Exploring factors related to clinically advanced fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

OBJECTIVES

To describe the clinical profile of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) patients in a Texas integrated delivery network (IDN) and elucidate the local relationship between patient factors and the risk of advanced fibrosis.

METHODS

This observational, retrospective, cross-sectional study utilized existing data from the electronic health record at a large Texas IDN. Data was collected during the study period from 1 January 2019, to 1 March 2023. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, labs, and medication orders were collected from the most recent encounter in which a Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score could be calculated. Chi square tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted to evaluate differences among the three fibrosis risk categories. Ordinal logistic regression was utilized to assess associations between select variables and a higher risk of advanced fibrosis.

RESULTS

A total of 56,253 patients were included in the study. 34,839 (61.9%) were Low-Risk 15,578 (27.7%) were Intermediate-Risk, and 5,836 (10.4%) were High-Risk of advanced fibrosis. Results showed that up to 70.4% of patients within a risk group were obese. Only 49.5% of patients in the High-Risk group had at least one gastroenterologist or hepatologist visit. Males, Medicare patients, former smokers, and those with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and chronic kidney disease were associated with a higher risk of advanced fibrosis.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the need for early screening and proactive management of metabolic risk factors for patients with NAFLD/NASH. The findings indicate a notable prevalence of obesity in the study population, a need for specialist referral for those at High-Risk of advanced fibrosis, and the importance of routine labs to evaluate metabolic factors. Primary care providers may be ideal providers to target these interventions and address this care need.

Implementation of a multidisciplinary process to improve diagnostic stewardship of hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infections

BACKGROUND

Testing inappropriate stool samples for Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile can lead to the identification of the patient colonized with C difficile and erroneous diagnosis of an active infection. We hypothesized that a multidisciplinary process to improve diagnostic stewardship could reduce our numbers of hospital-onset C difficile infection (HO-CDI).

METHODS

We created an algorithm describing appropriate stool specimens for polymerase chain reaction testing. The algorithm was converted into "ticket to test" checklist cards designed to accompany each specimen. Rejection of a specimen could occur via nursing staff or laboratory staff.

RESULTS

A baseline period of comparison was established from January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017. Following implementation of all improvement strategies, a retrospective analysis was done, and the total number of HO-CDI cases in a 6-month period dropped from 57 to 32 cases. During the initial 3 months, the percentage of appropriate samples sent to the lab ranged from 41% to 65%. After the interventions were in place, the percentages improved between 71% and 91%.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary approach led to improved diagnostic stewardship to identify true CDI cases. This, in turn, reduced the number of reported HO-CDIs, and resulted in potentially more than $1,080,000 in patient care savings.

Neoadjuvant FOLFOXIRI prior to chemoradiotherapy for high-risk ("ugly") locally advanced rectal cancer: study protocol of a single-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase II trial (MEND-IT)

Background

The presence of mesorectal fascia (MRF) invasion, grade 4 extramural venous invasion (EMVI), tumour deposits (TD) or extensive or bilateral extramesorectal (lateral) lymph nodes (LLN) on MRI has been suggested to identify patients with indisputable, extensive locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), at high risk of treatment failure. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether or not intensified chemotherapy prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improves the complete response (CR) rate in these patients.

Methods

This multicentre, single-arm, open-label, phase II trial will include 128 patients with non-metastatic high-risk LARC (hr-LARC), fit for triplet chemotherapy. To ensure a study population with indisputable, unfavourable prognostic characteristics, hr-LARC is defined as LARC with on baseline MRI at least one of the following characteristics; MRF invasion, EMVI grade 4, enlarged bilateral or extensive LLN at high risk of an incomplete resection, or TD. Exclusion criteria are the presence of a homozygous DPD deficiency, distant metastases, any chemotherapy within the past 6 months, previous radiotherapy within the pelvic area precluding standard chemoradiotherapy, and any contraindication for the planned treatment. All patients will be planned for six two-weekly cycles of FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) prior to chemoradiotherapy (25 × 2 Gy or 28 × 1.8 Gy with concomitant capecitabine). A resection will be performed following radiological confirmation of resectable disease after the completion of chemoradiotherapy. A watch and wait strategy is allowed in case of a clinical complete response. The primary endpoint is the CR rate, described as a pathological CR or a sustained clinical CR one year after chemoradiotherapy. The main secondary objectives are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, the number of resections with clear margins, treatment-related toxicity, perioperative complications, health-related costs, and quality of life.

