BackgroundAccording to the World Health Organization’s recent report, in Malaysia, tuberculosis (TB) treatment success rate for new smear positive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) patients is still below the global success target of 85%. In this study, we evaluated TB treatment outcome among new smear positive PTB patients, and identified the predictors of unsuccessful treatment outcome and longer duration of treatment (i.e., > 6 months).MethodsThe population in this study consisted of all new smear positive PTB patients who were diagnosed at the chest clinic of Penang General Hospital between March 2010 and February 2011. During the study period, a standardized data collection form was used to obtain socio-demographic, clinical and treatment related data of the patients from their medical charts and TB notification forms (Tuberculosis Information System; TBIS). These data sources were reviewed at the time of the diagnosis of the patients and then at the subsequent follow-up visits until their final treatment outcomes were available. The treatment outcomes of the patients were reported in line with six outcome categories recommended by World Health Organization. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to find the independent risk factors for unsuccessful treatment outcome and longer treatment duration. Data were analyzed using the PASW (Predictive Analysis SoftWare, version 19.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp).ResultsAmong the 336 PTB patients (236 male and 100 female) notified during the study period, the treatment success rate was 67.26% (n = 226). Out of 110 patients in unsuccessful outcome category, 30 defaulted from the treatment, 59 died and 21 were transferred to other health care facilities. The mean duration of TB treatment was 8.19 (SD 1.65) months. In multiple logistic regression analysis, risk factors for unsuccessful treatment outcome were foreign nationality, male gender and being illiterate. Similarly, risk factors for mortality due to TB included high-grade sputum and presence of lung cavities at the start of treatment, being alcoholic and elderly. Likewise, concurrent diabetes, presence of lung cavities at the start of the treatment and being a smoker were the significant predictors of longer treatment duration.ConclusionOur findings indicated that the treatment success rate among the new smear positive PTB patients was less than the success target set by World Health Organization. The proportion of patients in the successful outcome category may be increased by closely monitoring the treatment progress of the patients with aforementioned high risk characteristics. Similarly, more aggressive follow-up of the treatment defaulters and transferred out patients could also improve the TB treatment success rate.

Background MB02 (bevacizumab biosimilar) showed similar structural, functional, and pharmacokinetic properties to reference bevacizumab (Avastin ® ; EU-bevacizumab). Objectives To confirm clinical similarity between MB02 and EU-bevacizumab, a comparability study was undertaken in the first-line treatment of stage IIIB/IV non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and Methods This multinational, double-blind, randomized, phase III study (STELLA) compared MB02 or EUbevacizumab (15 mg/kg) administered with chemotherapy (paclitaxel 200 mg/m 2 and carboplatin AUC6) on Day 1 of every 3-week cycle for 6 cycles (Week 18), followed by MB02/EU-bevacizumab in blinded monotherapy until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, withdrawal of consent or end of study (Week 52). The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) evaluated by an independent radiological review committee (IRC) at Week 18 (intent-to-treat population). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety and immunogenicity. Results A total of 627 subjects were randomized 1:1 to MB02 (n = 315) or EU-bevacizumab (n = 312). ORR, assessed by the IRC at Week 18, was comparable in MB02 (40.3%) and EU-bevacizumab (44.6%) groups. ORR risk ratio of 0.910 (90% CI 0.780 to 1.060; 95% CI 0.758 to 1.092) and ORR risk difference of −4.02 (90% CI −10.51 to 2.47; 95% CI −11.76 to 3.71) were within the similarity predefined margins. There were no significant differences between MB02 and EU-bevacizumab groups in median PFS (36.0 vs 37.3 weeks, respectively; HR 1.187; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.44) and median OS (not achieved; HR 1.108; 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.49) at the end of study. The safety profile of MB02 and EU-bevacizumab regarding nature, frequency and severity of the adverse events (AE) was comparable. The most frequent grade ≥3 investigational-product-related AEs were hypertension and anemia, with a difference between treatment groups of <5%. Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and neutralizing ADA (NAb) incidence were similar in both treatment groups. Conclusion MB02 demonstrated similar efficacy to EU-bevacizumab, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, in subjects with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, with comparable safety and immunogenicity profiles. Clinical trial registration EudraCT No. 2017-001769-26; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03296163.The members of the STELLA study investigators are listed in Online Resource 1 and in the Acknowledgements section.Extended author information available on the last page of the article care costs [1,2]. Avastin ® , the reference bevacizumab, has been approved for use in many cancer indications and settings, including first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents [3,4]. Several international guidelines recommend the use of bevacizumab in association with chemotherapy in first-line and maintenance settings in advanced NSCLC [5,6]. In addition, recent evidence points to novel combinations of bevacizumab with new molecular therap...

Asthma is a heterogeneous lung disease, usually characterised by chronic airway inflammation. Although evidence-based treatments are available in most countries, asthma control remains suboptimal, and asthma-related deaths continue to be an ongoing concern. Generally, it is believed that between 50 to 75% of patients with asthma can be considered as having mild asthma. Previous versions of Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) suggested that mild asthma in adults can be well managed with either reliever medications, for example, short-acting beta 2 agonists (SABA) alone or with the additional use of controllers such as regular low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Given the low frequency or non-bothersome nature of symptoms in mild asthma, patients’ adherence towards their controller medications, especially to ICS is usually not satisfactory. Such patients often rely on SABA alone to relieve symptoms, which may contribute to SABA over-reliance. Overuse of relievers such as SABAs has been associated with poor asthma outcomes, such as exacerbations and even deaths. The new GINA 2019 asthma treatment recommendations represent significant shifts in asthma management at Steps 1 and 2 of the 5 treatment steps. The report acknowledges an emerging body of evidence suggesting the non-safety of SABAs overuse in the absence of concomitant controller medications, therefore does not support SABA-only therapy in mild asthma and has included new off-label recommendations such as symptom-driven (as-needed) low dose ICS-formoterol and “low dose ICS taken whenever SABA is taken”. The GINA 2019 report highlights significant updates in mild asthma management and these recommendations represent a clear deviation from decades of clinical practice mandating the use of symptom-driven SABA treatment alone in those with mild asthma. While the new inclusions of strategies such as symptom-driven (as-needed) ICS-formoterol and “ICS taken whenever SABA is taken” are based on several key trials, data in this context are still only emergent data, with clear superiority of as needed ICS-formoterol combinations over maintenance ICS regimens yet to be established for valid endpoints. Nevertheless, current and emerging data position the clinical asthma realm at a watershed moment with imminent changes for the way we manage mild asthma likely in going forward.

BackgroundThe use of multi-drug regimens in tuberculosis (TB) treatment has been associated with undesirable adverse drug reactions (ADRs). This study aims to assess the incidence and impact of ADRs on TB treatment in Hospital Pulau Pinang.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted via retrospective review of outpatients’ medical records. Details regarding ADRs were identified by a pharmacist and verified by a consultant respiratory physician.ResultsA total of 91 cases, out of 210 patients enrolled in this study, were detected with 75 patients (35.7%) experienced at least one ADR. The three most common ADRs detected were cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADRs) (21.0%), drug-induced hepatitis (DIH) (7.1%) and gastrointestinal disturbance (4.8%). Pyrazinamide was the most common causative agent and 15.7% of all TB patients required treatment modification due to ADRs. Females were shown to have a higher tendency to develop ADRs than the males in this study (P = 0.009). The development of ADRs was shown not to affect the TB treatment outcomes (P = 0.955).ConclusionThe incidence of ADRs in this study was high so it is important to identify the risk factors for ADRs and the individuals who have those risk factors when initiating anti-TB drugs. These individuals require special attention when anti-TB drugs are initiated.