No evidence of disease activity (NEDA) analysis by epochs in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab vs interferon beta-1a.

BackgroundNo evidence of disease activity (NEDA; defined as no 12-week confirmed disability progression, no protocol-defined relapses, no new/enlarging T2 lesions and no T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions) using a fixed-study entry baseline is commonly used as a treatment outcome in multiple sclerosis (MS).ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to assess the effect of ocrelizumab on NEDA using re-baselining analysis, and the predictive value of NEDA status.MethodsNEDA was assessed in a modified intent-to-treat population (n = 1520) from the pooled OPERA I and OPERA II studies over various epochs in patients with relapsing MS receiving ocrelizumab (600 mg) or interferon beta-1a (IFN β-1a; 44 μg).ResultsNEDA was increased with ocrelizumab vs IFN β-1a over 96 weeks by 75% (p < 0.001), from Week 0‒24 by 33% (p < 0.001) and from Week 24‒96 by 72% (p < 0.001). Among patients with disease activity during Weeks 0‒24, 66.4% vs 24.3% achieved NEDA during Weeks 24‒96 in the ocrelizumab and IFN β-1a groups (relative increase: 177%; p < 0.001).ConclusionSuperior efficacy with ocrelizumab compared with IFN β-1a was consistently seen in maintaining NEDA status in all epochs evaluated. By contrast with IFN β-1a, the majority of patients with disease activity early in the study subsequently attained NEDA status with ocrelizumab

The organisation and delivery of health improvement in general practice and primary care: a scoping study

Background This project examines the organisation and delivery of health improvement activities by and within general practice and the primary health-care team. The project was designed to examine who delivers these interventions, where they are located, what approaches are developed in practices, how individual practices and the primary health-care team organise such public health activities, and how these contribute to health improvement. Our focus was on health promotion and ill-health prevention activities. Aims The aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the current extent of knowledge about the health improvement activities in general practice and the wider primary health-care team. The key objectives were to provide an overview of the range and type of health improvement activities, identify gaps in knowledge and areas for further empirical research. Our specific research objectives were to map the range and type of health improvement activity undertaken by general practice staff and the primary health-care team based within general practice; to scope the literature on health improvement in general practice or undertaken by health-care staff based in general practice and identify gaps in the evidence base; to synthesise the literature and identify effective approaches to the delivery and organisation of health improvement interventions in a general practice setting; and to identify the priority areas for research as defined by those working in general practice. Methods We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature. We followed a staged selection process involving reviews of titles and abstracts. This resulted in the identification of 1140 papers for data extraction, with 658 of these papers selected for inclusion in the review, of which 347 were included in the evidence synthesis. We also undertook 45 individual and two group interviews with primary health-care staff. Findings Many of the research studies reviewed had some details about the type, process or location, or who provided the intervention. Generally, however, little attention is paid in the literature to examining the impact of the organisational context on the way services are delivered or how this affects the effectiveness of health improvement interventions in general practice. We found that the focus of attention is mainly on individual prevention approaches, with practices engaging in both primary and secondary prevention. The range of activities suggests that general practitioners do not take a population approach but focus on individual patients. However, it is clear that many general practitioners see health promotion as an integral part of practice, whether as individual approaches to primary or secondary health improvement or as a practice-based approach to improving the health of their patients. Our key conclusion is that there is currently insufficient good evidence to support many of the health improvement interventions undertaken in general practice and primary care more widely. Future Research Future research on health improvement in general practice and by the primary health-care team needs to move beyond clinical research to include delivery systems and be conducted in a primary care setting. More research needs to examine areas where there are chronic disease burdens – cancer, dementia and other disabilities of old age. Reviews should be commissioned that examine the whole prevention pathway for health problems that are managed within primary care drawing together research from general practice, pharmacy, community engagement, etc

FUMEPOC: Early detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in smokers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Currently is not feasible using conventional spirometry as a screening method in Primary Care especially among smoking population to detect chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in early stages. Therefore, the FUMEPOC study protocol intends to analyze the validity and reliability of Vitalograph COPD-6 spirometer as simpler tool to aid screening and diagnosis of this disease in early stages in primary care surgery.</p> <p>Methods / Design</p> <p>Study design: An observational, descriptive study of diagnostic tests, undertaken in Primary Care and Pneumology Outpatient Care Centre at San Juan Hospital and Elda Hospital. All smokers attending the primary care surgery and consent to participate in the study will undergo a test with Vitalograph COPD-6 spirometer. Subsequently, a conventional spirometry will be performed in the hospital and the results will be compared with those of the Vitalograph COPD-6 test.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>It is difficult to use the spirometry as screening for early diagnose test in real conditions of primary care clinical practice. The use of a simpler tool, Vitalograph COPD-6 spirometer, can help in the early diagnose and therefore, it could improve the clinical management of the disease.</p

