-
Journal of Sleep Research Dec 2023Progress in the field of insomnia since 2017 necessitated this update of the European Insomnia Guideline. Recommendations for the diagnostic procedure for insomnia and... (Review)
Review
Progress in the field of insomnia since 2017 necessitated this update of the European Insomnia Guideline. Recommendations for the diagnostic procedure for insomnia and its comorbidities are: clinical interview (encompassing sleep and medical history); the use of sleep questionnaires and diaries (and physical examination and additional measures where indicated) (A). Actigraphy is not recommended for the routine evaluation of insomnia (C), but may be useful for differential-diagnostic purposes (A). Polysomnography should be used to evaluate other sleep disorders if suspected (i.e. periodic limb movement disorder, sleep-related breathing disorders, etc.), treatment-resistant insomnia (A) and for other indications (B). Cognitive-behavioural therapy for insomnia is recommended as the first-line treatment for chronic insomnia in adults of any age (including patients with comorbidities), either applied in-person or digitally (A). When cognitive-behavioural therapy for insomnia is not sufficiently effective, a pharmacological intervention can be offered (A). Benzodiazepines (A), benzodiazepine receptor agonists (A), daridorexant (A) and low-dose sedating antidepressants (B) can be used for the short-term treatment of insomnia (≤ 4 weeks). Longer-term treatment with these substances may be initiated in some cases, considering advantages and disadvantages (B). Orexin receptor antagonists can be used for periods of up to 3 months or longer in some cases (A). Prolonged-release melatonin can be used for up to 3 months in patients ≥ 55 years (B). Antihistaminergic drugs, antipsychotics, fast-release melatonin, ramelteon and phytotherapeutics are not recommended for insomnia treatment (A). Light therapy and exercise interventions may be useful as adjunct therapies to cognitive-behavioural therapy for insomnia (B).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Melatonin; Sleep; Benzodiazepines; Antidepressive Agents
PubMed: 38016484
DOI: 10.1111/jsr.14035 -
Circulation Oct 2023In this focused update, the American Heart Association provides updated guidance for resuscitation of patients with cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, and refractory... (Review)
Review
2023 American Heart Association Focused Update on the Management of Patients With Cardiac Arrest or Life-Threatening Toxicity Due to Poisoning: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.
In this focused update, the American Heart Association provides updated guidance for resuscitation of patients with cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, and refractory shock due to poisoning. Based on structured evidence reviews, guidelines are provided for the treatment of critical poisoning from benzodiazepines, β-adrenergic receptor antagonists (also known as β-blockers), L-type calcium channel antagonists (commonly called calcium channel blockers), cocaine, cyanide, digoxin and related cardiac glycosides, local anesthetics, methemoglobinemia, opioids, organophosphates and carbamates, sodium channel antagonists (also called sodium channel blockers), and sympathomimetics. Recommendations are also provided for the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. These guidelines discuss the role of atropine, benzodiazepines, calcium, digoxin-specific immune antibody fragments, electrical pacing, flumazenil, glucagon, hemodialysis, hydroxocobalamin, hyperbaric oxygen, insulin, intravenous lipid emulsion, lidocaine, methylene blue, naloxone, pralidoxime, sodium bicarbonate, sodium nitrite, sodium thiosulfate, vasodilators, and vasopressors for the management of specific critical poisonings.
Topics: Humans; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; American Heart Association; Benzodiazepines; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Digoxin; Heart Arrest; United States
PubMed: 37721023
DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001161 -
Neuropsychopharmacology Reports Dec 2023Phenobarbital, a long-acting barbiturate, presents an alternative to conventional benzodiazepine treatment for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). Currently, existing...
AIM
Phenobarbital, a long-acting barbiturate, presents an alternative to conventional benzodiazepine treatment for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). Currently, existing research offers only modest guidance on the safety and effectiveness of phenobarbital in managing AWS in hospital settings. The study objective was to assess if a phenobarbital protocol for the treatment of AWS reduces respiratory complications when compared to a more traditionally used benzodiazepine protocol.
METHODS
A retrospective cohort study analyzing adults who received either phenobarbital or benzodiazepine-based treatment for AWS over a 4-year period, 2015-2019, in a community teaching hospital in a large academic medical system.
RESULTS
A total of 147 patient encounters were included (76 phenobarbital and 71 benzodiazepine). Phenobarbital was associated with a significantly decreased risk of respiratory complications, defined by the occurrence of intubation (15/76 phenobarbital [20%] vs. 36/71 benzodiazepine [51%]) and decreased incidence of the requirement of six or greater liters of oxygen when compared with benzodiazepines (10/76 [13%] vs. 28/71 [39%]). There was a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia in benzodiazepine patients (15/76 [20%] vs. 33/71 [47%]). Mode Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores were more frequently at goal (0 to -1) between 9 and 48 h after the loading dose of study medication for phenobarbital patients. Median hospital and ICU length of stay were significantly shorter for phenobarbital patients when compared with benzodiazepine patients (5 vs. 10 days and 2 vs. 4 days, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Parenteral phenobarbital loading doses with an oral phenobarbital tapered protocol for AWS resulted in decreased risk of respiratory complications when compared to standard treatment with benzodiazepines.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Benzodiazepines; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Alcoholism; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Retrospective Studies; Phenobarbital
PubMed: 37368937
DOI: 10.1002/npr2.12347 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A panic attack is a discrete period of fear or anxiety that has a rapid onset and reaches a peak within 10 minutes. The main symptoms involve bodily systems, such as racing heart, chest pain, sweating, shaking, dizziness, flushing, churning stomach, faintness and breathlessness. Other recognised panic attack symptoms involve fearful cognitions, such as the fear of collapse, going mad or dying, and derealisation (the sensation that the world is unreal). Panic disorder is common in the general population with a prevalence of 1% to 4%. The treatment of panic disorder includes psychological and pharmacological interventions, including antidepressants and benzodiazepines.
OBJECTIVES
To compare, via network meta-analysis, individual drugs (antidepressants and benzodiazepines) or placebo in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. To rank individual active drugs for panic disorder (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To rank drug classes for panic disorder (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), mono-amine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and benzodiazepines (BDZs) and placebo) according to their effectiveness and acceptability. To explore heterogeneity and inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, CDSR, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and PsycINFO to 26 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people aged 18 years or older of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia. We included trials that compared the effectiveness of antidepressants and benzodiazepines with each other or with a placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data and continuous data as risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD): response to treatment (i.e. substantial improvement from baseline as defined by the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), total number of dropouts due to any reason (as a proxy measure of treatment acceptability: dichotomous outcome), remission (i.e. satisfactory end state as defined by global judgement of the original investigators: dichotomous outcome), panic symptom scales and global judgement (continuous outcome), frequency of panic attacks (as recorded, for example, by a panic diary; continuous outcome), agoraphobia (dichotomous outcome). We assessed the certainty of evidence using threshold analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, we included 70 trials in this review. Sample sizes ranged between 5 and 445 participants in each arm, and the total sample size per study ranged from 10 to 1168. Thirty-five studies included sample sizes of over 100 participants. There is evidence from 48 RCTs (N = 10,118) that most medications are more effective in the response outcome than placebo. In particular, diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, paroxetine, venlafaxine, clomipramine, fluoxetine and adinazolam showed the strongest effect, with diazepam, alprazolam and clonazepam ranking as the most effective. We found heterogeneity in most of the comparisons, but our threshold analyses suggest that this is unlikely to impact the findings of