Search

Background: The aim of this study is to examine the prevalence of behavioural and emotional problems in a sample of school children living in Campania, a region of South Italy. Methods: The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Parent Report Form (PRF) and the CBCL Teacher Rating Form (TRF) were administered to parents and teachers of a sample of school children aged 8-9 yr. Results: The subjects (SS) eligible for the study were 3072. In 2137 (69.5%) cases parents returned the envelopes back. 1228 (57.4%) subjects were excluded because of lack of signed consensus, unfilled or incomplete forms. Parents reported children's behavioural or emotional Total Problems in 14.7% of the SS. (5.2% borderline, 9.5% clinical), Internalizing Problems in 18.5% (8.0% borderline, 10.5% clinical), and Externalizing Problems in 8.5% (3.8% borderline, 4.7% clinical) respectively. At the Competence Scale of CBCL more than 2/3 of the sample show high rate for Total Competence Problem (24.3% borderline, 47.3% clinical.) Teachers reported 8.7% of SS having Total Problems, (4.3% borderline, 4.4% clinical), Internalizing problems were detected in 13.3% of the sample (4.9% borderline and 8.4% clinical), while Externalizing problems were reported for 9.6% of SS (4.1% borderline and 5.5% clinical). In the sub-scale of Academic Performances teachers report a high number of subjects with problems, 18.7%, whose 4.3% had a "borderline" score, and 14.4% had a "clinical" score. Conclusion: Concerning Total Problems (clinical and borderline SS, 14.7% as reported by parents, 8.7% as reported by teachers) we obtained a prevalence similar to that reported in the rest of the country, with differences in gender (males 13.2%, females 16.0% as reported by parents; males 7.4%, females 9.7% as reported by teachers). The difficulties in social and relationship competencies area were higher (4 / 10 children). This datum should be cautiously evaluated because the possible inadequacy of CBCL competences scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this paper is to describe the time spent to activate oncological non-profit clinical trials promoted in Italy by the National Cancer Institute of Naples, following the implementation of recent European laws. Methodology: Data about the process of activation of 5 non-profit multicentre clinical trials were prospectively collected through a web-based system. The impact of European guidelines was assessed by comparing the efficiency of the process between applications started before and after the decree introducing in Italy the Clinical Trial Application form (MD-CTA). Outcomes of the descriptive analyses were the time to EC opinion, the time to administrative agreement signature after a positive EC opinion, and the cumulative percentage of submissions that came to closure (either positive or negative) within four subsequent time cohorts. Principal Findings: From March 2007 to October 2009, 202 applications were submitted to 107 centres. Forty-four (59%) applications of those submitted before were successful, compared to 71 (55%) of those submitted after MD-CTA. Most of the failures were due to missing EC response (27% and 22%) or administrative reasons (10% and 16%, before and after, respectively); very few (4% and 7%) were due to EC refusal. The impact of the MD-CTA on time to EC opinion looked positive (median 4.1 vs 2.4 months, before and after, respectively) but a subgroup analysis revealed that the impact was limited to a comparison biased by the selection of EC. After a positive EC opinion, there was no difference before and after MD-CTA in the time to administrative agreement signature (median 3.6 and 3.8 months, respectively). A trend to shortening time to closure of the whole submission process over the time was evident, with 58% of the applications coming to closure within 6 months from submission in the most recent cohort. Conclusions: In our experience there is reassuring evidence of a trend toward shortening the time spent to activate nonprofit clinical trials in Italy, but the whole process still remains inefficient. Efforts should be made to improve the process, also focusing on administrative procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tocilizumab blocks pro-inflammatory activity of interleukin-6 (IL-6), involved in pathogenesis of pneumonia the most frequent cause of death in COVID-19 patients., Methods: A multicenter, single-arm, hypothesis-driven trial was planned, according to a phase 2 design, to study the effect of tocilizumab on lethality rates at 14 and 30 days (co-primary endpoints, a priori expected rates being 20 and 35%, respectively). A further prospective cohort of patients, consecutively enrolled after the first cohort was accomplished, was used as a secondary validation dataset. The two cohorts were evaluated jointly in an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model to assess prognostic variables on survival., Results: In the primary intention-to-treat (ITT) phase 2 population, 180/301 (59.8%) subjects received tocilizumab, and 67 deaths were observed overall. Lethality rates were equal to 18.4% (97.5% CI: 13.6-24.0, P = 0.52) and 22.4% (97.5% CI: 17.2-28.3, P < 0.001) at 14 and 30 days, respectively. Lethality rates were lower in the validation dataset, that included 920 patients. No signal of specific drug toxicity was reported. In the exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio negatively affected survival, while the concurrent use of steroids was associated with greater survival. A statistically significant interaction was found between tocilizumab and respiratory support, suggesting that tocilizumab might be more effective in patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline., Conclusions: Tocilizumab reduced lethality rate at 30 days compared with null hypothesis, without significant toxicity. Possibly, this effect could be limited to patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. Registration EudraCT (2020-001110-38); clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04317092).

