Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc

BACKGROUND: Drotrecogin alfa (activated), or recombinant human activated protein C, has antithrombotic, antiinflammatory, and profibrinolytic properties. In a previous study, drotrecogin alfa activated produced dose-dependent reductions in the levels of markers of coagulation and inflammation in patients with severe sepsis. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed whether treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated reduced the rate of death from any cause among patients with severe sepsis. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Patients with systemic inflammation and organ failure due to acute infection were enrolled and assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of either placebo or drotrecogin alfa activated (24 microg per kilogram of body weight per hour) for a total duration of 96 hours. The prospectively defined primary end point was death from any cause and was assessed 28 days after the start of the infusion. Patients were monitored for adverse events; changes in vital signs, laboratory variables, and the results of microbiologic cultures; and the development of neutralizing antibodies against activated protein C. RESULTS: A total of 1690 randomized patients were treated (840 in the placebo group and 850 in the drotrecogin alfa activated group). The mortality rate was 30.8 percent in the placebo group and 24.7 percent in the drotrecogin alfa activated group. On the basis of the prospectively defined primary analysis, treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated was associated with a reduction in the relative risk of death of 19.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 6.6 to 30.5) and an absolute reduction in the risk of death of 6.1 percent (P=0.005). The incidence of serious bleeding was higher in the drotrecogin alfa activated group than in the placebo group (3.5 percent vs. 2.0 percent, P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated significantly reduces mortality in patients with severe sepsis and may be associated with an increased risk of bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab monotherapy (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight), as compared with glycoprotein 100, improved overall survival in a phase 3 study involving patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. We conducted a phase 3 study of ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram) plus dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned 502 patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to ipilimumab (10 mg per kilogram) plus dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or dacarbazine (850 mg per square meter) plus placebo, given at weeks 1, 4, 7, and 10, followed by dacarbazine alone every 3 weeks through week 22. Patients with stable disease or an objective response and no dose-limiting toxic effects received ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks thereafter as maintenance therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Overall survival was significantly longer in the group receiving ipilimumab plus dacarbazine than in the group receiving dacarbazine plus placebo (11.2 months vs. 9.1 months, with higher survival rates in the ipilimumab-dacarbazine group at 1 year (47.3% vs. 36.3%), 2 years (28.5% vs. 17.9%), and 3 years (20.8% vs. 12.2%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56.3% of patients treated with ipilimumab plus dacarbazine, as compared with 27.5% treated with dacarbazine and placebo (P<0.001). No drug-related deaths or gastrointestinal perforations occurred in the ipilimumab-dacarbazine group. CONCLUSIONS: Ipilimumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram) in combination with dacarbazine, as compared with dacarbazine plus placebo, improved overall survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. The types of adverse events were consistent with those seen in prior studies of ipilimumab; however, the rates of elevated liver-function values were higher and the rates of gastrointestinal events were lower than expected on the basis of prior studies. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00324155.).

Obesity and type 2 diabetes are characterized by altered gut microbiota, inflammation, and gut barrier disruption. Microbial composition and the mechanisms of interaction with the host that affect gut barrier function during obesity and type 2 diabetes have not been elucidated. We recently isolated Akkermansia muciniphila, which is a mucin-degrading bacterium that resides in the mucus layer. The presence of this bacterium inversely correlates with body weight in rodents and humans. However, the precise physiological roles played by this bacterium during obesity and metabolic disorders are unknown. This study demonstrated that the abundance of A. muciniphila decreased in obese and type 2 diabetic mice. We also observed that prebiotic feeding normalized A. muciniphila abundance, which correlated with an improved metabolic profile. In addition, we demonstrated that A. muciniphila treatment reversed high-fat diet-induced metabolic disorders, including fat-mass gain, metabolic endotoxemia, adipose tissue inflammation, and insulin resistance. A. muciniphila administration increased the intestinal levels of endocannabinoids that control inflammation, the gut barrier, and gut peptide secretion. Finally, we demonstrated that all these effects required viable A. muciniphila because treatment with heat-killed cells did not improve the metabolic profile or the mucus layer thickness. In summary, this study provides substantial insight into the intricate mechanisms of bacterial (i.e., A. muciniphila) regulation of the cross-talk between the host and gut microbiota. These results also provide a rationale for the development of a treatment that uses this human mucus colonizer for the prevention or treatment of obesity and its associated metabolic disorders.

Chronic pain is a major source of suffering. It interferes with daily functioning and often is accompanied by distress. Yet, in the International Classification of Diseases, chronic pain diagnoses are not represented systematically. The lack of appropriate codes renders accurate epidemiological investigations difficult and impedes health policy decisions regarding chronic pain such as adequate financing of access to multimodal pain management. In cooperation with the WHO, an IASP Working Group has developed a classification system that is applicable in a wide range of contexts, including pain medicine, primary care, and low-resource environments. Chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs for more than 3 months. In chronic pain syndromes, pain can be the sole or a leading complaint and requires special treatment and care. In conditions such as fibromyalgia or nonspecific low-back pain, chronic pain may be conceived as a disease in its own right; in our proposal, we call this subgroup "chronic primary pain." In 6 other subgroups, pain is secondary to an underlying disease: chronic cancer-related pain, chronic neuropathic pain, chronic secondary visceral pain, chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, chronic secondary headache and orofacial pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. These conditions are summarized as "chronic secondary pain" where pain may at least initially be conceived as a symptom. Implementation of these codes in the upcoming 11th edition of International Classification of Diseases will lead to improved classification and diagnostic coding, thereby advancing the recognition of chronic pain as a health condition in its own right.