Discussion

This trial protocol describes the MEND-IT study. The MEND-IT study aims to evaluate the CR rate after intensified chemotherapy prior to concomitant chemoradiotherapy in a homogeneous group of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and indisputably unfavourable characteristics, defined as hr-LARC, in order to improve their prognosis.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04838496, registered on 02–04-2021 Netherlands Trial Register: NL9790.

Protocol version

Version 3 dd 11–4-2022.

Dynamic Risk Prediction of Response to Ursodeoxycholic Acid Among Patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis in the USA

BACKGROUND

Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) remains the first-line therapy for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC); however, inadequate treatment response (ITR) is common. The UK-PBC Consortium developed the modified UDCA Response Score (m-URS) to predict ITR (using alkaline phosphatase [ALP] > 1.67 times the upper limit of normal [*ULN]) at 12 months post-UDCA initiation). Using data from the US-based Fibrotic Liver Disease Consortium, we assessed the m-URS in our multi-racial cohort. We then used a dynamic modeling approach to improve prediction accuracy.

METHODS

Using data collected at the time of UDCA initiation, we assessed the m-URS using the original formula; then, by calibrating coefficients to our data, we also assessed whether it remained accurate when using Paris II criteria for ITR. Next, we developed and validated a dynamic risk prediction model that included post-UDCA initiation laboratory data.

RESULTS

Among 1578 patients (13% men; 8% African American, 9% Asian American/American Indian/Pacific Islander; 25% Hispanic), the rate of ITR was 27% using ALP > 1.67*ULN and 45% using Paris II criteria. M-URS accuracy was "very good" (AUROC = 0.87, sensitivity = 0.62, and specificity = 0.82) for ALP > 1.67*ULN and "moderate" (AUROC = 0.74, sensitivity = 0.57, and specificity = 0.70) for Paris II. Our dynamic model significantly improved accuracy for both definitions of ITR (ALP > 1.67*ULN: AUROC = 0.91; Paris II: AUROC = 0.81); specificity approached 100%. Roughly 9% of patients in our cohort were at the highest risk of ITR.

CONCLUSIONS

Early identification of patients who will not respond to UDCA treatment using a dynamic prediction model based on longitudinal, repeated risk factor measurements may facilitate earlier introduction of adjuvant treatment.

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Is Highly Effective in Real-World Practice: Initial Results From the FMT National Registry

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is used commonly for treatment of Clostridioides difficile infections (CDIs), although prospective safety data are limited and real-world FMT practice and outcomes are not well described. The FMT National Registry was designed to assess FMT methods and both safety and effectiveness outcomes from North American FMT providers.

METHODS

Patients undergoing FMT in clinical practices across North America were eligible. Participating investigators enter de-identified data into an online platform, including FMT protocol, baseline patient characteristics, CDI cure and recurrence, and short and long-term safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the first 259 participants enrolled at 20 sites, 222 had completed short-term follow-up at 1 month and 123 had follow-up to 6 months; 171 (66%) were female. All FMTs were done for CDI and 249 (96%) used an unknown donor (eg, stool bank). One-month cure occurred in 200 patients (90%); of these, 197 (98%) received only 1 FMT. Among 112 patients with initial cure who were followed to 6 months, 4 (4%) had CDI recurrence. Severe symptoms reported within 1-month of FMT included diarrhea (n = 5 [2%]) and abdominal pain (n = 4 [2%]); 3 patients (1%) had hospitalizations possibly related to FMT. At 6 months, new diagnoses of irritable bowel syndrome were made in 2 patients (1%) and inflammatory bowel disease in 2 patients (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective real-world study demonstrated high effectiveness of FMT for CDI with a good safety profile. Assessment of new conditions at long-term follow-up is planned as this registry grows and will be important for determining the full safety profile of FMT.

Validity of an Automated Algorithm to Identify Cirrhosis Using Electronic Health Records in Patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis

Background

Biopsy remains the gold standard for determining fibrosis stage in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), but it is unavailable for most patients. We used data from the 11 US health systems in the FibrOtic Liver Disease Consortium to explore a combination of biochemical markers and electronic health record (EHR)-based diagnosis/procedure codes (DPCs) to identify the presence of cirrhosis in PBC patients.

Methods

Histological fibrosis staging data were obtained from liver biopsies. Variables considered for the model included demographics (age, gender, race, ethnicity), total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, albumin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) to platelet ratio index (APRI), Fibrosis 4 (FIB4) index, AST to alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ratio, and >100 DPCs associated with cirrhosis/decompensated cirrhosis, categorized into ten clusters. Using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression (LASSO), we derived and validated cutoffs for identifying cirrhosis.

Results

Among 4328 PBC patients, 1350 (32%) had biopsy data; 121 (9%) were staged F4 (cirrhosis). DPC clusters (including codes related to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma diagnoses/procedures), Hispanic ethnicity, ALP, AST/ALT ratio, and total bilirubin were retained in the final model (AUROC=0.86 and 0.83 on learning and testing data, respectively); this model with two cutoffs divided patients into three categories (no cirrhosis, indeterminate, and cirrhosis) with specificities of 81.8% (for no cirrhosis) and 80.3% (for cirrhosis). A model excluding DPCs retained ALP, AST/ALT ratio, total bilirubin, Hispanic ethnicity, and gender (AUROC=0.81 and 0.78 on learning and testing data, respectively).

Conclusion

An algorithm using laboratory results and DPCs can categorize a majority of PBC patients as cirrhotic or noncirrhotic with high accuracy (with a small remaining group of patients' cirrhosis status indeterminate). In the absence of biopsy data, this EHR-based model can be used to identify cirrhosis in cohorts of PBC patients for research and/or clinical follow-up.

Tramadol for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Tramadol is often prescribed to treat pain and is associated physical disability in osteoarthritis (OA). Due to the pharmacologic mechanism of tramadol, it may lead to fewer associated adverse effects (i.e. gastrointestinal bleeding or renal problems) compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of oral tramadol or tramadol combined with acetaminophen or NSAIDs in people with osteoarthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the US National Institutes of Health and World Health Organization trial registries up to February 2018. We searched the LILACS database up to August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of tramadol, or tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (paracetamol) or NSAIDs versus placebo or any comparator in people with osteoarthritis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs (11 more than the previous review) of which 21 RCTs were included in meta-analyses for 3871 participants randomized to tramadol alone or tramadol in combination with another analgesic and 2625 participants randomized to placebo or active control. Seventeen studies evaluated tramadol alone and five evaluated tramadol plus acetaminophen. Thirteen studies used placebo controls and eleven studies used active controls (two trials had both placebo and active arms). The dose of tramadol ranged from 37.5 mg to 400 mg daily; all doses were pooled. Most trials were multicenter with a mean duration of two months. Participants were predominantly women with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with a mean age of 63 years and moderate to severe pain. There was a high risk of selection bias as only four trials reported both adequate sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was a low risk for performance bias as most studies blinded participants. There was a high risk of attrition bias as 10/22 trials showed incomplete outcome data. Most of the trials were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen had no important benefit on pain reduction compared to placebo control (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3% to 5%; 8 studies, 3972 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Fifteen out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in pain) compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Twelve out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 7/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen led to no important benefit in physical function compared to placebo (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 5 studies, 2550 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 7%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Twenty-one out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in physical function) compared to 16/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Fifteen out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that, compared to placebo, there was a greater risk of developing adverse events with tramadol alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.46; 4 studies, 2039 participants) and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.76; 1 study, 308 participants). This corresponded to a 17% increase (95% CI 12% to 23%) with tramadol alone and 22% increase (95% CI 8% to 41%) with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen.The three most frequent adverse events were nausea, dizziness and tiredness. Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (RR 2.64, 95% CI 2.17 to 3.20; 9 studies, 4533 participants), which corresponded to a 12% increase (95% CI 9% to 16%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.16; 2 studies, 614 participants), which corresponded to a 8% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 19%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision) indicated that there was a greater risk of developing serious adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (110/2459 participants with tramadol compared to 22/1153 participants with placebo; RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.84; 7 studies, 3612 participants), which corresponded to a 1% increase (95% CI 0% to 4%). There were no serious adverse events reported in one small study (15 participants) of tramadol with acetaminophen compared to placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence indicates that compared to placebo, tramadol alone or in combination with acetaminophen probably has no important benefit on mean pain or function in people with osteoarthritis, although slightly more people in the tramadol group report an important improvement (defined as 20% or more). Moderate quality evidence shows that adverse events probably cause substantially more participants to stop taking tramadol. The increase in serious adverse events with tramadol is less certain, due to the small number of events.

Tramadol for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Tramadol is often prescribed to treat pain and is associated physical disability in osteoarthritis (OA). Due to the pharmacologic mechanism of tramadol, it may lead to fewer associated adverse effects (i.e. gastrointestinal bleeding or renal problems) compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of oral tramadol or tramadol combined with acetaminophen or NSAIDs in people with osteoarthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the US National Institutes of Health and World Health Organization trial registries up to February 2018. We searched the LILACS database up to August 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of tramadol, or tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (paracetamol) or NSAIDs versus placebo or any comparator in people with osteoarthritis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs (11 more than the previous review) of which 21 RCTs were included in meta-analyses for 3871 participants randomized to tramadol alone or tramadol in combination with another analgesic and 2625 participants randomized to placebo or active control. Seventeen studies evaluated tramadol alone and five evaluated tramadol plus acetaminophen. Thirteen studies used placebo controls and eleven studies used active controls (two trials had both placebo and active arms). The dose of tramadol ranged from 37.5 mg to 400 mg daily; all doses were pooled. Most trials were multicenter with a mean duration of two months. Participants were predominantly women with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with a mean age of 63 years and moderate to severe pain. There was a high risk of selection bias as only four trials reported both adequate sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was a low risk for performance bias as most studies blinded participants. There was a high risk of attrition bias as 10/22 trials showed incomplete outcome data. Most of the trials were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen had no important benefit on pain reduction compared to placebo control (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3% to 5%; 8 studies, 3972 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Fifteen out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in pain) compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Twelve out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 7/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen led to no important benefit in physical function compared to placebo (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 5 studies, 2550 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 7%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Twenty-one out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in physical function) compared to 16/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Fifteen out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that, compared to placebo, there was a greater risk of developing adverse events with tramadol alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.46; 4 studies, 2039 participants) and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.76; 1 study, 308 participants). This corresponded to a 17% increase (95% CI 12% to 23%) with tramadol alone and 22% increase (95% CI 8% to 41%) with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen.The three most frequent adverse events were nausea, dizziness and tiredness. Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (RR 2.64, 95% CI 2.17 to 3.20; 9 studies, 4533 participants), which corresponded to a 12% increase (95% CI 9% to 16%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.16; 2 studies, 614 participants), which corresponded to a 8% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 19%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision) indicated that there was a greater risk of developing serious adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (110/2459 participants with tramadol compared to 22/1153 participants with placebo; RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.84; 7 studies, 3612 participants), which corresponded to a 1% increase (95% CI 0% to 4%). There were no serious adverse events reported in one small study (15 participants) of tramadol with acetaminophen compared to placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence indicates that compared to placebo, tramadol alone or in combination with acetaminophen probably has no important benefit on mean pain or function in people with osteoarthritis, although slightly more people in the tramadol group report an important improvement (defined as 20% or more). Moderate quality evidence shows that adverse events probably cause substantially more participants to stop taking tramadol. The increase in serious adverse events with tramadol is less certain, due to the small number of events.

Increasing Prevalence of Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Reduced Mortality With Treatment

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are few data from longitudinal studies of trends in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) among patients under routine clinical care in the United States. We collected data from the Fibrotic Liver Disease consortium to investigate changes in the incidence and prevalence of PBC and the effects of patient demographics, clinical features, and treatment on mortality.

METHODS

We collected demographic and clinical data for the general patient population as well as PBC patients receiving care from 11 health systems in different regions of the United States (Northeast, Midwest, Northwest, and South) from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2014. Annual percentage changes in PBC prevalence and incidence were estimated using join-point Poisson regression. Differences based on race, age, and gender were calculated with rate ratios. All-cause mortality was estimated using Cox regression with adjustment for patient characteristics and treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). Propensity scores were used to adjust for treatment selection bias. Analyses were adjusted by geographic regions.

RESULTS

In our racially diverse cohort of 3488 patients with PBC (21% Hispanic, 8% African American, 7% Asian American), 70% had ever received UDCA. From 2006 through 2014, the prevalence of PBC increased from 21.7 to 39.2 per 100,000 persons. Adjusted annual percentage changes in prevalence differed among age groups (≤40 y, 41-50 y, 51-60 y, 61-70 y, and >70 y), ranging from 3.0% to 7.5% (P < .05). Incidence did not change significantly during the study period (4.2 vs 4.3 per 100,000 person-years in 2006 and 2014, respectively; P = .98). Ratios of prevalence for women vs men (3.9:1) and incidence for women vs men (3.2:1) were consistent over the study period. Among African Americans, the prevalence of PBC increased from 16.9 to 30.8 per 100,000 during the study period, and annual incidence ranged from 2.6 to 6.6 per 100,000 person-years. In adjusted analyses, an increased level of alkaline phosphatase at baseline was associated with significantly higher mortality (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.48 for patients with levels 1-2 times the upper limit of normal and aHR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.88-2.73 for patients with levels more than 3 times the upper limit of normal). UDCA treatment was associated with significantly reduced mortality (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.52-0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of data from patients receiving routine clinical care in Fibrotic Liver Disease Consortium health systems, we found that the prevalence of PBC increased from 2004 through 2014, despite steady incidence. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as UDCA treatment, affected mortality.

Orally Bioavailable and Blood-Brain Barrier-Penetrating ATM Inhibitor (AZ32) Radiosensitizes Intracranial Gliomas in Mice

Inhibition of ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM) during radiotherapy of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) may improve tumor control by short-circuiting the response to radiation-induced DNA damage. A major impediment for clinical implementation is that current inhibitors have limited central nervous system (CNS) bioavailability; thus, the goal was to identify ATM inhibitors (ATMi) with improved CNS penetration. Drug screens and refinement of lead compounds identified AZ31 and AZ32. The compounds were then tested in vivo for efficacy and impact on tumor and healthy brain. Both AZ31 and AZ32 blocked the DNA damage response and radiosensitized GBM cells in vitro AZ32, with enhanced blood-brain barrier (BBB) penetration, was highly efficient in vivo as radiosensitizer in syngeneic and human, orthotopic mouse glioma model compared with AZ31. Furthermore, human glioma cell lines expressing mutant p53 or having checkpoint-defective mutations were particularly sensitive to ATMi radiosensitization. The mechanism for this p53 effect involves a propensity to undergo mitotic catastrophe relative to cells with wild-type p53. In vivo, apoptosis was >6-fold higher in tumor relative to healthy brain after exposure to AZ32 and low-dose radiation. AZ32 is the first ATMi with oral bioavailability shown to radiosensitize glioma and improve survival in orthotopic mouse models. These findings support the development of a clinical-grade, BBB-penetrating ATMi for the treatment of GBM. Importantly, because many GBMs have defective p53 signaling, the use of an ATMi concurrent with standard radiotherapy is expected to be cancer-specific, increase the therapeutic ratio, and maintain full therapeutic effect at lower radiation doses. Mol Cancer Ther; 17(8); 1637-47. ©2018 AACR.

