Matching-adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy of Loncastuximab Tesirine Versus Treatment in the Chemoimmunotherapy Era for Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Loncastuximab tesirine (Lonca) and chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) have been assessed in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), but direct evidence from head-to-head randomized clinical trials is not available. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to evaluate the efficacy of Lonca versus CIT-era treatment in R/R DLBCL. The analysis used individual patient data from the phase II LOTIS-2 trial of Lonca (NCT03589469) and pooled aggregated data from 2 extension studies of the CORAL trial for CIT. The LOTIS-2 trial included 145 patients who had relapsed or progressed following 2 or more multi-agent systemic treatment regimens; the CORAL extension studies included 203 patients who received 2 prior lines of therapy and 75 patients who relapsed after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. MAIC analyses were performed to adjust for cross-trial differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and the distribution of observed baseline characteristics. Overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the balanced trial populations. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients in LOTIS-2 were included in the analysis. After matching to the characteristics of 278 patients from the pooled CORAL extension studies, the ORR was significantly higher for Lonca compared with CIT-era treatment (53.4% vs. 40.3%, P < .05). Lonca was also associated with a significantly improved OS compared with CIT-era treatment (median OS 10.8 vs. 6.4 months; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.48, 0.92], P < .05). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that Lonca was associated with significantly improved efficacy compared with CIT-era treatments for R/R DLBCL.

Comparison of the source and prognostic utility of cfDNA in trauma and sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) may contribute to the pathophysiology of post-injury inflammation and coagulation in trauma. However, the source and mechanism of release of cfDNA in trauma is not well understood. One potential source of cfDNA is from Neutrophil Extracellular Traps (NETs), released by activated neutrophils during the process of NETosis. The primary objective of our study was to determine if cfDNA has prognostic utility in trauma. The secondary objective of this study was to determine the source of cfDNA in trauma compared to sepsis. METHODS: We studied trauma patients from two prospective observational cohort studies: the DNA as a Prognostic Marker in ICU Patients (DYNAMICS) study and the Endotoxin in Polytrauma (ENPOLY) study. We also studied septic patients from the DYNAMICS study. Citrated plasma samples were collected longitudinally from the patients (days 1 to 7). The following molecules were measured in the plasma samples: cfDNA, protein C (PC), myeloperoxidase (MPO) (a marker of neutrophil activation), citrullinated Histone H3 (H3Cit, a marker of NETosis), cyclophilin A (a marker of necrosis), and caspase-cleaved K18 (a marker of apoptosis). RESULTS: A total of 77 trauma patients were included (n = 38 from DYNAMICS and n = 39 from ENPOLY). The median age was 49 years; 27.3% were female, and mortality was 16.9% at 28 days. Levels of cfDNA were elevated compared to healthy values but not significantly different between survivors and non-survivors. There was a positive correlation between MPO and cfDNA in septic patients (r = 0.424, p < 0.001). In contrast, there was no correlation between MPO and cfDNA in trauma patients (r = - 0.192, p = 0.115). Levels of H3Cit, a marker of NETosis, were significantly elevated in septic patients compared to trauma patients (p < 0.01) while apoptosis and necrosis markers did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our studies suggest that the source and mechanism of release of cfDNA differ between trauma and sepsis patients. In sepsis, cfDNA is likely primarily released by activated neutrophils via the process of NETosis. In contrast, cfDNA in trauma appears to originate mainly from injured or necrotic cells. Although cfDNA is elevated in trauma and sepsis patients compared to healthy controls, cfDNA does not appear to have prognostic utility in trauma patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01355042 . Registered May 17, 2011.

Evaluating the effect of delayed activation of rapid response teams on patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Rapid response teams have been widely adopted across the world. Although evidence for their efficacy is not clear, they remain a popular means to detect and react to patient deterioration. This may in part be due to there being no standardized approach to their usage or implementation. A key component of their ability to be effective is the speed of response. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to evaluate the effect of delayed response by rapid response teams on hospital mortality (primary), cardiac arrest, and intensive care transfer rates (secondary). METHODS: This review will include randomized and non-randomized studies which examined the effect of delayed response times by rapid response teams on patient mortality, cardiac arrest, and intensive care unit admission rates. This review will include studies of adult patients who have experienced a rapid response team consultation. The search strategy will utilize a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. MEDLINE and Embase will be searched, as well as examining gray literature. Two reviewers will independently screen retrieved citations to determine if they meet inclusion criteria. Studies will be selected that provide information about the impact of response time on patient outcomes. Comparisons will be made between consults that arrive in a timely manner and consults that are delayed. Quality assessment of randomized studies will be conducted in accordance with guidelines from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Quality assessment of non-randomized studies will be based on the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. Results of the review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will identify and synthesize evidence around the impact of delayed response by rapid response teams on patient mortality, cardiac arrest, and intensive care transfer rates. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42017071842 .