Defining and assessing risky behaviours

This paper presents the deliberations and conclusions of an international group of health practitioners, researchers and planners who met in 1991 to explore risky behaviours and risk assessment in the context of the World Health Organization's strategy Health for All By 2000 A definition of risky behaviours is discussed and a method of exploring risk contexts,'a risk equation', is presented Lay risk assessment is explored and contrasted with professional perceptions of risk as evidenced in health education campaigns It is concluded that the application of epidemiological techniques — the study of the incidence and prevalence of risk-related and health-related behaviours — employing qualitative methods provides a useful means of exploring the social and cultural context of risk behaviour     

Prospective evaluation of the tolerability and efficacy of niraparib dosing based on baseline body weight and platelet count: Results from the PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial

Background

The PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 (NCT02655016) trial was amended to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an individualized starting dose (ISD) regimen of niraparib for first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.

Methods

In the phase 3 PRIMA trial, patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (N = 733) were initially treated with a fixed starting dose (FSD) regimen of 300 mg once daily. Subsequently, the protocol was amended so newly enrolled patients received an ISD: 200 mg once daily in patients with baseline body weight < 77 kg or baseline platelet count < 150,000/µL, and 300 mg once daily in all other patients. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed by starting dose.

Results

Overall, 475 (64.8%) patients were assigned to an FSD (niraparib, n = 317; placebo, n = 158) and 258 (35.2%) were assigned to an ISD (niraparib, n = 170; placebo, n = 88). Efficacy in patients who received FSD or ISD was similar for the overall (FSD hazard ratio [HR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.46–0.76] vs. ISD HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48–0.98]) and the homologous recombination–deficient (FSD HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.30–0.64] vs. ISD HR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22–0.72]) populations. In patients with low body weight/platelet count, rates of grades ≥3 and 4 hematologic treatment-emergent adverse events, dose interruptions, and dose reductions were lower for those who received ISD than for those who received FSD.

Conclusions

In PRIMA, similar dose intensity, similar efficacy, and improved safety were observed with the ISD compared with the FSD regimen.