Description: Publication date: Available online 24 December 2015 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Stéphane Laurent, Pierre Boutouyrie

Description: Publication date: Available online 24 December 2015 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Georgi Tchernev, Anastasiya Atanasova Chokoeva

Description: Publication date: Available online 24 December 2015 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Dena Ettehad, Connor A Emdin, Amit Kiran, Simon G Anderson, Thomas Callender, Jonathan Emberson, John Chalmers, Anthony Rodgers, Kazem Rahimi Background The benefits of blood pressure lowering treatment for prevention of cardiovascular disease are well established. However, the extent to which these effects differ by baseline blood pressure, presence of comorbidities, or drug class is less clear. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify these differences. Method For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE for large-scale blood pressure lowering trials, published between Jan 1, 1966, and July 7, 2015, and we searched the medical literature to identify trials up to Nov 9, 2015. All randomised controlled trials of blood pressure lowering treatment were eligible for inclusion if they included a minimum of 1000 patient-years of follow-up in each study arm. No trials were excluded because of presence of baseline comorbidities, and trials of antihypertensive drugs for indications other than hypertension were eligible. We extracted summary-level data about study characteristics and the outcomes of major cardiovascular disease events, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, renal failure, and all-cause mortality. We used inverse variance weighted fixed-effects meta-analyses to pool the estimates. Results We identified 123 studies with 613 815 participants for the tabular meta-analysis. Meta-regression analyses showed relative risk reductions proportional to the magnitude of the blood pressure reductions achieved. Every 10 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular disease events (relative risk [RR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·77–0·83), coronary heart disease (0·83, 0·78–0·88), stroke (0·73, 0·68–0·77), and heart failure (0·72, 0·67–0·78), which, in the populations studied, led to a significant 13% reduction in all-cause mortality (0·87, 0·84–0·91). However, the effect on renal failure was not significant (0·95, 0·84–1·07). Similar proportional risk reductions (per 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure) were noted in trials with higher mean baseline systolic blood pressure and trials with lower mean baseline systolic blood pressure (all p trend >0·05). There was no clear evidence that proportional risk reductions in major cardiovascular disease differed by baseline disease history, except for diabetes and chronic kidney disease, for which smaller, but significant, risk reductions were detected. β blockers were inferior to other drugs for the prevention of major cardiovascular disease events, stroke, and renal failure. Calcium channel blockers were superior to other drugs for the prevention of stroke. For the prevention of heart failure, calcium channel blockers were inferior and diuretics were superior to other drug classes. Risk of bias was judged to be low for 113 trials and unclear for 10 trials. Heterogeneity for outcomes was low to moderate; the I 2 statistic for heterogeneity for major cardiovascular disease events was 41%, for coronary heart disease 25%, for stroke 26%, for heart failure 37%, for renal failure 28%, and for all-cause mortality 35%. Interpretation Blood pressure lowering significantly reduces vascular risk across various baseline blood pressure levels and comorbidities. Our results provide strong support for lowering blood pressure to systolic blood pressures less than 130 mm Hg and providing blood pressure lowering treatment to individuals with a history of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. Funding National Institute for Health Research and Oxford Martin School.

Description: Publication date: Available online 23 December 2015 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Amirhossein Moaddab, Laurence B McCullough, Frank A Chervenak, Gary A Dildy, Alireza Abdollah Shamshirsaz

Description: Publication date: Available online 21 December 2015 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Mahiben Maruthappu

Description: Publication date: Available online 21 December 2015 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Ashutosh D Wechalekar, Julian D Gillmore, Philip N Hawkins Tissue deposition of protein fibrils causes a group of rare diseases called systemic amyloidoses. This Seminar focuses on changes in their epidemiology, the current approach to diagnosis, and advances in treatment. Systemic light chain (AL) amyloidosis is the most common of these conditions, but wild-type transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis (ATTRwt) is increasingly being diagnosed. Typing of amyloid fibrils, a critical determinant of therapy, has improved with the wide availability of laser capture and mass spectrometry from fixed histological tissue sections. Specific and accurate evaluation of cardiac amyloidosis is now possible using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac repurposing of bone scintigraphy tracers. Survival in AL amyloidosis has improved markedly as novel chemotherapy agents have become available, but challenges remain in advanced disease. Early diagnosis, a key to better outcomes, still remains elusive. Broadening the amyloid-specific therapeutic landscape to include RNA inhibitors, fibril formation stabilisers and inhibitors, and immunotherapeutic targeting of amyloid deposits holds promise to transform outcomes in systemic amyloidoses.

