Explore the vast range of titles available.

Inflammation is an important feature of atherosclerotic lesions, and increased production of the acute-phase reactant, C-reactive protein (CRP), is associated with a poor prognosis in severe unstable angina. We have investigated the existence and possible significance of the acute-phase responses of CRP and another sensitive reactant, serum amyloid A protein (SAA), in patients with unstable or stable angina. We used new ultrasensitive immunoassays to measure CRP and SAA concentrations in plasma from 2121 outpatients with angina (1030 unstable, 743 stable, the rest atypical) enrolled in the European Concerted Action on Thrombosis and Disabilities (SCAT) Angina Pectoris Study. All patients underwent coronary angiography and extensive clinical and laboratory assessment at study entry, and were then followed up for 2 years. All suspected coronary events during follow-up were reviewed by an independent endpoint committee. 75 individuals (41 with unstable, 29 with stable, and 5 with atypical angina) had a coronary event during follow-up. Concentrations of CRP at study entry were associated with coronary events in patients with stable or unstable angina: there was about a two-fold increase in the risk of a coronary event in patients whose CRP concentration was in the fifth quintile (>3·6 mg/L), compared with the first four quintiles. A third of the events occurred among patients who had a CRP concentration of more than 3·6 mg/L CRP concentrations were positively correlated with age, smoking, body-mass index, triglycerides, extent of coronary stenosis, history of myocardial infarction, and lower ejection fraction. By contrast, concentrations of SAA were not associated with risk of a coronary event. We found that raised circulating concentrations of CRP are predictors of coronary events in patients with stable or unstable angina. The modest acute-phase responses of CRP were probably not the result of myocardial necrosis. Whatever the underlying mechanisms, the sensitive measurement of CRP as a prognostic marker may be useful in the management of coronary heart diease.

The nuclear factor I/X (NFIX) gene encodes a ubiquitously expressed transcription factor whose mutations lead to two allelic disorders characterized by developmental, skeletal, and neural abnormalities, namely, Malan syndrome (MAL) and Marshall–Smith syndrome (MSS). NFIX mutations associated with MAL mainly cluster in exon 2 and are cleared by nonsense‐mediated decay (NMD) leading to NFIX haploinsufficiency, whereas NFIX mutations associated with MSS are clustered in exons 6–10 and escape NMD and result in the production of dominant‐negative mutant NFIX proteins. Thus, different NFIX mutations have distinct consequences on NFIX expression. To elucidate the in vivo effects of MSS‐associated NFIX exon 7 mutations, we used CRISPR‐Cas9 to generate mouse models with exon 7 deletions that comprised: a frameshift deletion of two nucleotides (Nfix Del2); in‐frame deletion of 24 nucleotides (Nfix Del24); and deletion of 140 nucleotides (Nfix Del140). Nfix+/Del2, Nfix+/Del24, Nfix+/Del140, NfixDel24/Del24, and NfixDel140/Del140 mice were viable, normal, and fertile, with no skeletal abnormalities, but NfixDel2/Del2 mice had significantly reduced viability (p < 0.002) and died at 2–3 weeks of age. Nfix Del2 was not cleared by NMD, and NfixDel2/Del2 mice, when compared to Nfix+/+ and Nfix+/Del2 mice, had: growth retardation; short stature with kyphosis; reduced skull length; marked porosity of the vertebrae with decreased vertebral and femoral bone mineral content; and reduced caudal vertebrae height and femur length. Plasma biochemistry analysis revealed NfixDel2/Del2 mice to have increased total alkaline phosphatase activity but decreased C‐terminal telopeptide and procollagen‐type‐1‐N‐terminal propeptide concentrations compared to Nfix+/+ and Nfix+/Del2 mice. NfixDel2/Del2 mice were also found to have enlarged cerebral cortices and ventricular areas but smaller dentate gyrus compared to Nfix+/+ mice. Thus, NfixDel2/Del2 mice provide a model for studying the in vivo effects of NFIX mutants that escape NMD and result in developmental abnormalities of the skeletal and neural tissues that are associated with MSS. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. A mouse model for Marshall–Smith syndrome.

