Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Beyond an era of chemoradiation?

Now is an exciting era of development in immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors and their effect on the treatment of NPC. While the general prognosis of R/M disease is poor, immunotherapy offers some promise in a malignancy associated with EBV and characterized by a peritumoural immune infiltrate. Our study aims to review past and on-going clinical trials of monoclonal antibody therapies against the checkpoint inhibitors (e.g. PD1 and CTLA-4), in R/M NPC. All randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitor interventions for treatment of NPC were included in the study. We utilized a validated “risk of bias” tool to assess study quality. Four separate Phase I–II trials report the potential of PD1 inhibitor treatment for patients with NPC. Within the observed groups, camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy achieved an objective response in 91% of patients as first-line treatment for metastatic NPC (PFS 68% at 1-year) but this was associated with a high rate of grade >3 adverse events (87%; CTCAE version 4.03). The remaining three studies focused on recurrent NPC disease in patients who had received at least one line of prior chemotherapy. Within this group, camrelizumab monotherapy achieved an objective response in 34% of patients (PFS 27% at 1-year; range across all three studies 20.5–34%). No NPC trial has yet reported on specific outcomes for non-PD1 checkpoint inhibitors but 11 on-going studies include alternative targets (e.g. PD-L1/CTLA-4) as combination or monotherapy treatments. In considering checkpoint immunotherapies for NPC, initial results show promise for anti-PD1 interventions. Further phase I–III trials are in progress to clarify clinical outcomes, fully determine safety profiles, and optimize drug combinations and administration schedules.     

Challenging the world: patient safety and health care-associated infection.

Improving the safety of patient care is an issue which affects health systems in both developed and developing countries. To co-ordinate and accelerate improvements in patient safety, the World Health Organization (WHO) has supported the creation of the World Alliance for Patient Safety which was launched in October 2004. The six action areas of the Alliance are Patients for Patient Safety, Taxonomy, Research, Solutions for Patient Safety, Reporting and Learning, and a biennial Global Patient Safety Challenge. The first Challenge covering 2005-2006 was launched in October 2005 under the banner 'Clean Care is Safer Care'. The Challenge addresses health care-associated infection, a major, patient safety problem affecting hundreds of millions of people worldwide.     

Quantitative thallium-201 scintigraphy after dipyridamole infusion combined with low level exercise in healthy volunteers

To establish test specific normal limits for quantitative analysis of uptake and washout of ²⁰¹Tl after dipyridamole infusion combined with low level exercise, 20 healthy volunteers were studied with low likelihood of coronary artery disease (CAD) assessed by a stepwise probability analysis based on age, sex, symptoms, resting electrocardiogram, and exercise electrocardiography. Likelihood of CAD in these volunteers was calculated as 1%. After dipyridamole infusion combined with low level exercise, one volunteer complained of headache; no other side effects were observed. There were no chest pain complaints. Maximal hemodynamic changes were achieved during the 6th and 7th min of the test. No ST segment depression was recorded. Visual analysis of the ²⁰¹Tl scintigrams was normal in all volunteers. Mean regional washout at 4 h was 44.37%±2.11%. The regional washout in the 70° LAO view (46.65%±1.10%) was significantly higher than in the anterior and 30° LAO views (43.44%±1.50% and 43.02%±1.45%, respectively). Profiles of uptake and washout of ²⁰¹Tl were different after dipyridamole infusion combined with low level exercise as compared to maximal exercise. Thus, in quantitative analysis of ²⁰¹Tl scintigraphy after dipyridamole infusion in conjunction with low level exercise as applied in the present study, it is mandatory to use normal limits of uptake and washout of ²⁰¹Tl derived from healthy volunteers who underwent the same combined protocol.     

Topical treatments for seasonal allergic conjunctivitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and effectiveness

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of topical treatments, in providing symptomatic relief from ocular allergy, remains uncertain. AIMS: To assess the effectiveness and relative efficacy of topical treatments for the management of seasonal allergic conjunctivitis. DESIGN OF STUDY: A systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: A literature search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE bibliographic databases. METHOD: Double-masked randomised controlled trials were identified, that compared the use of topical mast cell stabilisers (sodium cromoglycate, nedocromil, lodoxamide) with placebo, topical antihistamines with placebo, and topical mast cell stabilisers with topical antihistamines. RESULTS: A meta-analysis of six trials showed that patients using sodium cromoglycate were 17 times (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4 to 78) more likely to perceive benefit compared with those using a placebo, although this estimate may be partially influenced by publication bias. Five trials indicated that those patients using nedocromil were 1.8 times (95% CI = 1.3 to 2.6) more likely to perceive their allergy to be moderately or totally controlled than those using a placebo. Four trials showed that those using antihistamines were 1.3 times (95% CI = 0.8 to 2.2) more likely to perceive a 'good' treatment effect than those using mast cell stabilisers, although this beneficial effect was not statistically significant. Limited evidence suggests that antihistamines might have a faster therapeutic effect compared to mast cell stabilisers. CONCLUSION: Overall, these findings confirm the benefit of topical mast cell stabilisers and antihistamines over placebo for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. There is, however, insufficient evidence to recommend the use of one type of medication over another. Treatment preferences should therefore be based on convenience of use (with reduced frequency of instillation for some preparations), patient preference, and costs, especially as important side effects were not reported with any medication.