Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveOne of the complications of chemotherapy is peripheral neuropathy. Various studies have shown that potent norepinephrine and serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as gabapentin, venlafaxine and duloxetine have therapeutic effects on neuropathy. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of venlafaxine vs. duloxetine on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.MethodsIn this clinical trial, cancer patients who were suffering from chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy comprised the study population. They were randomly assigned to three pharmacotherapy groups including venlafaxine, duloxetine and placebo. Cranial, sensory, motor neuropathies as well as neuropathic pain were evaluated on day 1, week 2, and week 4 after enrollment.ResultsGrade of cranial, motor, sensory and neuropathic pain decreased significantly in venlafaxine and duloxetine groups. This reduction was more considerable in duloxetine group compared to venlafaxine group (P < 0.05).ConclusionDuloxetine seems to be more effective than venlafaxine in decreasing the symptoms of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Duloxetine was more effective than venlafaxine in decreasing motor neuropathy and neuropathic pain grade.

About one-third of patients with depression fail to achieve remission despite treatment with multiple antidepressants and are considered to have treatment-resistant depression. This Phase 3, double-blind, multicenter study enrolled adults with moderate-to-severe depression and nonresponse to ≥2 antidepressants in the current depression episode. Eligible patients (N = 346) were randomized (1:1:1) to twice-weekly nasal spray treatment (esketamine [56 or 84 mg] or placebo) plus a newly initiated, open-label, oral antidepressant taken daily for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to day 28 in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score, performed by blinded, remote raters. Based on the predefined statistical testing sequence, esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant had to be significant for esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant to be formally tested. Statistical significance was not achieved with esketamine 84 mg/antidepressant compared with antidepressant/placebo (least squares [LS] means difference [95% CI]: -3.2 [-6.88, 0.45]; 2-sided P value = .088). Although esketamine 56 mg/antidepressant could not be formally tested, the LS means difference was -4.1 [-7.67, -0.49] (nominal 2-sided P value = .027). The most common (>20%) adverse events reported for esketamine/antidepressant were nausea, dissociation, dizziness, vertigo, and headache. Statistical significance was not achieved for the primary endpoint; nevertheless, the treatment effect (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) for both esketamine/antidepressant groups exceeded what has been considered clinically meaningful for approved antidepressants vs placebo. Safety was similar between esketamine/antidepressant groups and no new dose-related safety concerns were identified. This study provides supportive evidence for the safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray as a new, rapid-acting antidepressant for patients with treatment-resistant depression. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02417064.

Patients with CLL received chemoimmunotherapy, venetoclax–rituximab, venetoclax–obinutuzumab, or venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib; the latter two groups had deeper responses and longer progression-free survival.

Further research is needed to help improve both the standard of care and the outcome for patients with treatment-resistant depression. A particularly critical evidence gap exists with respect to whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological augmentation is superior to antidepressant switch, or vice-versa. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of augmentation with aripiprazole or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus switching to the antidepressant venlafaxine XR (or duloxetine for those not eligible to receive venlafaxine) for treatment-resistant depression. In this multi-site, 8-week, randomized, open-label study, 278 subjects (196 females and 82 males, mean age 45.6 years (SD 15.3)) with treatment-resistant depression were assigned in a 1:1:1 fashion to treatment with either of these three interventions; 235 subjects completed the study. 260 randomized subjects with at least one post-baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating (MADRS) assessment were included in the analysis. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (score change (standard error (se)) = −17.39 (1.3) ( p  = 0.015) but not aripiprazole augmentation (score change (se) = −14.9 (1.1) ( p  = 0.069) was superior to switch (score change (se) = −13.22 (1.1)) on the MADRS. Aripiprazole (mean change (se) = −37.79 (2.9) ( p  = 0.003) but not repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation (mean change (se) = −42.96 (3.6) ( p  = 0.031) was superior to switch (mean change (se) = −34.45 (3.0)) on the symptoms of depression questionnaire. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation was shown to be more effective than switching antidepressants in treatment-resistant depression on the study primary measure. In light of these findings, clinicians should consider repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation early-on for treatment-resistant depression. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02977299

A randomized trial involving patients with acute coronary syndromes showed that prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor with regard to the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke within 1 year, with no increased risk of bleeding.

Among older patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia, treatment with ibrutinib, either alone or in combination with rituximab, was superior to treatment with bendamustine plus rituximab with regard to progression-free survival. The two regimens that contained ibrutinib were equally effective.

Resistance to first-generation or second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy develops in almost half of patients with EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after 1 year of treatment. The JO25567 phase 2 trial comparing erlotinib plus bevacizumab combination therapy with erlotinib monotherapy established the activity and manageable toxicity of erlotinib plus bevacizumab in patients with NSCLC. We did a phase 3 trial to validate the results of the JO25567 study and report here the results from the preplanned interim analysis. In this prespecified interim analysis of the randomised, open-label, phase 3 NEJ026 trial, we recruited patients with stage IIIB–IV disease or recurrent, cytologically or histologically confirmed non-squamous NSCLC with activating EGFR genomic aberrations from 69 centres across Japan. Eligible patients were at least 20 years old, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, no previous chemotherapy for advanced disease, and one or more measurable lesions based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (1.1). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day plus intravenous bevacizumab 15 mg/kg once every 21 days, or erlotinib 150 mg per day monotherapy. Randomisation was done by minimisation, stratified by sex, smoking status, clinical stage, and EGFR mutation subtype. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. This study is ongoing; the data cutoff for this prespecified interim analysis was Sept 21, 2017. Efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of treatment and had at least one response evaluation. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, number UMIN000017069. Between June 3, 2015, and Aug 31, 2016, 228 patients were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib plus bevacizumab (n=114) or erlotinib alone (n=114). 112 patients in each group were evaluable for efficacy, and safety was evaluated in 112 patients in the combination therapy group and 114 in the monotherapy group. Median follow-up was 12·4 months (IQR 7·0–15·7). At the time of interim analysis, median progression-free survival for patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group was 16·9 months (95% CI 14·2–21·0) compared with 13·3 months (11·1–15·3) for patients in the erlotinib group (hazard ratio 0·605, 95% CI 0·417–0·877; p=0·016). 98 (88%) of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and 53 (46%) of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group had grade 3 or worse adverse events. The most common grade 3–4 adverse event was rash (23 [21%] of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group vs 24 [21%] of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group). Nine (8%) of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and five (4%) of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group had serious adverse events. The most common serious adverse events were grade 4 neutropenia (two [2%] of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group) and grade 4 hepatic dysfunction (one [1%] of 112 patients in the erlotinib plus bevacizumab group and one [1%] of 114 patients in the erlotinib alone group). No treatment-related deaths occurred. The results of this interim analysis showed that bevacizumab plus erlotinib combination therapy improves progression-free survival compared with erlotinib alone in patients with EGFR-positive NSCLC. Future studies with longer follow-up, and overall survival and quality-of-life data will be required to further assess the efficacy of this combination in this setting. Chugai Pharmaceutical.

In a trial involving patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax in combination with rituximab resulted in a higher 2-year rate of progression-free survival than bendamustine in combination with rituximab (85% vs. 36%).

