Daily Archives: December 26, 2024

Meta-analysis: One-day Low-residue Diet Achieves Comparable Bowel Cleansing Compared to Multi-day Regimens

26 Dec, 2024 | 18:21h | UTC

Background: Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity worldwide, making early detection through colonoscopy essential. Adequate bowel preparation is crucial to maximize mucosal visibility and detect lesions effectively. Although low-residue diets (LRDs) are commonly recommended before colonoscopy, guidelines vary regarding the optimal duration (one day versus multiple days). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether a one-day LRD regimen is non-inferior to multi-day protocols in achieving satisfactory bowel cleansing and lesion detection.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of 1-day versus >1-day LRD regimens for bowel preparation in adult patients undergoing elective colonoscopy, focusing on bowel cleanliness, polyp detection, and adenoma detection rates.

Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1-day with >1-day LRD regimens. Six RCTs involving 2,469 participants met inclusion criteria. Patients were randomized to either a 1-day LRD (n=1,237) or a multi-day LRD (n=1,232). Adequate bowel preparation was primarily defined by a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score ≥2 in each segment or total BBPS ≥6. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), withdrawal time, cecal intubation rate, and cecal intubation time.

Results: Both groups demonstrated similar rates of adequate bowel preparation (87.2% in the 1-day LRD vs. 87.1% in the multi-day group), with no significant difference (OR=1.03, 95% CI, 0.76–1.41; p=0.84; I2=0%). PDR was likewise comparable (OR=0.91, 95% CI, 0.76–1.09; p=0.29; I2=16%), as was ADR (OR=0.87, 95% CI, 0.71–1.08; p=0.21; I2=0%). Withdrawal time did not differ (MD=–0.01 minutes, 95% CI, –0.25 to 0.24; p=0.97; I2=63%), and cecal intubation parameters were also statistically similar. Across studies, the pooled mean global BBPS revealed minimal difference (MD=0.16, 95% CI, –0.02 to 0.34; p=0.08; I2=15%), confirming the non-inferiority of a shorter LRD protocol.

Conclusions: A one-day LRD achieves bowel cleansing outcomes comparable to those of multi-day LRDs, without compromising polyp or adenoma detection. This shorter regimen may help optimize patient adherence, reduce dietary restriction burden, and simplify procedural logistics, especially for busy endoscopy practices.

Implications for Practice: Adopting a 1-day LRD can streamline preparation, improve patient satisfaction, and maintain high-quality visualization. Clinicians should weigh individual patient factors such as chronic constipation or comorbidities but may generally favor a shorter dietary restriction period to enhance compliance and comfort.

Study Strengths and Limitations: This meta-analysis included only RCTs, strengthening its internal validity. Heterogeneity for primary outcomes was minimal. However, the included trials employed varied dietary protocols and bowel preparation solutions. Additionally, some studies lacked uniform reporting of cecal intubation endpoints, limiting direct comparisons. Future investigations with standardized outcome measures could offer more definitive guidance.

Future Research: Further large-scale RCTs should assess cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes, and LRD composition in specific populations. Identifying optimal dietary instructions for individuals with slower colonic transit or specific nutritional needs would refine colonoscopy preparation guidelines and potentially increase detection of precancerous lesions.

Reference: Putri RD, et al. One-day low-residue diet is equally effective as the multiple-day low-residue diet in achieving adequate bowel cleansing: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical Endoscopy. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.061

 

---

RCT: Daratumumab Monotherapy Prevents Progression in High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

26 Dec, 2024 | 15:44h | UTC

Background: Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic plasma cell disorder that can progress to active multiple myeloma, especially when risk factors place patients in a high-risk subset. Although daratumumab has been approved for multiple myeloma, no treatments have been approved for high-risk SMM. This study (AQUILA) examined whether subcutaneous daratumumab could prevent or significantly delay progression to symptomatic myeloma.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of subcutaneous daratumumab monotherapy versus active monitoring in prolonging time to disease progression (defined by SLiM–CRAB criteria) or death in patients with high-risk SMM.

Methods: In this open-label phase 3 trial, 390 patients with high-risk SMM were randomly assigned (1:1) to either daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneously) or active monitoring. Daratumumab was administered weekly for cycles 1–2, every two weeks for cycles 3–6, and then every four weeks for up to 39 cycles (36 months) or until confirmed disease progression. Active monitoring followed the same schedule for disease evaluations without any specific therapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by an independent committee. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, response rates, and time to subsequent therapy.

Results: After a median follow-up of 65.2 months, disease progression or death occurred in 34.5% of patients in the daratumumab group compared to 50.5% in the active-monitoring group (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36–0.67; p<0.001). At five years, the PFS rate was 63.1% with daratumumab and 40.8% with active monitoring. Overall survival was also higher in the daratumumab arm: 93.0% versus 86.9% at five years (HR for death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27–0.98). Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was low (5.7%), and no new safety signals emerged. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events, primarily hypertension (5.7% vs. 4.6%), occurred at similar rates in both arms. Infections of grade 3 or 4 were more frequent with daratumumab (16.1% vs. 4.6%), including COVID-19 pneumonia, yet overall tolerability remained acceptable. Patient-reported outcomes, including quality-of-life measures, were largely preserved in both groups during the study.

Conclusions: Subcutaneous daratumumab monotherapy substantially delayed progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma and improved overall survival among patients with high-risk SMM. The safety profile was consistent with prior daratumumab studies, suggesting a favorable risk–benefit balance. Early intervention with daratumumab may thus alter the disease trajectory for select patients, sparing them from end-organ damage and improving long-term clinical outcomes.

Implications for Practice: While active monitoring has been the standard of care for high-risk SMM, these findings support early therapeutic intervention for patients with multiple high-risk features. Clinicians should remain cautious, however, when generalizing across different risk stratification models. Additional research on optimal treatment durations, combination strategies, and real-world outcomes will further refine patient selection and management of high-risk SMM.

Study Strengths and Limitations: This trial featured robust follow-up (median of over five years) and clear outcome definitions. However, the classification of high-risk features has evolved, and certain populations (e.g., Black patients) were underrepresented. These factors may limit the generalizability of the findings in broader clinical settings.

Future Research: Ongoing trials are investigating alternative dosing schedules, combination regimens (e.g., daratumumab-based quadruplets), and the role of minimal residual disease monitoring to optimize patient outcomes. Additional studies will clarify whether more intense or shorter treatments might maintain efficacy with fewer side effects.

Reference: Dimopoulos MA, Voorhees PM, Schjesvold F, Cohen YC, Hungria V, Sandhu I, Lindsay J, +29, for the AQUILA Investigators. Daratumumab or Active Monitoring for High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2024; DOI: http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2409029

 

---

Three Phase 3, Placebo-Controlled Trials Show Rapid Benefits of Oral Atogepant for Migraine Prevention

26 Dec, 2024 | 12:17h | UTC

Background: Preventive therapies for migraine often require long titration and may take weeks to achieve their full effect. This analysis integrates data from three randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trials (ADVANCE, ELEVATE, PROGRESS) assessing atogepant 60 mg once daily (QD) over 12 weeks, focusing on the first four weeks. A key point is that atogepant was compared only to placebo, not to other well-established migraine preventives.

Objective: To determine whether atogepant provides early efficacy in reducing migraine frequency and improving functional outcomes within the initial weeks of therapy, for both episodic and chronic migraine.

Methods: All three studies enrolled participants aged 18–80 years with a ≥1-year history of migraine. ADVANCE and ELEVATE focused on episodic migraine (EM; 4–14 monthly migraine days), while PROGRESS studied chronic migraine (CM; ≥15 monthly headache days, ≥8 of which met migraine criteria). In ELEVATE, participants had previously failed 2–4 classes of oral migraine preventives. Throughout each trial, patients recorded daily migraine-related data and completed validated functional assessments (AIM-D and EQ-5D-5L). For this pooled analysis, only the atogepant 60 mg QD and placebo arms were examined.

Results: Atogepant recipients had a significantly lower proportion of patients with a migraine day on day 1 in all three trials, suggesting a rapid onset of benefit. Reductions in weekly migraine days (WMDs) emerged as early as week 1 and remained consistently greater than placebo over the first four weeks. Functional measures improved within this same timeframe, with patients on atogepant reporting reductions in activity impairment and enhanced self-rated health. These positive findings were observed in EM (with or without prior prophylaxis failures) and in CM populations.

