Defining the Therapeutic Range for Adalimumab and Predicting Response in Psoriasis: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Cohort Study.

Biologics have transformed management of inflammatory diseases. To optimize outcomes and reduce costs, dose adjustment informed by circulating drug levels has been proposed. We aimed to determine the real-world clinical utility of therapeutic drug monitoring in psoriasis. Within a multicenter (n = 60) prospective observational cohort, 544 psoriasis patients were included who were receiving adalimumab monotherapy and had at least one serum sample and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score available within the first year. We present models giving individualized probabilities of response for any given drug level: a minimally effective drug level of 3.2 µg/ml discriminates responders (PASI75 indicates 75% improvement in baseline PASI) from nonresponders, and gives an estimated PASI75 probability of 65% (95% confidence interval = 60-71). At 7 µg/ml, PASI75 probability is 81% (95% CI = 76-86); beyond 7 µg/ml, the drug level/response curve plateaus. Crucially, drug levels are predictive of response 6 months later, whether sampled early or at steady state. We confirm serum drug level to be the most important factor determining treatment response, highlighting the need to take drug levels into account when searching for biomarkers of response. This real-world study with pragmatic drug level sampling provides evidence to support the proactive measurement of adalimumab levels in psoriasis to direct treatment strategy, and is relevant to other inflammatory diseases.

Antiplatelet therapy in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: protocol of a randomised controlled proof-of-concept trial (APPLE COPD-ICON 2).

INTRODUCTION: The antiplatelet therapy in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (APPLE COPD-ICON2) trial is a prospective 2×2 factorial, double-blinded proof-of-concept randomised controlled trial targeting patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at high risk of cardiovascular disease. The primary goal of this trial is to investigate if treatment with antiplatelet therapy will produce the required response in platelet function measured using the Multiplate test in patients with COPD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients with COPD are screened for eligibility using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible patients are randomised and allocated into one of four groups to receive aspirin plus placebo, ticagrelor plus placebo, aspirin plus ticagrelor or placebo only. Markers of systemic inflammation, platelet reactivity, arterial stiffness, carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT), lung function and quality of life questionnaires are assessed. The primary outcome consists of inhibition (binary response) of aspirin and ADP-induced platelet function at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include changes in inflammatory markers, CIMT, non-invasive measures of vascular stiffness, quality of life using questionnaires (EuroQol-five dimensions-five levels of perceived problems (EQ5D-5L), St. George's COPD questionnaire) and to record occurrence of repeat hospitalisation, angina, myocardial infarction or death from baseline to 6 months. Safety outcomes will be rates of major and minor bleeding, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, forced vital capacity and Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the North East-Tyne and Wear South Research Ethics Committee (15/NE/0155). Findings of the study will be presented in scientific sessions and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43245574; Pre-results.

Gastrostomy versus nasogastric tube feeding for chemoradiation patients with head and neck cancer: the TUBE pilot RCT.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 9000 new cases of head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCCs) are treated by the NHS each year. Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is a commonly used treatment for advanced HNSCC. Approximately 90% of patients undergoing CRT require nutritional support via gastrostomy or nasogastric tube feeding. Long-term dysphagia following CRT is a primary concern for patients. The effect of enteral feeding routes on swallowing function is not well understood, and the two feeding methods have, to date (at the time of writing), not been compared. The aim of this pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to compare these two options. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods multicentre study to establish the feasibility of a RCT comparing oral feeding plus pre-treatment gastrostomy with oral feeding plus as-required nasogastric tube feeding in patients with HNSCC. Patients were recruited from four tertiary centres treating cancer and randomised to the two arms of the study (using a 1 : 1 ratio). The eligibility criteria were patients with advanced-staged HNSCC who were suitable for primary CRT with curative intent and who presented with no swallowing problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the willingness to be randomised. A qualitative process evaluation was conducted alongside an economic modelling exercise. The criteria for progression to a Phase III trial were based on a hypothesised recruitment rate of at least 50%, collection of outcome measures in at least 80% of those recruited and an economic value-of-information analysis for cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Of the 75 patients approached about the trial, only 17 consented to be randomised [0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.32]. Among those who were randomised, the compliance rate was high (0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05). Retention rates were high at completion of treatment (0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05), at the 3-month follow-up (0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04) and at the 6-month follow-up (0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04). No serious adverse events were recorded in relation to the trial. The qualitative substudy identified several factors that had an impact on recruitment, many of which are amenable to change. These included organisational factors, changing cancer treatments and patient and clinician preferences. A key reason for the differential recruitment between sites was the degree to which the multidisciplinary team gave a consistent demonstration of equipoise at all patient interactions at which supplementary feeding was discussed. An exploratory economic model generated from published evidence and expert opinion suggests that, over the 6-month model time horizon, pre-treatment gastrostomy tube feeding is not a cost-effective option, although this should be interpreted with caution and we recommend that this should not form the basis for policy. The economic value-of-information analysis indicates that additional research to eliminate uncertainty around model parameters is highly likely to be cost-effective. STUDY LIMITATIONS: The recruitment issues identified for this cohort may not be applicable to other populations undergoing CRT. There remains substantial uncertainty in the economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not meet one of the three criteria for progression, as the recruitment rate was lower than hypothesised. Once patients were recruited to the trial, compliance and retention in the trial were both high. The implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase the numbers recruited. The economic analysis suggests that further research in this area is likely to be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: The implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase recruitment. The appropriate research question and design of a future study needs to be identified. More work is needed to understand the experiences of nasogastric tube feeding in patients undergoing CRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48569216. 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. 22, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A randomised controlled trial of losartan as an anti-fibrotic agent in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common liver disease worldwide. Experimental and small clinical trials have demonstrated that angiotensin II blockers (ARB) may be anti-fibrotic in the liver. The aim of this randomised controlled trial was to assess whether treatment with Losartan for 96 weeks slowed, halted or reversed the progression of fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). METHODS: Double-blind randomised-controlled trial of Losartan 50 mg once a day versus placebo for 96 weeks in patients with histological evidence of NASH. The primary outcome for the study was change in histological fibrosis stage from pre-treatment to end-of-treatment. RESULTS: The study planned to recruit 214 patients. However, recruitment was slower than expected, and after 45 patients were randomised (median age 55; 56% male; 60% diabetic; median fibrosis stage 2), enrolment was suspended. Thirty-two patients (15 losartan and 17 placebo) completed follow up period: one patient (6.7%) treated with losartan and 4 patients (23.5%) in the placebo group were "responders" (lower fibrosis stage at follow up compared with baseline). The major reason for slow recruitment was that 39% of potentially eligible patients were already taking an ARB or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), and 15% were taking other prohibited medications. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the widespread use of ACEI and ARB in patients with NASH this trial failed to recruit sufficient patients to determine whether losartan has anti-fibrotic effects in the liver. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 57849521.