the network meta-analysis. Results from 64 RCTs (N = 12,310) suggest that most medications are associated with either a reduced or similar risk of dropouts to placebo. Alprazolam and diazepam were associated with a lower dropout rate compared to placebo and were ranked as the most tolerated of all the medications examined. Thirty-two RCTs (N = 8569) were included in the remission outcome. Most medications were more effective than placebo, namely desipramine, fluoxetine, clonazepam, diazepam, fluvoxamine, imipramine, venlafaxine and paroxetine, and their effects were clinically meaningful. Amongst these medications, desipramine and alprazolam were ranked highest. Thirty-five RCTs (N = 8826) are included in the continuous outcome reduction in panic scale scores. Brofaromine, clonazepam and reboxetine had the strongest reductions in panic symptoms compared to placebo, but results were based on either one trial or very small trials. Forty-one RCTs (N = 7853) are included in the frequency of panic attack outcome. Only clonazepam and alprazolam showed a strong reduction in the frequency of panic attacks compared to placebo, and were ranked highest. Twenty-six RCTs (N = 7044) provided data for agoraphobia. The strongest reductions in agoraphobia symptoms were found for citalopram, reboxetine, escitalopram, clomipramine and diazepam, compared to placebo. For the pooled intervention classes, we examined the two primary outcomes (response and dropout). The classes of medication were: SSRIs, SNRIs, TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs. For the response outcome, all classes of medications examined were more effective than placebo. TCAs as a class ranked as the most effective, followed by BDZs and MAOIs. SSRIs as a class ranked fifth on average, while SNRIs were ranked lowest. When we compared classes of medication with each other for the response outcome, we found no difference between classes. Comparisons between MAOIs and TCAs and between BDZs and TCAs also suggested no differences between these medications, but the results were imprecise. For the dropout outcome, BDZs were the only class associated with a lower dropout compared to placebo and were ranked first in terms of tolerability. The other classes did not show any difference in dropouts compared to placebo. In terms of ranking, TCAs are on average second to BDZs, followed by SNRIs, then by SSRIs and lastly by MAOIs. BDZs were associated with lower dropout rates compared to SSRIs, SNRIs and TCAs. The quality of the studies comparing antidepressants with placebo was moderate, while the quality of the studies comparing BDZs with placebo and antidepressants was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In terms of efficacy, SSRIs, SNRIs (venlafaxine), TCAs, MAOIs and BDZs may be effective, with little difference between classes. However, it is important to note that the reliability of these findings may be limited due to the overall low quality of the studies, with all having unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Within classes, some differences emerged. For example, amongst the SSRIs paroxetine and fluoxetine seem to have stronger evidence of efficacy than sertraline. Benzodiazepines appear to have a small but significant advantage in terms of tolerability (incidence of dropouts) over other classes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Panic Disorder; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Paroxetine; Fluoxetine; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors; Alprazolam; Clomipramine; Reboxetine; Clonazepam; Desipramine; Network Meta-Analysis; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Benzodiazepines; Diazepam
PubMed: 38014714
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012729.pub3 -
Clinical Cancer Research : An Official... Sep 2023This research investigates the association between benzodiazepines (BZD) and cancer patient survival outcomes, the pancreatic cancer tumor microenvironment, and...
PURPOSE
This research investigates the association between benzodiazepines (BZD) and cancer patient survival outcomes, the pancreatic cancer tumor microenvironment, and cancer-associated fibroblast (CAF) signaling.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Multivariate Cox regression modeling was used to retrospectively measure associations between Roswell Park cancer patient survival outcomes and BZD prescription records. IHC, H&E, Masson's trichrome, RNAscope, and RNA sequencing were used to evaluate the impact of lorazepam (LOR) on the murine PDAC tumor microenvironment. ELISA and qPCR were used to determine the impact of BZDs on IL6 expression or secretion by human-immortalized pancreatic CAFs. PRESTO-Tango assays, reanalysis of PDAC single-cell sequencing/TCGA data sets, and GPR68 CRISPRi knockdown CAFs were used to determine the impact of BZDs on GPR68 signaling.
