Meta-analysis of stomatitis in clinical studies of everolimus: incidence and relationship with efficacy.

BackgroundEverolimus, an oral mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, is used to treat solid tumors and tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). Stomatitis, an inflammation of the mucous membranes of the mouth, is a common adverse event associated with mTOR inhibitors, including everolimus. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from seven randomized, double-blind phase 3 clinical trials of everolimus to determine the clinical impact of stomatitis on efficacy and safety.Patients and methodsData were pooled from the safety sets of solid tumor [breast cancer (BOLERO-2 and BOLERO-3), renal cell carcinoma (RECORD-1), carcinoid tumors (RADIANT-2), and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (RADIANT-3)] and TSC studies (EXIST-1 and EXIST-2). Data from solid tumor trials and TSC trials were analyzed separately.ResultsThe rate of stomatitis was 67% in the solid tumor trials (973/1455 patients) and 70% in the TSC trials (110/157 patients). Most stomatitis events were grade 1/2, with grade 3/4 events reported in only 9% (solid tumor trials) and 8% (TSC trials) of patients. Low TSC patient numbers prevented an in-depth evaluation of stomatitis and response. In the solid tumor trials, most first stomatitis episodes (89%; n = 870) were observed within 8 weeks of starting everolimus. Patients with stomatitis occurring within 8 weeks of everolimus initiation had longer progression-free survival (PFS) than everolimus-treated patients without stomatitis in BOLERO-2 {8.5 versus 6.9 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR), 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-1.00]} and RADIANT-3 [13.9 versus 8.3 months, respectively; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.48-1.04)]. A similar trend was observed in RECORD-1 [HR, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.66-1.22)] and RADIANT-2 [HR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.61-1.22)] but not in BOLERO-3 [HR, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.75-1.36)].ConclusionsStomatitis did not adversely affect PFS, supporting the administration of everolimus in accordance with standard management guidelines

Mechanical ventilation and clinical practice heterogeneity in intensive care units: a multicenter case-vignette study.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies on mechanical ventilation (MV) show practice variations across ICUs. We sought to determine, with a case-vignette study, the heterogeneity of processes of care in ICUs focusing on mechanical ventilation procedures, and whether organizational patterns or physician characteristics influence practice variations. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional multicenter study using the case-vignette methodology. Descriptive analyses were calculated for each organizational pattern and respondent characteristics. An Index of Qualitative Variation (IQV, from 0, no heterogeneity, to a maximum of 1) was calculated. RESULTS: Forty ICUs from France (N = 33) and Switzerland (N = 7) participated; 396 physicians answered our case-vignettes. There was major heterogeneity of management processes related to MV within and across centers (mean IQV per center 0.51, SD 0.09). We observed the lowest variability (mean IQV per question < 0.4) for questions related to intubation procedure, ventilation of acute respiratory distress syndrome and the use of the semirecumbent position. We observed a high variability (mean IQV per question > 0.6) for questions related to management of endotracheal tube or suctioning, management of sedation and analgesia, and respect of autonomy. Heterogeneity was independent of respondent characteristics and of the presence of written procedures. There was a correlation between the processes associated with the highest variability (mean IQV per question > 0.6) and the annual volume of ICU admission (r = 0.32 (0.01 to 0.58)) and MV (r = 0.38 (0.07 to 0.63)). Within ICUs there was a large heterogeneity regarding knowledge of a local written procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Large clinical practice variations were found among ICUs. High volume centers were more likely to have heterogeneous practices. The presence of a local written procedure or respondent characteristics did not influence practice variation

m7824 msb0011359c a bifunctional fusion protein targeting pd l1 and tgf β in patients pts with advanced scchn results from a phase i cohort

n/

Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials:meta-epidemiological study

International audienceAbstract Objectives To study the impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects, and their variation between trials; differentiating between blinding of patients, healthcare providers, and observers; detection bias and performance bias; and types of outcome (the MetaBLIND study). Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data source Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013-14). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Meta-analyses with both blinded and non-blinded trials on any topic. Review methods Blinding status was retrieved from trial publications and authors, and results retrieved automatically from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Bayesian hierarchical models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR), and estimated the increases in heterogeneity between trials, for non-blinded trials (or of unclear status) versus blinded trials. Secondary analyses adjusted for adequacy of concealment of allocation, attrition, and trial size, and explored the association between outcome subjectivity (high, moderate, low) and average bias. An ROR lower than 1 indicated exaggerated effect estimates in trials without blinding. Results The study included 142 meta-analyses (1153 trials). The ROR for lack of blinding of patients was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.61 to 1.34) in 18 meta-analyses with patient reported outcomes, and 0.98 (0.69 to 1.39) in 14 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of healthcare providers was 1.01 (0.84 to 1.19) in 29 meta-analyses with healthcare provider decision outcomes (eg, readmissions), and 0.97 (0.64 to 1.45) in 13 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded patients or observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of observers was 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) in 46 meta-analyses with subjective observer reported outcomes, with no clear impact of degree of subjectivity. Information was insufficient to determine whether lack of blinding was associated with increased heterogeneity between trials. The ROR for trials not reported as double blind versus those that were double blind was 1.02 (0.90 to 1.13) in 74 meta-analyses. Conclusion No evidence was found for an average difference in estimated treatment effect between trials with and without blinded patients, healthcare providers, or outcome assessors. These results could reflect that blinding is less important than often believed or meta-epidemiological study limitations, such as residual confounding or imprecision. At this stage, replication of this study is suggested and blinding should remain a methodological safeguard in trials

Disability Policies in France: Changes and Tensions between the Category-based, Universalist and Personalized Approaches

In this article, the authors show that the current French disability policy is traversed by conflicts between three different approaches to disability which came about at different periods in history. They begin by looking at the origins of disability policy in France. This policy was developed during the 20th century, from notions of repair, indemnification and compensation through rehabilitation. It became institutionalized in 1975, when two laws were passed, giving it the form of a category-based policy. Between 1970 and 2000, affected by the international situation, this policy came into conflict with a universalist policy. More recently there has been a desire to develop a personalized approach. Finally, the authors use two examples (taken from recent debates on the implementation in France of the new law of 11 February 2005) to show the tensions that have led to the coexistence of these three approaches within current disability policy

EULAR Sjogren's syndrome disease activity index (ESSDAI):a user guide

The EULAR Sj\uf6gren's syndrome (SS) disease activity index (ESSDAI) is a systemic disease activity index that was designed to measure disease activity in patients with primary SS. With the growing use of the ESSDAI, some domains appear to be more challenging to rate than others. The ESSDAI is now in use as a gold standard to measure disease activity in clinical studies, and as an outcome measure, even a primary outcome measure, in current randomised clinical trials. Therefore, ensuring an accurate and reproducible rating of each domain, by providing a more detailed definition of each domain, has emerged as an urgent need. The purpose of the present article is to provide a user guide for the ESSDAI. This guide provides definitions and precisions on the rating of each domain. It also includes some minor improvement of the score to integrate advance in knowledge of disease manifestations. This user guide may help clinicians to use the ESSDAI, and increase the reliability of rating and consequently of the ability to detect true changes over time. This better appraisal of ESSDAI items, along with the recent definition of disease activity levels and minimal clinically important change, will improve the assessment of patients with primary SS and facilitate the demonstration of effectiveness of treatment for patients with primary SS