Adding caplacizumab to standard of care in thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) is an acquired, fatal microangiopathy if untreated. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated faster time to response with addition of caplacizumab to standard of care (SOC). However, concerns about RCT selection bias and the high cost of caplacizumab warrant examination of all evidence, including real-world observational studies. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched for comparative studies evaluating SOC with or without caplacizumab for the treatment of iTTP. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias-2 tool (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (observational studies). The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were all-cause mortality and treatment-emergent bleeding, respectively. Secondary outcomes included exacerbation and relapse, refractory iTTP, and time to response. We included 2 high-quality RCTs and 3 observational studies at high risk of bias comprising 632 total participants. Compared with SOC, caplacizumab was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in the relative risk [RR] of death in RCTs (RR, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-1.74) and observational studies (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.07-4.41). Compared with SOC, caplacizumab was associated with an increased bleeding risk in RCTs (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06-1.77). In observational studies, bleeding risk was not significantly increased (RR, 7.10; 95% CI, 0.90-56.14). Addition of caplacizumab was associated with a significant reduction in refractory iTTP and exacerbation risks and shortened response time but increased relapse risk. Frontline addition of caplacizumab does not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared with SOC alone, although it reduces refractory disease risk, shortens time to response, and improves exacerbation rates at the expense of increased relapse and bleeding risk.

Changes in Functional Status and Health-Related Quality of Life in Older Adults After Surgical, Interventional, or Medical Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Functional status and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are important outcomes, particularly among older patients. However, data on such patient-centered outcomes after cardiac surgery are limited. We evaluated the incidence and predictors of decline in functional status and HRQoL among older patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Participants were age 75 years or older hospitalized for AMI at 94 US sites. We examined decline in functional status (defined as decline in 1 or more activities of daily living, ADLs), as well as mental (MCS) and physical component scales (PCS) of the SF-12 to assess HRQoL (5-point decline or greater in each scale) between 1 month prior to the hospitalization and 6 months after. Multivariable model compared the risk of decline after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and medical management. Among 3041 patients (1708 PCI, 362 CABG, and 971 medical management), 1525 (50.2%) experienced decline in 1 or more domain: 633 (20.8%) declined in ADLs, 786 (25.9%) declined in the MCS, and 1078 (35.5%) declined in the PCS. The unadjusted incidence of ADL decline was the lowest among patients who underwent CABG (n = 50, 13.8%) compared with PCI (n = 271, 15.9%) or medical management (n = 312, 32.1%). Patients who underwent CABG and PCI had lower adjusted risk of decline in functional and HRQoL compared with those who received medical therapy. The risks after CABG and PCI were not significantly different. Over half of older patients significantly declined in function or HRQoL after AMI. Compared with medical management, risk of decline was lower in those who underwent revascularization.

Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing to screen for prostate cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Medline, and search of scientific meeting abstracts and trial registers to April 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing PSA screening with usual care in men without a diagnosis of prostate cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of eligible studies. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. We used a random effects model to obtain pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) and, when feasible, conducted subgroup analyses (defined a priori) based on age, frequency of screening, family history, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level, as well as a sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials, enrolling 721 718 men, were included. Studies varied with respect to screening frequency and intervals, PSA thresholds for biopsy, and risk of bias. When considering the whole body of evidence, screening probably has no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.96, 0.85 to 1.08; low certainty). Sensitivity analysis of studies at lower risk of bias (n=1) also demonstrates that screening seems to have no effect on all-cause mortality (IRR 1.0, 0.98 to 1.02; moderate certainty) but may have a small effect on prostate-specific mortality (IRR 0.79, 0.69 to 0.91; moderate certainty). This corresponds to one less death from prostate cancer per 1000 men screened over 10 years. Direct comparative data on biopsy and treatment related complications from the included trials were limited. Using modelling, we estimated that for every 1000 men screened, approximately 1, 3, and 25 more men would be hospitalised for sepsis, require pads for urinary incontinence, and report erectile dysfunction, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At best, screening for prostate cancer leads to a small reduction in disease-specific mortality over 10 years but has does not affect overall mortality. Clinicians and patients considering PSA based screening need to weigh these benefits against the potential short and long term harms of screening, including complications from biopsies and subsequent treatment, as well as the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42016042347.

An Update on the "Novel" and Direct Oral Anticoagulants, and Long-Term Anticoagulant Therapy.

The mainstay of treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is anticoagulation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have revolutionized anticoagulation management, although their efficacy and safety in specialized populations such as antiphospholipid syndrome, advanced renal disease, cancer thrombosis, and geriatric patients remain uncertain. Concerns about bleeding risks of DOACs persist despite reassuring data in the literature and the development of specific antidotes. In this article, the authors present an overview of the basic pharmacology of DOACs and discuss their use in acute VTE, secondary VTE prevention, and specialized VTE patient populations and discuss therapeutic monitoring and reversal in the event of major bleeding.

Clinicopathologic predictors of sentinel lymph node metastasis in thin melanoma.

PURPOSE: Indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) for thin melanoma are continually evolving. We present a large multi-institutional study to determine factors predictive of sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in thin melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of the Sentinel Lymph Node Working Group database from 1994 to 2012 identified 1,250 patients who had an SLNB and thin melanomas (≤ 1 mm). Clinicopathologic characteristics were correlated with SLN status and outcome. RESULTS: SLN metastases were detected in 65 (5.2%) of 1,250 patients. On univariable analysis, rates of Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm, Clark level ≥ IV, ulceration, and absence of regression differed significantly between positive and negative SLN groups (all P < .05). These four variables and mitotic rate were used in multivariable analysis, which demonstrated that Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm (P = .03), Clark level ≥ IV (P = .05), and ulceration (P = .01) significantly predicted SLN metastasis with 6.3%, 7.0%, and 11.6% of the patients with these respective characteristics having SLN disease. Melanomas < 0.75 mm had positive SLN rates of < 5% regardless of Clark level and ulceration status. Median follow-up was 2.6 years. Melanoma-specific survival was significantly worse for patients with positive versus negative SLNs (P = .001). CONCLUSION: Breslow thickness ≥ 0.75 mm, Clark level ≥ IV, and ulceration significantly predict SLN disease in thin melanoma. Most SLN metastases (86.2%) occur in melanomas ≥ 0.75 mm, with 6.3% of these patients having SLN disease, whereas in melanomas < 0.75 mm, SLN metastasis rates are < 5%. By using a 5% metastasis risk threshold, SLNB is indicated for melanomas ≥ 0.75 mm, but further study is needed to define indications for SLNB in melanomas < 0.75 mm.

Screening for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Any form of screening aims to reduce disease-specific and overall mortality, and to improve a person's future quality of life. Screening for prostate cancer has generated considerable debate within the medical and broader community, as demonstrated by the varying recommendations made by medical organizations and governed by national policies. To better inform individual patient decision-making and health policy decisions, we need to consider the entire body of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on prostate cancer screening summarised in a systematic review. In 2006, our Cochrane review identified insufficient evidence to either support or refute the use of routine mass, selective, or opportunistic screening for prostate cancer. An update of the review in 2010 included three additional trials. Meta-analysis of the five studies included in the 2010 review concluded that screening did not significantly reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality. In the past two years, several updates to studies included in the 2010 review have been published thereby providing the rationale for this update of the 2010 systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether screening for prostate cancer reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality or all-cause mortality and to assess its impact on quality of life and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: An updated search of electronic databases (PROSTATE register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, and the NHS EED) was performed, in addition to handsearching of specific journals and bibliographies, in an effort to identify both published and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of screening versus no screening for prostate cancer were eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The original search (2006) identified 99 potentially relevant articles that were selected for full-text review. From these citations, two RCTs were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The search for the 2010 version of the review identified a further 106 potentially relevant articles, from which three new RCTs were included in the review. A total of 31 articles were retrieved for full-text examination based on the updated search in 2012. Updated data on three studies were included in this review. Data from the trials were independently extracted by two authors. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs with a total of 341,342 participants were included in this review. All involved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, with or without digital rectal examination (DRE), though the interval and threshold for further evaluation varied across trials. The age of participants ranged from 45 to 80 years and duration of follow-up from 7 to 20 years. Our meta-analysis of the five included studies indicated no statistically significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality between men randomised to the screening and control groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.17). The methodological quality of three of the studies was assessed as posing a high risk of bias. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial were assessed as posing a low risk of bias, but provided contradicting results. The ERSPC study reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95), whilst the PLCO study concluded no significant benefit (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.54). The ERSPC was the only study of the five included in this review that reported a significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality, in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years of age. Sensitivity analysis for overall risk of bias indicated no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality when referring to the meta analysis of only the ERSPC and PLCO trial data (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30). Subgroup analyses indicated that prostate cancer-specific mortality was not affected by the age at which participants were screened. Meta-analysis of four studies investigating all-cause mortality did not determine any significant differences between men randomised to screening or control (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.03). A diagnosis of prostate cancer was significantly greater in men randomised to screening compared to those randomised to control (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.65). Localised prostate cancer was more commonly diagnosed in men randomised to screening (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.70), whilst the proportion of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer was significantly lower in the screening group compared to the men serving as controls (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87). Screening resulted in a range of harms that can be considered minor to major in severity and duration. Common minor harms from screening include bleeding, bruising and short-term anxiety. Common major harms include overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, pneumonia, erectile dysfunction, and incontinence. Harms of screening included false-positive results for the PSA test and overdiagnosis (up to 50% in the ERSPC study). Adverse events associated with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies included infection, bleeding and pain. No deaths were attributed to any biopsy procedure. None of the studies provided detailed assessment of the effect of screening on quality of life or provided a comprehensive assessment of resource utilization associated with screening (although preliminary analyses were reported). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer screening did not significantly decrease prostate cancer-specific mortality in a combined meta-analysis of five RCTs. Only one study (ERSPC) reported a 21% significant reduction of prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years. Pooled data currently demonstrates no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific and overall mortality. Harms associated with PSA-based screening and subsequent diagnostic evaluations are frequent, and moderate in severity. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common and are associated with treatment-related harms. Men should be informed of this and the demonstrated adverse effects when they are deciding whether or not to undertake screening for prostate cancer. Any reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality may take up to 10 years to accrue; therefore, men who have a life expectancy less than 10 to 15 years should be informed that screening for prostate cancer is unlikely to be beneficial. No studies examined the independent role of screening by DRE.

Screening for prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases including Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, abstract proceedings, and reference lists up to July 2010. Review methods Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing screening by prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination versus no screening. Data abstraction and assessment of methodological quality with the GRADE approach was assessed by two independent reviewers and verified by the primary investigator. Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance estimates were calculated and pooled under a random effects model expressing data as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Six randomised controlled trials with a total of 387 286 participants that met inclusion criteria were analysed. Screening was associated with an increased probability of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer (relative risk 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.77; P<0.001) and stage I prostate cancer (1.95, 1.22 to 3.13; P=0.005). There was no significant effect of screening on death from prostate cancer (0.88, 0.71 to 1.09; P=0.25) or overall mortality (0.99, 0.97 to 1.01; P=0.44). All trials had one or more substantial methodological limitations. None provided data on the effects of screening on participants' quality of life. Little information was provided about potential harms associated with screening. CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support the routine use of screening for prostate cancer with prostate specific antigen with or without digital rectal examination.