Effect of ramipril on renal function in patients with intermittent claudication

Simon D Hobbs1, Martin W Claridge1, Antonius BM Wilmink1, Donald J Adam1, Mark E Thomas2, Andrew W Bradbury11University Department of Vascular Surgery and 2Department of Nephrology, Heart of England NHS Trust (Teaching), Birmingham, UKBackground: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Study (HOPE) demonstrated that ramipril resulted in a blood-pressure-independent 25% reduction in cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Despite this, general practitioners and vascular surgeons remain reluctant to prescribe ACE inhibitors in this group of patients because of concerns about renal artery stenosis (RAS). We aimed to define the effect of ramipril on renal function in patients with intermittent claudication (IC).Methods and Results: Of 132 unselected patients with IC entering the study 78 (59%) were excluded due to: current ACE inhibitor use (38%), renal impairment (serum creatinine above normal range) (15%), known severe RAS (1%) or unwillingness to participate (5%). The remaining 54 patients were titrated to 10 mg ramipril and renal function was monitored at 1, 5, and 12 weeks. Treatment was discontinued during titration in 5 patients due to symptoms (3) or lack of compliance (2). In the remainder, median [IQR] serum creatinine increased (94 [85.8–103.3] to 98 [88.0–106.5] µmol/L, p ≤ 0.001) and median [IQR] GFR decreased (71.5 [64.6–82.3] to 68.7 [59.8–74.7] mL/min per 1.73 m2, p ≤ 0.001) between baseline and 5 weeks. These changes were not considered clinically significant. By 12 weeks these values had returned almost to baseline (Cr 95.5 [88.0–103.25] µmol/L, GFR 71.8 [65.3–77.4] mL/min). No patient had a serum creatinine rise >30%.Conclusion: Most of patients with IC and a normal serum creatinine can be safely commenced on ramipril provided they are screened, titrated and monitored as described above. Studies in patients with borderline renal impairment (serum creatinine up to 30% above baseline) are on-going.Keywords: peripheral arterial disease, ramipril, renal function, intermittent claudicatio

Age and prognosis in patients with pancreatic cancer:a population-based study

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has an enormous impact on patients, and even more so if they are of younger age. It is unclear how their treatment and outcome compare to older patients. This study compares clinicopathological characteristics and overall survival (OS) of PDAC patients aged <60 years to older PDAC patients. METHOD: This is a retrospective, population-based cohort study using Netherlands Cancer Registry data of patients diagnosed with PDAC (1 January 2015-31 December 2018). Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess OS. RESULTS: Overall, 10,298 patients were included, of whom 1551 (15%) were <60 years. Patients <60 years were more often male, had better performance status, less comorbidities and less stage I disease, and more often received anticancer treatment (67 vs. 33%, p < 0.001) than older patients. Patients <60 years underwent resection of the tumour more often (22 vs. 14%p < 0.001), more often received chemotherapy, and had a better median OS (6.9 vs. 3.3 months, p < 0.001) compared to older patients. No differences in median OS were demonstrated between both age groups of patients who underwent resection (19.7 vs. 19.4 months, p = 0.123), received chemotherapy alone (7.8 vs. 8.5 months, p = 0.191), or received no anticancer treatment (1.8 vs. 1.9 months, p = 0.600). Patients <60 years with stage-IV disease receiving chemotherapy had a somewhat better OS (7.5 vs. 6.3 months, p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Patients with PDAC <60 years more often underwent resection despite less stage I disease and had superior OS. Stratified for treatment, however, survival was largely similar

Treatment and overall survival of four types of non-metastatic periampullary cancer:nationwide population-based cohort study

Background: Periampullary adenocarcinoma consists of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (DC), ampullary cancer (AC), and duodenal adenocarcinoma (DA). The aim of this study was to assess treatment modalities and overall survival by tumor origin. Methods: Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic periampullary cancer in 2012–2018 were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS was studied with Kaplan–Meier analysis and multivariable Cox regression analyses, stratified by origin. Results: Among the 8758 patients included, 68% had PDAC, 13% DC, 12% AC, and 7% DA. Resection was performed in 35% of PDAC, 56% of DC, 70% of AC, and 59% of DA. Neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant therapy was administered in 22% of PDAC, 7% of DC, 7% of AC, and 12% of DA. Three-year OS was highest for AC (37%) and DA (34%), followed by DC (21%) and PDAC (11%). Adjuvant therapy was associated with improved OS among PDAC (HR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.55–0.69) and DC (HR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.48–0.98), but not AC (HR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.62–1.22) and DA (HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.48–1.50). Conclusion: This retrospective study identified considerable differences in treatment modalities and OS between the four periampullary cancer origins in daily clinical practice. An improved OS after adjuvant chemotherapy could not be demonstrated in patients with AC and DA

Real-world evidence of adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine vs gemcitabine monotherapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

The added value of capecitabine to adjuvant gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was shown by the ESPAC-4 trial. Real-world data on the effectiveness of gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP), in patients ineligible for mFOLFIRINOX, are lacking. Our study assessed whether adjuvant GEMCAP is superior to GEM in a nationwide cohort. Patients treated with adjuvant GEMCAP or GEM after resection of PDAC without preoperative treatment were identified from The Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015-2019). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), measured from start of chemotherapy. The treatment effect of GEMCAP vs GEM was adjusted for sex, age, performance status, tumor size, lymph node involvement, resection margin and tumor differentiation in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. Secondary outcome was the percentage of patients who completed the planned six adjuvant treatment cycles. Overall, 778 patients were included, of whom 21.1% received GEMCAP and 78.9% received GEM. The median OS was 31.4 months (95% CI 26.8-40.7) for GEMCAP and 22.1 months (95% CI 20.6-25.0) for GEM (HR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.90; logrank P =.004). After adjustment for prognostic factors, survival remained superior for patients treated with GEMCAP (HR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.92, logrank P =.009). Survival with GEMCAP was superior to GEM in most subgroups of prognostic factors. Adjuvant chemotherapy was completed in 69.5% of the patients treated with GEMCAP and 62.7% with GEM (P =.11). In this nationwide cohort of patients with PDAC, adjuvant GEMCAP was associated with superior survival as compared to GEM monotherapy and number of cycles was similar

Predicting overall survival and resection in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX:Development and internal validation of two nomograms

Background and Objectives Patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are increasingly treated with FOLFIRINOX, resulting in improved survival and resection of tumors that were initially unresectable. It remains unclear, however, which specific patients benefit from FOLFIRINOX. Two nomograms were developed predicting overall survival (OS) and resection at the start of FOLFIRINOX for LAPC. Methods From our multicenter, prospective LAPC registry in 14 Dutch hospitals, LAPC patients starting first-line FOLFIRINOX (April 2015-December 2017) were included. Stepwise backward selection according to the Akaike Information Criterion was used to identify independent baseline predictors for OS and resection. Two prognostic nomograms were generated. Results A total of 252 patients were included, with a median OS of 14 months. Thirty-two patients (13%) underwent resection, with a median OS of 23 months. Older age, female sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index 1, involvement of the superior mesenteric artery, celiac trunk, and superior mesenteric vein >= 270 degrees were independent factors decreasing the probability of resection (c-index: 0.79). Conclusions Two nomograms were developed to predict OS and resection in patients with LAPC before starting treatment with FOLFIRINOX. These nomograms could be beneficial in the shared decision-making process and counseling of these patients

Population-based impact of COVID-19 on incidence, treatment, and survival of patients with pancreatic cancer

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has put substantial strain on the healthcare system of which the effects are only partly elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the impact on pancreatic cancer care. Methods: All patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2017 and 2020 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients diagnosed and/or treated in 2020 were compared to 2017–2019. Monthly incidence was calculated. Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics were analyzed and compared using Chi-squared tests. Survival data was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and Log-rank tests. Results: In total, 11019 patients were assessed. The incidence in quarter (Q)2 of 2020 was comparable with that in Q2 of 2017–2019 (p = 0.804). However, the incidence increased in Q4 of 2020 (p = 0.031), mainly due to a higher incidence of metastatic disease (p = 0.010). Baseline characteristics, surgical resection (15% vs 16%; p = 0.466) and palliative systemic therapy rates (23% vs 24%; p = 0.183) were comparable. In 2020, more surgically treated patients received (neo)adjuvant treatment compared to 2017–2019 (73% vs 67%; p = 0.041). Median overall survival was comparable (3.8 vs 3.8 months; p = 0.065). Conclusion: This nationwide study found a minor impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pancreatic cancer care and outcome. The Dutch health care system was apparently able to maintain essential care for patients with pancreatic cancer

