Safety and efficacy of belantamab mafodotin with pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) has shown promising antimyeloma activity in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) as a single agent. It was hypothesized that its multimodal activity may be enhanced by programmed cell death protein 1 pathway inhibition and activation of T cell-mediated antitumor responses. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of belamaf with pembrolizumab in patients with RRMM. METHODS: DREAMM-4 (NCT03848845) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 study divided into dose-escalation (part 1) and dose-expansion (part 2) phases. Patients were ≥18 years old with ≥3 prior lines of therapy including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 agent. Patients received belamaf (2.5 or 3.4 mg/kg, part 1; 2.5 mg/kg, part 2) and 200 mg pembrolizumab for ≤35 cycles. RESULTS: Of 41 enrolled patients, 34 (n = 6 part 1, n = 28 part 2) who received 2.5 mg/kg belamaf plus pembrolizumab were included in this final analysis. Sixteen patients (47%) achieved an overall response. Minimal residual disease negativity was achieved in three of 10 patients who had very good partial response or better. Five of eight patients who had prior anti-B-cell maturation antigen therapy achieved partial response or better, including two who had B-cell maturation antigen-refractory disease. Common grade ≥3 adverse events were keratopathy (38%) and thrombocytopenia (29%). Despite belamaf-related ocular events, quality-of-life measures remained stable over time. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results of DREAMM-4 demonstrated clinical activity and a favorable safety profile of belamaf plus pembrolizumab in patients with RRMM. This trial is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov as NCT03848845.

Fertility preservation before cancer treatment: the dilemma of saying 'no' as the price of glory.

A great deal of work has been carried out by professionals in reproductive medicine in order to raise awareness about fertility preservation (FP) techniques, particularly for women, and to ensure that FP is included in the care of young adults treated for cancer or a pathology requiring gonadotoxic treatment. If the importance of the development of our discipline is obvious, our militancy in favour of FP and our emotional projections must not make us forget that medical thinking must be carried out not only on a case-by-case basis, weighing up the benefit-risk balance, but also without losing sight that conceiving a child with one's own gametes is not a vital issue. The cultural importance given to the genetic link with offspring may bias patients' and physicians' decisions, while other ways of achieving parenthood exist, and are often more effective. Systematic information should be provided on the existence of FP techniques, but this should not lead to their systematic implementation, nor should it obscure that early information will also allow patients to begin projecting themselves in alternative options to become parents.

Optimal balance of benefit versus risk for tafenoquine in the treatment of Plasmodium vivax malaria.

A single 300 mg dose of tafenoquine (an 8-aminoquinoline), in combination with a standard 3-day course of chloroquine, is approved in several countries for the radical cure (prevention of relapse) of Plasmodium vivax malaria in patients aged ≥ 16 years. Despite this, questions have arisen on the optimal dose of tafenoquine. Before the availability of tafenoquine, a 3-day course of chloroquine in combination with the 8-aminoquinoline primaquine was the only effective radical cure for vivax malaria. The World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended standard regimen is 14 days of primaquine 0.25 mg/kg/day or 7 days of primaquine 0.5 mg/kg/day in most regions, or 14 days of primaquine 0.5 mg/kg/day in East Asia and Oceania, however the long treatment courses of 7 or 14 days may result in poor adherence and, therefore, low treatment efficacy. A single dose of tafenoquine 300 mg in combination with a 3-day course of chloroquine is an important advancement for the radical cure of vivax malaria in patients without glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency, as the use of a single-dose treatment will improve adherence. Selection of a single 300 mg dose of tafenoquine for the radical cure of P. vivax malaria was based on collective efficacy and safety data from 33 studies involving more than 4000 trial participants who received tafenoquine, including over 800 subjects who received the 300 mg single dose. The safety profile of single-dose tafenoquine 300 mg is similar to that of standard-dosage primaquine 0.25 mg/kg/day for 14 days. Both primaquine and tafenoquine can cause acute haemolytic anaemia in individuals with G6PD deficiency; severe haemolysis can lead to anaemia, kidney damage, and, in some cases, death. Therefore, relapse prevention using an 8-aminoquinoline must be balanced with the need to avoid clinical haemolysis associated with G6PD deficiency. To minimize this risk, the WHO recommends G6PD testing for all individuals before the administration of curative doses of 8-aminoquinolines. In this article, the authors review key efficacy and safety data from the pivotal trials of tafenoquine and argue that the currently approved dose represents a favourable benefit-risk profile.

