Patient preferences and predicted relative uptake for targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment

Abstract

Objective

Ras wild-type metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC) may be treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents. We aim to estimate patients’ preferences for mCRC treatment and relative importance of cost, efficacy improvement, avoidance of side effects and therapy convenience, and relative uptake between profiles that resemble Bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) and Cetuximab (anti-EGFR), two commonly prescribed mCRC targeted therapies.     

听神经瘤术后面神经功能损伤危险因素分析

目的分析影响听神经瘤患者术后短期及长期面神经功能的危险因素。 方法回顾性分析厦门大学附属第一医院神经外科自2015年1月至2018年6月收治的62例听神经瘤患者的临床资料。于术后7 d及术后6个月对所有患者的面神经功能进行评估。收集可能与患者术后早期及长期面神经功能障碍存在相关性的因素，采用Logistic单因素与多因素回归对相关因素与患者术后短期及长期面神经功能的关系进行分析。 结果术后7 d，21例（33.9%）患者面神经功能正常，41例（66.1%）患者出现面神经功能损伤；术后6个月，49例（79.0%）患者面神经功能为正常，13例（21.0%）患者面神经功能损伤。Logistic单因素回归分析结果显示：肿瘤最大直径越大、肿瘤与面神经黏连越紧密，患者术后7 d发生面神经功能损伤的可能性越大（P=0.002、0.002）；术前临床症状持续时间为患者术后6个月面神经功能障碍的危险因素（P=0.035）。Logistic多因素回归分析结果显示：肿瘤与面神经的黏连程度、肿瘤最大直径为患者术后7 d面神经功能障碍的独立危险因素（P=0.003、0.014）；术前临床症状持续时间、肿瘤最大直径为患者术后6个月面神经功能障碍的独立危险因素（P=0.010、0.030）。 结论肿瘤与面神经的黏连越紧密、肿瘤最大直径越大，患者术后7 d发生面神经功能损伤的可能性越大。患者术前临床症状持续时间越长、肿瘤最大直径越大，术后6个月发生面神经功能损伤的可能性越大。     

Population pharmacokinetics of tanezumab in phase 3 clinical trials for osteoarthritis pain

AimsThe aims were to 1) develop the pharmacokinetics model to describe and predict observed tanezumab concentrations over time, 2) test possible covariate parameter relationships that could influence clearance and distribution and 3) assess the impact of fixed dosing vs. a dosing regimen adjusted by body weight.MethodsIndividual concentration–time data were determined from 1608 patients in four phase 3 studies conducted to assess efficacy and safety of intravenous tanezumab. Patients received two or three intravenous doses (2.5, 5 or 10 mg) every 8 weeks. Blood samples for assessment of tanezumab PK were collected at baseline, 1 h post‐dose and at weeks 4, 8, 16 and 24 (or early termination) in all studies. Blood samples were collected at week 32 in two studies. Plasma samples were analyzed using a sensitive, specific, validated enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay.ResultsA two compartment model with parallel linear and non‐linear elimination processes adequately described the data. Population estimates for clearance (CL), central volume (V ₁), peripheral volume (V ₂), inter‐compartmental clearance, maximum elimination capacity (VM) and concentration at half‐maximum elimination capacity were 0.135 l day^–1, 2.71 l, 1.98 l, 0.371 l day^–1, 8.03 μg day^–1 and 27.7 ng ml^–1, respectively. Inter‐individual variability (IIV) was included on CL, V ₁, V ₂ and VM. A mixture model accounted for the distribution of residual error. While gender, dose and creatinine clearance were significant covariates, only body weight as a covariate of CL, V ₁ and V ₂ significantly reduced IIV.ConclusionsThe small increase in variability associated with fixed dosing is consistent with other monoclonal antibodies and does not change risk : benefit.     

Severe lumbar spinal stenosis combined with Guillain-Barré syndrome: A case report

BACKGROUNDGuillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare disorder that typically presents with ascending weakness, pain, paraesthesias, and numbness, which mimic the findings in lumbar spinal stenosis. Here, we report a case of severe lumbar spinal stenosis combined with GBS.CASE SUMMARYA 70-year-old man with a history of lumbar spinal stenosis presented to our emergency department with severe lower back pain and lower extremity numbness. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed the diagnosis of severe lumbar spinal stenosis. However, his symptoms did not improve postoperatively and he developed dysphagia and upper extremity numbness. An electromyogram was performed. Based on his symptoms, physical examination, and electromyogram, he was diagnosed with GBS. After 5 d of intravenous immunoglobulin (0.4 g/kg/d for 5 d) therapy, he gained 4/5 of strength in his upper and lower extremities and denied paraesthesias. He had regained 5/5 of strength in his extremities when he was discharged and had no symptoms during follow-up.CONCLUSIONGBS should be considered in the differential diagnosis of spinal disorder, even though magnetic resonance imaging shows severe lumbar spinal stenosis. This case highlights the importance of a careful diagnosis when a patient has a history of a disease and comes to the hospital with the same or similar symptoms.