Search

Abstract Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly being deployed across various high-risk applications, especially in healthcare. Despite significant attention to evaluating these systems, post-deployment incidents are not uncommon, and effective mitigation strategies remain challenging. Drug safety has a well-established history of assessing, monitoring, understanding, and preventing adverse effects in real-world usage, known as pharmacovigilance. Drawing inspiration from pharmacovigilance methods, we discuss concepts that can be adapted for monitoring AI systems in healthcare. This discussion aims to improve responses to adverse effects and potential incidents and risks associated with AI deployment in healthcare but also beyond.

Abstract Background The objective of the study was to identify the psychosocial and contextual markers considered by physicians to personalize care. Methods An online questionnaire with one open-ended question, asking physicians to describe clinical situations in which they personalized care, was used. Physicians were recruited from March 31, 2023, to August 10, 2023, from three hospitals, five university departments of general practice and six physician organizations in France. Recruitment was conducted through email invitations, with participants encouraged to invite their colleagues via a snowball sampling method. The participants were a diverse sample of French general practitioners and other medical specialists who see patients in consultations or in hospital wards. We extracted the psychosocial and contextual markers considered by physicians to personalize care in each clinical situation. The analysis involved both manual and AI-assisted content analysis using GPT3.5-Turbo (OpenAI). Mathematical models to assess data saturation were used to ensure that a comprehensive list of markers was identified. Results In total, 1340 people connected to the survey platform and 1004 (75.0%) physicians were eligible for the study (median age 39 years old, IQR 34 to 50; 60.5% women; 67.0% working in outpatient settings), among whom 290 answered the open-ended question. The participants reported 317 clinical situations during which they personalized care. Personalization was based on the consideration of 40 markers: 27 were related to patients’ psychosocial characteristics (e.g., patient capacity, psychological state, beliefs), and 13 were related to circumstances (e.g., competing activities, support network, living environment). The data saturation models showed that at least 97.0% of the potential markers were identified. Manual and AI-assisted content analysis using GPT3.5-Turbo were concordant for 89.9% of clinical situations. Conclusions Physicians personalize care to patients’ contexts and lives using a broad range of psychosocial and contextual markers. The effect of these markers on treatment engagement and effectiveness needs to be evaluated in clinical studies and integrated as tailoring variables in personalized interventions to build evidence-based personalization.

Objective To examine the characteristics of comparative non-randomised studies that assess the effectiveness or safety, or both, of drug treatments.Design Cross sectional study.Data sources Medline (Ovid), for reports published from 1 June 2022 to 31 August 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Reports of comparative non-randomised studies that assessed the effectiveness or safety, or both, of drug treatments were included. A randomly ordered sample was screened until 200 eligible reports were found. Data on general characteristics, reporting characteristics, and time point alignment were extracted, and possible related biases, with a piloted form inspired by reporting guidelines and the target trial emulation framework.Results Of 462 reports of non-randomised studies identified, 262 studies were excluded (32% had no comparator and 25% did not account for confounding factors). To assess time point alignment and possible related biases, three study time points were considered: eligibility, treatment assignment, and start of follow-up. Of the 200 included reports, 70% had one possible bias, related to: inclusion of prevalent users in 24%, post-treatment eligibility criteria in 32%, immortal time periods in 42%, and classification of treatment in 23%. Reporting was incomplete, and only 2% reported all six of the key elements considered: eligibility criteria (87%), description of treatment (46%), deviations in treatment (27%), causal contrast (11%), primary outcomes (90%), and confounding factors (88%). Most studies used routinely collected data (67%), but only 7% reported using validation studies of the codes or algorithms applied to select the population. Only 7% of reports mentioned registration on a trial registry and 3% had an available protocol.Conclusions The findings of the study suggest that although access to real world evidence could be valuable, the robustness and transparency of non-randomised studies need to be improved.

Summary: Background: Although immunomodulators have established benefit against the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in general, it is uncertain whether such agents improve outcomes without increasing the risk of secondary infections in the specific subgroup of previously immunocompromised patients. We assessed the effect of immunomodulators on outcomes of immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: The protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022335397). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of relevant articles were searched up to 01-06-2022. Authors of potentially eligible randomized controlled trials were contacted to provide data on immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control (i.e., placebo or standard-of-care). Findings: Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 397 immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were included. Ten trials had low risk of bias. There was no difference between immunocompromised patients randomized to immunomodulators vs control regarding mortality [30/182 (16.5%) vs 41/215 (19.1%); RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61–1.41; p = 0.74], secondary infections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.64–1.58; p = 0.99) and change in World Health Organization ordinal scale from baseline to day 15 (weighed mean difference 0.27, 95% CI -0.09–0.63; p = 0.15). In subgroup analyses including only patients with hematologic malignancy, only trials with low risk of bias, only trials administering IL-6 inhibitors, or only trials administering immunosuppressants, there was no difference between comparators regarding mortality. Interpretation: Immunomodulators, compared to control, were not associated with harmful or beneficial outcomes, including mortality, secondary infections, and change in ordinal scale, when administered to immunocompromised patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Funding: Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation.

Abstract Our aim was to describe the research practices of doctoral students facing a dilemma to research integrity and to assess the impact of inappropriate research environments, i.e. exposure to (a) a post-doctoral researcher who committed a Detrimental Research Practice (DRP) in a similar situation and (b) a supervisor who did not oppose the DRP. We conducted two 2-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trials. We created 10 vignettes describing a realistic dilemma with two alternative courses of action (good practice versus DRP). 630 PhD students were randomized through an online system to a vignette (a) with (n = 151) or without (n = 164) exposure to a post-doctoral researcher; (b) with (n = 155) or without (n = 160) exposure to a supervisor. The primary outcome was a score from − 5 to + 5, where positive scores indicated the choice of DRP and negative scores indicated good practice. Overall, 37% of unexposed participants chose to commit DRP with important variation across vignettes (minimum 10%; maximum 66%). The mean difference [95%CI] was 0.17 [− 0.65 to 0.99;], p = 0.65 when exposed to the post-doctoral researcher, and 0.79 [− 0.38; 1.94], p = 0.16, when exposed to the supervisor. In conclusion, we did not find evidence of an impact of postdoctoral researchers and supervisors on student research practices. Trial registration: NCT04263805, NCT04263506 (registration date 11 February 2020).

Objectives: We aimed to identify trajectories of the evolution of post-COVID-19 condition, up to 2 years after symptom onset. Methods: The ComPaRe long COVID e-cohort is a prospective cohort of patients with symptoms lasting at least 2 months after SARS-CoV2 infection. We used trajectory modeling to identify different trajectories in the evolution of post-COVID-19 condition, based on symptoms collected every 60 days using the long COVID Symptom Tool. Results: A total of 2197 patients were enrolled in the cohort between December 2020 and July 2022 when the Omicron variant was not dominant. Three trajectories of the evolution of post-COVID-19 condition were identified: “high persistent symptoms” (4%), “rapidly decreasing symptoms” (5%), and “slowly decreasing symptoms” (91%). Participants with highly persistent symptoms were older and more likely to report a history of systemic diseases. They often reported tachycardia, bradycardia, palpitations, and arrhythmia. Participants with rapidly decreasing symptoms were younger and more likely to report a confirmed infection. They often reported diarrhea and back pain. Participants with slowly decreasing symptoms were more likely to have a history of functional diseases. Conclusion: Most patients with post-COVID-19 condition improve slowly over time, while 5% have rapid improvement in the 2 years after symptom onset and 4% have a persistent condition.

Abstract Background "Evergreening" refers to the numerous strategies whereby owners of pharmaceutical products use patent laws and minor drug modifications to extend their monopoly privileges on the drug. We aimed to evaluate the impact of evergreening through the case study of the antidepressant citalopram and its chiral switch form escitalopram by evaluating treatment efficacy and acceptability for patients, as well as health insurance costs for society. Methods To assess efficacy and acceptability, we performed meta-analyses for efficacy and acceptability. We compared direct evidence (meta-analysis of results of head-to-head trials) and indirect evidence (adjusted indirect comparison of results of placebo-controlled trials). To assess health insurance costs, we analyzed individual reimbursement data from a representative sample of the French National Health Insurance Inter-regime Information System (SNIIR-AM) from 2003 to 2010, which allowed for projecting these results to the whole SNIIR-AM population (53 million people). Results In the meta-analysis of seven head-to-head trials (2,174 patients), efficacy was significantly better for escitalopram than citalopram (combined odds ratio (OR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.46)). However, for the adjusted indirect comparison of 10 citalopram and 12 escitalopram placebo-controlled trials, 2,984 and 3,777 patients respectively, efficacy was similar for the two drug forms (combined indirect OR 1.03 (0.82 to 1.30)). Because of the discrepancy, we could not combine direct and indirect data (test of inconsistency, P = 0.07). A similar discrepancy was found for treatment acceptability. The overall reimbursement cost burden for the citalopram, escitalopram and its generic forms was 120.6 million Euros in 2010, with 96.8 million Euros for escitalopram. Conclusions The clinical benefit of escitalopram versus citalopram remains uncertain. In our case of evergreening, escitalopram represented a substantially high proportion of the overall reimbursement cost burden as compared with citalopram and the generic forms.

Abstract Background Network meta-analysis (NMA), a generalization of conventional MA, allows for assessing the relative effectiveness of multiple interventions. Reporting bias is a major threat to the validity of MA and NMA. Numerous methods are available to assess the robustness of MA results to reporting bias. We aimed to extend such methods to NMA. Methods We introduced 2 adjustment models for Bayesian NMA. First, we extended a meta-regression model that allows the effect size to depend on its standard error. Second, we used a selection model that estimates the propensity of trial results being published and in which trials with lower propensity are weighted up in the NMA model. Both models rely on the assumption that biases are exchangeable across the network. We applied the models to 2 networks of placebo-controlled trials of 12 antidepressants, with 74 trials in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database but only 51 with published results. NMA and adjustment models were used to estimate the effects of the 12 drugs relative to placebo, the 66 effect sizes for all possible pair-wise comparisons between drugs, probabilities of being the best drug and ranking of drugs. We compared the results from the 2 adjustment models applied to published data and NMAs of published data and NMAs of FDA data, considered as representing the totality of the data. Results Both adjustment models showed reduced estimated effects for the 12 drugs relative to the placebo as compared with NMA of published data. Pair-wise effect sizes between drugs, probabilities of being the best drug and ranking of drugs were modified. Estimated drug effects relative to the placebo from both adjustment models were corrected (i.e., similar to those from NMA of FDA data) for some drugs but not others, which resulted in differences in pair-wise effect sizes between drugs and ranking. Conclusions In this case study, adjustment models showed that NMA of published data was not robust to reporting bias and provided estimates closer to that of NMA of FDA data, although not optimal. The validity of such methods depends on the number of trials in the network and the assumption that conventional MAs in the network share a common mean bias mechanism.

Abstract Background Several studies suggest that the number of risk factors rather than their nature is key to mental health disorders in childhood. Method and design The objective of this multicentre randomized controlled parallel trial (PROBE methodology) is to assess the impact in a multi-risk French urban sample of a home-visiting program targeting child mental health and its major determinants. This paper describes the protocol of this study. In the study, pregnant women were eligible if they were: living in the intervention area; able to speak French, less than 26 years old; having their first child; less than 27 weeks of amenorrhea; and if at least one of the following criteria were true: less than twelve years of education, intending to bring up their child without the presence of the child’s father, and 3) low income. Participants were randomized into either the intervention or the control group. All had access to usual care in mother-child centres and community mental health services free of charge in every neighbourhood. Psychologists conducted all home visits, which were planned on a weekly basis from the 7th month of pregnancy and progressively decreasing in frequency until the child’s second birthday. Principle outcome measures included child mental health at 24 months and two major mediating variables for infant mental health: postnatal maternal depression and the quality of the caring environment. A total of 440 families were recruited, of which a subsample of 120 families received specific attachment and caregiver behaviour assessment. Assessment was conducted by an independent assessment team during home visits and, for the attachment study, in a specifically created Attachment Assessment laboratory. Discussion The CAPEDP study is the first large-scale randomised, controlled infant mental health promotion programme to take place in France. A major specificity of the program was that all home visits were conducted by specifically trained, supervised psychologists rather than nurses. Significant challenges included designing a mental health promotion programme targeting vulnerable families within one of the most generous but little assessed health and social care systems in the Western World. Trial registration Current Clinical trial number is NCT00392847.

Abstract Background Patients experience an increasing treatment burden related to everything they do to take care of their health: visits to the doctor, medical tests, treatment management and lifestyle changes. This treatment burden could affect treatment adherence, quality of life and outcomes. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument for measuring treatment burden for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Methods Items were derived from a literature review and qualitative semistructured interviews with patients. The instrument was then validated in a sample of patients with chronic conditions recruited in hospitals and general practitioner clinics in France. Factor analysis was used to examine the questionnaire structure. Construct validity was studied by the relationships between the instrument's global score, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) scores and the complexity of treatment as assessed by patients and physicians. Agreement between patients and physicians was appraised. Reliability was determined by a test-retest method. Results A sample of 502 patients completed the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), which consisted of 7 items (2 of which had 4 subitems) defined after 22 interviews with patients. The questionnaire showed a unidimensional structure. The Cronbach's α was 0.89. The instrument's global score was negatively correlated with TSQM scores (rs = -0.41 to -0.53) and positively correlated with the complexity of treatment (rs = 0.16 to 0.40). Agreement between patients and physicians (n = 396) was weak (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.47)). Reliability of the retest (n = 211 patients) was 0.76 (0.67 to 0.83). Conclusions This study provides the first valid and reliable instrument assessing the treatment burden for patients across any disease or treatment context. This instrument could help in the development of treatment strategies that are both efficient and acceptable for patients.

Abstract Background The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education. Methods On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers. Results We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%). Conclusions Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.

Abstract Background Fibromyalgia is a common disease, but little is known on its real prevalence in France. This epidemiological study aimed to assess fibromyalgia (FM) prevalence in the French metropolitan population, based on a multi-step sampling analysis, combining national screening and clinical confirmation by trained specialists. Methods a sampling method on the entire national territory was used: patients over 18 years of age accepting to take part in the study were contacted by telephone using the LFES Questionnaire, a screening test for FM. The, for patients detected by the LFESQ, a visit with a FM-trained rheumatologist was proposed to confirm FM, based on 1990 ACR criteria. Each detected patient completed the following self-questionnaires: SF36, HADS, stress VAS, Co-morbidities and Regional pain score. Results 3081 patients were contacted in 5 representative French regions, of which 232 patients were screened for FM. A fibromyalgia diagnosis was then confirmed by rheumatologist in 20 cases (17 female and 3 male, 56.9 ± 13.2 years). The final estimated FM prevalence was 1.6 (CI95: 1.2%; 2.0%). No significant difference was detected between the patients accepting (CS+) and refusing (CS-) rheumatologist visit for the SF36 score, regional pain score, stress VAS scale and co-morbidities. In patients detected for FM by the LFESQ, we found a statistically significant decrease in quality of life and a statistically significant increase in stress level in patients with a confirmed diagnosis (FM+) (6.3 ± 1.9) compared to patients with an invalidated diagnosis (FM-) (4.4 ± 2.8; p = 0.007). The study also demonstrated a significant association, independently of ACR criteria, between the diagnosis of FM and several factors such as regional pain score > 10, elevated stress level, low SF36 scale score and presence of gastro-intestinal disorder co-morbidities. Conclusion Fibromyalgia is a common condition; the 1.6% prevalence calculated in the French population in our study corroborates the figures published in the European literature. Our results also suggest that criteria such as regional pain score, stress level or SF36 quality of life, could represent useful tools in fibromyalgia diagnosis.

Abstract Background The purpose of the study was to evaluate systematic reviews of research into two public health priorities, tobacco consumption and HIV infection, in terms of the reporting of data related to the applicability of trial results (i.e., whether the results of a trial can be reasonably applied or generalized to a definable group of patients in a particular setting in routine practice, also called external validity or generalisability). Methods All systematic reviews of interventions aimed at reducing or stopping tobacco use and treating or preventing HIV infection published in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews and in journals indexed in MEDLINE between January 1997 and December 2007 were selected. We used a standardized data abstraction form to extract data related to applicability in terms of the context of the trial, (country, centres, settings), participants (recruitment, inclusion and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics of participants such as age, sex, ethnicity, coexisting diseases or co-morbidities, and socioeconomic status), treatment (duration, intensity/dose of treatment, timing and delivery format), and the outcomes assessment from selected reviews. Results A total of 98 systematic reviews were selected (57 Cochrane reviews and 41 non-Cochrane reviews); 49 evaluated interventions aimed at reducing or stopping tobacco use and 49 treating or preventing HIV infection. The setting of the individual studies was reported in 45 (46%) of the systematic reviews, the number of centres in 21 (21%), and the country where the trial took place in 62 (63%). Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the included studies were reported in 16 (16%) and 13 (13%) of the reviews, respectively. Baseline characteristics of participants in the included studies were described in 59 (60%) of the reviews. These characteristics concerned age in about half of the reviews, sex in 46 (47%), and ethnicity in 9 (9%). Applicability of results was discussed in 13 (13%) of the systematic reviews. The reporting was better in systematic reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration than by non-Cochrane groups. Conclusions Our study highlighted the lack of consideration of applicability of results in systematic reviews of research into 2 public health priorities: tobacco consumption and HIV infection.

Abstract Background Clinical vignettes have been used widely to compare quality of clinical care and to assess variation in practice, but the effect of different response formats has not been extensively evaluated. Our objective was to compare three clinical vignette-based survey response formats – open-ended questionnaire (A), closed-ended (multiple-choice) questionnaire with deceptive response items mixed with correct items (B), and closed-ended questionnaire with only correct items (C) – in rheumatologists' pre-treatment assessment for tumor-necrosis-factor (TNF) blocker therapy. Methods Study design: Prospective randomized study. Setting: Rheumatologists attending the 2004 French Society of Rheumatology meeting. Physicians were given a vignette describing the history of a fictitious woman with active rheumatoid arthritis, who was a candidate for therapy with TNF blocking agents, and then were randomized to receive questionnaire A, B, or C, each containing the same four questions but with different response formats, that asked about their pretreatment assessment. Measurements: Long (recommended items) and short (mandatory items) checklists were developed for pretreatment assessment for TNF-blocker therapy, and scores were expressed on the basis of responses to questionnaires A, B, and C as the percentage of respondents correctly choosing explicit items on these checklists. Statistical analysis: Comparison of the selected items using pairwise Chi-square tests with Bonferonni correction for variables with statistically significant differences. Results Data for all surveys distributed (114 As, 118 Bs, and 118 Cs) were complete and available for analysis. The percentage of questionnaire A, B, and C respondents for whom data was correctly complete for the short checklist was 50.4%, 84.0% and 95.0%, respectively, and was 0%, 5.0% and 5.9%, respectively, for the long version. As an example, 65.8%, 85.7% and 95.8% of the respondents of A, B, and C questionnaires, respectively, correctly identified the need for tuberculin skin test (p < 0.0001). Conclusion In evaluating clinical practice with use of a clinical vignette, a multiple-choice format rather than an open-ended format overestimates physician performance. The insertion of deceptive response items mixed with correct items in closed-ended (multiple-choice) questionnaire failed to avoid this overestimation.

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods The study design was a methodological systematic review of randomized controlled trials. The data sources were MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All reports of randomized controlled trials assessing stent treatment for coronary disease published between January 1, 2003, and September 30, 2008 were selected. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data. Results 132 articles were analyzed. Major cardiac adverse events (death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stroke) were reported as primary or secondary outcomes in 107 reports (81%). However, 19% of the articles contained no data on cardiac events. The mode of data collection of adverse events was given in 29 reports (22%) and a definition of expected adverse events was provided in 47 (36%). The length of follow-up was reported in 95 reports (72%). Assessment of adverse events by an adjudication committee was described in 46 reports (35%), and adverse events were described as being followed up for 6 months in 24% of reports (n = 32), between 7 to 12 months in 42% (n = 55) and for more than 1 year in 4% (n = 5). In 115 reports (87%), numerical data on the nature of the adverse events were reported per treatment arm. Procedural complications were described in 30 articles (23%). The causality of adverse events was reported in only 4 articles. Conclusion Several harm-related data were not adequately accounted for in articles of randomized controlled trials assessing stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Trials Registration Trials manuscript: 5534201182098351 (T80802P)

Abstract Background Stents are commonly used to treat patients with coronary artery disease. However, the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stents has never been assessed. The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of RCTs assessing the stents for percutaneous coronary interventions. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted. Reports of RCTs assessing stents for percutaneous coronary interventions indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published between January 2003 and September 2008 were selected. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data. All analyses were adjusted for the effect of clustering articles by journal. Results 132 articles were analyzed. The generation of the allocation sequence was adequate in 58.3% of the reports; treatment allocation was concealed in 34.8%. Adequate blinding was reported in one-fifth of the reports. An intention-to-treat analysis was described in 79.5%. The main outcome was a surrogate angiographic endpoint in 47.0%. The volume of interventions per center was described in two reports. Operator expertise was described in five (3.8%) reports. The quality of reporting was better in journals with high impact factors and in journals endorsing the CONSORT statement. Conclusion The current reporting of results of RCTs testing stents needs to be improved to allow readers to appraise the risk of bias and the applicability of the results.

Abstract Background The aim of this trial was to compare the effectiveness of two generations of progressive lenses for presbyopia. Methods A multicenter cross-over randomized controlled trial performed in a primary care setting (5 optical dispensaries) was planned. Two categories of progressive lenses were compared: 1) a new-generation lens (i.e., VARILUX PANAMIC ORMA CRIZAL), which is expensive but a supposed improvement in comfort, and 2) an older-generation lens (i.e., VARILUX CONFORT ORMA CRIZAL), which is less expensive and is considered the reference lens. Patients were randomized to wear one generation of progressive lens for 4 weeks, then cross over to wear the other lens for 4 weeks, without knowing the sequence of lenses. Inclusion criteria were 1) age 43–60 years; 2) outpatients already wearing progressive lenses and referred to an optician ophthalmologist for optical correction prescription within the last 6 months; 3) receiving a correction of ≤3 dioptres in cases of associated myopia, hyperopia or astigmatism; 4) understanding and speaking French and able to answer a questionnaire; and 5) giving written consent to participate in the study. The primary outcome was patient preference for one progressive lens at week 8. Secondary outcomes were subjective measures of bifocal visual performance, including a) near visual acuity, b) visual field, c) kinetic visual skills, d) visual adaptability, e) visual comfort, and f) rapidity of adaptation. Results 127 patients were randomized to one of the lens groups. Two patients withdrew prematurely; 98.4% and 97.6% patients who wore the new versus older lenses, respectively, wore their progressive lenses every day during the 4-week period 1 and period 2. The number of participants in each of 5 centres varied from 16 (12.6%) to 35 (27.6%). 57.9% patients preferred the new-generation lenses, 36.5% the older-generation lenses, and 5.6% had no preference (p = 0.01). The two groups did not differ in any of the measures of bifocal visual performance except near visual acuity. Conclusion Patients with presbyopia had slightly higher preference for the new-generation than older-generation lens, with no difference in lens groups for most of the visual outcomes assessed. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00635115

Aim: To examine the prognostic value of the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in the adjuvant renal cell carcinoma setting. Materials & methods: Patients received adjuvant sunitinib (50 mg/day; 4 weeks on/2 weeks off) or placebo. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Results: In 609 patients, DFS was similar for baseline PLR

Abstract Background Cluster randomization design is increasingly used for the evaluation of health-care, screeening or educational interventions. At the planning stage, sample size calculations usually consider an average cluster size without taking into account any potential imbalance in cluster size. However, there may exist high discrepancies in cluster sizes. Methods We performed simulations to study the impact of an imbalance in cluster size on power. We determined by simulations to which extent four methods proposed to adapt the sample size calculations to a pre-specified imbalance in cluster size could lead to adequately powered trials. Results We showed that an imbalance in cluster size can be of high influence on the power in the case of severe imbalance, particularly if the number of clusters is low and/or the intraclass correlation coefficient is high. In the case of a severe imbalance, our simulations confirmed that the minimum variance weights correction of the variation inflaction factor (VIF) used in the sample size calculations has the best properties. Conclusion Publication of cluster sizes is important to assess the real power of the trial which was conducted and to help designing future trials. We derived an adaptation of the VIF from the minimum variance weights correction to be used in case the imbalance can be a priori formulated such as "a proportion (γ) of clusters actually recruit a proportion (τ) of subjects to be included (γ ≤ τ)".

Abstract Background Cluster randomization design is increasingly used for the evaluation of health-care, screening or educational interventions. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) defines the clustering effect and be specified during planning. The aim of this work is to study the influence of the ICC on power in cluster randomized trials. Methods Power contour graphs were drawn to illustrate the loss in power induced by an underestimation of the ICC when planning trials. We also derived the maximum achievable power given a specified ICC. Results The magnitude of the ICC can have a major impact on power, and with low numbers of clusters, 80% power may not be achievable. Conclusion Underestimating the ICC during planning cluster randomized trials can lead to a seriously underpowered trial. Publication of a priori postulated and a posteriori estimated ICCs is necessary for a more objective reading: negative trial results may be the consequence of a loss of power due to a mis-specification of the ICC.

BackgroundThe clinical outcome of COVID-19 pneumonia is highly variable. Few biological predictive factors have been identified. Genetic and immunological studies suggest that type 1 interferons (IFN) are essential to control SARS-CoV-2 infection.ObjectiveTo study the link between change in blood IFN-α2 level and plasma SARS-Cov2 viral load over time and subsequent death in patients with severe and critical COVID-19.MethodsOne hundred and forty patients from the CORIMUNO-19 cohort hospitalized with severe or critical COVID-19 pneumonia, all requiring oxygen or ventilation, were prospectively studied. Blood IFN-α2 was evaluated using the Single Molecule Array technology. Anti-IFN-α2 auto-Abs were determined with a reporter luciferase activity. Plasma SARS-Cov2 viral load was measured using droplet digital PCR targeting the Nucleocapsid gene of the SARS-CoV-2 positive-strand RNA genome.ResultsAlthough the percentage of plasmacytoid dendritic cells was low, the blood IFN-α2 level was higher in patients than in healthy controls and was correlated to SARS-CoV-2 plasma viral load at entry. Neutralizing anti-IFN-α2 auto-antibodies were detected in 5% of patients, associated with a lower baseline level of blood IFN-α2. A longitudinal analysis found that a more rapid decline of blood IFN-α2 was observed in fatal versus surviving patients: mortality HR=3.15 (95% CI 1.14–8.66) in rapid versus slow decliners. Likewise, a high level of plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA was associated with death risk in patients with severe COVID-19.ConclusionThese findings could suggest an interest in evaluating type 1 IFN treatment in patients with severe COVID-19 and type 1 IFN decline, eventually combined with anti-inflammatory drugs.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov, identifiers NCT04324073, NCT04331808, NCT04341584.

Background Papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) is the most common non-clear cell RCC, and associated with poor outcomes in the metastatic setting. In this study, we aimed to comprehensively evaluate the immune tumor microenvironment (TME), largely unknown, of patients with metastatic pRCC and identify potential therapeutic targets.Methods We performed quantitative gene expression analysis of TME using Microenvironment Cell Populations-counter (MCP-counter) methodology, on two independent cohorts of localized pRCC (n=271 and n=98). We then characterized the TME, using immunohistochemistry (n=38) and RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) (n=30) on metastatic pRCC from the prospective AXIPAP trial cohort.Results Unsupervised clustering identified two “TME subtypes”, in each of the cohorts: the “immune-enriched” and the “immune-low”. Within AXIPAP trial cohort, the “immune-enriched” cluster was significantly associated with a worse prognosis according to the median overall survival to 8 months (95% CI, 6 to 29) versus 37 months (95% CI, 20 to NA, p=0.001). The two immune signatures, Teff and JAVELIN Renal 101 Immuno signature, predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in clear cell RCC, were significantly higher in the “immune-enriched” group (adjusted p

Abstract Background Few questionnaires on outpatients' satisfaction with hospital exist. All have been constructed without giving enough room for the patient's point of view in the validation procedure. The main objective was to develop, according to psychometric standards, a self-administered generic outpatient questionnaire exploring opinion on quality of hospital care. Method First, a qualitative phase was conducted to generate items and identify domains using critical analysis incident technique and literature review. A list of easily comprehensible non-redundant items was defined using Delphi technique and a pilot study on outpatients. This phase involved outpatients, patient association representatives and experts. The second step was a quantitative validation phase comprised a multicenter study in 3 hospitals, 10 departments and 1007 outpatients. It was designed to select items, identify dimensions, measure reliability, internal and concurrent validity. Patients were randomized according to the place of questionnaire completion (hospital v. home) (participation rate = 65%). Third, a mail-back study on 2 departments and 248 outpatients was conducted to replicate the validation (participation rate = 57%). Results A 27-item questionnaire comprising 4 subscales (appointment making, reception facilities, waiting time and consultation with the doctor). The factorial structure was satisfactory (loading >0.50 on each subscale for all items, except one item). Interscale correlations ranged from 0.42 to 0.59, Cronbach α coefficients ranged from 0.79 to 0.94. All Item-scale correlations were higher than 0.40. Test-retest intraclass coefficients ranged from 0.69 to 0.85. A unidimensional 9-item version was produced by selection of one third of the items within each subscale with the strongest loading on the principal component and the best item-scale correlation corrected for overlap. Factors related to satisfaction level independent from departments were age, previous consultations in the department and satisfaction with life. Completion at hospital immediately after consultation led to an overestimation of satisfaction. No satisfaction score differences existed between spontaneous respondents and patients responding after reminder(s). Conclusion Good estimation of patient opinion on hospital consultation performance was obtained with these questionnaires. When comparing performances between departments or the same department over time scores need to be adjusted on 3 variables that influence satisfaction independently from department. Completion of the questionnaire at home is preferable to completion in the consultation facility and reminders are not necessary to produce non-biased data.

PurposeIn the S-TRAC trial, adjuvant sunitinib improved disease-free survival (DFS) compared with placebo in patients with locoregional renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of recurrence. This post hoc exploratory analysis investigated the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) for predictive and prognostic significance in the RCC adjuvant setting.Experimental designKaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional analyses were performed on baseline NLR and change from baseline at week 4 to assess their association with DFS. Univariate P values were two-sided and based on an unstratified log-rank test.Results609 of 615 patients had baseline NLR values; 574 patients had baseline and week 4 values. Sunitinib-treated patients with baseline NLR

Based on the S-TRAC results, sunitinib is approved as adjuvant treatment for adult patients at high risk of recurrent RCC following nephrectomy. Here, the authors report the results of an integrated multi-omics tumor analysis of 171 patients from the trial and identify specific molecular subtypes as well as potential new targets.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of covid-19 convalescent plasma to treat patients admitted to hospital for moderate covid-19 disease with or without underlying immunodeficiency (CORIPLASM trial).Design Open label, randomised clinical trial.Setting CORIMUNO-19 cohort (publicly supported platform of open label, randomised controlled trials of immune modulatory drugs in patients admitted to hospital with moderate or severe covid-19 disease) based on 19 university and general hospitals across France, from 16 April 2020 to 21 April 2021.Participants 120 adults (n=60 in the covid-19 convalescent plasma group, n=60 in the usual care group) admitted to hospital with a positive SARS-CoV2 test result, duration of symptoms 40.Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were proportion of patients with a WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of ≥6 on the 10 point scale on day 4 (higher values indicate a worse outcome), and survival without assisted ventilation or additional immunomodulatory treatment by day 14. Secondary outcomes were changes in WHO Clinical Progression Scale scores, overall survival, time to discharge, and time to end of dependence on oxygen supply. Predefined subgroups analyses included immunosuppression status, duration of symptoms before randomisation, and use of steroids.Results 120 patients were recruited and assigned to covid-19 convalescent plasma (n=60) or usual care (n=60), including 22 (covid-19 convalescent plasma) and 27 (usual care) patients who were immunocompromised. 13 (22%) patients who received convalescent plasma had a WHO Clinical Progression Scale score of ≥6 at day 4 versus eight (13%) patients who received usual care (adjusted odds ratio 1.88, 95% credible interval 0.71 to 5.24). By day 14, 19 (31.6%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 20 (33.3%) patients in the usual care group needed ventilation, additional immunomodulatory treatment, or had died. For cumulative incidence of death, three (5%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and eight (13%) in the usual care group died by day 14 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 1.53), and seven (12%) patients in the convalescent plasma group and 12 (20%) in the usual care group by day 28 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51, 0.20 to 1.32). In a subgroup analysis performed in patients who were immunocompromised, transfusion of covid-19 convalescent plasma was associated with mortality (hazard ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 1.10).Conclusions In this study, covid-19 convalescent plasma did not improve early outcomes in patients with moderate covid-19 disease. The efficacy of convalescent plasma in patients who are immunocompromised should be investigated further.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04345991.

Objective To evaluate the effect of covid-19 vaccination on the severity of symptoms in patients with long covid.Design Target trial emulation based on ComPaRe e-cohort.Data source ComPaRe long covid cohort, a nationwide e-cohort (ie, a cohort where recruitment and follow-up are performed online) of patients with long covid, in France.Methods Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) enrolled in the ComPaRe cohort before 1 May 2021 were included in the study if they reported a confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptoms persistent for >3 weeks after onset, and at least one symptom attributable to long covid at baseline. Patients who received a first covid-19 vaccine injection were matched with an unvaccinated control group in a 1:1 ratio according to their propensity scores. Number of long covid symptoms, rate of complete remission of long covid, and proportion of patients reporting an unacceptable symptom state at 120 days were recorded.Results 910 patients were included in the analyses (455 in the vaccinated group and 455 in the control group). By 120 days, vaccination had reduced the number of long covid symptoms (mean 13.0 (standard deviation 9.4) in the vaccinated group v 14.8 (9.8) in the control group; mean difference −1.8, 95% confidence interval −3.0 to −0.5) and doubled the rate of patients in remission (16.6% v 7.5%, hazard ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 3.14). Vaccination reduced the effect of long covid on patients' lives (mean score on the impact tool 24.3 (standard deviation 16.7) v 27.6 (16.7); mean difference −3.3, 95% confidence interval −5.7 to −1.0) and the proportion of patients with an unacceptable symptom state (38.9% v 46.4%, risk difference −7.4%, 95% confidence interval −14.5% to −0.3%). In the vaccinated group, two (0.4%) patients reported serious adverse events requiring admission to hospital.Conclusion In this study, covid-19 vaccination reduced the severity of symptoms and the effect of long covid on patients' social, professional, and family lives at 120 days in those with persistent symptoms of infection.

In this article, a dynamical downscaling (DD) procedure is proposed to downscale tropical cyclones (TCs) from a general circulation model, with the goal of investigating inland intense precipitation from these storms in the future. This DD procedure is sequential as it is performed from the large scale to the small scale within a one-way nesting modeling framework with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. Furthermore, it involves a two-step validation process to ensure that the model produces realistic TCs, both in terms of their general properties and in terms of their intense precipitation statistics. In addition, this procedure makes use of several algorithms such as for the detection and tracking of TCs, with the objective of automatizing the DD process as much as possible so that this approach could be used to downscale massively many climate projections with several sets of model options. The DD approach was applied to the Community Climate System Model (CCSM) version 4 using Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 during the period 2005⁻2100, and the resulting TCs and their intense precipitation were examined.

Abstract Teichoic acids (TA) are crucial for the homeostasis of the bacterial cell wall as well as their developmental behavior and interplay with the environment. TA can be decorated by different modifications, modulating thus their biochemical properties. One major modification consists in the esterification of TA by d-alanine, a process known as d-alanylation. TA d-alanylation is performed by the Dlt pathway, which starts in the cytoplasm and continues extracellularly after d-Ala transportation through the membrane. In this study, we combined structural biology and in vivo approaches to dissect the cytoplasmic steps of this pathway in Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, a bacterial species conferring health benefits to its animal host. After establishing that AcpS, DltB, DltC1 and DltA are required for the promotion of Drosophila juvenile growth under chronic undernutrition, we solved their crystal structure and/or used NMR and molecular modeling to study their interactions. Our work demonstrates that the suite of interactions between these proteins is ordered with a conserved surface of DltC1 docking sequentially AcpS, DltA and eventually DltB. Altogether, we conclude that DltC1 acts as an interaction hub for all the successive cytoplasmic steps of the TA d-alanylation pathway.

Romain Iaxx,1 Felix Lefort,1,2 Charlotte Domblides,1– 3 Alain Ravaud,1,2 Jean-Christophe Bernhard,2,4 Marine Gross-Goupil1 1Department of Medical Oncology, Hôpital Saint-André, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France; 2Bordeaux University, Bordeaux, France; 3ImmunoConcEpt, CNRS UMR 5164, Bordeaux University, Bordeaux, 33076, France; 4Department of Urology, Hôpital Pellegrin, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, FranceCorrespondence: Marine Gross-Goupil, Hôpital Saint-André, 1 rue Jean Burguet, Bordeaux Cedex, 33076, France, Tel +33556795808, Fax +33556795896, Email marine.gross-goupil@chu-bordeaux.frAbstract: Cabozantinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with activity against several receptors involved in the angiogenesis pathway, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), c-MET and AXL. The antiangiogenic properties of cabozantinib led to its use as a monotherapy for the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC), and quickly resulted in this treatment becoming part of the standard of care for these tumors. Since the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), new standards of care have emerged in first-line settings, involving dual ICI or ICI–VEGF-TKI (including ICI–cabozantinib) combination treatments, and leading to a more complex algorithm of care. Cabozantinib remains an option in second-line settings and is still a first-line standard of care treatment in cases where the use of ICIs is contraindicated. This review focuses on the selection of patients who may benefit most from cabozantinib therapy, including those with bone and brain metastases and those with a non-clear cell RCC histology. The need to consider disease-related symptoms, comorbidities, age, drug interactions and biomarker analyses in the choice of therapeutic strategy is also highlighted. Finally, the perspectives for the use of cabozantinib in RCC treatment are discussed.Keywords: renal cancer, cabozantinib, patient selection, prognosis, efficacy, safety

Background In preclinical studies, combining M9241 (a novel immunocytokine containing interleukin (IL)-12 heterodimers) with avelumab (anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody) resulted in additive or synergistic antitumor effects. We report dose-escalation and dose-expansion results from the phase Ib JAVELIN IL-12 trial investigating M9241 plus avelumab.Methods In the dose-escalation part of JAVELIN IL-12 (NCT02994953), eligible patients had locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors; in the dose-expansion part, eligible patients had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) that had progressed with first-line therapy. Patients received M9241 at 4, 8, 12, or 16.8 µg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W) plus avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W, dose levels (DLs) 1–4) or M9241 16.8 µg/kg Q4W plus avelumab 800 mg once a week for 12 weeks followed by Q2W (DL5/dose expansion). Primary endpoints for the dose-escalation part were adverse events (AEs) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and those for the dose-expansion part were confirmed best overall response (BOR) per investigator (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1) and safety. The dose-expansion part followed a two-stage design; 16 patients were enrolled and treated in stage 1 (single-arm part). A futility analysis based on BOR was planned to determine whether stage 2 (randomized controlled part) would be initiated.Results At data cut-off, 36 patients had received M9241 plus avelumab in the dose-escalation part. All DLs were well tolerated; one DLT occurred at DL3 (grade 3 autoimmune hepatitis). The maximum-tolerated dose was not reached, and DL5 was declared the recommended phase II dose, considering an observed drug–drug interaction at DL4. Two patients with advanced bladder cancer (DL2 and DL4) had prolonged complete responses. In the dose-expansion part, no objective responses were recorded in the 16 patients with advanced UC; the study failed to meet the criterion (≥3 confirmed objective responses) to initiate stage 2. Any-grade treatment-related AEs occurred in 15 patients (93.8%), including grade ≥3 in 8 (50.0%); no treatment-related deaths occurred. Exposures for avelumab and M9241 concentrations were within expected ranges.Conclusions M9241 plus avelumab was well tolerated at all DLs, including the dose-expansion part, with no new safety signals. However, the dose-expansion part did not meet the predefined efficacy criterion to proceed to stage 2.