BACKGROUND: The leading cause of death in patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction is cardiogenic shock. We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate early revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock. METHODS: Patients with shock due to left ventricular failure complicating myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to emergency revascularization (152 patients) or initial medical stabilization (150 patients). Revascularization was accomplished by either coronary-artery bypass grafting or angioplasty. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation was performed in 86 percent of the patients in both groups. The primary end point was mortality from all causes at 30 days. Six-month survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 66+/-10 years, 32 percent were women and 55 percent were transferred from other hospitals. The median time to the onset of shock was 5.6 hours after infarction, and most infarcts were anterior in location. Ninety-seven percent of the patients assigned to revascularization underwent early coronary angiography, and 87 percent underwent revascularization; only 2.7 percent of the patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to early revascularization without clinical indication. Overall mortality at 30 days did not differ significantly between the revascularization and medical-therapy groups (46.7 percent and 56.0 percent, respectively; difference, -9.3 percent; 95 percent confidence interval for the difference, -20.5 to 1.9 percent; P=0.11). Six-month mortality was lower in the revascularization group than in the medical-therapy group (50.3 percent vs. 63.1 percent, P=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cardiogenic shock, emergency revascularization did not significantly reduce overall mortality at 30 days. However, after six months there was a significant survival benefit. Early revascularization should be strongly considered for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide is an oral androgen-receptor inhibitor that prolongs survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in whom the disease has progressed after chemotherapy. New treatment options are needed for patients with metastatic prostate cancer who have not received chemotherapy, in whom the disease has progressed despite androgen-deprivation therapy. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 1717 patients to receive either enzalutamide (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo once daily. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: The study was stopped after a planned interim analysis, conducted when 540 deaths had been reported, showed a benefit of the active treatment. The rate of radiographic progression-free survival at 12 months was 65% among patients treated with enzalutamide, as compared with 14% among patients receiving placebo (81% risk reduction; hazard ratio in the enzalutamide group, 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.23; P<0.001). A total of 626 patients (72%) in the enzalutamide group, as compared with 532 patients (63%) in the placebo group, were alive at the data-cutoff date (29% reduction in the risk of death; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.84; P<0.001). The benefit of enzalutamide was shown with respect to all secondary end points, including the time until the initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.35), the time until the first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio, 0.72), a complete or partial soft-tissue response (59% vs. 5%), the time until prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (hazard ratio, 0.17), and a rate of decline of at least 50% in PSA (78% vs. 3%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Fatigue and hypertension were the most common clinically relevant adverse events associated with enzalutamide treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide significantly decreased the risk of radiographic progression and death and delayed the initiation of chemotherapy in men with metastatic prostate cancer. (Funded by Medivation and Astellas Pharma; PREVAIL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01212991.).

DOCUMENT REVIEWERS: Luis Alcocer (Mexico), Christina Antza (Greece), Mustafa Arici (Turkey), Eduardo Barbosa (Brazil), Adel Berbari (Lebanon), Luís Bronze (Portugal), John Chalmers (Australia), Tine De Backer (Belgium), Alejandro de la Sierra (Spain), Kyriakos Dimitriadis (Greece), Dorota Drozdz (Poland), Béatrice Duly-Bouhanick (France), Brent M. Egan (USA), Serap Erdine (Turkey), Claudio Ferri (Italy), Slavomira Filipova (Slovak Republic), Anthony Heagerty (UK), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Dagmara Hering (Poland), Sang Hyun Ihm (South Korea), Uday Jadhav (India), Manolis Kallistratos (Greece), Kazuomi Kario (Japan), Vasilios Kotsis (Greece), Adi Leiba (Israel), Patricio López-Jaramillo (Colombia), Hans-Peter Marti (Norway), Terry McCormack (UK), Paolo Mulatero (Italy), Dike B. Ojji (Nigeria), Sungha Park (South Korea), Priit Pauklin (Estonia), Sabine Perl (Austria), Arman Postadzhian (Bulgaria), Aleksander Prejbisz (Poland), Venkata Ram (India), Ramiro Sanchez (Argentina), Markus Schlaich (Australia), Alta Schutte (Australia), Cristina Sierra (Spain), Sekib Sokolovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Jonas Spaak (Sweden), Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios (Greece), Bruno Trimarco (Italy), Thomas Unger (The Netherlands), Bert-Jan van den Born (The Netherlands), Anna Vachulova (Slovak Republic), Agostino Virdis (Italy), Jiguang Wang (China), Ulrich Wenzel (Germany), Paul Whelton (USA), Jiri Widimsky (Czech Republic), Jacek Wolf (Poland), Grégoire Wuerzner (Switzerland), Eugene Yang (USA), Yuqing Zhang (China).

1. Introduction Chronic pain has been recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time5 and hence lacks the acute warning function of physiological nociception.35 Usually pain is regarded as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3 to 6 months.29 Chronic pain is a frequent condition, affecting an estimated 20% of people worldwide6,13,14,18 and accounting for 15% to 20% of physician visits.25,28 Chronic pain should receive greater attention as a global health priority because adequate pain treatment is a human right, and it is the duty of any health care system to provide it.4,13 The current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) includes some diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions, but these diagnoses do not reflect the actual epidemiology of chronic pain, nor are they categorized in a systematic manner. The ICD is the preeminent tool for coding diagnoses and documenting investigations or therapeutic measures within the health care systems of many countries. In addition, ICD codes are commonly used to report target diseases and comorbidities of participants in clinical research. Consequently, the current lack of adequate coding in the ICD makes the acquisition of accurate epidemiological data related to chronic pain difficult, prevents adequate billing for health care expenses related to pain treatment, and hinders the development and implementation of new therapies.10,11,16,23,27,31,37 Responding to these shortcomings, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) contacted the WHO and established a Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force, which comprises pain experts from across the globe,19 has developed a new and pragmatic classification of chronic pain for the upcoming 11th revision of the ICD. The goal is to create a classification system that is applicable in primary care and in clinical settings for specialized pain management. A major challenge in this process was finding a rational principle of classification that suits the different types of chronic pain and fits into the general ICD-11 framework. Pain categories are variably defined based on the perceived location (headache), etiology (cancer pain), or the primarily affected anatomical system (neuropathic pain). Some diagnoses of pain defy these classification principles (fibromyalgia). This problem is not unique to the classification of pain, but exists throughout the ICD. The IASP Task Force decided to give first priority to pain etiology, followed by underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and finally the body site. Developing this multilayered classification was greatly facilitated by a novel principle of assigning diagnostic codes in ICD-11, termed “multiple parenting.” Multiple parenting allows the same diagnosis to be subsumed under more than 1 category (for a glossary of ICD terms refer to Table 1). Each diagnosis retains 1 category as primary parent, but is cross-referenced to other categories that function as secondary parents.Table 1: Glossary of ICD-11 terms.The new ICD category for “Chronic Pain” comprises the most common clinically relevant disorders. These disorders were divided into 7 groups (Fig. 1): (1) chronic primary pain, (2) chronic cancer pain, (3) chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, (4) chronic neuropathic pain, (5) chronic headache and orofacial pain, (6) chronic visceral pain, and (7) chronic musculoskeletal pain. Experts assigned to each group are responsible for the definition of diagnostic criteria and the selection of the diagnoses to be included under these subcategories of chronic pain. Thanks to Bedirhan Üstün and Robert Jakob of the WHO, these pain diagnoses are now integrated in the beta version of ICD-11 (http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1581976053). The Task Force is generating content models for single entities to describe their clinical characteristics. After peer review overseen by the WHO Steering Committee,39 the classification of chronic pain will be voted into action by the World Health Assembly in 2017.Figure 1: Organizational chart of Task Force, IASP, and WHO interactions. The IASP Task Force was created by the IASP council and its scope defined in direct consultation of the chairs (R.D.T. and W.R.) with WHO representatives in 2012. The Task Force reports to the IASP Council on an annual basis.2. Classification of chronic pain Chronic pain was defined as persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than 3 months. This definition according to pain duration has the advantage that it is clear and operationalized. Optional specifiers for each diagnosis record evidence of psychosocial factors and the severity of the pain. Pain severity can be graded based on pain intensity, pain-related distress, and functional impairment. 2.1. Chronic primary pain Chronic primary pain is pain in 1 or more anatomic regions that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or significant functional disability (interference with activities of daily life and participation in social roles) and that cannot be better explained by another chronic pain condition. This is a new phenomenological definition, created because the etiology is unknown for many forms of chronic pain. Common conditions such as, eg, back pain that is neither identified as musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome will be found in this section and biological findings contributing to the pain problem may or may not be present. The term “primary pain” was chosen in close liaison with the ICD-11 revision committee, who felt this was the most widely acceptable term, in particular, from a nonspecialist perspective. 2.2. Chronic cancer pain Pain is a frequent and debilitating accompaniment of cancer8 that as yet has not been represented in the ICD. The Task Force decided to list it as a separate entity because there are specific treatment guidelines.7,38 Chronic cancer pain includes pain caused by the cancer itself (the primary tumor or metastases) and pain that is caused by the cancer treatment (surgical, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and others). Cancer-related pain will be subdivided based on location into visceral, bony (or musculoskeletal), and somatosensory (neuropathic). It will be described as either continuous (background pain) or intermittent (episodic pain) if associated with physical movement or clinical procedures. The treatment-related pain will be cross-referenced from the chapters on postsurgical pain and neuropathic pain. 2.3. Chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain Because pain that persists beyond normal healing is frequent after surgery and some types of injuries, the entity of postsurgical and posttraumatic pain was created. This is defined as pain that develops after a surgical procedure or a tissue injury (involving any trauma, including burns) and persists at least 3 months after surgery or tissue trauma26; this is a definition of exclusion, as all other causes of pain (infection, recurring malignancy) as well as pain from a pre-existing pain problem need to be excluded. In view of the different causality, as well as from a medicolegal point of view, a separation between postsurgical pain and pain after all other trauma is regarded as useful. Depending on the type of surgery, chronic postsurgical pain is often neuropathic pain (on average 30% of cases with a range from 6% to 54% and more).15 Pain including such a neuropathic component is usually more severe than nociceptive pain and often affects the quality of life more adversely.21 2.4. Chronic neuropathic pain Chronic neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system.20,22 The somatosensory nervous system provides information about the body including skin, musculoskeletal, and visceral organs. Neuropathic pain may be spontaneous or evoked, as an increased response to a painful stimulus (hyperalgesia) or a painful response to a normally nonpainful stimulus (allodynia). The diagnosis of neuropathic pain requires a history of nervous system injury, for example, by a stroke, nerve trauma, or diabetic neuropathy, and a neuroanatomically plausible distribution of the pain.22 For the identification of definite neuropathic pain, it is necessary to demonstrate the lesion or disease involving the nervous system, for example, by imaging, biopsy, neurophysiological, or laboratory tests. In addition, negative or positive sensory signs compatible with the innervation territory of the lesioned nervous structure must be present.36 Diagnostic entities within this category will be divided into conditions of peripheral or central neuropathic pain. 2.5. Chronic headache and orofacial pain The International Headache Society (IHS) has created a headache classification17 that is implemented in full in the chapter on neurology. This classification differentiates between primary (idiopathic), secondary (symptomatic) headache, and orofacial pain including cranial neuralgias. In the section on chronic pain, only chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain will be included. Chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain is defined as headaches or orofacial pains that occur on at least 50% of the days during at least 3 months. For most purposes, patients receive a diagnosis according to the headache phenotypes or orofacial pains that they currently present. The section will list the most frequent chronic headache conditions. The most common chronic orofacial pains are temporomandibular disorders,32 which have been included in this subchapter of chronic pain. Chronic orofacial pain can be a localized presentation of a primary headache.2 This is common in the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, less common in migraines, and rare in tension-type headache. Several chronic orofacial pains such as post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain,3 persistent idiopathic orofacial pain, and burning mouth syndrome are cross-referenced to, eg, primary chronic pain and neuropathic pain. The temporal definition of “chronic” has been extrapolated from that of chronic headaches.1 2.6. Chronic visceral pain Chronic visceral pain is persistent or recurrent pain that originates from the internal organs of the head and neck region and the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic cavities.24,33,34 The pain is usually perceived in the somatic tissues of the body wall (skin, subcutis, muscle) in areas that receive the same sensory innervation as the internal organ at the origin of the symptom (referred visceral pain).12 In these areas, secondary hyperalgesia (increased sensitivity to painful stimuli in areas other than the primary site of the nociceptive input) often occurs30; the intensity of the symptom may bear no relationship with the extent of the internal damage or noxious visceral stimulation.9 The section on visceral pain will be subdivided according to the major underlying mechanisms, ie, persistent inflammation, vascular mechanisms (ischemia, thrombosis), obstruction and distension, traction and compression, combined mechanisms (eg, obstruction and inflammation concurrently), and referral from other locations. Pain due to cancer will be cross-referenced to the chapter chronic cancer pain and pain due to functional or unexplained mechanisms to chronic primary pain. 2.7. Chronic musculoskeletal pain Chronic musculoskeletal pain is defined as persistent or recurrent pain that arises as part of a disease process directly affecting bone(s), joint(s), muscle(s), or related soft tissue(s). According to the constraints of the approach as described in the Introduction, this category is therefore limited to nociceptive pain and does not include pain that may be perceived in musculoskeletal tissues but does not arise therefrom, such as the pain of compression neuropathy or somatic referred pain. The entities subsumed in this approach include those characterized by persistent inflammation of infectious, autoimmune or metabolic etiology, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and by structural changes affecting bones, joints, tendons, or muscles, such as symptomatic osteoarthrosis. Musculoskeletal pain of neuropathic origin will be cross-referenced to neuropathic pain. Well-described apparent musculoskeletal conditions for which the causes are incompletely understood, such as nonspecific back pain or chronic widespread pain, will be included in the section on chronic primary pain. 3. Outlook Irrespective of its etiology, chronic pain is a major source of suffering and requires special treatment and care. Our proposal may not represent a perfect solution for the classification of all manifestations of chronic pain. However, it does represent the first systematic approach to implementing a classification of chronic pain in the ICD. It is based on international expertise and agreement, and consistent with the requirements of the ICD regarding the structure and format of content models. The 7 major categories of chronic pain were identified after considerable research and discussion. They represent a compromise between comprehensiveness and practical applicability of the classification system. Several clinically important conditions that were neglected in former ICD revisions will now be mentioned, eg, chronic cancer pain or chronic neuropathic pain. Etiological factors, pain intensity, and disability related to pain will be reflected. With the introduction of chronic primary pain as a new diagnostic entity, the classification recognizes conditions that affect a broad group of patients with pain and would be neglected in etiologically defined categories. We hope that this classification strengthens the representation of chronic pain conditions in clinical practice and research and welcome comments to improve it further. Conflict of interest statement Q. Aziz has attended advisory board meetings for Almirall pharmaceuticals and Grunenthal. He has also received funding for clinical trials from Ono Pharmaceutical and Protexin. M.I. Bennett has received consultancy or speaker fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Astellas, and Grunenthal in the last 5 years. M. Cohen has received honoraria for contributions to educational programs from Mundipharma Pty Limited and Pfizer. S. Evers received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards) and research grants within the past 5 years by AGA Medical (now St Jude), Allergan, Almirall, Astra Zeneca, Berlin-Chemie, CoLucid, Desitin, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen Pharma, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Reckitt-Benckiser, UCB. N.B. Finnerup has received speaker's honoraria from Pfizer, Grunenthal, and Norpharma, research grant from Grünenthal, and consultancy fee from Astellas and is member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. M.B. First on the faculty of the Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation. In the past 2 years, M.A. Giamberardino received research funding or honoraria (participation in Advisory Board) from Bayer Healthcare, Helsinn, and Epitech Group. S. Kaasa declares no conflict of interest related to this work. In the past year he received honoraria from Helsinn related to participation in Advisory Board. E. Kosek has received consultancy and speaker fees in the past 24 months from Eli Lilly and Company and Orion and has ongoing research collaborations with Eli Lilly and Company and Abbott and Pierre Fabre. M. Nicholas received honoraria for contributing to educational sessions for Mundipharma and Pfizer in the last 5 years. S. Perrot received honoraria as a speaker and/or member of the advisory board in the past 5 years from Pfizer, BMS, Grunenthal, Elli Lilly, Sanofi, Daichi-Sankyo, Astellas, and Mundipharma. He has received grant support from BMS. W. Rief received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards on topics such as adherence, placebo mechanisms) within the past 5 years from Berlin Chemie, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Heel (research grant). J. Scholz has received speaker fees from Convergence, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, St Jude Medical, and Zalicus. He has served on advisory boards or consulted for Convergence, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, and Zalicus Pharmaceuticals. He has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. In the last 5 years, the Anaesthesiology Unit of the University of Western Australia, but not S. Schug personally, has received research and travel funding and speaking and consulting honoraria from bioCSL, Bionomics, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, Janssen, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Phosphagenics and iX Biopharma within the last 2 years. B.H. Smith has received lecture and consultancy fees, on behalf of his institution, from Pfizer, Grunenthal, Eli Lilly, and Napp. He has received unconditional educational grants from Pfizer Ltd; and he has received travel and accommodation support from Napp. P. Svensson served as a paid consultant for Sunstar Suisse SA. R.-D. Treede has received speaker's honoraria, research grants or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Acron, Astellas, Bauerfeind, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grünenthal, Hydra, Mundipharma, and Pfizer and is a member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. J.W.S. Vlaeyen is a member of the PHILIPS advisory board on pain management and declares no conflicts of interest with regard to this work. S.-J. Wang has served on the advisory boards of Allergan and Eli Lilly, Taiwan. He has received speaking honoraria from local companies (Taiwan branches) of Pfizer, Elli Lilly, and GSK. He has received research grants from the Novartis Taiwan, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei-Veterans General Hospital and Taiwan Headache Society. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Acknowledgements The authors are members of the Classification of Pain Diseases Task Force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), which gave logistical and financial support to perform this work. We acknowledge the contributions of the following IASP Special Interest Groups (SIGs): Abdominal & Pelvic Pain SIG, Acute Pain SIG, Cancer Pain SIG, Neuropathic Pain SIG and the Orofacial Pain SIG, and the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). Author contributions: R.-D. Treede, W. Rief, and A. Barke contributed equally to this topical review.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have a dismal prognosis, even after treatment with a hypomethylating agent. Azacitidine added to venetoclax had promising efficacy in a previous phase 1b study. METHODS: We randomly assigned previously untreated patients with confirmed AML who were ineligible for standard induction therapy because of coexisting conditions, because they were 75 years of age or older, or both to azacitidine plus either venetoclax or placebo. All patients received a standard dose of azacitidine (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area subcutaneously or intravenously on days 1 through 7 every 28-day cycle); venetoclax (target dose, 400 mg) or matching placebo was administered orally, once daily, in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 431 patients (286 in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 145 in the azacitidine-placebo [control] group). The median age was 76 years in both groups (range, 49 to 91). At a median follow-up of 20.5 months, the median overall survival was 14.7 months in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 9.6 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 0.85; P<0.001). The incidence of complete remission was higher with azacitidine-venetoclax than with the control regimen (36.7% vs. 17.9%; P<0.001), as was the composite complete remission (complete remission or complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery) (66.4% vs. 28.3%; P<0.001). Key adverse events included nausea of any grade (in 44% of the patients in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 35% of those in the control group) and grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia (in 45% and 38%, respectively), neutropenia (in 42% and 28%), and febrile neutropenia (in 42% and 19%). Infections of any grade occurred in 85% of the patients in the azacitidine-venetoclax group and 67% of those in the control group, and serious adverse events occurred in 83% and 73%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In previously untreated patients who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, overall survival was longer and the incidence of remission was higher among patients who received azacitidine plus venetoclax than among those who received azacitidine alone. The incidence of febrile neutropenia was higher in the venetoclax-azacitidine group than in the control group. (Funded by AbbVie and Genentech; VIALE-A ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02993523.).

BACKGROUND: The multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib has shown activity against pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in preclinical models and phase 1 and 2 trials. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of sunitinib in patients with advanced, well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. All patients had Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease progression documented within 12 months before baseline. A total of 171 patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive best supportive care with either sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg per day or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival; secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The study was discontinued early, after the independent data and safety monitoring committee observed more serious adverse events and deaths in the placebo group as well as a difference in progression-free survival favoring sunitinib. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the sunitinib group as compared with 5.5 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.66; P<0.001). A Cox proportional-hazards analysis of progression-free survival according to baseline characteristics favored sunitinib in all subgroups studied. The objective response rate was 9.3% in the sunitinib group versus 0% in the placebo group. At the data cutoff point, 9 deaths were reported in the sunitinib group (10%) versus 21 deaths in the placebo group (25%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89; P=0.02). The most frequent adverse events in the sunitinib group were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous daily administration of sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and the objective response rate as compared with placebo among patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00428597.).

BACKGROUND: Whether noninvasive ventilation should be administered in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is debated. Therapy with high-flow oxygen through a nasal cannula may offer an alternative in patients with hypoxemia. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label trial in which we randomly assigned patients without hypercapnia who had acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of 300 mm Hg or less to high-flow oxygen therapy, standard oxygen therapy delivered through a face mask, or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients intubated at day 28; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality in the intensive care unit and at 90 days and the number of ventilator-free days at day 28. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients were included in the analyses. The intubation rate (primary outcome) was 38% (40 of 106 patients) in the high-flow-oxygen group, 47% (44 of 94) in the standard group, and 50% (55 of 110) in the noninvasive-ventilation group (P=0.18 for all comparisons). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was significantly higher in the high-flow-oxygen group (24±8 days, vs. 22±10 in the standard-oxygen group and 19±12 in the noninvasive-ventilation group; P=0.02 for all comparisons). The hazard ratio for death at 90 days was 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 3.99) with standard oxygen versus high-flow oxygen (P=0.046) and 2.50 (95% CI, 1.31 to 4.78) with noninvasive ventilation versus high-flow oxygen (P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with nonhypercapnic acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with high-flow oxygen, standard oxygen, or noninvasive ventilation did not result in significantly different intubation rates. There was a significant difference in favor of high-flow oxygen in 90-day mortality. (Funded by the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique Interrégional 2010 of the French Ministry of Health; FLORALI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01320384.).