Conclusions: Atogepant 60 mg QD was linked to early and significant reductions in migraine days, as well as enhancements in physical functioning and daily activities, across three placebo-controlled studies. The data suggest that atogepant may offer clinically meaningful, rapid-onset prophylactic benefits.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians may consider atogepant for patients seeking a preventive migraine therapy that demonstrates a potentially faster impact on symptom frequency and daily functioning. However, direct comparisons with established active treatments are lacking, and appropriate caution in interpreting the early onset of benefit is recommended.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Major strengths include robust, double-blind methodologies and consistent findings across diverse migraine populations. A key limitation is the exclusive use of placebo as the comparator, so the relative advantage over standard preventives remains unknown. The predominantly female and White study cohorts also restrict generalizability.

Future Research: Further investigations should evaluate atogepant in direct comparisons with existing active migraine preventives, examine long-term outcomes, and recruit more diverse populations. Such efforts could better define the therapy’s place in routine migraine care.

Reference: Lipton RB, et al. Early Improvements With Atogepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: Results From 3 Randomized Phase 3 Trials. Neurology. 2025;104(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000210212

 

---

Management of Adult Sepsis in Resource-Limited Settings: A Global Delphi-Based Consensus

26 Dec, 2024 | 02:06h | UTC

Introduction: This summary presents key points from a recent expert consensus on managing adult sepsis under limited-resource conditions, where patients may lack access to an ICU bed, advanced monitoring technologies, or sufficient staffing. The statements were developed through a Delphi process involving an international panel of clinicians, aiming to complement existing sepsis guidelines by focusing on pragmatic approaches and context-specific adaptations. These consensus statements address unique challenges such as limited diagnostic tests, alternative strategies for hemodynamic monitoring, and management of sepsis in areas with tropical infections.

Key Recommendations:

1. Location of Care and Transfer
   • When an ICU bed is unavailable, care can be provided in a non-ICU setting if minimum monitoring (neurological status, blood pressure, peripheral perfusion) is ensured.
   • Before transferring a patient, ensure airway patency, initiate intravenous fluids and antimicrobials, and maintain safe transport conditions.
   • Incorporate telemedicine or phone consultation with critical care specialists whenever feasible.
2. Diagnostic Considerations
   • Employ screening tools (e.g., qSOFA) in areas with limited resources, acknowledging its diagnostic constraints.
   • Use clinical parameters like altered mental state, capillary refill time (CRT), and urine output to gauge tissue perfusion when lactate measurement is unavailable.
   • Insert an indwelling urinary catheter in septic shock to monitor urine output accurately, balancing infection risks against close monitoring needs.
3. Hemodynamic Management
   • Rely on clinical indicators (CRT, urine output) to guide fluid resuscitation when serum lactate is not accessible.
   • Use fluid responsiveness tests (e.g., passive leg raising, pulse pressure variation) if advanced hemodynamic monitoring is impractical.
   • Consider balanced solutions such as Ringer’s lactate or Hartmann’s solution for fluid resuscitation.
   • Recognize that patients with tropical infections (e.g., malaria, dengue) may require cautious fluid volumes to avoid overload.
   • Initiate epinephrine if norepinephrine or vasopressin is unavailable, and use vasopressors through peripheral lines if central access cannot be established.
4. Antimicrobial Therapy
   • Administer antibiotics without delay (ideally within one hour) in suspected sepsis or septic shock.
   • In severe infections of parasitic origin (e.g., malaria), start antiparasitic agents promptly.
   • In settings where laboratory investigations are limited, begin broad-spectrum antimicrobial coverage when infection cannot be ruled out.
   • De-escalate or discontinue therapy based on clinical improvement, declining white blood cell counts, and adequate source control.
5. Respiratory Support
   • For acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in septic patients, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) can be used if high-flow nasal oxygen is not available, provided close monitoring for potential failure is ensured.

Conclusion: These consensus-based statements offer practical guidance for clinicians treating sepsis in resource-limited environments. By adapting globally accepted recommendations and incorporating alternative strategies—such as clinical markers of perfusion, use of peripheral vasopressors, and prioritizing immediate antimicrobial therapy—these principles aim to improve patient outcomes where healthcare resources are scarce. Further research and context-specific adaptations will be essential to address remaining uncertainties and refine these expert recommendations.

Reference:
Thwaites, L., Nasa, P., Abbenbroek, B. et al. Management of adult sepsis in resource-limited settings: global expert consensus statements using a Delphi method. Intensive Care Medicine (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-024-07735-7

 

---