IntroductionCritically ill patients can develop hyperglycaemia even if they do not have diabetes. Intensive insulin therapy decreases morbidity and mortality rates in patients in a surgical intensive care unit (ICU) and decreases morbidity in patients in a medical ICU. The effect of this therapy on patients in a mixed medical/surgical ICU is unknown. Our goal was to assess whether the effect of intensive insulin therapy, compared with standard therapy, decreases morbidity and mortality in patients hospitalised in a mixed ICU.MethodsThis is a prospective, randomised, non-blinded, single-centre clinical trial in a medical/surgical ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intensive insulin therapy to maintain glucose levels between 80 and 110 mg/dl (4.4 to 6.1 mmol/l) or standard insulin therapy to maintain glucose levels between 180 and 200 mg/dl (10 and 11.1 mmol/l). The primary end point was mortality at 28 days.ResultsOver a period of 30 months, 504 patients were enrolled. The 28-day mortality rate was 32.4% (81 of 250) in the standard insulin therapy group and 36.6% (93 of 254) in the intensive insulin therapy group (Relative Risk [RR]: 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 1.42). The ICU mortality in the standard insulin therapy group was 31.2% (78 of 250) and 33.1% (84 of 254) in the intensive insulin therapy group (RR: 1.06; 95%CI: 0.82 to 1.36). There was no statistically significant reduction in the rate of ICU-acquired infections: 33.2% in the standard insulin therapy group compared with 27.17% in the intensive insulin therapy group (RR: 0.82; 95%CI: 0.63 to 1.07). The rate of hypoglycaemia (≤ 40 mg/dl) was 1.7% in the standard insulin therapy group and 8.5% in the intensive insulin therapy group (RR: 5.04; 95% CI: 1.20 to 21.12).ConclusionsIIT used to maintain glucose levels within normal limits did not reduce morbidity or mortality of patients admitted to a mixed medical/surgical ICU. Furthermore, this therapy increased the risk of hypoglycaemia.Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: 4374-04-13031; 094-2 in 000966421

Cervical cancer epitomizes the success of cancer prevention through the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, but significant challenges remain in the treatment of advanced disease. We report the first three cases of cervical carcinoma harboring an FGFR3–TACC3 fusion, which serves as a novel therapeutic target. The fusion, identified by comprehensive genomic profiling, activates the FGFR pathway that has been implicated in HPV-driven carcinogenesis. One of the patients whose tumor contained the FGFR3–TACC3 fusion was treated with an investigational FGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Concomitant molecular alterations involving the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and RAF/MEK pathways were also identified and suggest other treatment strategies that deserve investigation. This case series highlights the role of comprehensive genomic profiling in the identification of new therapeutic targets and in targeted therapy selection for patients with cervical cancer.

Background Eflapegrastim, a novel, long‐acting recombinant human granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (rhG‐CSF), consists of a rhG‐CSF analog conjugated to a human IgG4 Fc fragment via a short polyethylene glycol linker. Preclinical and phase I and II pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data showed increased potency for neutrophil counts for eflapegrastim versus pegfilgrastim. This open‐label phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim with pegfilgrastim for reducing the risk of chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia. Materials and Methods Patients with early‐stage breast cancer were randomized 1:1 to fixed‐dose eflapegrastim 13.2 mg (3.6 mg G‐CSF) or standard pegfilgrastim (6 mg G‐CSF) following standard docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for 4 cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of eflapegrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN; grade 4) in cycle 1. Results Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to study arms (eflapegrastim, n = 196; pegfilgrastim, n = 210). The incidence of cycle 1 severe neutropenia was 16% ( n = 31) for eflapegrastim versus 24% ( n = 51) for pegfilgrastim, reducing the relative risk by 35% ( p = .034). The difference in mean cycle 1 DSN (−0.148 day) met the primary endpoint of noninferiority ( p < .0001) and also showed statistical superiority for eflapegrastim ( p = .013). Noninferiority was maintained for the duration of treatment (all cycles, p < .0001), and secondary efficacy endpoints and safety results were also comparable for study arms. Conclusion These results demonstrate noninferiority and comparable safety for eflapegrastim at a lower G‐CSF dose versus pegfilgrastim. The potential for increased potency of eflapegrastim to deliver improved clinical benefit warrants further clinical study in patients at higher risk for CIN. Implications for Practice Chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia (CIN) remains a significant clinical dilemma for oncology patients who are striving to complete their prescribed chemotherapy regimen. In a randomized, phase III trial comparing eflapegrastim to pegfilgrastim in the prevention of CIN, the efficacy of eflapegrastim was noninferior to pegfilgrastim and had comparable safety. Nevertheless, the risk of CIN remains a great concern for patients undergoing chemotherapy, as the condition frequently results in chemotherapy delays, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuations.

No abstract

Prognostic study, level II.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract