Phase 2 randomized placebo controlled double blind study to assess the efficacy and safety of tecfidera in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (TEALS Study)

Background: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive and fatal neurodegenerative disorder of the human motor system. Neuroinflammation appears to be an important modulator of disease progression in ALS. Specifically, reduction of regulatory T cell (Treg) levels, along with an increase in pro-inflammatory effector T cells, macrophage activation and upregulation of co-stimulatory pathways have all been associated with a rapid disease course in ALS. Autologous infusion of expanded Tregs into sporadic ALS patients, resulted in greater suppressive function, slowing of disease progression and stabilization of respiratory function. Tecfidera (dimethyl fumarate) increases the ratio of anti-inflammatory (Treg) to proinflammatory T-cells in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis and rebalances the regulatory: inflammatory axis towards a neuroprotective phenotype. Consequently, the aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Tecfidera in sporadic ALS. Methods: The study is an investigator led Phase 2 multi-center, randomized, placebo controlled, double blind clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of Tecfidera in patients with sporadic ALS. The study duration is 40 weeks, with a 36-week study period and end of study visit occurring at 40 weeks or at early termination/withdrawal from study. The TEALS study has been registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials registry (ANZCTR) under the trials registration number ACTRN12618000534280 and has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee and Research Governance Office at the lead site (Westmead Hospital) with the ethics number HREC/17/WMEAD/353. The participating sites have obtained site specific ethics and governance approvals from the local institution. Results: The primary endpoint is slowing of disease progression as reflected by the differences in the ALS Functional Rating Score-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score at Week 36. The secondary endpoints will include effects in survival, lower motor neuron function, respiratory function, quality of life and safety. Conclusion: This Phase 2 multi-center, randomized, placebo controlled, double blind clinical trial will provide evidence of efficacy and safety of Tecfidera in sporadic ALS

Frequency and Causes of False-Positive Elevated Plasma Concentrations of Fasting Gut Hormones in a Specialist Neuroendocrine Tumor Center

IntroductionIn the UK, the fasting plasma concentrations of a panel of gut hormones (comprising vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), gastrin, pancreatic polypeptide (PP), glucagon, somatostatin and chromogranin A) are measured to evaluate patients who have or who (due to unexplained and compatible symptoms) are suspected of having neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). False positive elevated hormone concentrations are sometimes found.ObjectiveTo evaluate the frequency and implications of false positive fasting gut hormone results.MethodsRetrospective audit of fasting gut hormone profile results at a large UK university teaching hospital over 12 months.ResultsFasting gut hormone concentrations were measured in 231 patients during 2017. No NETs were found in the 88 patients who had this test performed only to investigate symptoms. 31 false positive gastrin, 8 false positive chromogranin A, two false positive glucagon, three false positive somatostatin, one false positive PP, and one false positive VIP results were found. We extended the audit for glucagon and somatostatin for an additional two years and found seven probable false-positive raised glucagon concentrations and four probable false-positive elevated plasma somatostatin concentrations in total.ConclusionsFalse-positive elevations of plasma gastrin and chromogranin A were common and causes such as proton pump inhibitor use or inadequate fasting accounted for most cases. Elevated plasma concentrations of the other gut hormones were also detected in patients who had no other evidence of NET. Other diagnoses (e.g. cirrhosis and medullary thyroid carcinoma for hypersomatostatinemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus, pancreatitis, liver or renal impairment for hyperglucagonemia) may cause these false positive results.</jats:sec

Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19-Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS: Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: An international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19–free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19–free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19–free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19–free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score–matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19–free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19–free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Variation in postoperative outcomes of patients with intracranial tumors: insights from a prospective international cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: This study assessed the international variation in surgical neuro-oncology practice and 30-day outcomes of patients who had surgery for an intracranial tumor during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We prospectively included adults aged ≥18 years who underwent surgery for a malignant or benign intracranial tumor across 55 international hospitals from 26 countries. Each participating hospital recorded cases for 3 consecutive months from the start of the pandemic. We categorized patients’ location by World Bank income groups (high [HIC], upper-middle [UMIC], and low- and lower-middle [LLMIC]). Main outcomes were a change from routine management, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 30-day mortality. We used a Bayesian multilevel logistic regression stratified by hospitals and adjusted for key confounders to estimate the association between income groups and mortality. Results: Among 1016 patients, the number of patients in each income group was 765 (75.3%) in HIC, 142 (14.0%) in UMIC, and 109 (10.7%) in LLMIC. The management of 200 (19.8%) patients changed from usual care, most commonly delayed surgery. Within 30 days after surgery, 14 (1.4%) patients had a COVID-19 diagnosis and 39 (3.8%) patients died. In the multivariable model, LLMIC was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 2.83, 95% credible interval 1.37–5.74) compared to HIC. Conclusions: The first wave of the pandemic had a significant impact on surgical decision-making. While the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 30 days after surgery was low, there was a disparity in mortality between countries and this warrants further examination to identify any modifiable factors

Altered anal slow-wave pressure activity in low anterior resection syndrome: short case series in two independent specialist centres providing new mechanistic insights.