Description: Publication date: Available online 21 December 2015 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Marjorie G Zauderer

Description: Publication date: Available online 21 December 2015 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Nicholas D James, Matthew R Sydes, Noel W Clarke, Malcolm D Mason, David P Dearnaley, Melissa R Spears, Alastair W S Ritchie, Christopher C Parker, J Martin Russell, Gerhardt Attard, Johann de Bono, William Cross, Rob J Jones, George Thalmann, Claire Amos, David Matheson, Robin Millman, Mymoona Alzouebi, Sharon Beesley, Alison J Birtle, Susannah Brock, Richard Cathomas, Prabir Chakraborti, Simon Chowdhury, Audrey Cook, Tony Elliott, Joanna Gale, Stephanie Gibbs, John D Graham, John Hetherington, Robert Hughes, Robert Laing, Fiona McKinna, Duncan B McLaren, Joe M O'Sullivan, Omi Parikh, Clive Peedell, Andrew Protheroe, Angus J Robinson, Narayanan Srihari, Rajaguru Srinivasan, John Staffurth, Santhanam Sundar, Shaun Tolan, David Tsang, John Wagstaff, Mahesh K B Parmar Background Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. Methods Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 ) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT00268476 ) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). Findings 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60–71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23–184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30–60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79–1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66–0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69–0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3–5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. Interpretation Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. Funding Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

Description: Publication date: Available online 21 December 2015 Source: The Lancet

Description: Publication date: Available online 21 December 2015 Source: The Lancet Author(s): Gérard Zalcman, Julien Mazieres, Jacques Margery, Laurent Greillier, Clarisse Audigier-Valette, Denis Moro-Sibilot, Olivier Molinier, Romain Corre, Isabelle Monnet, Valérie Gounant, Frédéric Rivière, Henri Janicot, Radj Gervais, Chrystèle Locher, Bernard Milleron, Quan Tran, Marie-Paule Lebitasy, Franck Morin, Christian Creveuil, Jean-Jacques Parienti, Arnaud Scherpereel Background Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer with poor prognosis, linked to occupational asbestos exposure. Vascular endothelial growth factor is a key mitogen for malignant pleural mesothelioma cells, therefore targeting of vascular endothelial growth factor might prove effective. We aimed to assess the effect on survival of bevacizumab when added to the present standard of care, cisplatin plus pemetrexed, as first-line treatment of advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18–75 years with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma who had not received previous chemotherapy, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, had no substantial cardiovascular comorbidity, were not amenable to curative surgery, had at least one evaluable (pleural effusion) or measurable (pleural tumour solid thickening) lesion with CT, and a life expectancy of >12 weeks from 73 hospitals in France. Exclusion criteria were presence of central nervous system metastases, use of antiaggregant treatments (aspirin ≥325 mg per day, clopidogrel, ticlopidine, or dipyridamole), anti-vitamin K drugs at a curative dose, treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin at a curative dose, and treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1; minimisation method used [random factor of 0·8]; patients stratified by histology [epithelioid vs sarcomatoid or mixed histology subtypes], performance status score [0–1 vs 2], study centre, or smoking status [never smokers vs smokers]) to receive intravenously 500 mg/m 2 pemetrexed plus 75 mg/m 2 cisplatin with (PCB) or without (PC) 15 mg/kg bevacizumab in 21 day cycles for up to six cycles, until progression or toxic effects. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) in the intention-to treat population. Treatment was open label. This IFCT-GFPC-0701 trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00651456 . Findings From Feb 13, 2008, to Jan 5, 2014, we randomly assigned 448 patients to treatment (223 [50%] to PCB and 225 [50%] to PC). OS was significantly longer with PCB (median 18·8 months [95% CI 15·9–22·6]) than with PC (16·1 months [14·0–17·9]; hazard ratio 0·77 [0·62–0·95]; p=0·0167). Overall, 158 (71%) of 222 patients given PCB and 139 (62%) of 224 patients given PC had grade 3–4 adverse events. We noted more grade 3 or higher hypertension (51 [23%] of 222 vs 0) and thrombotic events (13 [6%] of 222 vs 2 [1%] of 224) with PCB than with PC. Interpretation Addition of bevacizumab to pemetrexed plus cisplatin significantly improved OS in malignant pleural mesothelioma at the cost of expected manageable toxic effects, therefore it should be considered as a suitable treatment for the disease. Funding Intergroupe Francophone de Cancérologie Thoracique (IFCT).