Health-care providers are increasingly faced with the possibility of needing to care for people injured in explosions, but can often, however, feel undertrained for the unique aspects of the patient's presentation and management. Although most blast-related injuries (eg, fragmentation injuries from improvised explosive devices and standard military explosives) can be managed in a similar manner to typical penetrating or blunt traumatic injuries, injuries caused by the blast pressure wave itself cannot. The blast pressure wave exerts forces mainly at air–tissue interfaces within the body, and the pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and auditory systems are at greatest risk. Arterial air emboli arising from severe pulmonary injury can cause ischaemic complications—especially in the brain, heart, and intestinal tract. Attributable, in part, to the scene chaos that undoubtedly exists, poor triage and missed diagnosis of blast injuries are substantial concerns because injuries can be subtle or their presentation can be delayed. Management of these injuries can be a challenge, compounded by potentially conflicting treatment goals. This Seminar aims to provide a thorough overview of these unique primary blast injuries and their management.

Obesity is a complex chronic disease in which abnormal or excess body fat (adiposity) impairs health, increases the risk of long-term medical complications and reduces lifespan. Epidemiologic studies define obesity using the body mass index (BMI), which can stratify obesity-related health risks at the population level. Obesity is operationally defined as a BMI exceeding 30 kg/m2 and is subclassified into class 1 (30-34.9), class 2 (35-39.9) and class 3 (≥ 40). At the population level, health complications from excess body fat increase as BMI increases. At the individual level, complications occur because of excess adiposity, location and distribution of adiposity and many other factors, including environmental, genetic, biologic and socioeconomic factors. Here, Wharton et al discuss the Canadian clinical practice guideline for assessing and treating people living with obesity.

•The Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE) measures clinical utility.•C-GUIDE has been validated for use in pediatric and adult genetics.•C-GUIDE ratings from two clinicians demonstrate high inter-rater reliability.•Modified instructions will improve rater agreement in future studies.•C-GUIDE aids in addressing the challenge of measuring clinical utility. Advanced genomic and genetic testing technologies are quickly diffusing into clinical practice, but standardized approaches to assessing their clinical utility are limited. Previous work developed and generated preliminary evidence of validity for a novel outcome measure, the Clinician-reported Genetic testing Utility InDEx (C-GUIDE). C-GUIDE is a 17-item measure that captures the utility of genetic testing from the providers’ perspective. Preliminary evidence of its inter-rater reliability was obtained through a clinical vignette study. The purpose of this study was to further assess its inter-rater reliability using actual clinical cases. One genetic counselor and one medical geneticist independently completed C-GUIDE Version 1.1 after genetic test results were disclosed to a shared set of 42 patients. Raters also completed a case description questionnaire, including information about the patient's age, indication for testing, and type of test performed. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by comparing the raters’ C-GUIDE scores using ANOVA to generate intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs), absolute agreement, and mixed repeated measures ANOVA. Of the 42 patients studied, the most common indications for testing were hearing loss (n = 18) and craniosynostosis (n = 11), and the most common tests ordered were gene panels (n = 20) and microarrays (n = 10). Test results were diagnostic or partially diagnostic for 11 patients, potentially diagnostic for 14 patients, or nondiagnostic for 17 patients. The overall ICC was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.89–0.97) and absolute agreement was acceptable (>70%) for 15 individual items. Inter-rater agreement was excellent (ICC > 0.90) for 8 items, good (ICC = 0.75–0.89) for 3 items, moderate (ICC = 0.50–0.74) for 4 items and poor (ICC < 0.50) for 2 items. Absolute agreement was unacceptable (<70%), and rater agreement was fair (ICC = 0.40–0.59) for 2 items. For the global rating, the ICC was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.39–0.77), and the absolute agreement was 61.9%. Rater instructions for item completion have been modified to improve consistency of item interpretation. Although further assessments of reliability are warranted after modifications, these findings provide additional tentative evidence of C-GUIDE's inter-rater reliability and suggest that it may be useful as a strategy for measuring the value of genetic testing, as perceived by genetics providers.

Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, can result in durable responses in patients with melanoma who have progressed after ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab compared with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (ICC) as a second-line or later-line treatment in patients with advanced melanoma. In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients at 90 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had unresectable or metastatic melanoma, and progressed after ipilimumab, or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAFV 600 mutation-positive. Participating investigators randomly assigned (with an interactive voice response system) patients 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ICC (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. We stratified randomisation by BRAF mutation status, tumour expression of PD-L1, and previous best overall response to ipilimumab. We used permuted blocks (block size of six) within each stratum. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had an objective response and overall survival. Treatment was given open-label, but those doing tumour assessments were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed objective responses per-protocol after 120 patients had been treated with nivolumab and had a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks, and safety in all patients who had had at least one dose of treatment. The trial is closed and this is the first interim analysis, reporting the objective response primary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01721746. Between Dec 21, 2012, and Jan 10, 2014, we screened 631 patients, randomly allocating 272 patients to nivolumab and 133 to ICC. Confirmed objective responses were reported in 38 (31·7%, 95% CI 23·5–40·8) of the first 120 patients in the nivolumab group versus five (10·6%, 3·5–23·1) of 47 patients in the ICC group. Grade 3–4 adverse events related to nivolumab included increased lipase (three [1%] of 268 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase, anaemia, and fatigue (two [1%] each); for ICC, these included neutropenia (14 [14%] of 102), thrombocytopenia (six [6%]), and anaemia (five [5%]). We noted grade 3–4 drug-related serious adverse events in 12 (5%) nivolumab-treated patients and nine (9%) patients in the ICC group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor. Nivolumab represents a new treatment option with clinically meaningful durable objective responses in a population of high unmet need. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Venetoclax plus obinutuzumab has been established as a fixed-duration treatment regimen for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We compared the long-term efficacy after treatment cessation of the combination of venetoclax plus obinutuzumab with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. CLL14 is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 196 sites in 21 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, and coexisting conditions with a cumulative illness rating scale greater than 6, a creatinine clearance of 30–69 mL/min, or both. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web and voicemail system with allocation concealment and based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule with a block size of six and stratified by Binet stage and geographical region. Patients received either venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (oral venetoclax initiated on day 22 of cycle 1 [28-day cycles], with a 5-week dose ramp-up [20 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg, then 400 mg daily for 1 week], thereafter continuing at 400 mg daily until completion of cycle 12; combined with intravenous obinutuzumab for six cycles starting with 100 mg on day 1 and 900 mg on day 2 [or 1000 mg on day 1], 1000 mg on days 8 and day 15 of cycle 1, and subsequently 1000 mg on day 1 of cycles 2 through 6) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (oral chlorambucil at 0·5 mg/kg bodyweight on days 1 and 15 of each cycle for 12 cycles combined with the same obinutuzumab regimen). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Patient enrolment is complete, and the study is registered with ClinicalTrails.gov, NCT02242942. Between Aug 7, 2015, and Aug 4, 2016, 432 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (n=216) or chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (n=216). All patients had been off treatment for at least 24 months at data collection. At a median follow-up of 39·6 months (IQR 36·8–43·0), patients given venetoclax plus obinutuzumab had a significantly longer progression-free survival than did patients given chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (HR 0·31, 95% CI 0·22–0·44; p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI not estimable to not estimable) in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group vs 35·6 months (33·7–40·7) in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both groups was neutropenia (112 [53%] of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group versus 102 [48%] of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group). Serious adverse events occurred in 115 (54%) of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group and 95 (44%) of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group. Venetoclax or chlorambucil treatment-related deaths were reported in one (1%) of 212 patients in the venetoclax plus obinutuzumab group (n=1 sepsis) and two (1%) of 214 patients in the chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab group (n=1 septic shock, n=1 metastatic skin squamous carcinoma). 2 years after treatment cessation, venetoclax plus obinutuzumab continues to significantly improve progression-survival compared with chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab, thereby providing a limited duration treatment option for patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. F Hoffmann-La Roche and AbbVie.

The ESPAC-3 trial showed that adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard of care based on similar survival to and less toxicity than adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Other clinical trials have shown better survival and tumour response with gemcitabine and capecitabine than with gemcitabine alone in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer. We did a phase 3, two-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised clinical trial at 92 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had undergone complete macroscopic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) within 12 weeks of surgery to receive six cycles of either 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine alone administered once a week for three of every 4 weeks (one cycle) or with 1660 mg/m2 oral capecitabine administered for 21 days followed by 7 days' rest (one cycle). Randomisation was based on a minimisation routine, and country was used as a stratification factor. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxicity was analysed in all patients who received trial treatment. This trial was registered with the EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434. Of 732 patients enrolled, 730 were included in the final analysis. Of these, 366 were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine and 364 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine. The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested reporting of the results after there were 458 (95%) of a target of 480 deaths. The median overall survival for patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group was 28·0 months (95% CI 23·5–31·5) compared with 25·5 months (22·7–27·9) in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·68–0·98], p=0·032). 608 grade 3–4 adverse events were reported by 226 of 359 patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group compared with 481 grade 3–4 adverse events in 196 of 366 patients in the gemcitabine group. The adjuvant combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Research UK.

