OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with regorafenib (hereafter, TACE-regorafenib) or camrelizumab (hereafter, TACE-camrelizumab) for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with untreatable progression after TACE and sorafenib therapy.
METHODS: The medical records of patients with HCC who received TACE-regorafenib or TACE-camrelizumab between September 2018 and December 2023 were retrospectively evaluated. Therapeutic response, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: A total of 76 patients were enrolled in this study, with 41 and 35 patients in the TACE-regorafenib and TACE-camrelizumab groups, respectively. The objective response rates in the TACE-regorafenib and TACE-camrelizumab groups were 9.8% and 8.6%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.859). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in disease control rates between the two groups (61.0% vs 68.6%, P = 0.838). The median OS was 11 months in the TACE-regorafenib group and 10 months in the TACE-camrelizumab group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.348). The TACE-regorafenib group had a median PFS of 7 months, which was significantly longer than that of the TACE-camrelizumab group (4 months, P = 0.004). There was no significant difference in the incidence of AEs between the two groups (P = 0.544).
CONCLUSIONS: TACE-regorafenib was safe, well-tolerated, and showed promising efficacy in patients with sorafenib-refractory advanced HCC, whereas TACE-camrelizumab demonstrated similar survival benefits.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: In this prospective observational study, we aimed to investigate the serum levels of sirtuin (SIRT)3 in epilepsy patients and its association with the severity of the disease.
UNASSIGNED: This prospective observational study included 203 patients with symptomatic epilepsy and 100 healthy controls who visited our hospital from November 2019 to November 2022. The severity of the disease in epilepsy patients was assessed using the National Hospital Seizure Severity Scale (NHS3). We used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to measure the serum levels of SIRT3, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1β, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and C-reactive protein in all patients. In addition, the cognitive function of all study participants was evaluated using the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA). All data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0 software.
UNASSIGNED: The MOCA scores of the epilepsy patients were significantly lower compared to the healthy volunteers (P < 0.05). The serum SIRT3 levels were decreased significantly in patients with refractory epilepsy (183.16 ± 17.22 pg/mL) compared to non-refractory epilepsy patients (199.00 ± 18.68 pg/mL). In addition, serum SIRT3 levels were negatively correlated with the inflammatory factors IL-6 (Pearson\'s correlation -0.221, P = 0.002) and NHS score (Pearson\'s correlation -0.272, P < 0.001) of epilepsy patients, while positively correlated with MOCA scores (Pearson\'s correlation 0.166, P = 0.018). Furthermore, the receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that serum SIRT3 could be used to diagnose epilepsy, as well as refractory epilepsy. Finally, logistic regression analysis showed that SIRT3 (OR = 1.028, 95%CI: 1.003-1.054, P = 0.028), IL-6 (OR = 0.666, 95%CI: 0.554-0.800, P < 0.001), IL-1β (OR = 0.750, 95%CI: 0.630-0.894, P = 0.001), and NHS3 (OR = 0.555, 95%CI: 0.435-0.706, P < 0.001) were risk factors for refractory epilepsy.
UNASSIGNED: In conclusion, our findings demonstrated that serum SIRT3 levels were significantly decreased in epilepsy patients and further decreased in patients with refractory epilepsy. This study might provide new therapeutic targets and comprehensive treatment strategies for epilepsy patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) beyond second line is still questioned. Besides the standard of care agents (regorafenib, REG, or trifluridine/tipiracil, FTD/TPI), chemotherapy rechallenge or reintroduction (CTr/r) are commonly considered in clinical practice, despite weak supporting evidence. The prognostic performance of CTr/r, REG and FTD/TPI in this setting are herein evaluated.
METHODS: PROSERpYNa is a multicenter, observational, retrospective study, in which patients with refractory mCRC, progressing after at least 2 lines of CT, treated with CTr/r, REG or FTD/TPI, are considered eligible and were enrolled in 2 independent data sets (exploratory and validation). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (RR) and safety. A propensity score adjustment was accomplished for survival analyses.
RESULTS: Data referring to patients treated between Jan-10 and Jan-19 from 3 Italian institutions were gathered (341 and 181 treatments for exploratory and validation data sets respectively). In the exploratory cohort, median OS (18.5 vs. 6.5 months), PFS (6.1 vs. 3.5 months) and RR (28.6% vs. 1.4%) were significantly longer for CTr/r compared to REG/FTD/TPI. Survival benefits were retained at the propensity score analysis, adjusted for independent prognostic factors identified at multivariate analysis. Moreover, these results were confirmed within the validation cohort analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the retrospective fashion, CTr/r proved to be a valuable option in this setting in a real-world context, providing superior outcomes compared to standard of care agents at the price of a moderate toxicity.

OBJECTIVE: Refractory (RSE) and super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) are serious medical emergencies whose long-term outcomes depend on the timeliness of their management. Population-based clinical and epidemiological data on these conditions are sparse. We aimed to provide a detailed description of the epidemiology and clinical course of RSE and SRSE in children and adolescents and identify potential prognostic biomarkers.
METHODS: In this retrospective population-based study, patients aged one month to 18 years who fulfilled the RSE/SRSE diagnostic criteria and were admitted to the intensive care unit of Haukeland University Hospital from 2012 to 2021 were considered eligible. Detailed clinical and laboratory findings along with information on management and outcomes were systematically analyzed.
RESULTS: Forty-three patients with 52 episodes of RSE/SRSE were identified. The incidence rate was 3.13 per 100,000 per year. The median time from SE onset to the administration of the first rescue drug was 13 min, and from the first rescue drug to second- and third-line treatments, 83 and 66 min, respectively. All patients were alive at discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: Delays in treatment were observed in various stages of the clinical course of RSE/SRSE. Improvement measures targeting the prompt administration of recuse mediation and subsequent treatment escalation are needed.

OBJECTIVE: Status epilepticus (SE) represents a neurological emergency with significant morbidity and mortality. SE in patients with primary brain tumors received only limited attention to date; detailed analysis of treatment flow is lacking, especially as compared to other SE causes. This study aims to describe the frequency and treatment flow of tumor-related SE and compare it to other SE etiologies.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study based on an institutional SE registry (SERCH) comprising adult SE (excluding post-anoxic causes), treated between January 2013 and December 2022, comparing SE management, frequency of refractory SE, and clinical outcome, among four patients\' groups stratified by SE etiology: Non-neoplastic, Gliomas, Brain metastases, Other brain tumors.
RESULTS: We analyzed 961 episodes in 831 patients (Non-neoplastic: 649, Gliomas: 85, Metastases: 77, Other brain tumors: 20). Although tumor-patients presented more often with focal episodes and less consciousness impairment than non-neoplastic patients, administration of benzodiazepines as first-line treatment (>75% across all groups), and utilization of second-line ASM were similar across groups. Treatment adequacy was marginally higher in glioma patients compared to the non-neoplastic population (p: 0.049), while refractory SE was comparable in all groups (p: 0.269). No significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed (mortality: non-neoplastic (89/649, 13.7%), glioma (8/85, 9.4%), metastases (14/77, 18.2%), other tumors (5/20, 25.0%), p: 0.198; non-neoplastic vs. glioma, p: 0.271) CONCLUSION: Tumor-associated SE represents 1/5 of all SE episodes, and is managed similarly to other SE causes. Treatment responsiveness and short-term clinical outcomes also exhibit comparable results.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the real-world effectiveness and tolerability of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine (CM) patients.
METHODS: This multicenter study involved retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of CM patients treated with CGRP mAbs or onabotulinumtoxinA, including difficult-to-treat (DTT) patients (i.e., ≥3 preventive failures). Treatment outcomes were determined at 6 months based on prospective headache diaries and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS).
RESULTS: The study included 316 (55 M/261F, mean age 44.4 ± 13.5 years) and 333 (61 M/272F, mean age 47.9 ± 13.4 years) CM patients treated with CGRP mAbs or onabotulinbumtoxinA, respectively. At 6 months, CGRP mAb treatment was associated with a greater decrease in monthly migraine days (MMDs) (-13.0 vs. -8.7 days/month, p < 0.001) and a higher ≥50% responder rate (RR) (74.7% vs. 50.7%, p < 0.001) compared with onabotulinumtoxinA injections. The findings were consistent in DTT patients (-13.0 vs. -9.1 MMDs, p < 0.001; ≥50% RR: 73.9% vs. 50.3%, p < 0.001) or those with medication-overuse headache (MOH) (-13.3 vs. -9.0 MMDs, p < 0.001; ≥50% RR: 79.0% vs. 51.6%, p < 0.001). Besides, patients receiving CGRP mAbs had greater improvement (-42.2 vs. -11.8, p < 0.001) and a higher ≥50% RR (62.0% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.001) in MIDAS scores and a lower rate of adverse events (AEs) (6.0% vs. 21.0%, p < 0.001). However, none of the patients discontinued treatment due to AEs.
CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter, real-world study, CGRP mAbs were more effective than onabotulinumtoxinA in CM patients, even in DTT or MOH patients. All of these injectables were well tolerated. Further prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.

UNASSIGNED: The present study evaluated the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of 10 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) sessions in treatment-resistance obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients using a multisite double-blind sham-controlled design.
UNASSIGNED: Eighty treatment-resistance outpatients suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder were randomized to receive either active or sham transcranial direct current stimulation. The cathode was positioned over the supplementary motor area and the anode over the right supraorbital area. Patients were evaluated at baseline, end of treatment (day 14), one-month follow-up (day 45), and three-month follow-up (day 105) on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale.
