Low-level laser therapy for pain relief after episiotomy: a double-blind randomised clinical trial

Aims and objectives. To evaluate the effectiveness of a low-level laser therapy for pain relief in the perineum following episiotomy during childbirth. Background. Laser irradiation is a painless and non-invasive therapy for perineal pain treatment and its effects have been investigated in several studies, with no clear conclusion on its effectiveness. Design. A double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial. Method. One hundred and fourteen women who underwent right mediolateral episiotomies during vaginal birth in an in-hospital birthing centre in Sao Paulo, Brazil and reported pain =3 on a numeric scale (010) were randomised into three groups of 38 women each: two experimental groups (treated with red and infrared laser) and a control group. The experimental groups were treated with laser applied at three points directly on the episiotomy after suturing in a single session between 656 hours postpartum. We used a diode laser with wavelengths of 660 nm (red laser) and 780 nm (infrared laser). The control group participants underwent all laser procedures, excluding the emission of irradiation. The participants and the pain scores evaluator were blinded to the type of intervention. The perineal pain scores were assessed at three time points: before, immediately after and 30 minutes after low-level laser therapy. Results. The comparison of perineal pain between the three groups showed no significant differences in the three evaluations (p = 0.445), indicating that the results obtained in the groups treated with low-level laser therapy were equivalent to the control group. Conclusions. Low-level laser therapy did not decrease the intensity of perineal pain reported by women who underwent right mediolateral episiotomy. Relevance to clinical practice. The effect of laser in perineal pain relief was not demonstrated in this study. The dosage may not have been sufficient to provide relief from perineal pain after episiotomy during a vaginal birth.

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial

Background: Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. Methods: Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1: 1: 1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. Findings: Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1.17 (95% CI 0.98-1.39; p=0.07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1.07 (0.90-1.28; p=0.44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1.27 (1.03-1.57; p=0.02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1.15 (0.93-1.42; p=0.21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. Interpretation: Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer.

Noninvasive ventilation immediately after extubation improves weaning outcome after acute respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Introduction Noninvasive ventilation (NIV), as a weaning-facilitating strategy in predominantly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) mechanically ventilated patients, is associated with reduced ventilator-associated pneumonia, total duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, and mortality. However, this benefit after planned extubation in patients with acute respiratory failure of various etiologies remains to be elucidated. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of NIV applied immediately after planned extubation in contrast to oxygen mask (OM) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Methods A randomized, prospective, controlled, unblinded clinical study in a single center of a 24-bed adult general ICU in a university hospital was carried out in a 12-month period. Included patients met extubation criteria with at least 72 hours of mechanical ventilation due to acute respiratory failure, after following the ICU weaning protocol. Patients were randomized immediately before elective extubation, being randomly allocated to one of the study groups: NIV or OM. We compared both groups regarding gas exchange 15 minutes, 2 hours, and 24 hours after extubation, reintubation rate after 48 hours, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and hospital mortality. Results Forty patients were randomized to receive NIV (20 patients) or OM (20 patients) after the following extubation criteria were met: pressure support (PSV) of 7 cm H2O, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 cm H2O, oxygen inspiratory fraction (FiO2) ≤ 40%, arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) ≥ 90%, and ratio of respiratory rate and tidal volume in liters (f/TV) < 105. Comparing the 20 patients (NIV) with the 18 patients (OM) that finished the study 48 hours after extubation, the rate of reintubation in NIV group was 5% and 39% in OM group (P = 0.016). Relative risk for reintubation was 0.13 (CI = 0.017 to 0.946). Absolute risk reduction for reintubation showed a decrease of 33.9%, and analysis of the number needed to treat was three. No difference was found in the length of ICU stay (P = 0.681). Hospital mortality was zero in NIV group and 22.2% in OM group (P = 0.041). Conclusions In this study population, NIV prevented 48 hours reintubation if applied immediately after elective extubation in patients with more than 3 days of ARF when compared with the OM group. Trial Registration number ISRCTN: 41524441.

A phase I randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of 2009 influenza A (H1N1) inactivated monovalent vaccines with different adjuvant systems

Methods We conducted a phase I, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-arm (10) parallel study involving healthy adults to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of influenza A (H1N1) 2009 non-adjuvanted and adjuvanted candidate vaccines. Subjects received two intramuscular injections of one of the candidate vaccines administered 21 days apart. Antibody responses were measured by means of hemagglutination-inhibition assay before and 21 days after each vaccination. The three co-primary immunogenicity end points were the proportion of seroprotection >70%, seroconversion >40%, and the factor increase in the geometric mean titer >2.5. Results A total of 266 participants were enrolled into the study. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported. The most commonly solicited local and systemic adverse events were injection-site pain and headache, respectively. Only three subjects (1.1%) reported severe injection-site pain. Four 2009 influenza A (H1N1) inactivated monovalent candidate vaccines that met the three requirements to evaluate influenza protection, after a single dose, were identified: 15 μg of hemagglutinin antigen without adjuvant; 7.5 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide, MPL and squalene; 3.75 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide and MPL; and 3.75 μg of hemagglutinin antigen with aluminum hydroxide and squalene. Conclusions Adjuvant systems can be safely used in influenza vaccines, including the adjuvant monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL) derived from Bordetella pertussis with squalene and aluminum hydroxide, MPL with aluminum hydroxide, and squalene and aluminum hydroxide.