Browsing Faculty of Science and Engineering by Journal
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
Intratympanic methylprednisolone versus gentamicin in patients with unilateral Ménière's disease: a randomised, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trialBackground Ménière’s disease is characterised by severe vertigo attacks and hearing loss. Intratympanic gentamicin,the standard treatment for refractory Ménière’s disease, reduces vertigo, but damages vestibular function and can worsen hearing. We aimed to assess whether intratympanic administration of the corticosteroid methylprednisolone reduces vertigo compared with gentamicin. Methods In this double-blind comparative effectiveness trial, patients aged 18–70 years with refractory unilateral Ménière’s disease were enrolled at Charing Cross Hospital (London, UK) and Leicester Royal Infirmary (Leicester, UK). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a block design to two intratympanic methylprednisolone(62·5 mg/mL) or gentamicin (40 mg/mL) injections given 2 weeks apart, and were followed up for 2 years. All investigators and patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was vertigo frequency over the final 6 months (18–24 months after injection) compared with the 6 months before the first injection. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, and then per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00802529. Findings Between June 19, 2009, and April 15, 2013, 256 patients with Ménière’s disease were screened, 60 of whom were enrolled and randomly assigned: 30 to gentamicin and 30 to methylprednisolone. In the intention-to-treat analysis (ie, all 60 patients), the mean number of vertigo attacks in the final 6 months compared with the 6 months before the first injection (primary outcome) decreased from 19·9 (SD 16·7) to 2·5 (5·8) in the gentamicin group (87% reduction) and from 16·4 (12·5) to 1·6 (3·4) in the methylprednisolone group (90% reduction; mean difference –0·9,95% CI –3·4 to 1·6). Patients whose vertigo did not improve after injection (ie, non-responders) after being assessed by an unmasked clinician were eligible for additional injections given by a masked clinician (eight patients in the gentamicin group vs 15 in the methylprednisolone group). Two non-responders switched from methylprednisolone to gentamicin. Both drugs were well tolerated with no safety concerns. Six patients reported one adverse event each: three in the gentamicin group and three in the methylprednisolone group. The most common adverse event was minor ear infections, which was experienced by one patient in the gentamicin group and two in the methylprednisolone group. Interpretation Methylprednisolone injections are a non-ablative, effective treatment for refractory Ménière’s disease. The choice between methylprednisolone and gentamicin should be made based on clinical knowledge and patient circumstances.
Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trialBackground Selinexor with dexamethasone has demonstrated activity in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma (MM). In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with the proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly SVd versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. Methods This phase 3, randomised, open label trial was conducted at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients who were previously treated with one to three lines of therapy, including PIs were randomised (1:1) to selinexor (100 mg once-weekly) plus bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once-weekly) and dexamethasone (20 mg twice-weekly) [SVd] or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice-weekly) and dexamethasone (20 mg 4 times per week) [Vd]. Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous PI therapy, lines of treatment, and MM stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. Findings Between June 2017 and February 2019, 402 patients were randomised: 195 to SVd and 207 to Vd. Median PFS was 13·93 (95% CI 11·73–NE) with SVd versus 9·46 months (8·11–10·78) with Vd; HR 0·70, [95% CI 0·53–0·93]; P=0.0075. Most frequent grade ≥3 adverse events (SVd vs Vd) were thrombocytopenia (77 [40%] vs 35 [17%]), fatigue (26 [13%] vs 2 [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy rates (overall, 32·3% vs 47·1%; OR 0·52, [95% CI 0·35-0·79]; P=0.0010 and grade ≥2, 21·0% vs 34·3%; OR 0·50, [95% CI 0·32-0·79]; P=0.0013) were lower with SVd. There were 47 (24%) deaths on SVd and 62 (30%) on Vd. Interpretation Once-weekly SVd is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with MM who have received 1-3 prior therapies.