placebo group (an infected traumatic leg haematoma that required surgery, bowel surgery, atrial fibrillation that required a pacemaker implantation, and symptomatic uterine myomas that required a hysterectomy). Four (4%) patients discontinued the study because of an adverse event: one (2%) patient receiving prednisolone (for a myocardial infarction) and three (7%) patients receiving placebo (for surgery of the bowel and for an infected leg haematoma and for Lyme disease arthritis of the knee).Interpretation Treatment with 10 mg prednisolone for 6 weeks is efficacious and safe for the treatment of patients with painful hand osteoarthritis and signs of inflammation. The results of our study provide clinicians with a new short-term treatment option for patients with hand osteoarthritis who report a flare-up of their disease. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
The main goal of treatment for type 1 diabetes is to control glycaemia with insulin therapy to reduce disease complications. For some patients, technological approaches to insulin delivery are... Show moreThe main goal of treatment for type 1 diabetes is to control glycaemia with insulin therapy to reduce disease complications. For some patients, technological approaches to insulin delivery are inadequate, and allogeneic islet transplantation is a safe alternative for those patients who have had severe hypoglycaemia complicated by impaired hypoglycaemia awareness or glycaemic lability, or who already receive immunosuppressive drugs for a kidney transplant. Since 2000, intrahepatic islet transplantation has proven efficacious in alleviating the burden of labile diabetes and preventing complications related to diabetes, whether or not a previous kidney transplant is present. Age, body-mass index, renal status, and cardiopulmonary status affect the choice between pancreas or islet transplantation. Access to transplantation is limited by the number of deceased donors and the necessity of immunosuppression. Future approaches might include alternative sources of islets (eg, xenogeneic tissue or human stem cells), extrahepatic sites of implantation (eg, omental, subcutaneous, or intra-muscular), and induction of immune tolerance or encapsulation of islets. Show less
Ferrari, M.D.; Diener, H.C.; Ning, X.P.; Galic, M.; Cohen, J.M.; Yang, R.H.; ... ; Ashina, M. 2019
Background Tenosynovial giant cell tumour (TGCT), a rare, locally aggressive neoplasm, overexpresses colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1). Surgery is standard with no approved systemic therapy. We... Show moreBackground Tenosynovial giant cell tumour (TGCT), a rare, locally aggressive neoplasm, overexpresses colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1). Surgery is standard with no approved systemic therapy. We aimed to evaluate pexidartinib, a CSF1 receptor inhibitor, in patients with TGCT to provide them with a viable systemic treatment option, especially in cases that are not amenable to surgical resection.Methods This phase 3 randomised trial had two parts. Part one was a double-blind study in which patients with symptomatic, advanced TGCT for whom surgery was not recommended were randomly assigned via an integrated web response system (1:1) to the pexidartinib or placebo group. Individuals in the pexidartinib group received a loading dose of 1000 mg pexidartinib per day orally (400 mg morning; 600 mg evening) for the first 2 weeks, followed by 800 mg per day (400 mg twice a day) for 22 weeks. Part two was an open-label study of pexidartinib for all patients. The primary endpoint, assessed in all intention-to-treat patients, was overall response at week 25, and was centrally reviewed by RECIST, version 1.1. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02371369.Findings Between May 11, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, of 174 patients assessed for eligibility, 120 patients were randomly assigned to, and received, pexidartinib (n=61) or placebo (n=59). There were 11 dropouts in the placebo group and nine in the pexidartinib group. Emergence of mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity caused the data monitoring committee to stop enrolment six patients short of target. The proportion of patients who achieved overall response was higher for pexidartinib than placebo at week 25 by RECIST (24 [39%] of 61 vs none of 59; absolute difference 39% [95% CI 27-53]; p<0.0001). Serious adverse events occurred in eight (13%) of 61 patients in the pexidartinib group and one (2%) of 59 patients in the placebo group. Hair colour changes (67%), fatigue (54%), aspartate aminotransferase increase (39%), nausea (38%), alanine aminotransferase increase (28%), and dysgeusia (25%) were the most frequent pexidartinib-associated adverse events. Three patients given pexidartinib had aminotransferase elevations three or more times the upper limit of normal with total bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase two or more times the upper limit of normal indicative of mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity, one lasting 7 months and confirmed by biopsy.Interpretation Pexidartinib is the first systemic therapy to show a robust tumour response in TGCT with improved patient symptoms and functional outcomes; mixed or cholestatic hepatotoxicity is an identified risk. Pexidartinib could be considered as a potential treatment for TGCT associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations in cases not amenable to improvement with surgery. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Valk, M.J.M. van der; Hilling, D.E.; Beets, G.L. 2019
