Project description:BackgroundLimited data are available on biological therapy de-escalation after prior escalation in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. This study aimed to assess the frequency and success rate of de-escalation of biological therapy in IBD patients after prior dose escalation and to evaluate which measures are used to guide de-escalation.MethodsThis multicentre retrospective cohort study enrolled IBD patients treated with infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA) or vedolizumab (VEDO) in whom therapy was de-escalated after prior biological escalation. De-escalations were considered pharmacokinetic-driven if based on clinical symptoms combined with therapeutic or supratherapeutic trough levels, and disease activity-driven if based on faecal calprotectin less than or equal to 200 µg/g or resolution of perianal fistula drainage or closure or endoscopic remission. Successful de-escalation was defined as remaining on the same or lower biological dose for greater than or equal to 6 months after de-escalation without the need for corticosteroids.ResultsIn total, 206 IFX users, 85 ADA users and 55 VEDO users underwent therapy escalation. Of these patients, 34 (17%) on IFX, 18 (21%) on ADA and 8 (15%) on VEDO underwent therapy de-escalation. De-escalation was successful in 88% of IFX patients, 89% of ADA and 100% of VEDO. The probability of remaining on the de-escalated regimen or further de-escalation after 1 year was 85% for IFX, 62% for ADA and 100% for VEDO. Disease activity-driven de-escalations were more often successful (97%) than pharmacokinetic- and no marker-driven de-escalations (76%); P = 0.017.ConclusionDe-escalation after biological dose escalation was successful in the majority of carefully selected IBD patients. Objective assessment of remission increased the likelihood of successful de-escalation.
Project description:Inflammatory bowel disease is a chronic disease of unknown origin that requires long-term treatment. The optical duration of maintenance treatment once remission has been achieved remains unclear. When discussing a de-escalation strategy, not only the likelihood of relapse but also, the outcome of retreatment for relapse after de-escalation should be considered. Previous evidence has demonstrated controversial results for risk factors for relapse after de-escalation due to the various definitions of remission and relapse. In fact, endoscopic or histologic remission has been suggested as a treatment target; however, it might not always be indicative of a successful drug withdrawal. For better risk stratification of relapse after de-escalation, it may be necessary to evaluate both the current and previous treatments. Following de-escalation, biomarkers should be closely monitored. In addition to the risk of relapse, a comprehensive understanding of the overall outcome, such as the long-term safety, patient quality of life, and impact on healthcare costs, is necessary. Therefore, a shared decision-making with patients on a case-by-case basis is imperative.
Project description:The present study investigated the clinical effect of antibiotic de-escalation therapy in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complicated with severe pneumonia. According to the parity method of hospitalization number, 86 cases were selected and divided into the observation and control group with 43 cases each. Based on empirical antibiotic application, levofloxacin and cephalosporin antibiotics were used in the control group. After treatment for 3 days, the regimen was adjusted to antibiotics active against Gram-positive (G+) and Gram-negative (G-) bacteria such as the third or fourth generation cephalosporin antibiotics, combined with aminoglycoside, or macrolide antibiotics according to their effects. The treatment effects were re-evaluated after 3-7 days. Finally, broad-spectrum antibiotics such as imipenem were chosen or adjusted by bacterial cultures and drug sensitivity results in the control group. Patients in the observation group were treated according to the principle of antibiotic de-escalation therapy. Antibiotics active against G+ and G- bacteria were chosen as the first round of medication. After 3 days, broad-spectrum antibiotics such as imipenem were added to the treatment regimen. After 7 days, the treatment was changed to narrow spectrum antibiotic administration if the disease was in remission, and the antibiotic regimen was adjusted based on bacterial culture and drug sensitivity results. The treatment results were compared. The mechanical ventilation rate, antibiotic courses, number of antibiotics used, and mortality of the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P<0.05). After treatment, lung function improved, partial pressure of oxygen and blood oxygen saturation increased, and partial pressure of carbon dioxide decreased in both groups. The improvement of all of the above parameters were more significant in the observation group (P<0.05). After treatment, the ratio of neutrophils over white blood cells and C-reactive protein levels of the two groups decreased, respiratory failure index (RFI) increased, and the changes were significantly more pronounced in the observation group (P<0.05). In conclusion, following the antibiotic de-escalation principle to treat older patients with COPD complicated with severe pneumonia can reduce the number of antibiotics required, improve lung function and clinical effects, and is safe and effective.
Project description:Background: The clinical benefits of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in Asians remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of pharmacogenomic antiplatelet therapy in Chinese patients. Methods: Patients with acute coronary syndrome planning to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible for this study and were randomly divided into a genotype-guided treatment (GT) group and routine treatment (RT) group, with a ratio of 2:1. Patients in the GT group underwent CYP2C19 genotyping (*2 and *3 alleles), and the results were considered in selecting P2Y12 receptor inhibitors. Patients in the RT group were treated with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors according to their clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE). The secondary endpoint was significant bleeding events. Results: Finally, 301 patients were enrolled; 75.1% were men and the mean age was 59.7 ± 9.8 years. In total, 281 patients completed the follow-up procedure. The primary endpoint occurred in 16 patients, 6 patients in the GT group and 10 in the RT group. The GT group showed lower MACCE rates than the RT group (6/189 vs. 10/92, 3.2 vs. 10.9%, hazard ratio: 0.281, 95% confidence interval: 0.102-0.773, P = 0.009). There was no statistically difference in significant bleeding events between the GT and RT groups (4.2 vs. 3.3%, hazard ratio: 1.315, 95% confidence interval: 0.349-4.956, P = 0.685). Conclusion: Personalized antiplatelet therapy that is based on CYP2C19 genotypes could decrease MACCE within a 12-month period in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2000034352.
Project description:BackgroundIn patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) may reduce ischemic events and increase the risks of bleeding events differently in different ethnic groups. However, whether prolonged DAPT in Chinese patients with ACS following emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) will be beneficial or dangerous remains unclear. This study aimed to examine the potential benefits and risks of prolonged DAPT in Chinese patients with ACS who have undergone emergency PCI with DES.MethodsThis study included 2,249 patients with ACS who underwent emergency PCI. If DAPT was continued for 12 or 12-24 months, it was classified as the standard (n = 1,011) or prolonged (n = 1,238) DAPT group, respectively. The incidence of the following endpoint events was determined and compared between the two groups: composite bleeding event (BARC 1 or 2 types of bleeding and BARC 3 or 5 types of bleeding) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) [ischemia-driven revascularization, non-fatal ischemia stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, and all-cause death].ResultsAfter a median period of 47 months of follow-up [47 (40, 54)], the rate of composite bleeding events was 13.2% (n = 163) in the prolonged DAPT group and 7.9% (n = 80) in the standard DAPT group [odds ratio (OR) 1.765, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.332-2.338, p < 0.001]. The rate of MACCEs was 11.1% (n = 138) in the prolonged DAPT group and 13.2% (n = 133) in the standard DAPT group (OR 0.828, 95% CI 0.642-1.068, p = 0.146). The DAPT duration was further shown to be insignificantly correlated with MACCEs as per the multivariable Cox regression model (HR, 0.813; 95% CI, 0.638-1.036; p = 0.094). No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups. However, the DAPT duration was a separate predictor of composite bleeding events according to the multivariable Cox regression model (HR 1.704, 95% CI 1.302-2.232, p < 0.001). Compared with the standard DAPT group, the prolonged DAPT group had substantially more BARC 3 or 5 types of bleeding events (3.0 vs. 0.9% in those with standard DAPT, OR 3.430, 95% CI 1.648-7.141, p < 0.001) and BARC 1 or 2 types of bleeding events (10.2 vs. 7.0% in those with standard DAPT, OR 1.500, 95% CI 1.107-2.032, p = 0.008).ConclusionThe prolonged DAPT group had a considerably greater incidence of composite bleeding events than the standard DAPT group. No statistically significant difference was observed in the incidence of MACCEs between the two groups.
Project description:ImportanceDe-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. However, whether such benefits are similarly observed in those receiving complex procedures is unknown.ObjectiveTo investigate whether the benefits of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy are maintained in the complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) subgroup.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial, a randomized, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, multicenter trial performed at 35 hospitals in South Korea. Study participants included patients with ACS who were receiving PCI. Data were collected from September 30, 2014, to December 18, 2015, and analyzed from September 17, 2020, to June 15, 2021.Interventions and exposuresPatients were randomized to a prasugrel dose de-escalation (5 mg daily) at 1 month post-PCI group or a conventional (10 mg daily) group. Complex PCI was defined as having at least 1 of the following features: 3 or more stents implanted, 3 or more lesions treated, bifurcation PCI, total stent length 60 mm or larger, left main PCI, or heavy calcification.Main outcomes and measuresThe main analysis end points were MACE (major adverse cardiac event, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and repeat revascularization) at 1 year for ischemic outcomes, and BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) class 2 or higher bleeding events at 1 year for bleeding outcomes.ResultsOf 2271 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.9 [9.0] years; 2024 [89%] male patients) for whom full procedural data were available, 705 patients received complex PCI, and 1566 patients received noncomplex PCI. Complex PCI was associated with higher rates of ischemic outcomes but not with bleeding outcomes. Prasugrel dose de-escalation did not increase the risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.47-1.66; P = .70 in complex PCI; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.45-1.46; P = .48 in noncomplex PCI; P for interaction = .84) but decreased BARC class 2 or higher bleeding events (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10-0.61; P = .002 in complex PCI; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.00; P = .05 in noncomplex PCI; P for interaction = .08), albeit with wide 95% CIs.Conclusions and relevanceIn this post hoc analysis of patients with ACS, prasugrel dose de-escalation compared with conventional therapy was not associated with an increased risk of ischemic outcomes but may reduce the risk of minor bleeding events at 1 year, irrespective of PCI complexity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02193971.
