Effect of intravenous beta-2 agonist treatment on clinical outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (BALTI-2): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND:
In a previous randomised controlled phase 2 trial, intravenous infusion of salbutamol for up to 7 days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) reduced extravascular lung water and plateau airway pressure. We assessed the effects of this intervention on mortality in patients with ARDS.
METHODS:
We did a multicentre, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomised trial at 46 UK intensive-care units between December, 2006, and March, 2010. Intubated and mechanically ventilated patients (aged =16 years) within 72 h of ARDS onset were randomly assigned to receive either salbutamol (15 µg/kg ideal bodyweight per h) or placebo for up to 7 days. Randomisation was done by a central telephone or web-based randomisation service with minmisation by centre, pressure of arterial oxygen to fractional inspired oxygen concentration (PaO(2)/F(I)O(2)) ratio, and age. All participants, caregivers, and investigators were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was death within 28 days of randomisation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered, ISRCTN38366450 and EudraCT number 2006-002647-86.
FINDINGS:
We randomly assigned 162 patients to the salbutamol group and 164 to the placebo group. One patient in each group withdrew consent. Recruitment was stopped after the second interim analysis because of safety concerns. Salbutamol increased 28-day mortality (55 [34%] of 161 patients died in the salbutamol group vs 38 (23%) of 163 in the placebo group; risk ratio [RR] 1·47, 95% CI 1·03-2·08).
INTERPRETATION:
Treatment with intravenous salbutamol early in the course of ARDS was poorly tolerated. Treatment is unlikely to be beneficial, and could worsen outcomes. Routine use of ß-2 agonist treatment in ventilated patients with this disorder cannot be recommended.

Group art therapy as an adjunctive treatment for people with schizophrenia: multicentre pragmatic randomised trial

Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of group art therapy for people with schizophrenia and to test whether any benefits exceed those of an active control treatment.

Music in mind, a randomized controlled trial of music therapy for young people with behavioural and emotional problems: study protocol

Aims. This article is a report of a trial protocol to determine if improvizational music therapy leads to clinically significant improvement in communication and interaction skills for young people experiencing social, emotional or behavioural problems. Background. Music therapy is often considered an effective intervention for young people experiencing social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. However, this assumption lacks empirical evidence. Study design. Musicinmindisamulti-centredsingle-blindrandomizedcontrolledtrial involving 200 young people (aged 8–16 years) and their parents. Eligible participants willhaveaworkingdiagnosiswithintheambitofInternational ClassificationofDisease 10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders and will be recruited over 15 months from six centres within the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services of a large health and social care trust in Northern Ireland. Participants will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard care alone or standard care plus 12 weekly music therapy sessions delivered by the Northern Ireland Music Therapy Trust. Baseline data will be collectedfromyoungpeopleandtheirparentsusingstandardizedoutcomemeasuresfor communicative and interaction skills (primary endpoint), self-esteem, social functioning, depressionandfamilyfunctioning.Follow-updatawillbecollected1and13 weeks afterthefinalmusictherapysession.Acost-effectivenessanalysiswillalsobecarriedout. Discussion. This study will be the largest trial to date examining the effect of music therapy on young people experiencing social, emotional or behavioural difficulties and will provide empirical evidence for the use of music therapy among this population. Trial registration. This study is registered in theISRCTNRegister,ISRCTN96352204. Ethical approval was gained in October 2010.

Ranibizumab versus Bevacizumab to Treat Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration: One-Year Findings from the IVAN Randomized Trial.

Purpose
To compare the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab and bevacizumab intravitreal injections to treat neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Design
Multicenter, noninferiority factorial trial with equal allocation to groups. The noninferiority limit was 3.5 letters. This trial is registered (ISRCTN92166560).

Participants
People >50 years of age with untreated nAMD in the study eye who read =25 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart.

Methods
We randomized participants to 4 groups: ranibizumab or bevacizumab, given either every month (continuous) or as needed (discontinuous), with monthly review.

Main Outcome Measures
The primary outcome is at 2 years; this paper reports a prespecified interim analysis at 1 year. The primary efficacy and safety outcome measures are distance visual acuity and arteriothrombotic events or heart failure. Other outcome measures are health-related quality of life, contrast sensitivity, near visual acuity, reading index, lesion morphology, serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels, and costs.

