clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01134068.

No abstract

No abstract

Key Points• In a multicenter, randomized phase 3 trial, MPR-R was not superior over MPT-T with respect to response rate, PFS, and OS.• Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity requiring growth factor support occurred with MPR-R vs clinically significant neuropathy with MPT-T.The combination of melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT) is considered standard therapy for newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. Long-term treatment with thalidomide is hampered by neurotoxicity. Melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide, followed by lenalidomide maintenance therapy, showed promising results without severe neuropathy emerging. We randomly assigned 668 patients between nine 4-week cycles of MPT followed by thalidomide maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (MPT-T) and the same MP regimen with thalidomide being replaced by lenalidomide (MPR-R). This multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial was undertaken by Dutch-Belgium Cooperative Trial Group for Hematology Oncology and the Nordic Myeloma Study Group (the HOVON87/ NMSG18 trial). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). A total of 318 patients were randomly assigned to receive MPT-T, and 319 received MPR-R. After a median follow-up of 36 months, PFS with MPT-T was 20 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18-23 months) vs 23 months (95% CI, 19-27 months) with MPR-R (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04; P 5 .12). Response rates were similar, with at least a very good partial response of 47% and 45%, respectively. Hematologic toxicity was more pronounced with MPR-R, especially grades 3 and 4 neutropenia: 64% vs 27%. Neuropathy of at least grade 3 was significantly higher in the MPT-T arm: 16% vs 2% in MPR-R, resulting in a significant shorter duration of maintenance therapy (5 vs 17 months in MPR-R), irrespective of age. MPR-R has no advantage over MPT-T concerning efficacy. The toxicity profile differed with clinically significant neuropathy during thalidomide maintenance vs myelosuppression with

Summary. Background: There has been debate over how patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) can be safely selected for outpatient treatment. Objectives: To compare the Hestia criteria with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria for selecting low-risk patients with PE for outpatient treatment. Methods: From 2008 to 2010, 496 patients with acute, symptomatic PE were screened and 275 treated at home and 221 treated in the hospital according to the Hestia Study protocol. The Hestia criteria were used to select patients for outpatient treatment. Right and left ventricular (RV and LV) diameters were measured on computed tomography images. RV dysfunction was defined as an RV/LV ratio > 1.0. Patients were classified according to the ESC criteria into low, intermediate and high-risk groups, based on blood pressure and RV dysfunction. During 3 months follow-up adverse events were scored. Results: Adverse events occurred in 22 patients (4.5%) treated in the hospital vs. none of the patients treated at home (P < 0.001). Sensitivity and negative predictive value for adverse outcome were 100% for the Hestia criteria and 96% and 99% for the ESC criteria, respectively. Of the patients treated at home according to the Hestia criteria, 35% were normotensive but had RV dysfunction and were classified as intermediate risk according to the ESC criteria. No adverse events happened in these patients treated at home. Conclusions: Clinical criteria, such as the Hestia criteria, could be helpful in selecting patients, including those with RV dysfunction who have a low risk of adverse clinical outcome and could be candidates for outpatient treatment.

We investigated whether the clinical criteria used in the Hestia study for selection of pulmonary embolism (PE) patients for outpatient treatment could discriminate PE patients with high and low risk for adverse clinical outcome.We performed a cohort study with PE patients who were triaged with 11 criteria for outpatient treatment. Patients not eligible for outpatient treatment were treated in hospital. Study outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and all-cause mortality during 3 months.In total, 530 patients were included, of which 297 were treated at home. In the outpatient group, six patients (2.0%, 95% CI 0.7-4.3%) had recurrent venous thromboembolism versus nine inpatients (3.9%, 95% CI 1.9-7.0%). Three patients (1.0%, 95% CI 0.2-2.9) died during the 3-months follow-up in the outpatient group versus 22 patients (9.6%, 95% CI 6.3-14) in the in-patient group (p,0.05). None of the outpatients died as a result of fatal PE versus five (2.2%) in-patients (p,0.05). In the outpatient group, 0.7% (95% CI 0.08-2.4) had major bleeding events versus 4.8% (95% CI 2.4-8.4) of in-patients (p,0.05).This study showed that the Hestia criteria can discriminate PE patients with low risk from patients with high risk for adverse clinical outcome. The low-risk patients can safely be treated at home.

The systematic assessment of residual thromboembolic obstruction after treatment for acute pulmonary embolism (PE) has been understudied. This assessment is of potential clinical importance, should clinically suspected recurrent PE occur, or as tool for risk stratification of cardiopulmonary complications or recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study aimed to assess the rate of PE resolution and its implications for clinical outcome. In this prospective, multi-center cohort study, 157 patients with acute PE diagnosed by CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) underwent follow-up CTPA-imaging after six months of anticoagulant treatment. Two expert thoracic radiologists independently assessed the presence of residual thromboembolic obstruction. The degree of obstruction at baseline and follow-up was calculated using the Qanadli obstruction index. All patients were followed-up for 2.5 years. At baseline, the median obstruction index was 27.5 %. After six months of treatment, complete PE resolution had occurred in 84.1 % of the patients (95 % confidence interval (CI): 77.4-89.4 %). The median obstruction index of the 25 patients with residual thrombotic obstruction was 5.0 %. During follow-up, 16 (10.2 %) patients experienced recurrent VTE. The presence of residual thromboembolic obstruction was not associated with recurrent VTE (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.92; 95 % CI: 0.2-4.1).This study indicates that the incidence of residual thrombotic obstruction following treatment for PE is considerably lower than currently anticipated. These findings, combined with the absence of a correlation between residual thrombotic obstruction and recurrent VTE, do not support the routine use of follow-up CTPA-imaging in patients treated for acute PE.

Health-related quality of life in transplant ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with either thalidomide or lenalidomide-based regimen until progression: a prospective, open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study