Previously reported results from the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial showed a significant improvement in objective responses, progression-free survival, and overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The aim of this report is to provide 4-year updated efficacy and safety data from this study. In this phase 3 trial, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, stage III or stage IV melanoma, known BRAFV600 mutation status, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus placebo, or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo. Randomisation was done via an interactive voice response system with a permuted block schedule (block size of six) and stratification by PD-L1 status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The patients, investigators, study site staff, and study funder were masked to the study drug administered. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population, whereas safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The results presented in this report reflect the 4-year update of the ongoing study with a database lock date of May 10, 2018. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01844505. Between July 3, 2013, and March 31, 2014, 945 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=314), nivolumab (n=316), or ipilimumab (n=315). Median follow-up was 46·9 months (IQR 10·9–51·8) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·0 months (10·5–51·4) in the nivolumab group, and 18·6 months (7·6–49·5) in the ipilimumab group. At a minimum follow-up of 48 months from the date that the final patient was enrolled and randomised, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 38·2–not reached) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 36·9 months (28·3–not reached) in the nivolumab group, and 19·9 months (16·9–24·6) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for death for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·54 (95% CI 0·44–0·67; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·65 (0·53–0·79; p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was 11·5 months (95% CI 8·7–19·3) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group, 6·9 months (5·1–10·2) in the nivolumab group, and 2·9 months (2·8–3·2) in the ipilimumab group. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival for the combination versus ipilimumab was 0·42 (95% CI 0·35–0·51; p<0·0001) and for nivolumab versus ipilimumab was 0·53 (0·44–0·64; p<0·0001). Treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events were reported in 185 (59%) of 313 patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab, 70 (22%) of 313 who received nivolumab, and 86 (28%) of 311 who received ipilimumab. The most common treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were diarrhoea in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (29 [9%] of 313) and in the nivolumab group (nine [3%] of 313) and colitis in the ipilimumab group (23 [7%] of 311); the most common grade 4 adverse event in all three groups was increased lipase (15 [5%] of 313 in the combination group, ten [3%] of 313 in the nivolumab group, and four [1%] of 311 in the ipilimumab group). Serious adverse events were not analysed for the 4-year follow-up. In total for the study, there were four treatment-related deaths: two in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group (one cardiomyopathy and one liver necrosis), one in the nivolumab group (neutropenia), and one in the ipilimumab group (colon perforation). No additional treatment-related deaths have occurred since the previous (3-year) analysis. The results of this analysis at 4 years of follow-up show that a durable, sustained survival benefit can be achieved with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Few effective treatments exist for patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma not responding to treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide. Pomalidomide alone has shown limited efficacy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma, but synergistic effects have been noted when combined with dexamethasone. We compared the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone with high-dose dexamethasone alone in these patients. This multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial was undertaken in Australia, Canada, Europe, Russia, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they had been diagnosed with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, and had failed at least two previous treatments of bortezomib and lenalidomide. They were assigned in a 2:1 ratio with a validated interactive voice and internet response system to either 28 day cycles of pomalidomide (4 mg/day on days 1–21, orally) plus low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, orally) or high-dose dexamethasone (40 mg/day on days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20, orally) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were age (≤75 years vs >75 years), disease population (refractory vs relapsed and refractory vs bortezomib intolerant), and number of previous treatments (two vs more than two). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01311687, and with EudraCT, number 2010-019820-30. The accrual for the study has been completed and the analyses are presented. 302 patients were randomly assigned to receive pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and 153 high-dose dexamethasone. After a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 7·2–13·2), median PFS with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone was 4·0 months (95% CI 3·6–4·7) versus 1·9 months (1·9–2·2) with high-dose dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·39–0·60]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3–4 haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups were neutropenia (143 [48%] of 300 vs 24 [16%] of 150, respectively), anaemia (99 [33%] vs 55 [37%], respectively), and thrombocytopenia (67 [22%] vs 39 [26%], respectively). Grade 3–4 non-haematological adverse events in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone and high-dose dexamethasone groups included pneumonia (38 [13%] vs 12 [8%], respectively), bone pain (21 [7%] vs seven [5%], respectively), and fatigue (16 [5%] vs nine [6%], respectively). There were 11 (4%) treatment-related adverse events leading to death in the pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone group and seven (5%) in the high-dose dexamethasone group. Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone, an oral regimen, could be considered a new treatment option in patients with refractory or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Celgene Corporation.