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

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

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

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Trabectedin for Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Current Status and Future Perspectives

<p><b>Article full text</b></p> <p><br></p> <p>The full text of this article can be found here<b>. </b><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-016-0344-3?view=classic">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12325-016-0344-3?view=classic</a></p><p></p> <p><br></p> <p><b>Provide enhanced content for this article</b></p> <p><br></p> <p>If you are an author of this publication and would like to provide additional enhanced content for your article then please contact <a href="http://www.medengine.com/Redeem/”mailto:[email protected]”"><b>[email protected]</b></a>.</p> <p><br></p> <p>The journal offers a range of additional features designed to increase visibility and readership. All features will be thoroughly peer reviewed to ensure the content is of the highest scientific standard and all features are marked as ‘peer reviewed’ to ensure readers are aware that the content has been reviewed to the same level as the articles they are being presented alongside. Moreover, all sponsorship and disclosure information is included to provide complete transparency and adherence to good publication practices. This ensures that however the content is reached the reader has a full understanding of its origin. No fees are charged for hosting additional open access content.</p> <p><br></p> <p>Other enhanced features include, but are not limited to:</p> <p><br></p> <p>• Slide decks</p> <p>• Videos and animations</p> <p>• Audio abstracts</p> <p>• Audio slides</p

An Update on the Treatment of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma

Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the second-most common subtype of kidney cancer following clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), representing 15% of kidney cancers. Despite advances in therapy, including combination strategies with targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors, progress has lagged behind that of ccRCC. This is in part due to the heterogenous nature of the various subtypes of pRCC. More recently, investigators have turned efforts towards histology and biology-based trials. In this review, we outline some of the distinct biological characteristics of pRCC and discuss the most impactful clinical trials to date. Finally, we look ahead to several highly anticipated ongoing trials in pRCC

An Update on the Treatment of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma

Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the second-most common subtype of kidney cancer following clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), representing 15% of kidney cancers. Despite advances in therapy, including combination strategies with targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors, progress has lagged behind that of ccRCC. This is in part due to the heterogenous nature of the various subtypes of pRCC. More recently, investigators have turned efforts towards histology and biology-based trials. In this review, we outline some of the distinct biological characteristics of pRCC and discuss the most impactful clinical trials to date. Finally, we look ahead to several highly anticipated ongoing trials in pRCC

Prevalence of Dietary Modification and Supplement Use in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving Systemic Therapy

Many patients diagnosed with cancer adopt dietary changes and supplement use, and a growing body of evidence suggests that such modifications can affect outcomes to cancer therapy. We sought to assess the prevalence of these practices and the surrounding physician-patient dialogue among patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. An online survey was administered by Kidney Cancer Research Alliance (KCCure), interrogating dietary modification patterns, supplement usage, out-of-pocket expenditure related to supplements, and patients’ views toward alternative medicine practices. Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving combination therapy were actively solicited. In total, 289 unique responses were collected. The most common first-line treatments were nivolumab/ipilimumab (32.4%) and axitinib/pembrolizumab (13.1%). Within the cohort, 147 (50.9%) started using supplements following diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma; the most utilized supplements were probiotics, cannabidiol (CBD) oil/marijuana, and Vitamin C, reported by 70 (47.6%), 61 (41.4%), and 54 (36.7%), respectively. Dietary modifications following cancer diagnosis were reported by 101 (34.9%) respondents, of which 19.8% followed the Mediterranean diet and 18.8% adopted a ketogenic diet. Most respondents (71.3%) noted that they consistently report supplement usage to their physicians. A substantial proportion of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma utilize dietary modification and supplements as an adjunct to antineoplastic therapy. Considering the widespread adoption of these practices and the reported effects on cancer treatment, it is crucial for healthcare providers to engage in discussions with patients regarding supplement use

Three-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis

Background: Randomized data comparing outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgery in low surgical risk patients at time points beyond 2 years is limited. This presents an unknown for physicians striving to educate patients as part of a shared decision-making process. Objective: We evaluated 3-year clinical and echocardiographic outcomes from the Evolut Low Risk trial. Methods: Low-risk patients were randomized to TAVR with a self-expanding, supra-annular valve or surgery. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke and several secondary endpoints were assessed at 3 years. Results: There were 1414 attempted implants (730 TAVR; 684 surgery). Patients had a mean age of 74 years and 35% were women. At 3 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 7.4% of TAVR patients and 10.4% of surgery patients (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00; p=0.051). The difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke remained broadly consistent over time: -1.8% at year 1; -2.0% at year 2; -2.9% at year 3. The incidence of mild paravalvular regurgitation (20.3% TAVR vs. 2.5% surgery) and pacemaker placement (23.2% TAVR vs. 9.1% surgery; p\u3c0.001) were lower in the surgery group. Rates of moderate or greater paravalvular regurgitation for both groups were \u3c1% and not significantly different. Patients who underwent TAVR had significantly improved valve hemodynamics (mean gradient 9.1mmHg TAVR vs. 12.1mmHg surgery; p\u3c0.001) at 3 years. Conclusions: Within the Evolut Low Risk study, TAVR at 3 years showed durable benefits compared to surgery with respect to all-cause mortality or disabling stroke