Association of Gestational Weight Gain With Maternal and Infant Outcomes

Question  What is the association between gestational weight gain above or below the Institute of Medicine guidelines and maternal and infant outcomes?

Findings  In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 1 309 136 pregnancies, gestational weight gain below recommendations (in 23% of women) was associated with higher risk of small for gestational age (odds ratio [OR], 1.53) and preterm birth (OR, 1.70) and lower risk of large for gestational age (OR, 0.59) and macrosomia (OR, 0.60). Gestational weight gain above recommendations (47%) was associated with lower risk of small for gestational age (OR, 0.66) and preterm birth (OR, 0.77) and higher risk of large for gestational age (OR, 1.85), macrosomia (OR, 1.95), and cesarean delivery (OR, 1.30).

Meaning  Gestational weight gain below or above the Institute of Medicine guidelines was associated with higher risk of some adverse maternal and infant outcomes.

Reference: JAMA. 2017;317(21):2207-2225.

Advertisements

Oral Glucocorticoid–Sparing Effect of Benralizumab in Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

Many patients with severe asthma rely on oral glucocorticoids to manage their disease. We investigated whether benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-5 receptor that significantly reduces the incidence of asthma exacerbations, was also effective as an oral glucocorticoid–sparing therapy in patients relying on oral glucocorticoids to manage severe asthma associated with eosinophilia.

METHODS

In a 28-week randomized, controlled trial, we assessed the effects of benralizumab (at a dose of 30 mg administered subcutaneously either every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks [with the first three doses administered every 4 weeks]) versus placebo on the reduction in the oral glucocorticoid dose while asthma control was maintained in adult patients with severe asthma. The primary end point was the percentage change in the oral glucocorticoid dose from baseline to week 28. Annual asthma exacerbation rates, lung function, symptoms, and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 369 patients enrolled, 220 underwent randomization and started receiving benralizumab or placebo. The two benralizumab dosing regimens significantly reduced the median final oral glucocorticoid doses from baseline by 75%, as compared with a reduction of 25% in the oral glucocorticoid doses in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The odds of a reduction in the oral glucocorticoid dose were more than 4 times as high with benralizumab as with placebo. Among the secondary outcomes, benralizumab administered every 4 weeks resulted in an annual exacerbation rate that was 55% lower than the rate with placebo (marginal rate, 0.83 vs. 1.83, P=0.003), and benralizumab administered every 8 weeks resulted in an annual exacerbation rate that was 70% lower than the rate with placebo (marginal rate, 0.54 vs. 1.83, P<0.001). At 28 weeks, there was no significant effect of either benralizumab regimen on the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), as compared with placebo. The effects on various measures of asthma symptoms were mixed, with some showing significant changes in favor of benralizumab and others not showing significant changes. Frequencies of adverse events were similar between each benralizumab group and the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Benralizumab showed significant, clinically relevant benefits, as compared with placebo, on oral glucocorticoid use and exacerbation rates. These effects occurred without a sustained effect on the FEV1. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ZONDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02075255.)

Reference: N Engl J Med 2017; 376:2448-2458June 22, 2017

Efficacy of Recombinant Influenza Vaccine in Adults 50 Years of Age or Older

BACKGROUND

Improved influenza vaccines are needed to control seasonal epidemics. This trial compared the protective efficacy in older adults of a quadrivalent, recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4) with a standard-dose, egg-grown, quadrivalent, inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV4) during the A/H3N2-predominant 2014–2015 influenza season, when antigenic mismatch between circulating and vaccine influenza strains resulted in the reduced effectiveness of many licensed vaccines.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial of RIV4 (45 μg of recombinant hemagglutinin [HA] per strain, 180 μg of protein per dose) versus standard-dose IIV4 (15 μg of HA per strain, 60 μg of protein per dose) to compare the relative vaccine efficacy against reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR)–confirmed, protocol-defined, influenza-like illness caused by any influenza strain starting 14 days or more after vaccination in adults who were 50 years of age or older. The diagnosis of influenza infection was confirmed by means of RT-PCR assay and culture of nasopharyngeal swabs obtained from participants with symptoms of an influenza-like illness. The primary end point was RT-PCR–confirmed, protocol defined, influenza-like illness between 14 days or more after vaccination and the end of the influenza season.

RESULTS

A total of 9003 participants were enrolled and underwent randomization; 8855 (98.4%) received a trial vaccine and underwent an efficacy follow-up (the modified intention-to-treat population), and 8604 (95.6%) completed the per-protocol follow-up (the modified per-protocol population). Among RIV4 recipients, the RT-PCR–confirmed influenza attack rate was 2.2% (96 cases among 4303 participants) in the modified per-protocol population and 2.2% (96 cases among 4427 participants) in the modified intention-to-treat population. Among IIV4 recipients, the attack rate was 3.2% (138 cases among 4301 participants) in the modified per-protocol population and 3.1% (138 cases among 4428 participants) in the modified intention-to-treat population. A total of 181 cases of influenza A/H3N2, 47 cases of influenza B, and 6 cases of nonsubtypeable influenza A were detected. The probability of influenza-like illness was 30% lower with RIV4 than with IIV4 (95% confidence interval, 10 to 47; P=0.006) and satisfied prespecified criteria for the primary noninferiority analysis and an exploratory superiority analysis of RIV4 over IIV4. The safety profiles of the vaccines were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

RIV4 provided better protection than standard-dose IIV4 against confirmed influenza-like illness among older adults. (Funded by Protein Sciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02285998.)

Reference: N Engl J Med 2017; 376:2427-2436June 22, 2017

Effectiveness of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis

Background

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis.

Methods

For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose–response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose.

Findings

We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 76 randomised trials with a total of 58 451 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] −0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES −0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] −0·69 to −0·45) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES −0·58, −0·74 to −0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for naproxen (p=0·034). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis.

Interpretation

On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients.

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.

Long-term management of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with dupilumab and concomitant topical corticosteroids (LIBERTY AD CHRONOS): a 1-year, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background

Dupilumab (an anti-interleukin-4-receptor-α monoclonal antibody) blocks signalling of interleukin 4 and interleukin 13, type 2/Th2 cytokines implicated in numerous allergic diseases ranging from asthma to atopic dermatitis. Previous 16-week monotherapy studies showed that dupilumab substantially improved signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with acceptable safety, validating the crucial role of interleukin 4 and interleukin 13 in atopic dermatitis pathogenesis. We aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of dupilumab with medium-potency topical corticosteroids versus placebo with topical corticosteroids in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

Methods

In this 1-year, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (LIBERTY AD CHRONOS), adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis and inadequate response to topical corticosteroids were enrolled at 161 hospitals, clinics, and academic institutions in 14 countries in Europe, Asia-Pacific, and North America. Patients were randomly assigned (3:1:3) to subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg once weekly (qw), dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), or placebo via a central interactive voice/web response system, stratified by severity and global region. All three groups were given concomitant topical corticosteroids with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors where inadvisable for topical corticosteroids. Topical corticosteroids could be tapered, stopped, or restarted on the basis of disease activity. Coprimary endpoints were patients (%) achieving Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) 0/1 and 2-point or higher improvement from baseline, and Eczema Area and Severity Index 75% improvement from baseline (EASI-75) at week 16. Week 16 efficacy and week 52 safety analyses included all randomised patients; week 52 efficacy included patients who completed treatment by US regulatory submission cutoff. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.govNCT02260986.

Findings

Between Oct 3, 2014, and July 31, 2015, 740 patients were enrolled: 319 were randomly assigned to dupilumab qw plus topical corticosteroids, 106 to dupilumab q2w plus topical corticosteroids, and 315 to placebo plus topical corticosteroids. 623 (270, 89, and 264, respectively) were evaluable for week 52 efficacy. At week 16, more patients who received dupilumab plus topical corticosteroids achieved the coprimary endpoints of IGA 0/1 (39% [125 patients] who received dupilumab plus topical corticosteroids qw and 39% [41 patients] who received dupilumab q2w plus topical corticosteroids vs 12% [39 patients] who received placebo plus topical corticosteroids; p<0·0001) and EASI-75 (64% [204] and 69% [73] vs 23% [73]; p<0·0001). Week 52 results were similar. Adverse events were reported in 261 (83%) patients who received dupilumab qw plus topical corticosteroids, 97 (88%) patients who received dupilumab q2w, and 266 (84%) patients who received placebo, and serious adverse events in nine (3%), four (4%), and 16 (5%) patients, respectively. No significant dupilumab-induced laboratory abnormalities were noted. Injection-site reactions and conjunctivitis were more common in patients treated with dupilumab plus topical corticosteroids-treated patients than in patients treated with placebo plus topical corticosteroids.

Interpretation

Dupilumab added to standard topical corticosteroid treatment for 1 year improved atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms, with acceptable safety.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Reference: The Lancet, VOLUME 389, ISSUE 10086, P2287–2303, 10 JUNE 2017

Achieved blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients: results from ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials

Background

Studies have challenged the appropriateness of accepted blood pressure targets. We hypothesised that different levels of low blood pressure are associated with benefit for some, but harm for other outcomes.

Methods

In this analysis, we assessed the previously reported outcome data from high-risk patients aged 55 years or older with a history of cardiovascular disease, 70% of whom had hypertension, from the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials investigating ramipril, telmisartan, and their combination, with a median follow-up of 56 months. Detailed descriptions of randomisation and intervention have already been reported. We analysed the associations between mean blood pressure achieved on treatment; prerandomisation baseline blood pressure; or time-updated blood pressure (last on treatment value before an event) on the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospital admission for heart failure; the components of the composite outcome; and all-cause death. Analysis was done by Cox regression analysis, ANOVA, and χ2. These trials were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153101.

Findings

Recruitment for ONTARGET took place between Dec 1, 2001, and July 31, 2008. TRANSCEND took place between Nov 1, 2001, and May 30, 2004. 30 937 patients were recruited from 733 centres in 40 countries and followed up for a median of 56 months. In ONTARGET, 25 127 patients known to be tolerant to angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors were randomly assigned after a run-in period to oral ramipril 10 mg/day (n=8407), telmisartan 80 mg/day (n=8386), or the combination of both (n=8334). In TRANSCEND, 5810 patients who were intolerant to ACE-inhibitors were randomly assigned to oral telmisartan 80 mg/day (n=2903) or placebo (n=2907). Baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) 140 mm Hg or higher was associated with greater incidence of all outcomes compared with 120 mm Hg to less than 140 mm Hg. By contrast, a baseline diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 70 mm Hg was associated with the highest risk for most outcomes compared with all DBP categories 70 mm Hg or more. In 4052 patients with SBP less than 120 mm Hg on treatment, the risk of the composite cardiovascular outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·14, 95% CI 1·03–1·26), cardiovascular death (1·29, 1·12–1·49), and all deaths (1·28, 1·15–1·42) were increased compared with those in whom SBP was 120–140 mm Hg during treatment (HR 1 for all outcomes, n=16099). No harm or benefit was observed for myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospital admission for heart failure. Mean achieved SBP more accurately predicted outcomes than baseline or time-updated SBP, and was associated with the lowest risk at approximately 130 mm Hg, and at 110–120 mm Hg risk increased for the combined outcome, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death except stroke. A mean DBP less than 70 mm Hg (n=5352) during treatment was associated with greater risk of the composite primary outcome (HR 1·31, 95% CI 1·20–1·42), myocardial infarction (1·55, 1·33–1·80), hospital admission for heart failure (1·59, 1·36–1·86) and all-cause death (1·16, 1·06–1·28) than a DBP 70–80 mm Hg (14 305). A pretreatment and mean on-treatment DBP of about 75 mm Hg was associated with the lowest risk.

Interpretation

Mean achieved SBP less than 120 mm Hg during treatment was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes except for myocardial infarction and stroke. Similar patterns were observed for DBP less than 70 mm Hg, plus increased risk for myocardial infarction and hospital admission for heart failure. Very low blood pressure achieved on treatment was associated with increased risks of several cardiovascular disease events. These data suggest that the lowest blood pressure possible is not necessarily the optimal target for high-risk patients, although it is not possible to rule out some effect of reverse causality.

Funding

Boehringer Ingelheim.

Reference: VOLUME 389, ISSUE 10085, P2226–2237, 3 JUNE 2017

Extended and standard duration weight-loss programme referrals for adults in primary care (WRAP): a randomised controlled tria

Background

Evidence exist that primary care referral to an open-group behavioural programme is an effective strategy for management of obesity, but little evidence on optimal intervention duration is available. We aimed to establish whether 52-week referral to an open-group weight-management programme would achieve greater weight loss and improvements in a range of health outcomes and be more cost-effective than the current practice of 12-week referrals.

Methods

In this non-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we recruited participants who were aged 18 years or older and had body-mass index (BMI) of 28 kg/m2 or higher from 23 primary care practices in England. Participants were randomly assigned (2:5:5) to brief advice and self-help materials, a weight-management programme (Weight Watchers) for 12 weeks, or the same weight-management programme for 52 weeks. We followed-up participants over 2 years. The primary outcome was weight at 1 year of follow-up, analysed with mixed-effects models according to intention-to-treat principles and adjusted for centre and baseline weight. In a hierarchical closed-testing procedure, we compared combined behavioural programme arms with brief intervention, then compared the 12-week programme and 52-week programme. We did a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis using person-level data and modelled outcomes over a 25-year time horizon using microsimulation. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN82857232.

Findings

Between Oct 18, 2012, and Feb 10, 2014, we enrolled 1269 participants. 1267 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the brief intervention (n=211), the 12-week programme (n=528), and the 52-week programme (n=528). Two participants in the 12-week programme had been found to be ineligible shortly after randomisation and were excluded from the analysis. 823 (65%) of 1267 participants completed an assessment at 1 year and 856 (68%) participants at 2 years. All eligible participants were included in the analyses. At 1 year, mean weight changes in the groups were −3·26 kg (brief intervention), −4·75 kg (12-week programme), and −6·76 kg (52-week programme). Participants in the behavioural programme lost more weight than those in the brief intervention (adjusted difference −2·71 kg, 95% CI −3·86 to −1·55; p<0·0001). The 52-week programme was more effective than the 12-week programme (−2·14 kg, −3·05 to −1·22; p<0·0001). Differences between groups were still significant at 2 years. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. Over 2 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; compared with brief intervention) was £159 per kg lost for the 52-week programme and £91 per kg for the 12-week programme. Modelled over 25 years after baseline, the ICER for the 12-week programme was dominant compared with the brief intervention. The ICER for the 52-week programme was cost-effective compared with the brief intervention (£2394 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and the 12-week programme (£3804 per QALY).

Interpretation

For adults with overweight or obesity, referral to this open-group behavioural weight-loss programme for at least 12 weeks is more effective than brief advice and self-help materials. A 52-week programme produces greater weight loss and other clinical benefits than a 12-week programme and, although it costs more, modelling suggests that the 52-week programme is cost-effective in the longer term.

Funding

National Prevention Research Initiative, Weight Watchers International (as part of an UK Medical Research Council Industrial Collaboration Award).