Explore the vast range of titles available.

Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) is a vasculitis characterized by eosinophilic inflammation. Benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-5α receptor expressed on eosinophils, may be an option for treating EGPA. We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, phase 3, randomized, active-controlled noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of benralizumab as compared with mepolizumab. Adults with relapsing or refractory EGPA who were receiving standard care were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive benralizumab (30 mg) or mepolizumab (300 mg) subcutaneously every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. The primary end point was remission at weeks 36 and 48 (prespecified noninferiority margin, -25 percentage points). Secondary end points included the accrued duration of remission, time to first relapse, oral glucocorticoid use, eosinophil count, and safety. A total of 140 patients underwent randomization (70 assigned to each group). The adjusted percentage of patients with remission at weeks 36 and 48 was 59% in the benralizumab group and 56% in the mepolizumab group (difference, 3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13 to 18; P = 0.73 for superiority), showing noninferiority but not superiority of benralizumab to mepolizumab. The accrued duration of remission and the time to first relapse were similar in the two groups. Complete withdrawal of oral glucocorticoids during weeks 48 through 52 was achieved in 41% of the patients who received benralizumab and 26% of those who received mepolizumab. The mean (±SD) blood eosinophil count at baseline was 306.0±225.0 per microliter in the benralizumab group and 384.9±563.6 per microliter in the mepolizumab group, decreasing to 32.4±40.8 and 71.8±54.4 per microliter, respectively, at week 52. Adverse events were reported in 90% of the patients in the benralizumab group and 96% of those in the mepolizumab group; serious adverse events were reported in 6% and 13%, respectively. Benralizumab was noninferior to mepolizumab for the induction of remission in patients with relapsing or refractory EGPA. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MANDARA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04157348.).

In two phase 3 trials, mirikizumab, a p19-directed anti–interleukin-23 antibody, was superior to placebo with regard to clinical remission of ulcerative colitis at 12 weeks (induction) and 40 weeks (maintenance).

Patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis were randomly assigned to receive placebo or induction doses of ustekinumab. Patients who had a response to induction therapy underwent a second randomization to maintenance therapy with ustekinumab or placebo. Ustekinumab was more effective than placebo for inducing and maintaining remission.

ObjectivesIn patients with IBD experiencing an immune-mediated loss of response (LOR) to antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF), algorithms recommend a switch of anti-TNF without immunosuppressive drug. The aim of our study was to compare in these patients two strategies: either switch to a second anti-TNF alone or with addition of azathioprine (AZA). After randomisation outcomes (time to clinical and pharmacokinetic failure) were compared between the two groups during a 2-year follow-up period.DesignConsecutive IBD patients in immune-mediated LOR to a first optimised anti-TNF given in monotherapy were randomised to receive either AZA or nothing with induction by a second anti-TNF in both arms. Clinical failure was defined for Crohn’s disease (CD) as a Harvey-Bradshaw index ≥5 associated with a faecal calprotectin level >250 µg/g stool and for UC as a Mayo score >5 with endoscopic subscore >1 or as the occurrence of adverse events requiring to stop treatment. Unfavourable pharmacokinetics of the second anti-TNF were defined by the appearance of undetectable trough levels of anti-TNF with high antibodies (drug-sensitive assay) or by that of antibodies (drug-tolerant assay).ResultsNinety patients (48 CDs) were included, and 45 of them received AZA after randomisation. The second anti-TNF was adalimumab or infliximab in 40 and 50 patients, respectively. Rates of clinical failure and occurrence of unfavourable pharmacokinetics were higher in monotherapy compared with combination therapy (p<0.001; median time of clinical failure since randomisation 18 vs >24 months). At 24 months, survival rates without clinical failure and without appearance of unfavourable pharmacokinetics were respectively 22 versus 77% and 22% versus 78% (p<0.001 for both) in monotherapy versus combination therapy. Only the use of combination therapy was associated with favourable outcomes after anti-TNF switch.ConclusionIn case of immune-mediated LOR to a first anti-TNF, AZA should be associated with the second anti-TNF.Trial registration number03580876.

For decades, physicians have administered corticosteroids in the perioperative period to infants undergoing heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) to reduce the postoperative systemic inflammatory response to CPB. Some question this practice because steroid efficacy has not been conclusively demonstrated and because some studies indicate that steroids could have harmful effects. STRESS is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial designed to evaluate safety and efficacy of perioperative steroids in infants (age < 1 year) undergoing heart surgery with CPB. Participants (planned enrollment = 1,200) are randomized 1:1 to methylprednisolone (30 mg/kg) administered into the CPB pump prime versus placebo. The trial is nested within the existing infrastructure of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database. The primary outcome is a global rank score of mortality, major morbidities, and hospital length of stay with components ranked commensurate with their clinical severity. Secondary outcomes include several measures of major postoperative morbidity, postoperative hospital length of stay, and steroid-related safety outcomes including prevalence of hyperglycemia and postoperative infectious complications. STRESS will be one of the largest trials ever conducted in children with heart disease and will answer a decades-old question related to safety and efficacy of perioperative steroids in infants undergoing heart surgery with CPB. The pragmatic “trial within a registry” design may provide a mechanism for conducting low-cost, high-efficiency trials in a heretofore-understudied patient population.