Metazoans establish mutually beneficial interactions with their resident microorganisms. However, our understanding of the microbial cues contributing to host physiology remains elusive. Previously, we identified a bacterial machinery encoded by the dlt operon involved in Drosophila melanogaster’s juvenile growth promotion by Lactiplantibacillus plantarum. Here, using crystallography combined with biochemical and cellular approaches, we investigate the physiological role of an uncharacterized protein (DltE) encoded by this operon. We show that lipoteichoic acids (LTAs) but not wall teichoic acids are D-alanylated in Lactiplantibacillus plantarumNC8 cell envelope and demonstrate that DltE is a D-Ala carboxyesterase removing D-Ala from LTA. Using the mutualistic association of L. plantarumNC8 and Drosophila melanogaster as a symbiosis model, we establish that D-alanylated LTAs (D-Ala-LTAs) are direct cues supporting intestinal peptidase expression and juvenile growth in Drosophila. Our results pave the way to probing the contribution of D-Ala-LTAs to host physiology in other symbiotic models.

Abstract Background The effect of the sequential combination of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the efficacy of different chemotherapy regimens administered after ICIs in advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), compared to the same regimens administered without previous ICIs. Methods We retrospectively included all patients treated between 2015 and 2019 for an advanced NSCLC, receiving a salvage chemotherapy just after ICI (CAI group) comparing them to ICI naive patients (CWPI group) undergoing the same chemotherapy at Bordeaux University Hospital. The primary outcome was the time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR). Results A total of 152 patients were included, with 34/23 (CAI/CWPI) receiving paclitaxel/bevacizumab (PB), 24/11 paclitaxel (P), 27/12 gemcitabine (G) and 6/15 pemetrexed (PE). Characteristics were comparable, except for CAI treated with PB (more patients with an ECOG PS ≤1 [p

Abstract Background Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) remains a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Midwives play a key role in the initial management of PPH. Uterotonic agents are widely used in its prevention and treatment, with oxytocin the first-line agent. Nonetheless, a standardized guideline for optimal dose and rate of administration has not been clearly defined. The aim of this study was to investigate French midwives’ practices regarding first-line oxytocin treatment and the factors influencing its delayed administration. Methods This multicenter study was based on clinical vignettes of PPH management collected using an anonymous online questionnaire. A random sample of midwives from 145 maternity units in France from 15 randomly selected perinatal networks were invited to participate by email. The Previously validated case vignettes described two different scenarios of severe PPH. Vignette 1 described a typical immediate, severe PPH, and vignette 2 a less typical case of severe but gradual PPH They were constructed in three successive steps and included multiple-choice questions proposing several types of clinical practice options at each stage. For each vignette separately, we analyzed the lack of prompt oxytocin administration and the factors contributing to them, that is, characteristics of the midwives and organizational features of maternity units. Bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis were applied. Results In all, 450 midwives from 87 maternity units provided complete responses. Lack of promptness was observed in 21.6% of responses (N = 97) in Vignette 1 and in 13.8% (N = 62) in Vignette 2 (p

BackgroundAdjuvant sunitinib has significantly improved disease-free survival versus placebo in patients with renal cell carcinoma at high risk of recurrence post-nephrectomy (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.98; two-sided P = 0.03). We report safety, therapy management, and patient-reported outcomes for patients receiving sunitinib and placebo in the S-TRAC trial.Patients and methodsPatients were stratified by the University of California, Los Angeles Integrated Staging System and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, and randomized (1 : 1) to receive sunitinib (50 mg/day) or placebo. Single dose reductions to 37.5 mg, dose delays, and dose interruptions were used to manage adverse events (AEs). Patients' health-related quality of life, including key symptoms typically associated with sunitinib, were evaluated with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30).ResultsPatients maintained treatment for 9.5 (mean, SD 4.4) and 10.3 (mean, SD 3.7) months in the sunitinib and placebo arms, respectively. In the sunitinib arm, key AEs occurred ∼1 month (median) after start of treatment and resolved within ∼3.5 weeks (median). Many (40.6%) AEs leading to permanent discontinuation were grade 1/2, and most (87.2%) resolved or were resolving by 28 days after last treatment. Patients taking sunitinib showed a significantly lower EORTC QLQ-C30 overall health status score versus placebo, although this reduction was not clinically meaningful. Patients reported symptoms typically related to sunitinib treatment with diarrhea and loss of appetite showing clinically meaningful increases.ConclusionsIn S-TRAC, AEs were predictable, manageable, and reversible via dose interruptions, dose reductions, and/or standard supportive medical therapy. Patients on sunitinib did report increased symptoms and reduced HRQoL, but these changes were generally not clinically meaningful, apart from appetite loss and diarrhea, and were expected in the context of known sunitinib effects.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00375674.

We describe results from IMmotion150, a randomized phase 2 study of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone or combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) versus sunitinib in 305 patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat and PD-L1+ populations. Intent-to-treat PFS hazard ratios for atezolizumab + bevacizumab or atezolizumab monotherapy versus sunitinib were 1.0 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-1.45) and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.82-1.71), respectively; PD-L1+ PFS hazard ratios were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.38-1.08) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.63-1.67), respectively. Exploratory biomarker analyses indicated that tumor mutation and neoantigen burden were not associated with PFS. Angiogenesis, T-effector/IFN-γ response, and myeloid inflammatory gene expression signatures were strongly and differentially associated with PFS within and across the treatments. These molecular profiles suggest that prediction of outcomes with anti-VEGF and immunotherapy may be possible and offer mechanistic insights into how blocking VEGF may overcome resistance to immune checkpoint blockade.