FK 506 and mycophenolate mofetil in renal transplant recipients: six-month results of a multicenter, randomized dose ranging trial. FK 506 MMF Dose-Ranging Kidney Transplant Study Group

The effective dose of MMF with FK 506 has not been previously studied in a prospective, randomized, controlled setting. In the present study, we evaluated two different daily doses of MMF (1 and 2 g) and compared it to the historically conventional therapy of AZA. At 6 months post-transplant, we found no significant difference in the incidence of acute rejection between the AZA group and the MMF 1 g group. However, patients who started on MMF 2 g/d had significantly delayed and lower incidence of acute rejection as compared to the other two groups. We found that patients who were initiated on MMF 2 g frequently had their dose lowered, primarily for gastrointestinal or hematologic symptoms; by 6 months after-transplant, patients in the MMF 2 g group had a mean dose of 1.5 g. It is unclear from this study if initiating patients on MMF 1.5 g in combination with FK 506 would be as effective as initiating a patient on MMF 2 g. Further studies of the combination of FK 506 and MMF in kidney transplant recipients to further define the optimal dosing regimen are warranted. In summary, the combination of FK 506 and MMF is well-tolerated, safe, and effective in cadaveric kidney transplant recipients.     

A comparison of tacrolimus (FK506) and cyclosporine for immunosuppression after cadaveric renal transplantation. FK506 Kidney Transplant Study Group

BACKGROUND: Tacrolimus (FK506), a macrolide molecule that potently inhibits the expression of interleukin 2 by T lymphocytes, represents a potential major advance in the management of rejection following solid-organ transplantation. This randomized, open-label study compared the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus-based versus cyclosporine-based immunosuppression in patients receiving cadaveric kidney transplants. METHODS: A total of 412 patients were randomized to tacrolimus (n=205) or cyclosporine (n=207) after cadaveric renal transplantation and were followed for 1 year for patient and graft survival and the incidence of acute rejection. RESULTS: One-year patient survival rates were 95.6% for tacrolimus and 96.6% for cyclosporine (P=0.576). Corresponding 1-year graft survival rates were 91.2% and 87.9% (P=0.289). There was a significant reduction in the incidence of biopsy-confirmed acute rejection in the tacrolimus group (30.7%) compared with the cyclosporine group (46.4%, P=0.001), which was confirmed by blinded review, and in the use of antilymphocyte therapy for rejection (10.7% and 25.1%, respectively; P<0.001). Impaired renal function, gastrointestinal disorders, and neurological complications were commonly reported in both treatment groups, but tremor and paresthesia were more frequent in the tacrolimus group. The incidence of posttransplant diabetes mellitus was 19.9% in the tacrolimus group and 4.0% in the cyclosporine group (P<0.001), and was reversible in some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus is more effective than cyclosporine in preventing acute rejection in cadaveric renal allograft recipients, and significantly reduces the use of antilymphocyte antibody preparations. Tacrolimus was associated with a higher incidence of neurologic events, which were rarely treatment limiting, and with posttransplant diabetes mellitus, which was reversible in some patients.     

A randomized trial comparing busulfan with total body irradiation as conditioning in allogeneic marrow transplant recipients with leukemia: a report from the Nordic Bone Marrow Transplantation Group

Between October 1988 and December 1992, 167 patients with leukemia receiving marrow transplants from HLA-identical donors and conditioned with cyclophosphamide (120 mg/kg) were randomized to additional treatment with either busulfan (16 mg/kg, n = 88) or total body irradiation (TBI; n = 79). The busulfan-treated patients had an increased cumulative incidence of veno-occlusive disease of the liver, ie, 12% compared with 1% in the TBI group (P = .009). Furthermore, hemorrhagic cystitis occurred in 24% of the busulfan patients versus 8% in the TBI patients (P = .003). In patients with advanced disease beyond first remission or first chronic phase, transplantation-related mortality was 62% among the busulfan-treated patients compared with 12% among the TBI recipients (P = .002). These differences between the two groups were statistically significant in multivariate analysis. Seizures were seen in 6% of the busulfan-treated patients and were absent in the TBI group (P = .03). Grade II-IV of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was similar in the two groups, but grade III-IV and chronic disease was more common in the busulfan-treated group (P = .04). Death associated with GVHD occurred in 17% of the busulfan-treated group and 2% of the TBI group (P = .003). Patients treated with busulfan had a 3-year actuarial survival of 62%, which was worse than the 76% among those treated with TBI (P < .03). In multivariate analysis, poor survival was associated with advanced disease (P < .0001), no posttransplant septicemia (P = .0006), grade II-IV GVHD (P = .006), and busulfan treatment (P < .02). The incidence of relapse did not differ between the two groups. Relapse-free survival was also similar in the two treatment groups on analysis of data from all patients, children, patients with early disease, and those with acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and chronic myeloid leukemia. However, in adults (P = .05) and patients with advanced disease (P = .005), leukemia-free survival was significantly better in those treated with TBI. We conclude that patients treated with busulfan have more early toxicity and an increased transplant-related mortality in patients with advanced disease. TBI is therefore the treatment of choice, especially in adults and patients with advanced disease. However, busulfan is an acceptable alternative for patients with early disease and for those in whom TBI is not feasible.     

