BACKGROUND: A 6-food elimination diet in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is difficult to implement and may negatively impact quality of life (QoL). Less restrictive elimination diets may balance QoL and efficacy.
OBJECTIVE: We performed a multi-site, randomized comparative efficacy trial of a 1-food (milk) elimination diet (1FED) versus 4-food (milk, egg, wheat, soy) elimination diet (4FED) in pediatric EoE.
METHODS: Patients aged 6 to 17 years with histologically active and symptomatic EoE were randomized 1:1 to 1FED or 4FED for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was symptom improvement by Pediatric EoE Symptom Score (PEESSv2.0). Secondary endpoints were proportion achieving histologic remission (<15 eosinophils/high-power field [eos/hpf]); change in histologic features (histology scoring system [HSS]), endoscopic severity (endoscopic reference score [EREFS]), transcriptome (EoE diagnostic panel [EDP]), and QoL scores; and predictors of remission.
RESULTS: 63 patients were randomly assigned to 1FED (n=38) and 4FED (n=25). In 4FED versus 1FED, mean PEESSv2.0 improved -25.0 versus -14.5 (p=0.04) but remission rates (41% versus 44%; p=1.00), HSS (-0.25 versus -0.29; p=0.77), EREFS (-1.10 versus -0.58; p=0.47) and QoL scores were similar between groups. The EoE transcriptome normalized in histologic responders to both diets. Baseline peak eosinophil count predicted remission (OR 0.975, 95% CI 0.953-0.999, p=0.04; cut-off ≤42 eos/hpf). The 4FED withdrawal rate (32%) exceeded 1FED (11%) (p=0.0496).
CONCLUSIONS: Although 4FED moderately improved symptoms compared to 1FED, the histologic, endoscopic, QoL, and transcriptomic outcomes were similar in both groups. 1FED is a reasonable first choice therapy for pediatric EoE given its effects, tolerability, and relative simplicity.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids (DAs), compared to no DAs, help improve the key aspects of shared decision-making, including increased knowledge, discussion frequency, and reduction in decisional conflict. However, systematic reviews have reported varied conclusions on screening uptake, and which DAs are superior to alternative forms in shared decision-making for cancer screening has not been comprehensively reviewed.
METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews was performed. Multiple databases were searched up to December 31, 2023, for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NRCSs) of any size that assessed a decision aid aimed to facilitate cancer-screening decision making communications. Dual screening of abstracts and full-text reports, dual data extraction and quality assessment, and qualitative synthesis were performed.
RESULTS: The 22 eligible publications included 24 reviews on cancer screening DAs for a single specific cancer (8, 8, 7, and 1 on prostate, breast, colorectal, and lung cancer, respectively) and three reviews on multiple aggregate cancers. Individual reviews were based on different primary study designs (92 RCTs and 37 NRCSs); each study was infrequently cited (median citation count 2; range 1-9). Although the DAs had variable formats and delivery methods, the reviews generally focused on use and non-use comparisons. DAs decreased the intention or actual uptake for prostate and breast cancer screening, but increased it for colorectal cancer screening. DAs were associated with increased knowledge, well-informed choice, and reduced decisional conflict, regardless of cancer type. Only four reviews on comparative effectiveness between alternative formats of DAs (based on 14 RCTs and 2 NRCSs) failed to conclude on the specific format that was superior to others.
CONCLUSIONS: DAs improve cancer screening shared decision-making by boosting cancer screening knowledge and informed choice and lowering decisional conflict and may facilitate preference-based, individualized screening participation. Comparative data on different cancer screening DAs are limited.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO, CRD42021235957.

BACKGROUND: In the US, dupilumab is approved for moderate-to-severe eosinophilic or oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma, while omalizumab is approved for managing moderate-to-severe allergic asthma uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids. However, limited comparative effectiveness data exist for these biologics due to differing patient characteristics and treatment histories.
OBJECTIVE: This analysis assessed the real-world effectiveness of dupilumab and omalizumab for asthma among patients in the US.
METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, TriNetX Dataworks electronic medical record data were used to identify asthma patients (age: ≥12 years) who initiated (index) dupilumab or omalizumab between November 2018 and September 2020, and who had at least 12 months of pre- and post-index clinical information. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to balance potential confounding in treatment groups. Asthma exacerbation rates and systemic corticosteroid (SCS) prescriptions were compared using a doubly robust negative binomial regression model, adjusting for baseline exacerbation/SCS rates and patient characteristics with ≥10% standardized differences after IPTW.
RESULTS: Overall, 2,138 patients in dupilumab and 1,313 in omalizumab treatment groups met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. After weighting, the majority of baseline characteristics were balanced (standard difference <10%) between the two groups. Dupilumab was associated with a 44% lower asthma exacerbation rate (p<0.0001) than omalizumab. Additionally, dupilumab treatment significantly (p<0.05) reduced SCS prescriptions by 28% during the follow-up period compared to omalizumab treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: The US ADVANTAGE real-world study demonstrated a significant reduction in severe asthma exacerbations and SCS prescriptions for patients prescribed dupilumab compared to those prescribed omalizumab during 12 months of follow-up.