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical and immunologic manifestations of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in a large cohort of patients and to define patterns of disease expression. METHODS: The clinical and serologic features of APS (Sapporo preliminary criteria) in 1,000 patients from 13 European countries were analyzed using a computerized database. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 820 female patients (82.0%) and 180 male patients (18.0%) with a mean +/- SD age of 42 +/- 14 years at study entry. "Primary" APS was present in 53.1% of the patients; APS was associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 36.2%, with lupus-like syndrome in 5.0%, and with other diseases in 5.9%. A variety of thrombotic manifestations affecting the majority of organs were recorded. A catastrophic APS occurred in 0.8% of the patients. Patients with APS associated with SLE had more episodes of arthritis and livedo reticularis, and more frequently exhibited thrombocytopenia and leukopenia. Female patients had a higher frequency of arthritis, livedo reticularis, and migraine. Male patients had a higher frequency of myocardial infarction, epilepsy, and arterial thrombosis in the lower legs and feet. In 28 patients (2.8%), disease onset occurred before age 15; these patients had more episodes of chorea and jugular vein thrombosis than the remaining patients. In 127 patients (12.7%), disease onset occurred after age 50; most of these patients were men. These patients had a higher frequency of stroke and angina pectoris, but a lower frequency of livedo reticularis, than the remaining patients. CONCLUSION: APS may affect any organ of the body and display a broad spectrum of manifestations. An association with SLE, the patient's sex, and the patient's age at disease onset can modify the disease expression and define specific subsets of APS.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for myelofibrosis are limited. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib, a potent and selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and 2 inhibitor, as compared with the best available therapy, in patients with myelofibrosis. METHODS: We assigned 219 patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk primary myelofibrosis, post-polycythemia vera myelofibrosis, or post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis to receive oral ruxolitinib or the best available therapy. The primary end point and key secondary end point of the study were the percentage of patients with at least a 35% reduction in spleen volume at week 48 and at week 24, respectively, as assessed with the use of magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography. RESULTS: A total of 28% of the patients in the ruxolitinib group had at least a 35% reduction in spleen volume at week 48, as compared with 0% in the group receiving the best available therapy (P<0.001); the corresponding percentages at week 24 were 32% and 0% (P<0.001). At 48 weeks, the mean palpable spleen length had decreased by 56% with ruxolitinib but had increased by 4% with the best available therapy. The median duration of response with ruxolitinib was not reached, with 80% of patients still having a response at a median follow-up of 12 months. Patients in the ruxolitinib group had an improvement in overall quality-of-life measures and a reduction in symptoms associated with myelofibrosis. The most common hematologic abnormalities of grade 3 or higher in either group were thrombocytopenia and anemia, which were managed with a dose reduction, interruption of treatment, or transfusion. One patient in each group discontinued treatment owing to thrombocytopenia, and none discontinued owing to anemia. Nonhematologic adverse events were rare and mostly grade 1 or 2. Two cases of acute myeloid leukemia were reported with the best available therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous ruxolitinib therapy, as compared with the best available therapy, was associated with marked and durable reductions in splenomegaly and disease-related symptoms, improvements in role functioning and quality of life, and modest toxic effects. An influence on overall survival has not yet been shown. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00934544.).

