Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesTo characterise the sleep of elite athletes and to identify factors associated with training and competition that negatively affect sleep.DesignPrognosis systematic review.Data sourcesThree databases (PubMed, SCOPUS and SPORTDiscus) were searched from inception to 26 February 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesIncluded studies objectively reported total sleep time (TST) and/or sleep efficiency (SE) in elite athletes. Studies were required to be observational or to include an observational trial.ResultsFifty-four studies were included. During training, many studies reported athletes were unable to achieve TST (n=23/41) and/or SE (n=16/37) recommendations. On the night of competition, most studies reported athletes were unable to achieve TST (n=14/18) and/or SE (n=10/16) recommendations. TST was shorter (60 min) the night of competition compared with previous nights. SE was lower (1%) the night of competition compared with the previous night. TST was shorter the night of night competition (start ≥18:00; 80 min) and day competition (20 min) compared with the previous night. SE was lower (3%–4%) the night of night competition but unchanged the night of day competition compared with previous nights. Early morning training (start <07:00), increases in training load (>25%), late night/early morning travel departure times, eastward air travel and altitude ascent impaired sleep.ConclusionAthletes were often unable to achieve sleep recommendations during training or competition periods. Sleep was impaired the night of competition compared with previous nights. Early morning training, increases in training load, travel departure times, jet lag and altitude can impair athletes’ sleep.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017074367.

Maintenance monotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer. We aimed to explore the hypothesis that olaparib is most likely to benefit patients with a BRCA mutation. We present data from the second interim analysis of overall survival and a retrospective, preplanned analysis of data by BRCA mutation status from our randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study that assessed maintenance treatment with olaparib 400 mg twice daily (capsules) versus placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more platinum-based regimens and who had a partial or complete response to their most recent platinum-based regimen. Randomisation was by an interactive voice response system, stratified by time to progression on penultimate platinum-based regimen, response to the most recent platinum-based regimen before randomisation, and ethnic descent. The primary endpoint was PFS, analysed for the overall population and by BRCA status. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753545. Between Aug 28, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 136 patients were assigned to olaparib and 129 to placebo. BRCA status was known for 131 (96%) patients in the olaparib group versus 123 (95%) in the placebo group, of whom 74 (56%) versus 62 (50%) had a deleterious or suspected deleterious germline or tumour BRCA mutation. Of patients with a BRCA mutation, median PFS was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (11·2 months [95% CI 8·3–not calculable] vs 4·3 months [3·0–5·4]; HR 0·18 [0·10–0·31]; p<0·0001); similar findings were noted for patients with wild-type BRCA, although the difference between groups was lower (7·4 months [5·5–10·3] vs 5·5 months [3·7–5·6]; HR 0·54 [0·34–0·85]; p=0·0075). At the second interim analysis of overall survival (58% maturity), overall survival did not significantly differ between the groups (HR 0·88 [95% CI 0·64–1·21]; p=0·44); similar findings were noted for patients with mutated BRCA (HR 0·73 [0·45–1·17]; p=0·19) and wild-type BRCA (HR 0·99 [0·63–1·55]; p=0·96). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib group were fatigue (in ten [7%] patients in the olaparib group vs four [3%] in the placebo group) and anaemia (seven [5%] vs one [<1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 25 (18%) patients who received olaparib and 11 (9%) who received placebo. Tolerability was similar in patients with mutated BRCA and the overall population. These results support the hypothesis that patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer with a BRCA mutation have the greatest likelihood of benefiting from olaparib treatment. AstraZeneca.

In patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer, maintenance monotherapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly improves progression-free survival versus placebo. We assessed the effect of maintenance olaparib on overall survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer, including those with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (BRCAm). In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial involving 82 sites across 16 countries, patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more courses of platinum-based chemotherapy and had responded to their latest regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence to receive oral maintenance olaparib (as capsules; 400 mg twice a day) or a matching placebo by an interactive voice response system. Patients were stratified by ancestry, time to progression on penultimate platinum, and response to most recent platinum. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment by the use of unique identifiers generated during randomisation. The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival. In this updated analysis, we present data for overall survival, a secondary endpoint, from the third data analysis after more than 5 years’ follow-up (intention-to-treat population). We did the updated overall survival analysis, described in this Article at 77% data maturity, using a two-sided α of 0·95%. As the study was not powered to assess overall survival, this analysis should be regarded as descriptive and the p values are nominal. We analysed randomly assigned patients for overall survival and all patients who received at least one dose of treatment for safety. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753545. Between Aug 28, 2008, and Feb 9, 2010, 265 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib (n=136) or placebo (n=129). 136 patients had deleterious BRCAm. The data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 30, 2015. An overall survival advantage was seen with maintenance olaparib versus placebo in all patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·55–0·96]; nominal p=0·025, which did not meet the required threshold for statistical significance [p<0·0095]; median overall survival was 29·8 months [95% CI 26·9–35·7] for those treated with olaparib vs 27·8 months [24·9–33·7] for those treated with placebo), and in patients with BRCAm (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·41–0·94] nominal p=0·025; 34·9 months [95% CI 29·2–54·6] vs 30·2 months [23·1–40·7]). The overall survival data in patients with BRCA wild-type were HR 0·83 (95% CI 0·55–1·24, nominal p=0·37; 24·5 months [19·8–35·0] for those treated with olaparib vs 26·6 months [23·1–32·5] for those treated with placebo). 11 (15%) of 74 patients with BRCAm received maintenance olaparib for 5 years or more. Overall, common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the olaparib and placebo groups were fatigue (11 [8%] of 136 patients vs four [3%] of 128) and anaemia (eight [6%] vs one [1%]). 30 (22%) of 136 patients in the olaparib group and 11 (9%) of 128 patients in the placebo group reported serious adverse events. In patients treated for 2 years or more, adverse events in the olaparib and placebo groups included low-grade nausea (24 [75%] of 32 patients vs two [40%] of five), fatigue (18 [56%] of 32 vs two [40%] of five), vomiting (12 [38%] of 32 vs zero), and anaemia (eight [25%] of 32 vs one [20%] of five); generally, events were initially reported during the first 2 years of treatment. Despite not reaching statistical significance, patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer receiving olaparib maintenance monotherapy after platinum-based chemotherapy appeared to have longer overall survival, supporting the reported progression-free survival benefit. Clinically useful long-term exposure to olaparib was seen with no new safety signals. Taken together, these data support both the long-term clinical benefit and tolerability of maintenance olaparib in patients with BRCA-mutated platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer. AstraZeneca.

BackgroundOlaparib (Lynparza™) is a PARP inhibitor approved for advanced BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) ovarian cancer. PARP inhibitors may benefit patients whose tumours are dysfunctional in DNA repair mechanisms unrelated to BRCA1/2. We report exploratory analyses, including the long-term outcome of candidate biomarkers of sensitivity to olaparib in BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) tumours.MethodsTumour samples from an olaparib maintenance monotherapy trial (Study 19, D0810C00019; NCT00753545) were analysed. Analyses included classification of mutations in genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR), BRCA1 promoter methylation status, measurement of BRCA1 protein and Myriad HRD score.ResultsPatients with BRCAm tumours gained most benefit from olaparib; a similar treatment benefit was also observed in 21/95 patients whose tumours were BRCAwt but had loss-of-function HRR mutations compared to patients with no detectable HRR mutations (58/95). A higher median Myriad MyChoice® HRD score was observed in BRCAm and BRCAwt tumours with BRCA1 methylation. Patients without BRCAm tumours derived benefit from olaparib treatment vs placebo although to a lesser extent than BRCAm patients.ConclusionsOvarian cancer patients with tumours harbouring loss-of-function mutations in HRR genes other than BRCA1/2 may constitute a small, molecularly identifiable and clinically relevant population who derive treatment benefit from olaparib similar to patients with BRCAm.

