Clinical and Molecular Variables Associated With Early Progression to Checkpoint Inhibitors in MSI-High Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: About one third of patients with deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer (dMMR/MSI-H mCRC) experience primary resistance or early progression on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), while others benefit from exceptionally long-lasting responses. In this single-centre retrospective study, we aimed to identify variables associated with improved overall survival (OS) as well as early disease progression. METHODS: All dMMR/MSI-H mCRC patients treated with ICI between 2014 and 2022 were included. Baseline patient demographics, tumour characteristics as well response and outcome data were recorded. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Uni- and multivariate cox regression analysis was used to identify parameters associated with improved OS. Clinicopathological factors associated with early progression (≤ 12 months after treatment initiation) were assessed using uni- and multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: About 84 ICI-treated dMMR/MSI-H mCRC patients were included. Progressive disease occurred in 37 (44%) patients, but only in 11 (19%) patients with disease control at 12 months. Median OS was 80 months and improved outcome was associated with a lower neutrophile-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (P = .004) and the presence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (P = .015). Early progression was associated with poor performance status (P = .036), a higher blood CRP level (P = .033) and absence of irAEs (P = .002). CONCLUSION: Disease progression in ICI-treated dMMR/MSI-H mCRC rarely occurs in patients experiencing disease control for at least 12 months. Performance status, presence of immune-related adverse events, CRP levels, CEA levels and NLR can be helpful to identify those patients that may benefit from ICI treatment, guiding clinicians in therapeutic decisions.

Isolated amyloidosis of the gastro-intestinal tract.

Amyloidosis is a very rare condition, which, due to its rarity, is often missed or diagnosed in an advanced stage of the disease, causing significant morbidity and mortality. In this review we describe the existing types of amyloidosis focusing on the gastro-intestinal tract. Amyloidosis occurs when abnormal protein fibrils (amyloid) deposit in the muscularis mucosae. This can cause an array of symptoms ranging from (in order of occurrence): gastro-intestinal bleeding, heartburn, unintentional weight loss, early satiety, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and fecal incontinence (1). Treatment is focused on the underlying condition (if any) causing the production and deposition of the abnormal fibrils, in combination of symptomatic treatment.

Factors influencing the prescription of intensive combination treatment strategies for early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the availability and demonstrated effectiveness of intensive combination treatment strategies (ICTS) for early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a discrepancy seems to exist between theoretical evidence and actual prescription in daily practice. The purpose of this study was to explore and identify the factors influencing the prescription of ICTS. METHOD: This study involved rheumatologists and nurses participating in the Care for Rheumatoid Arthritis (CareRA) trial, a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing different ICTS for early RA with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) plus step-down glucocorticoids (GCs). A qualitative study was carried out using individual semi-structured interviews. Each interview was recorded, transcribed literally, and analysed thematically. In addition, observations at outpatient clinics were used to clarify the interpretation of the results. RESULTS: We interviewed 26 rheumatologists and six nurses and observed five outpatient visits. Identified facilitators included available scientific evidence, personal faith in treatment strategy, staff support, and low treatment costs. Rheumatologists had no doubts about the value of methotrexate (MTX) but some questioned the value of combination strategy, others the effectiveness and/or the dosage of individual compounds. Additional barriers for prescribing ICTS included need for patient education, fear for patients' preconceptions, concerns about applicability to the individual patient, difficulties with breaking routine, interference with organizational structures and processes, time constraints, and lack of financial support. CONCLUSIONS: A heterogeneous set of factors highlights the complexity of prescribing ICTS for early RA in daily clinical practice. Future improvement strategies should stimulate the facilitators while at the same time addressing the barriers. The generalizability of these findings to other health care systems needs further examination.

Rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists approach the decision to escalate care differently: results of a maximum difference scaling experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Antirheumatic treatment is frequently not appropriately modified, according to American College of Rheumatology guidelines, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as defined by a Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score greater than 3.2. The objective of this study was to determine which factors most strongly influence patients' and rheumatologists' decisions to escalate care. METHODS: We administered a Maximum Difference Scaling survey to 106 rheumatologists and 213 patients with RA. The survey included 58 factors related to the decision to escalate care in RA. Participants answered 24 choice tasks. In each task, participants were asked to choose the most important factor from a set of 5. We used hierarchical Bayes modeling to generate the mean relative importance score (RIS) for each factor. RESULTS: For rheumatologists, the 5 most influential factors were number of swollen joints (mean ± SD RIS 5.2 ± 0.4), DAS28 score (mean ± SD RIS 5.2 ± 0.5), physician global assessment of disease activity (mean ± SD RIS 5.2 ± 0.6), worsening erosions over the last year (mean ± SD RIS 5.2 ± 0.5), and RA disease activity now compared to 3 months ago (mean ± SD RIS 5.1 ± 0.6). For patients, the 5 most important factors were current level of physical functioning (mean ± SD RIS 4.3 ± 1.1), motivation to get better (mean ± SD RIS 3.5 ± 1.4), trust in their rheumatologist (mean ± SD RIS 3.5 ± 1.6), satisfaction with current disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (mean ± SD RIS 3.4 ± 1.4), and current number of painful joints (mean ± SD RIS 3.4 ± 1.4). CONCLUSION: Factors influencing the decision to escalate care differ between rheumatologists and patients. Better communication between patients and their physicians may improve treatment planning in RA patients with active disease.

Development of quality indicators for monitoring of the disease course in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To suppress rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients' disease activity, it should be periodically measured and patients should be treated on the basis of the disease activity outcomes. Insight into the actual care, by using quality indicators, is the first step in achieving optimal care. The objective of this study was to develop a set of quality indicators to evaluate RA disease course monitoring of rheumatologists in daily clinical practice. METHODS: A RAND-modified Delphi method in a five-step procedure was applied: a literature search for quality indicators and recommendations about disease course monitoring; a first questionnaire round; a consensus meeting; a second questionnaire round and drawing up the final set. RESULTS: The systematic procedure resulted in the development of 18 quality indicators: 10 process, five structure and three outcome indicators that describe seven domains of disease course monitoring: schedule follow-up visits; measure disease activity; functional impairment; structural damage; change medication; preconditions for measuring disease activity and outcome measures in terms of disease activity. CONCLUSIONS: This quality indicator set can be used to assess the quality of disease course monitoring of rheumatologists in daily clinical practice, and to determine for which aspects of disease course monitoring rheumatologists perform well, or where there is room for improvement. This information can be used to improve the quality of disease course monitoring.

The effect of phenytoin on the pharmacokinetics of tirilazad mesylate in healthy male volunteers.

The pharmacokinetic interaction between phenytoin and tirilazad was studied in 12 healthy men who received 200 mg phenytoin orally every 8 hours for 11 doses and 100 mg for the remaining 5 doses in one period of a two-way crossover study. In both periods, 1.5 mg/kg tirilazad mesylate was administered (as 10-minute intravenous infusions) every 6 hours for 21 doses (5 days). Plasma tirilazad mesylate and U-89678 (an active metabolite) were quantified by HPLC. After dose 21, area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC(0-6)] for tirilazad mesylate was significantly lower (p = 0.0061) after phenytoin treatment (3029 +/- 982 ng.hr/ml) than after tirilazad mesylate alone (4647 +/- 1562 ng.hr/ml). AUC(0-6) for U-89,678 after dose 21 was reduced from 1485 +/- 1173 ng.hr/ml after tirilazad mesylate alone to 195 +/- 223 ng.hr/ml after phenytoin coadministration. U-89678 normally accumulates during multiple dosing, but mean U-89678 trough concentrations decreased after 24 hours during tirilazad and phenytoin coadministration. No clinically significant interactions of tirilazad mesylate and phenytoin for medical events, vital signs, or laboratory parameters were identified. These results suggest that phenytoin rapidly induces tirilazad mesylate metabolism; it may also induce the metabolism of U-89678 or shunt tirilazad mesylate metabolism through other pathways.

Lack of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interaction between nimodipine and tirilazad mesylate in healthy volunteers.

The potential interaction between tirilazad mesylate, a membrane lipid peroxidation inhibitor, and nimodipine, a calcium-channel antagonist, was assessed in 12 healthy male volunteers. Subjects received 60 mg nimodipine orally, 2.0 mg/kg tirilazad mesylate as a 10-minute intravenous infusion, and a combination of the two treatments according to a balanced 3-way crossover design. No significant effects of nimodipine on tirilazad mesylate pharmacokinetic parameters were observed (P > .05). Values for tirilazad mesylate clearance (34.9 +/- 8.96 L/hr) and half-life (29 +/- 7.83 hr) were consistent with previous studies. Nimodipine pharmacokinetic parameters exhibited substantial variability, and mean AUC was approximately 25% below the range of previously published values. However, no significant differences in nimodipine pharmacokinetics were observed between treatments. Nimodipine administration increased heart rate slightly without a change in blood pressure, which was not observed after tirilazad administration and was not altered when tirilazad and nimodipine were coadministered. Thus, no significant interaction between tirilazad mesylate and nimodipine is detectable after single-dose administration.

Multiple-dose tolerability and pharmacokinetics of tirilazad mesylate at doses of up to 10 mg/kg/day administered over 5-10 days in healthy volunteers.

Multiple dose pharmacokinetics and tolerability of tirilazad mesylate were assessed at the maximum dosage and duration expected for tirilazad mesylate therapy of subarachnoid hemorrhage and head injury. Healthy male subjects (47) received either 1 mg/kg/day, 3 mg/kg/day, 6 mg/kg/day, or 10 mg/kg/day tirilazad mesylate, given as 10 minute i.v. infusions every 6 hours for 21 (at the highest dose) or 41 doses. Plasma tirilazad mesylate and U-89678, an active metabolite, were quantified by HPLC. Thirty-nine subjects completed the study. Tirilazad mesylate was generally well tolerated; injection site irritation was the primary adverse effect. Sporadic, dose unrelated elevations in liver enzymes were observed. All medical events were reversible. No clinically significant effects on vital signs, cardiac telemetry, or other laboratory values were seen. Both tirilazad and U-89678 accumulated on multiple dosing, and steady-state plasma levels were approximated by day 11 of dosing. U-89678 average steady-state concentrations approached 58% of those of the parent compound in the 6.0 mg/kg/day dose group. Following the last dose, mean half-lives for tirilazad ranged from 61.2-123 hours; mean U-89678 half-lives ranged from 60.5-111 hours. Tirilazad mesylate pharmacokinetics exhibited slight nonlinearity, AUC0-6 values for the 6 mg/kg/day were 33% higher than those predicted based on data from the 1.0 mg/kg dose group. Neither the long half-lives of U-89678 and tirilazad nor slight nonlinearity of tirilazad pharmacokinetics are likely to have significant clinical impact during short-term treatment of acute neurological injury.

Effect of age and gender on tirilazad pharmacokinetics in humans.

Tirilazad mesylate pharmacokinetics were assessed in 12 young and 12 elderly volunteers (six men and six women per age group). Subjects received single 10-minute intravenous infusions of 1.5 mg/kg and 3.0 mg/kg tirilazad mesylate. Plasma tirilazad mesylate concentrations were determined by HPLC. There were no significant dose effects on clearance, but half-life increased with dose because of assay insensitivity at the lower dose. Mean half-lives were 16.3 +/- 15.5 and 21.4 +/- 12.6 hours for young and elderly subjects, respectively, at the 3.0 mg/kg dose. At the same dose, mean tirilazad mesylate systemic clearance was 0.630 +/- 0.254 and 0.428 +/- 0.090 L/hr/kg, respectively. The decreased clearance in elderly volunteers was primarily attributable to a lower clearance in elderly women relative to young women. The small effect of age on tirilazad clearance is likely to have minimum clinical impact. Tirilazad clearance was approximately 40% higher in young women than in young men. The clinical importance of this observation is unknown.

A pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of the combined administration of alprazolam and fluvoxamine.

