More rapid blood interferon α2 decline in fatal versus surviving COVID-19 patients.

Background: The clinical outcome of COVID-19 pneumonia is highly variable. Few biological predictive factors have been identified. Genetic and immunological studies suggest that type 1 interferons (IFN) are essential to control SARS-CoV-2 infection. Objective: To study the link between change in blood IFN-α2 level and plasma SARS-Cov2 viral load over time and subsequent death in patients with severe and critical COVID-19. Methods: One hundred and forty patients from the CORIMUNO-19 cohort hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 pneumonia, all requiring oxygen or ventilation, were prospectively studied. Blood IFN-α2 was evaluated using the Single Molecule Array technology. Anti-IFN-α2 auto-Abs were determined with a reporter luciferase activity. Plasma SARS-Cov2 viral load was measured using droplet digital PCR targeting the Nucleocapsid gene of the SARS-CoV-2 positive-strand RNA genome. Results: Although the percentage of plasmacytoid dendritic cells was low, the blood IFN-α2 level was higher in patients than in healthy controls and was correlated to SARS-CoV-2 plasma viral load at entry. Neutralizing anti-IFN-α2 auto-antibodies were detected in 5% of patients, associated with a lower baseline level of blood IFN-α2. A longitudinal analysis found that a more rapid decline of blood IFN-α2 was observed in fatal versus surviving patients: mortality HR=3.15 (95% CI 1.14-8.66) in rapid versus slow decliners. Likewise, a high level of plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA was associated with death risk in patients with severe COVID-19. Conclusion: These findings could suggest an interest in evaluating type 1 IFN treatment in patients with severe COVID-19 and type 1 IFN decline, eventually combined with anti-inflammatory drugs. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifiers NCT04324073, NCT04331808, NCT04341584.

Use of covid-19 convalescent plasma to treat patients admitted to hospital for covid-19 with or without underlying immunodeficiency: open label, randomised clinical trial.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of covid-19 convalescent plasma to treat patients admitted to hospital for moderate covid-19 disease with or without underlying immunodeficiency (CORIPLASM trial). Design: Open label, randomised clinical trial. Setting: CORIMUNO-19 cohort (publicly supported platform of open label, randomised controlled trials of immune modulatory drugs in patients admitted to hospital with moderate or severe covid-19 disease) based on 19 university and general hospitals across France, from 16 April 2020 to 21 April 2021. Participants: 120 adults (n=60 in the covid-19 convalescent plasma group, n=60 in the usual care group) admitted to hospital with a positive SARS-CoV2 test result, duration of symptoms <9 days, and World Health Organization score of 4 or 5. 49 patients (n=22, n=27) had underlying immunosuppression. Interventions: Open label randomisation to usual care or four units (200-220 mL/unit, 2 units/day over two consecutive days) of covid-19 convalescent plasma with a seroneutralisation titre >40. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes were proportion of patients with a WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of ≥6 on the 10 point scale on day 4 (higher values indicate a worse outcome), and survival without assisted ventilation or additional immunomodulatory treatment by day 14. Secondary outcomes were changes in WHO Clinical Progression Scale scores, overall survival, time to discharge, and time to end of dependence on oxygen supply. Predefined subgroups analyses included immunosuppression status, duration of symptoms before randomisation, and use of steroids. Results: 120 patients were recruited and assigned to covid-19 convalescent plasma (n=60) or usual care (n=60), including 22 (covid-19 convalescent plasma) and 27 (usual care) patients who were immunocompromised. 13 (22%) patients who received convalescent plasma had a WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of ≥6 at day 4 versus eight (13%) patients who received usual care (adjusted odds ratio 1.88, 95% credible interval 0.71 to 5.24). By day 14, 19 (31.6%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 20 (33.3%) patients in the usual care group needed ventilation, additional immunomodulatory treatment, or had died. For cumulative incidence of death, three (5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and eight (13%) in the usual care group died by day 14 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 1.53), and seven (12%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 12 (20%) in the usual care group by day 28 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51, 0.20 to 1.32). In a subgroup analysis performed in patients who were immunocompromised, transfusion of covid-19 convalescent plasma was associated with mortality (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 1.10). Conclusions: In this study, covid-19 convalescent plasma did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate covid-19 disease. The efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients who are immunocompromised should be investigated further. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04345991.

Development and preliminary validation of the Sjögren's Tool for Assessing Response (STAR): a consensual composite score for assessing treatment effect in primary Sjögren's syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a composite responder index in primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS): the Sjögren's Tool for Assessing Response (STAR). METHODS: To develop STAR, the NECESSITY (New clinical endpoints in primary Sjögren's syndrome: an interventional trial based on stratifying patients) consortium used data-driven methods based on nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and consensus techniques involving 78 experts and 20 patients. Based on reanalysis of rituximab trials and the literature, the Delphi panel identified a core set of domains with their respective outcome measures. STAR options combining these domains were proposed to the panel for selection and improvement. For each STAR option, sensitivity to change was estimated by the C-index in nine RCTs. Delphi rounds were run for selecting STAR. For the options remaining before the final vote, a meta-analysis of the RCTs was performed. RESULTS: The Delphi panel identified five core domains (systemic activity, patient symptoms, lachrymal gland function, salivary gland function and biological parameters), and 227 STAR options combining these domains were selected to be tested for sensitivity to change. After two Delphi rounds, a meta-analysis of the 20 remaining options was performed. The candidate STAR was then selected by a final vote based on metrological properties and clinical relevance. CONCLUSION: The candidate STAR is a composite responder index that includes all main disease features in a single tool and is designed for use as a primary endpoint in pSS RCTs. The rigorous and consensual development process ensures its face and content validity. The candidate STAR showed good sensitivity to change and will be prospectively validated by the NECESSITY consortium in a dedicated RCT.

Real-World Experience of Bevacizumab as First-Line Treatment for Ovarian Cancer: The GINECO ENCOURAGE Cohort of 468 French Patients.

Introduction: Bevacizumab-containing therapy is considered a standard-of-care front-line option for stage IIIB-IV ovarian cancer based on results of randomized phase 3 trials. The multicenter non-interventional ENCOURAGE prospective cohort study assessed treatment administration and outcomes in the French real-world setting. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years with planned bevacizumab-containing therapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. The primary objective was to assess the safety profile of front-line bevacizumab in routine clinical practice; secondary objectives were to describe patient characteristics, indications/contraindications for bevacizumab, treatment regimens and co-medications, follow-up and monitoring, progression-free survival, and treatment at recurrence. In this non-interventional study, treatment was administered as chosen by the investigator and participation in the trial had no influence on the management of the disease. Results: Of 1,290 patients screened between April 2013 and February 2015, 468 were eligible. Most patients (86%) received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or equivalent, typically with carboplatin (99%) and paclitaxel (98%). The median duration of bevacizumab was 12.2 (range 0-28, interquartile range 6.9-14.9) months; 8% of patients discontinued bevacizumab because of toxicity. The most common adverse events were hypertension (38% of patients), fatigue (35%), and bleeding (32%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Most physicians (90%) reported blood pressure measurement immediately before each bevacizumab infusion and almost all (97%) reported monitoring for proteinuria before each bevacizumab infusion. Median progression-free survival was 17.4 (95% CI, 16.4-19.1) months. The 3-year overall survival rate was 62% (95% CI, 58-67%). The most commonly administered chemotherapies at recurrence were carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Discussion: Clinical outcomes and tolerability with bevacizumab in this real-life setting are consistent with randomized trial results, notwithstanding differences in the treated patient population and treatment schedule. Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT01832415.

Association Between Administration of IL-6 Antagonists and Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. Data Sources: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. Study Selection: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. Results: A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021230155.

