METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, adults with transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia to receive best supportive care plus luspatercept (at a dose of 1.00 to 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo for at least 48 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a reduction in the transfusion burden of at least 33% from baseline during weeks 13 through 24 plus a reduction of at least 2 red-cell units over this 12-week interval. Other efficacy end points included reductions in the transfusion burden during any 12-week interval and results of iron studies.
RESULTS: A total of 224 patients were assigned to the luspatercept group and 112 to the placebo group. Luspatercept or placebo was administered for a median of approximately 64 weeks in both groups. The percentage of patients who had a reduction in the transfusion burden of at least 33% from baseline during weeks 13 through 24 plus a reduction of at least 2 red-cell units over this 12-week interval was significantly greater in the luspatercept group than in the placebo group (21.4% vs. 4.5%, P<0.001). During any 12-week interval, the percentage of patients who had a reduction in transfusion burden of at least 33% was greater in the luspatercept group than in the placebo group (70.5% vs. 29.5%), as was the percentage of those who had a reduction of at least 50% (40.2% vs. 6.3%). The least-squares mean difference between the groups in serum ferritin levels at week 48 was -348 μg per liter (95% confidence interval, -517 to -179) in favor of luspatercept. Adverse events of transient bone pain, arthralgia, dizziness, hypertension, and hyperuricemia were more common with luspatercept than placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients with transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia who had a reduction in transfusion burden was significantly greater in the luspatercept group than in the placebo group, and few adverse events led to the discontinuation of treatment. (Funded by Celgene and Acceleron Pharma; BELIEVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02604433; EudraCT number, 2015-003224-31.).
METHODS: An unmatched hospital based case-control study was conducted from October 2002 to December 2016 in Selangor, Malaysia. A total of 3,683 cases and 3,980 controls were included in this study. Unconditional logistic regressions, adjusted for potential confounding factors, were conducted. The breast cancer risk factors were compared across four birth cohorts by ethnicity.
RESULTS: Ever breastfed, longer breastfeeding duration, a higher soymilk and soy product intake, and a higher level of physical activity were associated with lower risk of breast cancer. Chinese had the lowest breastfeeding rate, shortest breastfeeding duration, lowest parity and highest age of first full term pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that breastfeeding, soy intake and physical activity are modifiable risk factors for breast cancer. With the increasing incidence of breast cancer there is an urgent need to educate the women about lifestyle intervention they can take to reduce their breast cancer risk.
METHODS: This multicenter, parallel, open-label, randomized controlled trial investigated the clinical efficacy of WPS in 126 malnourished CAPD patients with serum albumin <40 g/L and body mass index (BMI) <24 kg/m2. Patients randomized to the intervention group (IG, n = 65) received protein powder (27.4 g) for 6 months plus dietary counseling (DC) while the control group (CG, n = 61) received DC only. Anthropometry, biochemistry, malnutrition-inflammation-score (MIS), dietary intake inclusive of dialysate calories, handgrip strength (HGS) and quality of life (QOL) were assessed at baseline and 6 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed by effect size (Cohen's d) comparisons within and between groups.
RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (n = 37 per group) completed the study. Significantly more IG patients (59.5%) achieved dietary protein intake (DPI) adequacy of 1.2 g/kg per ideal body weight (p 0.05). A higher DPI paralleled significant increases in serum urea (mean Δ: IG = +2.39 ± 4.36 mmol/L, p = 0.002, d = 0.57 vs CG = -0.39 ± 4.59 mmol/L, p > 0.05, d = 0.07) and normalized protein catabolic rate, nPCR (mean Δ: IG = +0.11 ± 0.14 g/kg/day, p 0.05, d = 0.09) for IG compared to CG patients. Although not significant, comparison for changes in post-dialysis weight (mean Δ: +0.64 ± 1.16 kg vs +0.02 ± 1.36 kg, p = 0.076, d = 0.58) and mid-arm circumference (mean Δ: +0.29 ± 0.93 cm vs -0.12 ± 0.71 cm, p = 0.079, d = 0.24) indicated trends favoring IG vs CG. Other parameters remained unaffected by treatment comparisons. CG patients had a significant decline in QOL physical component (mean Δ = -6.62 ± 16.63, p = 0.020, d = 0.47). Using changes in nPCR level as a marker of WPS intake within IG, 'positive responders' achieved significant improvement in weight, BMI, skinfold measures and serum urea (all p 0.05).
CONCLUSION: A single macronutrient approach with WPS in malnourished CAPD patients was shown to achieve DPI adequacy and improvements in weight, BMI, skin fold measures, serum urea and nPCR level. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03367000).
METHODS/DESIGN: This open-labelled, randomised controlled trial (RCT) will randomly allocate patients into intervention and control groups. Ambulated Malaysian aged over 18 years and scheduled for elective surgery for (suspected) GC, will be included in this study. The intervention group will be given whey-protein-infused carbohydrate-loading drinks on the evening before their operation and 3 h before their operation as well as started on early oral feeding 4 h post-operatively. The control group will be fasted overnight pre-operation and only allowed plain water, and return to a normal diet is allowed when bowel sounds return post-operatively. The primary outcomes of study are length of post-operative hospital stay, length of clear-fluid tolerance, solid-food tolerance and bowel function. Additional outcome measures are changes in nutritional status, biochemical profile and functional status. Data will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03667755. Retrospectively registered on 12 September 2018; Protocol version: version 3 dated 27 September 2017.
METHODS: Patients chose to continue treatment with nonacog beta pegol in either one of two once-weekly prophylaxis arms (10IU/kg or 40IU/kg), or an on-demand arm (40IU/kg for mild/moderate bleeds; 80IU/kg for severe bleeds). The primary objective was to evaluate immunogenicity; key secondary objectives included assessing safety and haemostatic efficacy in the treatment and prevention of bleeds.
RESULTS: Seventy-one patients received prophylaxis or on-demand treatment. No patient developed an inhibitor and no safety concerns were identified. The success rate for the treatment of reported bleeds was 94.6%; most (87.9%) resolved with one injection. The median annualised bleeding rate for patients on prophylaxis was 1.36 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.00-2.23) and 1.00 (IQR 0.00-2.03) for the 10 and 40IU/kg treatment arms, respectively. The mean FIX activity trough achieved for 10 and 40IU once weekly was 9.8% and 21.3%, respectively. Fourteen patients on prophylaxis underwent 23 minor surgical procedures; haemostatic perioperative outcomes for all of those evaluated were 'excellent' or 'good'.
CONCLUSIONS: Nonacog beta pegol showed a favourable tolerability profile (with no safety issues identified) with good prophylactic protection and control of bleeding in previously treated adult and adolescent haemophilia B patients.
METHODS: A systematic review and Delphi consensus panel (consisting of eight8 international pediatric allergists and gastroenterologists) was conducted to evaluate evidence supporting growth, tolerability, and effectiveness of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants.
RESULTS: None of the studies reviewed identified potential harm of pHF use compared with CMP in non-exclusively breastfed infants. There was an expert consensus that pHF use is likely as safe as intact CMP formula, given studies suggesting these have comparable nutritional parameters. No high-quality studies were identified evaluating the use of pHF to prevent allergic disease in non-exclusively breastfed infants who are not at risk for allergic disease (e.g., lacking a parental history of allergy). Limited data suggest that pHF use in non-exclusively breastfed infants may be associated with improved gastric emptying, decreased colic incidence, and other common functional gastrointestinal symptoms compared with CMP. However, because the data are of insufficient quality, the findings from these studies have to be taken with caution. No studies were identified that directly compared the different types of pHF, but there was an expert consensus that growth, allergenicity, tolerability, effectiveness, and clinical role among such pHF products may differ.
CONCLUSIONS: Limited data exist evaluating routine use of pHFs in non-exclusively breastfed infants, with no contraindications identified in the systematic review. An expert consensus considers pHFs for which data were available to be as safe as CMP formula as growth is normal. The preventive effect on allergy of pHF in infants who are not at risk for allergic disease has been poorly studied. Cost of pHF versus starter formula with intact protein differs from country to country. However, further studies in larger populations are needed to clinically confirm the benefits of routine use of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants. These studies should also address potential consumer preference bias.