Treatment Strategy for Rifampin-Susceptible Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis is usually treated with a 6-month rifampin-based regimen. Whether a strategy involving shorter initial treatment may lead to similar outcomes is unclear. METHODS: In this adaptive, open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned participants with rifampin-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis to undergo either standard treatment (rifampin and isoniazid for 24 weeks with pyrazinamide and ethambutol for the first 8 weeks) or a strategy involving initial treatment with an 8-week regimen, extended treatment for persistent clinical disease, monitoring after treatment, and retreatment for relapse. There were four strategy groups with different initial regimens; noninferiority was assessed in the two strategy groups with complete enrollment, which had initial regimens of high-dose rifampin-linezolid and bedaquiline-linezolid (each with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol). The primary outcome was a composite of death, ongoing treatment, or active disease at week 96. The noninferiority margin was 12 percentage points. RESULTS: Of the 674 participants in the intention-to-treat population, 4 (0.6%) withdrew consent or were lost to follow-up. A primary-outcome event occurred in 7 of the 181 participants (3.9%) in the standard-treatment group, as compared with 21 of the 184 participants (11.4%) in the strategy group with an initial rifampin-linezolid regimen (adjusted difference, 7.4 percentage points; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 13.2; noninferiority not met) and 11 of the 189 participants (5.8%) in the strategy group with an initial bedaquiline-linezolid regimen (adjusted difference, 0.8 percentage points; 97.5% CI, -3.4 to 5.1; noninferiority met). The mean total duration of treatment was 180 days in the standard-treatment group, 106 days in the rifampin-linezolid strategy group, and 85 days in the bedaquiline-linezolid strategy group. The incidences of grade 3 or 4 adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy involving initial treatment with an 8-week bedaquiline-linezolid regimen was noninferior to standard treatment for tuberculosis with respect to clinical outcomes. The strategy was associated with a shorter total duration of treatment and with no evident safety concerns. (Funded by the Singapore National Medical Research Council and others; TRUNCATE-TB ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03474198.).

Pomalidomide and dexamethasone combination with additional cyclophosphamide in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (AMN001)-a trial by the Asian Myeloma Network.

Pomalidomide is a third generation immunomodulatory drug which in combination with dexamethasone, has been shown to be active in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. However, the data in Asian patients remain limited. We conducted a prospective phase two clinical trial in major cancer centers in Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong to assess the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide and dexamethasone combination (PomDex) +/- cyclophosphamide in Asian patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who failed lenalidomide and bortezomib. Patients were treated with pomalidomide (4 mg daily for 21 days every 4 weeks) and dexamethasone (40 mg weekly). If there is less than a minimal response after three cycles of PomDex, cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 can be added (PomCyDex). A total of 136 patients were enrolled. The median PFS was 9 and 10.8 months for the PomDex and PomCyDex group, respectively. The median OS was 16.3 months. This regimen appears to be active across age groups and prior lines of treatment. This combination was overall well tolerated with grade 3 and 4 adverse events of mainly cytopenias. PomDex is highly active and well-tolerated in Asian patients. The addition of cyclophosphamide can improve the response and outcomes further in patients with suboptimal response to PomDex.

Efficacy of warm showers on labor pain and birth experiences during the first labor stage.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of warm showers on parturition pain and the birth experiences of women during the first stage of labor. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (RCT). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted from July 10, 2010 to January 12, 2011 in the maternity ward of a Taipei City regional teaching hospital, site of approximately 220 to 250 births per month. Ninety-two expectant mothers were recruited (recruitment rate: 70.8%) and allocated by block randomization into the two arms of the study. In total, 80 women completed the trial: 41 in the control group and 39 in the experimental group. METHODS: Participants in the experimental group received warm shower bath interventions. Each shower lasted 20 minutes. After a 5-minute full body or lower back shower, participants could spend 15 minutes directing shower water toward any body region that felt most comfortable. Facilities allowed participants to stand and sit as desired. Water was constantly monitored and maintained at a temperature of 37°C. Participants in the control group received standard childbirth care. RESULTS: Labor pain and the birth experience were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale for Pain (VASP) and the Labour Agentry Scale, respectively. After adjusting for demographic and obstetric data, experimental-group women who participated in warm showers reported significantly lower VASP scores at 4-cm and 7-cm cervical dilations, and higher birth experiences than the control group. CONCLUSION: Apart from the positive physical hygiene effects, warm showers are a cost-effective, convenient, easy-to-deploy, nonpharmacological approach to pain reduction. This intervention helps women in labor to participate fully in the birthing process, earn continuous caregiver support, feel cared for and comforted, and have a more positive overall experience.