Citations

Importance Currently, there are no standardized outcome domains or measures in clinical trials for facial aging. Heterogeneity in outcome domains and measurement instruments across clinical trials creates difficulty in directly comparing interventions, determining superior therapies, and developing high-quality meta-analyses. Objective To develop a core outcome set (COS) of essential domains to be reported in clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of interventions for facial aging. Evidence Review PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were searched from September 2005 to September 2015. An updated search of the same databases was performed from September 2015 to February 2026. Studies were included if (1) they were randomized clinical trial or controlled clinical trial in design, (2) they assessed the efficacy or safety of an intervention for facial aging, (3) they were published in English, and (4) they involved human participants. Complementary sources, including patient interviews, were used to capture further relevant outcomes. Two rounds of Delphi surveys, followed by consensus meetings, were used to identify outcome domains considered most important by both patient and physician stakeholders. Findings The final COS consists of 6 outcome domains: (1) overall convenience of treatment; (2) time to return to normal work and social activity; (3) overall assessment of focused area of treatment (at the point in time when treatment is expected to provide peak benefit); (4) duration of treatment effect; (5) severity of persistent local or systemic adverse events, including pigmentary change, skin texture change, delayed healing, scarring, and serious adverse events; and (6) patient satisfaction with treatment. Conclusions and Relevance The 6 outcome domains identified through a Delphi consensus are recommended for reporting in future facial aging trials to ensure that outcomes that matter most to patients and clinicians are measured and that results are comparable across interventions.

Importance There is a lack of long-term efficacy and safety data on hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis with polyneuropathy (hATTR-PN) and on RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics in general. This study presents the longest-term data to date on patisiran for hATTR-PN. Objective To present the long-term efficacy and safety of patisiran in adults with hATTR-PN. Design, Setting, and Participants This global open-label extension (OLE) of the APOLLO randomized clinical trial and phase 2 OLE study enrolled patients from 43 hospitals or clinical centers across 19 countries between July 2015 and August 2017, with follow-up until November 2022. Of 212 eligible patients with hATTR who completed the phase 3 APOLLO or phase 2 OLE parent studies, 211 enrolled in and 138 completed the global OLE. Intervention Patisiran, 0.3 mg/kg, intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes evaluated at year 5 of the global OLE included disability (polyneuropathy disability [PND] score); polyneuropathy severity (Neuropathy Impairment Score [NIS]), nutritional status (modified body mass index [mBMI]), quality of life (Norfolk Quality of Life–Diabetic Neuropathy [Norfolk QOL-DN]), and Rasch-Built Overall Disability Scale (R-ODS), with no statistical hierarchy. Safety, survival probability, and mortality were also assessed. Results At the global OLE baseline, the mean (SD) age was 61.3 (12.3) years, and 156 patients (73.9%) were male. In 138 patients completing the study, PND scores remained stable or improved in 89 patients (65.0%), NISs showed a mean (SD) change of 10.9 (14.7), and mean (SD) mBMI (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared times serum albumin in grams per liter) increased by 46.4 (120.7) over 5 years from baseline. Norfolk QOL-DN and R-ODS scores showed mean (SD) changes of 4.1 (16.7) and –3.7 (6.2), respectively. Adverse events (AEs) leading to study withdrawal occurred in 47 patients (22.3%). Infusion-related reactions were the most common treatment-related AE (n = 34 [16.1%]). Overall, 41 patients (19.4%) died during the study. Patisiran treatment in the parent study and low familial amyloid polyneuropathy score at parent study baseline were associated with significantly improved survival. Conclusions and Relevance In the longest study of an RNAi therapeutic for any disease, patisiran treatment resulted in modest changes for patients with hATTR-PN with an acceptable safety profile. These results highlight the importance of initiating early treatment for hATTR and the potential of RNAi therapeutics in medicine. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02510261

