Remission outcomes in severe eosinophilic asthma with mepolizumab therapy: Analysis of the REDES study.

Introduction: Clinical remission as a multicomponent treatment goal in severe asthma is being explored in clinical practice. This post hoc analysis used data from the REDES study to assess the proportion of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma achieving our multicomponent definitions of clinical remission after 1 year of mepolizumab treatment. Methods: The real-world, retrospective observational REDES study enrolled patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab and with ≥12 months of medical records pre-enrolment. Multicomponent clinical remission was defined as: oral corticosteroid (OCS)-free; exacerbation-free; asthma control test (ACT) score ≥20; and with or without post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second ≥80%. Baseline characteristics were also assessed in those who did/did not achieve clinical remission. Results: 37% and 30% of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma met our proposed three- and four-component on-treatment clinical remission definitions; an increase from 2% and 3% at baseline. Most frequently achieved individual components of clinical remission were: OCS-free; ACT score ≥20. For patients fulfilling the multicomponent clinical remission definitions, at baseline we observed higher blood eosinophil counts, better ACT scores and lung function, lower maintenance OCS use, and a slightly lower rate of prior exacerbations versus those who did not. Discussion: Clinical remission is a realistic target in clinical practice for a subset of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma receiving mepolizumab. Further studies are required to elucidate whether features linked to the underlying endotype can help predict treatment outcomes, increase rates of clinical remission, and potentially modify disease progression.

Sacral nerve stimulation versus the magnetic sphincter augmentation device for adult faecal incontinence: the SaFaRI RCT.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary studies using the FENIX™ (Torax Medical, Minneapolis, MN, USA) magnetic sphincter augmentation device suggest that it is safe to use for the treatment of adult faecal incontinence, but efficacy data are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare FENIX with sacral nerve stimulation for the treatment of adult faecal incontinence in terms of safety, efficacy, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicentre, parallel-group, unblinded, randomised trial comparing FENIX with sacral nerve stimulation in participants suffering moderate to severe faecal incontinence. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised on an equal basis to either sacral nerve stimulation or FENIX. Follow-up occurred 2 weeks postoperatively and at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: The primary outcome was success, defined as device in use and ≥ 50% improvement in Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Between 30 October 2014 and 23 March 2017, 99 participants were randomised across 18 NHS sites (50 participants to FENIX vs. 49 participants to sacral nerve stimulation). The median time from randomisation to FENIX implantation was 57.0 days (range 4.0-416.0 days), and the median time from randomisation to permanent sacral nerve stimulation was 371.0 days (range 86.0-918.0 days). A total of 45 out of 50 participants underwent FENIX implantation and 29 out of 49 participants continued to permanent sacral nerve stimulation. The following results are reported, excluding participants for whom the corresponding outcome was not evaluable. Overall, there was success for 10 out of 80 (12.5%) participants, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups [FENIX 6/41 (14.6%) participants vs. sacral nerve stimulation 4/39 (10.3%) participants]. At least one postoperative complication was experienced by 33 out of 45 (73.3%) participants in the FENIX group and 9 out of 40 (22.5%) participants in the sacral nerve stimulation group. A total of 15 out of 50 (30%) participants in the FENIX group ultimately had to have their device explanted. Slightly higher costs and quality-adjusted life-years (incremental = £305.50 and 0.005, respectively) were observed in the FENIX group than in the sacral nerve stimulation group. This was reversed over the lifetime horizon (incremental = -£1306 and -0.23 for costs and quality-adjusted life-years, respectively), when sacral nerve stimulation was the optimal option (net monetary benefit = -£3283), with only a 45% chance of FENIX being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The SaFaRI study was terminated in 2017, having recruited 99 participants of the target sample size of 350 participants. The study is, therefore, substantially underpowered to detect differences between the treatment groups, with significant uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The SaFaRI study revealed inefficiencies in the treatment pathways for faecal incontinence, particularly for sacral nerve stimulation. The success of both FENIX and sacral nerve stimulation was much lower than previously reported, with high postoperative morbidity in the FENIX group. FUTURE WORK: Further research is needed to clarify the treatment pathways for sacral nerve stimulation and to determine its true clinical and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16077538. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Faecal incontinence is a distressing condition for patients, and surgery is recommended if symptoms are having an effect on quality of life. One of the treatments recommended for faecal incontinence by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is sacral nerve stimulation, which aims to improve continence by stimulating the nerves to the back passage. A newer treatment involves surgery to implant a string of magnetic beads around the anal canal using the FENIX™ device (Torax Medical, Minneapolis, MN, USA). The aim of this study was to assess the benefits and risks of the FENIX device compared with sacral nerve stimulation. The SaFaRI study aimed to recruit 350 participants with faecal incontinence, but was stopped early because of the manufacturer withdrawing the FENIX device for strategic reasons. In total, we recruited 99 participants. Fifty participants were allocated to receive the FENIX device and 49 participants were allocated to receive sacral nerve stimulation. The observed success rates with both devices were low: at 18 months following their entry into the study, 6 out of 41 (14.6%) participants in the FENIX group and 4 out of 39 (10.3%) participants in the sacral nerve stimulation group had the device both in use and producing a benefit. A total of 5 out of 50 (10.0%) participants allocated to receive the FENIX device did not have a device implanted, and 15 out of 45 (33.3%) participants who did have the FENIX device implanted needed to have it removed because of complications during the 18-month follow-up period. A total of 21 out of 49 (42.9%) participants allocated to receive sacral nerve stimulation did not have a permanent sacral nerve stimulation device implanted, and 0 of the 28 who did have a permanent sacral nerve stimulation device implanted needed to have it removed during the 18-month follow-up period. The costs associated with the FENIX device were higher because of a greater number of participants experiencing complications, meaning that the FENIX device is unlikely to be cost-effective in the treatment of faecal incontinence compared with sacral nerve stimulation.

Liver resection surgery compared with thermal ablation in high surgical risk patients with colorectal liver metastases: the LAVA international RCT.

BACKGROUND: Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases, thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. There have been no adequately powered trials comparing surgery with thermal ablation. OBJECTIVES: Main objective - to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation versus liver resection surgery in high surgical risk patients who would be eligible for liver resection. Pilot study objectives - to assess the feasibility of recruitment (through qualitative study), to assess the quality of ablations and liver resection surgery to determine acceptable standards for the main trial and to centrally review the reporting of computed tomography scan findings relating to ablation and outcomes and recurrence rate in both arms. DESIGN: A prospective, international (UK and the Netherlands), multicentre, open, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 1-year internal pilot study. SETTING: Tertiary liver, pancreatic and gallbladder (hepatopancreatobiliary) centres in the UK and the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a specialist multidisciplinary team diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases who are at high surgical risk because of their age, comorbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation. INTERVENTIONS: Thermal ablation conducted as per local policy (but centres were encouraged to recruit within Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe guidelines) versus surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pilot study - patients' and clinicians' acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment. Primary outcome - disease-free survival at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes - overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, and disease-free survival measured from end of intervention. It was planned that 5-year survival data would be documented through record linkage. Randomisation was performed by minimisation incorporating a random element, and this was a non-blinded study. RESULTS: In the pilot study over 1 year, a total of 366 patients with colorectal liver metastases were screened and 59 were considered eligible. Only nine participants were randomised. The trial was stopped early and none of the planned statistical analyses was performed. The key issues inhibiting recruitment included fewer than anticipated patients eligible for both treatments, misconceptions about the eligibility criteria for the trial, surgeons' preference for one of the treatments ('lack of clinical equipoise' among some of the surgeons in the centre) with unconscious bias towards surgery, patients' preference for one of the treatments, and lack of dedicated research nurses for the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment feasibility was not demonstrated during the pilot stage of the trial; therefore, the trial closed early. In future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from an initial feasibility study or a longer period of internal pilot study to resolve these difficulties. Sufficient time should be allowed to set up arrangements through National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52040363. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In about 50% of people with bowel cancer, cancer spreads to the liver (colorectal liver metastases) within 5 years of detection and treatment. Liver resection (i.e. surgical removal of a portion of the liver) is the standard treatment in people below 70 years of age who are otherwise well, provided that the liver cancer is confined to a limited part of the liver. Such patients are considered 'low-risk' patients. Older patients and those with major medical problems or extensive cancers are considered 'high-risk' patients, as they are at a higher risk of developing complications following liver resection. Thermal ablation destroys the liver cancers using a needle that heats the cancer deposits until they are destroyed. There is significant uncertainty as to whether or not ablation can offer equivalent survival compared with surgery for 'high-risk' patients. We planned and conducted a randomised controlled trial comparing ablation with surgery to resolve this uncertainty. In this trial, some patients received ablation and others received surgery. The treatment was allocated at random with neither patients nor the study organisers choosing the treatment. The trial had an internal pilot (i.e. a smaller version of the full trial to resolve any 'teething problems' and ensure that a sufficient number of participants can be included in the full trial). Only nine patients were recruited in the 1-year internal pilot, compared with the anticipated recruitment of 45 patients. Therefore, the trial closed early as a result of poor recruitment, and the uncertainty about the best treatment for high-risk patients with colorectal liver metastases continues. The main reasons for the poor recruitment included fewer than anticipated eligible participants, clinicians' unconscious bias towards surgery, and patients' preference for one treatment or the other. In the future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from a feasibility study or a longer period of pilot study to resolve any difficulties.

Liver resection surgery versus thermal ablation for colorectal LiVer MetAstases (LAVA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases (CLM), thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. A prospective randomised trial is required to define the efficacy of resection vs ablation for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: Design and setting: This is a multicentre, open, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial design with internal pilot and will be performed in tertiary liver centres in UK and The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients will be those with colorectal liver metastases at high surgical risk because of their age, co-morbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation. INTERVENTION: Thermal ablation as per local policy. CONTROL: Surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol. Co-interventions: Further chemotherapy will be offered to patients as per current practice. Outcomes Pilot study: Same as main study and in addition patients and clinicians' acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Disease-free survival (DFS) at two years post randomisation. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, DFS measured from end of intervention. FOLLOW-UP: 24 months from randomisation; five-year follow-up for overall survival. SAMPLE SIZE: 330 patients to demonstrate non-inferiority of thermal ablation. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation vs surgical resection for high-risk people with colorectal liver metastases, and guide the optimal treatment for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN52040363 . Registered on 9 March 2016.