Status Update and Interim Results from the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2)

Objectives: ACST-2 is currently the largest trial ever conducted to compare carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis requiring revascularization. Methods: Patients are entered into ACST-2 when revascularization is felt to be clearly indicated, when CEA and CAS are both possible, but where there is substantial uncertainty as to which is most appropriate. Trial surgeons and interventionalists are expected to use their usual techniques and CE-approved devices. We report baseline characteristics and blinded combined interim results for 30-day mortality and major morbidity for 986 patients in the ongoing trial up to September 2012. Results: A total of 986 patients (687 men, 299 women), mean age 68.7 years (SD ± 8.1) were randomized equally to CEA or CAS. Most (96%) had ipsilateral stenosis of 70-99% (median 80%) with contralateral stenoses of 50-99% in 30% and contralateral occlusion in 8%. Patients were on appropriate medical treatment. For 691 patients undergoing intervention with at least 1-month follow-up and Rankin scoring at 6 months for any stroke, the overall serious cardiovascular event rate of periprocedural (within 30 days) disabling stroke, fatal myocardial infarction, and death at 30 days was 1.0%. Conclusions: Early ACST-2 results suggest contemporary carotid intervention for asymptomatic stenosis has a low risk of serious morbidity and mortality, on par with other recent trials. The trial continues to recruit, to monitor periprocedural events and all types of stroke, aiming to randomize up to 5,000 patients to determine any differential outcomes between interventions. Clinical trial: ISRCTN21144362. © 2013 European Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

Combination lurbinectedin and doxorubicin versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIS): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Background Lurbinectedin is a synthetic marine-derived anticancer agent that acts as a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Lurbinectedin monotherapy (3middot2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of efficacy in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who relapsed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The ATLANTIS trial assessed the efficacy and safety of combination lurbinectedin and the anthracycline doxorubicin as second-line treatment for SCLC.Methods In this phase 3, open-label, randomised study, adult patients aged 18 years or older with SCLC who relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy were recruited from 135 hospitals across North America, South America, Europe, and the Middle East. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by dynamic allocation to intravenous lurbinectedin 2middot0 mg/m2 plus doxorubicin 40middot0 mg/m2 administered on day 1 of 21-day cycles or physician's choice of control therapy (intravenous topotecan 1middot5 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of 21-day cycles; or intravenous cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2 , doxorubicin 45middot0 mg/m2 , and vincristine 2middot0 mg on day 1 of 21-day cycles [CAV]) administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in both treatment groups. Neither patients nor clinicians were masked to treatment allocation, but the independent review committee, which assessed outcomes, was masked to patients' treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02566993, and with EudraCT, 2015-001641-89, and is complete.Findings Between Aug 30, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 613 patients were randomly assigned to lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin (n=307) or control (topotecan, n=127; CAV, n=179) and comprised the intention-to-treat population; safety endpoints were assessed in patients who had received any partial or complete study treatment infusions (lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin, n=303; control, n=289). After a median follow-up of 24middot1 months (95% CI 21middot7-26middot3), 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 289 patients in the control group had discontinued study treatment; progressive disease was the most common reason for discontinuation (213 [70%] patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 152 [53%] in the control group). Median overall survival was 8middot6 months (95% CI 7middot1-9middot4) in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group versus 7middot6 months (6middot6-8middot2) in the control group (stratified log-rank p=0middot90; hazard ratio 0middot97 [95% CI 0middot82-1middot15], p=0middot70). 12 patients died because of treatment-related adverse events: two (<1%) of 303 in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and ten (3%) of 289 in the control group. 296 (98%) of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group had treatment-emergent adverse events compared with 284 (98%) of 289 patients in the control group; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 268 (88%) patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 266 (92%) patients in the control group.Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were less frequent in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than the control group (anaemia, 57 [19%] of 302 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 110 [38%] of 288 in the control group; neutropenia, 112 [37%] vs 200 [69%]; thrombocytopenia, 42 [14%] vs 90 [31%]). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was lower in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than in the control group (26 [9%] of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 47 [16%] of 289 in the control group).Interpretation Combination therapy with lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin did not improve overall survival versus control in patients with relapsed SCLC. However, lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin showed a favourable haematological safety profile compared with control.Pathogenesis and treatment of chronic pulmonary disease

Safety and Outcome of Revascularization Treatment in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke and COVID-19: The Global COVID-19 Stroke Registry.

