Evaluation of classical and rapid methods for isolation and identification of Mycobacterium bovis in cattle in Bulgaria

Bovine tuberculosis is still a serious problem with major economic impact in many countries. The aim of study was to evaluate the diagnostic capabilities of the classical and some modern, rapid methods for isolation and identification of Mycobacterium bovis. In the period 2015-2018 from 29 outbreaks in 10 different regions of Bulgaria, 1193 lymph nodes from slaughtered cattle were examined by pathoanatomical, bacteriological, PCR and immunochromatographic methods. Of the 283 bacterial isolates, 263 were identified as M. bovis - member of the M. tuberculosis complex.

Comparative Efficacy of Cabozantinib and Regorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background

No trials have compared cabozantinib and regorafenib for the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Objectives

Conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the efficacy and safety of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and disease progression after prior sorafenib.

Methods

The CELESTIAL and RESORCE trials were used for indirect comparison of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in advanced HCC. Population-level data were available for RESORCE, individual patient data (IPD) for CELESTIAL. To align with RESORCE, the CELESTIAL population was limited to patients who received first-line sorafenib only. To minimize potential effect-modifying population differences, the CELESTIAL IPD were weighted to balance the distribution of clinically relevant baseline characteristics with those of RESORCE. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated for the matching-adjusted second-line CELESTIAL population and compared with those for RESORCE using weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and parametric modeling. Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) affecting > 5% of patients in any study arm were compared.

Results

In the matching-adjusted second-line populations (CELESTIAL, effective sample size = 266; RESORCE, n = 573), median (95% confidence interval) OS was similar for cabozantinib and regorafenib (11.4 [8.9–17.0] versus 10.6 [9.1–12.1] months; p = 0.3474, log-rank test). Median PFS was longer for cabozantinib than regorafenib (5.6 [4.9–7.3] versus 3.1 [2.8–4.2] months; p = 0.0005, log-rank test). There was a trend for lower rates of some grade 3/4 TEAEs with regorafenib than with cabozantinib, which may reflect the exclusion of sorafenib-intolerant patients from RESORCE but not from CELESTIAL, a difference that the MAIC methods could not remove. Only diarrhea rates were statistically significantly lower for regorafenib (p  ≤ 0.001).

Conclusions

Cabozantinib may achieve similar OS and prolonged PFS compared with regorafenib in patients with progressive advanced HCC after prior sorafenib.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01378-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cabozantinib and regorafenib are treatments approved for some patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a type of liver cancer, after disease progression despite prior sorafenib treatment. Cabozantinib, regorafenib and sorafenib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), meaning that they slow cancer progression by targeting specific ways that tumors grow. Cabozantinib and regorafenib offer benefits to patients compared with placebo (i.e., no treatment) for those who have progressed despite sorafenib treatment. No clinical studies have compared cabozantinib and regorafenib directly. This study compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and regorafenib using data from trials of each drug versus placebo: CELESTIAL for cabozantinib and RESORCE for regorafenib. These two trials were similar—both involved patients with progressive advanced HCC who had received previous cancer treatment. There were some important differences, but these were minimized using statistical methods (matching and adjustments/“weighting”) allowing outcomes to be meaningfully compared. One difference that could not be removed by the statistical methods was that patients who were intolerant to prior sorafenib were excluded from RESORCE but were eligible for the CELESTIAL trial. In the otherwise matched populations, treatment with cabozantinib was associated with similar overall survival and significantly longer progression-free survival than regorafenib. Rates of diarrhea were significantly lower for regorafenib than cabozantinib, suggesting that regorafenib may be better tolerated, but this may reflect the exclusion of sorafenib-intolerant patients from RESORCE. These findings cannot replace a head-to-head study, but may help in guiding decision-making between cabozantinib and regorafenib in patients with progressive advanced HCC after soraftenib treatment.