Eisenach

This non-interventional study aims to provide information on real-world effectiveness, safety and tolerability, management of adverse events, QoL and patient compliance of patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence treated with ribociclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) ± luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) with curative intent according to the current effective local summary of product characteristics. In order to put the results of patients treated with ribociclib into perspective, socio-economic data, data on QoL and patient compliance will also be collected from patients treated with abemaciclib + endocrine therapy (ET) ± LHRH as described in the current effective local summary of product characteristics. To understand reasons for treatment decision, and to analyze the clinical adoption of ribociclib + AI ± LHRH after EU approval over time, baseline data will be collected from cohorts of ribociclib + AI ± LHRH, abemaciclib + ET ± LHRH, and additionally from patients treated with ET monotherapy ± LHRH and analyzed cross-sectionally. The study is planned to be rolled out into a broad set of German and Austrian breast centers and gynecological practices to describe clinical routine in a representative subset of the local healthcare eco-system. It will gather insights into the potential benefits and risks associated with ribociclib + AI ± LHRH in the adjuvant treatment of HR+/HER2- eBC patients at high risk of recurrence. This knowledge will inform about clinical decision-making and contribute to improved patient outcomes in routine practice.

This study compares insulin icodec, an insulin taken once a week to insulin glargine, an insulin taken once a day. The study medicine will be investigated in participants with type 1 diabetes. The study will look at how well insulin icodec taken weekly controls blood sugar compared to insulin glargine taken daily. The study will last for about 8.5 months.

This study compares insulin icodec, taken once a week, with other basal insulins, taken once a day, in people with type 2 diabetes.The purpose of this study is to see how well the approved injectable weekly insulin icodec maintains blood sugar levels when compared to approved and available daily injectable basal insulins in people with type 2 diabetes. The participants will either be prescribed weekly insulin icodec or a daily basal insulin (insulin glargine, insulin detemir or insulin degludec) based on current standards for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The study will last for about 13 months.

The presence of a BRAFV600E mutation is a marker of poor prognosis in patients with mCRC and associated with a median overall survival (mOS) of approximately 12 to 14 months compared to 20 to 25 months for pa-tients with BRAF wild-type tumors. After 1st line therapy, treatment out-comes with standard therapy are poor in patients with BRAF-mutated mCRC, with response rates (ORR) of ≤ 11%, a median progression-free survival (mPFS) between 1.8 and 2.8 months, and a mOS between 4.1 and 6.2 months. Failure to achieve adequate survival outcomes with standard treatment regimens in patients with BRAF-mutated mCRC has encouraged efforts to combine multiple targeted therapies: With 665 randomized patients, the BEACON CRC trial represents the largest trial and is currently the only phase III study in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. After a safety lead in for dose confirmation of the triplet regimen, the phase III part was per-formed with a total of 665 patients, randomized 1:1:1 to either receive encorafenib plus binimetinib and cetuximab (triplet) or encorafenib plus cetuximab (doublet) or FOLFIRI / IRI plus cetuximab (control). The BEACON CRC study met its primary endpoints Overall Response Rate (ORR) and Overall Survival (OS) comparing Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab vs. Chemotherapy + Cetuximab (ORR: 26 vs. 2%, p\<0.001; OS: median 9.0 vs. 5.4 months, HR 0.52, p\<0.001). The BEACON CRC study was alpha-controlled also for the secondary endpoint comparing Encorafenib + Cetuximab vs. Chemotherapy + Cetuximab in terms of ORR and OS and showed a statistically significant advantage (ORR: 20 vs. 2%, p\<0.001; OS: median 8.4 vs. 5.4 months, HR 0.60, p\<0.001). In terms of safety, the overall frequency of adverse events grade 3/4 was 58% (En-corafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab) vs. 50% (Encorafenib + Cetuximab) vs. 61% (Chemotherapy + Cetuximab). Analysis of Quality of Life data resulted in a longer maintenance of Quality of Life in the Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab arm and the Encorafenib + Cetuximab arm com-pared to Chemotherapy + Cetuximab. Between Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab and Encorafenib + Cetuximab, no relevant differences were reported. With a longer Follow-Up (12.8 months) the updated OS data showed a median OS of 9.3 months in both the Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab arm and the Encorafenib + Cetuximab arm compared to 5.9 months in the control arm. Updated ORR rates were 27% in the triplet arm (p\<0.0001 vs. control), 20% in the doublet arm (p\<0.0001 vs. control) and 2% in the control arm. The safety and tolerability were adequate, manage-able and consistent with the known profiles of BRAF-, MEK-, and EGFR-inhibitors. Regarding the triplet combination, the most common adverse events of any grade were diarrhea (triplet: 62%; control: 48%), dermatitis acneiform (triplet: 49%; control: 39%), nausea (triplet: 45%; control: 41%), and vomiting (triplet: 38%; control: 29%). Regarding the doublet combina-tion, the most common adverse events of any grade were nausea (34%), diarrhea (33%), fatigue (doublet 30%; triplet 33%; control 27%) and derma-titis acneiform (29%). The most common updated grade ≥3 adverse events regarding the triplet combination were diarrhea (triplet: 11%; control: 10%), abdominal pain (triplet: 6%; control: 5%), nausea (triplet: 5%; control: 2%,vomiting (triplet: 5%; control: 3%) and intestinal obstruction (triplet 5%; control 3%). With the doublet regimen, the most common updated grade ≥3 adverse events were intestinal obstruction (doublet 5%), asthenia (doublet 4%; triplet 4%; control 5%), fatigue (doublet 4%; triplet 2%; control 5%), diarrhea (3%) and abdominal pain (3%). Based on these data, it is expected that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) will approve encorafenib plus cetuximab for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic BRAFV600E-mutant CRC, who have received prior systemic therapy. Data from pivotal clinical trials are usually based on a selected patient population in order to provide standardized results in the given indication. However, after marketing authorization usage in a broader patient popula-tion is to be expected. Therefore, BERINGCRC - designed as a prospective (allowing initial retrospective documentation), longitudinal, non-interventional study - will investigate the real-world effectiveness, quality of life, safety and tolerability of encorafenib and cetuximab in BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC patients, who have received prior systemic therapy.

This study is open to adults with type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease. People can join the study if they have these conditions and do not have a history of heart failure. The purpose of this study is to find out if a medicine called vicadrostat, when taken with empagliflozin, helps reduce cardiovascular risk in people with these conditions. The study will compare this combination to a placebo version of vicadrostat with empagliflozin. Participants are put into 2 groups randomly, which means by chance. One group takes vicadrostat and empagliflozin tablets, and the other group takes placebo tablets with empagliflozin. Placebo tablets look like vicadrostat tablets but do not contain any medicine. Participants take a tablet once per day for 2 and a half years and up to 4 years and 3 months. All participants also continue their medication for type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease. Participants have an equal chance of receiving the study medicine or placebo. Participants are in the study for up to 4 years and 3 months. During this time, they visit the study site regularly. During these visits, doctors collect information about participants' health and take blood samples. The doctors document when participants experience cardiovascular events. The doctors also regularly check participants' health and take note of any unwanted effects.

Laparoscopy is currently the gold standard for the vast majority of abdominal surgeries, and especially for colectomy for cancer or benign diseases. There are many data showing the benefits of the laparoscopic approach to colectomy in terms of morbidity, post-operative pain and analgesic consumption, length of hospital stay, cosmetic results, and improved patient satisfaction. In 2002, consensus European guidelines recommended insufflating at the lowest pressure that still provides sufficient exposure. Considering these results, low-pressure laparoscopy is one of the alternatives that have been developed to do away with the complications of the pneumoperitoneum while retaining its advantages. However, other factors may influence the outcomes of the low-pressure pneumoperitoneum such as the use of humidification and warming gaz, robotic or microsurgical instrumentation, neuromuscular blockade, patient positioning, pre-stretching of the abdominal wall, ventilation-induced changes, and probably individual patient factors like obesity. These parameters could not be separately tested in randomized trial. We should consider all these parameters in a prospective international registry in order to optimize the benefit of low-pressure pneumoperitoneum in post-operative recovery.

Randomized, parallel group controlled study examines the effect of supporting the Heart failure supply through pulmonary arterial (PA) pressure measurement with the CardioMEMS™ HF system to hard endpoints, safety and quality of life. The target population consists of heart failure (HF) patients who have been predominantly in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Stage III for the past 30 days and at least once in the past 12 months for HF were admitted to hospital. All patients receive basic care, which is based on structured telephone contact (between the care center, patient and family doctor) to optimize guideline compliant therapy. In the intervention group a PA pressure sensor is (CardioMEMS™-HF Sensor) implanted. These patients are structured by specially trained non-medical personnel aftercare with additional inclusion of the PA pressure values: adjusted to the basis of the information collected in PA monitoring the therapy is optimized. The follow-up period until the primary endpoint is 12 months.

PROceed is a multisite, prospective, observational study that describes the real-world use and clinical experience of mCRPC patients treated with the combination of olaparib and abiraterone in the mCRPC setting. Clinical outcomes will be assessed in patients who are either NHA-naive or NHA-exposed prior to initiating olaparib + abiraterone treatment, respectively. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as treatment received prior and subsequent to olaparib + abiraterone, will also be described. The study plans to enroll patients for a maximum of 2 years and follow up patients from initiation of olaparib until 1 year post last patient in.

An observational study to assess the effectiveness, health economic-relevant costs and participant reported outcomes in participants with Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) receiving venetoclax as a monotherapy or in combination with rituximab, obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, or acalabrutinib as prescribed at the discretion of the physician and in accordance with local clinical practice and label.