Meta-Analysis on Pharmacogenetics of Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Patients

AIM: To determine the pharmacogenetics of platinum-based chemotherapy in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: Publications were selected from PubMed, Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Knowledge. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the association between genetic polymorphisms and platinum-based chemotherapy by checking odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Data were extracted from 24 publications, which included 11 polymorphisms in 8 genes for meta-analysis. MDR1 C3435T (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.11-3.50, P = 0.02), G2677A/T (OR = 2.61, 95% CI: 1.44-4.74, P = 0.002) and GSTP1 A313G (OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.17-0.58, P = 0.0002) were significantly correlated with platinum-based chemotherapy in Asian NSCLC patients. CONCLUSION: Attention should be paid to MDR1 C3435T, G2677A/T and GSTP1 A313G for personalized chemotherapy treatment for NSCLC patients in Asian population in the future

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Improved risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation: an integrated GARFIELD-AF tool for the prediction of mortality, stroke and bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks. DESIGN: The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHA2DS2-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). PARTICIPANTS: Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk. RESULTS: The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710)

Two-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: results from GARFIELD-AF.

AIMS: The relationship between outcomes and time after diagnosis for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is poorly defined, especially beyond the first year. METHODS AND RESULTS: GARFIELD-AF is an ongoing, global observational study of adults with newly diagnosed NVAF. Two-year outcomes of 17 162 patients prospectively enrolled in GARFIELD-AF were analysed in light of baseline characteristics, risk profiles for stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and antithrombotic therapy. The mean (standard deviation) age was 69.8 (11.4) years, 43.8% were women, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.3 (1.6); 60.8% of patients were prescribed anticoagulant therapy with/without antiplatelet (AP) therapy, 27.4% AP monotherapy, and 11.8% no antithrombotic therapy. At 2-year follow-up, all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and major bleeding had occurred at a rate (95% confidence interval) of 3.83 (3.62; 4.05), 1.25 (1.13; 1.38), and 0.70 (0.62; 0.81) per 100 person-years, respectively. Rates for all three major events were highest during the first 4 months. Congestive heart failure, acute coronary syndromes, sudden/unwitnessed death, malignancy, respiratory failure, and infection/sepsis accounted for 65% of all known causes of death and strokes for <10%. Anticoagulant treatment was associated with a 35% lower risk of death. CONCLUSION: The most frequent of the three major outcome measures was death, whose most common causes are not known to be significantly influenced by anticoagulation. This suggests that a more comprehensive approach to the management of NVAF may be needed to improve outcome. This could include, in addition to anticoagulation, interventions targeting modifiable, cause-specific risk factors for death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Rate, time course, and predictors of implantable cardioverter defibrillator infections: an analysis from the SIMPLE trial

