Explore the vast range of titles available.

The majority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have disease progression of a uniformly fatal disease. mCRPC is driven by both activated androgen receptors and elevated intratumoural androgens; however, the current standard of care is therapy that targets a single androgen signalling mechanism. We aimed to investigate the combination treatment using apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate, each of which suppresses the androgen signalling axis in a different way, versus standard care in mCRPC. ACIS was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study done at 167 hospitals in 17 countries in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, and South America. We included chemotherapy-naive men (aged ≥18 years) with mCRPC who had not been previously treated with androgen biosynthesis signalling inhibitors and were receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form question 3 (ie, worst pain in the past 24 h) score of 3 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised interactive web response system with a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size 4) to oral apalutamide 240 mg once daily plus oral abiraterone acetate 1000 mg once daily and oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily (apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone group) or placebo plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (abiraterone–prednisone group), in 28-day treatment cycles. Randomisation was stratified by presence or absence of visceral metastases, ECOG performance status, and geographical region. Patients, the investigators, study team, and the sponsor were masked to group assignments. An independent data-monitoring committee continually monitored data to ensure ongoing patient safety, and reviewed efficacy data. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was reported for all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is completed and no longer recruiting and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02257736. 982 men were enrolled and randomly assigned from Dec 10, 2014 to Aug 30, 2016 (492 to apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone; 490 to abiraterone–prednisone). At the primary analysis (median follow-up 25·7 months [IQR 23·0–28·9]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 22·6 months (95% CI 19·4–27·4) in the apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone group versus 16·6 months (13·9–19·3) in the abiraterone–prednisone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·58–0·83; p<0·0001). At the updated analysis (final analysis for overall survival; median follow-up 54·8 months [IQR 51·5–58·4]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 24·0 months (95% CI 19·7–27·5) versus 16·6 months (13·9–19·3; HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·60–0·83; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse event was hypertension (82 [17%] of 490 patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone and 49 [10%] of 489 receiving abiraterone–prednisone). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 195 (40%) patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone and 181 (37%) patients receiving abiraterone–prednisone. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events with fatal outcomes occurred in three (1%) patients in the apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone group (2 pulmonary embolism, 1 cardiac failure) and five (1%) patients in the abiraterone–prednisone group (1 cardiac failure and 1 cardiac arrest, 1 mesenteric arterial occlusion, 1 seizure, and 1 sudden death). Despite the use of an active and established therapy as the comparator, apalutamide plus abiraterone–prednisone improved radiographic progression-free survival. Additional studies to identify subgroups of patients who might benefit the most from combination therapy are needed to further refine the treatment of mCRPC. Janssen Research & Development.

Background In 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Notice 2018-08 requiring facilities to complete “case reviews” for Veterans identified in the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard as high risk for adverse outcomes among patients prescribed opioids. Half of the facilities were randomly assigned to a Notice version including additional oversight. We evaluated implementation strategies used, whether strategies differed by randomization arm, and which strategies were associated with case review completion rates. Methods Facility points of contact completed a survey assessing their facility’s use of 68 implementation strategies based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. We collected respondent demographic information, facility-level characteristics, and case review completion rates (percentage of high-risk patients who received a case review). We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and negative binomial regression to assess strategy use and factors associated with case reviews. Results Contacts at 89 of 140 facilities completed the survey (64%) and reported using a median of 23 (IQR 16–31) strategies. The median case review completion rate was 71% (IQR 48–95%). Neither the number or types of strategies nor completion rates differed by randomization arm. The most common strategies were using the STORM dashboard (97%), working with local opinion leaders (80%), and recruiting local partners (80%). Characteristics associated with case review completion rates included respondents being ≤ 35 years old (incidence rate ratio, IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09–1.67) and having < 5 years in their primary role (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01–1.51), and facilities having more prior academic detailing around pain and opioid safety (IRR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12–1.75). Controlling for these characteristics, implementation strategies associated with higher completion rates included (1) monitoring and adjusting practices (adjusted IRR (AIRR) 1.40, 95% CI 1.11–1.77), (2) identifying adaptations while maintaining core components (AIRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03–1.60), (3) conducting initial training (AIRR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.50), and (4) regularly sharing lessons learned (AIRR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09–1.59). Conclusions In this national evaluation of strategies used to implement case reviews of patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events, point of contact age and tenure in the current role, prior pain-related academic detailing at the facility, and four specific implementation strategies were associated with case review completion rates, while randomization to additional centralized oversight was not. Trial registration This project is registered at the ISRCTN Registry with number ISRCTN16012111 . The trial was first registered on May 3, 2017.

Purpose. This randomized phase 2 study sought to assess the treatment effect of a finite duration of apalutamide with and without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR PC). Materials and Methods. Patients with BCR PC after primary definitive therapy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time ≤12 months were randomized to open-label apalutamide (240 mg/d) alone, apalutamide plus ADT, or ADT alone (1 : 1:1 ratio) for 12 months followed by a 12-month observation period (NCT01790126). Mean changes from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) at 12 months (primary endpoint) and other prespecified assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), PSA nadir, time to PSA progression, time to testosterone recovery, recovered testosterone >150 ng/dL without PSA progression at 24 months, and molecular markers were evaluated. Results. In 90 enrolled patients (apalutamide plus ADT (n = 31), apalutamide (n = 29), ADT (n = 30)), FACT-P at 12 months was not significantly different between apalutamide, ADT and apalutamide, and ADT groups. Addition of apalutamide to ADT prolonged time to PSA progression but this change did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio (HR): 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23–1.36, P=0.196); time to testosterone recovery was similar in the ADT-containing groups. In apalutamide plus ADT, apalutamide, and ADT groups, 37.9%, 37.0%, and 19.2% of patients, respectively, had testosterone >150 ng/dL at 24 months without confirmed PSA progression. Of the few biomarkers expressed in blood, EPHA3 was significantly associated with shorter time to PSA progression (P=0.02) in the overall population. Conclusions. HRQoL was similar in patients treated with apalutamide alone, ADT alone, or their combination, although apalutamide plus ADT did not demonstrate statistically significant noninferiority in change from baseline in overall HRQoL. The aggregated efficacy and safety outcomes support further evaluation of apalutamide plus ADT in BCR PC.

Background Apalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improved outcomes in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and non-metastatic castration-resistant PC (nmCRPC) in the Phase 3 randomised TITAN and SPARTAN studies, respectively, and maintained health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Apalutamide treatment effect by patient age requires assessment. Methods Post-hoc analysis assessed patients receiving 240 mg/day apalutamide (525 TITAN and 806 SPARTAN) or placebo (527 TITAN and 401 SPARTAN) with ongoing ADT, stratified by age groups. Prostate-specific antigen declines, radiographic progression-free survival, metastasis-free survival, overall survival (OS), HRQoL and safety were assessed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier method, Cox proportional-hazards model and mixed-effects model for repeated measures. Results Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) generally favoured apalutamide plus ADT versus ADT alone across all endpoints regardless of age; e.g., OS values were 0.57 (0.40–0.80), 0.70 (0.54–0.91) and 0.74 (0.40–1.39) (TITAN) and 0.39 (0.19–0.78), 0.89 (0.69–1.16) and 0.81 (0.58–1.15) (SPARTAN) in patients aged <65, 65–79 and ≥80 years. Regardless of age, apalutamide also maintained HRQoL and was tolerated well with a potential trend in rates of adverse events increasing with age. Limitations include post-hoc nature and variability in sample size of age groups. Conclusions Apalutamide plus ADT was an effective and well-tolerated option maintaining HRQoL in patients with mCSPC and nmCRPC regardless of age. Clinical trial registration TITAN (NCT02489318); SPARTAN (NCT01946204).

