scholarly journals A pooled analysis of the duration of chemoprophylaxis against malaria after treatment with artesunate-amodiaquine and artemether-lumefantrine

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
MT Bretscher ◽  
P Dahal ◽  
J Griffin ◽  
K Stepniewska ◽  
Q Bassat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Drug Sensitivity ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Additional Benefit ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Treatment

AbstractArtemether-lumefantrine (AL) and artesunate-amodiaquine (AS-AQ) are the most commonly-used treatments against Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Africa. The lumefantrine and amodiaquine partner drugs may provide differing durations of post-treatment prophylaxis, an important additional benefit to patients. Analyzing 4214 individuals from clinical trials in 12 sites, we estimated a mean duration of post-treatment protection of 13.0 days (95% CI 10.7-15.7) for AL and 15.2 days (95% CI 12.8-18.4) for AS-AQ after allowing for transmission intensity. However, the duration varied substantially between sites: where wild type pfmdr1 86 and pfcrt 76 parasite genotypes predominated, AS-AQ provided ∼2-fold longer protection than AL. Conversely, AL provided up to 1.5-fold longer protection than AS-AQ where mutants were common. We estimate that choosing AL or AS-AQ as first-line treatment according to local drug sensitivity could alter population-level clinical incidence of malaria by up to 14% in under-five year olds where malaria transmission is high.

scholarly journals First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): Quality and Clinical Benefit Overview

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 470
Author(s):  
Marta Martín-Richard ◽  
Maria Tobeña
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Design Quality ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
First Line Treatment

Different strategies of maintenance therapy (sequential CT, intermittent CT, intermittent CT and MAbs, or de-escalation MAbs monotherapy) after first-line treatment are undertaken. Many randomized clinical trials (RCT), which evaluated these approaches, suffer from incorrect design, heterogenous primary endpoints, inadequate size, and other methodology flaws. Drawing any conclusions becomes challenging and recommendations are mainly vague. We evaluated those studies from another perspective, focusing on the design quality and the clinical benefit measure with a more objective and accurate methodology. These data allowed a clearer and more exact overview of the statement in maintenance treatment.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Second-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type/Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the Precision Medicine Era

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (14) ◽  
pp. 7717
Author(s):  
Guido Giordano ◽  
Pietro Parcesepe ◽  
Giuseppina Bruno ◽  
Annamaria Piscazzi ◽  
Vincenzo Lizzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Mutational Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

Target-oriented agents improve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) survival in combination with chemotherapy. However, the majority of patients experience disease progression after first-line treatment and are eligible for second-line approaches. In such a context, antiangiogenic and anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) agents as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved as second-line options, and RAS and BRAF mutations and microsatellite status represent the molecular drivers that guide therapeutic choices. Patients harboring K- and N-RAS mutations are not eligible for anti-EGFR treatments, and bevacizumab is the only antiangiogenic agent that improves survival in combination with chemotherapy in first-line, regardless of RAS mutational status. Thus, the choice of an appropriate therapy after the progression to a bevacizumab or an EGFR-based first-line treatment should be evaluated according to the patient and disease characteristics and treatment aims. The continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression or its substitution with another anti-angiogenic agents has been shown to increase survival, whereas anti-EGFR monoclonals represent an option in RAS wild-type patients. In addition, specific molecular subgroups, such as BRAF-mutated and Microsatellite Instability-High (MSI-H) mCRCs represent aggressive malignancies that are poorly responsive to standard therapies and deserve targeted approaches. This review provides a critical overview about the state of the art in mCRC second-line treatment and discusses sequential strategies according to key molecular biomarkers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document