Explore the vast range of titles available.

This trial compared gefitinib, an inhibitor of the tyrosine kinase of epidermal growth factor (EGFR), with carboplatin plus paclitaxel as initial treatment of pulmonary adenocarcinoma in more than 1200 East Asian patients. The primary end point, progression-free survival, was significantly longer with gefitinib therapy among patients whose tumors carried an EGFR mutation and with carboplatin plus paclitaxel therapy among patients with mutation-negative tumors. In East Asian patients with pulmonary adenocarcinoma, progression-free survival was significantly longer with gefitinib therapy among patients whose tumors carried an EGFR mutation and with carboplatin plus paclitaxel therapy among patients with mutation-negative tumors. Inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase have clinical efficacy, as compared with the best supportive care 1 or standard chemotherapy, 2 when given as second-line or third-line therapy for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. Treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors is most effective in women, patients who have never smoked, patients with pulmonary adenocarcinomas, and patients of Asian origin. In these populations, such treatment is associated with favorable rates of objective responses, progression-free survival, and overall survival. 1 , 3 , 4 These populations also have a relatively high incidence of somatic mutations in the region of the EGFR gene that encodes . . .

Recommended treatment for travelers' diarrhea includes the combination of an antibiotic, usually a fluoroquinolone or azithromycin, and loperamide for rapid resolution of symptoms. However, adverse events, postdose nausea with high-dose azithromycin, effectiveness of single-dose rifaximin, and emerging resistance to front-line agents are evidence gaps underlying current recommendations. A randomized, double-blind trial was conducted in 4 countries (Afghanistan, Djibouti, Kenya, and Honduras) between September 2012 and July 2015. US and UK service members with acute watery diarrhea were randomized and received single-dose azithromycin (500 mg; 106 persons), levofloxacin (500 mg; 111 persons), or rifaximin (1650 mg; 107 persons), in combination with loperamide (labeled dosing). The efficacy outcomes included clinical cure at 24 hours and time to last unformed stool. Clinical cure at 24 hours occurred in 81.4%, 78.3%, and 74.8% of the levofloxacin, azithromycin, and rifaximin arms, respectively. Compared with levofloxacin, azithromycin was not inferior (P = .01). Noninferiority could not be shown with rifaximin (P = .07). At 48 and 72 hours, efficacy among regimens was equivalent (approximately 91% at 48 and 96% at 72 hours). The median time to last unformed stool did not differ between treatment arms (azithromycin, 3.8 hours; levofloxacin, 6.4 hours; rifaximin, 5.6 hours). Treatment failures were uncommon (3.8%, 4.4%, and 1.9% in azithromycin, levofloxacin, and rifaximin arms, respectively) (P = .55). There were no differences between treatment arms with postdose nausea, vomiting, or other adverse events. Single-dose azithromycin, levofloxacin, and rifaximin with loperamide were comparable for treatment of acute watery diarrhea. NCT01618591.

Patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease frequently fail to reach recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals, partly because statin doses are not titrated to optimal effect. The ECLIPSE study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of force-titrated treatment with rosuvastatin (10-40 mg) with that of atorvastatin (10-80 mg) in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. In this 24-week, open-label, randomized, multinational, parallel-group study, 1,036 patients were randomized to rosuvastatin (n = 522) or atorvastatin (n = 514). At all time points, a significantly greater percentage of patients on rosuvastatin treatment achieved the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal of <100 mg/dl (2.5 mmol/l), the 2003 European LDL-C target of <2.5 or 3.0 mmol/l (100 or 115 mg/dl) and the LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dl (1.8 mmol/l), a goal suggested for very high-risk patients (p < 0.001 for all). Rosuvastatin also achieved significantly greater improvements in components of the atherogenic lipid profile versus atorvastatin. Both treatments were well tolerated. Rosuvastatin titrated across its recommended dose range provides a more favorable effect on lipoprotein variables than atorvastatin, enabling more high-risk patients to achieve recommended LDL-C goals.