We have assessed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interaction between fluvoxamine, a serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and alprazolam, a triazolobenzo-diazepine. Healthy men took fluvoxamine maleate daily for 10 days (50 mg on days 1-3, 100 mg on days 4-10) (n = 20), 1 mg of alprazolam four times daily for four days (days 7-10 of the study period) (n = 20), or a combination of the two (n = 20), according to a parallel study design. Alprazolam and fluvoxamine concentrations were measured in serial plasma samples by HPLC and gas chromatography respectively, and psychomotor performance and memory were assessed on days 1, 7, and 10. Fluvoxamine increased plasma alprazolam concentrations by 100%. The mean apparent half-life of alprazolam was increased from 20 h to 34 h after fluvoxamine co-administration. The increased plasma concentrations of alprazolam resulted in significantly greater reductions in psychomotor performance evident on day 10. Mean fluvoxamine plasma concentrations were about 25% lower in those who took the combination than in those who took only fluvoxamine; this was more likely due to heterogeneity between the treatment groups than to an effect of alprazolam. The dosage of alprazolam should be reduced during co-administration with fluvoxamine.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of adinazolam and N-desmethyladinazolam after oral and intravenous dosing in healthy young and elderly volunteers.

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of adinazolam and N-desmethyladinazolam were studied in 18 young subjects, from 21 to 36 years of age, and 18 elderly subjects, ranging in age from 65 to 76 years. Nine men and 9 women per age group were studied in a randomized three-way crossover design. Single doses of one 30-mg adinazolam mesylate sustained release tablet, one 30-mg immediate release tablet, and 15 mg of intravenous adinazolam mesylate were administered. Plasma adinazolam and N-desmethyladinazolam were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography, and psychomotor performance tests, including digit-symbol substitution and two card-sorting tasks, were performed. An effect index, defined as the maximal performance decrement divided by N-desmethyladinazolam maximum plasma concentration was calculated as a measure of sensitivity to these effects. Adinazolam oral and systemic clearances were reduced approximately 30% and 25%, respectively, in elderly volunteers. Adinazolam half-life was prolonged approximately 40% in the elderly after oral dosing. N-Desmethyladinazolam plasma concentrations and half-life were increased approximately 40% in elderly volunteers. Psychomotor performance decrements were observed following all treatments; decrements were lowest following sustained release tablets and intravenous adinazolam. Maximal performance decrements in elderly subjects were approximately twice those observed in young subjects. No significant influence of age on the effect index for digit-symbol substitution was evident. Effect indices for card-sorting tests were significantly higher in the elderly. Lower clearances of adinazolam and N-desmethyladinazolam are observed in elderly volunteers, and increased N-desmethyladinazolam levels contribute to increased psychomotor performance decrements in elderly subjects. Results also suggest that elderly subjects may be more sensitive to certain cognitive effects of N-desmethyladinazolam.

Clinical pharmacology of adinazolam and N-desmethyladinazolam mesylate following single intravenous infusions of each compound in health volunteers.

The tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of adinazolam and N-desmethyladinazolam (NDMAD) were assessed following intravenous infusions of 5, 10, 15, and 20 mg adinazolam mesylate, 10, 20, 30 and 40 mg NDMAD mesylate, and placebo. Six subjects per dose level received treatments in a double-blind crossover design. No clinically significant changes were seen in blood pressure, pulse, respiration, or clinical laboratory parameters. Untoward effects typical of benzodiazepines were observed almost exclusively after NDMAD administration. Adinazolam and NDMAD pharmacokinetics were dose-independent. NDMAD clearance was 50% of the value for adinazolam. Adinazolam and NDMAD administrations increased uric acid clearance and decreased plasma uric acid. Adinazolam administration had no significant effect on psychomotor performance. NDMAD administration produced dose related decreases in performance; 286 ng/ml NDMAD produced a 50% decrease in DSST. These results confirm that adinazolam and NDMAD both produce uricosuria and definitively show that adinazolam is devoid of benzodiazepine-like effects at therapeutic concentrations; NDMAD mediates these effects. Uricosuric activity is present for both compounds, but the relative potencies are still unknown.

The effects of EMG biofeedback and relaxation training on primary dysmenorrhea.

Fifteen dysmenorrhea sufferers received relaxation training with EMG biofeeddback, relaxation training with no feedback, or no treatment. Participants who received biofeedback training did not differ from participants who received relaxation training in their ability to maintain a reduced level of EMG activity prior to the onset of menstruation. On the first day of menstruation, those receiving biofeeback training were able to maintain reduced EMG activity, whereas those receiving relaxation training showed an elevated level of EMG activity. Subjective reports indicated that the symptoms of dysmenorrhea improved for the biofeedback group during training but did not improve for the relaxation or control groups. Suggestions for further research are noted.