Treatment of severe pneumonia in hospitalized patients: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial comparing intravenous ciprofloxacin with imipenem-cilastatin. The Severe Pneumonia Study Group

Intravenously administered ciprofloxacin was compared with imipenem for the treatment of severe pneumonia. In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, which included an intent-to-treat analysis, a total of 405 patients with severe pneumonia were enrolled. The mean APACHE II score was 17.6, 79% of the patients required mechanical ventilation, and 78% had nosocomial pneumonia. A subgroup of 205 patients (98 ciprofloxacin-treated patients and 107 imipenem-treated patients) were evaluable for the major efficacy endpoints. Patients were randomized to receive intravenous treatment with either ciprofloxacin (400 mg every 8 h) or imipenem (1,000 mg every 8 h), and doses were adjusted for renal function. The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were bacteriological and clinical responses at 3 to 7 days after completion of therapy. Ciprofloxacin-treated patients had a higher bacteriological eradication rate than did imipenem-treated patients (69 versus 59%; 95% confidence interval of -0.6%, 26.2%; P = 0.069) and also a significantly higher clinical response rate (69 versus 56%; 95% confidence interval of 3.5%, 28.5%; P = 0.021). The greatest difference between ciprofloxacin and imipenem was in eradication of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae (93 versus 65%; P = 0.009). Stepwise logistic regression analysis demonstrated the following factors to be associated with bacteriological eradication: absence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P < 0.01), higher weight (P < 0.01), a low APACHE II score (P = 0.03), and treatment with ciprofloxacin (P = 0.04). When P. aeruginosa was recovered from initial respiratory tract cultures, failure to achieve bacteriological eradication and development of resistance during therapy were common in both treatment groups (67 and 33% for ciprofloxacin and 59 and 53% for imipenem, respectively). Seizures were observed more frequently with imipenem than with ciprofloxacin (6 versus 1%; P = 0.028). These results demonstrate that in patients with severe pneumonia, monotherapy with ciprofloxacin is at least equivalent to monotherapy with imipenem in terms of bacteriological eradication and clinical response. For both treatment groups, the presence of P. aeruginosa had a negative impact on treatment success. Seizures were more common with imipenem than with ciprofloxacin. Monotherapy for severe pneumonia is a safe and effective initial strategy but may need to be modified if P. aeruginosa is suspected or recovered from patients.     

"Ultrahigh" dexamethasone in acute brain injury. Results from a prospective randomized double-blind multicenter trial (GUDHIS). German Ultrahigh Dexamethasone Head Injury Study Group

In a prospective randomized double-blind multicenter trial, the efficacy and safety of a 51-hour ultra-high intravenous dexamethasone dosing regimen was investigated in patients with moderate and severe head injury. 300 patients between 15 and 55 years of age were randomized to receive either placebo or dexamethasone: 500 mg intravenous infusion within 3 h after trauma initially, followed by 200 mg after 3 h, thereafter 8 times 200 mg at 6 hourly intervals, resulting in a total administered dose of 2,3 g in 51 hours. Primary end points for assessment of efficacy were: Modified Glasgow Coma Scale (grading 3-16) on Day 5, modified Glasgow Outcome Scale (grading 1-6) 10-14 months after injury, and the time interval until consciousness improved above a level of modified GCS > or = 8. Secondary endpoints were CT results and neurological and laboratory data. The two groups were well matched with respect to important prognostic variables, such as age, severity of trauma, and interval between trauma and application of the drug. 269 patients (89.7%) were available for final examination after 10-14 months. Results were surprisingly favourable in both groups: Lethality in the dexamethasone and placebo group was 14.3 and 15.4%, respectively, and 61.7 and 57.4%, respectively, achieved social and professional rehabilitation after 10-14 months (outcome scale 6). No statistical difference was seen between the dexamethasone and the placebo group in any of the primary end points of efficacy and safety (incidence of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, infection, and thrombosis).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Preliminary report of the Asian-Oceanian Clinical Oncology Association randomized trial comparing cisplatin and epirubicin followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in the treatment of patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Asian-Oceanian Clinical Oncology Association Nasopharynx Cancer Study Group

