| 1. |
- Svenningsson, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Safety and efficacy of rituximab versus dimethyl fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis or clinically isolated syndrome in Sweden: a rater-blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Lancet Neurology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1474-4422. ; 21:8, s. 693-703
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background B-cell depleting therapies are highly efficacious in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis but one such therapy, rituximab, is not approved for multiple sclerosis and no phase 3 trial data are available. We therefore examined the safety and efficacy of rituximab compared with dimethyl fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis to obtain data that might allow inclusion of rituximab in treatment guidelines. Methods RIFUND-MS was a multicentre, rater-blinded, active-comparator, phase 3, randomised controlled trial done at 17 Swedish university and community hospitals. Key inclusion criteria for participants were: age 18-50 years; relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis or clinically isolated syndrome according to prevailing McDonald criteria; 10 years or less since diagnosis; untreated or only exposed to interferons or glatiramer acetate; and with clinical or neuroradiological disease activity in the past year. Patients were automatically randomly assigned (1:1) by the treating physician using a randomisation module in the Swedish multiple sclerosis registry, without stratification, to oral dimethyl fumarate 240 mg twice daily or to intravenous rituximab 1000 mg followed by 500 mg every 6 months. Relapse evaluation, Expanded Disability Status Scale rating, and assessment of MRI scans were done by examining physicians and radiologists masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with at least one relapse (defined as subacute onset of new or worsening neurological symptoms compatible with multiple sclerosis with a duration of more than 24 h and preceded by at least 30 days of clinical stability), assessed in an intention-to-treat analysis using log-binomial regression with robust standard errors. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02746744. Findings Between July 1, 2016, and Dec 18, 2018, 322 patients were screened for eligibility, 200 of whom were randomly assigned to a treatment group (100 assigned to rituximab and 100 assigned to dimethyl fumarate). The last patient completed 24-month follow-up on April 21, 2021. 98 patients in the rituximab group and 97 patients in the dimethyl fumarate group were eligible for the primary outcome analysis. Three (3%) patients in the rituximab group and 16 (16%) patients in the dimethyl fumarate group had a protocol-defined relapse during the trial, corresponding to a risk ratio of 0.19 (95% CI 0.06-0.62; p=0.0060). Infusion reactions (105 events [40.9 per 100 patient-years]) in the rituximab group and gastrointestinal reactions (65 events [47.4 per 100 patient-years]) and flush (65 events [47.4 per 100 patient-years]) in the dimethyl fumarate group were the most prevalent adverse events. There were no safety concerns. Interpretation RIFUND-MS provides evidence that rituximab given as 1000 mg followed by 500 mg every 6 months is superior to dimethyl fumarate in preventing relapses over 24 months in patients with early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Health economic and long-term safety studies of rituximab in patients with multiple sclerosis are needed.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Baron, T, et al.
(författare)
-
The Reply
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The American journal of medicine. - : Elsevier BV. - 1555-7162 .- 0002-9343. ; 130:9, s. E417-E418
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Kolte, Dhaval, et al.
(författare)
-
Culprit Vessel-Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction : A Collaborative Meta-Analysis
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 1941-7640 .- 1941-7632. ; 10:11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction remains unknown. Methods and Results Databases were searched from 1999 to October 2016. Studies comparing immediate/single-stage multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) versus culprit vessel-only PCI (CO-PCI) in patients with multivessel disease, ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock were included. Primary end point was short-term (in-hospital or 30 days) mortality. Secondary end points included long-term mortality, cardiovascular death, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization. Safety end points were in-hospital stroke, renal failure, and major bleeding. The meta-analysis included 11 nonrandomized studies and 5850 patients (1157 MV-PCI and 4693 CO-PCI). There was no significant difference in short-term mortality with MV-PCI versus CO-PCI (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-1.43; P=0.61). Similarly, there were no significant differences in long-term mortality (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.54-1.30; P=0.43), cardiovascular death (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.42-1.23; P=0.23), reinfarction (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.84-3.26; P=0.15), or repeat revascularization (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.76-1.69; P=0.54) between the 2 groups. There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher in-hospital stroke (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98-2.72; P=0.06) and renal failure (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98-1.72; P=0.06), with no difference in major bleeding (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.39-5.63; P=0.57) with MV-PCI when compared with CO-PCI. Conclusions This meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies suggests that in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, there may be no significant benefit with single-stage MV-PCI compared with CO-PCI. Given the limitations of observational data, randomized trials are needed to determine the role of MV-PCI in this setting.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
- Sarno, Giovanna, et al.
(författare)
-
Stent Thrombosis in New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With STEMI Undergoing Primary PCI
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 64:1, s. 16-24
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Some concerns still have not been resolved about the long-term safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with acute STEMI.OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the stent thrombosis (ST) rate up to 3 years in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new-generation drug-eluting stents (n-DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and old-generation drug-eluting stents (o-DES) enrolled in the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry).METHODS: From January 2007 to January 2013, 34,147 patients with STEMI were treated by PCI with n-DES (n = 4,811), o-DES (n = 4,271), or BMS (n = 25,065). The risks of early/late (up to 1 year) and very late definite ST (after 1 year) were estimated.RESULTS: Cox regression landmark analysis showed a significantly lower risk of early/late ST in patients treated with n-DES (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.99; p 0.04) and o-DES (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.89; p = 0.01) compared with the BMS group. The risk of very late ST was similar between the n-DES and BMS groups (HR: 1.52; 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.98; p = 0.21), whereas a higher risk of very late ST was observed with o-DES compared with BMS (HR: 2.88; 95% CI: 1.70 to 4.89; p < 0.01).CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with n-DES have a lower risk of early/late ST than patients treated with BMS. The risk of very late ST is low and comparable between n-DES and BMS up to 3 years of follow-up, whereas o-DES treatment is associated with an increased risk of very late ST. The current STEMI guidelines might require an update in light of the results of this and other recent studies. (C) 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
