scholarly journals Outcomes after viral load rebound on first-line antiretroviral treatment in children with HIV in the UK and Ireland: an observational cohort study

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. e151-e158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tristan Childs ◽  
Delane Shingadia ◽  
Ruth Goodall ◽  
Katja Doerholt ◽  
Hermione Lyall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Viral Load ◽  
Antiretroviral Treatment ◽  
Observational Cohort Study ◽  
First Line ◽  
Observational Cohort ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Viral Load Rebound

scholarly journals Durability of viral suppression with first-line antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV in the UK: an observational cohort study

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
pp. e295-e302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jemma O'Connor ◽  
Colette Smith ◽  
Fiona C Lampe ◽  
Margaret A Johnson ◽  
David R Chadwick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Antiretroviral Therapy ◽  
Viral Suppression ◽  
Observational Cohort Study ◽  
First Line ◽  
Observational Cohort ◽  
The Uk

Observational cohort study of first-line bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (HGCSG0802): Comparison of infusional FU/oxaliplatin(OX)+BV and oral FU/OX+BV.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 527-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuteru Hatanaka ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Hiroshi Nakatsumi ◽  
Hiraku Fukushima ◽  
Hirohito Naruse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Observational Cohort Study ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
First Line ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Observational Cohort

527 Background: A few reports have shown no difference between the efficacy of infusional FU and that of oral FU (Capecitabine/S-1) for colorectal cancer, and some studies have reported the non-inferiority between infusional FU/Oxaliplatin (OX) and oral FU/OX for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We performed a sub-group comparison between infusional FU/OX (mFOLFOX6 + BV: iFU) and oral FU/OX (CapeOX/SOX + BV: oFU) from the HGCSG0802 observational cohort study with investigated Japanese patients (pts) treated with first line BV for mCRC. Methods: The objective of HGCSG0802 was to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to treatment-failure (TTF), response rate (RR), safety and so on. The key eligibility criteria of HGCSG0802 were with evaluable lesions, older than 20 years, ECOG PS 0-2, and this analysis used the cohort treated with OX-based regimens.In this analysis, pts characteristics, RR and safety were compared using Fisher’s exact test. PFS and TTF were compared using log-rank test. Results: Of 108 pts (the full analysis set), 95 pts were evaluable for treated with OX-based regimens. Forty-eight pts (50.5%) were treated with iFU and 47 pts (49.5%) were treated with oFU (CapeOX + BV 42 pts/SOX + BV 5 pts). The pts characteristics between those were generally balanced except for PS 0-1 (72.9% in iFU/93.6% in oFU; p=0.012) and synchronous liver metastases (mets) (93.8% in iFU/78.8% in oFU; p=0.040). Adverse events ≥grade 3 were balanced except for leucopenia (25.0% in iFU versus 2.1% in oFU; p=0.002) and neutropenia (43.5% in iFU and 10.9% in oFU; p=0.001). Hand-foot skin reaction was not different between two cohorts. RR was 62.5% in iFU versus 71.1% in oFU (p=0.835). The median PFS was 8.3 months in iFU versus 8.2 months in oFU (p=0.835). Conclusions: The HGCSG0802 could be a database to investigate first line BV for mCRC in clinical practice. As a result of this analysis, in Japanese daily practice, efficacy was no significant difference between infusional FU/OX and oral FU/OX, and the profiles of adverse events varied from each regimens.

scholarly journals Relevance of prediction scores derived from the SARS-CoV-2 first wave, in the UK COVID-19 second wave, for early discharge, severity and mortality: a PREDICT COVID UK prospective observational cohort study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hakim Ghani ◽  
Alessio Navarra ◽  
Phyoe K Pyae ◽  
Harry Mitchell ◽  
William Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Observational Cohort Study ◽  
Single Site ◽  
Urgent Care ◽  
Prognostic Scores ◽  
Prospective Observational Cohort Study ◽  
Observational Cohort ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Second Wave

Objective: Prospectively validate two prognostic scores, pre-hospitalisation (SOARS) and hospitalised mortality prediction (4C Mortality Score), derived from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) first wave, in the evolving second wave with prevalent B.1.1.7 and parent D614 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants, in two large United Kingdom (UK) cohorts. Design: Prospective observational cohort study of SOARS and 4C Mortality Score in PREDICT (single site) and multi-site ISARIC (International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium) cohorts. Setting: Protocol-based data collection in UK COVID-19 second wave, between October 2020 and January 2021, from PREDICT and ISARIC cohorts. Participants: 1383 from single site PREDICT cohort and 20,595 from multi-site ISARIC cohort. Main outcome measures: Relevance of SOARS and 4C Mortality Score derived from the COVID-19 first wave, determining in-hospital mortality and safe discharge in the UK COVID-19 second wave. Results: Data from 1383 patients (median age 67y, IQR 52-82; mortality 24.7%) in the PREDICT and 20,595 patients from the ISARIC (mortality 19.4%) cohorts showed both SOARS and 4C Mortality Score remained relevant despite the B.1.1.7 variant and treatment advances. SOARS had AUC of 0.8 and 0.74, while 4C Mortality Score had an AUC of 0.83 and 0.91 for hospital mortality, in the PREDICT and ISARIC cohorts respectively, therefore effective in evaluating both safe discharge and in-hospital mortality. 19.3% (231/1195, PREDICT cohort) and 16.7% (2550/14992, ISARIC cohort) with a SOARS of 0-1 were potential candidates for home discharge to a virtual hospital (VH) model. SOARS score implementation resulted in low re-admission rates, 11.8% (27/229), and low mortality, 0.9% (2/229), in the VH pathway. Use is still suboptimal to prevent admission, as 8.1% in the PREDICT cohort and 9.5% in the ISARIC cohort were admitted despite SOARS score of 0-1. Conclusion: SOARS and 4C Mortality Score remains valid, providing accurate prognostication despite evolving viral subtype and treatment advances, which have altered mortality. Both scores are easily implemented within urgent care pathways with a scope for admission avoidance. They remain safe and relevant to their purpose, transforming complex clinical presentations into tangible numbers, aiding objective decision making. Trial registration: NHS HRA registration and REC approval (20/HRA/2344, IRAS ID 283888).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document