Setting priorities for knowledge translation of Cochrane reviews for health equity: Evidence for Equity

Background

A focus on equity in health can be seen in many global development goals and reports, research and international declarations. With the development of a relevant framework and methods, the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group has encouraged the application of an ‘equity lens’ to systematic reviews, and many organizations publish reviews intended to address health equity.

The purpose of the Evidence for Equity (E4E) project was to conduct a priority-setting exercise and apply an equity lens by developing a knowledge translation product comprising summaries of systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library. E4E translates evidence from systematic reviews into ‘friendly front end’ summaries for policy makers.

Methods

The following topic areas with high burdens of disease globally, were selected for the pilot: diabetes/obesity, HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, and mental health/depression. For each topic area, a “stakeholder panel” was assembled that included policymakers and researchers. A systematic search of Cochrane reviews was conducted for each area to identify equity-relevant interventions with a meaningful impact. Panel chairs developed a rating sheet which was used by all panels to rank the importance of these interventions by: 1) Ease of Implementation; 2) Health System Requirements; 3)Universality/Generalizability/Share of Burden; and 4) Impact on Inequities/Effect on equity.

The ratings of panel members were averaged for each intervention and criterion, and interventions were ordered according to the average overall ratings.

Results

Stakeholder panels identified the top 10 interventions from their respective topic areas. The evidence on these interventions is being summarized with an equity focus and the results posted online, at http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/e4e-series.

Conclusions

This method provides an explicit approach to setting priorities by systematic review groups and funders for providing decision makers with evidence for the most important equity-relevant interventions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12939-017-0697-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Laparoscopic versus open pyloromyotomy in infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine whether open or laparoscopic pyloromyotomy is superior for the treatment of hypertrophic pyloric stenosis in infants.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for articles comparing laparoscopic and open procedures. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and described other results narratively.

RESULTS

Our meta-analyses revealed no significant difference in our primary outcome of major complications [risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.08, P = 0.35, I ² = 55%], or in our secondary outcomes of all perioperative complications (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.04, P = 0.74, I ² = 0%), operative time [mean difference (MD) 0.68, 95% CI -3.60 to 4.79, P = 0.76, I ² = 86%], and length of stay (MD -2.60, 95% CI -6.05 to 0.86, P = 0.14, I ² = 0%). Laparoscopy was associated with a shorter time to full feeds (standardized mean difference -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.06, P = 0.009, I ² = 8%) and a slightly higher rate of inadequate pyloromyotomy (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.00-0.08, P = 0.03, I ² = 0%). Results from one randomized controlled trial indicate a better cosmetic outcome after laparoscopy compared to open procedure.

CONCLUSION

There is no strong evidence to support a recommendation of one procedure over the other; therefore, the choice of laparoscopic or open procedure should be left to the discretion of the surgeon.

Combined baseline and one-month changes in big endothelin-1 and brain natriuretic peptide plasma concentrations predict clinical outcomes in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction: Insights from the Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study (EPHESUS) study

OBJECTIVE

Increased levels of neuro-hormonal biomarkers predict poor prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). The predictive value of repeated (one-month interval) brain natriuretic peptides (BNP) and big-endothelin 1 (BigET-1) measurements were investigated in patients with LVSD after AMI.

METHODS

In a sub-study of the Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study (EPHESUS trial), BNP and BigET-1 were measured at baseline and at 1month in 476 patients.

RESULTS

When included in the same Cox regression model, baseline BNP (p=0.0003) and BigET-1 (p=0.026) as well as the relative changes (after 1month) from baseline in BNP (p=0.049) and BigET-1 (p=0.045) were predictive of the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Adding baseline and changes in BigET-1 to baseline and changes in BNP led to a significant increase in prognostic reclassification as assessed by integrated discrimination improvement index (5.0%, p=0.01 for the primary endpoint).

