Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Asunto de la revista
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
EClinicalMedicine ; 70: 102521, 2024 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38495525

RESUMEN

Background: Trifluridine-tipiracil has shown a survival benefit compared with placebo in patients with chemorefractory metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy of trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab vs trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy in pre-treated patients with metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. Methods: This investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized trial enrolled patients with metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. The main inclusion criteria were patients with pre-treated metastatic esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma, and WHO performance status 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral trifluridine-tipiracil (35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12 every 28 days) alone or combined with bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient decision to withdraw. Randomisation was stratified by sex and treatment line. The primary endpoint was investigator-evaluated progression-free survival. All analyses were based on intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT, 2018-004845-18. Findings: From Oct 1, 2019, to Sept 30, 2021, 103 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to trifluridine-tipiracil (n = 53) or trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab (n = 50). The clinical cut-off date was March 1st, 2023, after a median follow-up of 36.6 months. Median progression-free survival was 3.1 months (95% CI 2.0-4.3) in the trifluridine-tipiracil group vs 3.9 months (3.0-6.3) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-1.02; p = 0.058). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse event was neutropenia, observed in 26 (49%) patients in the trifluridine-tipiracil group vs 23 patients (46%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group. At least one hospitalization was observed in 21 patients (40%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil group and 22 patients (44%) in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group. No deaths were deemed treatment related. Interpretation: In patients with pre-treated metastatic esophago-gastric cancer, trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab, compared to trifluridine-tipiracil monotherapy, did not significantly prolong progression-free survival. The combination of trifluridine-tipiracil with bevacizumab was well tolerated without increase in severe neutropenia and no new safety signals. Funding: Servier, Roche.

2.
Eur J Hum Genet ; 2024 May 16.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38755315

RESUMEN

Timely diagnosis is one of the most serious challenges faced by people living with a rare disease (PLWRD), and this study estimates that in Europe, the average total diagnosis time (TDT) is close to 5 years. We investigated the duration of the TDT for PLWRD in Europe, the difficulties associated with their diagnosis odyssey and the main determinants of diagnosis delays for all rare diseases (RD). We conducted a survey of PLWRD and their families using Rare Barometer, the survey initiative of EURORDIS-Rare Diseases Europe. In geographical Europe, we surveyed 6507 people living with 1675 RD in 41 countries. We then performed a descriptive analysis and ordinal logistic regressions to identify the main determinants of diagnosis delays. Average TDT is 4.7 years. 56% of respondents were diagnosed more than 6 months after a first medical contact. The main determinants of diagnosis delays are symptom onset before 30 years of age, especially during childhood (OR = 3.11; 95% CI: 2.4-4.0) and adolescence (OR = 4.79; 95% CI: 3.7-6.2), being a woman (OR = 1.22; 95% CI:1.1-1.4), living in Northern Europe (OR = 2.15; 95% CI:1.8-2.6) or Western Europe (OR = 1.96; 95% CI:1.6-2.3), the number of healthcare professionals consulted (OR = 5.15; 95% CI:4.1-6.4), misdiagnosis (OR = 2.48; 95% CI:2.1-2.9), referral to a centre of expertise (OR = 1.17; 95% CI:1.0-1.3), unmet needs for psychological support (OR = 1.34; 95% CI:1.2-1.5) and financial support (OR = 1.16; 95% CI:1.0-1.3), having a genetic disease (OR = 1.33; 95% CI:1.1-1.5) and a family history of an RD (OR = 1.36; 95% CI:1.1-1.6). These determinants can inform policies and actions to improve access to diagnosis for all PLWRD.

3.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 5(5): e254-e262, 2023 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38251589

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Colchicine has been suggested for osteoarthritis treatment, but evidence is contradictory. We aimed to investigate colchicine's efficacy and safety compared with placebo in people with hand osteoarthritis. METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial we recruited adults with symptomatic hand osteoarthritis and finger pain of at least 40 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale from an outpatient clinic in Denmark. The hand with the most severe finger pain at inclusion was the target hand. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to 0·5 mg colchicine or placebo taken orally twice a day for 12 weeks, stratified by BMI (≥30 kg/m2), sex, and age (≥75 years). Participants, outcome assessors, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 12 in target hand finger pain, assessed on a 100 mm visual analogue scale with a pre-specified minimal clinically important difference of 15 mm, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed at week 12 in the intention-to-treat population. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04601883, and with EudraCT, 2020-002803-20. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2021, and March 3, 2022, 186 people were screened for eligibility, and 100 were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (n=50) or placebo (n=50). Participants had a mean age of 70·9 (SD 7·5) years, 69 (69%) of 100 were women and 31 (31%) were men. All participants completed the study. The mean change from baseline to week 12 in finger pain were -13·9 mm (SE 2·8) in the colchicine group and -13·5 mm (2·8) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference (colchicine vs placebo) of -0·4 mm (95% CI -7·6 to 6·7; p=0·90). In the colchicine group, there were 76 adverse events in 36 (72%) of 50 participants and one serious adverse advent (migraine attack leading to hospital admission). In the placebo group, there were 42 adverse events in 22 (44%) of 50 participants and two serious adverse events (cholecystitis and elevated alanine aminotransferase concentrations, in the same patient). INTERPRETATION: In people with painful hand osteoarthritis, treatment with 0·5 mg of colchicine twice day for 12 weeks did not effectively relieve pain, and treatment with colchicine was associated with more adverse events. FUNDING: The Oak Foundation, IMK Almene Fond, Minister Erna Hamilton's Scholarship for Science and Art, AP Moller and Wife Chastine McKinney Moller's Foundation for Medical Science Advancement, The Danish Medical Association, the Velux Foundation, Aase and Ejnar Danielsen's Foundation, and Director Emil C Hertz and Wife Inger Hertz's foundation.


Asunto(s)
Mano , Extremidad Superior , Adulto , Masculino , Humanos , Femenino , Anciano , Método Doble Ciego , Colchicina/efectos adversos , Dolor
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA