Simultaneous Versus Delayed Resection for Initially Resectable Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: A Prospective, Open-label, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To answer whether synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases (SLM) should be resected simultaneously with primary cancer or should be delayed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Numerous studies have compared both strategies. All were retrospective and conclusions were contradictory. METHODS: Adults with colorectal cancer and resectable SLM were randomly assigned to either simultaneous or delayed resection of the metastases. The primary outcome was the rate of major complications within 60 days following surgery. Secondary outcomes included overall and disease-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were recruited. Eighty-five patients (39 and 46 in the simultaneous- and delayed-resection groups, respectively) were analyzed. The percentage of major perioperative complications did not differ between groups (49% and 46% in the simultaneous- and delayed-resection groups, respectively, adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35-2.01; P = 0.70, logistic regression). Complications rates were 28% and 13% (P = 0.08, χ2 test) at colorectal site and 15% and 17% (P = 0.80, χ2 test) at liver site, in simultaneous- and delayed-resection groups, respectively. In the delayed-resection group, 8 patients did not reach the liver resection stage, and this was due to disease progression in 6 cases. After 2 years, overall and disease-free survival tended to be improved in simultaneous as compared with delayed-resection groups (P = 0.05), a tendency which persisted for OS after a median follow-up of 47 months. CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates did not appear to differ when colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases are resected simultaneously. Delayed resection tended to impair overall survival.

Impact of a targeted monitoring on data-quality and data-management workload of randomized controlled trials: A prospective comparative study.

AIMS: Monitoring risk-based approaches in clinical trials are encouraged by regulatory guidance. However, the impact of a targeted source data verification (SDV) on data-management (DM) workload and on final data quality needs to be addressed. METHODS: MONITORING was a prospective study aiming at comparing full SDV (100% of data verified for all patients) and targeted SDV (only key data verified for all patients) followed by the same DM program (detecting missing data and checking consistency) on final data quality, global workload and staffing costs. RESULTS: In all, 137 008 data including 18 124 key data were collected for 126 patients from 6 clinical trials. Compared to the final database obtained using the full SDV monitoring process, the final database obtained using the targeted SDV monitoring process had a residual error rate of 1.47% (95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53%) on overall data and 0.78% (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.91%) on key data. There were nearly 4 times more queries per study with targeted SDV than with full SDV (mean ± standard deviation: 132 ± 101 vs 34 ± 26; P = .03). For a handling time of 15 minutes per query, the global workload of the targeted SDV monitoring strategy remained below that of the full SDV monitoring strategy. From 25 minutes per query it was above, increasing progressively to represent a 50% increase for 45 minutes per query. CONCLUSION: Targeted SDV monitoring is accompanied by increased workload for DM, which allows to obtain a small proportion of remaining errors on key data (<1%), but may substantially increase trial costs.

Retreatment With Sofosbuvir Plus Grazoprevir/Elbasvir Plus Ribavirin of Patients With Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 or 4 Who Previously Failed an NS5A- or NS3-Containing Regimen: The ANRS HC34 REVENGE Study.

Background: Failure to achieve sustained virological response (SVR) with hepatitis C virus (HCV) direct-acting antiviral (DAA)-based regimens is commonly associated with emergence of resistance-associated substitutions (RASs). Retreatment of patients who failed prior DAAs remains challenging. The aim of this prospective and randomized study was to evaluate the efficacy (primary endpoint: SVR 12 weeks after end of treatment [SVR12]) and safety of sofosbuvir + grazoprevir/elbasvir + ribavirin for 16 or 24 weeks in patients who had failed to achieve SVR on previous NS5A- or NS3-based therapy and with evidence of RASs at failure. Methods: Patients were chronically infected with HCV genotype 1 or 4. Most of them had advanced fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis (liver stiffness 5.8-48.8 kPa). Results: All patients achieved HCV RNA below the lower limit of quantification (either target detected [unquantifiable] or target not detected) during treatment. SVR12 was achieved by 25 of 26 patients. The only patient who did not reach SVR was a patient who died, but HCV RNA was negative at this time (5 weeks after stopping treatment). No patient discontinued treatment because of adverse events or virological failure. Globally, treatment was well tolerated. Conclusions: Our findings support the concept of retreating with sofosbuvir + grazoprevir/elbasvir + ribavirin, for 16 weeks, genotype 1 or 4 DAA-experienced patients with proven NS5A or NS3 RASs. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02647632.

Treatment with bulevirtide in HIV-infected patients with chronic hepatitis D: ANRS HD EP01 BuleDelta and compassionate cohort.

Background & Aims: In France, bulevirtide (BLV) became available in September 2019 through an early access program to treat patients with HDV. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BLV in patients with HIV and HDV coinfection. Methods: Patients received BLV 2 mg ± pegylated interferon-α (pegIFNα) according to the physician's decision. The primary endpoint (per-protocol analysis) was the virological response rate at Week 48, defined as the proportion of patients with undetectable serum HDV RNA or a HDV RNA decline >2 log10 IU/ml from baseline. Results: The characteristics of the 38 patients were as follows: 28 male, mean age 47.7 years, and mean baseline HDV RNA viral load 5.7 ± 1.2 log10 IU/ml. Median HIV viral load and mean CD4 count were 32 (30-65) copies/ml and 566 ± 307/mm3, respectively. Eight patients stopped treatment before Week 48. At Week 48, 10 of 19 patients (52.6%) in the 2 mg BLV group and five of seven patients (71.4%) in the 2 mg BLV + pegIFNɑ group had reached virological response (no HDV RNA available in four patients). At Week 48, seven of 19 patients in the 2 mg BLV group and three of six patients in the 2 mg BLV + pegIFNɑ group had a combined response (virological response and normal alanine aminotransferase level). Conclusions: Adults living with HIV coinfected with HDV can be treated by BLV with a virological response in more than 50% of patients. The combination of BLV and pegIFNɑ showed a strong virological response. Impact and implications: Bulevirtide is the only EMA-approved drug for HDV treatment, and we showed that it can be used in adults living with HIV, with an overall good tolerability. Bulevirtide induces a virological response in more than 50% of patients, suggesting that bulevirtide should be considered as a first-line therapy in this specific population. Bulevirtide in combination with pegIFNα could be used in patients without pegIFNα contraindication. No specific drug-drug interaction is reported. Bulevirtide is the only EMA-approved drug for HDV treatment, and we showed that it can be used in adults living with HIV, with an overall good tolerability. Bulevirtide induces a virological response in more than 50% of patients, suggesting that bulevirtide should be considered as a first-line therapy in this specific population. Bulevirtide in combination with pegIFNα could be used in patients without pegIFNα contraindication. No specific drug-drug interaction is reported. Bulevirtide is the only EMA-approved drug for HDV treatment, and we showed that it can be used in adults living with HIV, with an overall good tolerability. Bulevirtide induces a virological response in more than 50% of patients, suggesting that bulevirtide should be considered as a first-line therapy in this specific population. Bulevirtide in combination with pegIFNα could be used in patients without pegIFNα contraindication. No specific drug-drug interaction is reported.