Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundThe aim was to evaluate long-term efficacy, quality of life, and safety in ulcerative colitis patients who received infliximab during the ACT-1 and -2 extension studies.MethodsAdults with moderate-to-severely active ulcerative colitis in the 54-week ACT-1 and 30-week ACT-2 studies who achieved benefit from infliximab were eligible to participate in extension studies and receive up to 3 additional years of therapy. Patients received randomized study medication until all sites were unblinded; placebo-treated patients were discontinued. Patients receiving 5 or 10 mg/kg infliximab continued to receive open-label infliximab every 8 weeks. Patients receiving infliximab 10 mg/kg could decrease to 5 mg/kg; patients receiving infliximab 5 mg/kg could increase to 10 mg/kg if response was lost.ResultsA total of 229 of 484 infliximab-treated patients from the ACT-1 and ACT-2 main studies entered the long-term extensions. Overall, 70 (30.6%) patients discontinued infliximab infusions for adverse events (24 [10.5%]), lack of efficacy (11 [4.8%]), required a colectomy (1 [0.4%]), or for other reasons (34 [14.8%]). Proportions of patients whose Physician's Global Assessment scores were indicative of no or mild disease (score = 0 or 1) were maintained during the extension studies; 76.5% at Extension week 0 and ranged between 90.0% and 94.3% through Extension week 152. Improvement in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire scores observed in the main studies was maintained. During the long-term extension, the infliximab safety profile was consistent with that of the main studies; no new or unexpected safety signals were observed.ConclusionsLong-term treatment with infliximab for up to 3 additional years was effective and well tolerated.

The authors present their professional insights and techniques for resolving insomnia by employing the Guided Mindfulness with Acceptance Treatment for Insomnia (or GMATI) program.

Abstract Background: Poly adenosine-diphosphate-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) have been approved to act as first-line maintenance (FL-M) therapy and as platinum-sensitive recurrent maintenance (PSR-M) therapy for ovarian cancer in China for >5 years. Herein, we have analyzed the clinical-application characteristics of olaparib and niraparib in ovarian cancer-maintenance therapy in a real-world setting to strengthen our understanding and promote their rational usage. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified patients with newly diagnosed or platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer, who received olaparib or niraparib as maintenance therapy at Sichuan Cancer Hospital between August 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021. Patient medical records were reviewed. We grouped and analyzed patients based on the type of PARPi they used (the olaparib group and the niraparib group) and the line of PARPi maintenance therapy (the FL-M setting and the PSR-M setting). The primary endpoint was the 24-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. Results: In total, 131 patients (olaparib: n = 67, 51.1%; niraparib: n = 64, 48.9%) were enrolled. Breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA) mutations (BRCAm) were significantly less common in the niraparib group than in the olaparib group [9.4% (6/64) vs. 62.7% (42/67), P <0.001], especially in the FL-M setting [10.4% (5/48) vs. 91.4% (32/35), P <0.001]. The 24-month progression-free survival (PFS) rates in the FL-M and PSR-M settings were 60.4% and 45.7%, respectively. In patients with BRCAm, the 24-month PFS rates in the FL-M and PSR-M settings were 62.2% and 72.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Olaparib and niraparib were effective in patients with ovarian cancer without any new safety signals except for skin pigmentation. In patients with BRCAm, the 24-month PFS of the PARPi used in the PSR-M setting was even higher than that used in the FL-M setting.

Objective To identify the risk factors for failure of first‐line poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) maintenance therapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Method Patients with stage III‐IV epithelial ovarian cancer who received first‐line PARPi maintenance therapy were retrospectively reviewed. Clinicopathologic factors were compared between two groups—recur/progression of disease (PD) and non‐recur/PD. Results In total, 191 patients were included. Median follow‐up was 9.9 months, and recurrence rate was 20.9%. BRCA mutations were found in 63.4% patients. Postoperative residual tumor (60.5% vs. 37.8%), non‐high grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) (15.0% vs. 6.0%), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) (55.0% vs. 35.8%), and pre‐PARPi serum CA‐125 levels ≥23.5 U/mL (35.9% vs. 15.2%) were more frequently observed in the recur/PD group. Multivariate Cox‐regression analysis revealed pre‐PARPi serum CA‐125 levels ≥23.5 U/mL (HR, 2.17; 95%CI, 1.03–4.57; p = 0.042), non‐HGSC (3.28; 1.20–8.97; p = 0.021), NAC (2.11; 1.04–4.26; p = 0.037), and no BRCA mutation (2.23; 1.12–4.44; p = 0.023) as independent risk factors associated with poor progression‐free survival (PFS). A subgroup analysis according to BRCA mutation status showed that pre‐PARPi serum CA‐125 levels ≥26.4 U/mL were the only independent risk factor for poor PFS in women with BRCA mutations (2.75; 1.03–7.39; p = 0.044). Non‐HGSC (5.05; 1.80–14.18; p = 0.002) and NAC (3.36; 1.25–9.04; p = 0.016) were independent risk factors in women without BRCA mutations. Conclusion High pre‐PARPi serum CA‐125 levels, non‐HGSC histology, NAC, and no BRCA mutation might be risk factors for early failure of first‐line PARPi maintenance therapy. In women with BRCA mutations, high pre‐PARPi serum CA‐125 levels, which represent a large tumor burden before PARPi, were the only independent risk factor for poor PFS.

The use of angiogenesis inhibitors and poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors following multi-agent chemotherapy, including platinum-based agents, has become the standard treatment for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC). However, the optimal maintenance therapy and selection criteria for these patients remain unclear. Thus, this study aimed to optimize the treatment options and selection criteria for patients with PSROC. The clinical data of 51 patients with PSROC admitted to Nippon Medical School Chiba Hokusoh Hospital and Nippon Medical School Hospital were retrospectively collected. The log-rank test was used for the survival analysis, and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used for the multivariate survival analysis. Of the 51 patients, 17 received maintenance therapy with bevacizumab (Bev), and 34 received olaparib (Ola). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was significantly prolonged in the Ola group (27 months; 95% confidence interval (CI), 19–NA months) compared with that in the Bev group (9 months; 95% CI, 5–22 months; p = 0.000103). The efficacy of Ola was independent of background factors, including response to previous chemotherapy, homologous recombination status, histological type, or laboratory data. Ola is superior to Bev as PSROC maintenance therapy, especially in Japanese and Asian populations.

Evidence has suggested survival benefits of maintenance for advanced NSCLC patients not progressing after first‐line chemotherapy. Additionally, particular first‐line targeted therapies have shown survival improvements in selected populations. Optimal first‐line and maintenance therapies remain unclear. Here, currently available evidence was synthesized to elucidate optimal first‐line and maintenance therapy within patient groups. Literature was searched for randomized trials evaluating first‐line and maintenance regimens in advanced NSCLC patients. Bayesian network meta‐analysis was performed within molecularly and clinically selected groups. The primary outcome was combined clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits. A total of 87 records on 56 trials evaluating first‐line treatments with maintenance were included. Results showed combined clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits with particular first‐line with maintenance treatments, (1) first‐line intercalated chemotherapy+erlotinib, maintenance erlotinib in patients with EGFR mutations, (2) first‐line afatinib, maintenance afatinib in patients with EGFR deletion 19, (3) first‐line chemotherapy + bevacizumab, maintenance bevacizumab in EGFR wild‐type patients, (4) chemotherapy+conatumumab, maintenance conatumumab in patients with squamous histology, (5) chemotherapy+cetuximab, maintenance cetuximab or chemotherapy + necitumumab, maintenance necitumumab in EGFR FISH‐positive patients with squamous histology, and (6) first‐line chemotherapy+bevacizumab, maintenance bevacizumab or first‐line sequential chemotherapy+gefitinib, maintenance gefitinib in patients clinically enriched for EGFR mutations with nonsquamous histology. No treatment showed combined clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits in patients with EGFR L858R or nonsquamous histology. Particular first‐line with maintenance treatments show meaningful OS and PFS benefits in patients selected by EGFR mutation or histology. Further research is needed to achieve effective therapy for patients with EGFR mutation L858R or nonsquamous histology. First‐line with maintenance therapies have shown benefits in selected advanced NSCLC populations. Here, first‐line with maintenance treatments are compared within patient groups and clinically meaningful benefits are shown for particular first‐line with maintenance therapies in selected patients.

Insomnia is highly prevalent in patients with nonspecific chronic spinal pain (nCSP). Given the close interaction between insomnia and pain, targeting sleep problems during therapy could improve treatment outcomes. To evaluate the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTi) integrated in best-evidence pain management (BEPM) vs BEPM only in patients with nCSP and insomnia. A multicenter randomized clinical trial with 1-year follow-up was conducted between April 10, 2018, and April 30, 2022. Data and statistical analysis were performed between May 1, 2022, and April 24, 2023. Patients with nCSP and insomnia were evaluated using self-report and at-home polysomnography, to exclude underlying sleep pathologic factors. Participants were treated at the University Hospital Brussels or University Hospital Ghent, Belgium. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Participants were randomized to either CBTi-BEPM or BEPM only. Both groups received 18 treatment sessions over 14 weeks. The CBTi-BEPM treatment included 6 CBTi sessions and 12 BEPM sessions. The BEPM treatment included pain neuroscience education (3 sessions) and exercise therapy (9 sessions in the CBTi-BEPM group, 15 sessions in the BEPM-only group). The primary outcome was change in mean pain intensity (assessed with Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]) at 12 months after the intervention. Exploratory secondary outcomes included several pain- and sleep-related outcomes. Blinded outcome assessment took place at baseline, posttreatment, and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. A total of 123 patients (mean [SD] age, 40.2 [11.18] years; 84 women [68.3%]) were included in the trial. In 99 participants (80.5%) with 12-month BPI data, the mean pain intensity at 12 months decreased by 1.976 points (reduction of 40%) in the CBTi-BEPM group and 1.006 points (reduction of 24%) points in the BEPM-only group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in pain intensity change between groups (mean group difference, 0.970 points; 95% CI, -0.051 to 1.992; Cohen d, 2.665). Treatment with CBTi-BEPM resulted in a response for BPI average pain with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 4 observed during 12 months. On a preliminary basis, CBTi-BEPM was, consistently over time and analyses, more effective than BEPM only for improving insomnia severity (Cohen d, 4.319-8.961; NNT for response ranging from 2 to 4, and NNT for remission ranging from 5 to 12), sleep quality (Cohen d, 3.654-6.066), beliefs about sleep (Cohen d, 5.324-6.657), depressive symptoms (Cohen d, 2.935-3.361), and physical fatigue (Cohen d, 2.818-3.770). No serious adverse effects were reported. In this randomized clinical trial, adding CBTi to BEPM did not further improve pain intensity reduction for patients with nCSP and comorbid insomnia more than BEPM alone. Yet, as CBTi-BEPM led to significant and clinically important changes in insomnia severity and sleep quality, CBTi integrated in BEPM should be considered in the treatment of patients with nCSP and comorbid insomnia. Further research can investigate the patient characteristics that moderate the response to CBTi-BEPM in terms of pain-related outcomes, as understanding of these moderators may be of utmost clinical importance. Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT03482856.

Abstract Study Objectives It is common to provide insomnia patients a second treatment when the initial treatment fails, but little is known about optimal treatment sequences for different patient types. This study examined whether pre-treatment characteristics/traits predict optimal treatment sequences for insomnia patients. Methods A community sample of 211 adults (132 women; Mage = 45.6 ± 14.9 years) with insomnia were recruited. Patients were first treated with behavioral therapy (BT) or zolpidem (Zol). Non-remitting BT recipients were randomized to a second treatment with either Zol or cognitive therapy; non-remitting Zol recipients underwent BT or Trazodone as a second treatment. Remission rates were assessed at the end of the first and second 6-week treatments. We then compared the remission rates of dichotomous groups formed on the basis of gender, age, pretreatment scores on SF36 and Multidimensional Fatigue Scale, the presence/absence of psychiatric/medical comorbidities or pain disorders, and mean subjective sleep duration and efficiency within and across treatment sequences. Results Lower remission rates were noted for those: with a pain disorder, poor mental health perceptions, high MFI fatigue scores, and lower sleep times and efficiencies. Patients with a pain disorder responded best to the BT-to-Zol sequence, whereas patients with more mental impairment, severe fatigue, short sleep, and low sleep efficiency responded poorly to treatment starting with BT. Conclusions Pain, fatigue, poor mental health status, and subjective sleep duration and efficiency all affect response to different insomnia treatment sequences. Findings may guide clinicians in matching insomnia treatments to their patients. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01651442, Protocol version 4, April 20, 2011, registered June 26, 2012, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01651442?rslt=With&type=Intr&cond=Insomnia&cntry=US&state=US%3ACO&city=Denver&age=12&draw=2&rank=1.