RESULTS
LOR is associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS), whereas alprazolam (ALP) is associated with improved PFS, in pancreatic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. LOR promotes desmoplasia (fibrosis and extracellular matrix protein deposition), inflammatory signaling, and ischemic necrosis. GPR68 is preferentially expressed on human PDAC CAFs, and n-unsubstituted BZDs, such as LOR, significantly increase IL6 expression and secretion in CAFs in a pH and GPR68-dependent manner. Conversely, ALP and other GPR68 n-substituted BZDs decrease IL6 in human CAFs in a pH and GPR68-independent manner. Across many cancer types, LOR is associated with worse survival outcomes relative to ALP and patients not receiving BZDs.
CONCLUSIONS
We demonstrate that LOR stimulates fibrosis and inflammatory signaling, promotes desmoplasia and ischemic necrosis, and is associated with decreased pancreatic cancer patient survival.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Mice; Lorazepam; Interleukin-6; Retrospective Studies; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Benzodiazepines; Fibrosis; Necrosis; Tumor Microenvironment; Receptors, G-Protein-Coupled
PubMed: 37587561
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-0547 -
The Primary Care Companion For CNS... Aug 2023
Topics: Humans; Bradycardia; Olanzapine
PubMed: 37595163
DOI: 10.4088/PCC.22cr03453 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a number of medicines licenced to help people quit globally, and e-cigarettes are used for this purpose in many countries. Typically treatments work by reducing cravings to smoke, thus aiding initial abstinence and preventing relapse. More information on comparative effects of these treatments is needed to inform treatment decisions and policies.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the comparative benefits, harms and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and e-cigarettes, when used to help people stop smoking tobacco.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies from recent updates of Cochrane Reviews investigating our interventions of interest. We updated the searches for each review using the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) specialised register to 29 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and factorial RCTs, which measured smoking cessation at six months or longer, recruited adults who smoked combustible cigarettes at enrolment (excluding pregnant people) and randomised them to approved pharmacotherapies and technologies used for smoking cessation worldwide (varenicline, cytisine, nortriptyline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes) versus no pharmacological intervention, placebo (control) or another approved pharmacotherapy. Studies providing co-interventions (e.g. behavioural support) were eligible if the co-intervention was provided equally to study arms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (using the RoB 1 tool). Primary outcome measures were smoking cessation at six months or longer, and the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured withdrawals due to treatment. We used Bayesian component network meta-analyses (cNMA) to examine intervention type, delivery mode, dose, duration, timing in relation to quit day and tapering of nicotine dose, using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We calculated an effect estimate for combination NRT using an additive model. We evaluated the influence of population and study characteristics, provision of behavioural support and control arm rates using meta-regression. We evaluated certainty using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Of our 332 eligible RCTs, 319 (835 study arms, 157,179 participants) provided sufficient data to be included in our cNMA. Of these, we judged 51 to be at low risk of bias overall, 104 at high risk and 164 at unclear risk, and 118 reported pharmaceutical or e-cigarette/tobacco industry funding. Removing studies at high risk of bias did not change our interpretation of the results. Benefits We found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.73 to 3.24; 16 RCTs, 3828 participants), varenicline (OR 2.33, 95% CrI 2.02 to 2.68; 67 RCTs, 16,430 participants) and cytisine (OR 2.21, 95% CrI 1.66 to 2.97; 7 RCTs, 3848 participants) were associated with higher quit rates than control. In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional eight (95% CrI 4 to 13), eight (95% CrI 6 to 10) and seven additional quitters per 100 (95% CrI 4 to 12), respectively. These interventions appeared to be more effective than the other interventions apart from combination NRT (patch and a fast-acting form of NRT), which had a lower point estimate (calculated additive effect) but overlapping 95% CrIs (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.34). There was also high-certainty evidence that nicotine patch alone (OR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.20 to 1.56; 105 RCTs, 37,319 participants), fast-acting NRT alone (OR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.29 to 1.55; 120 RCTs, 31,756 participants) and bupropion (OR 1.43, 95% CrI 1.26 to 1.62; 71 RCTs, 14,759 participants) were