AIM: Conventional parameters (anal resting and squeeze pressures) measured with anorectal manometry (ARM) fail to identify anal sphincter dysfunction in many patients with low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). We assessed whether differences in anal canal slow-wave pressure activity occur between LARS patients and healthy individuals. METHOD: High-resolution ARM (HR-ARM) traces of 21 consecutive LARS male patients referred to the Royal London Hospital, UK (n = 12) and Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark (n = 9) were compared with HR-ARM data from 37 healthy male individuals. RESULTS: Qualitatively (by visual inspection of HR-ARM recordings), frequency of slow-wave pressure activity was strikingly different in 11/21 (52.4%) LARS patients to that observed in all healthy individuals. Quantitative analysis showed that peaks of the mean spectrum in these 11 LARS patients occurred at approximately 6-7 cycles per minute (cpm), without activity at higher frequencies. An equivalent pattern was only found in 2/37 (5.4%) healthy individuals (P<0.0001). Peaks of the mean spectrum in healthy individuals were concentrated at 16 cpm and 3-4 cpm. CONCLUSION: Over half of male LARS patients studied had altered anal slow-wave pressure activity based on analysis of HR-ARM recordings. Further studies could investigate relative contributions of sex, human baseline variance and neoadjuvant/surgical therapies on anal slow-waves, and correlate presence of abnormal activity with symptom severity

Long-term safety and efficacy of patisiran for hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy: 12-month results of an open-label extension study

Background: Hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis is a rare, inherited, progressive disease caused by mutations in the transthyretin (TTR) gene. We assessed the safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with patisiran, an RNA interference therapeutic that inhibits TTR production, in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Methods: This multicentre, open-label extension (OLE) trial enrolled patients at 43 hospitals or clinical centres in 19 countries as of Sept 24, 2018. Patients were eligible if they had completed the phase 3 APOLLO or phase 2 OLE parent studies and tolerated the study drug. Eligible patients from APOLLO (patisiran and placebo groups) and the phase 2 OLE (patisiran group) studies enrolled in this global OLE trial and received patisiran 0·3 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks with plans to continue to do so for up to 5 years. Efficacy assessments included measures of polyneuropathy (modified Neuropathy Impairment Score +7 [mNIS+7]), quality of life, autonomic symptoms, nutritional status, disability, ambulation status, motor function, and cardiac stress, with analysis by study groups (APOLLO-placebo, APOLLO-patisiran, phase 2 OLE patisiran) based on allocation in the parent trial. The global OLE is ongoing with no new enrolment, and current findings are based on the interim analysis of the patients who had completed 12-month efficacy assessments as of the data cutoff. Safety analyses included all patients who received one or more dose of patisiran up to the data cutoff. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02510261. Findings: Between July 13, 2015, and Aug 21, 2017, of 212 eligible patients, 211 were enrolled: 137 patients from the APOLLO-patisiran group, 49 from the APOLLO-placebo group, and 25 from the phase 2 OLE patisiran group. At the data cutoff on Sept 24, 2018, 126 (92%) of 137 patients from the APOLLO-patisiran group, 38 (78%) of 49 from the APOLLO-placebo group, and 25 (100%) of 25 from the phase 2 OLE patisiran group had completed 12-month assessments. At 12 months, improvements in mNIS+7 with patisiran were sustained from parent study baseline with treatment in the global OLE (APOLLO-patisiran mean change –4·0, 95 % CI –7·7 to −0·3; phase 2 OLE patisiran –4·7, –11·9 to 2·4). Mean mNIS+7 score improved from global OLE enrolment in the APOLLO-placebo group (mean change from global OLE enrolment −1·4, 95% CI –6·2 to 3·5). Overall, 204 (97%) of 211 patients reported adverse events, 82 (39%) reported serious adverse events, and there were 23 (11%) deaths. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the APOLLO-placebo group (28 [57%] of 49) than in the APOLLO-patisiran (48 [35%] of 137) or phase 2 OLE patisiran (six [24%] of 25) groups. The most common treatment-related adverse event was mild or moderate infusion-related reactions. The frequency of deaths in the global OLE was higher in the APOLLO-placebo group (13 [27%] of 49), who had a higher disease burden than the APOLLO-patisiran (ten [7%] of 137) and phase 2 OLE patisiran (0 of 25) groups. Interpretation: In this interim 12-month analysis of the ongoing global OLE study, patisiran appeared to maintain efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Continued long-term follow-up will be important for the overall assessment of safety and efficacy with patisiran. Funding: Alnylam Pharmaceuticals

Elective cancer surgery in COVID-19-free surgical pathways during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic : an international, multicenter, comparative cohort study

PURPOSE As cancer surgery restarts after the first COVID-19 wave, health care providers urgently require data to determine where elective surgery is best performed. This study aimed to determine whether COVID-19-free surgical pathways were associated with lower postoperative pulmonary complication rates compared with hospitals with no defined pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS This international, multicenter cohort study included patients who underwent elective surgery for 10 solid cancer types without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Participating hospitals included patients from local emergence of SARS-CoV-2 until April 19, 2020. At the time of surgery, hospitals were defined as having a COVID-19-free surgical pathway (complete segregation of the operating theater, critical care, and inpatient ward areas) or no defined pathway (incomplete or no segregation, areas shared with patients with COVID-19). The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications (pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, unexpected ventilation). RESULTS Of 9,171 patients from 447 hospitals in 55 countries, 2,481 were operated on in COVID-19-free surgical pathways. Patients who underwent surgery within COVID-19-free surgical pathways were younger with fewer comorbidities than those in hospitals with no defined pathway but with similar proportions of major surgery. After adjustment, pulmonary complication rates were lower with COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.2% v 4.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.86). This was consistent in sensitivity analyses for low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1/2), propensity score-matched models, and patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 preoperative tests. The postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was also lower in COVID-19-free surgical pathways (2.1% v 3.6%; aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.76). CONCLUSION Within available resources, dedicated COVID-19-free surgical pathways should be established to provide safe elective cancer surgery during current and before future SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks