Concern about the Quality of EU Legislation: What Kind of Problem, by What Kind of Standards?

Over the last decade the interest in the quality of EU legislative instruments has surged due to serious threats to the effectiveness of the legislation. This contribution makes an inventory of the policies and instruments that have been put into place to improve quality of legislation and assesses their character, orientation and effectiveness. Any appraisal of these policies, so the paper argues, is dependent on a perception of the basic functions attributed to EU legislative instruments and the standards derived from it. The paper concludes that the present policies and instruments for Better lawmaking have the ability to promote regulatory quality, but not necessarily overall legislative quality

Immediate versus postponed intervention for infected necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, −1; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12 to 10; P=0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stenting for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: An international, multicenter, propensity score-matched comparison

Background  Endoscopic duodenal stenting is the current standard treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in patients with limited life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting is prone to stent dysfunction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel technique with potentially superior stent patency. We compared clinical success, safety, and stent dysfunction of EUS-GE and duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO using propensity score matching. Methods  This international, multicenter, retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GE or duodenal stenting for GOO between 2015 and 2021 in three European centers. Primary outcomes were clinical success (GOO scoring system [GOOSS] ≥ 2) and stent dysfunction (GOOSS ≤ 1 after initial clinical success). A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, sex, underlying disease, disease stage, ascites, and peritoneal carcinomatosis as variables. Results  214 patients underwent EUS-GE (n = 107) or duodenal stenting (n = 107). After propensity score matching, 176 patients were matched and compared. Technical success rates for EUS-GE and duodenal stenting were 94 % (95 %CI 89 %-99 %) vs. 98 % (95 %CI 95 %-100 %), respectively (P  = 0.44). Clinical success rates were 91 % (95 %CI 85 %-97 %) vs. 75 % (95 %CI 66 %-84 %; P  = 0.008). Stent dysfunction occurred in 1 % (95 %CI 0-4 %) vs. 26 % (95 %CI 15 %-37 %) of patients (P  < 0.001). Adverse event rate was 10 % (95 %CI 4 %-17 %) vs. 21 % (95 %CI 12 %-29 %; P  = 0.09). Conclusion  EUS-GE had higher clinical success and lower stent dysfunction, with similar safety, compared with duodenal stenting, suggesting that EUS-GE may be preferred over duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stenting for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: An international, multicenter, propensity score-matched comparison

Background  Endoscopic duodenal stenting is the current standard treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in patients with limited life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting is prone to stent dysfunction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel technique with potentially superior stent patency. We compared clinical success, safety, and stent dysfunction of EUS-GE and duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO using propensity score matching. Methods  This international, multicenter, retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GE or duodenal stenting for GOO between 2015 and 2021 in three European centers. Primary outcomes were clinical success (GOO scoring system [GOOSS] ≥ 2) and stent dysfunction (GOOSS ≤ 1 after initial clinical success). A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, sex, underlying disease, disease stage, ascites, and peritoneal carcinomatosis as variables. Results  214 patients underwent EUS-GE (n = 107) or duodenal stenting (n = 107). After propensity score matching, 176 patients were matched and compared. Technical success rates for EUS-GE and duodenal stenting were 94 % (95 %CI 89 %-99 %) vs. 98 % (95 %CI 95 %-100 %), respectively (P  = 0.44). Clinical success rates were 91 % (95 %CI 85 %-97 %) vs. 75 % (95 %CI 66 %-84 %; P  = 0.008). Stent dysfunction occurred in 1 % (95 %CI 0-4 %) vs. 26 % (95 %CI 15 %-37 %) of patients (P  < 0.001). Adverse event rate was 10 % (95 %CI 4 %-17 %) vs. 21 % (95 %CI 12 %-29 %; P  = 0.09). Conclusion  EUS-GE had higher clinical success and lower stent dysfunction, with similar safety, compared with duodenal stenting, suggesting that EUS-GE may be preferred over duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte Therapy or Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but approximately half these patients will not have a durable benefit. Phase 1-2 trials of adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have shown promising responses, but data from phase 3 trials are lacking to determine the role of TILs in treating advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma in a 1:1 ratio to receive TIL or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 therapy (ipilimumab at 3 mg per kilogram of body weight). Infusion of at least 5×109 TILs was preceded by nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine) and followed by high-dose interleukin-2. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (86% with disease refractory to anti-programmed death 1 treatment) were assigned to receive TILs (84 patients) or ipilimumab (84 patients). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 13.1) in the TIL group and 3.1 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.3) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.72; P<0.001); 49% (95% CI, 38 to 60) and 21% (95% CI, 13 to 32) of the patients, respectively, had an objective response. Median overall survival was 25.8 months (95% CI, 18.2 to not reached) in the TIL group and 18.9 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 32.6) in the ipilimumab group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in all patients who received TILs and in 57% of those who received ipilimumab; in the TIL group, these events were mainly chemotherapy-related myelosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced melanoma, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received TIL therapy than among those who received ipilimumab. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02278887.)

Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocyte Therapy or Ipilimumab in Advanced Melanoma

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma, but approximately half these patients will not have a durable benefit. Phase 1-2 trials of adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have shown promising responses, but data from phase 3 trials are lacking to determine the role of TILs in treating advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma in a 1:1 ratio to receive TIL or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 therapy (ipilimumab at 3 mg per kilogram of body weight). Infusion of at least 5×109 TILs was preceded by nonmyeloablative, lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide plus fludarabine) and followed by high-dose interleukin-2. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients (86% with disease refractory to anti-programmed death 1 treatment) were assigned to receive TILs (84 patients) or ipilimumab (84 patients). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 13.1) in the TIL group and 3.1 months (95% CI, 3.0 to 4.3) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.72; P<0.001); 49% (95% CI, 38 to 60) and 21% (95% CI, 13 to 32) of the patients, respectively, had an objective response. Median overall survival was 25.8 months (95% CI, 18.2 to not reached) in the TIL group and 18.9 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 32.6) in the ipilimumab group. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in all patients who received TILs and in 57% of those who received ipilimumab; in the TIL group, these events were mainly chemotherapy-related myelosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced melanoma, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received TIL therapy than among those who received ipilimumab. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Society and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02278887.)