UNASSIGNED: Recent evidence from randomized trials demonstrates that colchicine can reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with coronary artery disease. Colchicine\'s effect on lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) is not known.
UNASSIGNED: To make inferences about the real-world effectiveness of colchicine in PAD, we emulated two target trials leveraging the variable prescribing practice of adding colchicine vs. a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) to urate-lowering therapy in patients with gout and PAD. Emulated Trial 1 compared colchicine initiators with NSAID initiators. Emulated Trial 2 compared long-term (indefinite) and short-term (3 months) treatment strategies after initiating colchicine. Eligible individuals were those continuously enrolled in Medicare receiving care at a multicentre academic health system between July 2007 and December 2019. The primary outcome for both trials was a 2 year composite of major adverse limb events (MALE), MACE, and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included MALE and death, MACE and death, and individual components of the primary outcome. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for confounding. Percentile-based 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping. A total of 1820 eligible patients were included; the mean age was 77 years [standard deviation (SD) 7], 32% were female, and 9% were non-White. The mean (SD) duration of colchicine and NSAID therapy was 247 (345) and 137 (237) days, respectively. In the emulation of Trial 1, the risk of the primary composite outcome of MALE, MACE, and death at 2 years was 29.9% (95% CI 27.2%, 32.3%) in the colchicine group and 31.5% (28.3%, 34.6%) in the NSAID group, with a risk difference of -1.7% (95% CI -6.5%, 3.1%) and a risk ratio of 0.95 (95% CI 0.83, 1.07). Similar findings were noted in the emulation of Trial 2, with a risk of the primary composite outcome at 2 years of 30.7% (95% CI 23.7%, 38.1%) in the long-term colchicine group and 33.4% (95% CI 29.4%, 37.7%) in the short-term group, with a risk difference of -2.7% (95% CI -10.3%, 5.4%) and risk ratio of 0.92 (95% CI 0.70, 1.16).
UNASSIGNED: In a real-world sample of patients with PAD and gout, estimates of the effect of colchicine were consistent across two analyses and provided no conclusive evidence that colchicine decreased the risk of adverse cardiovascular or limb events and death. The cardiovascular and limb benefits of colchicine in older, comorbid populations with PAD and advanced systematic atherosclerosis remain uncertain.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of approved therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) during induction and maintenance, including upadacitinib (UPA), vedolizumab (VEDO), ustekinumab (UST), and tofacitinib (TOFA), is limited.
METHODS: Using data from phase 3 trials, three placebo (PBO)-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of the efficacy and safety of UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA (U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH, GEMINI-1, UNIFI, and OCTAVE induction and maintenance trials) have been conducted. Baseline characteristics from UPA trials were weighted separately to match each comparator trial. Induction responders were re-randomized to oral UPA 15 or 30 mg, VEDO 300 mg intravenously every 8 weeks (Q8W), UST 90 mg SC Q8W, or oral TOFA 5 mg, or PBO in maintenance. Treat-through efficacy outcomes at weeks 44(UST)/46(VEDO)/52(UPA/TOFA) were adjusted by the likelihood of induction response and included clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs leading to discontinuation (except UPA vs. VEDO). Benefit-risk was assessed by numbers needed to treat (NNT)/harm, calculated as the inverse of the difference in proportions of patients achieving each efficacy/safety outcome for UPA versus comparator.
RESULTS: The proportions of patients who demonstrated clinical response or endoscopic improvement was greater with UPA 15 mg versus VEDO and TOFA (p < 0.05). The proportions of patients demonstrating all treat-through efficacy outcomes were significantly greater with UPA 30 mg versus VEDO, UST, or TOFA with NNTs 3.2-8.7. No significant differences in proportions of AEs, SAEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were observed between the two doses of UPA and comparators.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active UC, greater clinical efficacy, and similar safety after 1 year of maintenance were observed with UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA, suggesting a favorable benefit-risk profile for UPA. Despite matched baseline characteristics, differences in trial design and endpoints may persist.

