Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of Withdrawal of Inhaled Corticosteroids in Cystic Fibrosis

Rationale: Lung inflammation and injury is critical in cystic fibrosis. An ideal antiinflammatory agent has not been identified but inhaled corticosteroids are widely used despite lack of evidence.

Objectives: To test the safety of withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids with the hypothesis this would not be associated with an earlier onset of acute chest exacerbations.

Methods: Multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in 18 pediatric and adult UK centers. Eligibility criteria included age > 6.0 yr, FEV1 ? 40% predicted, and corticosteroid use > 3 mo. During the 2-mo run-in period, all patients received fluticasone; they then took either fluticasone or placebo for 6 mo.

Measurements and Main Results: Fluticasone group: n = 84, median age 14.6 yr, mean (SD) FEV1 76% (18); placebo group: n = 87, median age 15.8 yr, mean (SD) FEV1 76% (18). There was no difference in time to first exacerbation (primary outcome) with hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 1.07 (0.68 to 1.70) for fluticasone versus placebo. There was no effect of age, atopy, corticosteroid dose, FEV1, or Pseudomonas aeruginosa status. There was no change in lung function or differences in antibiotic or rescue bronchodilator use. Fewer patients in the fluticasone group withdrew from the study due to lung-related adverse events (9 vs. 15%); with a relative risk (95% confidence interval) of 0.59 (0.23–1.48) fluticasone versus placebo.

Conclusions: In this study population (applicable to 40% of patients with cystic fibrosis in the UK), it appears safe to consider stopping inhaled corticosteroids. Potential advantages will be to reduce the drug burden on patients, reduce adverse effects, and make financial savings.

The United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study:a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial: design and methodology

Elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) is a major risk factor for the deterioration of open-angle glaucoma (OAG); medical IOP reduction is the standard treatment, yet no randomized placebo-controlled study of medical IOP reduction has been undertaken previously. The United Kingdom Glaucoma Treatment Study (UKGTS) tests the hypothesis that treatment with a topical prostaglandin analog, compared with placebo, reduces the frequency of visual field (VF) deterioration events in OAG patients by 50% over a 2-year period.

Multicenter randomized phase II clinical trial comparing neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and preoperative radiotherapy with or without cetuximab followed by total mesorectal excision in patients with high-risk rectal cancer (EXPERT-C).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the addition of cetuximab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in high-risk rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with operable magnetic resonance imaging-defined high-risk rectal cancer received four cycles of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by capecitabine chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX (four cycles) or the same regimen plus weekly cetuximab (CAPOX+C). The primary end point was complete response (CR; pathologic CR or, in patients not undergoing surgery, radiologic CR) in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors. Secondary end points were radiologic response (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety in the wild-type and overall populations and a molecular biomarker analysis. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five eligible patients were randomly assigned. Ninety (60%) of 149 assessable tumors were KRAS or BRAF wild type (CAPOX, n = 44; CAPOX+C, n = 46), and in these patients, the addition of cetuximab did not improve the primary end point of CR (9% v 11%, respectively; P = 1.0; odds ratio, 1.22) or PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; P = .363). Cetuximab significantly improved RR (CAPOX v CAPOX+C: after chemotherapy, 51% v 71%, respectively; P = .038; after chemoradiation, 75% v 93%, respectively; P = .028) and OS (HR, 0.27; P = .034). Skin toxicity and diarrhea were more frequent in the CAPOX+C arm. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab led to a significant increase in RR and OS in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type rectal cancer, but the primary end point of improved CR was not met.

Tissue biomarker development in a multicentre trial context: a feasibility study on the PETACC3 stage II and III colon cancer adjuvant treatment trial.

Purpose: We evaluated the feasibility of biomarker development in the context of multicenter clinical trials.

Experimental Design: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples were collected from a prospective adjuvant colon cancer trial (PETACC3). DNA was isolated from tumor as well as normal tissue and used for analysis of microsatellite instability, KRAS and BRAF genotyping, UGT1A1 genotyping, and loss of heterozygosity of 18 q loci. Immunohistochemistry was used to test expression of TERT, SMAD4, p53, and TYMS. Messenger RNA was retrieved and tested for use in expression profiling experiments.

Results: Of the 3,278 patients entered in the study, FFPE blocks were obtained from 1,564 patients coming from 368 different centers in 31 countries. In over 95% of the samples, genomic DNA tests yielded a reliable result. Of the immmunohistochemical tests, p53 and SMAD4 staining did best with reliable results in over 85% of the cases. TERT was the most problematic test with 46% of failures, mostly due to insufficient tissue processing quality. Good quality mRNA was obtained, usable in expression profiling experiments.

Conclusions: Prospective clinical trials can be used as framework for biomarker development using routinely processed FFPE tissues. Our results support the notion that as a rule, translational studies based on FFPE should be included in prospective clinical trials.

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.

