Monday, March 31, 2025

UDLCO CRH: Soulful journal club on oral semaglutide vs placebo!

Summary: Current Medical education systems that are far from globally average in many parts of the world work on promoting rote memorization and hardly ever promote critical thinking as a result of which most students once they enter the industry fall prey to simplistic big pharma influences that use relative values driven and interpreted RCT data!


The discussion on this journal club formed organically and randomly out of a group of physicians excited about the launch of a new drug hits a climax when a user points out a particular side effect that is pivoted on to explain in terms of absolute values why taking the drug is akin to trading off and bearing some distaste in the tongue (side effect), just so that they can become one with the group of (4825-191=4634) higher number of people (taking the drug oral semaglutide) that could avoid a nonfatal myocardial infarction as opposed to the lesser (4825-253=4572) number in the 
placebo group who still had the joy of taste but then 62 more of their placebo brethren developed a non fatal myocardial infarction compared to those on oral semaglutide! 

If that is interpreted as a primeval herd instinct to find safety in numbers and if we can imagine the two groups of 4825 people as wildebeests wading to cross a crocodile filled African river of metabolic syn then can we really spot the difference of 191 vs 253 missing in each group when the wildebeest cross over to the other side?

While the above provides an apparently polarised anti big pharma biased viewpoint, the same day this author discovered a new AI LLM tool from a Stanford lab called med pharma and unboxing it here: 
https://medicinedepartment.blogspot.com/2025/03/unboxing-med-arena-for-first-time.html?m=1, offered a more balanced perspective where while the LLM appreciated the absolute number world view, it hinted that we need to remember that the paper also reports relative risks (hazard ratios), which are essential for understanding proportional reductions in risk. Both perspectives are valuable.


Key words:

Big pharma Journal club influencers

Proportional risk reduction 

CRH Critical realist heutagogy 



Journal club collective conversational Transcripts:

[29/03, 19:46]wa user 1: Have a few paid links for live SOUL relay at about 1.15 am tonight.  Anyone interested pls DM me

[29/03, 19:52]wa user 2: Morning heading news plz
Breaking news

[29/03, 19:56]WA user 3 : What?
[29/03, 19:57]: Ok SOUL


[29/03, 20:08]WA user 4: 1:00 am. I have free link 😂


[29/03, 20:22]: Any last minutes guess on expected results of SOUL? Closest guess maker will get prize 🏆 from me 😊


[29/03, 20:22]u2: MI
[29/03, 20:22]: Outcome

[29/03, 20:22] group moderator gm: I hope ,you know it now

[29/03, 20:23]u2: I'm sure AK knows

[29/03, 20:24]u4: Oreyy Dada…bhogwan 😨

[29/03, 20:24]u2: I guess 14%reduction in MACE  and stroke due to sema 

or is that old news

[29/03, 20:26]u4: Your AI 🤖 didn’t work here 😂😂

[29/03, 20:28]u2: I know. It can't find out what is not leaked on the net

[29/03, 20:28]u4: If oral sema reduces MI significantly - would you prefer it over SGLT2i ?

[29/03, 20:30]gm: No

[29/03, 20:30]u4: Why not ? Due to cost ?


[29/03, 20:31]gm: Cost and tolerance issues
More confidence with SGLT2I


[29/03, 20:31] u3: In certain situations
1. If MI is the prominent risk and not HF
2. If eGFR is less than 30
3. If weight is a major concern sema I would prefer

[29/03, 20:32]u2: I prefer 

Need close look of the study

[29/03, 20:32]u4: STRIDE trial of injectable Semaglutide in PAD is being live presented at ACC now


[29/03, 20:34]u3: I guess what you are trying to say u4 is the data being presented today may reestablish sema to be a superior cardiac and cv drug over SGLT2i.


I was fortunate to attend your brilliant comparison of dapa and empa in MAHARSSDI 2025 here in Mumbai


[29/03, 20:34]u4: Did any drug reduce MI in past? If it is true it would add great value to the money with oral sema beside best Hba1C and body weight reduction amongst all anti diabetes drugs!


[29/03, 20:39]u2: Yup
[29/03, 20:39]u3: Understood where this argument is going. 

I guess at 1.20 am history is going to be created with sema

[29/03, 20:39] u4: 1.15am

[29/03, 20:40]u3: Waiting for the prize from u4🫶🫶🫶

[29/03, 20:41]u3: Just as Dapa is now a mandatory arsenal in the therapeutic armamentarium of cardiologists i guess after 1.15 am Sema will be a mandatory prescription for most cardiologists dealing with MI

[29/03, 20:41]u2: Sir me too
🙏🙏





[30/03, 08:25] u6: My humble observations:
1) Happy that MI was reduced
2) Surprised to see stroke wasn`t reduced
3) Limb events – upto 2 years no benefit – actually at one point it was worse than placebo - then all of a sudden the line diverges
4) A1C > 8 far better than < 8 (but p value for interaction not given) – so again the question arises – was better glycaemic control partially responsible for the benefits? Of course just glycaemic control on its own does not matter but still

In summary, my humble thoughts

_*Great for Sema*_
• MI reduction for the first time
• Limb events reduction for the first time
• Better in Asians (however no p value for interaction given)

*Not so great*
• No reduction in stroke
• No reduction in CKD
• No reduction in HF
• Less than 3 kg weight loss


[30/03, 08:33]gm: Thank you 🙏

[30/03, 08:33] u6: The distribution of participants who were receiving the 3-mg, 7-mg, and 14-mg doses of oral semaglutide over time is summarized in Figure S3A (but I don`t have access to it)
27% discontinued the drug so would have been interesting to know the trial product estimand


[30/03, 08:36]u1: 1. What are the anti diabetics used alongside Sema?
2. Do statin and aspirin continued as per present guidelines?

[30/03, 08:39]u6: I don`t know the exact figures but as it was a double blind randomised control trial it is expected that both groups would have equal distribution of statin and aspirin

[30/03, 08:48]u3: Here is the summary from AI


Here are the salient points from the discussion and results sections of the article, presented in point format:

**Results:**

*   The SOUL trial randomized 9650 participants aged 50 years or older with type 2 diabetes and either atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or both, to receive either once-daily oral semaglutide (maximal dose 14 mg) or placebo, in addition to standard care.
*   **Oral semaglutide was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), the primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke), compared to placebo**. The hazard ratio was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.96; P = 0.006).
*   The incidence of the primary outcome was 12.0% in the oral semaglutide group and 13.8% in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 3.1 and 3.7 events per 100 person-years, respectively.
*   In a prespecified analysis of events occurring through week 156 (3 years), the absolute risk reduction was 2.0 percentage points, and the number needed to treat to prevent one event was 50.
*   The effect of oral semaglutide on the primary outcome was consistent across prespecified sensitivity analyses and most subgroups, including those defined by age, sex, body-mass index, history of cardiovascular or kidney disease, eGFR, and medication use at baseline.
*   Among the components of the primary outcome, **nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred less frequently in the oral semaglutide group** (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89).
*   The first confirmatory secondary outcome, major kidney disease events (a five-point composite), did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.05; P = 0.19).
*   Due to the non-significant result for the first confirmatory secondary outcome, the subsequent confirmatory secondary outcomes (death from cardiovascular causes and major adverse limb events) were not formally tested for significance.
*   Supportive secondary outcomes showed that oral semaglutide was associated with a lower risk of a five-point composite of MACE and fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction.
*   Oral semaglutide led to a greater reduction in mean glycated hemoglobin level and mean body weight from baseline to week 104 compared to placebo.
*   The incidence of serious adverse events was lower in the oral semaglutide group (47.9%) compared to the placebo group (50.3%; P = 0.02).
*   **Gastrointestinal disorders were more common with oral semaglutide** (5.0%) than with placebo (4.4%) and were the main reason for permanent discontinuation of the trial regimen in the oral semaglutide group.

**Discussion:**

*   **Oral semaglutide significantly reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to placebo** in persons with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or both. This represents a relative risk reduction of 14%.
*   This cardiovascular benefit is consistent with results reported for injectable semaglutide and other GLP-1 receptor agonists with established cardiovascular efficacy.
*   The dominant beneficial effect of oral semaglutide in SOUL was the reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction, which differs from the PIONEER 6 trial where the dominant effect was on cardiovascular death. This difference might be related to the longer follow-up and larger sample size in SOUL.
*   The non-significant finding for major kidney disease events in SOUL contrasts with the significant kidney benefits observed with injectable semaglutide in the FLOW trial. This discrepancy could be due to differences in baseline eGFR of the study populations or the lower bioavailability of oral semaglutide compared to subcutaneous semaglutide.
*   The availability of an effective oral GLP-1 receptor agonist is relevant to patient preference for oral over injectable diabetes medications.
*   The overall safety profile of oral semaglutide in SOUL was consistent with previous trials, and no new safety signals were observed. The lower incidence of serious adverse events in the oral semaglutide group was mainly driven by fewer cardiac disorders and infections.
*   The higher rate of discontinuation in the oral semaglutide group was primarily due to gastrointestinal symptoms, which are known side effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists.
*   Strengths of the trial include its large sample size and long follow-up duration. The cardiovascular benefits appeared consistent across age subgroups and with injectable semaglutide. The cardioprotective effect was observed even with high concomitant use of other cardiovascular protective drugs like SGLT2 inhibitors.
*   Limitations of the trial include the inclusion criteria that enriched the population for cardiovascular and kidney disease, making it less representative of the general type 2 diabetes population. There was also underrepresentation of women and Black individuals in the trial. The effects of oral semaglutide on kidney-related outcomes require further clarification.

[30/03, 08:48]u3: and here is the audio podcast



[30/03, 11:59]u4: SOUL stratified on and off SGLT2i!

Another publication happened last night in circulation!



[30/03, 12:19]u4: This is 3rd publication happened last night in Diabetes Care after SOUL. MA of all 10 GLP-1RA trials conducted to date including FLOW and SOUL




[30/03, 13:17] CBBLE cable moderator cm: Thanks for sharing.

The authors list one of the limitations of their study as ecological bias (aka aggregation bias).

"in meta-regression on aggregate data, associations between average patient characteristics and the pooled treatment effect do not necessarily reflect true associations between the individual patient-level characteristics and treatment effect. 

The difference between associations of treatment effects with average patient characteristics at group level and true associations with individual patient level characteristics has been referred to as ecological fallacy or aggregation bias."



[30/03, 13:57] u4 in response to u6: 

Good summary:

Few point to note - 

1. Even more 28.5% permanently withdrew in placebo arm 

2. ⁠PP analysis/Trial product estimand showed even larger 18% reduction in primary endpoint 

3. ⁠No additional benefit or harm with or without SGLT2I on CV endpoints 

4. ⁠No analysis of kidney outcomes stratified on or off SGLT2i currently available 

5. ⁠12% insignificant stroke reduction must be read in light of lesser HTN pt and higher HF patients in SOUL compared to SUSTAIN6 

I will come with even more details tonight

[30/03, 14:01] cm : Interesting to see sulphonylurea still leading in both groups ahead of the new gen!


[30/03, 14:11] cm: From the soul nejm paper under discussion and accessible here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2501006

"Adverse events that led to permanent discontinuation of oral semaglutide or placebo occurred 
in 749 participants (15.5%) in the oral semaglutide group and in 559 participants (11.6%) in the 
placebo group."

The 28.5% figure is from another paper?


[30/03, 14:19]u4: Adverse event and withdrawal is not same. Read full paper you will find what I wrote..😊


[30/03, 14:21]cm: Adverse events that led to permanent discontinuation definitely sounds same as withdrawal?

30/03, 14:55] u4: 1. Adverse events is one thing 
2. Adverse events leading to drug withdrawal is another thing 
3. ⁠Drug discontinued due to any cause is another but final thing 

We are saying 21.7% vs 28.5% didn’t complete the treatment in Sema vs PBO, respectively. Hope it’s clear now 😊😎

[30/03, 15:11]cm: Agree! Withdrawal and "Didn't continue treatment" are definitely not the same as per their trial definitions as there were other causes of discontinuation other than voluntary withdrawal such as getting lost to follow up (which is kind of absconding withdrawal vs LAMA withdrawal)!

[30/03, 14:24]u7: Many people get tired of not feeling the joy
of eating - some have told me that’s why they stopped, not because they did not tolerate…


[30/03, 14:34]u3 sharing more articles presumably detailing the effect of GLP1s on taste:





[30/03, 15:05] cm: As per yesterday's soulful release here:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2501006, they can still derive some joy from the fact that: by  trading off some distaste in the tongue, they can become one of the (4825-191=4634) higher number of people (because of oral sema) who could avoid a nonfatal myocardial infarction as opposed to the lesser (4825-253=4572) number in the 
placebo group who still had the joy of taste but then 62 more of their placebo brethren developed a non fatal myocardial infarction compared to those on oral sema!

That kind of sums up this entire soulful trial for me. Would be happy to stand corrected from others who have read the full paper. 🙂🙏

30/03, 20:50]u4: Somebody was asking which dose of Oral Sema in SOUL...Here is the answer. Nearly 80% were on 14 mg.


[30/03, 20:53]u2: What % of your patients tolerate 14mg?

[30/03, 20:59]u4: I hate personal experience kind wala answer


[31/03, 19:08]cm: Summarising some learning points from yesterday's soulful journal club:

The estimand here is essentially the relative risk reduction and going by a Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.86 (95% CI: 0.77–0.96).  
  - **14% RRR** = \( 1 - 0.86 = 0.14 \) (14% is the reduction in relative risk for the oral semaglutide group).  

The trial’s primary estimand uses an **intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis**, which includes all randomized participants regardless of adherence. 

A separate **per-protocol (PP) estimand** (accounting for discontinuations) showed a larger 18% RRR, but this was not the primary estimand.

The more important learning point could be around the 👇

  - Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) = 1.8% (12.0% vs. 13.8% event rates).

One person in this journal club emphasized **absolute differences** (e.g., 62 fewer nonfatal MIs in the semaglutide group: 191 vs. 253 events).  

  - Pharma often highlights **relative risk** (14% RRR) because it appears more impressive, while absolute risk (1.8% ARR) may seem modest.






Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, March 30, 2025

Unboxing Med arena for the first time: comparing different medical LLMs

 

MedArena - LLM Arena for Clinicians

Arena Leaderboard FAQ


🏁 Ask a question below and see the responses of two random models. Then, vote on which model you prefer. 

After voting, click "🆕 New Round" to start a new conversation.

Model A


Please do a thematic analysis of this paper https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2501006 and share their results in a PICO format taking care to share the absolute numbers and not relative values in percentages

Certainly! Let's conduct a thematic analysis of the NEJM paper you linked on semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes and present the results in PICO format with absolute numbers.

Paper: Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once Weekly in Adults with Overweight or Obesity and Cardiovascular Disease


Thematic Analysis and PICO Summary

After carefully reading the paper, here's a thematic analysis summarized in PICO format, focusing on the absolute numbers as requested:

Thematic Areas Identified:

Study Population and Setting: The research focuses on a specific high-risk population – adults with pre-existing cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity. This highlights the relevance of weight management in secondary cardiovascular prevention. The study was a multinational, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, indicating a rigorous design to establish causality.
Intervention and Comparator: The core intervention is semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly, delivered subcutaneously. The comparator is a placebo, allowing for a direct assessment of semaglutide's effect beyond standard care. This highlights the investigation of semaglutide as an add-on therapy.
Primary and Secondary Outcomes: The primary outcome, MACE (Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events), underscores the cardiovascular focus. Secondary outcomes including weight loss, changes in cardiometabolic risk factors, and other clinical events broaden the assessment of semaglutide's impact. The hierarchical testing of outcomes reflects a structured and pre-defined approach to evaluating efficacy.
Efficacy in Cardiovascular Events: The study's central finding revolves around the reduction in MACE with semaglutide compared to placebo. The absolute risk reduction, focusing on event counts rather than just relative risk, demonstrates the clinical significance for patients.
Weight Loss and Cardiometabolic Benefits: Significant weight loss achieved with semaglutide is a key theme, and its association with improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors supports the biological plausibility of the cardiovascular benefits.
Safety and Tolerability: The paper details the adverse events, primarily gastrointestinal, associated with semaglutide. Understanding the absolute number of patients experiencing these events is crucial for a balanced benefit-risk assessment. 

Despite higher adverse events, discontinuation rates were similar, suggesting manageable tolerability for many.

Clinical Implications: The authors discuss the potential of semaglutide to be a valuable adjunct in managing cardiovascular risk in overweight/obese patients with existing CVD, highlighting the need for integrated obesity and cardiovascular disease management.


PICO Format with Absolute Numbers:

P - Population:

Who? 17,604 adults with established cardiovascular disease (specifically, a history of myocardial infarction, stroke, or peripheral artery disease) and overweight or obesity (BMI ≥27 kg/m²).


Where? Multinational study across 41 countries.

I - Intervention:

What? Semaglutide 2.4 mg administered subcutaneously once weekly.

How many received it? 8,803 participants were randomly assigned to the semaglutide group.

C - Comparison:

What? Placebo administered subcutaneously once weekly, in addition to usual care.

How many received it? 8,801 participants were randomly assigned to the placebo group.

O - Outcomes:

Primary Outcome: Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE) (Composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke)

Semaglutide Group: 569 participants experienced a MACE.

Placebo Group: 701 participants experienced a MACE.

Absolute Risk Reduction: 701 - 569 = 132 fewer MACE events in the semaglutide group over the study period in absolute numbers.

Key Secondary Outcome: Death from Cardiovascular Causes

Semaglutide Group: 237 participants died from cardiovascular causes.

Placebo Group: 306 participants died from cardiovascular causes.
Absolute Reduction in Cardiovascular Deaths: 306 - 237 = 69 fewer cardiovascular deaths in the semaglutide group in absolute numbers.

Key Secondary Outcome: All-Cause Death
Semaglutide Group: 415 participants died from any cause.

Placebo Group: 517 participants died from any cause.

Absolute Reduction in All-Cause Deaths: 517 - 415 = 102 fewer deaths from all causes in the semaglutide group in absolute numbers.

Key Secondary Outcome: 

Nonfatal Myocardial Infarction

Semaglutide Group: 225 participants experienced nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Placebo Group: 269 participants experienced nonfatal myocardial infarction.

Absolute Reduction in Nonfatal MI: 269 - 225 = 44 fewer nonfatal MI events in the semaglutide group in absolute numbers.

Key Secondary Outcome: 

Nonfatal Stroke
Semaglutide Group: 199 participants experienced nonfatal stroke.

Placebo Group: 225 participants experienced nonfatal stroke.

Absolute Reduction in Nonfatal Stroke: 225 - 199 = 26 fewer nonfatal stroke events in the semaglutide group in absolute numbers.

Weight Loss at Week 104 (approx. 2 years):

Mean change from baseline in Semaglutide Group: -9.39 kg (This is a mean change, not an absolute number of people achieving a certain loss, but represents the central tendency of weight loss).

Mean change from baseline in Placebo Group: -0.88 kg.

Difference in Mean Weight Loss:
 
Approximately 8.51 kg greater weight loss in the semaglutide group (9.39 - 0.88 = 8.51 kg).

 Again, these are mean changes, not absolute numbers of people.

Adverse Events

(Selected Common Events - Absolute Numbers Approximate due to percentages being primarily reported in some tables, using total Ns):
Any Adverse Event leading to permanent discontinuation:
Semaglutide Group: Approximately 8803 * 0.13 = ~1144 participants (13.0%).
Placebo Group: Approximately 8801 * 0.11 = ~968 participants (11.0%).
Gastrointestinal Disorders (Any):
Semaglutide Group: Approximately 8803 * 0.67 = ~5900 participants (66.7%).
Placebo Group: Approximately 8801 * 0.48 = ~4224 participants (48.4%).
Serious Adverse Events:
Semaglutide Group: Approximately 8803 * 0.23 = ~2025 participants (23.0%).
Placebo Group: Approximately 8801 * 0.24 = ~2112 participants (24.0%).
Results Summary in PICO Form:

In adults with established cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity (P), treatment with semaglutide 2.4 mg weekly (I) compared to placebo (C) resulted in a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Over the study period, there were 132 fewer MACE events, 69 fewer cardiovascular deaths, and 102 fewer deaths from any cause in the semaglutide group in absolute numbers. Semaglutide also led to significantly greater weight loss. While gastrointestinal adverse events were more common with semaglutide, serious adverse events and discontinuations due to adverse events were broadly similar between groups.

Important Considerations:

Absolute vs. Relative Risk: While this PICO summary highlights absolute numbers as requested, it's important to remember that the paper also reports relative risks (hazard ratios), which are essential for understanding proportional reductions in risk. Both perspectives are valuable.

Approximations for Adverse Events: For some adverse event numbers, especially when reported primarily as percentages in the paper's tables, I've provided approximate absolute counts by multiplying the percentage by the total group size. This offers an idea of the scale but may not be precisely the exact counts if percentages were rounded in the original paper. Where possible, I extracted directly reported absolute event counts.

Study Duration: The study duration is important for interpreting the absolute event reductions. These reductions occurred over a median follow-up of approximately 3.3 years.


Context is Key: This PICO summary is focused on the quantitative results. A full thematic analysis would also consider the discussion section, limitations, and broader implications, which were touched upon in the initial thematic area identification.

This PICO summary, focused on absolute numbers derived from the NEJM paper, provides a structured overview of the key findings regarding semaglutide's impact on cardiovascular outcomes in the specified population.

Model B

Please do a thematic analysis of this paper https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2501006 and share their results in a PICO format taking care to share the absolute numbers and not relative values in percentages

I'm unable to access subscription-based content or specific paywall sites, like the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), to read the paper you referenced. However, if you provide the key details, such as the study's title, abstract, or main findings, I can help you create a thematic analysis and organize the results in a PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format.

Feel free to share text or key details from the study, and I'll assist you!

Keep chatting, or vote on the model you prefer:

👈 Prefer A
👉 Prefer B
🤝 Tie
👎 Prefer Neither

Clicked on prefer A

And then it replied:

Model A was: google/gemini-2.0-flash-thinking-exp:free

Model B was: openai/gpt-4o-2024-11-20

Open access Med Arena here: https://medarena.ai/login




CC licence: https://www.archaeology.wiki/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Epidaurus-acoustics-3.gif



Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, March 16, 2025

Project, 7 years of Narketpally syndrome beginning with individual phenotypic encounters with the lesser known Narketpally ligamental invisible pillow syndrome as opposed to the globally known catatonic psychological invisible pillow syndrome: optimizing clinical complexity of Fluorosis in Nalgonda

Summary: This project aims to establish deep phenotypic data driven insights into the manifestations of fluorosis in district Nalgonda, particularly Narketpally where the team has had frequent encounters with an epidemiological tip of the iceberg population that often presents to the hospital outpatient and inpatient with manifestations of fluorosis as a frequent comorbidity of metabolic syn driven organ dysfunction. Of particular interest is signposting of the lesser known Narketpally ligamental invisible pillow syndrome as opposed to the globally known catatonic psychological invisible pillow syndrome other than optimizing clinical complexity in those patients of fluorosis and multimorbidities utilising current medical cognition tools.




Introduction:

As an MBBS student in the 80s, one leafing through the text book of community medicine wouldn't surely miss reading about the Nalgonda technique and it's efficacy in curbing the menace of fluorosis in the district.

More about it here in rare and generously preserved documents published by NEERI, Nagpur and archived by a Netherlands based global organisation here: https://www.ircwash.org/biblio/author/105

It was hence with excitement that some of us were excited to join the Narketpally team and notice this text book problem in the very first week of joining as reflected upon in this online learning portfolio post here:

"Today is my first day of joining my new workplace, a medical college 60 kms from Hyderabad and an epicenter for an epidemic of people who gradually start walking with a stick to balance themselves and begin to lose the normal sensations in their limbs. I approached these people in the images below,  requested to examine them (they had never bothered to consult a doctor for this problem and had come to visit the hospital as patient relatives) and I found very prominent neurological findings suggestive of a cervical spinal cord involvement. These persons were having a gradual paralysis of all four limbs since many years but they had taken this for granted. The early seeds to detecting the cause of this problem was perhaps sown in US based epidemiologic research in the early 20th century (more here? https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/OralHealth/Topics/Fluoride/TheStoryofFluoridation.htm but I am still searching for literature on how and when this was first discovered and reported from my current location 60 kms from Hyderabad."






And then on further review of literature I found a few articles and studies done from Hyderabad medical college teams from 1950s with meticulous description of how they found a correlation between ground water levels of fluoride (external medicine) vs internal body levels of fluoride (internal medicine) here: 
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1981710/?page=1


While the data capture of each individual encounter started in 2017 there are a few archived and accessible to human memory driven search from the 5000 Narketpally case reports accessible at our department dashboard here: https://medicinedepartment.blogspot.com/2022/02/?m=1

Currently the issue is that blogspot case reports are not amenable to google searches and even to search for fluorosis from the dashboard one would need to separately access at least 1000 online learning portfolios available there and search each one of those separately!


A sample case focusing on the physical pillow syndrome from an elective student's online learning portfolio from 2019:


To quote from the above link, "neck is so stiff that when I lie down its difficult for me to sleep without pillow because i cannot touch the bed with back of my head and without pillow my head stays in air(since 2yrs)."

Also check out the photographs of the physical imaginary pillow as well as other skeletal features of fluorosis in the link above.

Sample case with photo of the physical imaginary pillow as well as other skeletal fluorosis images from 2022 elective student:


Sample case with photo of the physical imaginary pillow as well as links to his other skeletal fluorosis images/CT video 
from our 2025 elective student: 


Also sharing a few diagnostic uncertainty outliers from our collective CBBLE:

[06/03, 12:11] CBBLE moderator CM: OPD now : 26F with neck pains and early morning neck stiffness since 1 month. Any inputs on the posterior longitudinal ligament?




[06/03, 14:39]AS: Looks clean to me

[06/03, 14:59]CM: Agree but why is the area around the posterior longitudinal ligament , essentially the posterior border of her cervical vertebrae appearing to be hyperdense?


The above lady was likely having spondyloarthropathy that can be clarified on follow up and spondyloarthropathy is an interesting differential for fluorosis as reported earlier here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9450208/#:~:text=Skeletal%20fluorosis%20can%20mimic%20various,rheumatoid%20arthritis%2C%20osteoarthritis%20or%20spondyloarthropathy.&text=The%20early%20stages%20of%20the,tendinitis%2C%20and%20early%20morning%20stiffness. and many other platforms.



Posted by at No comments:

UDLCO CRH: Getting uptodated and tracing the roots with URL links of our current conversational peer review commentary strategy

Summary: A chance inquiry in a health IT group ignited past memories of a conversational paper and allowed tracing of how certain shared learning communication strategies such as conversational peer review commentaries that we often engage with these days, were initially cognitively seeded over time.


Key words: 

Conversational peer review commentaries 

Up-to-date

EBM

GBM

Medical cognition

Blended learning ecosystem 

Current nostalgia activating conversational transcripts:

[16/03, 11:49] AC: For clinicians / surgeons (?) : what is the typical amount of time you spend with UpToDate per day?

Which sections do you find most useful?

Sample of what their sections look like (sections are in all caps)

Outline
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
MANAGEMENT AND DM PHENOTYPE
Congenital DM1
Childhood DM1
Classic DM1
Mild DM1
DM2
SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Muscle involvement
....
LIFE EXPECTANCY
SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS
INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
REFERENCES
GRAPHICS


[16/03, 12:42] rb : Used to in 2000-2004 when GBM ruled but once EBM started getting a stronger foothold into our medical cognitive space had to let go of up-to-date and rely more on critical realist heutagogy and interestingly this was also signposted in an EBM publication sometime in 2006 and I quote my 2006 self:

"EBM stands the danger of getting increasingly divorced from practical realities. One reason for this may be because most physicians treat the evidence in journals as black boxes and just gulp whatever is fed to them (again is it often just because of the time constraints?). What is needed is understandable evidence that is not only just dressed up fast food but also tells us how the evidence was collected/synthesized in an "understandable real world language". Most clinicians are skeptical of evidence from studies because they keep changing so very rapidly almost turning 180 degrees at times that suggests that many of them were faulty or our interpretations were faulty to start with (all that observational beliefs getting swept away by RCTs etc) . However clinicians are helpless as they are unable to interpret the evidence.²"


Although it was published in an indexed EBM journal as a conversational commentary, the conversations can be fully accessed here through the real time list archives all saved since 25 years! 👇


The subsequent publication available here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17213138/, https://ebm.bmj.com/content/11/5/133.long and while this is restricted access one can find the entire paper draft in the archived EBM UK list serv linked earlier.

Other conversational commentary papers full text:







Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, March 5, 2025

Indian MBBS students SIG journal club followed by letter to editor on efficacy of immune check point inhibitors with meta AI LLM as a not so useful bystander

Summary: There is a special interest group of MBBS students pan India who nurture topics in immuno hemat oncology and they recently had a journal club on the efficacy of certain check point inhibitors following which they even wrote a letter to the editor. During this process , while one of the faculty did ask the meta AI LLM lurking in the group to provide it's inputs pasting the entire article on text for the LLM, it appeared to have been too overwhelming for the LLM and it remained a bystander while the students went ahead with the rest of their dissection of the article. All of that is archived below in their group discussion conversational transcripts. The full text links for the article discussed along with many other references are available in the conversations as well as the letter to editor.


The above summary is human generated and there are no key words as it's hoped that next gen AI systems will be able to tag them automatically.


Conversational Transcripts:

[11/02, 22:16] UG ma: ```Research Snippet 11th February 2025
```
Today’s study reports 5-year efficacy and safety outcomes from the CheckMate 9LA trial, which compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC).


*Key Findings*

1. *Improved Overall Survival (OS)*: Patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy had a 5-year OS rate of 18% vs. 11% for those receiving chemotherapy alone.

2. *Durable Response*: 5-year duration of response (DOR) rates were 19% vs. 8% in favor of the combination therapy.

3. *Consistent Benefit Across Subgroups*: The combination therapy showed consistent benefit regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression, histology, or presence of baseline brain metastases.

4. *Long-term Safety*: No new safety signals were observed in 5-year survivors.

*Conclusion*

The study supports the long-term, durable OS benefit and improved 5-year survivorship with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy over chemotherapy in patients with mNSCLC.

[12/02, 06:03] ug an: Is this a study of which, results was now being?
I mean has the randomization method, sample size calculation already been discussed in a previous version of this article?

[12/02, 10:03]cm: Not sure but we can discuss again the results by asking @⁨Meta AI⁩ to share it in a PICO format taking care so that it doesn't share relative percentages but carefully shares the absolute values in terms of number of patients, days etc that the study has chosen to share it's outcomes.

Again I'm not sure if meta AI can process the entire article if we paste it here. If not then perhaps one of you could help me to provide it the prompts bit by bit in text here:

European Journal of Cancer
Volume 211, November 2024, 114296
Original research
Five-year outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with 2 cycles of chemotherapy versus 4 cycles of chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the randomized CheckMate 9LA trial
Author links open overlay panel
Martin Reck a 1
, 
Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu b
, 
Michael Schenker c
, 
Stephanie Bordenave d
, 
Manuel Cobo e
, 
Oscar Juan-Vidal f
, 
Niels Reinmuth g
, 
Eduardo Richardet h
, 
Enriqueta Felip i
, 
Juliana Menezes j
, 
Ying Cheng k
, 
Hideaki Mizutani l
, 
Bogdan Zurawski m
, 
Aurelia Alexandru n
, 
David P. Carbone o
, 
Shun Lu p
, 
Thomas John q
, 
Takekazu Aoyama r
, 
Diederik J. Grootendorst r
, 
Nan Hu r
…
Luis G. Paz-Ares s

Snipped however available full text at the article link shared above.


[12/02, 10:03] Meta AI: There was a problem generating a response. Please try again later.


[12/02, 10:04] cm: @⁨Meta AI⁩ guessed so. @⁨UG ma we'll need to give the data in text to meta AI here in smaller bits of the outcome results


[12/02, 10:04] Meta AI: Sounds like we'll be working with a large dataset. Please go ahead and share the smaller bits of the outcome results, and I'll assist you in analyzing and summarizing the data. I'm ready when you are!


[12/02, 10:30 UG ma: Sure sir


[12/02, 10:36]ug ma: @⁨~✨️🐕⁩ please check this out too..




[12/02, 10:39]ug ma: The referenced study.


[12/02, 10:47] ug an: Ok surely!




[12/02, 10:50]ug ma: This is the entire article..


[12/02, 10:53]ug ma: It might not be accessible earlier..therefore for your reference I downloaded from external source👍


[12/02, 10:54] ug ma: Sir I will get back with this by evening and send it here!


[12/02, 11:13] v: Even the link would work


[12/02, 11:15] v : I tried to extract data from a study. By giving the Google link to meta AI yesterday.
But the entire thing was fabricated. May be there was a problem with the prompts I provided.

[12/02, 16:37] cm: Used to work earlier when that feature was initially launched. Later now it doesn't work probably currently hiding behind a paywall


[12/02, 18:03]v: I gave a quick peek, searching for keywords like sample size

I found the mentioned number of patients reqd under Statistical Analysis.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I couldn't verify the sample size calculation personally, because of the following:

1. Accrual time not mentioned. 

2. Total study duration or follow-up time not mentioned. 

I spent some more time on the sample size calculation based on logrank tests.

I felt these are essential in order to calculate sample size or power (used PASS for the analysis).

[12/02, 18:04] v: Please tell me if any details was missed by me.

[12/02, 18:27]ug ma: For the 2021 article or 2024?

[12/02, 18:33] ug an: This 
Entire one

[12/02, 18:33]ug ma: Okay!

[12/02, 18:34]ug ma: Will go through this and get back to you..


[12/02, 18:37] ug an: Thank you!


Please lemme know if I missed anything


[12/02, 18:43] cm : 👆the entire full text is available in the link here

[12/02, 18:44] cm: 👆Is this the same as the one available in the link!


[12/02, 18:46] ug aks: No sir….The study which they’ve referenced is the previous one

[12/02, 19:18] ug ma: PICO format - 

The PICO format (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) for the study titled "Five-year outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with 2 cycles of chemotherapy versus 4 cycles of chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer in the randomized CheckMate 9LA trial" can be structured as follows:

**Population (P):**  
Adults with stage IV or recurrent non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations. A total of 719 patients were randomized, with 361 receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy and 358 receiving chemotherapy alone.

**Intervention (I):**  
Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with 2 cycles of chemotherapy.

**Comparison (C):**  
4 cycles of chemotherapy alone.

**Outcome (O):**  
- **Overall Survival (OS):** At a minimum follow-up of 57.3 months, the number of patients alive at 5 years was 65 in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy group and 39 in the chemotherapy group.

- **Duration of Response (DOR):** In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy group, 19% of responders maintained their response at 5 years, translating to approximately 69 patients, compared to 8% in the chemotherapy group, which corresponds to approximately 29 patients.

- **Progression-Free Survival (PFS):** The number of patients with 5-year PFS in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy group was 27, while in the chemotherapy group, it was 14.

- **Treatment-Related Adverse Events (TRAEs):** Among patients who discontinued treatment due to TRAEs, 22% were alive and treatment-free at 5 years, which corresponds to approximately 13 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy group.

This structured format provides a clear overview of the study's design and outcomes without referencing relative percentages, focusing instead on absolute values as requested.

---
[12/02, 19:19]ug ma: @⁨cm sir..

[12/02, 19:28] ug ma: In the CheckMate 9LA study, the accrual time spanned from August 24, 2017, to January 30, 2019, during which a total of 1,150 patients were enrolled. The follow-up period for the primary endpoint of overall survival included a median follow-up of 9.7 months at the time of the pre-planned interim analysis, with an additional follow-up resulting in a median of 13.2 months at the time of the exploratory database lock on March 9, 2020 [page 6]


[12/02, 19:28] ug ma: The sample size for the CheckMate 9LA trial was calculated to ensure sufficient power to detect a significant difference in overall survival between the treatment groups. Specifically, the hypothesis was that a sample of approximately 700 randomly assigned patients and 402 deaths would provide more than 80% power to detect an average hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 for the experimental group (nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with chemotherapy) compared to the control group (chemotherapy alone), with a two-sided type 1 error of 0.05.

Randomisation was performed using an interactive web response system, with patients randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the experimental group or the control group. The randomisation was stratified by tumour histology (squamous vs. non-squamous), sex (male vs. female), and tumour PD-L1 expression level (<1% vs. ≥1%). This stratification ensured that these important prognostic factors were balanced between the treatment groups, thereby enhancing the validity of the trial results (see details on randomisation on [page 4].


[12/02, 19:31] ug ma: They didn't specifically used PASS..but they calculated sample size based on the hypothesis mentioned above to get more than 80 percent power..

[12/02, 19:51] cm: At a minimum follow-up of 57.3 months, the number of patients alive at 5 years was 65 in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy group which means 291 died and 39 in the chemotherapy group which means 319 died. 

We need to check what was the actual cause of death by meticulously studying the event sequence leading to their death in all these patients if possible blinding the evaluators to the interventions.

That means each and every case report form or detailed EMR data or a sequence of events summary for each patient should have been made available open access in this information age for a global audience critically appraising this work. However we know that most trials haven't yet been able to meet this simple requirement till date

[12/02, 20:08] cm: Similarly what exactly do they mean by 69 patients maintained their response at 5 years in the NI group vs 29 patients in the Chemo group? What exactly was happening to them that could be causally attributed to their interventions? Again we need to study the individual patients detailed sequences of events here

[12/02, 20:11]cm: What was the quality of life in 27 patients with 5-year PFS in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy group and 14 in the only chemotherapy group?

[12/02, 20:14] cm: What was the sequence of events in 13 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy group who 
discontinued treatment due to TRAEs and yet were alive and treatment-free at 5 years? This hints that treatment was not the cause of their survival?

[12/02, 20:23]ug an: I'll run the analysis again after studying this. 

The tool doesn't affect the results in a grand manner.

I just wanted to verify.

[12/02, 21:17] ug ma: Yes sir detailed data is not given in this aspect

[12/02, 21:41 ug ma: Mixed factors could be there. They might have switched to another treatment or immune responses might be different in these patients..(duration of the response to the treatment even after discontinuation)


[12/02, 21:41] ug ma: But detailed sequence is not provided there sir.

[02/03, 00:13] ug ma: I was working on the LTE for this paper and got answers to your earlier queries

[02/03, 00:14] ug ma: At a minimum follow-up of 57.3 months, the number of patients alive at 5 years was 65 in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy group which means 291 died and 39 in the chemotherapy group which means 319 died. 

We need to check what was the actual cause of death by meticulously studying the event sequence leading to their death in all these patients if possible blinding the evaluators to the interventions.

That means each and every case report form or detailed EMR data or a sequence of events summary for each patient should have been made available open access in this information age for a global audience critically appraising this work. However we know that most trials haven't yet been able to meet this simple requirement till date

[02/03, 00:14] ug ma: Similarly what exactly do they mean by 69 patients maintained their response at 5 years in the NI group vs 29 patients in the Chemo group? What exactly was happening to them that could be causally attributed to their interventions? Again we need to study the individual patients detailed sequences of events here

[02/03, 00:14] ug ma: What was the quality of life in 27 patients with 5-year PFS in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy group and 14 in the only chemotherapy group?


[02/03, 00:14] ug ma: What was the sequence of events in 13 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy group who 
discontinued treatment due to TRAEs and yet were alive and treatment-free at 5 years? This hints that treatment was not the cause of their survival?


[02/03, 00:14]ug ma: These were your questions


[02/03, 07:19] cm: 👆no answer as to the sequence of events?


[02/03, 10:24]ug ma: No sir couldn't find this and quality of life

[02/03, 10:25] ug ma: They've also not mentioned the route of administration of NI..it would have been IV since S/C route was approved in 2025 January..


[03/03, 12:28] ug ma: This is the draft of the letter upon the discussion we had earlier..



Drafted letter to editor:

Revisiting the Checkmate 9LA trial

To the editor,

We would like to congratulate the authors of the Checkmate 9LA trial for the success of
outcomes, which would act as a foundation in the treatment regimens of the metastatic
non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients.(1) 

The trial evidenced improved overall
survival (OS) in mNSCLC patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab with 2 cycles of
chemotherapy (NI) as compared to chemotherapy alone (18% vs 11%) and highlighted the
beneficial response in various subgroups like different metastatic sites, squamous histology
and PD-L1 expression less than 1%, indicating treatment maybe effective in diverse range of
patients. 

The combination therapy was also effective in patients suffering from baseline brain
metastasis who usually have poor prognosis.

While the results of the study show new prospects and hope for treating mNSCLC patients, I
believe there are a few critical points and limitations worth addressing. At a minimum
follow-up of 57.3 months, the number of patients alive at 5 years was 65 in the intervention
group vs 39 in the chemotherapy-only group, implying 291 and 319 patients died in each,
respectively. It is essential to check the actual cause of death by studying the event sequence
leading to their death in all these patients, if possible blinding the evaluators to the
interventions which could be done via a sequence of events summary for each patient. 

This
meticulous data provision would also explain possible factors attributing maintaining the
response by 69 patients at 5 years in the NI group vs in the chemotherapy group. 

As illustrated by the potential benefits in trials of targeted therapies like EGFR inhibitors, where
sequence data could have elucidated resistance mechanisms and progression patterns, this
information would significantly enhance our understanding of treatment efficacy and inform
clinical decision-making.(2) 

Providing such meticulous patient-level data would bridge the
gap between group-level outcomes and tailored therapeutic interventions, ultimately
improving patient care.

Another important consideration is the most effective treatment duration of NI in these
patients. While patients receiving the full two years showed good long-term outcomes, there
was no comparison to shorter durations. Determining if earlier treatment cessation yields
similar survival benefits and reduced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) is crucial.
Sung et al.'s evaluation of the correlation between immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and
response from immune checkpoint inhibitors suggests irAE development might correlate with
longer survival in mNSCLC patients. (3) However, the duration of immunotherapy exposure
is a potential confounder; patients discontinuing early due to TRAEs might have better
response rates, leading to better overall survival. The 37% of patients surviving five years
despite early NI discontinuation due to TRAEs could have additional survival factors beyond
the NI regimen. The study also lacked specific follow-up and quality of life details, which
may be affected by long-term TRAEs like pneumonitis. Prospective research should explore
the impact of these TRAEs and the quality of life in these survivors.

It is crucial to have an exploratory evaluation of the quality of life (QoL) of those 27 patients
with 5 years progression-free survival in the NI group and the 14 patients in the
chemotherapy-only group. Cancer patients often have variable treatment priorities like having
a good quality of life for the remaining period, low out-of-pocket expenses, longest possible
survival and having fewer hospital visits, etc.(4) Considering factors like quality of life,
treatment costs, and hospital visits is crucial for patient acceptance of therapy. Therefore,
incorporating patient-reported outcomes and experiences related to these factors as secondary
endpoints in clinical trials is essential. (5)This is further supported by a metastatic prostate
cancer trial, in which mitoxantrone significantly improved patient-reported outcomes like
pain and QoL, despite no survival benefit. These improvements led to regulatory approval,
highlighting the importance of QoL assessments in clinical trials beyond primary survival
endpoints (6,7)
We would also like to focus on the role of the route of nivolumab administration since the
emergence of the subcutaneous (SC) route is more preferred by patients than the intravenous
formulation, which takes more time and logistics than the subcutaneous route. The SC route
not only satisfies patients by decreasing their time spent in hospitals but also decreases the
involvement of oncologists and on-call doctors, allowing them to attend to other patients and
commitments. (8,9)While the authors suggest NI's superiority through indirect comparisons,
direct prospective trials against pembrolizumab and other immunotherapies are needed to
solidify its benefit over chemotherapy, as supported by the CheckMate 9LA trial.


References
1. Reck M, Ciuleanu TE, Schenker M, Bordenave S, Cobo M, Juan-Vidal O, Reinmuth
N, Richardet E, Felip E, Menezes J, Cheng Y, Mizutani H, Zurawski B, Alexandru A,
Carbone DP, Lu S, John T, Aoyama T, Grootendorst DJ, Hu N, Eccles LJ, Paz-Ares
LG. Five-year outcomes with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with 2 cycles of
chemotherapy versus 4 cycles of chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic
non-small cell lung cancer in the randomized CheckMate 9LA trial. Eur J Cancer.
2024 Nov;211:114296. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2024.114296. Epub 2024 Aug 25. PMID:
39270380.
2. Stewart EL, Tan SZ, Liu G, Tsao MS. Known and putative mechanisms of resistance
to EGFR targeted therapies in NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations—a review.
Translational Lung Cancer Research [Internet]. 2015 Feb [cited 2025 Mar 2];4(1).
3. Sung M, Zer A, Walia P, Khoja L, Maganti M, Labbe C, Shepherd FA, Bradbury PA,
Liu G, Leighl NB. Correlation of immune-related adverse events and response from
immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J
Thorac Dis. 2020 May;12(5):2706-2712. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2020.04.30. PMID:
32642178; PMCID: PMC7330321.

4. Salek M, Silverstein A, Tilly A, Gassant PY, Gunasekera S, Hordofa DF, et al. Factors
influencing treatment decision-making for cancer patients in low- and middle-income
countries: A scoping review. Cancer Medicine. 2023;12(17):18133–52.
5. Mercieca-Bebber R, King MT, Calvert MJ, Stockler MR, Friedlander M. The
importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future
optimization. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2018 Nov 1;9:353–67.
6. Osoba D, Tannock IF, Ernst DS, Neville AJ. Health-related quality of life in men with
metastatic prostate cancer treated with prednisone alone or mitoxantrone and
prednisone. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Jun;17(6):1654–63.
7. Tannock IF, Osoba D, Stockler MR, Ernst DS, Neville AJ, Moore MJ, et al.
Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisone alone for
symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: a Canadian randomized trial with
palliative end points. J Clin Oncol. 1996 Jun;14(6):1756–64.
8. George S, Bourlon MT, Chacon MR, Cutuli H, Lopez Chuken YA, Zurawski B, et al.
Subcutaneous nivolumab (NIVO SC) vs intravenous nivolumab (NIVO IV) in
patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma
(ccRCC): Pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, and safety results from CheckMate 67T.
JCO. 2024 Feb;42(4_suppl):LBA360–LBA360.
9. FDA Approves Opdivo Qvantig - NCI [Internet]. 2025 [cited 2025 Mar 2]. Available
from:






Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)