Abstract Introduction Transthyretin–mediated (ATTR) amyloidosis is a progressive and fatal disease. Patients with hereditary or wild–type ATTR amyloidosis frequently develop cardiomyopathy (CM). Patisiran, an IV RNAi therapeutic that inhibits synthesis of wt and variant TTR, is approved for the treatment of hATTR amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Methods In APOLLO–B, patients were 18–85 yrs old with evidence of cardiac amyloidosis by echocardiography, ATTR amyloid deposition on tissue biopsy or fulfilling nonbiopsy diagnostic criteria for ATTR amyloidosis with CM, and had prior hospitalization for heart failure (HF) due to ATTR amyloidosis or clinical evidence of HF. Patients were randomized 1:1 to patisiran IV 0.3 mg/kg or placebo Q3W for 12 months. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 6–MWT at Month 12 (M12) with patisiran vs placebo. Exploratory parameters at M12 included changes in cardiac biomarkers, echocardiography and Tc scintigraphy. Results APOLLO–B enrolled 360 patients (patisiran, n=181; placebo, n=179): median age, 76.0 yrs; male, 89%; wtATTR, 80%; on tafamidis at baseline, 25%. Patisiran showed a significant benefit compared with placebo in 6–MWT (median [95% CI] change from baseline: patisiran, –8.15 [–16.42, 1.50]; placebo, –21.35 [–34.05, –7.52]; HL estimate of median difference: 14.69 [0.69, 28.69]; p=0.0162). Patisiran demonstrated favorable trends in change from baseline of NT–proBNP (mean fold change ratio [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.73, 0.89]; p=1.825×10–5) and troponin I (mean fold change ratio [95% CI]: 0.87 [0.80, 0.95]; p=0.0011) at M12 vs placebo. Patisiran also demonstrated a trend towards benefit in change from baseline of most evaluated echocardiographic parameters at M12 vs placebo. Patisiran–treated patients evaluable for scintigraphy (n=37) experienced a reduction (37.8%) or no change (62.2%) in Perugini grade at M12 compared with baseline. Among placebo patients (n=28) at M12, none experienced a reduction from baseline in Perugini grade, and 1 (3.6%) increased in grade. Patisiran demonstrated an acceptable safety profile; AEs were mostly mild or moderate in severity, and there were no cardiac safety concerns. Conclusions Exploratory analyses after 12 months provide further evidence for the potential benefit of patisiran treatment on cardiac biomarkers and manifestations of cardiac amyloid involvement in patients with ATTR amyloidosis. The long–term impact of patisiran will be assessed in the ongoing APOLLO–B open–label extension.

Importance Laser-assisted drug delivery (LADD) is used for various medical and cosmetic applications. However, there is insufficient evidence-based guidance to assist clinicians performing LADD. Objective To develop recommendations for the safe and effective use of LADD. Evidence Review A systematic literature review of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE was conducted in December 2019 to identify publications reporting research on LADD. A multidisciplinary panel was convened to draft recommendations informed by the systematic review; they were refined through 2 rounds of Delphi survey, 2 consensus meetings, and iterative review by all panelists until unanimous consensus was achieved. Findings Of the 48 published studies of ablative fractional LADD that met inclusion criteria, 4 were cosmetic studies; 21, oncologic; and 23, medical (not cosmetic/oncologic), and 6 publications of nonablative fractional LADD were included at the request of the expert panel, producing a total of 54 studies. Thirty-four studies (63.0%) were deemed to have low risk of bias, 17 studies (31.5%) had moderate risk, and 3 (5.5%) had serious risk. The key findings that informed the guidelines developed by the expert panel were as follows: LADD is safe in adults and adolescents (≥12 years) with all Fitzpatrick skin types and in patients with immunosuppression; it is an effective treatment for actinic keratosis, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in situ, actinic cheilitis, hypertrophic scars, and keloids; it is useful for epidermal and dermal analgesia; drug delivery may be increased through the application of heat, pressure, or occlusion, or by using an aqueous drug solution; laser settings should be selected to ensure that channel diameter is greater than the delivered molecule; antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended, except with impaired wound healing; antiviral prophylaxis is recommended when treating the face and genitalia; and antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended. The guideline’s 15 recommendations address 5 areas of LADD use: (I) indications and contraindications; (II) parameters to report; (III) optimization of drug delivery; (IV) safety considerations; and (V) prophylaxis for bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and Delphi consensus approach culminated in an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for safe and effective use of LADD in a variety of applications. Future research will further improve our understanding of this novel treatment technique.

Objective: The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery. Background: The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination. Methods: A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements. Results: Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee. Conclusion: The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts’ knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders’ opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

Objective To compare the suitability of CO2 laser with steel instruments for margin excision in transoral laser microsurgery. Methods Prospective randomized blinded study. Patients with glottic cancer undergoing laser resection were randomized to margin excision by either steel instruments or CO2 laser. Margins were analyzed for size, interpretability and degree of artifact by a pathologist who was blinded to technique. Results 45 patients were enrolled in the study with 226 total margins taken. 39 margins taken by laser had marked artifact and 0 were uninterpretable. 20 margins taken by steel instruments had marked artifact, and 2 were uninterpretable. Controlling for margin size, the laser technique was associated with increasing degrees of margin artifact (p = 0.210), but there was no difference in crude rates of uninterpretability (p = 0.24). Conclusion Laser margin excision is associated with a greater degree of artifact than steel instrument excision, but was not associated with higher rate of uninterpretability.