BACKGROUND: The aim of this trial was to compare the outcome achieved with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy to that achieved with radiotherapy alone for patients with locoregionally advanced undifferentiated or poorly differentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) meeting one of the following criteria: Ho's T3 disease, Ho's N2-N3 disease, or lymph node size > or =3 cm. METHODS: Between September 1989 and August 1993, 334 patients were enrolled in the study, with equal numbers of patients randomized to the neoadjuvant chemotherapy arm (CT arm) and the radiotherapy arm (RT arm). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy consisting of 2-3 cycles of cisplatin (60 mg/m2 on Day 1) and epirubicin (110 mg/m2 on Day 1) followed by radiotherapy was given to the CT arm. For radiotherapy, a dose of 66-74 gray (Gy) (median, 71 Gy) was delivered to the primary tumor and 60-76 Gy (median, 66 Gy) to the neck. Two hundred eighty-six eligible patients completed the treatment and were evaluable for treatment response (134 in the CT arm, 152 in the RT arm). All patients were included in the survival analysis based on the intention to treat. The median follow-up was 30 months for the whole cohort and 41 months for the surviving patients. RESULTS: Analysis of the 334 patients based on the intention to treat showed no significant difference in relapse free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS) between the 2 treatment arms (3-year RFS rate: 48% in the CT arm vs. 42% in the RT arm, P = 0.45; 3-year OS rate: 78% vs. 71%, P = 0.57). In an efficacy analysis based on only the 286 evaluable patients, a trend of improved RFS favoring the CT arm was observed (3-year RFS rate: 58% vs. 46%, P = 0.053), with again no significant difference in OS (3-year OS rate: 80% vs. 72%, P = 0.21). In the subgroup of 49 patients with bulky neck lymph nodes >6 cm, improved RFS (3-year RFS rate: 63% vs. 28%, P = 0.026) and OS (3-year OS rate: 73% vs. 37%, P = 0.057) were observed, favoring the CT arm. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter randomized study did not demonstrate any benefit with the addition of cisplatin-epirubicin neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma; therefore routine administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to this target group cannot be recommended. Although the overall incidence of recurrence was reduced with the addition of chemotherapy in the efficacy analysis, the overall survival was not affected. A more effective chemotherapy regimen, the selection of an appropriate target group, and the use of an alternative strategy for combining chemoradiotherapy should be explored in future trials.     

Baseline characteristics, natural history, and risk factors to progression in eyes with stage 2 macular holes. Results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Vitrectomy for Macular Hole Study Group

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is (1) to determine baseline characteristics and natural history of immature full-thickness macular holes, (2) to describe progression and resolution, and (3) to present new aspects of pathogenesis of idiopathic macular hole. METHODS: The authors analyzed 41 eyes with stage 2 macular holes (37 patients) in a multicentered prospective randomized trial; 19 eyes were randomized to observation (versus surgery) and had more than 12 months of follow-up, allowing determination of the natural course. Baseline and subsequent examinations included best-refracted visual acuity (Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study, potential acuity meter, Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity, and Bailey-Lovie reading vision), of clinical examinations, photography, and fluorescein angiography. RESULT: Mean Snellen visual acuity was 20/66 at baseline. Centric holes usually had a small break (201 microns average mean diameter) with a dark yellow ring and without significant retinal elevation. Eccentric holes had a high maximum/minimum diameter ratio (mean, 1.88 +/- 0.7) and an incomplete cuff of subretinal fluid or yellow ring. Posterior vitreous detachment prevalence was 32% (8/25) in the centric hole group and 0% (0/ 16) in the eccentric hole group (P < 0.05). For the 19 eyes with 12 months of followup, progression rate to stage 3 (or 4) was 74% (n = 14). The diameter of the stage 2 holes increased significantly between baseline and 12 months (P < 0.001). Progression rate to stage 3 was 100% (8/8) in the eyes with pericentral hyperfluorescence (PCH) and 55% (6/11) in eyes without PCH (P < 0.05). Enlargement occurred in 100% of eccentric holes and 60% of centric holes (P = 0.09). Different progression patterns in eccentric and centric holes suggest different mechanisms of pathogenesis. CONCLUSION: Eccentric and centric stage 2 macular holes may have a different pathogenesis. Most stage 2 macular holes, especially with PCH (P < 0.05) or eccentric holes, progressed to stage 3 or 4. In addition to purely tangential traction, some component of obliquely oriented anteroposterior vitreous traction component may be important for pathogenesis of senile macular holes, particularly eccentric stage 2 macular holes.