Attitudes toward prevention of mtDNA-related diseases through oocyte mitochondrial replacement therapy.

STUDY QUESTION: Among women who carry pathogenic mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) point mutations and healthy oocyte donors, what are the levels of support for developing oocyte mitochondrial replacement therapy (OMRT) to prevent transmission of mtDNA mutations? SUMMARY ANSWER: The majority of mtDNA carriers and oocyte donors support the development of OMRT techniques to prevent transmission of mtDNA diseases. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Point mutations of mtDNA cause a variety of maternally inherited human diseases that are frequently disabling and often fatal. Recent developments in (OMRT) as well as pronuclear transfer between embryos offer new potential options to prevent transmission of mtDNA disease. However, it is unclear whether the non-scientific community will approve of embryos that contain DNA from three people. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between 1 June 2012 through 12 February 2015, we administered surveys in cross-sectional studies of 92 female carriers of mtDNA point mutations and 112 healthy oocyte donors. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The OMRT carrier survey was completed by 92 female carriers of an mtDNA point mutation. Carriers were recruited through the North American Mitochondrial Disease Consortium (NAMDC), the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation (UMDF), patient support groups, research and private patients followed at the Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) and patients' referrals of maternal relatives. The OMRT donor survey was completed by 112 women who had donated oocytes through a major ITALIC! in vitro fertilization clinic. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: All carriers surveyed were aware that they could transmit the mutation to their offspring, with 78% (35/45) of women, who were of childbearing age, indicating that the risk was sufficient to consider not having children, and 95% (87/92) of all carriers designating that the development of this technique was important and worthwhile. Of the 21 surveyed female carriers considering childbearing, 20 (95%) considered having their own biological offspring somewhat or very important and 16 of the 21 respondents (76%) were willing to donate oocytes for research and development. Of 112 healthy oocyte donors who completed the OMRT donor survey, 97 (87%) indicated that they would donate oocytes for generating a viable embryo through OMRT. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Many of the participants were either patients or relatives of patients who were already enrolled in a research-oriented database, or who sought care in a tertiary research university setting, indicating a potential sampling bias. The survey was administered to a select group of individuals, who carry, or are at risk for carrying, mtDNA point mutations. These individuals are more likely to have been affected by the mutation or have witnessed first-hand the devastating effects of these mutations. It has not been established whether the general public would be supportive of this work. This survey did not explicitly address alternatives to OMRT. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study indicating a high level of interest in the development of these methods among women affected by the diseases or who are at risk of carrying mtDNA mutations as well as willingness of most donors to provide oocytes for the development of OMRT. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was conducted under the auspices of the NAMDC (Study Protocol 7404). NAMDC (U54NS078059) is part of the NCATS Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network (RDCRN). RDCRN is an initiative of the Office of Rare Diseases Research (ORDR) and NCATS. NAMDC is funded through a collaboration between NCATS, NINDS, NICHD and NIH Office of Dietary Supplements. The work was also supported by the Bernard and Anne Spitzer Fund and the New York Stem Cell Foundation (NYSCF). Dr Hirano has received research support from Santhera Pharmaceuticals and Edison Pharmaceuticals for studies unrelated to this work. None of the other authors have conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Warfarin and aspirin in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS: We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS: The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P=0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P=0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P=0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; WARCEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00041938.).

Stroke in heart failure in sinus rhythm: the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial.