COVID-19 related inflammation, endothelial dysfunction and coagulopathy may increase the bleeding risk and lower efficacy of revascularization treatments in patients with acute ischemic stroke. We aimed to evaluate the safety and outcomes of revascularization treatments in patients with acute ischemic stroke and COVID-19. Retrospective multicenter cohort study of consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke receiving intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and/or endovascular treatment (EVT) between March 2020 and June 2021, tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection. With a doubly-robust model combining propensity score weighting and multivariate regression, we studied the association of COVID-19 with intracranial bleeding complications and clinical outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed according to treatment groups (IVT-only and EVT). Of a total of 15128 included patients from 105 centers, 853 (5.6%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. 5848 (38.7%) patients received IVT-only, and 9280 (61.3%) EVT (with or without IVT). Patients with COVID-19 had a higher rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (SICH) (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.53; 95% CI 1.16-2.01), symptomatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SSAH) (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.20-2.69), SICH and/or SSAH combined (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.23-1.99), 24-hour (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.58-3.86) and 3-month mortality (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.52-2.33).COVID-19 patients also had an unfavorable shift in the distribution of the modified Rankin score at 3 months (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.26-1.60). Patients with acute ischemic stroke and COVID-19 showed higher rates of intracranial bleeding complications and worse clinical outcomes after revascularization treatments than contemporaneous non-COVID-19 treated patients. Current available data does not allow direct conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of revascularization treatments in COVID-19 patients, or to establish different treatment recommendations in this subgroup of patients with ischemic stroke. Our findings can be taken into consideration for treatment decisions, patient monitoring and establishing prognosis

Safety and outcome of revascularization treatment in patients with acute ischemic stroke and COVID-19: the Global COVID-19 Stroke Registry

Background and ObjectivesCOVID-19-related inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and coagulopathy may increase the bleeding risk and lower the efficacy of revascularization treatments in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We aimed to evaluate the safety and outcomes of revascularization treatments in patients with AIS and COVID-19.MethodsThis was a retrospective multicenter cohort study of consecutive patients with AIS receiving intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and/or endovascular treatment (EVT) between March 2020 and June 2021 tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. With a doubly robust model combining propensity score weighting and multivariate regression, we studied the association of COVID-19 with intracranial bleeding complications and clinical outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed according to treatment groups (IVT-only and EVT).ResultsOf a total of 15,128 included patients from 105 centers, 853 (5.6%) were diagnosed with COVID-19; of those, 5,848 (38.7%) patients received IVT-only and 9,280 (61.3%) EVT (with or without IVT). Patients with COVID-19 had a higher rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (SICH) (adjusted OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.16-2.01), symptomatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SSAH) (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.20-2.69), SICH and/or SSAH combined (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.23-1.99), 24-hour mortality (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.58-3.86), and 3-month mortality (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.52-2.33). Patients with COVID-19 also had an unfavorable shift in the distribution of the modified Rankin score at 3 months (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.26-1.60).DiscussionPatients with AIS and COVID-19 showed higher rates of intracranial bleeding complications and worse clinical outcomes after revascularization treatments than contemporaneous non-COVID-19 patients receiving treatment. Current available data do not allow direct conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of revascularization treatments in patients with COVID-19 or to establish different treatment recommendations in this subgroup of patients with ischemic stroke. Our findings can be taken into consideration for treatment decisions, patient monitoring, and establishing prognosis.Paroxysmal Cerebral Disorder

Talactoferrin alfa versus placebo in patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FORTIS-M trial)

Background: Talactoferrin alfa is an oral dendritic cell (DC)-mediated immunotherapy (DCMI). We tested whether talactoferrin was superior to placebo in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: An FORTIS-M trial was an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparison of talactoferrin (1.5 g p.o. BID) versus placebo BID, in patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC whose disease had failed two or more prior regimens. Treatment was administered for a maximum of five 14-week cycles. The primary efficacy end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included 6- and 12-month survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate (DCR). Results: Seven hundred and forty-two patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to talactoferrin (497) or placebo (245). The median OS in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population was 7.66 months in the placebo arm and 7.49 months in the talactoferrin arm [hazard ratio (HR), 1.04; 95% CI, 0.873-1.24; P = 0.6602]. The 6-month survival rates were 59.9% (95% CI, 53.4% to 65.8%) and 55.7% (95% CI, 51.1% to 59.9%), respectively. The 12-month survival rates were 32.2% (95% CI, 26.3% to 38.2%) and 30.9% (95% CI, 26.8% to 35%), respectively. The median PFS rates were 1.64 months and 1.68 months, respectively (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.835-1.16; P = 0.8073). The DCRs were 38.4 and 37.6%, respectively [stratified odds ratio (OR), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.698-1.33; P = 0.8336]. The safety profiles were comparable between arms. Conclusions: There was no improvement in efficacy with talactoferrin alfa in patients with advanced NSCLC whose disease had failed two or more previous regimens. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology All rights reserved

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme