Aversive Events as Positive Reinforcers: An Investigation of Avoidance and Safety Signals in Humans

2015 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis Angelakis ◽  
Jennifer L. Austin
2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (41) ◽  
pp. 14118-14124 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. P. Christianson ◽  
A. B. P. Fernando ◽  
A. M. Kazama ◽  
T. Jovanovic ◽  
L. E. Ostroff ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Makoto Tahara ◽  
Naomi Kiyota ◽  
Ken-ichi Nibu ◽  
Ayumi Akamatsu ◽  
Tomohiro Hoshino ◽  
...  

Abstract Background On the basis of phase III CheckMate 141 results, nivolumab was approved for recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer after undergoing platinum-containing chemotherapy in Japan. This post-marketing surveillance aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of nivolumab for head and neck cancer in the real-world setting. Methods All patients with head and neck cancer who planned to receive nivolumab were centrally registered. This study monitored 607 patients for 6 months to assess nivolumab’s safety, especially treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of special interest, and effectiveness. Results TRAEs occurred in 36.1% patients, with no new safety signals. The most common TRAEs with grade ≥ 3 were interstitial lung disease (1.2%), diarrhea (0.8%), and hepatic function abnormal (0.7%). Meanwhile, thyroid dysfunction (10.2%), hepatic dysfunction (5.3%), and interstitial lung disease (4.1%) were the most common TRAE categories of special interest. Although the median time to the onset of each TRAE category of special interest was mostly 1–2 months, most of them occurred throughout the observation period; nonetheless, the majority of patients recovered or remitted. The 6-month survival rate was 55.9%. Conclusion Japanese patients with head and neck cancer treated with nivolumab in the real-world setting manifested no new safety signals. Clinical Trial Registration clinicaltrials.jp: JapicCTI-184071.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4500-4500
Author(s):  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Elizabeth R. Plimack ◽  
Viktor Stus ◽  
Tom Waddell ◽  
Rustem Gafanov ◽  
...  

4500 Background: In the first interim analysis of the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study (NCT02853331), treatment with pembro + axi significantly improved OS, PFS, and ORR vs sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive advanced ccRCC. Extended follow-up (median, 30.6 mo) continued to demonstrate the superior efficacy of pembro + axi vs sunitinib monotherapy in this patient population. Here, we present the results of the prespecified final analysis with 42.8-mo median follow-up. Methods: Treatment-naive patients (pts) with advanced ccRCC, KPS ≥70%, and measurable disease (RECIST v1.1) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for up to 35 doses + axi 5 mg orally BID or sunitinib 50 mg orally QD on a 4-wk on/2-wk off schedule until progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by IMDC risk (favorable vs intermediate vs poor) and geographic region (North America vs Western Europe vs Rest of World). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS. Secondary endpoints were ORR, DOR, and safety. The protocol-specified final analysis was based on a target of 404 OS events. No formal hypothesis testing was performed because all efficacy endpoints were met previously at the first interim analysis; nominal P values are reported. Results: Overall, 861 pts were randomly assigned to receive pembro + axi (n=432) or sunitinib (n=429). Median duration of follow-up, defined as time from randomization to the database cutoff date, was 42.8 mo (range, 35.6-50.6). At data cutoff, 418 pts had died: 193 (44.7%) of 432 pts in the pembro + axi arm vs 225 (52.4%) of 429 pts in the sunitinib arm. Compared with sunitinib, pembro + axi improved OS (median: 45.7 vs 40.1 mo; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.60-0.88]; P<0.001) and PFS (median: 15.7 vs 11.1 mo; HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]; P<0.0001). The 42-mo OS rate was 57.5% with pembro + axi vs 48.5% with sunitinib; the 42-mo PFS rate was 25.1% with pembro + axi vs 10.6% with sunitinib. For pembro + axi vs sunitinib, ORR was 60.4% vs 39.6% ( P<0.0001); CR rate was 10.0% vs 3.5%; median DOR was 23.6 mo (range 1.4+ to 43.4+) vs 15.3 mo (range, 2.3-42.8+). Subsequent anticancer therapy was administered to 47.2% of pts in pembro + axi arm vs 65.5% of pts in sunitinib arm. Although a similar proportion of pts in each arm received VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors, only 10.2% of pts in the pembro + axi arm received subsequent treatment with a PD-1/L1 inhibitor compared to 48.7% of pts in the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 42.8 mo, this is the longest follow-up of an anti-PD–1/L1 immunotherapy combined with a VEGF/VEGFR inhibitor for first-line RCC. These results show that pembro + axi continues to demonstrate superior efficacy over sunitinib with respect to OS, PFS, and ORR, with no new safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT02853331.


2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Buck ◽  
Merel Kindt ◽  
Marcel van den Hout

Dissociation often occurs after a traumatic experience and has detrimental effects on memory. If these supposed detrimental effects are the result of disturbances in information processing, not only subjectively assessed but also objectively assessed memory disturbances should be observed. Most studies assessing dissociation and memory in the context of trauma have studied trauma victims. However, this study takes a new approach in that the impact of experimentally induced state dissociation on memory is investigated in people with spider phobia. Note that the aim of the present study was not to test the effect of trauma on memory disturbances. We found indeed significant relations between state dissociation and subjectively assessed memory disturbances: intrusions and self-rated memory fragmentation. Moreover, although no relation was found between state dissociation and experimenter-rated memory fragmentation, we observed a relation between state dissociation and experimenter-rated perceptual memory representations. These results show that state dissociation indeed has detrimental effects on the processing of aversive events.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document