BACKGROUND: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction trial found no difference between warfarin and aspirin in patients with low ejection fraction in sinus rhythm for the primary outcome: first to occur of 84 incident ischemic strokes (IIS), 7 intracerebral hemorrhages or 531 deaths. Prespecified secondary analysis showed a 48% hazard ratio reduction (p = 0.005) for warfarin in IIS. Cardioembolism is likely the main pathogenesis of stroke in heart failure. We examined the IIS benefit for warfarin in more detail in post hoc secondary analyses. METHODS: We subtyped IIS into definite, possible and noncardioembolic using the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation method. Statistical tests, stratified by prior ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, were the conditional binomial for independent Poisson variables for rates, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for stroke subtype and the van Elteren test for modified Rankin Score (mRS) and National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) distributions, and an exact test for proportions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 1,142 warfarin and 55 of 1,163 aspirin patients had IIS. The warfarin IIS rate (0.727/100 patient-years, PY) was lower than for aspirin (1.36/100 PY, p = 0.003). Definite cardioembolic IIS was less frequent on warfarin than aspirin (0.22 vs. 0.55/100 PY, p = 0.012). Possible cardioembolic IIS tended to be less frequent on warfarin than aspirin (0.37 vs. 0.67/100 PY, p = 0.063) but noncardioembolic IIS showed no difference: 5 (0.12/100 PY) versus 6 (0.15/100 PY, p = 0.768). Among patients experiencing IIS, there were no differences by treatment arm in fatal IIS, baseline mRS, mRS 90 days after IIS, and change from baseline to post-IIS mRS. The warfarin arm showed a trend to a lower proportion of severe nonfatal IIS [mRS 3-5; 3/23 (13.0%) vs. 16/48 (33.3%), p = 0.086]. There was no difference in NIHSS at the time of stroke (p = 0.825) or in post-IIS mRS (p = 0.948) between cardioembolic, possible cardioembolic and noncardioembolic stroke including both warfarin and aspirin groups. CONCLUSIONS: The observed benefits in the reduction of IIS for warfarin compared to aspirin are most significant for cardioembolic IIS among patients with low ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. This is supported by trends to lower frequencies of severe IIS and possible cardioembolic IIS in patients on warfarin compared to aspirin.

nab-Paclitaxel-Based Therapy in Underserved Patient Populations: The ABOUND.PS2 Study in Patients With NSCLC and a Performance Status of 2.

INTRODUCTION: The phase II ABOUND.PS2 study (NCT02289456) assessed safety/tolerability of a first-line modified nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and ECOG PS 2 received four cycles of nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5 day 1 q3w (induction). Patients without progression received nab-paclitaxel monotherapy (100 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 q3w) until progression/unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint: percentage of patients discontinuing induction due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: 11/40 treated patients (27.5%; 95% CI, 14.60-43.89) discontinued chemotherapy induction due to TEAEs; 16/40 (40.0%) continued nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. Median progression-free and overall survival were 4.4 (95% CI, 2.99-7.00) and 7.7 (95% CI, 4.93-13.17) months. Grade 3/4 TEAEs during induction included neutropenia (22.5%), anemia (17.5%), thrombocytopenia (5.0%), and peripheral neuropathy (2.5%). CONCLUSION: This nab-paclitaxel-based regimen was tolerable in patients with advanced NSCLC and ECOG PS 2, with efficacy comparable to historical chemotherapy data.

nab-Paclitaxel-Based Therapy in Underserved Patient Populations: The ABOUND.70+ Study in Elderly Patients With Advanced NSCLC.

The phase 4 ABOUND.70+ trial assessed the safety and efficacy of nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin continuously or with a 1-week break between cycles in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients ≥70 years with locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to first-line nab-paclitaxel days 1, 8, 15 plus carboplatin day 1 of a 21-day cycle (21d) or the same nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen with a 1-week break between cycles (21d + break; 28d). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy (PN) or grade ≥ 3 myelosuppression. Other key endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and overall response rate (ORR). A total of 143 patients were randomized (71 to 21d, 72 to 21d + break). The percentage of patients with grade ≥ 2 PN or grade ≥ 3 myelosuppression was similar between the 21d and 21d + break arms (76.5 and 77.1%; P = 0.9258). Treatment exposure was lower in the 21d arm compared with the 21d + break arm. Median OS was 15.2 and 16.2 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.44-1.19; P = 0.1966], median PFS was 3.6 and 7.0 months (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.76; P < 0.0019), and ORR was 23.9 and 40.3% (risk ratio 1.68, 95% CI 1.02-2.78; P = 0.0376) in the 21d and 21d + break arms, respectively. In summary, the 1-week break between treatment cycles significantly improved PFS and ORR but did not significantly reduce the percentage of grade ≥ 2 PN or grade ≥ 3 myelosuppression. Overall, the findings support the results of prior subset analyses on the safety and efficacy of first-line nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.

The first prognostic model for stroke and death in patients with systolic heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with systolic heart failure (HF) are at increased risk of both ischemic stroke and death. Currently, no risk scores are available to identify HF patients at high risk of stroke or death. The Warfarin vs. Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial studied 2305 HF patients, in sinus rhythm, followed for up to 6 years (3.5±1.5 years). This trial showed no overall difference in those treated with warfarin vs aspirin with regard to death or stroke. The present study develops the first prognostic model to identify patients at higher risk of stroke or death based on their overall risk profile. METHODS AND RESULTS: A scoring algorithm using 8 readily obtainable clinical characteristics as predictors, age, gender, hemoglobin, blood urea nitrogen, ejection fraction, diastolic blood pressure, diabetes status, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (C-index=0.65, 95% CI: 0.613-0.681), was developed. It was validated internally using a bootstrap method. In predicting 1-year survival for death alone, our 8-predictor model had an AUC of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.579-0.678) while the 14-predictor Seattle model had an AUC of 0.72. The Seattle model did not report stroke. CONCLUSIONS: This novel prognostic model predicts the overall risk of ischemic stroke or death for HF patients. This model compares favorably for death with the Seattle model and has the added utility of including stroke as an endpoint. Use of this model will help identify those patients in need of more intensive monitoring and therapy and may help identify appropriate populations for trials of new therapies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.Clinicatrials.govNCT00041938.

Cognitive function in ambulatory patients with systolic heart failure: insights from the warfarin versus aspirin in reduced cardiac ejection fraction (WARCEF) trial.

We sought to determine whether cognitive function in stable outpatients with heart failure (HF) is affected by HF severity. A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis was performed using data from 2, 043 outpatients with systolic HF and without prior stroke enrolled in the Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) Trial. Multivariable regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between cognitive function measured using the Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE) and markers of HF severity (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class, and 6-minute walk distance). The mean (SD) for the MMSE was 28.6 (2.0), with 64 (3.1%) of the 2,043 patients meeting the cut-off of MMSE <24 that indicates need for further evaluation of cognitive impairment. After adjustment for demographic and clinical covariates, 6-minute walk distance (ß-coefficient 0.002, p<0.0001), but not LVEF or NYHA functional class, was independently associated with the MMSE as a continuous measure. Age, education, smoking status, body mass index, and hemoglobin level were also independently associated with the MMSE. In conclusion, six-minute walk distance, but not LVEF or NYHA functional class, was an important predictor of cognitive function in ambulatory patients with systolic heart failure.

Benefit of warfarin compared with aspirin in patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm: a subgroup analysis of WARCEF, a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Warfarin versus Aspirin in Reduced Cardiac Ejection Fraction (WARCEF) trial found no difference in the primary outcome between warfarin and aspirin in 2305 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction in sinus rhythm. However, it is unknown whether any subgroups benefit from warfarin or aspirin. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a Cox model stepwise selection procedure to identify subgroups that may benefit from warfarin or aspirin on the WARCEF primary outcome. A secondary analysis added major hemorrhage to the outcome. The primary efficacy outcome was time to the first to occur of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death. Only age group was a significant treatment effect modifier (P for interaction, 0.003). Younger patients benefited from warfarin over aspirin on the primary outcome (4.81 versus 6.76 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.84; P=0.001). In older patients, therapies did not differ (9.91 versus 9.01 events per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.35; P=0.44). With major hemorrhage added, in younger patients the event rate remained lower for warfarin than aspirin (5.41 versus 7.25 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.89; P=0.005), but in older patients it became significantly higher for warfarin (11.80 versus 9.35 per 100 patient-years: hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.53; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients <60 years, warfarin improved outcomes over aspirin with or without inclusion of major hemorrhage. In patients ≥60 years, there was no treatment difference, but the aspirin group had significantly better outcomes when major hemorrhage was included.