BACKGROUND: The role of fibrinolytic therapy in patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism is controversial. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we compared tenecteplase plus heparin with placebo plus heparin in normotensive patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Eligible patients had right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography or computed tomography, as well as myocardial injury as indicated by a positive test for cardiac troponin I or troponin T. The primary outcome was death or hemodynamic decompensation (or collapse) within 7 days after randomization. The main safety outcomes were major extracranial bleeding and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke within 7 days after randomization. RESULTS: Of 1006 patients who underwent randomization, 1005 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Death or hemodynamic decompensation occurred in 13 of 506 patients (2.6%) in the tenecteplase group as compared with 28 of 499 (5.6%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.87; P=0.02). Between randomization and day 7, a total of 6 patients (1.2%) in the tenecteplase group and 9 (1.8%) in the placebo group died (P=0.42). Extracranial bleeding occurred in 32 patients (6.3%) in the tenecteplase group and 6 patients (1.2%) in the placebo group (P<0.001). Stroke occurred in 12 patients (2.4%) in the tenecteplase group and was hemorrhagic in 10 patients; 1 patient (0.2%) in the placebo group had a stroke, which was hemorrhagic (P=0.003). By day 30, a total of 12 patients (2.4%) in the tenecteplase group and 16 patients (3.2%) in the placebo group had died (P=0.42). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism, fibrinolytic therapy prevented hemodynamic decompensation but increased the risk of major hemorrhage and stroke. (Funded by the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique in France and others; PEITHO EudraCT number, 2006-005328-18; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00639743.).

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a progressive liver disease with no approved treatment. Resmetirom is an oral, liver-directed, thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist in development for the treatment of NASH with liver fibrosis. METHODS: We are conducting an ongoing phase 3 trial involving adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH and a fibrosis stage of F1B, F2, or F3 (stages range from F0 [no fibrosis] to F4 [cirrhosis]). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily resmetirom at a dose of 80 mg or 100 mg or placebo. The two primary end points at week 52 were NASH resolution (including a reduction in the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] activity score by ≥2 points; scores range from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more severe disease) with no worsening of fibrosis, and an improvement (reduction) in fibrosis by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score. RESULTS: Overall, 966 patients formed the primary analysis population (322 in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 323 in the 100-mg resmetirom group, and 321 in the placebo group). NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis was achieved in 25.9% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 29.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 9.7% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Fibrosis improvement by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score was achieved in 24.2% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 25.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 14.2% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). The change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from baseline to week 24 was -13.6% in the 80-mg resmetirom group and -16.3% in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 0.1% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Diarrhea and nausea were more frequent with resmetirom than with placebo. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across trial groups: 10.9% in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 12.7% in the 100-mg resmetirom group, and 11.5% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the 80-mg dose and the 100-mg dose of resmetirom were superior to placebo with respect to NASH resolution and improvement in liver fibrosis by at least one stage. (Funded by Madrigal Pharmaceuticals; MAESTRO-NASH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03900429.).

BACKGROUND: The course of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is often associated with pain, hypertension, and kidney failure. Preclinical studies indicated that vasopressin V(2)-receptor antagonists inhibit cyst growth and slow the decline of kidney function. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-year trial, we randomly assigned 1445 patients, 18 to 50 years of age, who had ADPKD with a total kidney volume of 750 ml or more and an estimated creatinine clearance of 60 ml per minute or more, in a 2:1 ratio to receive tolvaptan, a V(2)-receptor antagonist, at the highest of three twice-daily dose regimens that the patient found tolerable, or placebo. The primary outcome was the annual rate of change in the total kidney volume. Sequential secondary end points included a composite of time to clinical progression (defined as worsening kidney function, kidney pain, hypertension, and albuminuria) and rate of kidney-function decline. RESULTS: Over a 3-year period, the increase in total kidney volume in the tolvaptan group was 2.8% per year (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 3.1), versus 5.5% per year in the placebo group (95% CI, 5.1 to 6.0; P<0.001). The composite end point favored tolvaptan over placebo (44 vs. 50 events per 100 follow-up-years, P=0.01), with lower rates of worsening kidney function (2 vs. 5 events per 100 person-years of follow-up, P<0.001) and kidney pain (5 vs. 7 events per 100 person-years of follow-up, P=0.007). Tolvaptan was associated with a slower decline in kidney function (reciprocal of the serum creatinine level, -2.61 [mg per milliliter](-1) per year vs. -3.81 [mg per milliliter](-1) per year; P<0.001). There were fewer ADPKD-related adverse events in the tolvaptan group but more events related to aquaresis (excretion of electrolyte-free water) and hepatic adverse events unrelated to ADPKD, contributing to a higher discontinuation rate (23%, vs. 14% in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS: Tolvaptan, as compared with placebo, slowed the increase in total kidney volume and the decline in kidney function over a 3-year period in patients with ADPKD but was associated with a higher discontinuation rate, owing to adverse events. (Funded by Otsuka Pharmaceuticals and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development and Commercialization; TEMPO 3:4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00428948.).

