10 research outputs found
Effectiveness of cover crops for supporting biodiversity and agronomic and ecosystem services in agricultural and rural landscapes
No full textMulticentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, clinical phase II study to evaluate immunonutrition in improving efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, undergoing systematic nutritional counseling
No full textBACKGROUND: Nutritional support, including nutritional counseling and oral nutritional supplements (ONS), has been recommended as a first-line strategy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Evidence on the efficacy of immunonutrition during immunotherapy in these patients is positive, but still limited some secondary endpoints, such as treatment toxicity and tolerance. We hypothesize that early systematic provision of ONS with a high-protein-high calorie mixture containing immunonutrients (Impact®) in addition to nutritional counseling, compared to nutritional counseling alone, is beneficial to patients with NSCLC receiving immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy. We designed the present study to evaluate the efficacy of early systematic provision of ONS enriched with immunonutrients compared to nutritional counseling alone, in patients with NSCLC undergoing immunotherapy. Study endpoints were: treatment response (primary endpoint: progression-free survival), treatment tolerance and toxicity, body weight, body composition, protein-calorie intake, quality of life, fatigue, muscle strength and immunological profile. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomized (1:1), parallel-group, open label, controlled, pilot clinical trial (N = 180). DISCUSSION: The improvement of efficacy of nutritional support in oncology still deserves many efforts. Immunonutrition represents a promising approach also in patients with NSCLC, but evidence on its efficacy on clinical outcomes during immunotherapy is still inconclusive. The present pilot study, which guarantees early high-quality nutritional care (assessment and treatment) to all patients in agreement with current guidelines and recommendations, could represent one of the first proofs of efficacy of early oral immunonutrition in patients with cancer undergoing immunotherapy. Further large randomized trials addressing the improvement of supportive care could be hypothesized, accordingly. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05384873
Exploratory analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone-sparing regimen for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis on food intake (LUNG-NEPA study)
No full textWe demonstrated the non-inferiority of a dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing (single-dose) regimen with NEPA, a netupitant/palonosetron fixed combination, for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by cisplatin. This pre-planned exploratory analysis assessed the effect of the DEX-sparing regimen on a patient's food intake. Chemotherapy-naive patients undergoing cisplatin (>= 70 mg/m(2)) were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either no further DEX (DEX1), or oral DEX (4 mg BID) on days 2-4 (DEX4). Patient-reported endpoint maintenance of usual daily food intake was assessed during the 5-days post-chemotherapy. The relationship between usual daily food intake and CINV control, pre-chemotherapy self-rated food intake and BMI-adjusted weight loss (WL) were evaluated. One-hundred fifty-two patients (76/group) were assessable. The proportion of patients reporting maintenance of usual daily food intake was similar in both groups: 69.7% (95% CI, 58.6-78.9) for DEX1 vs. 72.4% (95% CI, 61.4-81.2) for DEX4. Only CINV control was significantly associated with maintenance of usual daily food intake (P <= 0.001) during the overall phase. The DEX-sparing regimen does not adversely affect patient-reported daily food intake post-chemotherapy. The current analysis adds further insights into antiemetic efficacy of DEX sparing beyond day 1 in the challenging setting of cisplatin.Trial registration: The parent study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04201769)
Dexamethasone-Sparing Regimens with Oral Netupitant and Palonosetron for the Prevention of Emesis Caused by High-Dose Cisplatin: A Randomized Noninferiority Study