Background: The number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) infections is increasing due to an increased number of ICD implants, higher-risk patients, and more frequent replacement procedures, which carry a higher risk of infection. Reducing the morbidity, mortality, and cost of ICD-related infections requires an understanding of the current rate of this complication and its predictors. Methods: The Shock Implant Evaluation Trial (SIMPLE) trial randomized 2500 ICD recipients to defibrillation testing or not. Over an average of 3.1 years, patients were seen every 6 months and examined for evidence of ICD infection, which was defined as requiring device removal and/or intravenous antibiotics. Results: Within 24 months, 21 patients (0.8%) developed infection. Fourteen patients (67%) with infection presented within 30 days, 20 patients by 12 months, and only 1 patient beyond 12 months. Univariate analysis demonstrated that patients with primary electrical disorders (3 patients, P = 0.009) and those with a secondary prevention indication (13 patients, P = 0.0009) were more likely to develop infection. Among the 2.2% of patients who developed an ICD wound hematoma, 10.4% developed an infection. Among the 8.3% of patients requiring an ICD reintervention, 1.9% developed an infection. Conclusions: This cohort of ICD recipients at high-volume centres have a low risk of device-related infection. However; strategies to reduce wound hematoma and the need for ICD reintervention could further reduce the rate of infection.Contexte: L’incidence des cas d’infection du défibrillateur cardioverteur implantable (DCI) augmente en raison du nombre accru d’implantations, de l’emploi de ces dispositifs chez des patients exposés à un risque très élevé et de l’augmentation de la fréquence des interventions de remplacement, qui sont associées à un plus grand risque d’infections. Pour parvenir à réduire la morbidité, la mortalité et les coûts associés aux infections liées à un DCI, il faut connaître la fréquence de cette complication et les facteurs qui permettent de la prédire. Méthodologie: Lors de l’essai S hock Impl ant E valuation Trial (SIMPLE), 2 500 patients ayant reçu un DCI ont été répartis aléatoirement en deux groupes, l’un subissant des tests de défibrillation et l’autre, non. Sur une période de 3,1 ans en moyenne, les patients ont été vus en consultation tous les 6 mois et examinés à la recherche de signes d’infection du DCI, définie comme étant une infection exigeant le retrait du dispositif et/ou l’administration d’antibiotiques par voie intraveineuse. Résultats: Au total, 21 patients (0,8 %) ont présenté une infection dans les 24 mois suivant l’implantation. Quatorze patients (67 %) ont présenté une infection dans les 30 jours suivant l’intervention; à 12 mois, 20 patients avaient présenté une infection. Un seul patient a présenté une infection plus de 12 mois après l’intervention. Les résultats d’une analyse univariée ont démontré qu’une infection était plus probable chez les patients qui présentaient un trouble électrique primaire (3 patients, p = 0,009) et chez ceux qui avaient reçu un dispositif en prévention secondaire (13 patients, p = 0,0009). Parmi les patients qui présentaient un hématome après l’implantation du DCI (2,2 %), 10,4 % ont présenté une infection. Parmi les patients qui ont eu besoin d’une nouvelle intervention relative au DCI (8,3 %), 1,9 % ont présenté une infection. Conclusions: Les patients de cette cohorte ayant reçu un DCI dans des établissements à haut volume étaient exposés à un faible risque d’infection du défibrillateur. Des stratégies visant à réduire les hématomes et la nécessité d’une nouvelle intervention sur les DCI pourraient toutefois contribuer à réduire encore plus la fréquence des infections

Cardioverter defibrillator implantation without induction of ventricular fibrillation: a single-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE).

International audienceDefibrillation testing by induction and termination of ventricular fibrillation is widely done at the time of implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ICD implantation without defibrillation testing versus the standard of ICD implantation with defibrillation testing. In this single-blind, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation [SIMPLE]), we recruited patients aged older than 18 years receiving their first ICD for standard indications at 85 hospitals in 18 countries worldwide. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, awaiting transplantation, particpation in another randomised trial, unavailability for follow-up, or if it was expected that the ICD would have to be implanted on the right-hand side of the chest. Patients undergoing initial implantation of a Boston Scientific ICD were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence to have either defibrillation testing (testing group) or not (no-testing group). We used random block sizes to conceal treatment allocation from the patients, and randomisation was stratified by clinical centre. Our primary efficacy analysis tested the intention-to-treat population for non-inferiority of no-testing versus testing by use of a composite outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock (ie, a shock that did not terminate a spontaneous episode of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation). The non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·5 calculated from a proportional hazards model with no-testing versus testing as the only covariate; if the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than 1·5, we concluded that ICD insertion without testing was non-inferior to ICD with testing. We examined safety with two, 30 day, adverse event outcome clusters. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00800384. Between Jan 13, 2009, and April 4, 2011, of 2500 eligible patients, 1253 were randomly assigned to defibrillation testing and 1247 to no-testing, and followed up for a mean of 3·1 years (SD 1·0). The primary outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock occurred in fewer patients (90 [7% per year]) in the no-testing group than patients who did receive it (104 [8% per year]; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·65-1·14; pnon-inferiority <0·0001). The first safety composite outcome occurred in 69 (5·6%) of 1236 patients with no-testing and in 81 (6·5%) of 1242 patients with defibrillation testing, p=0·33. The second, pre-specified safety composite outcome, which included only events most likely to be directly caused by testing, occurred in 3·2% of patients with no-testing and in 4·5% with defibrillation testing, p=0·08. Heart failure needing intravenous treatment with inotropes or diuretics was the most common adverse event (in 20 [2%] of 1236 patients in the no-testing group vs 28 [2%] of 1242 patients in the testing group, p=0·25). Routine defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation is generally well tolerated, but does not improve shock efficacy or reduce arrhythmic death. Boston Scientific and the Heart and Stroke Foundation (Ontario Provincial office)