CONCLUSIONS

Both increased baseline and changes after one month in BigET-1 concentrations were shown to be associated with adverse clinical outcomes, independently from BNP baseline levels and one month changes, in patients after recent AMI complicated with LVSD. This novel result may be of clinical interest since such combined biomarker assessment could improve risk stratification and open new avenues for biomarker-guided targeted therapies.

KEY MESSAGES

In the present study, we report for the first time in a population of patients with reduced LVEF after AMI and signs or symptoms of congestive HF, that increased baseline values of BNP and BigET-1 as well as a further rise of these markers over the first month after AMI, were independently predictive of future cardiovascular events. This approach may therefore be of clinical interest with the potential of improving risk stratification after AMI with reduced LVEF while further opening new avenues for biomarker-guided targeted therapies.

Feeding Post-Pyloromyotomy: A Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Postoperative emesis is common after pyloromyotomy. Although postoperative feeding is likely to be an influencing factor, there is no consensus on optimal feeding.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of feeding regimens on clinical outcomes of infants after pyloromyotomy.

DATA SOURCES

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Medline.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion based on a priori inclusion criteria.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were extracted on methodological quality, general study and intervention characteristics, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. Ad libitum feeding was associated with significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) when compared with structured feeding (mean difference [MD] -4.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.38 to -0.95; P = .01). Although gradual feeding significantly decreased emesis episodes (MD -1.70; 95% CI, -2.17 to -1.23; P < .00001), rapid feeding led to significantly shorter LOS (MD 22.05; 95% CI, 2.18 to 41.93; P = .03). Late feeding resulted in a significant decrease in number of patients with emesis (odds ratio 3.13; 95% CI, 2.26 to 4.35; P < .00001).

LIMITATIONS

Exclusion of non-English studies, lack of randomized controlled trials, insufficient number of studies to perform publication bias or subgroup analysis for potential predictors of emesis.

CONCLUSIONS

Ad libitum feeding is recommended for patients after pyloromyotomy as it leads to decreased LOS. If physicians still prefer structured feeding, early rapid feeds are recommended as they should lead to a reduced LOS.

Radiobiological evaluation of intensity modulated radiation therapy treatments of patients with head and neck cancer: A dual-institutional study

In clinical practice, evaluation of clinical efficacy of treatment planning stems from the radiation oncologist's experience in accurately targeting tumors, while keeping minimal toxicity to various organs at risk (OAR) involved. A more objective, quantitative method may be raised by using radiobiological models. The purpose of this work is to evaluate the potential correlation of OAR-related toxicities to its radiobiologically estimated parameters in simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans of patients with head and neck tumors at two institutions. Lyman model for normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and the Poisson model for tumor control probability (TCP) models were used in the Histogram Analysis in Radiation Therapy (HART) analysis. In this study, 33 patients with oropharyngeal primaries in the head and neck region were used to establish the correlation between NTCP values of (a) bilateral parotids with clinically observed rates of xerostomia, (b) esophagus with dysphagia, and (c) larynx with dysphagia. The results of the study indicated a strong correlation between the severity of xerostomia and dysphagia with Lyman NTCP of bilateral parotids and esophagus, respectively, but not with the larynx. In patients without complications, NTCP values of these organs were negligible. Using appropriate radiobiological models, the presence of a moderate to strong correlation between the severities of complications with NTCP of selected OARs suggested that the clinical outcome could be estimated prior to treatment.

Reducing elevated plasma LDL cholesterol: the central role of the LDL receptor

Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), and reduction of elevated LDL-C reduces mortality in patients at risk. This benefit has evolved from the use of statins and knowledge of the LDL receptor (LDLR). The most potent drugs used for dyslipidemias act by mechanisms that involve this receptor. Advances in molecular genetics and understanding of the regulation of this receptor have revealed several pharmacological targets that are being explored to develop more targeted therapies for dyslipidemias.