COHESION: a core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in outcomes reported in trials of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) makes evaluating the effectiveness of treatments difficult. Developing a core outcome set for NE treatment would enable researchers to measure and report the same outcomes in future trials. This would minimise waste, ensure relevant outcomes are measured and enable evidence synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop a core outcome set for treating NE.METHODS: Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature and interviews with parents were prioritised by stakeholders (n = 99 parents/caregivers, n = 101 healthcare providers, and n = 22 researchers/ academics) in online Delphi surveys. Agreement on the outcomes was achieved at online consensus meetings attended by n = 10 parents, n = 18 healthcare providers, and n = 13 researchers/ academics.RESULTS: Seven outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: survival; brain injury on imaging; neurological status at discharge; cerebral palsy; general cognitive ability; quality of life of the child, and adverse events related to treatment.CONCLUSION: We developed a core outcome set for the treatment of NE. This will allow future trials to measure and report the same outcomes and ensure results can be compared. Future work should identify how best to measure the COS

Secondary cytogenetic abnormalities in core-binding factor AML harboring inv(16) vs t(8;21)

Patients with core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), caused by either t(8; 21)(q22;q22) or inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), have higher complete remission rates and longer survival than patients with other subtypes of AML. However, similar to 40% of patients relapse, and the literature suggests that patients with inv(16) fare differently from those with t(8;21). We retrospectively analyzed 537 patients with CBF-AML, focusing on additional cytogenetic aberrations to examine their impact on clinical outcomes. Trisomies of chromosomes 8, 21, or 22 were significantly more common in patients with inv(16)/t(16;16): 16% vs 7%, 6% vs 0%, and 17% vs 0%, respectively. In contrast, del(9q) and loss of a sex chromosome were more frequent in patients with t(8;21): 15% vs 0.4% for del(9q), 37% vs 0% for loss of X in females, and 44% vs 5% for loss of Y in males. Hyperdiploidy was more frequent in patients with inv(16) (25% vs 9%, whereas hypodiploidy was more frequent in patients with t(8;21) (37% vs 3%. In multivariable analyses (adjusted for age, white blood counts at diagnosis, and KIT mutation status), trisomy 8 was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in inv(16), whereas the presence of other chromosomal abnormalities (not trisomy 8) was associated with decreased OS. In patients with t(8;21), hypodiploidy was associated with improved disease-free survival; hyperdiploidy and del(9q) were associated with improved OS. KIT mutation (either positive or not tested, compared with negative) conferred poor prognoses in univariate analysis only in patients with t(8;21)

In Support of a Patient-Driven Initiative and Petition to Lower the High Price of Cancer Drugs

Comment in Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--III. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--I. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--IV. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] In Reply--Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] US oncologists call for government regulation to curb drug price rises. [BMJ. 2015

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline

Core-binding factor acute myeloid leukemia with t(8;21) Risk factors and a novel scoring system (I-CBFit)

Background: Although the prognosis of core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is better than other subtypes of AML, 30% of patients still relapse and may require allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT). However, there is no validated widely accepted scoring system to predict patient subsets with higher risk of relapse. Methods: Eleven centers in the US and Europe evaluated 247 patients with t(8;21) (q22;q22). Results: Complete remission (CR) rate was high (92.7%), yet relapse occurred in 27.1% of patients. A total of 24.7% of patients received alloHCT. The median diseasefree (DFS) and overall (OS) survival were 20.8 and 31.2 months, respectively. Age, KIT D816V mutated (11.3%) or nontested (36.4%) compared with KIT D816V wild type (52.5%), high white blood cell counts (WBC), and pseudodiploidy compared with hyper- or hypodiploidy were included in a scoring system (named I-CBFit). DFS rate at 2 years was 76% for patients with a low-risk I-CBFit score compared with 36% for those with a high-risk I-CBFit score (P <0.0001). Low- vs high-risk OS at 2 years was 89% vs 51% (P <0.0001). Conclusions: I-CBFit composed of readily available risk factors can be useful to tailor the therapy of patients, especially for whom alloHCT is not need in CR1 (ie, patients with a low-risk score)

Quality of life after postmastectomy radiotherapy in patients with intermediate-risk breast cancer (SUPREMO): 2-year follow-up results of a randomised controlled trial

Background Postmastectomy radiotherapy in patients with four or more positive axillary nodes reduces breast cancer mortality, but its role in patients with one to three involved nodes is controversial. We assessed the effects of postmastectomy radiotherapy on quality of life (QOL) in women with intermediate-risk breast cancer. Methods SUPREMO is an open-label, international, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial. Women aged 18 years or older with intermediate-risk breast cancer (defined as pT1–2N1; pT3N0; or pT2N0 if also grade III or with lymphovascular invasion) who had undergone mastectomy and, if node positive, axillary surgery, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chest wall radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions or a radiobiologically equivalent dose of 45 Gy in 20 fractions or 40 Gy in 15 fractions) or no radiotherapy. Randomisation was done with permuted blocks of varying block length, and stratified by centre, without masking of patients or investigators. The primary endpoint is 10-year overall survival. Here, we present 2-year results of QOL (a prespecified secondary endpoint). The QOL substudy, open to all UK patients, consists of questionnaires (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23, Body Image Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS], and EQ-5D-3L) completed before randomisation, and at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years. The prespecified primary outcomes within this QOL substudy were global QOL, fatigue, physical function, chest wall symptoms, shoulder and arm symptoms, body image, and anxiety and depression. Data were analysed by intention to treat, using repeated mixed-effects methods. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN61145589. Findings Between Aug 4, 2006, and April 29, 2013, 1688 patients were enrolled internationally and randomly assigned to receive chest wall radiotherapy (n=853) or not (n=835). 989 (79%) of 1258 patients from 111 UK centres consented to participate in the QOL substudy (487 in the radiotherapy group and 502 in the no radiotherapy group), of whom 947 (96%) returned the baseline questionnaires and were included in the analysis (radiotherapy, n=471; no radiotherapy, n=476). At up to 2 years, chest wall symptoms were worse in the radiotherapy group than in the no radiotherapy group (mean score 14·1 [SD 15·8] in the radiotherapy group vs 11·6 [14·6] in the no radiotherapy group; effect estimate 2·17, 95% CI 0·40–3·94; p=0·016); however, there was an improvement in both groups between years 1 and 2 (visit effect −1·34, 95% CI −2·36 to −0·31; p=0·010). No differences were seen between treatment groups in arm and shoulder symptoms, body image, fatigue, overall QOL, physical function, or anxiety or depression scores. Interpretation Postmastectomy radiotherapy led to more local (chest wall) symptoms up to 2 years postrandomisation compared with no radiotherapy, but the difference between groups was small. These data will inform shared decision making while we await survival (trial primary endpoint) results. Funding Medical Research Council, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Cancer Australia, Dutch Cancer Society, Trustees of Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication