Citations

Abstract Purpose: This phase I, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, dose-escalation, and dose-expansion study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and antitumor activity of MEDI-573 in adults with advanced solid tumors refractory to standard therapy or for which no standard therapy exists. Experimental Design: Patients received MEDI-573 in 1 of 5 cohorts (0.5, 1.5, 5, 10, or 15 mg/kg) dosed weekly or 1 of 2 cohorts (30 or 45 mg/kg) dosed every 3 weeks. Primary end points included the MEDI-573 safety profile, maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and optimal biologic dose (OBD). Secondary end points included MEDI-573 pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and antitumor activity. Results: In total, 43 patients (20 with urothelial cancer) received MEDI-573. No dose-limiting toxicities were identified, and only 1 patient experienced hyperglycemia related to treatment. Elevations in levels of insulin and/or growth hormone were not observed. Adverse events observed in >10% of patients included fatigue, anorexia, nausea, diarrhea, and anemia. PK evaluation demonstrated that levels of MEDI-573 increased with dose at all dose levels tested. At doses >5 mg/kg, circulating levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGFII were fully suppressed. Of 39 patients evaluable for response, none experienced partial or complete response and 13 had stable disease as best response. Conclusions: The MTD of MEDI-573 was not reached. The OBD was 5 mg/kg weekly or 30 or 45 mg/kg every 3 weeks. MEDI-573 showed preliminary antitumor activity in a heavily pretreated population and had a favorable tolerability profile, with no notable perturbations in metabolic homeostasis. Clin Cancer Res; 20(18); 4747–57. ©2014 AACR.

A multidisciplinary panel of 18 physicians and 3 non-physicians from eight countries (Sweden, UK, Argentina, Australia, Italy, Finland, Norway and the USA) reviewed the literature on diagnosis and management of adult coeliac disease (CD). This paper presents the recommendations of the British Society of Gastroenterology. Areas of controversies were explored through phone meetings and web surveys. Nine working groups examined the following areas of CD diagnosis and management: classification of CD; genetics and immunology; diagnostics; serology and endoscopy; follow-up; gluten-free diet; refractory CD and malignancies; quality of life; novel treatments; patient support; and screening for CD.

Objectives Debriefing is a common feature of technology‐enhanced simulation ( TES ) education. However, evidence for its effectiveness remains unclear. We sought to characterise how debriefing is reported in the TES literature, identify debriefing features that are associated with improved outcomes, and evaluate the effectiveness of debriefing when combined with TES . Methods We systematically searched databases, including MEDLINE , EMBASE and Scopus, and reviewed previous bibliographies for original comparative studies investigating the use of TES with debriefing in training health care providers. Reviewers, in duplicate, evaluated study quality and abstracted information on instructional design, debriefing and outcomes. Effect sizes ( ES ) were pooled using random‐effects meta‐analysis. Results From 10 903 potentially eligible studies, we identified 177 studies (11 511 learners) that employed debriefing as part of TES . Key characteristics of debriefing (e.g. duration, educator presence and characteristics, content, structure/method, timing, use of video) were usually incompletely reported. A meta‐analysis of four studies demonstrated that video‐assisted debriefing has negligible and non‐significant effects for time skills ( ES = 0.10) compared with non‐video‐assisted debriefing. Meta‐analysis demonstrated non‐significant effects in favour of expert modelling with short debriefing in comparison with long debriefing (ES range = 0.21–0.74). Among studies comparing terminal with concurrent debriefing, results were variable depending on outcome measures and the context of training (e.g. medical resuscitation versus technical skills). Eight additional studies revealed insight into the roles of other debriefing‐related factors (e.g. multimedia debriefing, learner‐led debriefing, debriefing duration, content of debriefing). Among studies that compared simulation plus debriefing with no intervention, pooled ES s were favourable for all outcomes (ES range = 0.28–2.16). Conclusions Limited evidence suggests that video‐assisted debriefing yields outcomes similar to those of non‐video‐assisted debriefing. Other debriefing design features show mixed or non‐significant results. As debriefing characteristics are usually incompletely reported, future debriefing research should describe all the key debriefing characteristics along with their associated descriptors.

Key Points ALK-negative ALCLs have chromosomal rearrangements of DUSP22 or TP63 in 30% and 8% of cases, respectively. DUSP22-rearranged cases have favorable outcomes similar to ALK-positive ALCLs, whereas other genetic subtypes have inferior outcomes.

Background There is a considerable amount of practice variation in managing migraines in emergency settings, and evidence-based therapies are often not used first line. Methods A peer-reviewed search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) was carried out to identify randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions for acute pain relief in adults presenting with migraine to emergency settings. Where possible, data were pooled into meta-analyses. Results Two independent reviewers screened 831 titles and abstracts for eligibility. Three independent reviewers subsequently evaluated 120 full text articles for inclusion, of which 44 were included. Individual studies were then assigned a US Preventive Services Task Force quality rating. The GRADE scheme was used to assign a level of evidence and recommendation strength for each intervention. Interpretation We strongly recommend the use of prochlorperazine based on a high level of evidence, lysine acetylsalicylic acid, metoclopramide and sumatriptan, based on a moderate level of evidence, and ketorolac, based on a low level of evidence. We weakly recommend the use of chlorpromazine based on a moderate level of evidence, and ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, lidocaine intranasal and meperidine, based on a low level of evidence. We found evidence to recommend strongly against the use of dexamethasone, based on a moderate level of evidence, and granisetron, haloperidol and trimethobenzamide based on a low level of evidence. Based on moderate-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of acetaminophen and magnesium sulfate. Based on low-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of diclofenac, droperidol, lidocaine intravenous, lysine clonixinate, morphine, propofol, sodium valproate and tramadol.

Background— Decision aids (DAs) increase patient knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and promote shared decision making (SDM). The extent to which they do so across diverse sociodemographic patient groups is unknown. Methods and Results— We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials of DA versus usual care comprising 771 encounters between patients and clinicians discussing treatment options for chest pain, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and osteoporosis. Using a random effects model, we examined the impact of sociodemographic patient characteristics (age, sex, education, income, and insurance status) on the outcomes of knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. Because of small numbers of people of color in the study population, we were not powered to investigate the role of race. Most patients were aged ≥65 years (61%), white (94%), and women (59%); two thirds had greater than a high school education. Compared with usual care, DA patients gained knowledge, were more likely to know their risk, and had less decisional conflict along with greater involvement in SDM. These gains were largely consistent across sociodemographic patient groups, with DAs demonstrating similar efficacy when used with vulnerable patients such as the elderly and those with less income and less formal education. Differences in efficacy were found only in knowledge of risk in 1 subgroup, with greater efficacy among those with higher education (35% versus 18%; P =0.02). Conclusions— In this patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, DAs were efficacious across diverse sociodemographic groups as measured by knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. To the extent that DAs increase patient knowledge and participation in SDM, they have potential to impact health disparities related to these factors.