UNASSIGNED: Comparisons between cladribine and other potent immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) are lacking.
UNASSIGNED: To compare the effectiveness of cladribine against fingolimod, natalizumab, ocrelizumab and alemtuzumab in relapsing-remitting MS.
UNASSIGNED: Patients with relapsing-remitting MS treated with cladribine, fingolimod, natalizumab, ocrelizumab or alemtuzumab were identified in the global MSBase cohort and two additional UK centres. Patients were followed for ⩾6/12 and had ⩾3 in-person disability assessments. Patients were matched using propensity score. Four pairwise analyses compared annualised relapse rates (ARRs) and disability outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: The eligible cohorts consisted of 853 (fingolimod), 464 (natalizumab), 1131 (ocrelizumab), 123 (alemtuzumab) or 493 (cladribine) patients. Cladribine was associated with a lower ARR than fingolimod (0.07 vs. 0.12, p = 0.006) and a higher ARR than natalizumab (0.10 vs. 0.06, p = 0.03), ocrelizumab (0.09 vs. 0.05, p = 0.008) and alemtuzumab (0.17 vs. 0.04, p < 0.001). Compared to cladribine, the risk of disability worsening did not differ in patients treated with fingolimod (hazard ratio (HR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-2.47) or alemtuzumab (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26-2.07), but was lower for patients treated with natalizumab (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13-0.94) and ocrelizumab (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.78). There was no evidence for a difference in disability improvement.
UNASSIGNED: Cladribine is an effective therapy that can be viewed as a step up in effectiveness from fingolimod, but is less effective than the most potent intravenous MS therapies.

The treatment landscape for localized and regional prostate cancer includes active surveillance, radiation therapy (RT), and radical prostatectomy (RP). Population-based studies comparing RP to radiation reveal conflicting results due to methodological flaws. This systematic review and pooled analysis of studies aim to compare cause-specific survival (CSS), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and toxicity outcomes, comparing RP to RT in the management of prostate cancer. This systematic review search included the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries according to the PRISMA statement with the inception of each database up to June 24, 2023. Randomized phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that compared RP to RT in prostate cancer were included. The forest plot for the Odds ratio (OR) was plotted using the Mantel-Haenszel method, and the Z test was used to assess significance. A fixed effects model was used for meta-analysis. The search yielded seven completed randomized clinical trials and four ongoing trials. The majority of complete trials had low to intermediate-risk patient populations. OR for OS was 1.00 with 95% CI, 0.71-1.41 (P-value: 0.98), CSS OR was 0.99 with 95% CI, 0.45-2.18 (P-value 0.11), OR for DFS was 1.26 with 95% CI, 0.89-1.78 (P-value 0.19) when comparing RP to RT. The rate of distant metastatic disease was 2.3% in the RP versus 2.9% in the RT at 10 years. The rate of second malignant neoplasms was 4.5% in the RP compared to 4.2% in the RT arm at 10 years. RP caused more urinary symptoms, with a predominance of the need for urinary pads and a higher incidence of sexual dysfunction, and RT caused a higher incidence of bowel symptoms, such as blood in stools and fecal incontinence. This study provides evidence that the treatment-related outcomes are similar in patients with low to intermediate-risk prostate cancer when comparing RP to RT. Multidisciplinary treatment approaches and factoring patients\' values and preferences should form the cornerstone of the ideal treatment option for each patient with localized prostate cancer. Patients with prostate cancer have an equal chance of being cancer-free and alive at 10 years with either RP or RT. In terms of side effects, RP causes more urine leakage and loss of erections, whereas RT tends to cause more bowel side effects, such as blood in stools and fecal leakage.

OBJECTIVE: Some therapeutic strategy questions in oncology could be answered with studies using observational data. Target trial emulation is the application of design principles from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to the analysis of observational data, to reduce design-induced biases. Our objective was to determine which type of study physicians would preferably plan to answer a comparative effectiveness question lacking evidence in oncology.
METHODS: We launched an online survey among physicians specialized in oncology. We constructed a vignette-based inquiry where vignettes described study scenarios which could be conducted to answer the predefined question. We designed six vignettes described by study design (RCT or observational study with a trial emulation framework), main study characteristics, probability of the study succeeding and anticipated delay before results availability. Participants randomly assessed five pair-wise comparisons of the vignettes and were asked which study they would preferably plan by using a Likert scale ranging from -5 to 5. The main outcome was the evaluation of clinicians\' preferences for each pairwise comparison. Mean and median preference scores were calculated.
RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen participants, specialized in many tumor types, assessed at least one comparison with 82% reporting France as their country of affiliation. The interquartile range was -4 to 4 across pairwise comparisons. The median preference score was in disfavor of the monocentric RCT for the five comparisons where it appeared. The median preference score was strongly in favor of the multicentric national emulated trial when compared to the monocentric emulated trial 4 [IQR 2.5-4]. The mean preference score was the highest for the large European observational study 1.14 (SD 3.33), while the mean preference score was the lowest for the monocentric RCT -1.86 (SD 2.93).
CONCLUSIONS: No study design was strongly preferred, but the monocentric RCT was the least favored study in pair-wise comparisons. The planification of the new research is a compromise between scientific soundness, feasibility, cost, and time before obtaining results. We need to have the right answers to the right questions at the right time.