SAkuraBONSAI: Protocol Design of a Novel, Prospective Study to Explore Clinical, Imaging, and Biomarker Outcomes in Patients With AQP4-IgG-Seropositive Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder Receiving Open-Label Satralizumab

Background: Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a rare, autoimmune disease of the central nervous system that produces acute, unpredictable relapses causing cumulative neurological disability. Satralizumab, a humanized, monoclonal recycling antibody that targets the interleukin-6 receptor, reduced NMOSD relapse risk vs. placebo in two Phase 3 trials: SAkuraSky (satralizumab ± immunosuppressive therapy; NCT02028884) and SAkuraStar (satralizumab monotherapy; NCT02073279). Satralizumab is approved to treat aquaporin-4 IgG-seropositive (AQP4-IgG+) NMOSD. SAkuraBONSAI (NCT05269667) will explore fluid and imaging biomarkers to better understand the mechanism of action of satralizumab and the neuronal and immunological changes following treatment in AQP4-IgG+ NMOSD. Objectives: SAkuraBONSAI will evaluate clinical disease activity measures, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), pharmacokinetics, and safety of satralizumab in AQP4-IgG+ NMOSD. Correlations between imaging markers (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] and optical coherence tomography [OCT]) and blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers will be investigated. Study design: SAkuraBONSAI is a prospective, open-label, multicenter, international, Phase 4 study that will enroll approximately 100 adults (18-74 years) with AQP4-IgG+ NMOSD. This study includes two patient cohorts: newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients (Cohort 1; n = 60); and inadequate responders to recent (\u3c6 months) rituximab infusion (Cohort 2; n = 40). Satralizumab monotherapy (120 mg) will be administered subcutaneously at Weeks 0, 2, 4, and Q4W thereafter for a total of 92 weeks. Endpoints: Disease activity related to relapses (proportion relapse-free, annualized relapse rate, time to relapse, and relapse severity), disability progression (Expanded Disability Status Scale), cognition (Symbol Digit Modalities Test), and ophthalmological changes (visual acuity; National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25) will all be assessed. Peri-papillary retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell complex thickness will be monitored using advanced OCT (retinal nerve fiber layer and ganglion cell plus inner plexiform layer thickness). Lesion activity and atrophy will be monitored by MRI. Pharmacokinetics, PROs, and blood and CSF mechanistic biomarkers will be assessed regularly. Safety outcomes include the incidence and severity of adverse events. Conclusions: SAkuraBONSAI will incorporate comprehensive imaging, fluid biomarker, and clinical assessments in patients with AQP4-IgG+ NMOSD. SAkuraBONSAI will provide new insights into the mechanism of action of satralizumab in NMOSD, while offering the opportunity to identify clinically relevant neurological, immunological, and imaging markers

Systematic review of the evidence relating FEV1 decline to giving up smoking

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The rate of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) decline ("beta") is a marker of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease risk. The reduction in beta after quitting smoking is an upper limit for the reduction achievable from switching to novel nicotine delivery products. We review available evidence to estimate this reduction and quantify the relationship of smoking to beta.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Studies were identified, in healthy individuals or patients with respiratory disease, that provided data on beta over at least 2 years of follow-up, separately for those who gave up smoking and other smoking groups. Publications to June 2010 were considered. Independent beta estimates were derived for four main smoking groups: never smokers, ex-smokers (before baseline), quitters (during follow-up) and continuing smokers. Unweighted and inverse variance-weighted regression analyses compared betas in the smoking groups, and in continuing smokers by amount smoked, and estimated whether beta or beta differences between smoking groups varied by age, sex and other factors.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-seven studies had relevant data, 28 for both sexes and 19 for males. Sixteen studies started before 1970. Mean follow-up was 11 years. On the basis of weighted analysis of 303 betas for the four smoking groups, never smokers had a beta 10.8 mL/yr (95% confidence interval (CI), 8.9 to 12.8) less than continuing smokers. Betas for ex-smokers were 12.4 mL/yr (95% CI, 10.1 to 14.7) less than for continuing smokers, and for quitters, 8.5 mL/yr (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.4) less. These betas were similar to that for never smokers. In continuing smokers, beta increased 0.33 mL/yr per cigarette/day. Beta differences between continuing smokers and those who gave up were greater in patients with respiratory disease or with reduced baseline lung function, but were not clearly related to age or sex.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The available data have numerous limitations, but clearly show that continuing smokers have a beta that is dose-related and over 10 mL/yr greater than in never smokers, ex-smokers or quitters. The greater decline in those with respiratory disease or reduced lung function is consistent with some smokers having a more rapid rate of FEV₁decline. These results help in designing studies comparing continuing smokers of conventional cigarettes and switchers to novel products.</p

Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community: literature mapping exercise and focused rapid reviews

Background Current NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings. Objectives Our objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community. Review methods We performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion. Results We identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed. Conclusions In the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control. Limitations We have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers. Future work There is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme