Clinical considerations on the posology of direct oral anticoagulants

Los anticoagulantes dicumarínicos han demostrado su eficacia en pacientes con fibrilación auricular no valvular. Sin embargo, presentan desventajas como la necesidad de ajustar la dosis y la interacción con fármacos y alimentos. Por su parte, los anticoagulantes orales de acción directa se presentan como una alternativa eficaz y segura con un manejo clínico menos complejo. Existe un considerable debate sobre los criterios de selección de las pautas posológicas de los anticoagulantes orales de acción directa. Las diferencias entre ellos y sus pautas de administración han despertado dudas sobre los criterios de selección clínicos, farmacocinéticos y farmacodinámicos que avalan dicha posología. Esta revisión analiza de forma crítica las evidencias disponibles y su impacto en la selección final del esquema posológic

A Multicentric, Open-Label, Randomized, Comparative Clinical Trial of Two Different Doses of Expanded hBM-MSCs Plus Biomaterial versus Iliac Crest Autograft, for Bone Healing in Nonunions after Long Bone Fractures: Study Protocol

ORTHOUNION is a multicentre, open, comparative, three-arm, randomized clinical trial (EudraCT number 2015-000431-32) to compare the efficacy, at one and two years, of autologous human bone marrow-derived expanded mesenchymal stromal cell (hBM-MSC) treatments versus iliac crest autograft (ICA) to enhance bone healing in patients with diaphyseal and/or metaphysodiaphyseal fracture (femur, tibia, and humerus) status of atrophic or oligotrophic nonunion (more than 9 months after the acute fracture, including recalcitrant cases after failed treatments). The primary objective is to determine if the treatment with hBM-MSCs combined with biomaterial is superior to ICA in obtaining bone healing. If confirmed, a secondary objective is set to determine if the dose of 100 × 106 hBM-MSCs is noninferior to that of 200 × 106 hBM-MSCs. The participants (n = 108) will be randomly assigned to either the experimental low dose (n = 36), the experimental high dose (n = 36), or the comparator arm (n = 36) using a central randomization service. The trial will be conducted in 20 clinical centres in Spain, France, Germany, and Italy under the same clinical protocol. The confirmation of superiority for the proposed ATMP in nonunions may foster the future of bone regenerative medicine in this indication. On the contrary, absence of superiority may underline its limitations in clinical use

Riesgos de las plantas medicinales en uso concomitante con medicamentos

El consumo de plantas medicinales ha crecido en nuestro medio en los últimos años y es frecuente su utilización en combinación con medicamentos prescritos por los médicos. Existe la falsa percepción de que los productos a base de plantas son inocuos e incluso ventajosos por su supuesto carácter "natural", razonamiento poco compatible con el hecho de que su efecto terapéutico se atribuya a su contenido en principios activos con actividad farmacológica. Se han descrito algunas interacciones de relevancia clínica entre plantas y medicamentos por lo que resulta imprescindible incorporar a la historia clínica el interrogatorio sobre tales hábitos, especialmente en aquellos pacientes tratados con medicamentos en los que las posibles interacciones impliquen consecuencias clínicas. Debemos considerar estos productos como posible origen de síntomas, reacciones adversas e interacciones medicamentosas en los pacientes. La notificación de estas sospechas al Sistema Español de Farmacovigilancia puede ser una herramienta para mejorar el conocimiento sobre estos productos

Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how

José A Sacristán,1 Alfonso Aguarón,2 Cristina Avendaño-Solá,3 Pilar Garrido,4 Juan Carrión,5 Alipio Gutiérrez,6 Robert Kroes,7 Angeles Flores11Medical Department, Lilly Spain, 2Myeloma Patients Europe, 3Research Ethics Committee, University Hospital Puerta de Hierro, 4Oncology Department, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, 5FEDER (Spanish Federation for Rare Diseases), 6National Association of Health Journalists, Madrid, Spain; 7Clinical Open Innovation, Lilly Europe, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Abstract: The development of a patient-centered approach to medicine is gradually allowing more patients to be involved in their own medical decisions. However, this change is not happening at the same rate in clinical research, where research generally continues to be carried out on patients, but not with patients. This work describes the why, when, and how of more active patient participation in the research process. Specific measures are proposed to improve patient involvement in 1) setting priorities, 2) study leadership and design, 3) improved access to clinical trials, 4) preparation and oversight of the information provided to participants, 5) post-study evaluation of the patient experience, and 6) the dissemination and application of results. In order to achieve these aims, the relative emphases on the ethical principles underlying research need to be changed. The current model based on the principle of beneficence must be left behind, and one that upholds the ethical principles of autonomy and non maleficence should be embraced. There is a need to improve the level of information that patients and society as a whole have on research objectives and processes; the goal is to promote the gradual emergence of the expert patient.Keywords: patients, research, clinical trials, bioethics, engagemen

Development and Validation of a Treatment Benefit Index to Identify Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 Who May Benefit From Convalescent Plasma

Importance: Identifying which patients with COVID-19 are likely to benefit from COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) treatment may have a large public health impact.   Objective: To develop an index for predicting the expected relative treatment benefit from CCP compared with treatment without CCP for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 using patients' baseline characteristics.   Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study used data from the COMPILE study, ie, a meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data from 8 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP vs control in adults hospitalized for COVID-19 who were not receiving mechanical ventilation at randomization. A combination of baseline characteristics, termed the treatment benefit index (TBI), was developed based on 2287 patients in COMPILE using a proportional odds model, with baseline characteristics selected via cross-validation. The TBI was externally validated on 4 external data sets: the Expanded Access Program (1896 participants), a study conducted under Emergency Use Authorization (210 participants), and 2 RCTs (with 80 and 309 participants).   Exposure: Receipt of CCP.   Main Outcomes and Measures: World Health Organization (WHO) 11-point ordinal COVID-19 clinical status scale and 2 derivatives of it (ie, WHO score of 7-10, indicating mechanical ventilation to death, and WHO score of 10, indicating death) at day 14 and day 28 after randomization. Day 14 WHO 11-point ordinal scale was used as the primary outcome to develop the TBI.   Results: A total of 2287 patients were included in the derivation cohort, with a mean (SD) age of 60.3 (15.2) years and 815 (35.6%) women. The TBI provided a continuous gradation of benefit, and, for clinical utility, it was operationalized into groups of expected large clinical benefit (B1; 629 participants in the derivation cohort [27.5%]), moderate benefit (B2; 953 [41.7%]), and potential harm or no benefit (B3; 705 [30.8%]). Patients with preexisting conditions (diabetes, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases), with blood type A or AB, and at an early COVID-19 stage (low baseline WHO scores) were expected to benefit most, while those without preexisting conditions and at more advanced stages of COVID-19 could potentially be harmed. In the derivation cohort, odds ratios for worse outcome, where smaller odds ratios indicate larger benefit from CCP, were 0.69 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.48-1.06) for B1, 0.82 (95% CrI, 0.61-1.11) for B2, and 1.58 (95% CrI, 1.14-2.17) for B3. Testing on 4 external datasets supported the validation of the derived TBIs.   Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that the CCP TBI is a simple tool that can quantify the relative benefit from CCP treatment for an individual patient hospitalized with COVID-19 that can be used to guide treatment recommendations. The TBI precision medicine approach could be especially helpful in a pandemic

Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 : a meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. OBJECTIVE To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. DATA SOURCES Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS In this prospectivemeta-analysis, risk of biaswas assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I-2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measurewas all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. RESULTS A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P =.003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P <.001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P =.52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this prospectivemeta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality