BackgroundAutoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a rare, chronic inflammatory disease of the liver. The treatment goal is reaching complete biochemical response (CR), defined as the normalisation of... Show moreBackgroundAutoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is a rare, chronic inflammatory disease of the liver. The treatment goal is reaching complete biochemical response (CR), defined as the normalisation of aspartate and alanine aminotransferases and immunoglobulin gamma. Ongoing AIH activity can lead to fibrosis and (decompensated) cirrhosis. Incomplete biochemical response is the most important risk factor for liver transplantation or liver-related mortality. First-line treatment consists of a combination of azathioprine and prednisolone. If CR is not reached, tacrolimus (TAC) or mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) can be used as second-line therapy. Both products are registered for the prevention of graft rejection in solid organ transplant recipients. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of TAC and MMF as second-line treatment for AIH.MethodsThe TAILOR study is a phase IIIB, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised (1:1) controlled trial performed in large teaching and university hospitals in the Netherlands. We will enrol 86 patients with AIH who have not reached CR after at least 6 months of treatment with first-line therapy. Patients are randomised to TAC (0.07 mg/kg/day initially and adjusted by trough levels) or MMF (max 2000 mg/day), stratified by the presence of cirrhosis at inclusion. The primary endpoint is the difference in the proportion of patients reaching CR after 12 months. Secondary endpoints include the difference in the proportion of patients reaching CR after 6 months, adverse effects, difference in fibrogenesis, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.DiscussionThis is the first randomised controlled trial comparing two second-line therapies for AIH. Currently, second-line treatment is based on retrospective cohort studies. The rarity of AIH is the main issue in clinical research for alternative treatment options. The results of this trial can be implemented in existing international clinical guidelines.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05221411. Retrospectively registered on 3 February 2022; EudraCT number 2021-003420-33. Prospectively registered on 16 June 2021. Show less
Velzen, M.J.M. van; Pape, M.; Dijksterhuis, W.P.M.; Slingerland, M.; Voorthuizen, T. van; Beerepoot, L.V.; ... ; Laarhoven, H.W.M. van 2021
Background: Population-based predictive factors for the effectiveness of second line palliative systemic therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer are not available. This study investigates the... Show moreBackground: Population-based predictive factors for the effectiveness of second line palliative systemic therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer are not available. This study investigates the predictive value of effectiveness of first-line treatment for second-line treatment outcomes in gastro-oesophageal cancer in a real-world setting. Methods: Patients with metastatic gastro-oesophageal cancer diagnosed in 2010-2017 who were treated with second-line therapy after disease progression on first-line therapy were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into four groups as per duration of time to treatment failure (TTF) of the first line (0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months), and the association with overall survival (OS) and second-line TTF was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and two-sided multivariable regression models. Results: Median OS since the start of the second line of patients (n Z 611) with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 4.0, 4.1, 5.5 and 7.1 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Median second-line TTF of patients with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 2.8, 2.4, 3.0 and 4.5 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients with first-line TTF of >9 months showed a longer OS than patients with first-line TTF of 0-3 months (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-2.47), 3-6 months (adjusted HR 1.88; 95% CI 1.47-2.39) and 6-9 months (adjusted HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.04-1.65). Results for second-line TTF were similar. Conclusions: This study shows a positive correlation between effectiveness of first-line therapy and outcomes of second-line therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer. Physicians should take duration of the first line into account when considering second-line palliative systemic therapy. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