Patients with metastatic melanoma, 50% of whose tumours harbour a BRAF mutation, have a poor prognosis. Selumetinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and in preclinical models when combined with chemotherapy. This study was designed to look for a signal of improved efficacy by comparing the combination of selumetinib and dacarbazine with dacarbazine alone. This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study investigated selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment in patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned by central interactive voice response system (1:1 ratio, block size four) to take either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21-day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle). Patients, investigators, and the study team were masked to the treatment assigned. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00936221. Between July 20, 2009, and April 8, 2010, 91 patients were randomly assigned to receive dacarbazine in combination with selumetinib (n=45) or placebo (n=46). Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (median 13·9 months, 80% CI 10·2–15·6, in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group and 10·5 months, 9·6–14·7, in the placebo plus dacarbazine group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 80% CI 0·67–1·28, one-sided p=0·39). However, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group versus the placebo plus dacarbazine group (HR 0·63, 80% CI 0·47–0·84, one-sided p=0·021), with a median of 5·6 months (80% CI 4·9–5·9) versus 3·0 months (2·8–4·6), respectively. The most frequent adverse events included nausea (28 [64%] of 44 patients on selumetinib vs 25 [56%] of 45 on placebo), acneiform dermatitis (23 [52%] vs one [2%]), diarrhoea (21 [48%] vs 13 [29%]), vomiting (21 [48%] vs 15 [33%]), and peripheral oedema (19 [43%] vs three [7%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event was neutropenia (six [14%] patients in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group vs four [9%] in the placebo plus dacarbazine group). Selumetinib plus dacarbazine showed clinical activity in patients with BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma, reflected by a significant benefit in progression-free survival compared with placebo plus dacarbazine group, although no significant change in overall survival was noted. The tolerability of this combination was generally consistent with monotherapy safety profiles. AstraZeneca.

Ergometrine is recommended for use in the medical treatment of postpartum hemorrhage. Ergometrine can occasionally precipitate myocardial ischemia in the setting of significant anemia in women without preexisting cardiac risk factors, and it is important to recognize and treat myocardial ischemia in affected patients to prevent severe complications. Ergometrine is recommended for use in the medical treatment of postpartum hemorrhage. Ergometrine can occasionally precipitate myocardial ischemia in the setting of significant anemia in women without preexisting cardiac risk factors, and it is important to recognize and treat myocardial ischemia in affected patients to prevent severe complications.

Background: Maintenance monotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib significantly prolongs progression-free survival over placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer, with greatest benefit seen in patients with a BRCA1/2 mutation ( BRCA m). Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is important during maintenance therapy; we evaluated the effect of olaparib on HRQoL in this Phase II trial (NCT00753545, Study 19). Methods: Patients received olaparib 400 mg b.i.d. (capsules) or placebo until progression. Patient-reported HRQoL and disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the FACT-Ovarian (FACT-O) questionnaire (completed at baseline and every 28 days until progression), the FACT/NCCN Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI) and the Trial Outcome Index (TOI). TOI of the FACT-O was the primary measure. Results: Overall, 265 women were randomised to maintenance olaparib ( n =136) or placebo ( n =129). Compliance for HRQoL assessment was high (∼80% over time). Most patients in both arms reported a best response of ‘no change’ on TOI (81%) and other HRQoL measures. There were no statistically significant differences in time to worsening or improvement rates of TOI, FOSI and FACT-O scores in the overall, BRCA m and germline BRCA m populations. Conclusions: Maintenance treatment with olaparib was well tolerated and had no adverse impact on HRQoL in this study of patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer who had responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy (partial or complete response). Interpretation of the HRQoL results in this population may differ from patients who have not responded to their most recent platinum-based therapy.

Proponents of the link between dietary fat and heart disease were therefore in the ascendancy and obtained positions as government advisers, as editorial board members, and on grant-giving bodies. Furthermore, as Teicholz documents, researchers who applied for grants for research that might challenge the key opinion leaders in the fat debate had their grant applications rejected. On the basis of epidemiological data, but ignoring the evidence from direct scientific interventions with dietary saturated fats, the mantra of low-fat diets became established.

We developed and evaluated a method for making early predictions of best overall response (BOR) and overall survival at 6 months (OS6) in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy. This method combines machine learning with modeling of longitudinal tumor size data. We applied our method to data from durvalumab‐exposed patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer. A fivefold cross‐validation was used for model selection. Independent trial data, with various degrees of data truncation, were used for model validation. Mean classification error rates (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) from cross‐validation were 5.99% (90% CI 2.98%–7.50%) for BOR and 19.8% (90% CI 15.8%–39.3%) for OS6. During model validation, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves was preserved for BOR (0.97, 0.97, and 0.94) and OS6 (0.85, 0.84, and 0.82) at 24, 18, and 12 weeks, respectively. These results suggest our method predicts trial outcomes accurately from early data and could be used to aid drug development.