45 research outputs found

    The Occurrence of Cheyne–Stokes Respiration in Congestive Heart Failure: The Effect of Age

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Up to 50% of adults with congestive heart failure (CHF) and left ventricular dysfunction demonstrate Cheyne–Stokes respiration (CSR), although the mechanisms remain controversial. Because CSR has been minimally studied in children, we sought to assess the prevalence of CSR in children with low and high output cardiac failure. We hypothesized that the existence of CSR only in children with low output CHF would support the importance of circulatory delay as a CSR mechanism. Methods: Thirty patients participated: 10 children with CHF, 10 matched children with no heart disease, and 10 adults with CHF. All participants underwent an in-laboratory polysomnographic sleep study. Results: CHF children's average age (±SEM) was 3.6 ± 2.1 years vs. 3.7 ± 2 years in the age-matched control group. The average ejection fraction of three children with low output CHF was 22 ± 6.8%. The remaining seven had normal-high cardiac output. Compared to control children, CHF children were tachypneic and tachycardic during stable sleep (55.1 ± 6.7 vs. 26.9 ± 3 breath/min and 127.6 ± 8.7 vs. 97.6 ± 6.9 beats/min, respectively, p < 0.05 for both). They had shorter total sleep time (195 ± 49 vs. 373 ± 16 min, p < 0.05) with a low sleep efficiency of 65.6 ± 6%. None of the children had a pattern of CSR at any time during the studies while the adults with CHF had 40% prevalence of CSR. Conclusions: The complete absence of CSR in our sample of children with CHF compared to the 40% prevalence in the adults with CHF we studied, suggests that CSR may be an age-dependent phenomenon. Thus, we speculate that regardless of the exact mechanism which drives CSR, age is an over-riding factor

    Radium-223 in combination with paclitaxel in cancer patients with bone metastases : safety results from an open-label, multicenter phase Ib study

    Get PDF
    Purpose Concomitant treatment with radium-223 and paclitaxel is a potential option for cancer patients with bone metastases; however, myelosuppression risk during coadministration is unknown. This phase Ib study in cancer patients with bone metastases evaluated the safety of radium-223 and paclitaxel. Methods Eligible patients had solid tumor malignancies with >= 2 bone metastases and were candidates for paclitaxel. Treatment included seven paclitaxel cycles (90 mg/m(2) per week intravenously per local standard of care; 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus six radium-223 cycles (55 kBq/kg intravenously; one injection every 4 weeks, starting at paclitaxel cycle 2). The primary end point was percentage of patients with grade 3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia during coadministration of radium-223 and paclitaxel (cycles 2, 3) versus paclitaxel alone (cycle 1). Results Of 22 enrolled patients, 15 were treated (safety population), with 7 completing all six radium-223 cycles. Treated patients had primary cancers of breast (n = 7), prostate (n = 4), bladder (n = 1), non-small cell lung (n = 1), myxofibrosarcoma (n = 1), and neuroendocrine (n = 1). No patients discontinued treatment from toxicity of the combination. In the 13 patients who completed cycle 3, the rates of grade 3 neutropenia in cycles 2 and 3 were 31% and 8%, respectively, versus 23% in cycle 1; there were no cases of grade 4 neutropenia or grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia. Breast cancer subgroup safety results were similar to the overall safety population. Conclusion Radium-223 was tolerated when combined with weekly paclitaxel, with no clinically relevant additive toxicities. This combination should be explored further in patients with bone metastases.Peer reviewe

    Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum-based therapy (RANGE): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

    Get PDF
    Few treatments with a distinct mechanism of action are available for patients with platinum-refractory advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. We assessed the efficacy and safety of treatment with docetaxel plus either ramucirumab-a human IgG1 VEGFR-2 antagonist-or placebo in this patient population

    Niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA repair gene defects (GALAHAD): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

    Get PDF
    Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers are enriched for DNA repair gene defects (DRDs) that can be susceptible to synthetic lethality through inhibition of PARP proteins. We evaluated the anti-tumour activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers and DRDs who progressed on previous treatment with an androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mixed histology accepted, with the exception of the small cell pure phenotype) and DRDs (assessed in blood, tumour tissue, or saliva), with progression on a previous next-generation androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, were eligible. Enrolled patients received niraparib 300 mg orally once daily until treatment discontinuation, death, or study termination. For the final study analysis, all patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis population; patients with germline pathogenic or somatic biallelic pathogenic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) or biallelic alterations in other prespecified DRDs (non-BRCA cohort) were included in the efficacy analysis population. The primary endpoint was objective response rate in patients with BRCA alterations and measurable disease (measurable BRCA cohort). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02854436. Findings Between Sept 28, 2016, and June 26, 2020, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 182 (63%) had received three or more systemic therapies for prostate cancer. 223 (77%) of 289 patients were included in the overall efficacy analysis population, which included BRCA (n=142) and non-BRCA (n=81) cohorts. At final analysis, with a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 6·6–13·3), the objective response rate in the measurable BRCA cohort (n=76) was 34·2% (95% CI 23·7–46·0). In the safety analysis population, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (169 [58%] of 289), anaemia (156 [54%]), and vomiting (111 [38%]); the most common grade 3 or worse events were haematological (anaemia in 95 [33%] of 289; thrombocytopenia in 47 [16%]; and neutropenia in 28 [10%]). Of 134 (46%) of 289 patients with at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event, the most common were also haematological (thrombocytopenia in 17 [6%] and anaemia in 13 [4%]). Two adverse events with fatal outcome (one patient with urosepsis in the BRCA cohort and one patient with sepsis in the non-BRCA cohort) were deemed possibly related to niraparib treatment. Interpretation Niraparib is tolerable and shows anti-tumour activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DRDs, particularly in those with BRCA alterations

    Cardiovascular Proteomics : A Post Hoc Analysis from a Phase II Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing GnRH Antagonist vs GnRH Agonist among Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer

    No full text
    PURPOSE: Recent studies demonstrated reduced cardiovascular (CV) risk with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, yet the underlying mechanism remains undetermined. The objective of this study was to examine longitudinal changes over time in established CV related proteins among men treated with GnRH agonists vs GnRH antagonist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a proteomics analysis of serum samples collected during a phase II randomized study among 80 men with advanced prostate cancer and preexisting CV disease who were randomized to receive a GnRH agonist (39) or GnRH antagonist (41) for 1 year. Serum samples were collected at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months following treatment, and analyzed levels of 188 proteins using the CV panel II and III of the Olink Multiplex platform (Olink Proteomics AB, Uppsala, Sweden). We fitted a linear mixed effects model to assess evidence of a treatment effect across CV related protein values. This included terms for treatment arm, protein levels and time-by-treatment interaction. Results were corrected for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. RESULTS: The CV proteomics analysis included 283 samples from 78 subjects. We identified 5 proteins with distinct patterns over time depending on study arm: human chitotriosidase, macrophage receptor with collagenous structure, cathepsin D, superoxide dismutase 2 and hydroxyacid oxidase 1. All 5 are associated with plaque stability and demonstrated an increased level among subjects in the GnRH antagonist arm compared to agonist. CONCLUSIONS: We compared longitudinal changes in CV proteins among men using androgen deprivation therapy. Our results support a direct protective effect of GnRH antagonist on plaque stability rather than a hazardous consequence of GnRH agonists on plaque rupture. This is a hypothesis generating study, and requires further confirmation
    corecore