Displaying publications 81 - 100 of 212 in total

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Looi LM, Ganten D, McGrath PF, Gross M, Griffin GE
    Lancet, 2015 Mar 14;385(9972):943-4.
    PMID: 25743174 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60208-2
  2. Howard C, Moineau G, Poitras J, Redvers N, Mahmood J, Eissa M, et al.
    Lancet, 2023 Dec 09;402(10418):2173-2176.
    PMID: 38000382 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02526-6
  3. Mills J, Abel J, Kellehear A, Noonan K, Bollig G, Grindod A, et al.
    Lancet, 2023 Oct 13.
    PMID: 37844589 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02269-9
  4. Romanello M, McGushin A, Di Napoli C, Drummond P, Hughes N, Jamart L, et al.
    Lancet, 2021 Oct 30;398(10311):1619-1662.
    PMID: 34687662 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01787-6
  5. Kaur S, Herxheimer A
    Lancet, 1994 Jan 15;343(8890):132.
    PMID: 7904000
  6. Patel JJ, Lee ZY, Stoppe C, Heyland DK
    Lancet, 2023 Sep 16;402(10406):964.
    PMID: 37716768 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01253-9
  7. Hawkes S, Allotey P, Elhadj AS, Clark J, Horton R
    Lancet, 2020 08 22;396(10250):521-522.
    PMID: 32763153 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31547-6
  8. Hubble D
    Lancet, 1973 Jun 09;1(7815):1323-4.
    PMID: 4126117
  9. Qin S, Chen M, Cheng AL, Kaseb AO, Kudo M, Lee HC, et al.
    Lancet, 2023 Nov 18;402(10415):1835-1847.
    PMID: 37871608 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01796-8
    BACKGROUND: No adjuvant treatment has been established for patients who remain at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after curative-intent resection or ablation. We aimed to assess the efficacy of adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance in patients with high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma.

    METHODS: In the global, open-label, phase 3 IMbrave050 study, adult patients with high-risk surgically resected or ablated hepatocellular carcinoma were recruited from 134 hospitals and medical centres in 26 countries in four WHO regions (European region, region of the Americas, South-East Asia region, and Western Pacific region). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via an interactive voice-web response system using permuted blocks, using a block size of 4, to receive intravenous 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab every 3 weeks for 17 cycles (12 months) or to active surveillance. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival by independent review facility assessment in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04102098.

    FINDINGS: The intention-to-treat population included 668 patients randomly assigned between Dec 31, 2019, and Nov 25, 2021, to either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=334) or to active surveillance (n=334). At the prespecified interim analysis (Oct 21, 2022), median duration of follow-up was 17·4 months (IQR 13·9-22·1). Adjuvant atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with significantly improved recurrence-free survival (median, not evaluable [NE]; [95% CI 22·1-NE]) compared with active surveillance (median, NE [21·4-NE]; hazard ratio, 0·72 [adjusted 95% CI 0·53-0·98]; p=0·012). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 136 (41%) of 332 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 44 (13%) of 330 patients in the active surveillance group. Grade 5 adverse events occurred in six patients (2%, two of which were treatment related) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group, and one patient (<1%) in the active surveillance group. Both atezolizumab and bevacizumab were discontinued because of adverse events in 29 patients (9%) who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

    INTERPRETATION: Among patients at high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence following curative-intent resection or ablation, recurrence-free survival was improved in those who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus active surveillance. To our knowledge, IMbrave050 is the first phase 3 study of adjuvant treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma to report positive results. However, longer follow-up for both recurrence-free and overall survival is needed to assess the benefit-risk profile more fully.

    FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

  10. Langhorne P, O'Donnell MJ, Chin SL, Zhang H, Xavier D, Avezum A, et al.
    Lancet, 2018 05 19;391(10134):2019-2027.
    PMID: 29864018 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30802-X
    BACKGROUND: Stroke disproportionately affects people in low-income and middle-income countries. Although improvements in stroke care and outcomes have been reported in high-income countries, little is known about practice and outcomes in low and middle-income countries. We aimed to compare patterns of care available and their association with patient outcomes across countries at different economic levels.

    METHODS: We studied the patterns and effect of practice variations (ie, treatments used and access to services) among participants in the INTERSTROKE study, an international observational study that enrolled 13 447 stroke patients from 142 clinical sites in 32 countries between Jan 11, 2007, and Aug 8, 2015. We supplemented patient data with a questionnaire about health-care and stroke service facilities at all participating hospitals. Using univariate and multivariate regression analyses to account for patient casemix and service clustering, we estimated the association between services available, treatments given, and patient outcomes (death or dependency) at 1 month.

    FINDINGS: We obtained full information for 12 342 (92%) of 13 447 INTERSTROKE patients, from 108 hospitals in 28 countries; 2576 from 38 hospitals in ten high-income countries and 9766 from 70 hospitals in 18 low and middle-income countries. Patients in low-income and middle-income countries more often had severe strokes, intracerebral haemorrhage, poorer access to services, and used fewer investigations and treatments (p<0·0001) than those in high-income countries, although only differences in patient characteristics explained the poorer clinical outcomes in low and middle-income countries. However across all countries, irrespective of economic level, access to a stroke unit was associated with improved use of investigations and treatments, access to other rehabilitation services, and improved survival without severe dependency (odds ratio [OR] 1·29; 95% CI 1·14-1·44; all p<0·0001), which was independent of patient casemix characteristics and other measures of care. Use of acute antiplatelet treatment was associated with improved survival (1·39; 1·12-1·72) irrespective of other patient and service characteristics.

    INTERPRETATION: Evidence-based treatments, diagnostics, and stroke units were less commonly available or used in low and middle-income countries. Access to stroke units and appropriate use of antiplatelet treatment were associated with improved recovery. Improved care and facilities in low-income and middle-income countries are essential to improve outcomes.

    FUNDING: Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland.

  11. O'Donnell MJ, Chin SL, Rangarajan S, Xavier D, Liu L, Zhang H, et al.
    Lancet, 2016 Aug 20;388(10046):761-75.
    PMID: 27431356 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30506-2
    BACKGROUND:Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. We sought to quantify the importance of potentially modifiable risk factors for stroke in different regions of the world, and in key populations and primary pathological subtypes of stroke.
    METHODS:We completed a standardised international case-control study in 32 countries in Asia, America, Europe, Australia, the Middle East, and Africa. Cases were patients with acute first stroke (within 5 days of symptom onset and 72 h of hospital admission). Controls were hospital-based or community-based individuals with no history of stroke, and were matched with cases, recruited in a 1:1 ratio, for age and sex. All participants completed a clinical assessment and were requested to provide blood and urine samples. Odds ratios (OR) and their population attributable risks (PARs) were calculated, with 99% confidence intervals.
    FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2007, and Aug 8, 2015, 26 919 participants were recruited from 32 countries (13 447 cases [10 388 with ischaemic stroke and 3059 intracerebral haemorrhage] and 13 472 controls). Previous history of hypertension or blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or higher (OR 2·98, 99% CI 2·72-3·28; PAR 47·9%, 99% CI 45·1-50·6), regular physical activity (0·60, 0·52-0·70; 35·8%, 27·7-44·7), apolipoprotein (Apo)B/ApoA1 ratio (1·84, 1·65-2·06 for highest vs lowest tertile; 26·8%, 22·2-31·9 for top two tertiles vs lowest tertile), diet (0·60, 0·53-0·67 for highest vs lowest tertile of modified Alternative Healthy Eating Index [mAHEI]; 23·2%, 18·2-28·9 for lowest two tertiles vs highest tertile of mAHEI), waist-to-hip ratio (1·44, 1·27-1·64 for highest vs lowest tertile; 18·6%, 13·3-25·3 for top two tertiles vs lowest), psychosocial factors (2·20, 1·78-2·72; 17·4%, 13·1-22·6), current smoking (1·67, 1·49-1·87; 12·4%, 10·2-14·9), cardiac causes (3·17, 2·68-3·75; 9·1%, 8·0-10·2), alcohol consumption (2·09, 1·64-2·67 for high or heavy episodic intake vs never or former drinker; 5·8%, 3·4-9·7 for current alcohol drinker vs never or former drinker), and diabetes mellitus (1·16, 1·05-1·30; 3·9%, 1·9-7·6) were associated with all stroke. Collectively, these risk factors accounted for 90·7% of the PAR for all stroke worldwide (91·5% for ischaemic stroke, 87·1% for intracerebral haemorrhage), and were consistent across regions (ranging from 82·7% in Africa to 97·4% in southeast Asia), sex (90·6% in men and in women), and age groups (92·2% in patients aged ≤55 years, 90·0% in patients aged >55 years). We observed regional variations in the importance of individual risk factors, which were related to variations in the magnitude of ORs (rather than direction, which we observed for diet) and differences in prevalence of risk factors among regions. Hypertension was more associated with intracerebral haemorrhage than with ischaemic stroke, whereas current smoking, diabetes, apolipoproteins, and cardiac causes were more associated with ischaemic stroke (p<0·0001).
    INTERPRETATION: Ten potentially modifiable risk factors are collectively associated with about 90% of the PAR of stroke in each major region of the world, among ethnic groups, in men and women, and in all ages. However, we found important regional variations in the relative importance of most individual risk factors for stroke, which could contribute to worldwide variations in frequency and case-mix of stroke. Our findings support developing both global and region-specific programmes to prevent stroke.
    FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Health Research Board Ireland, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland (Sweden), AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MSD, Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland, and The Stroke Association, with support from The UK Stroke Research Network.
  12. Nafeeza MI, Shahimi MM, Kudva MV, Mazlam MZ, Isa MR
    Lancet, 1989 May 6;1(8645):1018.
    PMID: 2565493 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(89)92660-3
  13. Matiashova L, Tsagkaris C, Essar MY, Danilchenko V, Isayeva G
    Lancet, 2022 04 30;399(10336):1689-1690.
    PMID: 35397235 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00579-7
  14. James PF
    Lancet, 1984 Feb 25;1(8374):453.
    PMID: 6142178
  15. Krishnan P, Mungherera M, Jones SB
    Lancet, 2003 May 17;361(9370):1669-70.
    PMID: 12767730 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13381-8
  16. Burtness B, Harrington KJ, Greil R, Soulières D, Tahara M, de Castro G, et al.
    Lancet, 2019 11 23;394(10212):1915-1928.
    PMID: 31679945 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32591-7
    BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is active in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression associated with improved response.

    METHODS: KEYNOTE-048 was a randomised, phase 3 study of participants with untreated locally incurable recurrent or metastatic HNSCC done at 200 sites in 37 countries. Participants were stratified by PD-L1 expression, p16 status, and performance status and randomly allocated (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab alone, pembrolizumab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (pembrolizumab with chemotherapy), or cetuximab plus a platinum and 5-fluorouracil (cetuximab with chemotherapy). Investigators and participants were aware of treatment assignment. Investigators, participants, and representatives of the sponsor were masked to the PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) results; PD-L1 positivity was not required for study entry. The primary endpoints were overall survival (time from randomisation to death from any cause) and progression-free survival (time from randomisation to radiographically confirmed disease progression or death from any cause, whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population (all participants randomly allocated to a treatment group). There were 14 primary hypotheses: superiority of pembrolizumab alone and of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival and progression-free survival in the PD-L1 CPS of 20 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and total populations and non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin: 1·2) of pembrolizumab alone and pembrolizumab with chemotherapy versus cetuximab with chemotherapy for overall survival in the total population. The definitive findings for each hypothesis were obtained when statistical testing was completed for that hypothesis; this occurred at the second interim analysis for 11 hypotheses and at final analysis for three hypotheses. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population (all participants who received at least one dose of allocated treatment). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02358031.

    FINDINGS: Between April 20, 2015, and Jan 17, 2017, 882 participants were allocated to receive pembrolizumab alone (n=301), pembrolizumab with chemotherapy (n=281), or cetuximab with chemotherapy (n=300); of these, 754 (85%) had CPS of 1 or more and 381 (43%) had CPS of 20 or more. At the second interim analysis, pembrolizumab alone improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the CPS of 20 or more population (median 14·9 months vs 10·7 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0·61 [95% CI 0·45-0·83], p=0·0007) and CPS of 1 or more population (12·3 vs 10·3, 0·78 [0·64-0·96], p=0·0086) and was non-inferior in the total population (11·6 vs 10·7, 0·85 [0·71-1·03]). Pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved overall survival versus cetuximab with chemotherapy in the total population (13·0 months vs 10·7 months, HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·63-0·93], p=0·0034) at the second interim analysis and in the CPS of 20 or more population (14·7 vs 11·0, 0·60 [0·45-0·82], p=0·0004) and CPS of 1 or more population (13·6 vs 10·4, 0·65 [0·53-0·80], p<0·0001) at final analysis. Neither pembrolizumab alone nor pembrolizumab with chemotherapy improved progression-free survival at the second interim analysis. At final analysis, grade 3 or worse all-cause adverse events occurred in 164 (55%) of 300 treated participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 235 (85%) of 276 in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 239 (83%) of 287 in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group. Adverse events led to death in 25 (8%) participants in the pembrolizumab alone group, 32 (12%) in the pembrolizumab with chemotherapy group, and 28 (10%) in the cetuximab with chemotherapy group.

    INTERPRETATION: Based on the observed efficacy and safety, pembrolizumab plus platinum and 5-fluorouracil is an appropriate first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic HNSCC and pembrolizumab monotherapy is an appropriate first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive recurrent or metastatic HNSCC.

    FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

  17. Cortes J, Cescon DW, Rugo HS, Nowecki Z, Im SA, Yusof MM, et al.
    Lancet, 2020 12 05;396(10265):1817-1828.
    PMID: 33278935 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32531-9
    BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab monotherapy showed durable antitumour activity and manageable safety in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. We aimed to examine whether the addition of pembrolizumab would enhance the antitumour activity of chemotherapy in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

    METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 209 sites in 29 countries, we randomly assigned patients 2:1 with untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer using a block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice-response system with integrated web-response to pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel; paclitaxel; or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. Randomisation was stratified by type of on-study chemotherapy (taxane or gemcitabine-carboplatin), PD-L1 expression at baseline (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1 or <1), and previous treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (yes or no). Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, centrally confirmed triple-negative breast cancer; at least one measurable lesion; provision of a newly obtained tumour sample for determination of triple-negative breast cancer status and PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry at a central laboratory; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. The sponsor, investigators, other study site staff (except for the unmasked pharmacist), and patients were masked to pembrolizumab versus saline placebo administration. In addition, the sponsor, the investigators, other study site staff, and patients were masked to patient-level tumour PD-L1 biomarker results. Dual primary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival assessed in the PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and intention-to-treat populations. The definitive assessment of progression-free survival was done at this interim analysis; follow-up to assess overall survival is continuing. For progression-free survival, a hierarchical testing strategy was used, such that testing was done first in patients with CPS of 10 or more (prespecified statistical criterion was α=0·00411 at this interim analysis), then in patients with CPS of 1 or more (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis, with partial alpha from progression-free survival in patients with CPS of 10 or more passed over), and finally in the intention-to-treat population (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819518, and is ongoing.

    FINDINGS: Between Jan 9, 2017, and June 12, 2018, of 1372 patients screened, 847 were randomly assigned to treatment, with 566 patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 281 patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff, Dec 11, 2019), median follow-up was 25·9 months (IQR 22·8-29·9) in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 26·3 months (22·7-29·7) in the placebo-chemotherapy group. Among patients with CPS of 10 or more, median progression-free survival was 9·7 months with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 5·6 months with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0·65, 95% CI 0·49-0·86; one-sided p=0·0012 [primary objective met]). Median progression-free survival was 7·6 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·74, 0·61-0·90; one-sided p=0·0014 [not significant]) among patients with CPS of 1 or more and 7·5 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·82, 0·69-0·97 [not tested]) among the intention-to-treat population. The pembrolizumab treatment effect increased with PD-L1 enrichment. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event rates were 68% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 67% in the placebo-chemotherapy group, including death in <1% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 0% in the placebo-chemotherapy group.

    INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo-chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with CPS of 10 or more. These findings suggest a role for the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

    FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

  18. Kumar V, Kanth S
    Lancet, 2004 Dec;364 Suppl 1:s18-9.
    PMID: 15967137
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links