BACKGROUND: Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion. METHODS: A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. RESULTS: The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10). CONCLUSIONS: The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

In the present study, we assessed the frequency and characteristics of the main causes of morbidity and mortality in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) during a 10-year period and compared the frequency of early manifestations with those that appeared later in the evolution of the disease. In 1990, we started a multicenter study of 1,000 patients from 7 European countries. All had medical histories documented and underwent medical interview and routine general physical examination when entered in the study, and all were followed prospectively by the same physicians during the ensuing 10 years (1990-2000).A total of 481 (48.1%) patients presented 1 or more episodes of arthritis at any time during the 10 years, 311 (31.1%) patients had malar rash, 279 (27.9%) active nephropathy, 194 (19.4%) neurologic involvement, 166 (16.6%) fever, 163 (16.3%) Raynaud phenomenon, 160 (16.0%) serositis (pleuritis and/or pericarditis), 134 (13.4%) thrombocytopenia, and 92 (9.2%) thrombosis. When the prevalences of the clinical manifestations during the initial 5 years of follow-up (1990-1995) were compared with those during the ensuing 5 years (1995-2000), most manifestations were found to be more frequent during the initial 5 years. Of the 1,000 patients, 360 (36%) presented infections, 169 (16.9%) hypertension, 121 (12.1%) osteoporosis, and 81 (8.1%) cytopenia due to immunosuppressive agents. Twenty-three (2.3%) patients developed malignancies; the most frequent primary localizations were the uterus and the breast.Sixty-eight (6.8%) patients died, and the most frequent causes of death were similarly divided between active SLE (26.5%), thromboses (26.5%), and infections (25%). A survival probability of 92% at 10 years was found. A lower survival probability was detected in those patients who presented at the beginning of the study with nephropathy (88% versus 94% in patients without nephropathy, p = 0.045). When the causes of death during the initial 5 years of follow-up (1990-1995) were compared with those during the ensuing 5 years (1995-2000), active SLE and infections (28.9% each) appeared to be the most common causes during the initial 5 years, while thromboses (26.1%) became the most common cause of death during the last 5 years.In conclusion, most of the SLE inflammatory manifestations appear to be less common after a long-term evolution of the disease, probably reflecting the effect of therapy as well as the progressive remission of the disease in many patients. Meanwhile, a more prominent role of thrombotic events is becoming evident, affecting both morbidity and mortality in SLE.

Vascular anomalies represent a spectrum of disorders from a simple "birthmark" to life- threatening entities. Incorrect nomenclature and misdiagnoses are commonly experienced by patients with these anomalies. Accurate diagnosis is crucial for appropriate evaluation and management, often requiring multidisciplinary specialists. Classification schemes provide a consistent terminology and serve as a guide for pathologists, clinicians, and researchers. One of the goals of the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies (ISSVA) is to achieve a uniform classification. The last classification (1997) stratified vascular lesions into vascular malformations and proliferative vascular lesions (tumors). However, additional disease entities have since been identified that are complex and less easily classified by generic headings, such as capillary malformation, venous malformation, lymphatic malformation, etc. We hereby present the updated official ISSVA classification of vascular anomalies. The general biological scheme of the classification is retained. The section on tumors has been expanded and lists the main recognized vascular tumors, classified as benign, locally aggressive or borderline, and malignant. A list of well-defined diseases is included under each generic heading in the "Simple Vascular Malformations" section. A short definition is added for eponyms. Two new sections were created: one dealing with the malformations of individually named vessels (previously referred to as "truncular" malformations); the second groups lesions of uncertain or debated nature (tumor versus malformation). The known genetic defects underlying vascular anomalies are included in an appendix. This classification is meant to be a framework, acknowledging that it will require modification as new scientific information becomes available.

UNLABELLED: This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system 1 2 was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic en bloc resection for superficial esophageal squamous cell cancers (SCCs), excluding those with obvious submucosal involvement (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) may be considered in such lesions when they are smaller than 10 mm if en bloc resection can be assured. However, ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the first option, mainly to provide an en bloc resection with accurate pathology staging and to avoid missing important histological features (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection with a curative intent for visible lesions in Barrett's esophagus (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD has not been shown to be superior to EMR for excision of mucosal cancer, and for that reason EMR should be preferred. ESD may be considered in selected cases, such as lesions larger than 15 mm, poorly lifting tumors, and lesions at risk for submucosal invasion (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric superficial neoplastic lesions that possess a very low risk of lymph node metastasis (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). EMR is an acceptable option for lesions smaller than 10 - 15 mm with a very low probability of advanced histology (Paris 0-IIa). However, ESGE recommends ESD as treatment of choice for most gastric superficial neoplastic lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 4 ESGE states that the majority of colonic and rectal superficial lesions can be effectively removed in a curative way by standard polypectomy and/or by EMR (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD can be considered for removal of colonic and rectal lesions with high suspicion of limited submucosal invasion that is based on two main criteria of depressed morphology and irregular or nongranular surface pattern, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm; or ESD can be considered for colorectal lesions that otherwise cannot be optimally and radically removed by snare-based techniques (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).