Early initiation of antiretroviral therapy is an important aspect in the care of patients with HIV. In a randomized trial, a low prophylactic dose of prednisone was shown to prevent paradoxical tuberculosis-associated immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome in HIV-infected patients.

Research on IBDs has identified disrupted immune responses in the gastrointestinal mucosa and putative disruptions in the gut microbiome as causative agents. This work has led to better therapeutic control of IBDs with the use of various antiinflammatory agents.

Cardiopulmonary bypass initiates a systemic inflammatory response syndrome that is associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality. Steroids suppress inflammatory responses and might improve outcomes in patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. We aimed to assess the effects of steroids in patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. The Steroids In caRdiac Surgery (SIRS) study is a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. We used a central computerised phone or interactive web system to randomly assign (1:1) patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality from 80 hospital or cardiac surgery centres in 18 countries undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass to receive either methylprednisolone (250 mg at anaesthetic induction and 250 mg at initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass) or placebo. Patients were assigned with block randomisation with random block sizes of 2, 4, or 6 and stratified by centre. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation of at least 6. Patients were excluded if they were taking or expected to receive systemic steroids in the immediate postoperative period or had a history of bacterial or fungal infection in the preceding 30 days. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and a composite of death and major morbidity (ie, myocardial injury, stroke, renal failure, or respiratory failure) within 30 days, both analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were also analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427388. Patients were recruited between June 21, 2007, and Dec 19, 2013. Complete 30-day data was available for all 7507 patients randomly assigned to methylprednisolone (n=3755) and to placebo (n=3752). Methylprednisolone, compared with placebo, did not reduce the risk of death at 30 days (154 [4%] vs 177 [5%] patients; relative risk [RR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·70–1·07, p=0·19) or the risk of death or major morbidity (909 [24%] vs 885 [24%]; RR 1·03, 95% CI 0·95–1·11, p=0·52). The most common safety outcomes in the methylprednisolone and placebo group were infection (465 [12%] vs 493 [13%]), surgical site infection (151 [4%] vs 151 [4%]), and delirium (295 [8%] vs 289 [8%]). Methylprednisolone did not have a significant effect on mortality or major morbidity after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The SIRS trial does not support the routine use of methylprednisolone for patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Introduction Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), consists of two primary types: Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and Crohn’s Disease (CD). Infliximab (IFX) and Adalimumab (ADA) are frequently utilized in the management of moderate to severe cases of IBD. Aim This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of IFX and ADA in individuals diagnosed with moderate to severe IBD. Method This study is a prospective open-labeled randomized parallel study that included moderate to severe IBD patients treated with either IFX or ADA. A total of 56 patients participated, with 34 patients received IFX and 22 patients received ADA. Various measures, including Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Mayo Score/ Disease Activity Index (DAI), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, were taken at baseline and week 14 to assess the efficacy of the treatments. In addition, the levels of drugs and sTREM-1 were measured at 14 weeks. Patient safety was monitored throughout the study period. Results In the group received IFX, there was a notable decrease in CDAI ( P  = 0.045), DAI ( P  = 0.026), and CRP ( P  = 0.023 for CD, and P  = 0.021 for UC) levels. In addition, the group received ADA experienced a significant reduction in CDAI ( P  = 0.001), DAI ( P  = 0.032), and CRP ( P  < 0.018 for CD and P = 0.003 for UC) levels. Responders had higher drug concentrations than non-responders, notably IFX concentration was higher in responders with CD ( P  = 0.001) and UC ( P  < 0.001). ADA concentration was higher in UC ( P  <= 0.001) and all CD patients responded to the treatment. The same trend was observed for sTREM-1 levels in CD and UC patients ( P  = 0.042, and P  = 0.015, respectively) in the IFX group. In UC patients treated with ADA, the level of sTREM-1 was significantly low ( P  = 0.002). Conclusion Both IFX and ADA have a good safety profile and deliver a beneficial clinical and laboratory response in moderate-severe IBD patients. Clinical Trial Registration This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05291039. (You can access the study at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05291039 (First Posted: March 22, 2022).

BackgroundWe reported that 6-month therapy with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) was more frequently effective or tolerated than intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). We now retrospectively compared the proportion of patients who eventually worsened after discontinuing therapy and the median time to clinical worsening.MethodsBy March 2013, data were available from 41 of the 45 patients completing the trial with a median follow-up after therapy discontinuation of 42 months (range 1–60). Three patients withdrew during the original study and one failed to respond to either of the therapies. No patient received a diagnosis alternative to CIDP during the follow-up.ResultsTwenty-eight of the 32 patients treated with IVIg (as primary or secondary therapy after failing to respond to IVMP) improved after therapy (87.5%) as compared with 13 of the 24 patients treated with IVMP as primary or secondary therapy (54.2%). After a median follow-up of 42 months (range 1–57), 24 out of 28 patients responsive to IVIg (85.7%) worsened after therapy discontinuation. The same occurred in 10 out of 13 patients (76.9%) responsive to IVMP (p=0.659) after a median follow-up of 43 months (range 7–60). Worsening occurred 1–24 months (median 4.5) after IVIg discontinuation and 1–31 months (median 14) after IVMP discontinuation (p=0.0126).ConclusionsA similarly high proportion of patients treated with IVIg or IVMP eventually relapse after therapy discontinuation but the median time to relapse was significantly longer after IVMP than IVIg. This difference may help to balance the more frequent response to IVIg than to IVMP in patients with CIDP.