Current guidelines recommend potent platelet inhibition with ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients after an acute coronary syndrome. However, data about optimal platelet inhibition in older patients are scarce. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor or prasugrel in older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). We did the open-label, randomised controlled POPular AGE trial in 12 sites (ten hospitals and two university hospitals) in the Netherlands. Patients aged 70 years or older with NSTE-ACS were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio using an internet-based randomisation procedure with block sizes of six to receive a loading dose of clopidogrel 300 mg or 600 mg, or ticagrelor 180 mg or prasugrel 60 mg, and then a maintenance dose for the duration of 12 months (clopidogrel 75 mg once daily, ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, or prasugrel 10 mg once daily) on top of standard care. Patient and treating physicians were aware of the allocated treatment strategy, but the outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Primary bleeding outcome consisted of PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO; major or minor bleeding [superiority hypothesis]). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome consisted of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, PLATO major and minor bleeding (non-inferiority hypothesis, margin of 2%). Follow-up duration was 12 months. Analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NL3804), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02317198), and EudraCT (2013–001403–37). Between June 10, 2013, and Oct 17, 2018, 1002 patients were randomly assigned to clopidogrel (n=500) or ticagrelor or prasugrel (n=502). Because 475 (95%) patients received ticagrelor in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group, we will refer to this group as the ticagrelor group. Premature discontinuation of the study drug occurred in 238 (47%) of 502 ticagrelor group patients randomly assigned to ticagrelor, and in 112 (22%) of 500 patients randomly assigned to clopidogrel. Primary bleeding outcome was significantly lower in the clopidogrel group (88 [18%] of 500 patients) than in the ticagrelor group (118 [24%] of 502; hazard ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·54 to 0·94; p=0·02 for superiority). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome was non-inferior for the use of clopidogrel (139 [28%]) versus ticagrelor (161 [32%]; absolute risk difference −4%, 95% CI −10·0 to 1·4; p=0·03 for non-inferiority). The most important reasons for discontinuation were occurrence of bleeding (n=38), dyspnoea (n=40), and the need for treatment with oral anticoagulation (n=35). In patients aged 70 years or older presenting with NSTE-ACS, clopidogrel is a favourable alternative to ticagrelor, because it leads to fewer bleeding events without an increase in the combined endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. Clopidogrel could be an alternative P2Y12 inhibitor especially for elderly patients with a higher bleeding risk. ZonMw.

Current guidelines recommend potent platelet inhibition with prasugrel or ticagrelor for 12 months after an acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the greatest anti-ischaemic benefit of potent antiplatelet drugs over the less potent clopidogrel occurs early, while most excess bleeding events arise during chronic treatment. Hence, a stage-adapted treatment with potent platelet inhibition in the acute phase and de-escalation to clopidogrel in the maintenance phase could be an alternative approach. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of early de-escalation of antiplatelet treatment from prasugrel to clopidogrel guided by platelet function testing (PFT). In this investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, assessor-blinded, multicentre trial (TROPICAL-ACS) done at 33 sites in Europe, patients were enrolled if they had biomarker-positive acute coronary syndrome with successful PCI and a planned duration of dual antiplatelet treatment of 12 months. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an internet-based randomisation procedure with a computer-generated block randomisation with stratification across study sites to either standard treatment with prasugrel for 12 months (control group) or a step-down regimen (1 week prasugrel followed by 1 week clopidogrel and PFT-guided maintenance therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel from day 14 after hospital discharge; guided de-escalation group). The assessors were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was net clinical benefit (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke or bleeding grade 2 or higher according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC]) criteria) 1 year after randomisation (non-inferiority hypothesis; margin of 30%). Analysis was intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01959451, and EudraCT, 2013-001636-22. Between Dec 2, 2013, and May 20, 2016, 2610 patients were assigned to study groups; 1304 to the guided de-escalation group and 1306 to the control group. The primary endpoint occurred in 95 patients (7%) in the guided de-escalation group and in 118 patients (9%) in the control group (pnon-inferiority=0·0004; hazard ratio [HR] 0·81 [95% CI 0·62–1·06], psuperiority=0·12). Despite early de-escalation, there was no increase in the combined risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke in the de-escalation group (32 patients [3%]) versus in the control group (42 patients [3%]; pnon-inferiority=0·0115). There were 64 BARC 2 or higher bleeding events (5%) in the de-escalation group versus 79 events (6%) in the control group (HR 0·82 [95% CI 0·59–1·13]; p=0·23). Guided de-escalation of antiplatelet treatment was non-inferior to standard treatment with prasugrel at 1 year after PCI in terms of net clinical benefit. Our trial shows that early de-escalation of antiplatelet treatment can be considered as an alternative approach in patients with acute coronary syndrome managed with PCI. Klinikum der Universität München, Roche Diagnostics, Eli Lilly, and Daiichi Sankyo.