Comparing the effectiveness and costs of Bevacizumab to Ranibizumab in patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: A randomized clinical trial (the BRDME study)

Background: The effectiveness of ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema has been proven with large clinical trials. For bevacizumab only two clinical trials have been published and a head-to-head comparison is lacking to date. However, if proved non-inferior to ranibizumab, use of the off-label bevacizumab could reduce costs enormously without a loss in visual acuity. A cost-effectiveness study has been designed to substantiate this hypothesis. Aim: To compare the effectiveness and costs of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab to 0.5 mg ranibizumab given as monthly intravitreal injections during 6 months in patients with diabetic macular edema. It is hypothesized that bevacizumab is non-inferior to ranibizumab regarding its effectiveness. Design: This is a randomized, controlled, double masked, clinical trial in 246 patients in seven academic trial centres in The Netherlands. Outcomes: The primary outcome measure is the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the study eye from baseline to month 6. Secondary outcomes are the proportions of patients with a gain or loss of 15 letters or more or a BCVA of 20/40 or more at 6 months, the change in leakage on fluorescein angiography and the change in foveal thickness by optical coherence tomography at 6 months, the number of adverse events in 6 months, and the costs per quality adjusted life-year of the two treatments

Subclinical synovial proliferation in patients with severe haemophilia A: The value of ultrasound screening and biochemical markers

Aim: Subclinical bleeding and inflammation play a role in progression of haemophilic arthropathy. Synovial proliferation is predictive of joint bleeding and its early detection may guide treatment changes and prevent arthropathy progression. This study evaluated the prevalence of active and inactive subclinical synovial proliferation and investigated potential biochemical blood/urine markers to identify patients with active subclinical synovial proliferation. Methods: This cross-sectional study included patients with severe haemophilia A born 1970–2006 who were evaluated during routine clinic visits. Patients with (a history of) inhibitors or recent joint bleeding were excluded. Elbows, knees and ankles were examined for subclinical synovial proliferation by ultrasound and physical examination. Active synovial proliferation was distinguished from inactive synovial proliferation using predefined criteria. Blood/urine biochemical markers (serum osteopontin, sVCAM-1, Coll2-1, COMP, CS846, TIMP, and urinary CTX-II) were compared individually and as combined indexes between patients with and without active synovial proliferation. Results: This cohort consisted of 79 patients with a median age of 31 years (range 16.5–50.8 years) with 62/79 (78%) of the patients using continuous prophylaxis. The annualized joint bleeding rate over the last 5 years was.6 (.2–1.1). Active (17/79, 22%) and inactive subclinical synovial proliferation (17/79, 22%) were both prevalent in this cohort. Biochemical markers were not correlated with active subclinical synovial proliferation. Conclusion: Subclinical synovial proliferation, both active and inactive, was prevalent in patients with severe haemophilia A with access to prophylaxis and would be overlooked without routinely performed ultrasounds. Biochemical markers were unable to identify patients with active subclinical synovial proliferation

A multicentre outcome analysis to define global benchmarks for donation after circulatory death liver transplantation

Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Comparing the effectiveness and costs of Bevacizumab to Ranibizumab in patients with Diabetic Macular Edema: a randomized clinical trial (the BRDME study)

Contains fulltext : 154839.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of ranibizumab in the treatment of diabetic macular edema has been proven with large clinical trials. For bevacizumab only two clinical trials have been published and a head-to-head comparison is lacking to date. However, if proved non-inferior to ranibizumab, use of the off-label bevacizumab could reduce costs enormously without a loss in visual acuity. A cost-effectiveness study has been designed to substantiate this hypothesis. AIM: To compare the effectiveness and costs of 1.25 mg of bevacizumab to 0.5 mg ranibizumab given as monthly intravitreal injections during 6 months in patients with diabetic macular edema. It is hypothesized that bevacizumab is non-inferior to ranibizumab regarding its effectiveness. DESIGN: This is a randomized, controlled, double masked, clinical trial in 246 patients in seven academic trial centres in The Netherlands. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome measure is the change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the study eye from baseline to month 6. Secondary outcomes are the proportions of patients with a gain or loss of 15 letters or more or a BCVA of 20/40 or more at 6 months, the change in leakage on fluorescein angiography and the change in foveal thickness by optical coherence tomography at 6 months, the number of adverse events in 6 months, and the costs per quality adjusted life-year of the two treatments

Comparing the Efficacy of Bevacizumab and Ranibizumab in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema (BRDME): The BRDME Study, a Randomized Trial

