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.

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.

A randomised, phase II trial of the DNA-hypomethylating agent 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine (decitabine) in combination with carboplatin vs carboplatin alone in patients with recurrent, partially platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer.

Background: Our previous laboratory and clinical data suggested that one mechanism underlying the development of platinum resistance in ovarian cancer is the acquisition of DNA methylation. We therefore tested the hypothesis that the DNA hypomethylating agent 5-aza-2'-deoxycytodine (decitabine) can reverse resistance to carboplatin in women with relapsed ovarian cancer.

Methods: Patients progressing 6-12 months after previous platinum therapy were randomised to decitabine on day 1 and carboplatin (AUC 6) on day 8, every 28 days or carboplatin alone. The primary objective was response rate in patients with methylated hMLH1 tumour DNA in plasma.

Results: After a pre-defined interim analysis, the study closed due to lack of efficacy and poor treatment deliverability in 15 patients treated with the combination. Responses by GCIG criteria were 9 out of 14 vs 3 out of 15 and by RECIST were 6 out of 13 vs 1 out of 12 for carboplatin and carboplatin/decitabine, respectively. Grade 3/4 neutropenia was more common with the combination (60% vs 15.4%) as was G2/3 carboplatin hypersensitivity (47% vs 21%).

Conclusions: With this schedule, the addition of decitabine appears to reduce rather than increase the efficacy of carboplatin in partially platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer and is difficult to deliver. Patient-selection strategies, different schedules and other demethylating agents should be considered in future combination studies.

Latanoprost for open-angle glaucoma (UKGTS): a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial

Background
Treatments for open-angle glaucoma aim to prevent vision loss through lowering of intraocular pressure, but to our knowledge no placebo-controlled trials have assessed visual function preservation, and the observation periods of previous (unmasked) trials have typically been at least 5 years. We assessed vision preservation in patients given latanoprost compared with those given placebo.

Methods
In this randomised, triple-masked, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled patients with newly diagnosed open-angle glaucoma at ten UK centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals). Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) with a website-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by centre and with a permuted block design, to receive either latanoprost 0·005% (intervention group) or placebo (control group) eye drops. Drops were administered from identical bottles, once a day, to both eyes. The primary outcome was time to visual field deterioration within 24 months. Analyses were done in all individuals with follow-up data. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) recommended stopping the trial on Jan 6, 2011 (last patient visit July, 2011), after an interim analysis, and suggested a change in primary outcome from the difference in proportions of patients with incident progression between groups to time to visual field deterioration within 24 months. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN96423140.

Findings
We enrolled 516 individuals between Dec 1, 2006, and March 16, 2010. Baseline mean intraocular pressure was 19·6 mm Hg (SD 4·6) in 258 patients in the latanoprost group and 20·1 mm Hg (4·8) in 258 controls. At 24 months, mean reduction in intraocular pressure was 3·8 mm Hg (4·0) in 231 patients assessed in the latanoprost group and 0·9 mm Hg (3·8) in 230 patients assessed in the placebo group. Visual field preservation was significantly longer in the latanoprost group than in the placebo group: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0·44 (95% CI 0·28–0·69; p=0·0003). We noted 18 serious adverse events, none attributable to the study drug.

Interpretation
This is the first randomised placebo-controlled trial to show preservation of the visual field with an intraocular-pressure-lowering drug in patients with open-angle glaucoma. The study design enabled significant differences in vision to be assessed in a relatively short observation period

Do removable dental prosthesis have an impact on tooth loss?

DESIGN: A multi-centre randomised controlled study in 14 dental schools. This report is an interim analysis at 3 years.

INTERVENTION: Patients were allocated to either the Removable dental prosthesis group (RPD)-109 patients or the no prosthesis group (SDA) -106 patients. Patients had to be older than 35 years with no molars in the study jaw. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 4 to 8 wks (baseline), at 6 months, and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 yrs after treatment.

OUTCOME MEASURE: Time to loss of first tooth following intervention or no intervention.

RESULTS: 81 patients received a RDP and 69 patients received no treatment in the end. This is a reduction of 26% and 35% respectively from the time when they were randomised to the two groups. Tooth loss occurred in 13 of the RDP group (16% of those who received the RDP, 12% of those allocated to the group at the start) with 5 of these being in the study jaw and 8 in the opposing jaw. Tooth loss occurred in 9 of the SDA group (13% of those who received SDA, 9% of those who were allocated to the group at the start) with 5 in the study jaw and 4 in the opposing jaw. The respective Kaplan-Meier survival rates at 38 months were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74-0.91) in the RDP group and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78-0.95) in the SDA group.

CONCLUSIONS: The difference in tooth loss at three years between patients treated with RDP and those not treated with RDP was not significant.

Precision Teaching in IV Fluid Prescribing and Patient Safety

OBJECTIVES: Precision Teaching (PT) has been shown to be an effective intervention to assess teaching method effectiveness and evaluate learning outcomes. SAFMEDS (Say All Fast Minute Every Day Shuffled) are a practice/assessment procedure within the PT framework to assist learning and fluency. We explored the effects of a brief intervention with PT, to impart high frequency performance in safe intravenous fluid prescription in a group of final year undergraduate medical students.
METHODS: 133 final year undergraduate medical students completed a multiple choice question (MCQ) test on safe IV fluid prescription at the beginning and end of the study. The control group (n= 76) of students were taught using a current standardized teaching method. Students allocated to the intervention arm of the study were additionally instructed on PT and the use of SAFMEDS. The study group (n = 57) received 50 SAFMEDS cards containing information on the principles of IV fluid prescription scenarios. These students were trained/tested twice per day for 1 minute.
RESULTS: Interim analysis showed that the study group displayed an improvement in fluency and accuracy as the study progressed. There was a statistically significant improvement in MCQ performance for the PT group compared with the control group between the beginning and end of the study (35% vs 15%).
CONCLUSION: These results suggest PT employing SAFMEDS is an effective method for improving fluency, accuracy and patient safety in intravenous fluid prescribing amongst undergraduate medical students.

Vosaroxin and vosaroxin plus low-dose Ara-C (LDAC) vs low-dose Ara-C alone in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia

The development of new treatments for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia is an active area, but has met with limited success. Vosaroxin, a quinolone-derived intercalating agent has several properties that could prove beneficial. Initial clinical studies showed it to be well-tolerated in older patients with relapsed/refractory disease. In vitro data suggested synergy with cytarabine (Ara-C). To evaluate vosaroxin, we performed 2 randomized comparisons within the "Pick a Winner" program. A total of 104 patients were randomized to vosaroxin vs low-dose Ara-C (LDAC) and 104 to vosaroxin + LDAC vs LDAC. When comparing vosaroxin with LDAC, neither response rate (complete recovery [CR]/complete recovery with incomplete count recovery [CRi], 26% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.16 (0.49-2.72); P = .7) nor 12-month survival (12% vs 31%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.94 [1.26-3.00]; P = .003) showed benefit for vosaroxin. Likewise, in the vosaroxin + LDAC vs LDAC comparison, neither response rate (CR/CRi, 38% vs 34%; OR, 0.83 [0.37-1.84]; P = .6) nor survival (33% vs 37%; HR, 1.30 [0.81-2.07]; P = .3) was improved. A major reason for this lack of benefit was excess early mortality in the vosaroxin + LDAC arm, most obviously in the second month following randomization. At its first interim analysis, the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee recommended closure of the vosaroxin-containing trial arms because a clinically relevant benefit was unlikely.

Efficacy and safety of ivacaftor in patients with cystic fibrosis who have an Arg117His-CFTR mutation: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Ivacaftor has been previously assessed in patients with cystic fibrosis with Gly551Asp-CFTR or other gating mutations. We assessed ivacaftor in patients with Arg117His-CFTR, a residual function mutation.

METHODS: We did a 24-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised clinical trial, which enrolled 69 patients with cystic fibrosis aged 6 years and older with Arg117His-CFTR and percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (% predicted FEV1) of at least 40. We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) to receive placebo or ivacaftor 150 mg every 12 h for 24 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by age (6-11, 12-17, and ≥18 years) and % predicted FEV1 (<70, ≥70 to ≤90, and >90). The primary outcome was the absolute change from baseline in % predicted FEV1 through week 24. Secondary outcomes included safety and changes in sweat chloride concentrations and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) respiratory domain scores. An open-label extension enrolled 65 of the patients after washout; after 12 weeks, we did an interim analysis.

FINDINGS: After 24 weeks, the treatment difference in mean absolute change in % predicted FEV1 between ivacaftor (n=34) and placebo (n=35) was 2·1 percentage points (95% CI -1·13 to 5·35; p=0·20). Ivacaftor treatment resulted in significant treatment differences in sweat chloride (-24·0 mmol/L, 95% CI -28·01 to -19·93; p<0·0001) and CFQ-R respiratory domain (8·4, 2·17 to 14·61; p=0·009). In prespecified subgroup analyses, % predicted FEV1 significantly improved with ivacaftor in patients aged 18 years or older (treatment difference vs placebo: 5·0 percentage points, 95% CI 1·15 to 8·78; p=0·01), but not in patients aged 6-11 years (-6·3 percentage points, -11·96 to -0·71; p=0·03). In the extension study, both placebo-to-ivacaftor and ivacaftor-to-ivacaftor groups showed % predicted FEV1 improvement (absolute change from post-washout baseline at week 12: placebo-to-ivacaftor, 5·0 percentage points [p=0·0005]; ivacaftor-to-ivacaftor, 6·0 percentage points [p=0·006]). We did not identify any new safety concerns. The studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (the randomised, placebo-controlled study, number NCT01614457; the open-label extension study, number NCT01707290).

INTERPRETATION: Although this study did not show a significant improvement in % predicted FEV1, ivacaftor did significantly improve sweat chloride and CFQ-R respiratory domain scores and lung function in adult patients with Arg117His-CFTR, indicating that ivacaftor might benefit patients with Arg117His-CFTR who have established disease.