In heart failure, extensive evaluation with modern non-invasive imaging modalities is needed to assess causes, pathophysiology, and haemodynamics, to determine prognosis and consider therapeutic... Show moreIn heart failure, extensive evaluation with modern non-invasive imaging modalities is needed to assess causes, pathophysiology, and haemodynamics, to determine prognosis and consider therapeutic options. This systematic evaluation includes a stepwise assessment of left ventricular size and function, the presence and severity of coronary artery disease, mitral regurgitation, pulmonary hypertension, right ventricular dilation and dysfunction, and tricuspid regurgitation. Based on this imaging-derived information, the need for specific therapies besides optimised medical therapy can be determined. The need for revascularisation, implantation of an implantable cardiac defibrillator, and mitral or tricuspid valve repair or replacement, can be (partially) guided by non-invasive imaging. Importantly, randomised controlled trials on the use of non-inasive imaging to guide therapy are scarce in this field and most non-pharmacological therapies are based on expert-consensus, but whenever trials are available, they will be addressed in this paper. Show less
Background The introduction of HLA matching of donors and recipients was a breakthrough in kidney transplantation. However, half of all transplanted kidneys still fail within 15 years after... Show moreBackground The introduction of HLA matching of donors and recipients was a breakthrough in kidney transplantation. However, half of all transplanted kidneys still fail within 15 years after transplantation. Epidemiological data suggest a fundamental role of non-HLA alloimmunity.Methods We genotyped 477 pairs of deceased donors and first kidney transplant recipients with stable graft function at three months that were transplanted between Dec 1, 2005, and April 30, 2015. Genome-wide genetic mismatches in non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) were calculated to identify incompatibilities in transmembrane and secreted proteins. We estimated the association between nsSNP mismatch and graft loss in a Cox proportional hazard model, adjusting for HLA mismatch and clinical covariates. Customised peptide arrays were generated to screen for antibodies against genotype-derived mismatched epitopes in 25 patients with biopsy-confirmed chronic antibody-mediated rejection.Findings 59 268 nsSNPs affecting a transmembrane or secreted protein were analysed. The median number of nsSNP mismatches in immune-accessible transmembrane and secreted proteins between donors and recipients was 1892 (IQR 1850-1936). The degree of nsSNP mismatch was independently associated with graft loss in a multivariable model adjusted for HLA eplet mismatch (HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, HLA-DP, HLA-DQ, and HLA-DR). Each increase by a unit of one IQR had an HR of 1.68 (95% CI 1.17-2.41, p=0.005). 5-year death censored graft survival was 98% in the quartile with the lowest mismatch, 91% in the second quartile, 89% in the third quartile, and 82% in the highest quartile (p=0.003, log-rank test). Customised peptide arrays verified a donor-specific alloimmune response to genetically predicted mismatched epitopes.Interpretation Genetic mismatch of non-HLA haplotypes coding for transmembrane or secreted proteins is associated with an increased risk of functional graft loss independently of HLA incompatibility. As in HLA alloimmunity, donor-specific alloantibodies can be identified against genotype derived non-HLA epitopes.Funding Austrian Science Fund, WWTF (Vienna Science and Technology Fund), and Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic. Copyright (c) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Epilepsy is one of the most common serious brain conditions, affecting over 70 million people worldwide. Its incidence has a bimodal distribution with the highest risk in infants and older age... Show moreEpilepsy is one of the most common serious brain conditions, affecting over 70 million people worldwide. Its incidence has a bimodal distribution with the highest risk in infants and older age groups. Progress in genomic technology is exposing the complex genetic architecture of the common types of epilepsy, and is driving a paradigm shift. Epilepsy is a symptom complex with multiple risk factors and a strong genetic predisposition rather than a condition with a single expression and cause. These advances have resulted in the new classification of epileptic seizures and epilepsies. A detailed clinical history and a reliable eyewitness account of a seizure are the cornerstones of the diagnosis. Ancillary investigations can help to determine cause and prognosis. Advances in brain imaging are helping to identify the structural and functional causes and consequences of the epilepsies. Comorbidities are increasingly recognised as important aetiological and prognostic markers. Antiseizure medication might suppress seizures in up to two-thirds of all individuals but do not alter long-term prognosis. Epilepsy surgery is the most effective way to achieve long-term seizure freedom in selected individuals with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, but it is probably not used enough. With improved understanding of the gradual development of epilepsy, epigenetic determinants, and pharmacogenomics comes the hope for better, disease-modifying, or even curative, pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment strategies. Other developments are clinical implementation of seizure detection devices and new neuromodulation techniques, including responsive neural stimulation. Show less
Heijde, D. van der; Wei, J.C.C.; Dougados, M.; Mease, P.; Deodhar, A.; Maksymowych, W.P.; ... ; COAST-V Study Grp 2018
