| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Geyer, C. E., et al.
(author)
-
Overall survival in the OlympiA phase Ill trial of adjuvant olaparib in patients with germime pathogenic variants in BRCA1/2 and high-risk, early breast cancer
- 2022
-
In: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534. ; 33:12, s. 1250-1268
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The randomized, double-blind OlympiA trial compared 1 year of the oral poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, olaparib, to matching placebo as adjuvant therapy for patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2pv) and high-risk, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, early breast cancer (EBC). The first pre-specified interim analysis (IA) previously demonstrated statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant disease-free survival (DDFS). The olaparib group had fewer deaths than the placebo group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance for overall survival (OS). We now report the pre-specified second IA of OS with updates of IDFS, DDFS, and safety. Patients and methods: One thousand eight hundred and thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to olaparib or placebo following (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy if indicated. Endocrine therapy was given concurrently with study medication for hormone receptor-positive cancers. Statistical significance for OS at this IA required P < 0.015. Results: With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, the second IA of OS demonstrated significant improvement in the olaparib group relative to the placebo group [hazard ratio 0.68; 98.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.97; P = 0.009]. Four-year OS was 89.8% in the olaparib group and 86.4% in the placebo group (Delta 3.4%, 95% CI -0.1% to 6.8%). Four-year IDFS for the olaparib group versus placebo group was 82.7% versus 75.4% (Delta 7.3%, 95% CI 3.0% to 11.5%) and 4-year DDFS was 86.5% versus 79.1% (Delta 7.4%, 95% CI 3.6% to 11.3%), respectively. Subset analyses for OS, IDFS, and DDFS demonstrated benefit across major subgroups. No new safety signals were identified including no new cases of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. Conclusion: With 35 years of median follow-up, OlympiA demonstrates statistically significant improvement in OS with adjuvant olaparib compared with placebo for gBRCA1/2pv-associated EBC and maintained improvements in the previously reported, statistically significant endpoints of IDES and DDFS with no new safety signals.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Kepp, Kasper P., et al.
(author)
-
Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity
- 2024
-
In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Elsevier. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 173
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.
|
|
| 7. |
- Hassan, Sk Sarif, et al.
(author)
-
A unique view of SARS-CoV-2 through the lens of ORF8 protein
- 2021
-
In: Computers in Biology and Medicine. - : Elsevier BV. - 0010-4825 .- 1879-0534. ; 133
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Immune evasion is one of the unique characteristics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) attributed to its ORF8 protein. This protein modulates the adaptive host immunity through down regulation of MHC-1 (Major Histocompatibility Complex) molecules and innate immune responses by surpassing the host's interferon-mediated antiviral response. To understand the host's immune perspective in reference to the ORF8 protein, a comprehensive study of the ORF8 protein and mutations possessed by it have been performed. Chemical and structural properties of ORF8 proteins from different hosts, such as human, bat, and pangolin, suggest that the ORF8 of SARS-CoV-2 is much closer to ORF8 of Bat RaTG13-CoV than to that of Pangolin-CoV. Eighty-seven mutations across unique variants of ORF8 in SARS-CoV-2 can be grouped into four classes based on their predicted effects (Hussain et al., 2021) [1]. Based on the geo-locations and timescale of sample collection, a possible flow of mutations was built. Furthermore, conclusive flows of amalgamation of mutations were found upon sequence similarity analyses and consideration of the amino acid conservation phylogenies. Therefore, this study seeks to highlight the uniqueness of the rapidly evolving SARS-CoV-2 through the ORF8.
|
|
| 8. |
- Lundstrom, Kenneth, et al.
(author)
-
COVID-19 Vaccines and Thrombosis-Roadblock or Dead-End Street?
- 2021
-
In: Biomolecules. - : MDPI. - 2218-273X. ; 11:7
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Two adenovirus-based vaccines, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2.S, and two mRNA-based vaccines, BNT162b2 and mRNA.1273, have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and are invaluable in preventing and reducing the incidence of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Recent reports have pointed to thrombosis with associated thrombocytopenia as an adverse effect occurring at a low frequency in some individuals after vaccination. The causes of such events may be related to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein interactions with different C-type lectin receptors, heparan sulfate proteoglycans (HSPGs) and the CD147 receptor, or to different soluble splice variants of the spike protein, adenovirus vector interactions with the CD46 receptor or platelet factor 4 antibodies. Similar findings have been reported for several viral diseases after vaccine administration. In addition, immunological mechanisms elicited by viral vectors related to cellular delivery could play a relevant role in individuals with certain genetic backgrounds. Although rare, the potential COVID-19 vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) requires immediate validation, especially in risk groups, such as the elderly, chronic smokers, and individuals with pre-existing incidences of thrombocytopenia; and if necessary, a reformulation of existing vaccines.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