UNASSIGNED: Although a significant interaction between time and treatment was observed, the primary endpoint-measuring the change in Yale-Brown obsessive compulsive scale scores after two weeks-was not achieved. Conversely, the secondary endpoint, which concerned the change in Yale-Brown obsessive compulsive scale scores after three months, was successfully met. It is important to note, however, that there were no significant differences in the percentage of responders and remitters at any of the post-treatment assessments. This suggests that the treatment may not have had a clinically relevant impact. Patients well received the transcranial direct current stimulation treatment, indicating its good tolerability.
UNASSIGNED: This is the largest controlled trial using transcranial direct current stimulation in treatment-resistance obsessive-compulsive disorder patients. Our results indicate the importance of studying the placebo effect in transcranial direct current stimulation and the necessity to consider a long follow-up time to best evaluate the effects of the intervention.
UNASSIGNED: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03304600.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the impact of co-antiseizure medication (co-ASM) optimization on the effectiveness and tolerability of adjunctive cenobamate (CNB) in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in a real-world setting.
METHODS: This unicentric, retrospective, observational study included adults with focal-onset seizures who had received ≥2 previous ASMs. The main effectiveness endpoints included responder rates and seizure frequency reduction at 3, 6, and 12-month visits. The number of co-ASMs and defined daily dose (DDD) were analyzed at every visit. Safety endpoints included adverse drug reactions (ADRs).
RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with a median epilepsy duration of 22 years and a median of 15.5 seizures/month were analyzed. The median number of prior ASMs was 12, and the mean number of co-ASMs was 2.9 (SD 1). There was a reduction in seizure frequency/month from baseline to the last visit (p < 0.0001). Between baseline and the end of the study, the mean number of co-ASMs in the per-protocol (PP) population was reduced from 2.9 to 1.6 (p < 0.0001), and DDD was reduced from 3.6 to 1.4 (p < 0.0001). Sodium channel blockers (carbamazepine and lacosamide) and GABAergic drugs (clobazam) were the agents with the most significant reductions in DDD after 12 months. The percentage of patients in the PP population with ≥3 co-ASMs was reduced from 61.8% at baseline to 14.3% at 12 months; 1 patient was receiving CNB as monotherapy at the last visit. At the last visit, 85.7% of the PP population were ≥50% responders, and 33.3% were seizure-free. The percentage of patients with ADRs in the PP population was 71.9% at 3 months and 52.3% at 12 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Following rational polytherapy, optimization of co-ASM management during CNB treatment allowed high seizure freedom rates despite meaningful reductions in co-medication, while also achieving both good tolerability and patient satisfaction scores in a highly drug-resistant population.
CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with epilepsy still have seizures, even after being treated with several different epilepsy drugs. In this study of 34 patients from a Spanish clinic, we show that the epilepsy drug cenobamate can reduce the number of seizures in these patients, even after many other epilepsy drugs have failed. We also show that patients treated with cenobamate can reduce the dose or even stop taking certain other epilepsy drugs. This allows them to simplify their treatment and reduce adverse effects while still keeping control of their epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Comparative investigations evaluating the efficacy of pomalidomide-based (Pom-based) versus daratumumab-based (Dara-based) therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remain scarce, both in randomized controlled trials and real-world studies.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 140 RRMM patients treated with Pom-based or Dara-based or a combination of pomalidomide and daratumumab (DPd) regimens in a Chinese tertiary hospital between December 2018 and July 2023.
RESULTS: The overall response rates (ORR) for Pom-based (n = 48), Dara-based (n = 68), and DPd (n = 24) groups were 57.8%, 84.6%, and 75.0%, respectively (p = 0.007). At data cutoff on August 1, 2023, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.7 months (95% CI: 5.0-6.5) for the Pom-based group, 10.5 months (5.2-15.8) for the Dara-based group, and 6.7 months (4.0-9.3) for the DPd group (p = 0.056). Multivariate analysis identified treatment regimens (Dara-based vs. Pom-based, DPd vs. Pom-based) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) as independent prognostic factors for PFS. In the subgroups of patients aged >65 years, with ECOG PS ≥2, lines of therapy ≥2, extramedullary disease or double-refractory disease (refractory to both lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitors), the superiority of Dara-based regimens over Pom-based regimens was not evident. A higher incidence of infections was observed in patients receiving Dara-based and DPd regimens (Pom-based 39.6% vs. Dara-based 64.7% vs. DPd 70.8%, p = 0.009).
CONCLUSIONS: In real-world settings, Pom-based, Dara-based, and DPd therapies exhibited favorable efficacy in patients with RRMM. Dara-based therapy yielded superior clinical response and PFS compared to Pom-based therapy.