Background: In 2018, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Notice 2018-08 requiring facilities to complete ‘case reviews’ for Veterans identified in the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) dashboard as high risk for adverse outcomes among patients prescribed opioids.. Half of facilities were randomly assigned to a Notice version including additional oversight. We evaluated implementation strategies used, whether strategies differed by randomization arm, and which strategies were associated with case review completion rates. Methods: Facility points of contact completed a survey assessing their facility’s use of 68 implementation strategies based on the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy. We collected respondent demographic information, facility-level characteristics, and case review completion rates (percentage of high-risk patients who received a case review). We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and negative binomial regression to assess strategy use and factors associated with case reviews. Results: Contacts at 89 of 140 facilities completed the survey (64%) and reported using a median of 23 (IQR: 16-31) strategies. The median case review completion rate was 71% (IQR: 48%-95%). Neither the number or types of strategies nor completion rates differed by randomization arm. The most common strategies were: using the STORM dashboard (97%); working with local opinion leaders (80%); and recruiting local partners (80%). Characteristics associated with case review completion rates included respondents being <35 years old (incidence rate ratio, IRR: 1.35, 95%CI: 1.09-1.67) and having <5 years in their primary role (IRR: 1.23; 95%CI: 1.01-1.51), and facilities having more prior academic detailing around pain and opioid safety (IRR: 1.40, 95%CI: 1.12-1.75). Controlling for these characteristics, implementation strategies associated with higher completion rates included: 1) monitoring and adjusting practices (adjusted IRR, (AIRR): 1.40, 95%CI: 1.11-1.77), 2) identifying adaptations while maintaining core components (AIRR: 1.28, 95%CI: 1.03-1.60), 3) conducting initial training (AIRR: 1.16, 95%CI: 1.02-1.50), and 4) regularly sharing lessons learned (AIRR: 1.32, 95%CI: 1.09-1.59). Conclusions: In this national evaluation of strategies used to implement case reviews of patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events, point of contact age and tenure in current role, prior pain-related academic detailing at the facility, and four specific implementation strategies were associated with case review completion rates, while randomization to additional centralized oversight was not. Trial registration: This project is registered at the ISRCTN Registry with number ISRCTN16012111 (URL: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16012111). The trial was first registered on 5/3/2017.

A primary goal of human genetics is to identify DNA sequence variants that influence biomedical traits, particularly those related to the onset and progression of human disease. Over the past 25 years, progress in realizing this objective has been transformed by advances in technology, foundational genomic resources and analytical tools, and by access to vast amounts of genotype and phenotype data. Genetic discoveries have substantially improved our understanding of the mechanisms responsible for many rare and common diseases and driven development of novel preventative and therapeutic strategies. Medical innovation will increasingly focus on delivering care tailored to individual patterns of genetic predisposition. This Review describes progress in the study of human genetics, in which rapid advances in technology, foundational genomic resources and analytical tools have contributed to the understanding of the mechanisms responsible for many rare and common diseases and to preventative and therapeutic strategies for many of these conditions.

A randomized trial tested whether the addition of apalutamide, an androgen receptor blocker, to androgen-deprivation therapy might improve radiographic (including MRI-detected) progression–free survival and overall survival. Apalutamide was significantly more effective than placebo for both end points.

We expanded GWAS discovery for type 2 diabetes (T2D) by combining data from 898,130 European-descent individuals (9% cases), after imputation to high-density reference panels. With these data, we (i) extend the inventory of T2D-risk variants (243 loci, 135 newly implicated in T2D predisposition, comprising 403 distinct association signals); (ii) enrich discovery of lower-frequency risk alleles (80 index variants with minor allele frequency <5%, 14 with estimated allelic odds ratio >2); (iii) substantially improve fine-mapping of causal variants (at 51 signals, one variant accounted for >80% posterior probability of association (PPA)); (iv) extend fine-mapping through integration of tissue-specific epigenomic information (islet regulatory annotations extend the number of variants with PPA >80% to 73); (v) highlight validated therapeutic targets (18 genes with associations attributable to coding variants); and (vi) demonstrate enhanced potential for clinical translation (genome-wide chip heritability explains 18% of T2D risk; individuals in the extremes of a T2D polygenic risk score differ more than ninefold in prevalence). Combining 32 genome-wide association studies with high-density imputation provides a comprehensive view of the genetic contribution to type 2 diabetes in individuals of European ancestry with respect to locus discovery, causal-variant resolution, and mechanistic insight.