Project description:Background/Objectives: The interpretation of evidence on the de-escalation of triple therapy with the withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) to dual bronchodilator therapy with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is conflicting. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ICS discontinuation from LABA-LAMA-ICS triple therapy compared to its continuation. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web Of Science, clinicaltrial.gov, and CENTRAL for RCTs and observational studies from inception to 22 March 2024, investigating the effect of triple therapy de-escalation with the withdrawal of ICSs to dual therapy on the risk of COPD exacerbation, pneumonia, and lung function. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024527942. Results: A total of 3335 studies was screened; 3 RCTs and 3 real-world non-interventional studies were identified as eligible. The analysis of the time to the first moderate or severe exacerbation showed a pooled HR of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.80-1.15; I2 = 77%) for ICS withdrawal compared to triple therapy continuation. The analysis according eosinophil levels showed that COPD subjects with ≥300 eosinophils/µL had a significant increase in the incidence of moderate or severe exacerbations when de-escalated to LABA/LAMA (pooled HR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.00-1.82; I2: 56%). ICS withdrawal did not significantly affect the risk of mortality and pneumonia. Conclusions: The de-escalation of triple therapy with ICS withdrawal does not affect the main outcomes evaluated (moderate or severe exacerbations, change in trough FEV1). COPD patients with high blood eosinophils (≥2% or ≥300 cells/µL) are most likely to benefit from continuing triple therapy.
Project description:ObjectivesThis prospective, randomized study assessed short-term outcomes and safety of ultra-low contrast percutaneous coronary intervention(ULC-PCI) vs conventional PCI in high risk for contrast induced acute kidney injury(CI-AKI) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome(ACS).BackgroundPatients at an increased risk of developing CI-AKI can be identified prior to PCI based on their pre-procedural risk scores. ULC-PCI is a novel contrast conservation strategy in such high risk patients for prevention of CI-AKI.Methods82 patients undergoing PCI for ACS were enrolled having estimated glomerular filtration rate(eGFR) < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and moderate to very high pre-procedural risk of developing CI-AKI as calculated by Maioli risk calculator. They were randomized into two groups of 41 patients each of ULC-PCI (contrast volume ≤ patient's eGFR) and conventional PCI (contrast volume ≤ 3xpatient's eGFR). Primary end point was development of CI-AKI.ResultsBaseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. Primary outcome of CI-AKI occurred more in patients of the conventional PCI group [7 (17.1%)] than in the ULC PCI group [(0 patients), p = 0.012]. Contrast volume (41.02 (±9.8) ml vs 112.54 (±25.18) ml; P < 0.0001) was markedly lower in the ULC-PCI group. No significant difference in secondary safety outcomes between two study arms at 30 days. IVUS was used in 17% patients in ULC PCI.ConclusionULC-PCI in patients with increased risk of developing CI-AKI is feasible, appears safe, and has the potential to decrease the incidence of CI-AKI specially in resource limited setting such as ours where coronary imaging by IVUS is not possible in every patient.
Project description:Anaemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is managed primarily with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron therapy. Following concerns around ESA therapy, intravenous (IV) iron is being administered more and more worldwide. However, it is still unclear whether this approach is safe at very high doses or in the presence of very high ferritin levels. Some observational studies have shown a relationship between either high ferritin level or high iron dose and increased risk of death, cardiovascular events, hospitalization or infection. Others have not been able to confirm these findings. However, they suffer from indication biases. On the other hand, the majority of randomized clinical trials have only a very short follow-up (and thus drug exposure) and are inadequate to assess the mortality risk. None of them have tested the role of different iron doses on hard end points. With the lack of clear evidence coming from well-designed and large-scale studies, several data suggest that excessive iron therapy may be toxic in several aspects, ranging from iron overload to tissue damage from labile iron. A number of experimental and clinical data suggest that either excessive iron therapy or iron overload may be a possible culprit of atherogenesis. The process seems to be mediated by oxidative stress. Iron therapy should also be used cautiously in the presence of active infections, since iron is essential for bacterial growth. Recently, the European Medicines Agency officially raised concerns about rare hypersensitivity reactions following IV iron administration. The balance has been in favour of benefits. In several European countries, this has created a lot of confusion and somewhat slowed the run towards excessive use. Altogether, IV iron remains a mainstay of anaemia treatment in CKD patients. However, in our opinion, its excessive use should be avoided, especially in patients with high ferritin levels and when ESA agents are not contraindicated.