Radiofrequency ablation and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (PELICAN):study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 239066.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are treated with chemotherapy, of whom approximately 10% undergo a resection. Cohort studies investigating local tumor ablation with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have reported a promising overall survival of 26-34 months when given in a multimodal setting. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of RFA in combination with chemotherapy in patients with LAPC are lacking. METHODS: The "Pancreatic Locally Advanced Unresectable Cancer Ablation" (PELICAN) trial is an international multicenter superiority RCT, initiated by the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG). All patients with LAPC according to DPCG criteria, who start with FOLFIRINOX or (nab-paclitaxel/)gemcitabine, are screened for eligibility. Restaging is performed after completion of four cycles of FOLFIRINOX or two cycles of (nab-paclitaxel/)gemcitabine (i.e., 2 months of treatment), and the results are assessed within a nationwide online expert panel. Eligible patients with RECIST stable disease or objective response, in whom resection is not feasible, are randomized to RFA followed by chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. In total, 228 patients will be included in 16 centers in The Netherlands and four other European centers. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, RECIST response, CA 19.9 and CEA response, toxicity, quality of life, pain, costs, and immunomodulatory effects of RFA. DISCUSSION: The PELICAN RCT aims to assess whether the combination of chemotherapy and RFA improves the overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone, in patients with LAPC with no progression of disease following 2 months of systemic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registry NL4997 . Registered on December 29, 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03690323 . Retrospectively registered on October 1, 2018

ACE Inhibition and Endothelial Function: Main Findings of PERFECT, a Sub-Study of the EUROPA Trial

Background: ACE inhibition results in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) through different mechanisms including improvement of endothelial dysfunction. The Perindopril-Function of the Endothelium in Coronary artery disease Trial (PERFECT) evaluated whether long-term administration of perindopril improves endothelial dysfunction. Methods: PERFECT is a 3-year double blind randomised placebo controlled trial to determine the effect of perindopril 8 mg once daily on brachial artery endothelial function in patients with stable CAD without clinical heart failure. Endothelial function in response to ischaemia was assessed using ultrasound. Primary endpoint was difference in flow-mediated vasodilatation (FMD) assessed at 36 months. Results: In 20 centers, 333 patients randomly received perindopril or matching placebo. Ischemia-induced FMD was 2.7% (SD 2.6). In the perindopril group FMD went from 2.6% at baseline to 3.3% at 36 months and in the placebo group from 2.8 to 3.0%. Change in FMD after 36 month treatment was 0.55% (95% confidence interval −0.36, 1.47; p = 0.23) higher in perindopril than in placebo group. The rate of change in FMD per 6 months was 0.14% (SE 0.05, p = 0.02) in perindopril and 0.02% (SE 0.05, p = 0.74) in placebo group (0.12% difference in rate of change p = 0.07). Conclusion: Perindopril resulted in a modest, albeit not statistically significant, improvement in FMD

Predictive value of baseline serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level on treatment effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer in two randomized trials

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest that the serum carbohydrate antigen (CA19-9) level should be used when deciding on neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (hereafter referred to as pancreatic cancer). In patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, neoadjuvant therapy is advised when the CA19-9 level is 'markedly elevated'. This study investigated the impact of baseline CA19-9 concentration on the treatment effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancers.METHODS: In this post hoc analysis, data were obtained from two RCTs that compared neoadjuvant CRT with upfront surgery in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancers. The effect of neoadjuvant treatment on overall survival was compared between patients with a serum CA19-9 level above or below 500 units/ml using the interaction test.RESULTS: Of 296 patients, 179 were eligible for analysis, 90 in the neoadjuvant CRT group and 89 in the upfront surgery group. Neoadjuvant CRT was associated with superior overall survival (HR 0.67, 95 per cent c.i. 0.48 to 0.94; P = 0.019). Among 127 patients (70, 9 per cent) with a low CA19-9 level, median overall survival was 23.5 months with neoadjuvant CRT and 16.3 months with upfront surgery (HR 0.63, 0.42 to 0.93). For 52 patients (29 per cent) with a high CA19-9 level, median overall survival was 15.5 months with neoadjuvant CRT and 12.9 months with upfront surgery (HR 0.82, 0.45 to 1.49). The interaction test for CA19-9 level exceeding 500 units/ml on the treatment effect of neoadjuvant CRT was not significant (P = 0.501).CONCLUSION: Baseline serum CA19-9 level defined as either high or low has prognostic value, but was not associated with the treatment effect of neoadjuvant CRT in patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancers, in contrast with current guideline advice.</p