Structured benefit-risk assessment for enoxaparin, in the context of its label extension, for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, and prevention of its recurrence in patients with active cancer.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) for patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. However, until recently, only dalteparin and tinzaparin were approved in the European Economic Area (EEA) for these patients. This study compares the benefit-risk profile of enoxaparin with dalteparin and tinzaparin for the extended treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), and prevention of recurrence in adult patients with active cancer. METHODS: A semi-quantitative structured benefit-risk assessment was conducted for the label-extension application of enoxaparin based on the benefit-risk action team descriptive framework: define decision context; determine key benefit and risk outcomes; identify data sources; extract data; interpret results. RESULTS: The key benefits were defined as reduced all-cause mortality and venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence (including symptomatic DVT, fatal PE or non-fatal PE); the key risks were major and non-major bleeding of clinical significance, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Enoxaparin demonstrated comparable effects for the reduction of VTE recurrence and all-cause mortality versus other EEA-approved LMWHs (dalteparin, tinzaparin). There was no evidence of a significant difference between enoxaparin and the comparator groups with regard to incidence of major and non-major bleeding. The data on HIT were too limited to assess the difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment demonstrated a favourable benefit-risk profile for enoxaparin similar to that of other EEA-approved LMWHs for the treatment of DVT and PE and the prevention of recurrence in patients with active cancer and thus supported the label-extension approval.

Design of a clinical trial using generalized pairwise comparisons to test a less intensive treatment regimen.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Showing "similar efficacy" of a less intensive treatment typically requires a non-inferiority trial. Yet such trials may be challenging to design and conduct. In acute promyelocytic leukemia, great progress has been achieved with the introduction of targeted therapies, but toxicity remains a major clinical issue. There is a pressing need to show the favorable benefit/risk of less intensive treatment regimens. METHODS: We designed a clinical trial that uses generalized pairwise comparisons of five prioritized outcomes (alive and event-free at 2 years, grade 3/4 documented infections, differentiation syndrome, hepatotoxicity, and neuropathy) to confirm a favorable benefit/risk of a less intensive treatment regimen. We conducted simulations based on historical data and assumptions about the differences expected between the standard of care and the less intensive treatment regimen to calculate the sample size required to have high power to show a positive Net Treatment Benefit in favor of the less intensive treatment regimen. RESULTS: Across 10,000 simulations, average sample sizes of 260 to 300 patients are required for a trial using generalized pairwise comparisons to detect typical Net Treatment Benefits of 0.19 (interquartile range 0.14-0.23 for a sample size of 280). The Net Treatment Benefit is interpreted as a difference between the probability of doing better on the less intensive treatment regimen than on the standard of care, minus the probability of the opposite situation. A Net Treatment Benefit of 0.19 translates to a number needed to treat of about 5.3 patients (1/0.19 ≃ 5.3). CONCLUSION: Generalized pairwise comparisons allow for simultaneous assessment of efficacy and safety, with priority given to the former. The sample size required would be of the order of 300 patients, as compared with more than 700 patients for a non-inferiority trial using a margin of 4% against the less intensive treatment regimen for the absolute difference in event-free survival at 2 years, as considered here.

Statistical and practical considerations in planning and conduct of dose-optimization trials.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration launched Project Optimus with the aim of shifting the paradigm of dose-finding and selection toward identifying the optimal biological dose that offers the best balance between benefit and risk, rather than the maximum tolerated dose. However, achieving dose optimization is a challenging task that involves a variety of factors and is considerably more complicated than identifying the maximum tolerated dose, both in terms of design and implementation. This article provides a comprehensive review of various design strategies for dose-optimization trials, including phase 1/2 and 2/3 designs, and highlights their respective advantages and disadvantages. In addition, practical considerations for selecting an appropriate design and planning and executing the trial are discussed. The article also presents freely available software tools that can be utilized for designing and implementing dose-optimization trials. The approaches and their implementation are illustrated through real-world examples.

Investigating Stability in Subgroup Identification for Stratified Medicine.

Subgroup analysis may be used to investigate treatment effect heterogeneity among subsets of the study population defined by baseline characteristics. Several methodologies have been proposed in recent years and with these, statistical issues such as multiplicity, complexity, and selection bias have been widely discussed. Some methods adjust for one or more of these issues; however, few of them discuss or consider the stability of the subgroup assignments. We propose exploring the stability of subgroups as a sensitivity analysis step for stratified medicine to assess the robustness of the identified subgroups besides identifying possible factors that may drive this instability. After applying Bayesian credible subgroups, a nonparametric bootstrap can be used to assess stability at subgroup-level and patient-level. Our findings illustrate that when the treatment effect is small or not so evident, patients are more likely to switch to different subgroups (jumpers) across bootstrap resamples. In contrast, when the treatment effect is large or extremely convincing, patients generally remain in the same subgroup. While the proposed subgroup stability method is illustrated through Bayesian credible subgroups method on time-to-event data, this general approach can be used with other subgroup identification methods and endpoints.

[Benefit-risk assessment of three oral Chinese patent medicines for activating blood and eliminating mass in treating primary liver cancer based on network Meta-analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis].

Network Meta-analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis(MCDA) model were performed to evaluate the benefit-risk of Compound Cantharis Capsules, Huisheng Oral Solution, and Jinlong Capsules in the adjuvant treatment of primary liver cancer(PLC). The randomized controlled trial(RCT) of Compound Cantharis Capsules, Huisheng Oral Solution, and Jinlong Capsules in treating PLC were retrieved from CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. R 4.2 was employed to conduct a network Meta-analysis, on the basis of which the effect values of the three medicines were obtained by indirect comparison. MCDA was performed to establish the value tree based on the benefit-risk indexes. Hiview 3.2 was used to calculate the benefit values, risk values, and benefit-risk values of the three medicines in treating PLC, and a sensitivity analysis was carried out to evaluate the robustness of the results. Oracle Crystal Ball 11.1 was employed to optimize the evaluation results by Monte Carlo simulation. A total of 39 RCTs were included. The results showed that Compound Cantharis Capsules, Huisheng Oral Solution, and Jinlong Capsules combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization(TACE) had the benefit values of 45, 51 and 45, the risk values of 59, 47, and 41, and the benefit-risk values of 52, 49, and 43, respectively. The benefit-risk differences and [95%CI] of Compound Cantharis Capsules vs Huisheng Oral Solution, Compound Cantharis Capsules vs Jinlong Capsules, and Huisheng Oral Solution vs Jinlong Capsules were 3.00[-13.09, 21.82], 9.00[-4.39, 24.62], and 6.00[-8.84, 20.28], respectively. Based on the results of MCDA, Huisheng Oral Solution, Jinlong Capsules, and Compound Cantharis Capsules combined with TACE had the greatest benefit, the greatest risk, and the best overall benefit, respectively. Considering the efficacy and safety, the priority of the three oral Chinese patent medicines combined with TACE for treating PLC followed the trend of Compound Cantharis Capsules, Huisheng Oral Solution, and Jinlong Capsules.

Illustrating Emerging Good Practices for Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Hypothetical Case Study of Systemic Biologic Treatments for Plaque Psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a structured process to evaluate the benefit-risk balance of treatment options to support decision making. The ISPOR qBRA Task Force was recently established to provide recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of qBRA. This report presents a hypothetical case study illustrating how to apply the Task Force's recommendations toward a qBRA to inform the benefit-risk assessment of brodalumab at the time of initial marketing approval. The qBRA evaluated 2 dosing regimens of brodalumab (210 mg or 140 mg twice weekly) compared with weight-based dosing of ustekinumab and placebo. METHODS: We followed the 5 steps recommended by the Task Force. Attributes included treatment response (≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index), suicidal ideation and behavior, and infections. Performance data were drawn from pivotal clinical trials of brodalumab. The qBRA used multicriteria decision analysis and preference weights from a hypothetical discrete choice experiment. Sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of benefit-risk ranking to uncertainty in clinical effect and preference estimates, consideration of a subgroup (nail psoriasis), and the maintenance phase of treatment (52 weeks instead of 12). RESULTS: Results from this hypothetical qBRA suggest that brodalumab 210 mg had a more favorable benefit-risk profile compared with ustekinumab and placebo. Ranking of brodalumab compared with ustekinumab was dependent on brodalumab's dose. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness of benefit-risk ranking to uncertainty in clinical effect and preference estimates, as well as choice of attributes and length of follow-up. CONCLUSION: This case study demonstrates how to implement the ISPOR Task Force's good practice recommendations on qBRA.

Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment in Medical Product Decision Making: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

Benefit-risk assessment is commonly conducted by drug and medical device developers and regulators, to evaluate and communicate issues around benefit-risk balance of medical products. Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) is a set of techniques that incorporate explicit outcome weighting within a formal analysis to evaluate the benefit-risk balance. This report describes emerging good practices for the 5 main steps of developing qBRAs based on the multicriteria decision analysis process. First, research question formulation needs to identify the needs of decision makers and requirements for preference data and specify the role of external experts. Second, the formal analysis model should be developed by selecting benefit and safety endpoints while eliminating double counting and considering attribute value dependence. Third, preference elicitation method needs to be chosen, attributes framed appropriately within the elicitation instrument, and quality of the data should be evaluated. Fourth, analysis may need to normalize the preference weights, base-case and sensitivity analyses should be conducted, and the effect of preference heterogeneity analyzed. Finally, results should be communicated efficiently to decision makers and other stakeholders. In addition to detailed recommendations, we provide a checklist for reporting qBRAs developed through a Delphi process conducted with 34 experts.

Design of paediatric trials with benefit-risk endpoints using a composite score of adverse events of interest (AEI) and win-statistics.

A fundamental problem in the regulatory evaluation of a therapy is assessing whether the benefit outweighs the associated risks. This work proposes designing a trial that assesses a composite endpoint consisting of benefit and risk, hence, making the core of the design of the study, to assess benefit and risk. The proposed benefit risk measure consists of efficacy measure(s) and a risk measure that is based on a composite score obtained from pre-defined adverse events of interest (AEI). This composite score incorporates full aspects of adverse events of interest (i.e. the incidence, severity, and duration of the events). We call this newly proposed score the AEI composite score. After specifying the priorities between the components of the composite endpoint, a win-statistic (i.e. win ratio, win odds, or net benefit) is used to assess the difference between treatments in this composite endpoint. The power and sample size requirements of such a trial design are explored via simulation. Finally, using Dupixent published adult study results, we show how we can design a paediatric trial where the primary outcome is a composite of prioritized outcomes consisting of efficacy endpoints and the AEI composite score endpoint. The resulting trial design can potentially substantially reduce sample size compared to a trial designed to assess the co-primary efficacy endpoints, therefore it may address the challenge of slow enrollment and patient availability for paediatric studies.

Estimand in benefit-risk assessment.

ICH E9(R1) introduces the estimand framework to strengthen dialogues between sponsors and regulators during drug development. A well-structured benefit-risk assessment (BRA) framework also intends to facilitate communication among stakeholders. However, the estimand in ICH E9(R1) is written mainly from the perspective of a single measure of treatment effect in clinical trials. There is lack of systematic discussion on estimand in the context of BRA. This paper initiates the BRA discussion under the estimand framework. By identifying two types of BRA approaches, we summarize and discuss completed clinical trials, using the estimand language for BRA. Benefits and challenges of using estimand for BRA are also discussed.

Use of Bayesian decision analysis to maximize value in patient-centered randomized clinical trials in Parkinson's disease.

A fixed one-sided significance level of 5% is commonly used to interpret the statistical significance of randomized clinical trial (RCT) outcomes. While it is necessary to reduce the false positive rate, the threshold used could be chosen quantitatively and transparently to specifically reflect patient preferences regarding benefit-risk tradeoffs as well as other considerations. How can patient preferences be explicitly incorporated into RCTs in Parkinson's disease (PD), and what is the impact on statistical thresholds for device approval? In this analysis, we apply Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to PD patient preference scores elicited from survey data. BDA allows us to choose a sample size (n) and significance level (α) that maximizes the overall expected value to patients of a balanced two-arm fixed-sample RCT, where the expected value is computed under both null and alternative hypotheses. For PD patients who had previously received deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment, the BDA-optimal significance levels fell between 4.0% and 10.0%, similar to or greater than the traditional value of 5%. Conversely, for patients who had never received DBS, the optimal significance level ranged from 0.2% to 4.4%. In both of these populations, the optimal significance level increased with the severity of the patients' cognitive and motor function symptoms. By explicitly incorporating patient preferences into clinical trial designs and the regulatory decision-making process, BDA provides a quantitative and transparent approach to combine clinical and statistical significance. For PD patients who have never received DBS treatment, a 5% significance threshold may not be conservative enough to reflect their risk-aversion level. However, this study shows that patients who previously received DBS treatment present a higher tolerance to accept therapeutic risks in exchange for improved efficacy which is reflected in a higher statistical threshold.

Net benefit of diagnostic tests for multistate diseases: an indicator variables approach.

A limitation of the common measures of diagnostic test performance, such as sensitivity and specificity, is that they do not consider the relative importance of false negative and false positive test results, which are likely to have different clinical consequences. Therefore, the use of classification or prediction measures alone to compare diagnostic tests or biomarkers can be inconclusive for clinicians. Comparing tests on net benefit can be more conclusive because clinical consequences of misdiagnoses are considered. The literature suggested evaluating the binary diagnostic tests based on net benefit, but did not consider diagnostic tests that classify more than two disease states, e.g., stroke subtype (large-artery atherosclerosis, cardioembolism, small-vessel occlusion, stroke of other determined etiology, stroke of undetermined etiology), skin lesion subtype, breast cancer subtypes (benign, mass, calcification, architectural distortion, etc.), METAVIR liver fibrosis state (F0- F4), histopathological classification of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), prostate Gleason grade, brain injury (intracranial hemorrhage, mass effect, midline shift, cranial fracture) . Other diseases have more than two stages, such as Alzheimer's disease (dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive disability (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease, and preclinical presymptomatics due to Alzheimer's disease). In diseases with more than two states, the benefits and risks may vary between states. This paper extends the net-benefit approach of evaluating binary diagnostic tests to multi-state clinical conditions to rule-in or rule-out a clinical condition based on adverse consequences of work-up delay (due to false negative test result) and unnecessary workup (due to false positive test result). We demonstrate our approach with numerical examples and real data.

Evidence synthesis analysis with prioritized benefit outcomes in oncology clinical trials.

Overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response/complete response, and duration of (complete) response are frequently used as the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints for designs and analyses of oncology clinical trials. However, these endpoints are typically analyzed separately. In this article, we introduce an evidence synthesis approach to prioritize the benefit outcomes by applying the generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) method, and use win statistics (win ratio, win odds and net benefit) to quantify treatment benefit. Under the framework of GPC, the main advantage of this evidence synthesis approach is the ability to combine relevant outcomes of various types into a single summary statistic without relying on any parametric assumptions. It is particularly relevant since health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry are increasingly incorporating structured quantitative methodologies in their benefit-risk assessment. We apply this evidence synthesis approach to an oncology phase 3 study in first-line renal cell carcinoma to assess the overall effect of an investigational treatment by ranking the most clinically relevant endpoints in cancer drug development. This application and a simulation study demonstrate that the proposed approach can synthesize the evidence of treatment effect from multiple prioritized benefit outcomes, and has substantial advantage over conventional methods that analyze each individual endpoint separately. We also introduce a newly developed R package WINS for statistical inference based on win statistics.

General science-technology orientation, specific benefit-risk assessment frame, and public acceptance of gene drive biotechnology.

With limited understanding of most new biotechnologies, how do citizens form their opinion and what factors influence their attitudes about these innovations? In this study, we use gene drive biotechnology in agricultural pest management as an example and theoretically propose that given low levels of knowledge and awareness, citizens' acceptance of, or opposition to, gene drive is significantly shaped by two predisposition factors: individuals' general orientation toward science and technology, and their specific benefit-risk assessment frame. Empirically, we employ data collected from a recent US nationally representative public opinion survey (N = 1220) and conduct statistical analyses to test the hypotheses derived from our theoretical expectations. Our statistical analyses, based on various model specifications and controlling for individual-level covariates and state-fixed effects, show that citizens with a more favorable general orientation toward science and technology are more likely to accept gene drive. Our data analyses also demonstrate that citizens' specific gene drive assessment frame-consisting of a potential benefit dimension and a potential risk dimension, significantly shapes their attitudes as well-specifically, people emphasizing more on the benefit dimension are more likely to accept gene drive, whereas those who place more importance on the risk dimension tend to oppose it. We discuss contributions of our study and make suggestions for future research in the conclusion.

Real-world safety of nusinersen in Japan: results from an interim analysis of a post-marketing surveillance and safety database.

PURPOSE: Nusinersen is the first disease-modifying therapy to treat spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). This report describes the safety and effectiveness of nusinersen in Japanese clinical use using two data sources: an ongoing Japanese post-marketing surveillance (PMS) and the safety database of the marketing authorisation holder, Biogen . MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PMS is evaluating the safety and effectiveness of nusinersen in all patients treated with nusinersen in Japan between August 2017 and August 2025; this interim analysis included data up to May 30, 2019. Biogen safety database data up to June 30, 2019 were also included to capture adverse events (AEs) from after the interim analysis cutoff date. Collected data included medical history, dosage and administration, and AEs. Safety assessment included AEs and serious AEs (SAEs). Effectiveness analyses included motor function assessments and clinical global impressions of improvement. RESULTS: Of 271 patients in the PMS population, 94 had SMA type I (34.7%), and 177 had SMA types II-IV (65.3%). AEs occurred in 67 patients (24.7%) and SAEs in 23 patients (8.5%). The Biogen safety database contained reports of 345 AEs; the most common were pneumonia, headache, and pyrexia, consistent with symptoms of SMA and lumbar puncture. In the analysis set, 26.2% of patients receiving nusinersen showed motor function improvements and 99.6-100.0% showed overall improvement. CONCLUSION: In this interim analysis of the PMS and Biogen safety database, nusinersen had a favourable benefit-risk profile in Japanese patients with SMA.

Recommendations for risk minimization when using Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of chronic inflammatory skin diseases.

In accordance with article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has re-evaluated the safety of Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory diseases and formulated safety information deviating from the previous indications in the respective summary of product characteristics of the products concerned. These refer to the consideration of a possibly increased risk of venous thromboembolic or severe cardiovascular events, an increased infection rate and an increase in the prevalence of skin cancer across drugs and indications. Therefore, in patients with independent risk factors (age 65 years and older, smokers or former smokers, patients with oral contraception or hormone replacement therapy and other risk factors), it is recommended to use Janus kinase inhibitors therapeutically only if there are no suitable treatment alternatives. To facilitate a pragmatic and thorough detection of high-risk patients in everyday clinical practice, an interdisciplinary checklist was developed that is suitable as a working tool from the perspective of the dermatologist.

[Current aspects on the antipsychotic treatment of older people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders]. / Aktuelle Aspekte zur antipsychotischen Behandlung älterer Menschen mit Erkrankungen des schizophrenen Spektrums.

BACKGROUND: From a geriatric perspective, the use of antipsychotic drugs (AP) is associated with significant risks in addition to their known effects. These include unfavorable interactions with geriatric syndromes, such as immobility and risk of falling, and potentially increased mortality, at least in certain patient groups. With reference to this the current state of knowledge on treatment with AP in older people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders is summarized with a focus on the typical multimorbidity of geriatric patients. METHODS: Narrative review with special consideration of guidelines and consensus papers from German speaking countries and a PubMed-supported literature search for current systematic reviews and meta-analyses. RESULTS: Antipsychotic agents are an essential part of a comprehensive treatment concept for schizophrenia with well-documented evidence. In geriatric patients adaptations under gerontopharmacological aspects are necessary. A sufficient data basis for evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of multimorbid and frail geriatric patients does not exist. CONCLUSION: An effective and as safe as possible treatment with AP requires a careful risk-benefit assessment, combined with an individual adaptation regarding the substance applied, dose and treatment duration in an interdisciplinary/multiprofessional context.

Key risk factors for the relative and absolute 5-year risk of cancer to enhance cancer screening and prevention.

BACKGROUND: This study identifies populations who may benefit most from expanded cancer screening. METHODS: Two American Cancer Society prospective cohort studies, Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort and Cancer Prevention Study-3, were used to identify the risk factors associated with a > 2% absolute risk of any cancer within 5 years. In total, 429,991 participants with no prior personal history of cancer were followed for cancer for up to 5 years. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for association. By using these hazard ratios, individualized coherent absolute risk estimation was used to calculate absolute risks by age. RESULTS: Overall, 15,226 invasive cancers were diagnosed among participants within 5 years of enrollment. The multivariable-adjusted relative risk of any cancer was strongest for current smokers compared with never-smokers. In men, alcohol intake, family history of cancer, red meat consumption, and physical inactivity were also associated with risk (p < .05). In women, body mass index, type 2 diabetes, hysterectomy, parity, family history of cancer, hypertension, tubal ligation, and physical inactivity were associated (p < .05). The absolute 5-year risk exceeded 2% among nearly all participants older than 50 years and among some participants younger than 50 years, including current or former smokers (<30 years since quitting) and long-term nonsmokers with a body mass index >25 kg/m2 or a first-degree family history of cancer. The absolute 5-year risk was as high as 29% in men and 25% in women. CONCLUSIONS: Older age and smoking were the two most important risk factors associated with the relative and absolute 5-year risk of developing any cancer.