METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective longitudinal study of HF patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized at a tertiary healthcare center between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013 in Ghana. Patients were eligible if they were discharged from first admission for HF (index admission) and followed up to time of all-cause, cardiovascular, and HF mortality or end of study. Multivariable time-dependent Cox model and inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting of marginal structural model were used to estimate associations between statin treatment and outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios were also estimated for lipophilic and hydrophilic statin compared with no statin use. The study included 1488 patients (mean age 60.3±14.2 years) with 9306 person-years of observation. Using the time-dependent Cox model, the 5-year adjusted hazard ratios with 95% CI for statin treatment on all-cause, cardiovascular, and HF mortality were 0.68 (0.55-0.83), 0.67 (0.54-0.82), and 0.63 (0.51-0.79), respectively. Use of inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting resulted in estimates of 0.79 (0.65-0.96), 0.77 (0.63-0.96), and 0.77 (0.61-0.95) for statin treatment on all-cause, cardiovascular, and HF mortality, respectively, compared with no statin use.
CONCLUSIONS: Among Africans with HF, statin treatment was associated with significant reduction in mortality.
METHODS: This retrospective study of Stage III breast cancer patients was conducted over a 5 year period from 1998 to 2002. The survival data were obtained from the National Registry of Births and Deaths with the end-point of the study in April 2006. The Kaplan Meier method was applied for survival analysis. Cox regression analysis by stepwise selection was performed to identify important prognostic factors.
RESULTS: Out of a 155 evaluable patients, 74 (47.7%) had primary surgery, 62 (40%) had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 10 patients (6.5%) were given Tamoxifen as the primary treatment, while 9 patients (5.8%) defaulted any form of treatment. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 9 patients defaulted further treatment, leaving 53 evaluable patients. Out of these 53 evaluable patients, 5 patients (9.4%) had complete pathological response, 5 (9.4%) a complete clinical response, and 26 (49.1%) had partial response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The 5-year survival in the primary surgery group was 56.7 % compared to 44.7% in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (p<0.01). The important prognostic factors were race, size of tumour, nodal status, estrogen receptor status and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Patients who had primary surgery had better survival than those who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which may be due to bias in the selection of patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Out of a total of 155 patients, 25.1% defaulted part of the treatment, or did not receive optimal treatment, emphasizing the importance of psychosocial support and counselling for this group of patients.
METHODS: This is a prospective observational study on patients with SIRS. Plasma creatinine (pCr) and NGAL were measured on ICU admission. Patients were classified according to the occurrence of AKI and sepsis.
RESULTS: Of 225 patients recruited, 129 (57%) had sepsis of whom 67 (52%) also had AKI. 96 patients (43%) had non-infectious SIRS, of whom 20 (21%) also had AKI. NGAL concentrations were higher in AKI patients within both the sepsis and non-infectious SIRS cohorts (both P
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years old with histologically/cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 were randomized 1:1 to receive erlotinib (oral; 150 mg once daily until progression/unacceptable toxicity) or GP [G 1250 mg/m(2) i.v. days 1 and 8 (3-weekly cycle); P 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1, (3-weekly cycle) for up to four cycles]. Primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points include objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.
RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were randomized: 110 to erlotinib and 107 to GP. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 11.0 months versus 5.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.51; log-rank P < 0.0001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed median PFS was consistent (HR, 0.42). Median OS was 26.3 versus 25.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively (HR, 0.91, 95% CI 0.63-1.31; log-rank P = .607). ORR was 62.7% for erlotinib and 33.6% for GP. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2.7% versus 10.6% of erlotinib and GP patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were rash (6.4%) with erlotinib, and neutropenia (25.0%), leukopenia (14.4%), and anemia (12.5%) with GP.
CONCLUSION: These analyses demonstrate that first-line erlotinib provides a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus GP in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (NCT01342965).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two EGFR mutation tests, a tissue-based assay (cobas® v1) and a tissue- and blood-based assay (cobas® v2) were used to analyze matched biopsy and blood samples (897 paired samples) from three Asian studies of first-line erlotinib with similar intent-to-treat populations. ENSURE was a phase III comparison of erlotinib and gemcitabine/platinum, FASTACT-2 was a phase III study of gemcitabine/platinum plus erlotinib or placebo, and ASPIRATION was a single-arm phase II study of erlotinib. Agreement statistics were evaluated, based on sensitivity and specificity between the two assays in subgroups of patients with increasing tumor burden.
RESULTS: Patients with discordant EGFR (tissue+/plasma-) mutation status achieved longer progression-free and overall survival than those with concordant (tissue+/plasma+) mutation status. Tumor burden was significantly greater in patients with concordant versus discordant mutations. Pooled analyses of data from the three studies showed a sensitivity of 72.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.8-76.1) and a specificity of 97.9% (95% CI 96.0-99.0) for blood-based testing; sensitivity was greatest in patients with larger baseline tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based EGFR mutation testing demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity, and offers a convenient and easily accessible diagnostic method to complement tissue-based tests. Patients with a discordant mutation status in plasma and tissue, had improved survival outcomes compared with those with a concordant mutation status, which may be due to their lower tumor burden. These data help to inform the clinical utility of this blood-based assay for the detection of EGFR mutations.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 2360 patients from APASL-ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) was analysed. Multivariate logistic regression model (PIRO score) was developed from a derivation cohort (n=1363) which was validated in another prospective multicentric cohort of acute on chronic liver failure patients (n=997).
RESULTS: Factors significant for P component were serum creatinine[(≥2 mg/dL)OR 4.52, 95% CI (3.67-5.30)], bilirubin [(<12 mg/dL,OR 1) vs (12-30 mg/dL,OR 1.45, 95% 1.1-2.63) vs (≥30 mg/dL,OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.2)], serum potassium [(<3 mmol/LOR-1) vs (3-4.9 mmol/L,OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.05-1.97) vs (≥5 mmol/L,OR 4.34, 95% CI 1.67-11.3)] and blood urea (OR 3.73, 95% CI 2.5-5.5); for I component nephrotoxic medications (OR-9.86, 95% CI 3.2-30.8); for R component,Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome,(OR-2.14, 95% CI 1.4-3.3); for O component, Circulatory failure (OR-3.5, 95% CI 2.2-5.5). The PIRO score predicted acute kidney injury with C-index of 0.95 and 0.96 in the derivation and validation cohort. The increasing PIRO score was also associated with mortality (P
METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or a standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.
RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.57; P<0.001). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 80% with osimertinib and 76% with standard EGFR-TKIs (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.90; P=0.24). The median duration of response was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 22.0) with osimertinib versus 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 9.8) with standard EGFR-TKIs. Data on overall survival were immature at the interim analysis (25% maturity). The survival rate at 18 months was 83% (95% CI, 78 to 87) with osimertinib and 71% (95% CI, 65 to 76) with standard EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P=0.007 [nonsignificant in the interim analysis]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were less frequent with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (34% vs. 45%).
CONCLUSIONS: Osimertinib showed efficacy superior to that of standard EGFR-TKIs in the first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive advanced NSCLC, with a similar safety profile and lower rates of serious adverse events. (Funded by AstraZeneca; FLAURA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02296125 .).
METHODS: SUDOSCAN, a non-invasive tool, provides an age-adjusted electrochemical skin conductance (ESC) composite score incorporating hands/feet ESC measurements, with a score ≤53 indicating sudomotor dysfunction. A consecutive cohort of 2833 Chinese adults underwent structured diabetes assessment in 2012-13; 2028 participants without preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD) and CKD were monitored for incident cardiovascular-renal events until 2015.
RESULTS: In this prospective cohort {mean age 57.0 [standard deviation (SD) 10.0] years; median T2D duration 7.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 3.0-13.0] years; 56.1% men; 72.5% never-smokers; baseline ESC composite score 60.7 (SD 14.5)}, 163 (8.0%) and 25 (1.2%) participants developed incident CKD and CVD, respectively, after 2.3 years of follow-up. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) per 1-unit decrease in the ESC composite score for incident CKD, CVD and all-cause death were 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.04], 1.04 (1.00-1.07) and 1.04 (1.00-1.08), respectively. Compared with participants with an ESC composite score >53, those with a score ≤53 had an aHR of 1.56 (95% CI 1.09-2.23) for CKD and 3.11 (95% CI 1.27-7.62) for CVD, independent of common risk markers. When added to clinical variables (sex and duration of diabetes), the ESC composite score improved discrimination of all outcomes with appropriate reclassification of CKD risk.
CONCLUSIONS: A low ESC composite score independently predicts incident cardiovascular-renal events and death in T2D, which may improve the screening strategy for early intervention.