Herlev Hospital

Abstract: Summary Background Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, can result in durable responses in patients with melanoma who have progressed after ipilimumab and BRAF inhibitors. We assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab compared with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (ICC) as a second-line or later-line treatment in patients with advanced melanoma. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients at 90 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had unresectable or metastatic melanoma, and progressed after ipilimumab, or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor if they were BRAF V 600 mutation-positive. Participating investigators randomly assigned (with an interactive voice response system) patients 2:1 to receive an intravenous infusion of nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or ICC (dacarbazine 1000 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks or paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. We stratified randomisation by BRAF mutation status, tumour expression of PD-L1, and previous best overall response to ipilimumab. We used permuted blocks (block size of six) within each stratum. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who had an objective response and overall survival. Treatment was given open-label, but those doing tumour assessments were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed objective responses per-protocol after 120 patients had been treated with nivolumab and had a minimum follow-up of 24 weeks, and safety in all patients who had had at least one dose of treatment. The trial is closed and this is the first interim analysis, reporting the objective response primary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01721746. Findings Between Dec 21, 2012, and Jan 10, 2014, we screened 631 patients, randomly allocating 272 patients to nivolumab and 133 to ICC. Confirmed objective responses were reported in 38 (31·7%, 95% CI 23·5–40·8) of the first 120 patients in the nivolumab group versus five (10·6%, 3·5–23·1) of 47 patients in the ICC group. Grade 3–4 adverse events related to nivolumab included increased lipase (three [1%] of 268 patients), increased alanine aminotransferase, anaemia, and fatigue (two [1%] each); for ICC, these included neutropenia (14 [14%] of 102), thrombocytopenia (six [6%]), and anaemia (five [5%]). We noted grade 3–4 drug-related serious adverse events in 12 (5%) nivolumab-treated patients and nine (9%) patients in the ICC group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Interpretation Nivolumab led to a greater proportion of patients achieving an objective response and fewer toxic effects than with alternative available chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced melanoma that has progressed after ipilimumab or ipilimumab and a BRAF inhibitor. Nivolumab represents a new treatment option with clinically meaningful durable objective responses in a population of high unmet need. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Abstract: BackgroundThe benefit of an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure caused by coronary artery disease has been well documented. However, the evidence for a benefit of prophylactic ICDs in patients with systolic heart failure that is not due to coronary artery disease has been based primarily on subgroup analyses. The management of heart failure has improved since the landmark ICD trials, and many patients now receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). MethodsIn a randomized, controlled trial, 556 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction, ≤35%) not caused by coronary artery disease were assigned to receive an ICD, and 560 patients were assigned to receive usual clinical care (control group). In both groups, 58% of the patients received CRT. The primary outcome of the trial was death from any cause. The secondary outcomes were sudden cardiac death and cardiovascular death. ResultsAfter a median follow-...

Abstract: Background Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor’s product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. This review is an update using more stringent methodology and also investigating sponsorship of device studies. Objectives To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship. Search methods We searched MEDLINE (1948 to September 2010), EMBASE (1980 to September 2010), the Cochrane Methodology Register (Issue 4, 2010) and Web of Science (August 2011). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files. Selection criteria Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions. Data collection and analysis Two assessors identified potentially relevant papers, and a decision about final inclusion was made by all authors. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals). Main results Forty-eight papers were included. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, risk ratio (RR): 1.32 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21 to 1.44), harms results RR: 1.87 (95% CI: 1.54 to 2.27) and conclusions RR: 1.31 (95% CI: 1.20 to 1.44) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Ten papers reported on sponsorship and effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data. The results were heterogeneous; five papers found larger effect sizes in industry sponsored studies compared with non-industry sponsored studies and five papers did not find a difference in effect size. Only two papers (including 120 device studies) reported separate data for devices and we did not find a difference between drug and device studies on the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.23). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment and follow-up. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.32 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.65), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01). Authors' conclusions Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.