more effective than control, resulting in two (95% CrI 1 to 3), three (95% CrI 2 to 3) and three (95% CrI 2 to 4) additional quitters per 100 respectively. Nortriptyline is probably associated with higher quit rates than control (OR 1.35, 95% CrI 1.02 to 1.81; 10 RCTs, 1290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), resulting in two (CrI 0 to 5) additional quitters per 100. Non-nicotine/placebo e-cigarettes (OR 1.16, 95% CrI 0.74 to 1.80; 8 RCTs, 1094 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to one additional quitter (95% CrI -2 to 5), had point estimates favouring the intervention over control, but CrIs encompassed the potential for no difference and harm. There was low-certainty evidence that tapering the dose of NRT prior to stopping treatment may improve effectiveness; however, 95% CrIs also incorporated the null (OR 1.14, 95% CrI 1.00 to 1.29; 111 RCTs, 33,156 participants). This might lead to an additional one quitter per 100 (95% CrI 0 to 2). Harms There were insufficient data to include nortriptyline and non-nicotine EC in the final SAE model. Overall rates of SAEs for the remaining treatments were low (average 3%). Low-certainty evidence did not show a clear difference in the number of people reporting SAEs for nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline, cytisine or NRT when compared to no pharmacotherapy/e-cigarettes or placebo. Bupropion may slightly increase rates of SAEs, although the CrI also incorporated no difference (moderate certainty). In absolute terms bupropion may cause one more person in 100 to experience an SAE (95% CrI 0 to 2).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The most effective interventions were nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline and cytisine (all high certainty), as well as combination NRT (additive effect, certainty not rated). There was also high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of nicotine patch, fast-acting NRT and bupropion. Less certain evidence of benefit was present for nortriptyline (moderate certainty), non-nicotine e-cigarettes and tapering of nicotine dose (both low certainty). There was moderate-certainty evidence that bupropion may slightly increase the frequency of SAEs, although there was also the possibility of no increased risk. There was no clear evidence that any other tested interventions increased SAEs. Overall, SAE data were sparse with very low numbers of SAEs, and so further evidence may change our interpretation and certainty. Future studies should report SAEs to strengthen certainty in this outcome. More head-to-head comparisons of the most effective interventions are needed, as are tests of combinations of these. Future work should unify data from behavioural and pharmacological interventions to inform approaches to combined support for smoking cessation.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Bupropion; Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Network Meta-Analysis; Nicotine; Nortriptyline; Smoking Cessation; Varenicline
PubMed: 37696529
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015226.pub2 -
Epilepsia Sep 2023The Salzburg criteria for nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS) Standardized Critical Care EEG Terminology...
OBJECTIVE
The Salzburg criteria for nonconvulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society (ACNS) Standardized Critical Care EEG Terminology 2021 include a diagnostic trial with intravenous (IV) antiseizure medications (ASMs) to assess electroencephalographic (EEG) and clinical response as a diagnostic criterion for definite NCSE and possible NCSE. However, how to perform this diagnostic test and assessing the EEG and clinical responses have not been operationally defined.
METHODS
We performed a Delphi process involving six experts to standardize the diagnostic administration of IV ASM and propose operational criteria for EEG and clinical response.
RESULTS
Either benzodiazepines (BZDs) or non-BZD ASMs can be used as first choice for a diagnostic IV ASM trial. However, non-BZDs should be considered in patients who already have impaired alertness or are at risk of respiratory depression. Levetiracetam, valproate, lacosamide, brivaracetam, or (if the only feasible drug) fosphenytoin or phenobarbital were deemed appropriate for a diagnostic IV trial. The starting dose should be approximately two thirds to three quarters of the full loading dose recommended for treatment of status epilepticus, with an additional smaller dose if needed. ASMs should be administered during EEG recording under supervision. A monitoring time of at least 15 min is recommended. If there is no response, a second trial with another non-BDZ or BDZs may be considered. A positive EEG response is defined as the resolution of the ictal-interictal continuum pattern for at least three times the longest previously observed spontaneous interval of resolution (if any), but minimum of one continuous minute. For a clinical response, physicians should use a standardized examination before and after IV ASM administration. We suggest a definite time-locked improvement in a focal deficit or at least one-step improvement on a new dedicated one-domain 10-level NCSE response scale.
SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed standardized approach of a diagnostic IV ASM trial further refines the ACNS and Salzburg diagnostic criteria for NCSE.
Topics: Humans; Administration, Intravenous; Benzodiazepines; Electroencephalography; Phenobarbital; Status Epilepticus; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37350392
DOI: 10.1111/epi.17694 -
Haematologica Apr 2024Therapies that demonstrate durable, long-term responses with manageable safety and tolerability are needed for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell...
Therapies that demonstrate durable, long-term responses with manageable safety and tolerability are needed for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL). Loncastuximab tesirine (loncastuximab tesirine-lpyl [Lonca]), an anti-CD19 antibody conjugated to a potent pyrrolobenzodiazepine dimer, demonstrated single-agent antitumor activity in the pivotal phase II LOTIS-2 study in heavily pretreated patients with R/R DLBCL. Here we present updated efficacy and safety analyses from LOTIS-2, performed for all patients and in subsets of patients with a complete response (CR), including patients with CR who were event-free (no progressive disease or death) for ≥1 year and ≥2 years from cycle 1, day 1 of treatment. Lonca was administered every 3 weeks (0.15 mg/kg for 2 cycles; 0.075 mg/kg for subsequent cycles). As of the final data cutoff (September 15, 2022; median follow-up: 7.8 months [range, 0.3-42.6]), 70 of 145 (48.3%) patients achieved an overall response. Thirty-six (24.8%) patients achieved CR, of which 16 (44%) and 11 (31%) were event-free for ≥1 year and ≥2 years, respectively. In the all-treated population, the median overall survival was 9.5 months; the median progression-free survival was 4.9 months. Among patients with CR, median overall survival and progression-free survival were not reached, with 24-month overall and progression-free survival rates of 68.2% (95% CI: 50.0-81.0) and 72.5% (95% CI: 48.2-86.8), respectively. No new safety concerns were detected. With additional follow-up, Lonca continued to demonstrate durable, long-term responses with manageable safety and tolerability in patients with CR (clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT03589469).
Topics: Humans; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Benzodiazepines; Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse
PubMed: 37646659
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2023.283459 -
Tidsskrift For Den Norske Laegeforening... Mar 2024The knowledge base on new psychoactive substances (NPS) is generally limited. This introduces new challenges and increased unpredictability in substance abuse treatment.
BACKGROUND
The knowledge base on new psychoactive substances (NPS) is generally limited. This introduces new challenges and increased unpredictability in substance abuse treatment.
CASE PRESENTATION
A man in his thirties was submitted to detoxification after reportedly using flubromazolam, a high potency designer benzodiazepine, which he had purchased on the dark web. Extensive drug testing of serum, urine and hair, and the remains in a dropper bottle delivered by the patient, did not reveal flubromazolam or possible metabolites, but did reveal several common drugs of abuse, and 8-aminoclonazolam, a metabolite of clonazolam, another designer benzodiazepine sold on the dark web. The detoxification was uncomplicated. An excessive treatment protocol based on the patient's information, involving high preparedness and increased resources, both clinically and analytically, turned out to be unnecessary.
INTERPRETATION
The drug use and clinical course in this case proved to be more common than the unit prepared for. The case history illustrates both the challenges with users of NPS and the general unpredictability in substance abuse treatment.
Topics: Male; Humans; Benzodiazepines; Designer Drugs; Substance-Related Disorders; Substance Abuse Detection; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 38506014
DOI: 10.4045/tidsskr.23.0668