PURPOSE: To generate conclusive evidence regarding the noninferiority of intravitreal bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). DESIGN: Comparative, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, noninferiority clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were older than 18 years, diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus, with glycosylated hemoglobin of less than 12%, central area thickness of more than 325 μm, and visual impairment from DME with a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between 24 letters and 78 letters. METHODS: From June 2012 through February 2018, a total of 170 participants were randomized to receive 6 monthly injections of either 1.25 mg bevacizumab (n = 86) or 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n = 84). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was change in BCVA from baseline to month 6 compared between the 2 treatment arms. The noninferiority margin was 3.5 letters. RESULTS: The difference in mean BCVA between treatment arms was 1.8 letters in favor of ranibizumab after 6 months of follow-up; BCVA improved by 4.9±6.7 letters in the bevacizumab group and 6.7±8.7 letters in the ranibizumab group. The lower bound of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) was -3.626 letters, exceeding the noninferiority margin of 3.5 letters. Central area thickness decreased more with ranibizumab (138.2±114.3 μm) compared with bevacizumab (64.2±104.2 μm). In a post hoc subgroup analysis, participants with a worse BCVA at baseline (≤69 letters) improved by 6.7±7.0 letters with bevacizumab and 10.4±10.0 letters with ranibizumab, and central area thickness decreased significantly more in the ranibizumab arm of this subgroup compared with the bevacizumab arm. Participants with an initially better BCVA at baseline (≥70 letters) did not demonstrate differences in BCVA or OCT outcomes between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Based on change in BCVA from baseline to month 6, the noninferiority of 1.25 mg bevacizumab to 0.5 mg ranibizumab was not confirmed. Only the subgroup of patients with a lower BCVA at baseline showed better visual acuity and anatomic outcomes with ranibizumab. Our study confirmed the potential differential efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents in the treatment of DME as well as the difference in response between patient groups with different baseline visual acuities

Surgical navigation for targeted retroperitoneal lymph-node removal: a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trialResearch in context

Summary: Background: Metastatic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (LND) for nodal recurrence is applied for a variety of cancers, such as urological, gynaecological and rectal cancer. Precise localisation and resection of these lymph nodes (LNs) during surgery can be challenging, especially after previous radiotherapy or surgery. The objective of this study was to assess the added value of surgical navigation for targeted LND in the retroperitoneum. Methods: We performed an open-label randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial at the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam. Eligible participants were over 18 years of age, scheduled for targeted retroperitoneal LND by laparotomy, with removal of one or more suspected (targeted) LN(s) as assessed by diagnostic imaging. Patients were randomised (1:1) between conventional LND and LND using surgical navigation, by means of a minimisation method stratified for tumour origin (urological, colorectal and other). For the surgical navigation, a digital 3D model of the patients' anatomy was created from diagnostic CT scans, including delineation of the targeted LN(s). The 3D model was linked to the patients’ position in the operation room. Using an electromagnetic tracking system, with a sterile tracked pointer, the actual position of the pointer was shown in the 3D model, enabling the surgeon to localize the targeted LN(s). The primary outcome of the study was the percentage of successful procedures. Success was defined as no residual target LN(s) visible on postoperative CT imaging. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05867095. Findings: From January 2017 to December 2020, 69 participants were included in the study, 35 (51%) in the conventional arm and 34 (49%) in the navigation arm. Four patients were not evaluable and excluded from further analysis; three in the conventional arm (patients withdraw from study participation), one in the navigation arm (discontinued surgery, misclassified diagnosis). According to intention-to-treat analysis, 50% (16/32) of the surgical procedures was successful in the conventional arm, versus 85% (28/33) in the surgical navigation arm (one-tailed p = 0.0028, 90% CI: 14%–56%). Using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the overall complication rate was comparable between the conventional arm and the navigation arm. Surgeons judged the surgical navigation setup as valuable, the median preference score to use surgical navigation was 3.7 (3.3–4.0) (scale 1–5), and the median system usability score was 75 (70–85) (scale 0–100). Interpretation: Surgical navigation allows for significantly better localisation and removal of target LN(s) in the retroperitoneum. Funding: This research was supported by the KWF-Alpe d'HuZes (NKI 2014-6596) and by an institutional grant of The Dutch Cancer Society and of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport

Comparing the Efficacy of Bevacizumab and Ranibizumab in Patients with Retinal Vein Occlusion: The Bevacizumab to Ranibizumab in Retinal Vein Occlusions (BRVO) study, a Randomized Trial

Contains fulltext : 220891.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)PURPOSE: Comparing the efficacy of intravitreal injections of bevacizumab to ranibizumab in the treatment of macular edema (ME) resulting from retinal vein occlusion (RVO). DESIGN: Comparative, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, noninferiority clinical trial. The noninferiority margin was 4 letters. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with vision loss resulting from ME secondary to a branch or (hemi) central RVO who might benefit from anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment were eligible for participation. METHODS: From June 2012 through February 2018, 277 participants were randomized to receive injections of 1.25 mg bevacizumab (n = 139) or 0.5 mg ranibizumab (n = 138). The follow-up was 6 months with a monthly dosing interval. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a change in visual acuity from baseline at 6 months. Changes in the central area thickness and safety were studied as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The mean visual acuity (±standard deviation) improved, with 15.3±13.0 letters for bevacizumab and 15.5±13.3 letters for ranibizumab after 6 months of monthly treatment. The lower limit of the 2-sided 90% confidence interval was -1.724 letters, which is within the noninferiority margin of 4 letters. Even in the branch and (hemi-)central RVO subgroups, minimal differences were found in visual acuity outcomes between treatment arms. Changes in central area thickness on OCT at 6 months did not differ significantly between treatment groups, with a decrease of 287.0±231.3 μm in the bevacizumab group and 300.8±224.8 μm in the ranibizumab group. Severe adverse events (SAEs) were also distributed equally over both treatment groups: 10 participants (7.1%) in the bevacizumab group and 13 participants (9.2%) in the ranibizumab group experienced SAEs. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed, based on the change in visual acuity, that bevacizumab is noninferior to ranibizumab for patients with ME resulting from RVO of either subtype when receiving monthly injections for a period of 6 months. In addition, anatomic and safety outcomes did not differ between treatment groups. Based on our findings, bevacizumab may be an effective alternative to ranibizumab