Results
Between March 27, 2008 and October 15, 2010, we randomized and treated 610 participants. One year after randomization, the comparison between bevacizumab and ranibizumab was inconclusive (bevacizumab minus ranibizumab -1.99 letters, 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.04 to 0.06). Discontinuous treatment was equivalent to continuous treatment (discontinuous minus continuous -0.35 letters; 95% CI, -2.40 to 1.70). Foveal total thickness did not differ by drug, but was 9% less with continuous treatment (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.97; P = 0.005). Fewer participants receiving bevacizumab had an arteriothrombotic event or heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05 to 1.07; P = 0.03). There was no difference between drugs in the proportion experiencing a serious systemic adverse event (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.80 to 2.27; P = 0.25). Serum VEGF was lower with bevacizumab (GMR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.54; P<0.0001) and higher with discontinuous treatment (GMR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.42; P = 0.004). Continuous and discontinuous treatment costs were £9656 and £6398 per patient per year for ranibizumab and £1654 and £1509 for bevacizumab; bevacizumab was less costly for both treatment regimens (P<0.0001).

Conclusions
The comparison of visual acuity at 1 year between bevacizumab and ranibizumab was inconclusive. Visual acuities with continuous and discontinuous treatment were equivalent. Other outcomes are consistent with the drugs and treatment regimens having similar efficacy and safety.

Financial Disclosure(s)
Proprietary or commercial disclosures may be found after the references.

Celecoxib plus hormone therapy versus hormone therapy alone for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: first results from the STAMPEDE multiarm, multistage, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND:
Long-term hormone therapy alone is standard care for metastatic or high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer. STAMPEDE--an international, open-label, randomised controlled trial--uses a novel multiarm, multistage design to assess whether the early additional use of one or two drugs (docetaxel, zoledronic acid, celecoxib, zoledronic acid and docetaxel, or zoledronic acid and celecoxib) improves survival in men starting first-line, long-term hormone therapy. Here, we report the preplanned, second intermediate analysis comparing hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D) with hormone therapy alone (control arm A).
METHODS:
Eligible patients were men with newly diagnosed or rapidly relapsing prostate cancer who were starting long-term hormone therapy for the first time. Hormone therapy was given as standard care in all trial arms, with local radiotherapy encouraged for newly diagnosed patients without distant metastasis. Randomisation was done using minimisation with a random element across seven stratification factors. Patients randomly allocated to arm D received celecoxib 400 mg twice daily, given orally, until 1 year or disease progression (including prostate-specific antigen [PSA] failure). The intermediate outcome was failure-free survival (FFS) in three activity stages; the primary outcome was overall survival in a subsequent efficacy stage. Research arms were compared pairwise against the control arm on an intention-to-treat basis. Accrual of further patients was discontinued in any research arm showing safety concerns or insufficient evidence of activity (lack of benefit) compared with the control arm. The minimum targeted activity at the second intermediate activity stage was a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·92. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476, and with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN78818544.
FINDINGS:
2043 patients were enrolled in the trial from Oct 17, 2005, to Jan 31, 2011, of whom 584 were randomly allocated to receive hormone therapy alone (control group; arm A) and 291 to receive hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D). At the preplanned analysis of the second intermediate activity stage, with 305 FFS events (209 in arm A, 96 in arm D), there was no evidence of an advantage for hormone therapy plus celecoxib over hormone therapy alone: HR 0·94 (95% CI 0·74-1·20). [corrected]. 2-year FFS was 51% (95% CI 46-56) in arm A and 51% (95% CI 43-58) in arm D. There was no evidence of differences in the incidence of adverse events between groups (events of grade 3 or higher were noted at any time in 123 [23%, 95% CI 20-27] patients in arm A and 64 [25%, 19-30] in arm D). The most common grade 3-5 events adverse effects in both groups were endocrine disorders (55 [11%] of patients in arm A vs 19 [7%] in arm D) and musculoskeletal disorders (30 [6%] of patients in arm A vs 15 [6%] in arm D). The independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping accrual to both celecoxib-containing arms on grounds of lack of benefit and discontinuing celecoxib for patients currently on treatment, which was endorsed by the trial steering committee.
INTERPRETATION:
Celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for up to 1 year is insufficiently active in patients starting hormone therapy for high-risk prostate cancer, and we do not recommend its use in this setting. Accrual continues seamlessly to the other research arms and follow-up of all arms will continue to assess effects on overall survival.