UNASSIGNED: Despite holding promise, reports of using MIGS in severe glaucoma are scarce, and none has described combining multiple MIGS in this population. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study to report outcomes of phacoemulsification and MIGS (Phaco/MIGS) in patients with severe glaucoma.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective review comprised 327 clinical visits of 71 patients with severe glaucoma who underwent Phaco/MIGS with iStent, endocyclodestruction, Kahook Dual Blade, Hydrus Microstent, or a combination of these MIGS (cMIGS) performed between 2016 and 2021. Primary outcomes included intraocular pressure (IOP) and medication burden evaluated by Generalized Estimating Equations, as well as Kaplan-Meier Estimates. Further analyses compared the efficacy of cMIGS and single Phaco/MIGS (sMIGS), procedure duration, visual acuity, and complications.
UNASSIGNED: Mean preoperative IOP was 16.7 mmHg ± 5.8 (SD) on 2.3 ± 1.9 medications overall (N = 71), 16.9 ± 6.3 mmHg on 1.7 ± 1.9 medications in the sMIGS group (N = 37), and 16.4 ± 5.3 mmHg on 2.9 ± 1.6 medications in the cMIGS group (N = 34). Throughout 12 months, Phaco/MIGS led to significant reduction patterns in IOP (p < 0.001) and medications (p = 0.03). At 12 months, 47.5%, 87.5%, and 64.7% of the patients achieved IOP ≤ 12 mmHg, 17 mmHg, or predetermined goal IOP, respectively, without additional medication or procedure. Mean 12-month IOP was 13.5 ± 3.1 mmHg on 1.8 ± 1.7 medications. After adjusting for baseline medication burden, the reduction pattern in IOP (p < 0.05) was different between cMIGS and sMIGS, favoring cMIGS, and the groups had similar reduction patterns in medications (p = 0.75).
UNASSIGNED: The use of Phaco/MIGS in patients with cataract and severe glaucoma may significantly reduce IOP and medication burden throughout 12 months and, thus, may serve as a stepping stone in severe glaucoma patients with visually significant cataract before proceeding with more invasive glaucoma surgery. This effect may be potentiated by the combination effect of cMIGS.
Many patients with cataract and mild or moderate glaucoma who undergo cataract surgery also benefit from microinvasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) performed at the same time, but the role of MIGS in patients with severe glaucoma and cataract is not clear. We report that combined cataract surgery and MIGS were associated with significant reductions in eye pressure in patients with severe glaucoma for more than 12 months.

Real-world evidence comparing clinical outcomes between venetoclax and Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) in patients with frontline (1 L) chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is lacking. We compared treatment effectiveness of 1 L venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (VenO) versus BTKi-based regimens. This retrospective observational study using Optum Clinformatics Data Mart® included adult patients with CLL (≥2 outpatient or ≥1 inpatient claim) who received VenO or BTKi-based regimens in 1 L (1/2019-9/2022). Baseline characteristics were balanced using stabilised inverse probability weighting. Outcomes included duration of therapy (DoT), persistence, time to next treatment or death (TTNT-D), and time off-treatment. Among 1506 eligible patients (VenO: 203; BTKi: 1303), the median follow-up duration was 12.6 (VenO) and 16.2 months (BTKi). Median DoT for VenO was 12.3 months; persistence remained higher in VenO versus BTKi through expected 1 L fixed treatment duration. Median TTNT-D was not reached for VenO; however, more VenO- versus BTKi-treated patients had not switched therapies/experienced death through Month 12 (87.1% vs. 75.3%). Among patients that discontinued, median time to discontinuation was 11.7 vs. 5.9 months for VenO versus BTKi and median time off-treatment was 11.3 vs. 4.3 months. In this real-world study, VenO was associated with better effectiveness outcomes than BTKi-based regimens in 1 L CLL.