Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) in the treatment of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD): a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial studying the addition of ECP to standard care in the treatment of bilateral lung transplant patients with CLAD (E-CLAD UK).

BACKGROUND: Long-term survival after lung transplantation is limited compared with other organ transplants. The main cause is development of progressive immune-mediated damage to the lung allograft. This damage, which can develop via multiple immune pathways, is captured under the umbrella term chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). Despite the availability of powerful immunosuppressive drugs, there are presently no treatments proven to reverse or reliably halt the loss of lung function caused by CLAD. The aim of the E-CLAD UK trial is to determine whether the addition of immunomodulatory therapy, in the form of extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP), to standard care is more efficacious at stabilising lung function in CLAD compared with standard care alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: E-CLAD UK is a Phase II clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product (Methoxsalen) delivered to a buffy coat prepared via an enclosed ECP circuit. Target recruitment is 90 bilateral lung transplant patients identified as having CLAD and being treated at one of the five UK adult lung transplant centres. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to intervention plus standard of care, or standard of care alone. Intervention will comprise nine ECP cycles spread over 20 weeks, each course involving two treatments of ECP on consecutive days. All participants will be followed up for a period of 24 weeks.The primary outcome is lung function stabilisation derived from change in forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity at 12 and 24 weeks compared with baseline at study entry. Other parameters include change in exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and safety. A mechanistic study will seek to identify molecular or cellular markers linked to treatment response and qualitative interviews will explore patient experiences of CLAD and the ECP treatment.A patient and public advisory group is integral to the trial from design to implementation, developing material to support the consent process and interview materials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee has provided ethical approval (REC 22/EM/0218). Dissemination will be via publications, patient-friendly summaries and presentation at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT number 2022-002659-20; ISRCTN 10615985.

Ondansetron and metoclopramide as second-line antiemetics in women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: the EMPOWER pilot factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. RESULTS: Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. LIMITATIONS: The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy cause physical and emotional distress, and up to 30% of affected women require medical treatment. Guidelines on the use of anti-sickness drugs exist, but evidence is limited about which drugs work the best. The EMPOWER (EMesis in Pregnancy ­ Ondansetron With mEtoClopRamide) trial aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two anti-sickness drugs [metoclopramide (metoclopramide hydrochloride, Actavis UK Ltd, Barnstable, UK; IV Ratiopharm GmbH, Ulm, Germany) and ondansetron (ondansetron hydrochloride dehydrate, Wockhardt UK Ltd, Wrexham, UK; IV Hameln Pharma plus GmbH, Hameln)] for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Women who were < 17 weeks pregnant with severe nausea and vomiting who attended hospital because their first anti-sickness drug had failed to improve their symptoms were asked to take part in the trial. Participants received fluids and, with consent, were randomly allocated to one of four groups: (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron or (4) double dummy. Trial drugs were administered into a vein and then by tablet for 10 days. On advice from sufferers, the trial focused on treatment failure, but other outcomes, including drug side effects, costs and pregnancy outcome, were collected. The trial was unable to recruit enough women and, therefore, did not progress. Nearly 600 women at 11 hospitals were screened, of whom 122 (21%) were eligible and 33 were recruited. The main reason for ineligibility (68%) was prior use of trial drug (mostly ondansetron). Overall, 15 out of 30 evaluable women experienced treatment failure. Interviews with 21 women who were approached about the trial and 22 research staff identified complex hurdles to and enablers of recruitment. The main hurdles were the requirements of the study protocol in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs and the diversity of pathways to care. The role of research staff was a key enabler. The trial was too small to draw useful conclusions and it highlights the challenges of conducting complex studies on sick pregnant women. Subsequent concerns about the safety of ondansetron highlight the need for further studies to help inform women and the NHS about the best care for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.

Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast.

Three patients developed firm, mobile, nontender masses in their breasts. Two were discovered by the patients and one after mammography. Macroscopically, the nodules were firm, circumscribed, yellow on cut sections, and composed of interlacing cytologically bland spindle cells admixed with chronic inflammatory cells, the latter predominantly of lymphocytes and plasma cells. Immunohistochemistry yielded strong smooth-muscle actin reactivity within the spindle cells; 2 lesions were negative for pankeratin, 1 was focally and weakly positive. No lesions were positive for anaplastic lymphoma kinase-1, desmin, S-100, CD34, CD21, or CD35. In each case, a diagnosis of inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor was made (aka, inflammatory pseudotumor). After conservative excision with apparently negative margins, there have been no recurrences, except in one patient who developed a recurrence after 3 months. The latter recurrence was managed successfully with a second excision. We report these patients to emphasize the diagnostic features of inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast and discuss how they can be distinguished from other spindle-cell breast lesions with which they can be confused, especially spindle-cell carcinoma.