Citations

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. The Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00066690 ) randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer to 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian function suppression (OFS), or exemestane plus OFS. The primary analysis compared disease-free survival (DFS) between tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone; exemestane plus OFS versus tamoxifen was a secondary objective. After 8 years, SOFT reported a significant reduction in recurrence and improved overall survival (OS) with adjuvant tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen alone. Here, we report outcomes after median follow-up of 12 years. DFS remained significantly improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98) with a 12-year DFS of 71.9% with tamoxifen, 76.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 79.0% with exemestane plus OFS. OS was improved with tamoxifen plus OFS versus tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.01) and was 86.8% with tamoxifen, 89.0% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 89.4% with exemestane plus OFS at 12 years. Among those who received prior chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2–negative tumors, OS was 78.8% with tamoxifen, 81.1% with tamoxifen plus OFS, and 84.4% with exemestane plus OFS. In conclusion, after 12 years, there remains a benefit from including OFS in adjuvant endocrine therapy, with an absolute improvement in OS more apparent with higher baseline risk of recurrence. [Media: see text]

AbstractIntroductionThe CDR Dementia Staging Instrument PLUS National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (CDR plus NACC FTLD) was developed by adding to the standard CDR two extra domains focused on the main features of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD): language and behavior/personality. We intended to perform the validation studies for the European‐Portuguese population.MethodsA total of 105 participants matched for age, education, and disease staging (35 bvFTD, 35 AD, and 35 controls) were included. A translated‐version of the CDR and the two added domains was administered by a neuropsychologist who was blinded to the diagnosis.ResultsThe bvFTD group had higher baseline CDR plus NACC FTLD scores compared to the AD and controls. Only the sum‐of‐boxes (SB) score, the behavior/personality, and language domains were able to distinguish between clinical groups. Logistic regression analyses showed that adding the behavior/personality domain with or without language significantly enhanced the discriminating ability.DiscussionResults show that the CDR plus NACC FTLD is a reliable tool in the diagnostic process of bvFTD patients and has an added value in distinguishing them from patients with AD.

Objective Supraventricular arrhythmias are common in adults with Ebstein anomaly (EA). However, there are limited data about prognostic implications of atrial fibrillation (AF) in this population. Accordingly, our aim was to assess the clinical profile and burden of AF in adults with EA, and the relationship between AF and outcomes. Methods and results Six hundred eighty-two consecutive adults with a median age of 36 (24–49) years from Mayo Clinic, Minnesota, USA, between 2003 and 2020 were included. Sustained episodes of AF, clinical, echocardiographic, rhythm and surgical data were collected. Prevalence of AF at baseline was 18% (126 patients); the first episode occurred at a mean age of 43±17 years. Patients with AF were older, were more likely men, and had hypertension, renal dysfunction, cardiac devices, and more advanced right-sided and left-sided remodelling. During a median follow-up of 156 (81–240) months, 62 patients (11%) developed incident AF. At the last encounter, prevalence of AF was 28% (188 patients); of those, 63 (34%) had recurrent AF. Hospitalisation for heart failure (HF) occurred in 51 patients (7%). AF (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.18 to 4.47; p=0.01) was independently associated with hospitalisation for HF. All-cause death occurred in 53 patients (8%); it was more frequent in those with AF in the univariable analysis, although it did not remain significant in the multivariable analysis. Conclusions AF in EA develops at relatively young ages with one-third of the cohort exhibiting a recurrent pattern. Patients with AF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities and worse right-sided and left-sided cardiac remodelling. AF was independently associated with HF hospitalisation.

Abstract Objectives The COVID-19 vaccination in autoimmune diseases (COVAD) study aimed to assess short-term COVID-19 vaccination-related adverse events (AEs) in RA patients. Methods An online self-reported questionnaire (March–December 2021) was used to capture data related to COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs in RA, other autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) (excluding RA and inflammatory myositis), non-rheumatic autoimmune diseases (nrAIDs) and healthy controls (HCs). Descriptive and multivariable regression analyses were performed. Results Of the 9462 complete respondents, 14.2% (n = 1347) had been diagnosed with RA; they had a mean (s.d.) age of 50.7 (13.7) years, 74.2% were women and 49.3% were Caucasian. In total, 76.9% and 4.2% of patients with RA reported minor and major AEs, respectively. Patients with active and inactive RA had similar AE and hospitalization frequencies. Overall, AEs were reported more frequently by BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 recipients and less frequently by BBV152 recipients compared with the rest. Major AE and hospitalization frequencies were similar across recipients of different vaccines. Patients receiving methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine reported fewer minor AEs than those patients not on them. Compared with HCs and patients with other AIRDs, patients with RA reported similar total AEs, overall minor AEs, and hospitalizations. Compared with nrAIDs, patients with RA reported lower frequencies of overall AEs, minor AEs (both odds ratio [OR] = 0.7; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.9), and injection site pain (OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.5, 0.8) with similar major AE and hospitalization frequencies. Conclusion Despite the differences in AE frequency across different COVID-19 vaccines, all were well tolerated in patients with RA and were comparable to HCs, providing reassurance as to the safety of COVID-19 vaccination.