Search

PURPOSE: Amongst others, [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [18F]PSMA-1007 are available for the detection of recurrent prostate cancer (rPC). There are currently limited data comparing the performance of these two radioligands with respect to clinical outcomes or their cost efficacy, which this study aims to address. METHODS: Two hundred and forty-four patients undergoing PSMA PET/CT for rPC were retrospectively analysed for this study (one hundred and twenty two with each radiopharmaceutical) to generate rates of PET positivity, negativity and unclear findings. Patients underwent follow-up to determine the rate of additional examinations and to confirm PET findings. A Markov chain decision analysis was implemented to model clinical decision-making processes and to analyse clinical performance of the two tracers. We determine their clinical cost efficacies using cost data from several countries where both radiotracers are in routine use. RESULTS: The PET positivity rate was non-significantly higher for [18F]PSMA-1007 compared to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 (91.8% vs. 86.9%, p = 0.68), whereas the rate of uncertain findings was significantly greater (17.2% vs. 8.25%, p = 0.02). The probability of a true positive finding was higher for [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 (0.90, 95% CI 0.70-0.98) vs. [18F]PSMA-1007 (0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.91). A significantly (p < 0.0001) higher PPV for [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 (0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.0 vs. 0.86) was found compared to [18F]PSMA-1007 (0.86, 95% CI 0.82-1.00). Intervention efficacy analysis favoured [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11, where the number needed to image (to achieve a true positive finding) was 10.58 and the number needed to image to harm (to achieve a false positive finding) was - 8.08. A cost efficacy analysis favours [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 in three of the four jurisdictions analysed where health economic data was available (Switzerland, Israel, Australia) and [18F]PSMA-1007 in one jurisdiction (Denmark). CONCLUSION: The analysis reveals a non-significantly higher PET positivity rate for [18F]PSMA-1007, but finds significantly greater rates of uncertain findings and false positive findings when compared to [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11. We find differences in the two tracers in terms of clinical performance and cost efficacy. The method presented herein is generalisable and can be used with clinical or cost data for other countries or tracers.

Background & aimsEosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is assessed endoscopically (endoscopic activity), based on grades of edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures (EREFS). We examined variations in endoscopic assessments of severity, developed and validated 3 EREFS-based scoring systems, and assessed responsiveness of these systems using data from a randomized placebo-controlled trial of patients with EoE.MethodsFor the development set, 5 gastroenterologists reviewed EREFS findings from 266 adults with EoE and provided endoscopist global assessment scores (EndoGA, scale of 0 to 10); variation (ΔEndoGA) was assessed using linear regression. We evaluated simple scores (features given arbitrary values from 0 to 3) and developed 2 scoring systems (adjusted score range, 0-100). We then fitted our linear regression model with mean EndoGA to data from 146 adults recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between April 2011 and December 2012. For the validation set, we collected data from 120 separate adults (recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between May 2013 and July 2014), assessing regression coefficient-based scores using Bland-Altman method. We assessed the responsiveness of our scoring systems using data from a randomized trial of patients with EoE given fluticasone (n=16) or placebo (n=8).ResultsThe distribution of EndoGA values differed among endoscopists (mean ΔEndoGA, 2.6±1.8; range 0-6.6). We developed 2 regression-based scoring systems to assess overall and proximal and distal esophageal findings; variation in endoscopic features accounted for more than 90% of the mean EndoGA variation. In the validation group, differences between mean EndoGA and regression-based scores were small (ranging from -4.70 to 2.03), indicating good agreement. In analyses of data from the randomized trial, the baseline to end of study change in patients given fluticasone was a reduction of 24.3 in simple score (reduction of 4.6 in patients given placebo, P=.052); a reduction of 23.5 in regression-based overall score (reduction of 6.56 in patients given placebo, P=.12), and a reduction of 23.8 (reduction of 8.44 in patients given placebo, P=.11).ConclusionAssessments of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE vary among endoscopists. In an analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial, we found that newly developed scoring systems are no better than simple scoring system in detecting changes in endoscopic activity. These results support the use of a simple scoring system in evaluation of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE. clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT00939263 and NCT01386112.

