Explore the vast range of titles available.

Primary hyperoxaluria type 1 is caused by hepatic overproduction of oxalate, leading to kidney stones, nephrocalcinosis, kidney failure, and systemic oxalosis. This trial tested whether an oligonucleotide drug can reduce the production of hepatic oxalate.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors approved for myelofibrosis provide spleen and symptom improvements but do not meaningfully improve anaemia. Momelotinib, a first-in-class inhibitor of activin A receptor type 1 as well as JAK1 and JAK2, has shown symptom, spleen, and anaemia benefits in myelofibrosis. We aimed to confirm the differentiated clinical benefits of momelotinib versus the active comparator danazol in JAK-inhibitor-exposed, symptomatic patients with anaemia and intermediate-risk or high-risk myelofibrosis. MOMENTUM is an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study that enrolled patients at 107 sites across 21 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of primary myelofibrosis or post-polycythaemia vera or post-essential thrombocythaemia myelofibrosis. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive momelotinib (200 mg orally once per day) plus danazol placebo (ie, the momelotinib group) or danazol (300 mg orally twice per day) plus momelotinib placebo (ie, the danazol group), stratified by total symptom score (TSS; <22 vs ≥22), spleen size (<12 cm vs ≥12 cm), red blood cell or whole blood units transfused in the 8 weeks before randomisation (0 units vs 1–4 units vs ≥5 units), and study site. The primary endpoint was the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) TSS response rate at week 24 (defined as ≥50% reduction in mean MFSAF TSS over the 28 days immediately before the end of week 24 compared with baseline). MOMENTUM is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04173494, and is active but not recruiting. 195 patients were randomly assigned to either the momelotinib group (130 [67%]) or danazol group (65 [33%]) and received study treatment in the 24-week randomised treatment period between April 24, 2020, and Dec 3, 2021. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the momelotinib group reported a 50% or more reduction in TSS than in the danazol group (32 [25%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65; proportion difference 16% [95% CI 6–26], p=0·0095). The most frequent grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were haematological abnormalities by laboratory values: anaemia (79 [61%] of 130 vs 49 [75%] of 65) and thrombocytopenia (36 [28%] vs 17 [26%]). The most frequent non-haematological grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events with momelotinib and danazol were acute kidney injury (four [3%] of 130 vs six [9%] of 65) and pneumonia (three [2%] vs six [9%]). Treatment with momelotinib, compared with danazol, resulted in clinically significant improvements in myelofibrosis-associated symptoms, anaemia measures, and spleen response, with favourable safety. These findings support the future use of momelotinib as an effective treatment in patients with myelofibrosis, especially in those with anaemia. Sierra Oncology.

Beginning reader featuring the phrase Look At followed by various insects.

Empirical chemotherapy remains the standard of care in patients with unfavourable cancer of unknown primary (CUP). Gene-expression profiling assays have been developed to identify the tissue of origin in patients with CUP; however, their clinical benefit has not yet been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of site-specific therapy directed by a 90-gene expression assay compared with empirical chemotherapy in patients with CUP. This randomised controlled trial was conducted at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (Shanghai, China). We enrolled patients aged 18–75 years, with previously untreated CUP (histologically confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, or poorly differentiated neoplasms) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2, who were not amenable to local radical treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by the Pocock and Simon minimisation method to receive either site-specific therapy or empirical chemotherapy (taxane [175 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on day 1] plus platinum [cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 by intravenous infusion on day 1], or gemcitabine [1000 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8] plus platinum [same as above]). The minimisation factors were ECOG performance status and the extent of the disease. Clinicians and patients were not masked to interventions. The tumour origin in the site-specific therapy group was predicted by the 90-gene expression assay and treatments were administered accordingly. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial has been completed and the analysis is final. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03278600). Between Sept 18, 2017, and March 18, 2021, 182 patients (105 [58%] male, 77 [42%] female) were randomly assigned to receive site-specific therapy (n=91) or empirical chemotherapy (n=91). The five most commonly predicted tissues of origin in the site-specific therapy group were gastro-oesophagus (14 [15%]), lung (12 [13%]), ovary (11 [12%]), cervix (11 [12%]), and breast (nine [10%]). At the data cutoff date (April 30, 2023), median follow-up was 33·3 months (IQR 30·4–51·0) for the site-specific therapy group and 30·9 months (27·6–35·5) for the empirical chemotherapy group. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with site-specific therapy than with empirical chemotherapy (9·6 months [95% CI 8·4–11·9] vs 6·6 months [5·5–7·9]; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·49–0·93]; p=0·017). Among the 167 patients who started planned treatment, 46 (56%) of 82 patients in the site-specific therapy group and 52 (61%) of 85 patients in the empirical chemotherapy group had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events; the most frequent of these in the site-specific therapy and empirical chemotherapy groups were decreased neutrophil count (36 [44%] vs 42 [49%]), decreased white blood cell count (17 [21%] vs 26 [31%]), and anaemia (ten [12%] vs nine [11%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in five (6%) patients in the site-specific therapy group and two (2%) in the empirical chemotherapy group. No treatment-related deaths were observed. This single-centre randomised trial showed that site-specific therapy guided by the 90-gene expression assay could improve progression-free survival compared with empirical chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated CUP. Site-specific prediction by the 90-gene expression assay might provide more disease information and expand the therapeutic armamentarium in these patients. Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Hospital Development Center, Program for Shanghai Outstanding Academic Leader, and Shanghai Anticancer Association SOAR PROJECT. For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Features a Little Sea Horse who watches a variety of objects float or sink.

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.

Accompanying CD contains ... \"examples of classroom language from real classrooms, plus pronunciation exercises.\"--Page 4 of cover.

To carry out an economic evaluation of a task-shifting intervention for the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders in primary-care settings in Goa, India. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses based on generalized linear models were performed within a trial set in 24 public and private primary-care facilities. Subjects were randomly assigned to an intervention or a control arm. Eligible subjects in the intervention arm were given psycho-education, case management, interpersonal psychotherapy and/or antidepressants by lay health workers. Subjects in the control arm were treated by physicians. The use of health-care resources, the disability of each subject and degree of psychiatric morbidity, as measured by the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule, were determined at 2, 6 and 12 months. Complete data, from all three follow-ups, were collected from 1243 (75.4%) and 938 (81.7%) of the subjects enrolled in the study facilities from the public and private sectors, respectively. Within the public facilities, subjects in the intervention arm showed greater improvement in all the health outcomes investigated than those in the control arm. Time costs were also significantly lower in the intervention arm than in the control arm, whereas health system costs in the two arms were similar. Within the private facilities, however, the effectiveness and costs recorded in the two arms were similar. Within public primary-care facilities in Goa, the use of lay health workers in the care of subjects with common mental disorders was not only cost-effective but also cost-saving.