No full textBackground: To reduce the overall exposure to dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy, we evaluated the noninferiority of DEX on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA), compared with the guideline-consistent use of 4-day DEX. Patients and Methods: In this open-label, multicenter study, chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing high-dose cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to receive either (a) no further DEX (DEX1), (b) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or (c) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4). The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis and no rescue medication) during the 5-day overall phase. The noninferiority margin was set at −15% difference (DEX1 or DEX3 minus DEX4). Secondary efficacy endpoints included complete protection (CP: CR and none or mild nausea). Results: Two-hundred twenty-eight patients, 76 in each arm, were assessable. Noninferiority was met for both DEX-sparing regimens and the reference arm, with overall phase CR rates of 76.3% in each of the DEX1 and DEX3 arms and 75.0% in the DEX4 arm (95% confidence interval, −12.3% to 15% for each comparison). During the overall phase, CP rates were similar between groups. Conclusion: A simplified regimen of NEPA plus single-dose DEX offers comparable chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting prevention throughout 5 days post-chemotherapy with the advantage of sparing patients additional doses of DEX in the high–emetic-risk setting of cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Implications for Practice: Dexamethasone (DEX) has traditionally played an integral role in the management of chemotherapy-induced emesis. Although generally considered safe, even short-term DEX use is associated with various side effects, and some evidence suggests that concurrent steroids may reduce the efficacy of immunotherapies. This study demonstrates comparable antiemetic control during the 5 days post-chemotherapy with a simplified regimen of netupitant/palonosetron plus single-dose DEX versus the standard 4-day DEX reference treatment in high-dose cisplatin. This represents a clinically relevant achievement as it not only simplifies antiemetic prophylaxis but also offers an opportunity to appropriately use in patients where caution with corticosteroid use is advised
Exploratory analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone-sparing regimen for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis on food intake (LUNG-NEPA study)
No full textWe demonstrated the non-inferiority of a dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing (single-dose) regimen with NEPA, a netupitant/palonosetron fixed combination, for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by cisplatin. This pre-planned exploratory analysis assessed the effect of the DEX-sparing regimen on a patient’s food intake. Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m(2)) were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either no further DEX (DEX1), or oral DEX (4 mg BID) on days 2–4 (DEX4). Patient-reported endpoint maintenance of usual daily food intake was assessed during the 5-days post-chemotherapy. The relationship between usual daily food intake and CINV control, pre-chemotherapy self-rated food intake and BMI-adjusted weight loss (WL) were evaluated. One-hundred fifty-two patients (76/group) were assessable. The proportion of patients reporting maintenance of usual daily food intake was similar in both groups: 69.7% (95% CI, 58.6–78.9) for DEX1 vs. 72.4% (95% CI, 61.4–81.2) for DEX4. Only CINV control was significantly associated with maintenance of usual daily food intake (P ≤ 0.001) during the overall phase. The DEX-sparing regimen does not adversely affect patient-reported daily food intake post-chemotherapy. The current analysis adds further insights into antiemetic efficacy of DEX sparing beyond day 1 in the challenging setting of cisplatin. Trial registration: The parent study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04201769)
Dexamethasone-Sparing Regimens with Oral Netupitant and Palonosetron for the Prevention of Emesis Caused by High-Dose Cisplatin: A Randomized Noninferiority Study
No full textTo reduce the overall exposure to dexamethasone (DEX) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy, we evaluated the noninferiority of DEX on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA), compared with the guideline-consistent use of 4-day DEX
Evaluating the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on daily functioning in patients receiving dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic regimens with NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron) in the cisplatin setting: results from a randomized phase 3 study
No full textBACKGROUND: The non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with or without low-dose DEX on days 2 and 3, combined with oral NEPA (netupitant/palonosetron), compared with the guideline-consistent use of DEX was demonstrated in cisplatin. Here, we complete the analysis by assessing the impact of emesis on daily lives of patients receiving DEX-sparing regimens using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥70 mg/m(2)), were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either 1) no further DEX (DEX1), 2) oral DEX (4 mg daily) on days 2–3 (DEX3), or 3) DEX (4 mg twice daily) on days 2–4 (DEX4; control). Patients completed the FLIE questionnaire on day 6 of cycle 1. Endpoints included the FLIE nausea domain, vomiting domain, and overall combined domain scores, as well as the proportion of patients with no impact on daily life (NIDL; overall score > 108). This was a protocol-planned analysis. RESULTS: In the DEX1 group, no significant differences were observed in the FLIE nausea score (48.9 [±1.8; SE] vs. 53.7 [±1.5]), vomiting score (56.6 [±1.4] vs. 58.7 [±0.8]) and overall score (105.6 [±2.8] vs.112.4 [±1.9]) versus DEX4 control; similar results were observed in the DEX3 group for nausea score (49.6 [±1.7]), vomiting score (58.2 [±1]) and overall score (107.8 [±2.4]) versus control. There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patients reporting NIDL. CONCLUSION: Reducing DEX, when administered with NEPA, does not seem to adversely impact the daily functioning in patients undergoing cisplatin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04201769. Registration date: 17/12/2019 - Retrospectively registered
ROC Analysis Identifies Baseline and Dynamic NLR and dNLR Cut-Offs to Predict ICI Outcome in 402 Advanced NSCLC Patients
No full textBackground: Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) and derived Neutrophils-to-(Leukocytes minus neutrophils) Ratio (dNLR) have been proposed as possible biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). However, in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) studies, various NLR and/or dNLR cut-offs have been used, manly based on previous reports on melanoma. Methods: In this Italian multicenter retrospective study, NLR, dNLR, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, albumin, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were longitudinally assessed in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with ICI. The primary objective was to evaluate if baseline parameters predicted response to ICI, using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. Secondary endpoint was to evaluate if dynamic changing of NLR and dNLR also predicted response. Results: Data of 402 patients were collected and analyzed. Among the baseline parameters considered, NLR and dNLR were the most appropriate biomarkers according to the ROC analyses, which also identified meaningful cut-offs (NLR = 2.46; dNLR = 1.61). Patients with low ratios reported a significantly improved outcome, in terms of overall survival (p = 0.0003 for NLR; p = 0.0002 for dNLR) and progression free survival (p = 0.0004 for NLR; p = 0.005 for dNLR). The role of NLR and dNLR as independent biomarkers of response was confirmed in the Cox regression model. When assessing NLR and dNLR dynamics from baseline to cycle 3, a decrease ≥1.04 for NLR and ≥0.41 for dNLR also predicted response. Conclusions in our cohort, we confirmed that NLR and dNLR, easily assessable on peripheral blood, can predict response at baseline and early after ICI initiation. For both baseline and dynamic assessment, we identified clinically meaningful cut-offs, using ROC curves
Cost and outcome analysis of two alcohol detoxification services
No full textAIM
To examine the relationship between service use and outcomes (individual and wider consequences) using an economic analysis of a direct-access alcohol detoxification service in Manchester (the Smithfield Centre) and an NHS partial hospitalization programme in Newcastle upon Tyne (Newcastle and North Tyneside Drug and Alcohol Service, Plummer Court).
METHODS:
A total of 145 direct-access admissions to the Smithfield Centre and 77 admissions to Plummer Court completed a battery of questionnaires shortly after intake and were followed up 6 months after discharge. Full economic data at follow-up were available for 54 Smithfield admissions and 49 Plummer Court admissions.
RESULTS:
Mean total cost of treatment per patient was £1113 at the Smithfield Centre and £1054 at Plummer Court in 2003–04 prices. Comparing the 6 months before treatment with the 6 months before follow-up, social costs fell by £331 on average for each patient at Plummer Court but rose by £1047 for each patient at the Smithfield Centre. When treatment costs and wider social costs were combined, the total cost to society at Smithfield was on average £2159 per patient whilst at Plummer Court it was £723 per patient. Combining the cost of treatment with drinking outcomes yielded a net cost per unit reduction in alcohol consumption of £1.79 at Smithfield and £1.68 at Plummer Court.
CONCLUSIONS:
Both services delivered a flexible needs-based service to very disadvantaged population at a reasonable cost and were associated with statistically significant reductions in drinking. For some patients, there was evidence of public sector resource savings but for others these detoxification services allowed those not previously in contact with services to meet health and social care needs. These patterns of cost through time are more complex than in previous evaluations of less severely dependent patients and difficult to predict from drinking patterns or patient characteristics. More research is required to judge the suitability of generic health state measures commonly in use for health economic evaluations for assessing the short-term outcomes of alcohol treatment