Introduction: HIV replication leads to a change in lymphocyte phenotypes that impairs immune protection against opportunistic infections. We examined current HIV replication as an independent risk factor for tuberculosis (TB). Methods: We included people living with HIV from 25 European cohorts 1983–2015. Individuals <16 years or with previous TB were excluded. Person-time was calculated from enrolment (baseline) to the date of TB diagnosis or last follow-up information. We used adjusted Poisson regression and general additive regression models. Results: We included 272,548 people with a median follow-up of 5.9 years (interquartile range [IQR] 2.3–10.9). At baseline, the median CD4 cell count was 355 cells/μL (IQR 193–540) and the median HIV-RNA level 22,000 copies/mL (IQR 1,300–103,000). During 1,923,441 person-years of follow-up, 5,956 (2.2%) people developed TB. Overall, TB incidence was 3.1 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.02–3.18) and was four times higher in patients with HIV-RNA levels of 10,000 compared with levels <400 copies/mL in any CD4 stratum. CD4 and HIV-RNA time-updated analyses showed that the association between HIV-RNA and TB incidence was independent of CD4. The TB incidence rate ratio for people born in TB-endemic countries compared with those born in Europe was 1.8 (95% CI 1.5–2.2). Conclusions: Our results indicate that ongoing HIV replication (suboptimal HIV control) is an important risk factor for TB, independent of CD4 count. Those at highest risk of TB are people from TB-endemic countries. Close monitoring and TB preventive therapy for people with suboptimal HIV control is important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThis review is the third update of the Cochrane review "Selenium for preventing cancer". Selenium is a naturally occurring element with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancer.ObjectivesTo gather and present evidence needed to address two research questions:1. What is the aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans?2. Describe the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans.Search methodsWe updated electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid, 2013 to January 2017, week 4), and Embase (2013 to 2017, week 6), as well as searches of clinical trial registries.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies that enrolled adult participants.Data collection and analysisWe performed random-effects (RE) meta-analyses when two or more RCTs were available for a specific outcome. We conducted RE meta-analyses when five or more observational studies were available for a specific outcome. We assessed risk of bias in RCTs and in observational studies using Cochrane's risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. We considered in the primary analysis data pooled from RCTs with low risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included 83 studies in this updated review: two additional RCTs (10 in total) and a few additional trial reports for previously included studies. RCTs involved 27,232 participants allocated to either selenium supplements or placebo. For analyses of RCTs with low risk of bias, the summary risk ratio (RR) for any cancer incidence was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10; 3 studies, 19,475 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for estimated cancer mortality was 1.02 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.30; 1 study, 17,444 participants). For the most frequently investigated site-specific cancers, investigators provided little evidence of any effect of selenium supplementation. Two RCTs with 19,009 participants indicated that colorectal cancer was unaffected by selenium administration (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43), as were non-melanoma skin cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants), lung cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), breast cancer (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 9.55; 1 study, 802 participants), bladder cancer (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.52; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), and prostate cancer (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 4 studies, 18,942 participants). Certainty of the evidence was high for all of these cancer sites, except for breast cancer, which was of moderate certainty owing to imprecision, and non-melanoma skin cancer, which we judged as moderate certainty owing to high heterogeneity. RCTs with low risk of bias suggested increased melanoma risk.Results for most outcomes were similar when we included all RCTs in the meta-analysis, regardless of risk of bias. Selenium supplementation did not reduce overall cancer incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 5 studies, 21,860 participants) nor mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 2 studies, 18,698 participants). Summary RRs for site-specific cancers showed limited changes compared with estimates from high-quality studies alone, except for liver cancer, for which results were reversed.In the largest trial, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial, selenium supplementation increased risks of alopecia and dermatitis, and for participants with highest background selenium status, supplementation also increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. RCTs showed a slightly increased risk of type 2 diabetes associated with supplementation. A hypothesis generated by the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial - that individuals with low blood selenium levels could reduce their risk of cancer (particularly prostate cancer) by increasing selenium intake - has not been confirmed. As RCT participants have been overwhelmingly male (88%), we could not assess the potential influence of sex or gender.We included 15 additional observational cohort studies (70 in total; over 2,360,000 participants). We found that lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 7 studies, 76,239 participants) and lower cancer mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97; 7 studies, 183,863 participants) were associated with the highest category of selenium exposure compared with the lowest. Cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.14, 4 studies, 29,365 men) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, 2 studies, 18,244 women). Data show a decrease in risk of site-specific cancers for stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancers. However, these studies have major weaknesses due to study design, exposure misclassification, and potential unmeasured confounding due to lifestyle or nutritional factors covarying with selenium exposure beyond those taken into account in multi-variable analyses. In addition, no evidence of a dose-response relation between selenium status and cancer risk emerged. Certainty of evidence was very low for each outcome. Some studies suggested that genetic factors might modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk - an issue that merits further investigation.Authors' conclusionsWell-designed and well-conducted RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of selenium supplements in reducing cancer risk (high certainty of evidence). Some RCTs have raised concerns by reporting a higher incidence of high-grade prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes in participants with selenium supplementation. No clear evidence of an influence of baseline participant selenium status on outcomes has emerged in these studies.Observational longitudinal studies have shown an inverse association between selenium exposure and risk of some cancer types, but null and direct relations have also been reported, and no systematic pattern suggesting dose-response relations has emerged. These studies suffer from limitations inherent to the observational design, including exposure misclassification and unmeasured confounding.Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing selenium intake through diet or supplementation prevents cancer in humans. However, more research is needed to assess whether selenium may modify the risk of cancer in individuals with a specific genetic background or nutritional status, and to investigate possible differential effects of various forms of selenium.

Introduction: Since the beginning of the HIV epidemic in resource-rich countries, Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PjP) is one of the most frequent opportunistic AIDS-defining infections. The Collaboration of ObservationalHIV EpidemiologicalResearch Europe (COHERE) has shown that primary Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia (PjP) prophylaxis can be safely withdrawn in patients with CD4 counts of 100 to 200 cells/[micro]L if plasma HIV-RNA is suppressed on combination antiretroviraltherapy. Whether this holds true for secondary prophylaxis is not known, and this has proved difficult to determine due to the much lower population at risk. Methods: We estimated the incidence of secondary PjP by including patient data collected from 1998 to 2015 from the COHERE cohort collaboration according to time-updated CD4 counts, HIV-RNA and use of PjP prophylaxis in persons >16 years of age. We fitted a Poisson generalized additive modelin which the smoothed effect of CD4 was modelled by a restricted cubic spline, and HIV-RNA was stratified as low (10,000copies/mL). Results: There were 373 recurrences of PjP during 74,295 person-years (py) in 10,476 patients. The PjP incidence in the different plasma HIV-RNA strata differed significantly and was lowest in the low stratum. For patients off prophylaxis with CD4 counts between 100 and 200 cells/[micro]L and HIV-RNA below 400 copies/mL, the incidence of recurrent PjP was 3.9 (95% CI: 2.0 to 5.8) per 1000 py, not significantly different from patients on prophylaxis in the same stratum (1.9, 95% CI: 0.1 to 3.7). Conclusions: HIV viraemia importantly affects the risk of recurrent PjP. In virologically suppressed patients on ART with CD4 counts of 100 to 200/[micro]L, the incidence of PjP off prophylaxis is below 10/1000 py. Secondary PjP prophylaxis may be safely withheld in such patients. While European guidelines recommend discontinuing secondary PjP prophylaxis only if CD4 counts rise above 200 cells/mL, the latest US Guidelines consider secondary prophylaxis discontinuation even in patients with a CD4 count above 100 cells/[micro]L and suppressed viral load. Our results strengthen and support this US recommendation. Keywords: opportunistic infections; Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia; prophylaxis, 1 INTRODUCTION Since the beginning of the HIV epidemic in resource-rich countries, Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PjP) is one of the most frequent opportunistic AIDS-defining infections [1]. PjP occurs predominantly in [...]

Background & aimsIt is not clear whether symptoms alone can be used to estimate the biologic activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate whether symptoms can be used to identify patients with endoscopic and histologic features of remission.MethodsBetween April 2011 and June 2014, we performed a prospective, observational study and recruited 269 consecutive adults with EoE (67% male; median age, 39 years old) in Switzerland and the United States. Patients first completed the validated symptom-based EoE activity index patient-reported outcome instrument and then underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsy collection. Endoscopic and histologic findings were evaluated with a validated grading system and standardized instrument, respectively. Clinical remission was defined as symptom score

BackgroundPotentially avoidable risk factors continue to cause unnecessary disability and premature death in older people. Health risk assessment (HRA), a method successfully used in working-age populations, is a promising method for cost-effective health promotion and preventive care in older individuals, but the long-term effects of this approach are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of an innovative approach to HRA and counselling in older individuals for health behaviours, preventive care, and long-term survival.Methods and findingsThis study was a pragmatic, single-centre randomised controlled clinical trial in community-dwelling individuals aged 65 y or older registered with one of 19 primary care physician (PCP) practices in a mixed rural and urban area in Switzerland. From November 2000 to January 2002, 874 participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and 1,410 to usual care. The intervention consisted of HRA based on self-administered questionnaires and individualised computer-generated feedback reports, combined with nurse and PCP counselling over a 2-y period. Primary outcomes were health behaviours and preventive care use at 2 y and all-cause mortality at 8 y. At baseline, participants in the intervention group had a mean ± standard deviation of 6.9 ± 3.7 risk factors (including unfavourable health behaviours, health and functional impairments, and social risk factors) and 4.3 ± 1.8 deficits in recommended preventive care. At 2 y, favourable health behaviours and use of preventive care were more frequent in the intervention than in the control group (based on z-statistics from generalised estimating equation models). For example, 70% compared to 62% were physically active (odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.16-1.77, p = 0.001), and 66% compared to 59% had influenza vaccinations in the past year (odds ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.66, p = 0.005). At 8 y, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the estimated proportion alive was 77.9% in the intervention and 72.8% in the control group, for an absolute mortality difference of 4.9% (95% CI 1.3%-8.5%, p = 0.009; based on z-test for risk difference). The hazard ratio of death comparing intervention with control was 0.79 (95% CI 0.66-0.94, p = 0.009; based on Wald test from Cox regression model), and the number needed to receive the intervention to prevent one death was 21 (95% CI 12-79). The main limitations of the study include the single-site study design, the use of a brief self-administered questionnaire for 2-y outcome data collection, the unavailability of other long-term outcome data (e.g., functional status, nursing home admissions), and the availability of long-term follow-up data on mortality for analysis only in 2014.ConclusionsThis is the first trial to our knowledge demonstrating that a collaborative care model of HRA in community-dwelling older people not only results in better health behaviours and increased use of recommended preventive care interventions, but also improves survival. The intervention tested in our study may serve as a model of how to implement a relatively low-cost but effective programme of disease prevention and health promotion in older individuals.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN 28458424.

Background & aimsStandardized instruments are needed to assess the activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and to provide end points for clinical trials and observational studies. We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument and score, based on items that could account for variations in patient assessments of disease severity. We also evaluated relationships between patient assessment of disease severity and EoE-associated endoscopic, histologic, and laboratory findings.MethodsWe collected information from 186 patients with EoE in Switzerland and the United States (69.4% male; median age, 43 y) via surveys (n = 135), focus groups (n = 27), and semistructured interviews (n = 24). Items were generated for the instruments to assess biologic activity based on physician input. Linear regression was used to quantify the extent to which variations in patient-reported disease characteristics could account for variations in patient assessment of EoE severity. The PRO instrument was used prospectively in 153 adult patients with EoE (72.5% male; median age, 38 y), and validated in an independent group of 120 patients with EoE (60.8% male; median age, 40.5 y).ResultsSeven PRO factors that are used to assess characteristics of dysphagia, behavioral adaptations to living with dysphagia, and pain while swallowing accounted for 67% of the variation in patient assessment of disease severity. Based on statistical consideration and patient input, a 7-day recall period was selected. Highly active EoE, based on endoscopic and histologic findings, was associated with an increase in patient-assessed disease severity. In the validation study, the mean difference between patient assessment of EoE severity (range, 0-10) and PRO score (range, 0-8.52) was 0.15.ConclusionsWe developed and validated an EoE scoring system based on 7 PRO items that assess symptoms over a 7-day recall period. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00939263.

BackgroundThis review is an update of the first Cochrane publication on selenium for preventing cancer (Dennert 2011).Selenium is a metalloid with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancers.ObjectivesTwo research questions were addressed in this review: What is the evidence for:1. an aetiological relation between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans? and2. the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans?Search methodsWe conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1966 to February 2013 week 1), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 6), CancerLit (February 2004) and CCMed (February 2011). As MEDLINE now includes the journals indexed in CancerLit, no further searches were conducted in this database after 2004.Selection criteriaWe included prospective observational studies (cohort studies including sub-cohort controlled studies and nested case-control studies) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthy adult participants (18 years of age and older).Data collection and analysisFor observational studies, we conducted random effects meta-analyses when five or more studies were retrieved for a specific outcome. For RCTs, we performed random effects meta-analyses when two or more studies were available. The risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using forms adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort and case-control studies; the criteria specified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias in RCTs.Main resultsWe included 55 prospective observational studies (including more than 1,100,000 participants) and eight RCTs (with a total of 44,743 participants). For the observational studies, we found lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.91, N = 8) and cancer mortality (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93, N = 6) associated with higher selenium exposure. Gender-specific subgroup analysis provided no clear evidence of different effects in men and women (P value 0.47), although cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05, N = 6) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, N = 2). The most pronounced decreases in risk of site-specific cancers were seen for stomach, bladder and prostate cancers. However, these findings have limitations due to study design, quality and heterogeneity that complicate interpretation of the summary statistics. Some studies suggested that genetic factors may modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk-a hypothesis that deserves further investigation.In RCTs, we found no clear evidence that selenium supplementation reduced the risk of any cancer (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.17, two studies, N = 4765) or cancer-related mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32, two studies, N = 18,698), and this finding was confirmed when the analysis was restricted to studies with low risk of bias. The effect on prostate cancer was imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.14, four studies, N = 19,110), and when the analysis was limited to trials with low risk of bias, the interventions showed no effect (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14, three studies, N = 18,183). The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer was increased (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17, three studies, N = 1900). Results of two trials-the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial (NPCT) and the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial (SELECT)-also raised concerns about possible increased risk of type 2 diabetes, alopecia and dermatitis due to selenium supplements. An early hypothesis generated by NPCT that individuals with the lowest blood selenium levels at baseline could reduce their risk of cancer, particularly of prostate cancer, by increasing selenium intake has not been confirmed by subsequent trials. As the RCT participants were overwhelmingly male (94%), gender differences could not be systematically assessed.Authors' conclusionsAlthough an inverse association between selenium exposure and the risk of some types of cancer was found in some observational studies, this cannot be taken as evidence of a causal relation, and these results should be interpreted with caution. These studies have many limitations, including issues with assessment of exposure to selenium and to its various chemical forms, heterogeneity, confounding and other biases. Conflicting results including inverse, null and direct associations have been reported for some cancer types.RCTs assessing the effects of selenium supplementation on cancer risk have yielded inconsistent results, although the most recent studies, characterised by a low risk of bias, found no beneficial effect on cancer risk, more specifically on risk of prostate cancer, as well as little evidence of any influence of baseline selenium status. Rather, some trials suggest harmful effects of selenium exposure. To date, no convincing evidence suggests that selenium supplements can prevent cancer in humans.