Introduction: Financial toxicity (FT) is a well-recognised problem in oncology. US-based studies have shown that: (a) cancer patients have a 2.7 times risk of bankruptcy; (b) patients who declare bankruptcy have a 79% greater hazard of death; (c) financial burden significantly impairs quality of life (QoL) and (d) reduces compliance and adherence to treatment prescriptions. The aim of the project is to develop and validate a patient-reported-outcome (PRO) measure to assess FT of cancer patients in Italy, where, despite the universal health coverage provided by the National Health Service, FT is an emerging issue., Methods and Analysis: Our hypothesis is that a specific FT measure, which considers the relevant sociocultural context and healthcare system, would allow us to understand the main determinants of cancer-related FT in Italy, in order to address and reduce these factors. According to the International Society for Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research guidelines on PROs, the project will include the following steps: (1) concept elicitation (from focus groups with patients and caregivers; literature; oncologists; nurses) and analysis, creating a coding library; (2) item generation (using a format that includes a question and a response on a 4-point Likert scale) and analysis through patients' cognitive interviews of item importance within different coding categories to produce the draft instrument; (3) factor analysis and internal validation (with Cronbach's alpha and test-retest for reliability) to produce the final instrument; (4) external validation with QoL anchors and depression scales. The use of the FT measure in prospective trials is also planned., Ethics and Dissemination: The protocol is approved by the ethical committees of all the participating centres. The project will tentatively produce a validated tool by the spring 2021. The project might also represent a model and the basis for future cooperation with other European countries, with different healthcare systems and socioeconomic conditions., Trial Registration Number: NCT03473379., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SR has received personal fees from CSL-Behring and GlaxoSmithKline Foundation. JB has received personal fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme. MDM has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, AstraZeneca, Janssen. FE has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Orsenyx and Amgen. LG has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb. CJ has received personal fees from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda and Sanofi. VM has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Italfarmaco; a member of his family is employee in Bayer. CMV has received personal fees from Baxter, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Sanofi Genzyme. FP has received personal fees from Bayer, Ipsen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sandoz, Incyte, Celgene, Pierre Fabre, Janssen-Cilag., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: The aim of the study is to analyse whether letrozole (L) and zoledronic acid plus L (ZL) are more effective than tamoxifen (T) as adjuvant endocrine treatment of premenopausal patients with breast cancer with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) tumours., Patients and Methods: In a phase 3 trial, 1065 premenopausal patients with HR + early breast cancer received triptorelin to suppress ovarian function and were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to adjuvant T, L or ZL for 5 years. Cancer recurrence, second breast or non-breast cancer and death were considered events for the intention-to-treat disease-free survival (DFS) analysis., Results: With a 64-month median follow-up and 134 reported events, the disease-free rate at 5 years was 85.4%, 93.2% and 93.3% with T, L and ZL, respectively (overall P = 0.008). The hazard ratio for a DFS event was 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.80; P = 0.003) with ZL vs T, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.48 to 1.07; P = 0.06) with L vs T and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.12; P = 0.22) with ZL vs L. With 36 deaths, there was no significant difference in overall survival (P = 0.14). Treatment was stopped for toxicity or refusal in 7.3%, 7.3% and 16.6% patients, and in the safety population, grade 3-4 side-effects were reported in 4.2%, 6.9% and 9.1% patients treated with T, L or ZL, respectively., Conclusion: HOBOE study shows that in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer undergoing ovarian function suppression with triptorelin, ZL significantly improves DFS, while worsening compliance and toxicity, as compared with T. (NCT00412022)., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial-CKD substudy (SPRINT-CKD) has suggested a lower blood pressure (BP) target in CKD patients. However, it is questionable whether the SPRINT-CKD results may be generalized to CKD patients under nephrology care., Methods: To compare SPRINT-CKD cohort versus referred CKD patients in terms of patients' risk profile and outcomes, we pooled four prospective cohorts of consecutive CKD patients referred to 40 Italian renal clinics. We implemented the same inclusion/exclusion criteria adopted in SPRINT and same endpoints: (1) a composite of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular (CV) events (2) all-cause mortality and (3) ESRD (composite of chronic dialysis, transplantation or 50% eGFR decline). Findings were compared with those attained in the control arm of SPRINT-CKD trial that mirrored standard BP management in clinical practice., Results: Out of 2847 patients referred to renal clinics, only 20.1% (n = 571) were identified as eligible for SPRINT-CKD. Age (72 ± 9 years), gender (42.2% female) and systolic BP (142 ± 10 mmHg) did not differ from the SPRINT-CKD while referred patients had a worse risk profile at baseline: larger prevalence of prior CV disease (25.7% versus 19.5%), higher Framingham risk score (31.9 ± 14.6% versus 27.2 ± 24.7%) and lower GFR (38 ± 11 versus 48 ± 10 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ). During 4.0 years of follow-up, 86 CV events (50 fatal), 78 all-cause death and 59 ESRD occurred with annual incidence rates higher than those observed in the SPRINT-CKD control group (CV events 4.18 vs 3.19; all-cause death 3.64 vs 2.21; ESRD 2.80 vs 0.41%/year)., Conclusions: The SPRINT-CKD cohort is poorly representative of the CKD population under nephrology care, thus suggesting that conclusions may not apply to patients referred to nephrologist.

Background: Inhibition of angiogenesis is a valuable treatment strategy for ovarian cancer. Pazopanib is an anti-angiogenic drug active in ovarian cancer. We assessed the effect of adding pazopanib to paclitaxel for patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory advanced ovarian cancer., Methods: We did this open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 hospitals in Italy. We included patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer previously treated with a maximum of two lines of chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and no residual peripheral neurotoxicity. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) with or without pazopanib 800 mg daily, and stratified by centre, number of previous lines of chemotherapy, and platinum-free interval status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01644825. This report is the final analysis; the trial is completed., Findings: Between Dec 15, 2010, and Feb 8, 2013, we enrolled 74 patients: 37 were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel and pazopanib and 37 were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel only. One patient, in the paclitaxel only group, withdrew from the study and was excluded from analyses. Median follow-up was 16·1 months (IQR 12·5-20·8). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the pazopanib plus paclitaxel group than in the paclitaxel only group (median 6·35 months [95% CI 5·36-11·02] vs 3·49 months [2·01-5·66]; hazard ratio 0·42 [95% CI 0·25-0·69]; p=0·0002). We recorded no unexpected toxic effects or deaths from toxic effects. Adverse events were more common in the pazopanib and paclitaxel group than in the paclitaxel only group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [30%] in the pazopanib group vs one [3%] in the paclitaxel group), fatigue (four [11%] vs two [6%]), leucopenia (four [11%] vs one [3%]), hypertension (three [8%] vs none [0%]), raised aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase (three [8%] vs none), and anaemia (two [5%] vs five [14%]). One patient in the pazopanib group had ileal perforation., Interpretation: Our findings suggest that a phase 3 study of the combination of weekly paclitaxel plus pazopanib for patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory advanced ovarian cancer is warranted., Funding: National Cancer Institute of Napoli and GlaxoSmithKline., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Carboplatin plus paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks is standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. A weekly paclitaxel schedule combined with carboplatin every 3 weeks prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in a Japanese phase 3 trial. The aim of our study was to assess whether a weekly schedule of carboplatin plus paclitaxel is more effective than the same drugs given every 3 weeks., Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study at 67 institutions in Italy and France. Women with FIGO stage IC-IV ovarian cancer, an ECOG performance status of 2 or lower, and who had never received chemotherapy were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL per min) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for six cycles or carboplatin (AUC 2 mg/mL per min) plus paclitaxel (60 mg/m(2)) every week for 18 weeks. Randomisation was done by computer-based minimisation, stratified by centre, residual disease after surgery, and ECOG performance status. The study was not blinded. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival and quality of life (assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Trial Outcome Index [FACT-O/TOI] score), and analysis was by modified intention to treat. This report presents the final analysis. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660842., Findings: 822 patients were enrolled into the study between Nov 20, 2008, and March 1, 2012; 12 withdrew their consent immediately after randomisation and were excluded, and 810 were eligible for analysis. 404 women were allocated treatment every 3 weeks and 406 were assigned to the weekly schedule. After median follow-up of 22·3 months (IQR 16·2-30·9), 449 progression-free survival events were recorded. Median progression-free survival was 17·3 months (95% CI 15·2-20·2) in patients assigned to treatment every 3 weeks, versus 18·3 months (16·8-20·9) in women allocated to the weekly schedule (hazard ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·80-1·16; p=0·66). FACT-O/TOI scores differed significantly between the two schedules (treatment-by-time interaction p<0·0001); with treatment every 3 weeks, FACT-O/TOI scores worsened at every cycle (weeks 1, 4, and 7), whereas for the weekly schedule, after transient worsening at week 1, FACT-O/TOI scores remained stable. Fewer patients assigned to the weekly group than those allocated treatment every 3 weeks had grade 3-4 neutropenia (167 [42%] of 399 patients vs 200 [50%] of 400 patients), febrile neutropenia (two [0·5%] vs 11 [3%]), grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia (four [1%] vs 27 [7%]), and grade 2 or worse neuropathy (24 [6%] vs 68 [17%]). Three deaths during the study were attributed to chemotherapy; two women died who were allocated treatment every 3 weeks and one death was recorded in the group assigned the weekly regimen., Interpretation: A weekly regimen of carboplatin and paclitaxel might be a reasonable option for first-line treatment of women with advanced ovarian cancer., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

To define whether age modifies the prognosis of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on nephrology care, we prospectively followed patients with CKD who have been receiving nephrology care in a clinic for 1 year or more. The incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), defined by the occurrence of dialysis or transplant, or death without ESRD was estimated by a competing-risk approach, and interactions between age and risk factors tested in Cox models over a median follow-up period of 62.4 months. Of 1248 patients with stage III–V CKD, 481 were younger than 65, 410 were between 65 and 75, and 357 were over 75 years old. Within each age class, the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate(eGFR) was 31, 32, and 29 ml/min per 1.73 m2, respectively. There were 394 ESRD events and 353 deaths. The risk of ESRD was higher than the risk of death without ESRD for ages <60 years, and independent of eGFR. The ESRD risk diminished with aging but still prevailed for eGFRs of 25–35 in patients between 65 and 75 years and with an eGFR below 15 in those up to 85 years old. Proteinuria significantly increased the risk of ESRD with advancing age. Surprisingly, the unfavorable effects of cardiovascular disease on ESRD and of diabetes on survival significantly decreased with increasing age. Male gender, higher phosphate, lower body mass index, and hemoglobin were age-independent predictors for ESRD, while cardiovascular disease, lower hemoglobin, higher proteinuria and uric acid, and ESRD also predicted death. Thus, in older patients on nephrology care, the risk of ESRD prevailed overmortality even when eGFR was not severely impaired. Proteinuria increases ESRD risk, while the predictive role of other modifiable risk factors was unchanged compared with younger patients.

Background and Objectives: Prognosis in nondialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients under regular nephrology care is rarely investigated. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We prospectively followed from 2003 to death or June 2010 a cohort of 1248 patients with CKD stages 3 to 5 and previous nephrology care ≥1 year in 25 Italian outpatient nephrology clinics. Cumulative incidence of ESRD or death before ESRD were estimated using the competing-risk approach., Results: Estimated rates (per 100 patient-years) of ESRD and death 8.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4 to 9.2) and 5.9 (95% CI 5.2 to 6.6), respectively. Risk of ESRD and death increased progressively from stages 3 to 5. ESRD was more frequent than death in stage 4 and 5 CKD, whereas the opposite was true in stage 3 CKD. Younger age, lower body mass index, proteinuria, and high phosphate predicted ESRD, whereas older age, diabetes, previous cardiovascular disease, ESRD, proteinuria, high uric acid, and anemia predicted death (P < 0.05 for all). Among modifiable risk factors, proteinuria accounted for the greatest contribution to the model fit for either outcome., Conclusions: In patients receiving continuity of care in Italian nephrology clinics, ESRD was a more frequent outcome than death in stage 4 and 5 CKD, but the opposite was true in stage 3. Outcomes were predicted by modifiable risk factors specific to CKD. Proteinuria used in conjunction with estimated GFR refined risk stratification. These findings provide information, specific to CKD patients under regular outpatient nephrology care, for risk stratification that complement recent observations in the general population.

Aims and Background: An appropriate use of drugs should follow the registered indications. Different reasons can induce oncologists to prescribe drugs off-label. The aim of this study was to describe incidence and characteristics of these prescriptions in Italy., Methods: Patients submitted to chemotherapy in 15 Italian oncology centers were evaluated for two randomized non-consecutive days of two weeks in May 2006., Results: The study enrolled 644 patients receiving 1,053 drugs. Overall, 199 of 1053 (18.9%) prescriptions were off-label. In 92 of 199 cases (46.2%), the drugs were used for a neoplasm for which they were not approved, but there was scientific evidence (one or more randomized clinical trials or more phase II studies published in a major oncology journal) justifying the prescription. In 27 cases (13.6%), the drugs were prescribed for a rare neoplasm (cisplatin and gemcitabine in mesothelioma). In 20/21 cases (10.1%/10.5%), drugs were used in association/alone in contrast with the approved use (capecitabine in association in colorectal cancer). In 28/11 cases (14.0%/5.6%), the drugs were used in lines of chemotherapy subsequent/previous to that approved., Conclusions: Off-label use of antineoplastic drugs, in this observational survey, represents less than 20% of the prescriptions, and most of them are based on scientific evidence of efficacy.

Background: Chemotherapy is the standard treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, and myelosuppression is a common side-effect. We aimed to assess whether haematological toxic effects could be a biological measure of drug activity and a marker of efficacy., Methods: We analysed data for 1265 patients who received chemotherapy (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, gemcitabine and vinorelbine, cisplatin and vinorelbine, or cisplatin and gemcitabine) within three randomised trials. Primary landmark analyses were restricted to 436 patients who received all six planned chemotherapy cycles and who were alive 180 days after randomisation. Neutropenia was categorised on the basis of worst WHO grade during chemotherapy: absent (grade 0), mild (grade 1-2), or severe (grade 3-4). All statistical analyses were stratified by treatment allocation. Analyses were repeated in the out-of-landmark group (829 patients), stratifying by treatment allocation and number of chemotherapy cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival., Findings: In the landmark group, hazard ratios of death were 0.65 (0.46-0.93) for patients with severe neutropenia and 0.74 (0.56-0.98) for those with mild neutropenia. Median survival after the landmark time of 180 days was 31.4 weeks (95% CI 25.7-39.6) for patients without neutropenia compared with 42.0 weeks (32.7-59.7) for patients with severe neutropenia, and with 43.7 weeks (36.6-66.0) for those with mild neutropenia (severe vs mild vs no neutropenia p=0.0118). Findings were much the same for the out-of-landmark group., Interpretation: Neutropenia during chemotherapy is associated with increased survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, and its absence might be a result of underdosing. Prospective trials are needed to assess whether drug dosing guided by the occurrence of toxic effects could improve efficacy of standard regimens.

Background: Clinical trials with non-profit promoters are frequently performed in oncology and represent a highly valuable source of information., Methods: To describe the costs of insurance policies and their determinants, data were collected from 12 Italian non-profit promoters of cancer trials. The cost of policies was expressed as per-patient premium., Results: Sixty-two quotations issued by only two companies were collected, relative to 44 trials proposed for quotation between December 1998 and February 2003. Only the date of quotation was significantly associated with the cost (P = 0.0003) of quotations by Company A for policies with a deductible, with cost increasing over time. Date of quotation (P = 0.0002), sample size (P = 0.008) and number of study arms (P = 0.02) were independently associated with the cost of no-deductible policies quoted by Company A. Only the number of study arms was significantly associated with cost (P = 0.0001) in no-deductible policies quoted by Company B., Conclusion: There is insufficient competition among companies for insurance of cancer trials with non-profit promoters. Many variables that affect the trial risk profile from a clinical perspective are not associated with insurance cost. Date of quotation is among the strongest determinants of the cost, which has sharply increased over time. This trend may become a serious problem for non-profit promoters of cancer clinical trials.