Effect of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment vs Sham Treatment on Activity Limitations in Patients With Nonspecific Subacute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is frequently offered to people with nonspecific low back pain (LBP) but never compared with sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations. Objective: To compare the efficacy of standard OMT vs sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months in persons with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, parallel-group, single-blind, single-center, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited participants with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP from a tertiary care center in France starting February 17, 2014, with follow-up completed on October 23, 2017. Participants were randomly allocated to interventions in a 1:1 ratio. Data were analyzed from March 22, 2018, to December 5, 2018. Interventions: Six sessions (1 every 2 weeks) of standard OMT or sham OMT delivered by nonphysician, nonphysiotherapist osteopathic practitioners. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months as measured by the self-administered Quebec Back Pain Disability Index (score range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes were mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations; mean changes in pain and health-related quality of life; number and duration of sick leaves, as well as number of LBP episodes at 12 months; and consumption of analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at 3 and 12 months. Adverse events were self-reported at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Overall, 200 participants were randomly allocated to standard OMT and 200 to sham OMT, with 197 analyzed in each group; the median (range) age at inclusion was 49.8 (40.7-55.8) years, 235 of 394 (59.6%) participants were women, and 359 of 393 (91.3%) were currently working. The mean (SD) duration of the current LBP episode was 7.5 (14.2) months. Overall, 164 (83.2%) patients in the standard OMT group and 159 (80.7%) patients in the sham OMT group had the primary outcome data available at 3 months. The mean (SD) Quebec Back Pain Disability Index scores for the standard OMT group were 31.5 (14.1) at baseline and 25.3 (15.3) at 3 months, and in the sham OMT group were 27.2 (14.8) at baseline and 26.1 (15.1) at 3 months. The mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months was -4.7 (95% CI, -6.6 to -2.8) and -1.3 (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.6) for the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively (mean difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -6.0 to -0.7; P = .01). At 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations was -4.3 (95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0; P = .01), and at 3 and 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in pain was -1.0 (95% CI, -5.5 to 3.5; P = .66) and -2.0 (95% CI, -7.2 to 3.3; P = .47), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Four and 8 serious adverse events were self-reported in the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively, though none was considered related to OMT. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of patients with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP, standard OMT had a small effect on LBP-specific activity limitations vs sham OMT. However, the clinical relevance of this effect is questionable. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02034864.

Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study.

BACKGROUND: The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). RESULTS: The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal's usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88-1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82-89] versus 20% [16-24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44-77] versus 11% [3-26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57-65] versus 77% [74-81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67-86] versus 98% [92-100]. CONCLUSIONS: Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical.Trials.gov NCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).

Correction to: Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of "spin" in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit.

Figure 3 in the original article [1] is incorrect; labels for secondary outcomes have been shifted and do not correspond to the numbers reported in the table (Additional file 8). The corrected version can be seen ahead. This figure should be used over the figure 3 seen in the original article. This error does not affect the results, interpretation, or conclusion.

Changes in total sperm count after gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy: the BARIASPERM prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The massive weight loss induced by bariatric surgery is associated with major benefits, but the effect on semen variables is still uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To explore semen modifications with gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy. SETTING: Five French University Hospitals. METHODS: Male candidates for bariatric surgery with no history of infertility were recruited in this controlled prospective study. Sperm characteristics were collected before surgery and then 6 months and up to 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: Forty-six adult men who underwent gastric bypass (n = 20) or sleeve gastrectomy (n = 26) were included. Total sperm count tended to be lower at 6 months and showed a significant decrease at 12 months in both surgery groups, at -69.5 million (-96.8 to -42.2 million; P = 0.0021). Total sperm count at 12 months relative to baseline was -41.4 million (P = .0391) after gastric bypass and -91.1 million (P = .0080) after sleeve gastrectomy. This was counterbalanced by an associated resolution of hypogonadism and decrease of DNA fragmentation in most patients with time after surgery. CONCLUSION: Improvement in some semen variables after bariatric surgery observed in 3 previous studies is in contrast to the lower mean total sperm count found in this study at 1 year. The possible reversibility of this effect in the long term and the impact of surgery on fertility both remain unknown.

Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of "spin" in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit.

BACKGROUND: News stories represent an important source of information. We aimed to evaluate the impact of "spin" (i.e., misrepresentation of study results) in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit. METHODS: We conducted three two-arm, parallel-group, Internet-based randomized trials (RCTs) comparing the interpretation of news stories reported with or without spin. Each RCT considered news stories reporting a different type of study: (1) pre-clinical study, (2) phase I/II non-RCT, and (3) phase III/IV RCT. For each type of study, we identified news stories reported with spin that had earned mention in the press. Two versions of the news stories were used: the version with spin and a version rewritten without spin. Participants were patients/caregivers involved in Inspire, a large online community of more than one million patients/caregivers. The primary outcome was participants' interpretation assessed by one specific question "What do you think is the probability that 'treatment X' would be beneficial to patients?" (scale, 0 [very unlikely] to 10 [very likely]). RESULTS: For each RCT, 300 participants were randomly assigned to assess a news story with spin (n = 150) or without spin (n = 150), and 900 participants assessed a news story. Participants were more likely to consider that the treatment would be beneficial to patients when the news story was reported with spin. The mean (SD) score for the primary outcome for abstracts reported with and without spin for pre-clinical studies was 7.5 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.8) (mean difference [95% CI] 1.7 [1.0-2.3], p < 0.001); for phase I/II non-randomized trials, 7.6 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.7) (mean difference 1.8 [1.0-2.5], p < 0.001); and for phase III/IV RCTs, 7.2 (2.3) versus 4.9 (2.8) (mean difference 2.3 [1.4-3.2], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Spin in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments affects patients'/caregivers' interpretation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03094078 , NCT03094104 , NCT03095586.

Non-severe eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis: long-term outcomes after remission-induction trial.

OBJECTIVE: In a previous controlled trial, 1-year adjunction of AZA to glucocorticoids (GC) for patients with non-severe, newly diagnosed eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) failed to lower remission failure, vasculitis relapse and isolated asthma/rhinosinus exacerbation rates, or cumulative GC use at month (M) 24. The aim of this study was to analyse longer-term outcomes to determine whether subsequent vasculitis relapse or isolated asthma/rhinosinus exacerbation (IARE) rates differed. METHODS: After M24, patients were followed prospectively, being treated based on physicians' best judgment. Flares and reasons for increased GC dose or immunosuppressant use were recorded, and reviewed according to randomization group to distinguish vasculitis relapses from IAREs according to EGPA Task Force recommendations. RESULTS: Fifty EGPA trial participants were followed for a median (interquartile range) of 6.3 (5.4-7.6) years; two (4%) died 11 months post-inclusion. By M24, vasculitis had relapsed in 21/49 (43%) patients and 14/50 (28%) had IAREs. Another patient died 4.8 years post-inclusion (infection). Among nine patients with subsequent vasculitis relapses, three had a major relapse and three had their first relapse after M24; among 25 patients with later IAREs, 17 occurred after M24. At 5 years, respective vasculitis relapse and IARE rates were 48% (95% CI 34.0, 62.6) and 56% (95% CI 41.7, 70.8), with no between-arm differences (P = 0.32 and 0.13). No entry clinical or biological parameter was associated with these outcomes during follow-up. CONCLUSION: These results confirmed that 1-year AZA and GC induction obtained good overall survival but no long-term benefit for non-severe EGPA patients. Vasculitis relapses, occurring mostly during the first 2 years, and IAREs, occurring throughout follow-up, require other preventive treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00647166.

Comparative effectiveness of rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab in adults with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to TNF inhibitors: prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of three non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors (rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN: Population based prospective study. SETTING: 53 university and 54 non-university clinical centres in France. PARTICIPANTS: 3162 adults (>18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria, enrolled in one of the three French Society of Rheumatology registries; who had no severe cardiovascular disease, active or severe infections, or severe immunodeficiency, with follow-up of at least 24 months. INTERVENTION: Initiation of intravenous rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was drug retention without failure at 24 months. Failure was defined as all cause death; discontinuation of rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab; initiation of a new biologic or a combination of conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs; or increase in corticosteroid dose >10 mg/d compared with baseline at two successive visits. Because of non-proportional hazards, treatment effects are presented as life expectancy difference without failure (LEDwf), which measures the difference between average duration of survival without failure. RESULTS: Average durations of survival without failure were 19.8 months for rituximab, 15.6 months for abatacept, and 19.1 months for tocilizumab. Average durations were greater with rituximab (LEDwf 4.1, 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.2) and tocilizumab (3.5, 2.1 to 5.0) than with abatacept, and uncertainty about tocilizumab compared with rituximab was substantial (-0.7, -1.9 to 0.5). No evidence was found of difference between treatments for mean duration of survival without death, presence of cancer or serious infections, or major adverse cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: Among adults with refractory rheumatoid arthritis followed-up in routine practice, rituximab and tocilizumab were associated with greater improvements in outcomes at two years compared with abatacept.

A Prospective International Study on Adherence to Treatment in 305 Patients With Flaring SLE: Assessment by Drug Levels and Self-Administered Questionnaires.

Nonadherence to treatment is a major cause of lupus flares. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a major medication in systemic lupus erythematosus, has a long half-life and can be quantified by high-performance liquid chromatography. This international study evaluated nonadherence in 305 lupus patients with flares using drug levels (HCQ < 200 ng/ml or undetectable desethylchloroquine), and self-administered questionnaires (MASRI < 80%). Drug levels defined 18.4% of the patients as severely nonadherent. In multivariate analyses, younger age, nonuse of steroids, higher body mass index, and unemployment were associated with nonadherence by drug level. Questionnaires classified 23.4% of patients as nonadherent. Correlations between adherence measured by questionnaires, drug level, and physician assessment were moderate. Both methods probably measured two different patterns of nonadherence: self-administered questionnaires mostly captured relatively infrequently missed tablets, while drug levels identified severe nonadherence (i.e., interruption or erratic tablet intake). The frequency with which physicians miss nonadherence, together with underreporting by patients, suggests that therapeutic drug monitoring is useful in this setting. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01509989.).

Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the best study designs for assessing interventions to improve the peer review process according to experts' opinions. Furthermore, for interventions previously evaluated, we determined whether the study designs actually used were rated as the best study designs. METHODS: Study design: A series of six vignette-based surveys exploring the best study designs for six different interventions (training peer reviewers, adding an expert to the peer review process, use of reporting guidelines checklists, blinding peer reviewers to the results (i.e., results-free peer review), giving incentives to peer reviewers, and post-publication peer review). Vignette construction: Vignettes were case scenarios of trials assessing interventions aimed at improving the quality of peer review. For each intervention, the vignette included the study type (e.g., randomized controlled trial [RCT]), setting (e.g., single biomedical journal), and type of manuscript assessed (e.g., actual manuscripts received by the journal); each of these three features varied between vignettes. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers with expertise in peer review or methodology of clinical trials. OUTCOME: Participants were proposed two vignettes describing two different study designs to assess the same intervention and had to indicate which study design they preferred on a scale, from - 5 (preference for study A) to 5 (preference for study B), 0 indicating no preference between the suggested designs (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes were trust in the results and feasibility of the designs. RESULTS: A total of 204 experts assessed 1044 paired comparisons. The preferred study type was RCTs with randomization of manuscripts for four interventions (adding an expert, use of reporting guidelines checklist, results-free peer review, post-publication peer review) and RCTs with randomization of peer reviewers for two interventions (training peer reviewers and using incentives). The preferred setting was mainly several biomedical journals from different publishers, and the preferred type of manuscript was actual manuscripts submitted to journals. However, the most feasible designs were often cluster RCTs and interrupted time series analysis set in a single biomedical journal, with the assessment of a fabricated manuscript. Three interventions were previously assessed: none used the design rated first in preference by experts. CONCLUSION: The vignette-based survey allowed us to identify the best study designs for assessing different interventions to improve peer review according to experts' opinion. There is gap between the preferred study designs and the designs actually used.

Factors Associated With Postmarketing Research for Approved Indications for Novel Medicines Approved by Both the FDA and EMA Between 2005 and 2010: A Multivariable Analysis.

We examined whether drug-related characteristics-conditions, development, manufacturers, revenues-were associated with postmarketing research in terms of the number of trials and total population to be enrolled. We included 63 drugs, corresponding to 3,867 postmarketing trials of approved indications. On multivariable analysis, both the number of postmarketing trials and population to be enrolled were associated with expected length of treatment (ratio of means (RoM) = 2.35 and RoM = 8.65) and number of patients in pivotal trials (RoM = 1.11 and RoM = 1.25 per thousand patients). The number of postmarketing trials was increased for drugs approved with surrogate endpoints (RoM = 2.19), generating high revenues (RoM = 1.08 per billion dollars) and addressing greater disease burden (RoM = 1.90 per hundred million disability-adjusted life years). The population to be included was increased for drugs approved after an increased number of pivotal trials (RoM = 1.82) and those unaffected by safety concerns (RoM = 2.63). Postmarketing trials seem to be driven both by medical and market factors.

Post-marketing research and its outcome for novel anticancer agents approved by both the FDA and EMA between 2005 and 2010: A cross-sectional study.

Post-marketing research in oncology has rarely been described. We aimed to characterize post-marketing trials for a consistent set of anticancer agents over a long period. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of post-marketing trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov through September 2014 for novel anticancer agents approved by both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency between 2005 and 2010. All relevant post-marketing trials were classified according to indication, primary outcome, starting date, sponsors, and planned enrollment. Supplemental indications were retrieved from regulatory documents and publication rate was assessed by two different methods. Ten novel anticancer agents were eligible: five were indicated for hematologic malignancies and the remaining five for solid cancers (three for kidney cancer). We identified 2,345 post-marketing trials; 1,362 (58.1%) targeted an indication other than the originally approved one. We observed extreme variations among drugs in both number of post-marketing trials (range 8-530) and overall population to be enrolled per trial (1-8,381). Post-marketing trials assessed almost all types of cancers, the three most frequently studied cancers being leukemia, kidney cancer and myeloma. In all, 6.6% of post-marketing trials had a clinical endpoint as a primary outcome, and 35.9% and 54.1% had a safety or surrogate endpoint, respectively, as a primary outcome. Nine drugs obtained approval for supplemental indications. The publication rate at 10 years was 12.3 to 26.1% depending on the analysis method. In conclusion, we found that post-marketing research in oncology is highly heterogeneous and the publication rate of launched trials is low.

A Prospective International Study on Adherence to Treatment in 305 Patients With Flaring SLE: Assessment by Drug Levels and Self-Administered Questionnaires.

Nonadherence to treatment is a major cause of lupus flares. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a major medication in systemic lupus erythematosus, has a long half-life and can be quantified by high-performance liquid chromatography. This international study evaluated nonadherence in 305 lupus patients with flares using drug levels (HCQ <200 ng/ml or undetectable desethylchloroquine), and self-administered questionnaires (MASRI <80% or MMAS-8 <6). Drug levels defined 18.4% of the patients as severely nonadherent. In multivariate analyses, younger age, nonuse of steroids, higher body mass index, and unemployment were associated with nonadherence by drug level. Questionnaires classified 39.9% of patients as nonadherent. Correlations between adherence measured by questionnaires, drug level, and physician assessment were moderate. Both methods probably measured two different patterns of nonadherence: self-administered questionnaires mostly captured relatively infrequently missed tablets, while drug levels identified severe nonadherence (i.e., interruption or erratic tablet intake). The frequency with which physicians miss nonadherence, together with underreporting by patients, suggests that therapeutic drug monitoring is useful in this setting. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01509989.).