ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, allergic disease of the esophagus. Current treatment options are limited. One experimental therapy is antibodies against interleukin-5 (IL-5). However, it is unknown why some patients respond to anti-IL-5 treatment whereas others do not. We sought to delineate predictors of histologic response to anti-IL-5 therapy in pediatric EoE. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a multicenter, double-blind clinical trial (ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT00358449) evaluated mepolizumab for the treatment of EoE in pediatric patients. Predictors were assessed for their association with a histologic response at week 12 of treatment. A histologic response was defined as either <15 eosinophils per hpf or a reduction in peak eosinophil counts by ≥50%. Predictors on univariate analysis with P < 0.10 were included in multivariate logistic regression models. Statistical significance for multivariate comparisons was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Patients with a higher BMI were more likely to attain histologic response at week 12, defined as <15 eosinophils per hpf [aOR, 1.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07-1.60; P = 0.008]. Higher BMI (aOR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.06-2.74; P = 0.029) and signs of exudate plaques on endoscopy (aOR, 18.30; 95% CI, 2.11-158.53; P = 0.008) were significant predictors of histologic response at week 12 where a histologic response was defined as a reduction in peak eosinophil counts by ≥50. CONCLUSION: Higher BMI and signs of exudative plaques on endoscopy may be predictors of histologic response in pediatric EoE patients treated with antibodies against IL-5. Further studies are needed to validate our findings.
Subject(s)
Eosinophilic Esophagitis , Humans , Child , Eosinophilic Esophagitis/drug therapy , Eosinophilic Esophagitis/diagnosis , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Eosinophils/pathologyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: With the current movement toward treating oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (OMPC), we design a study with the objective of gathering opinions regarding what would be considered a clinically significant benefit from such treatments. METHODS: Data was collected from physicians of the Society of Urologic Oncology using a self-administered questionnaire using SurveyMonkey. The questionnaire was designed to obtain characteristics on clinical practice of the respondents, definitions used for OMPC and also what would be considered a clinically significant benefit according to the respondents. We present a descriptive analysis of the responses obtained. RESULTS: We obtained 119 responses (response rate of 12.6%) after sending the questionnaire twice with one month apart. Most of them being staff/faculty (89%) practicing in the United States of America (84.87%). Most of the responders referred that a significant proportion of their practice comes from PC patients. Most defined OMPC <3 bone/lymph node metastasis seen with conventional imaging, only 26.9% of the responders used positron emission tomography. Regarding the clinical benefit of metastasis-oriented treatment, a curing rate >10% or an increase in 1 year of androgen deprivation therapy-free survival would make the treatment worthwhile. We present examples of sample size calculations for future clinical trials using these parameters as an expected "clinically-significant" benefit. CONCLUSION: This study shows that most clinicians still support the use of conventional imaging to define OMPC. Our findings show that a curing rate of a minimum of 11% and an androgen deprivation therapy-free survival at 1 year are considered clinically significant and this should be used for estimating the sample size in future clinical trials.
