RESUMO
Vaccines in combination with chemotherapy have been shown to be safe in different tumor types. We investigated the immunological activity of the TroVax® vaccine in combination with pemetrexed-cisplatin chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). In this first line, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, patients with locally advanced or metastatic MPM were enrolled. Eligible patients received up to 9 intramuscular injections of TroVax®, starting two weeks before chemotherapy and continuing at regular intervals during and after chemotherapy to 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the induction of cellular or humoral anti-5T4 immune response (defined as a doubling of either response at any of six follow-up time points), with a target response rate of 64%. Of 27 patients, enrolled between Feb 2013-Dec 2014, 23 (85%) received at least three doses of TroVax® and one cycle of chemotherapy and were included in the per-protocol analysis (PPA). 22/23 patients (95.6%) developed humoral or cellular immune response to 5T4. Thus, the study reached its primary endpoint. Disease control was observed in 87% of patients (partial response: 17.4%, stable disease: 69.6%). The median progression-free survival was 6.8 months and median overall survival 10.9 months. Treatment-related adverse events were comparable to those observed in patients with chemotherapy alone. Translational immunology studies revealed a circulating baseline immune signature that was significantly associated with long-term (>20 months in n = 8/23, 34.8%) survival. In this phase 2 trial, TroVax® with pemetrexed-cisplatin chemotherapy showed robust immune activity, acceptable safety and tolerability to warrant further investigation in a phase 3 setting.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Transfusion of the incorrect blood component is a frequent serious incident associated with transfusion and often involves misidentification of the patient and/or the unit of blood. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of a simple intervention designed to improve performance of the bedside check and to observe the durability of any effect. The intervention was a tag on blood bags reminding staff to check the patient's wristband. The tag was positioned in such a way that the transfusionist was required to remove the tag to spike the unit. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The intervention was tested in a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial incorporating short-term and long-term follow-up periods. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients transfused with red cell units for whom the key elements of the bedside check were all correctly completed. RESULTS: Fifteen matched-paired clinical areas at 12 participating hospitals in six countries were included in the trial. Combining data from all participating hospitals, the bedside check was correctly performed in 37 percent of transfusions during the baseline audit period. There was no evidence of a favorable effect of the intervention immediately after its introduction (pooled odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-2.17). There was similarly no evidence of a favorable effect after continued use of the intervention for an additional 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: A simple intervention in the form of a barrier warning label on blood bags reminding staff to check the patient's wristband failed to improve bedside transfusion practice. The robust study design developed for this study could be applied to investigate other interventions to improve the safety of bedside transfusion practice.
