BACKGROUND There are no data comparing sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs [MagicTouch, Concept Medical]) to paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs [SeQuent Please Neo, B. Braun]) for the treatment of de... Show moreBACKGROUND There are no data comparing sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs [MagicTouch, Concept Medical]) to paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs [SeQuent Please Neo, B. Braun]) for the treatment of de novo small vessel disease (SVD).OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare quantitative coronary angiographic outcomes at 6 months after treatment of de novo SVD with a PCB or SCB.METHODS This prospective, multicenter, noninferiority trial randomized 121 patients (129 SVD lesions) to treatment with an SCB or PCB, with balloon sizing determined using optical coherence tomography. The primary endpoint was noninferiority for the 6-month angiographic net lumen gain.RESULTS Angiographic follow-up was completed in 109 (90.1%) patients in the per-protocol analysis. The mean +/- SD angiographic net gains were 0.25 +/- 0.40 mm with SCBs vs 0.48 +/- 0.37 mm with PCBs, resulting in SCBs failing to meet the 0.30 mm criterion for noninferiority (P-noninferiority = 0.173), with an absolute difference of -0.23 mm (95% CI: -0.37 to -0.09) secondary to a smaller late loss (0.00 +/- 0.32 mm vs 0.32 +/- 0.47 mm; P < 0.001) and more frequent late lumen enlargement (53.7% vs 30.0%; OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.22-5.67; P = 0.014) with PCBs. Binary restenosis rates were 32.8% and 12.5% following treatment with SCBs and PCBs, respectively (OR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.36-9.44; P = 0.012). The mean angiography-derived fractional flow ratio at follow-up was 0.86 +/- 0.15 following treatment with SCBs and 0.91 +/- 0.09 following PCBs (P = 0.026); a fractional flow ratio <= 0.80 occurred in 13 and 5 vessels after treatment with SCBs and PCBs, respectively.CONCLUSIONS The SCB MagicTouch failed to demonstrate noninferiority for angiographic net lumen gain at 6 months compared to the PCB SeQuent Please Neo. Show less
Elens, L.; Langman, L.J.; Hesselink, D.A.; Bergan, S.; Moes, D.J.A.R.; Molinaro, M.; ... ; Lemaitre, F. 2020
Background: COVID-19 is a novel infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory distress (SARS)-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Several therapeutic options are currently emerging but none... Show moreBackground: COVID-19 is a novel infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory distress (SARS)-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Several therapeutic options are currently emerging but none with universal consensus or proven efficacy. Solid organ transplant recipients are perceived to be at increased risk of severe COVID-19 because of their immunosuppressed conditions due to chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs). It is therefore likely that solid organ transplant recipients will be treated with these experimental antivirals. Methods: This article is not intended to provide a systematic literature review on investigational treatments tested against COVID-19; rather, the authors aim to provide recommendations for therapeutic drug monitoring of ISDs in transplant recipients infected with SARS-CoV-2 based on a review of existing data in the literature. Results: Management of drug-drug interactions between investigational anti-SARS-CoV-2 drugs and immunosuppressants is a complex task for the clinician. Adequate immunosuppression is necessary to prevent graft rejection while, if critically ill, the patient may benefit from pharmacotherapeutic interventions directed at limiting SARS-CoV-2 viral replication. Maintaining ISD concentrations within the desired therapeutic range requires a highly individualized approach that is complicated by the pandemic context and lack of hindsight. Conclusions: With this article, the authors inform the clinician about the potential interactions of experimental COVID-19 treatments with ISDs used in transplantation. Recommendations regarding therapeutic drug monitoring and dose adjustments in the context of COVID-19 are provided. Show less
Background: Recent findings strongly support hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with severe presentation of LPS-responsive beige-like anchor protein (LRBA) deficiency, but... Show moreBackground: Recent findings strongly support hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with severe presentation of LPS-responsive beige-like anchor protein (LRBA) deficiency, but long-term follow-up and survival data beyond previous patient reports or meta-reviews are scarce for those patients who do not receive a transplant.Objective: This international retrospective study was conducted to elucidate the longitudinal clinical course of patients with LRBA deficiency who do and do not receive a transplant.Method: We assessed disease burden and treatment responses with a specially developed immune deficiency and dysregulation activity score, reflecting the sum and severity of organ involvement and infections, days of hospitalization, supportive care requirements, and performance indices.Results: Of 76 patients with LRBA deficiency from 29 centers (median follow-up, 10 years; range, 1-52), 24 underwent HSCT from 2005 to 2019. The overall survival rate after HSCT (median follow-up, 20 months) was 70.8% (17 of 24 patients); all deaths were due to nonspecific, early, transplant-related mortality. Currently, 82.7% of patients who did not receive a transplant (43 of 52; age range, 3-69 years) are alive. Of 17 HSCT survivors, 7 are in complete remission and 5 are in good partial remission without treatment (together, 12 of 17 [70.6%]). In contrast, only 5 of 43 patients who did not receive a transplant (11.6%) are without immunosuppression. Immune deficiency and dysregulation activity scores were significantly lower in patients who survived HSCT than in those receiving conventional treatment (P = .005) or in patients who received abatacept or sirolimus as compared with other therapies, and in patients with residual LRBA expression. Higher disease burden, longer duration before HSCT, and lung involvement were associated with poor outcome.Conclusion: The lifelong disease activity, implying a need for immunosuppression and risk of malignancy, must be weighed against the risks of HSCT. Show less