Internal limiting membrane peeling versus no peeling for idiopathic full-thickness macular hole: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE. To determine whether internal limiting membrane (ILM) peeling is effective and cost effective compared with no peeling in patients with idiopathic stage 2 or 3 full-thickness maculay hole (FTMH). METHODS. This was a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants from nine centers were randomized to ILM peeling or no peeling (1:1 ratio) in addition to phacovitrectomy, including detachment and removal of the posterior hyaloid and gas tamponade. The primary outcome was distance visual acuity (VA) at 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included hole closure, distance VA at other time points, near VA, contrast sensitivity, reading speed, reoperations, complications, resource use, and participant-reported health status, visual function, and costs. RESULTS. Of 141 participants randomized in nine centers, 127 (90%) completed the 6-month follow-up. Nonstatistically significant differences in distance visual acuity at 6 months were found between groups (mean difference, 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.3 to 9.8; P = 0.063). There was a significantly higher rate of hole closure in the ILM-peel group (56 [84%] vs. 31 [48%]) at 1 month (odds ratio [OR], 6.23; 95% CI, 2.64-14.73; P <0.001) with fewer reoperations (8 [12%] vs. 31 [48%]) performed by 6 months (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05- 0.34; P <0.001). Peeling the ILM is likely to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS. There was no evidence of a difference in distance VA after the ILM peeling and no-ILM peeling techniques. An important benefit in favor of no ILM peeling was ruled out. Given the higher anatomic closure and lower reoperation rates in the ILM-peel group, ILM peeling seems to be the treatment of choice for idiopathic stage 2 to 3 FTMH. © 2011 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.

Visual outcomes in the subfoveal radiotherapy study:A randomized controlled trial of teletherapy for age-related macular degeneration

Objective: To determine whether teletherapy with 6-mV photons can reduce visual loss in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration. Design: A multicenter, single-masked, randomized controlled trial of 12 Gy of external beam radiation therapy delivered to the macula of an affected eye vs observation only. Setting: Three United Kingdom-based hospital units. Participants: Patients with age-related macular degeneration, aged 60 years and older, who had subfoveal choroidal neovascularization and a visual acuity of 20/200 (logMAR 1.0) or better. Methods: Two hundred three patients were randomly assigned to radiotherapy or observation. Treatment was undertaken at designated radiotherapy centers, and patients assigned to the treatment group received a total dosage of 12 Gy of 6-mV photons in 6 fractions. Follow-up was scheduled at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. After excluding protocol violators, the data from 199 patients were analyzed. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was mean loss of distance visual acuity in the study eye at 12 and 24 months. Other outcome variables analyzed were near visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. The proportions of patients losing 3 or more or 6 or more lines of distance and near acuity and 0.3 or more or 0.6 or more log units of contrast sensitivity at each follow-up were also analyzed. Results: At all time points, mean distance visual acuity was better in the radiotherapy-treated group than in the control group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. At 24 months, analysis of the proportions of patients with loss of 3 or more (moderate) (P=.08) or 6 or more (severe) (P=.29) lines of distance vision showed that fewer treated patients had severe losses, but there was no statistically significant difference between groups. For near visual acuity, although there was no evidence of treatment benefit at 12 and 24 months, a significant difference in favor of treatment was present at 6 months (P=.048). When analyzed by the proportions of patients losing 3 lines of contrast sensitivity, there was a significant difference in favor of treatment at 24 months (P=.02). No adverse retinal effects were observed during the study, but transient disturbance of the precorneal tear film was noted in treated patients. Conclusion: The results of the present trial do not support the routine clinical use of external beam radiation therapy in subjects with subfoveal choroidal neovascularization in age-related macular degeneration.

Evaluation of an algorithm to guide patients with type 1 diabetes treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion on how to respond to real-time continuous glucose levels:A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE - To evaluate an algorithm guiding responses of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII)-treated type 1 diabetic patients using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Sixty CSII-treated type 1 diabetic participants (aged 13-70 years, including adult and adolescent subgroups, with A1C =9.5%) were randomized in age-, sex-, and A1C-matched pairs. Phase 1 was an open 16-week multicenter randomized controlled trial. Group A was treated with CSII/RT-CGM with the algorithm, and group B was treated with CSII/RT-CGM without the algorithm. The primary outcome was the difference in time in target (4-10 mmol/l) glucose range on 6-day masked CGM. Secondary outcomes were differences in A1C, low (=3.9 mmol/l) glucose CGM time, and glycemic variability. Phase 2 was the week 16-32 follow-up. Group A was returned to usual care, and group B was provided with the algorithm. Glycemia parameters were as above. Comparisons were made between baseline and 16 weeks and 32 weeks. RESULTS - In phase 1, after withdrawals 29 of 30 subjects were left in group A and 28 of 30 subjects were left in group B. The change in target glucose time did not differ between groups. A1C fell (mean 7.9% [95% CI 7.7-8.2to 7.6% [7.2-8.0]; P <0.03) in group A but not in group B (7.8% [7.5-8.1] to 7.7 [7.3-8.0]; NS) with no difference between groups. More subjects in group A achieved A1C =7% than those in group B (2 of 29 to 14 of 29 vs. 4 of 28 to 7 of 28; P = 0.015). In phase 2, one participant was lost from each group. In group A, A1C returned to baseline with RT-CGM discontinuation but did not change in group B, who continued RT-CGM with addition of the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS - Early but not late algorithm provision to type 1 diabetic patients using CSII/RT-CGM did not increase the target glucose time but increased achievement of A1C =7%. Upon RT-CGM cessation, A1C returned to baseline. © 2010 by the American Diabetes Association.

Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibition with simvastatin in Acute lung injury to Reduce Pulmonary dysfunction (HARP-2) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Acute lung injury (ALI) is a common devastating clinical syndrome characterized by life-threatening respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and multiple organ failure. There are in vitro, animal studies and pre-clinical data suggesting that statins may be beneficial in ALI. The Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibition with simvastatin in Acute lung injury to Reduce Pulmonary dysfunction (HARP-2) trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, allocation concealed, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial which aims to test the hypothesis that treatment with simvastatin will improve clinical outcomes in patients with ALI.

Methods/Design: Patients fulfilling the American-European Consensus Conference Definition of ALI will be randomized in a 1: 1 ratio to receive enteral simvastatin 80 mg or placebo once daily for a maximum of 28 days. Allocation to randomized groups will be stratified with respect to hospital of recruitment and vasopressor requirement. Data will be recorded by participating ICUs until hospital discharge, and surviving patients will be followed up by post at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomization. The primary outcome is number of ventilator-free days to day 28. Secondary outcomes are: change in oxygenation index and sequential organ failure assessment score up to day 28, number of non pulmonary organ failure free days to day 28, critical care unit mortality; hospital mortality; 28 day post randomization mortality and 12 month post randomization mortality; health related quality of life at discharge, 3, 6 and 12 months post randomization; length of critical care unit and hospital stay; health service use up to 12 months post-randomization; and safety. A total of 540 patients will be recruited from approximately 35 ICUs in the UK and Ireland. An economic evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial. Plasma and urine samples will be taken up to day 28 to investigate potential mechanisms by which simvastatin might act to improve clinical outcomes.

An efficacy and mechanism evaluation study of Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Organ dysfunction consequent to infection (‘severe sepsis’) is the leading cause of admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). In both animal models and early clinical studies the calcium channel sensitizer levosimendan has been demonstrated to have potentially beneficial effects on organ function. The aims of the Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS) trial are to identify whether a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan will improve organ dysfunction in adults who have septic shock and to establish the safety profile of levosimendan in this group of patients.

This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial. Adults fulfilling the criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome due to infection, and requiring vasopressor therapy, will be eligible for inclusion in the trial. Within 24 hours of meeting these inclusion criteria, patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio stratified by the ICU to receive either levosimendan (0.05 to 0.2 μg.kg^-1.min^-1 or placebo for 24 hours in addition to standard care. The primary outcome measure is the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score while in the ICU. Secondary outcomes include: central venous oxygen saturations and cardiac output; incidence and severity of renal failure using the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria; duration of renal replacement therapy; serum bilirubin; time to liberation from mechanical ventilation; 28-day, hospital, 3 and 6 month survival; ICU and hospital length-of-stay; and days free from catecholamine therapy. Blood and urine samples will be collected on the day of inclusion, at 24 hours, and on days 4 and 6 post-inclusion for investigation of the mechanisms by which levosimendan might improve organ function. Eighty patients will have additional blood samples taken to measure levels of levosimendan and its active metabolites OR-1896 and OR-1855. A total of 516 patients will be recruited from approximately 25 ICUs in the United Kingdom.

This trial will test the efficacy of levosimendan to reduce acute organ dysfunction in adult patients who have septic shock and evaluate its biological mechanisms of action.

Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform

Randomised trials are at the heart of evidence-based healthcare, but the methods and infrastructure for conducting these sometimes complex studies are largely evidence free. Trial Forge (www.trialforge.org) is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision making and, in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.

This paper summarises a one-day workshop held in Edinburgh on 10 July 2014 to discuss Trial Forge and how to advance this initiative. We first outline the problem of inefficiency in randomised trials and go on to describe Trial Forge. We present participants' views on the processes in the life of a randomised trial that should be covered by Trial Forge.

General support existed at the workshop for the Trial Forge approach to increase the evidence base for making randomised trial decisions and for improving trial efficiency. Agreed upon key processes included choosing the right research question; logistical planning for delivery, training of staff, recruitment, and retention; data management and dissemination; and close down. The process of linking to existing initiatives where possible was considered crucial. Trial Forge will not be a guideline or a checklist but a 'go to' website for research on randomised trials methods, with a linked programme of applied methodology research, coupled to an effective evidence-dissemination process. Moreover, it will support an informal network of interested trialists who meet virtually (online) and occasionally in person to build capacity and knowledge in the design and conduct of efficient randomised trials.

Some of the resources invested in randomised trials are wasted because of limited evidence upon which to base many aspects of design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Trial Forge will help to address this lack of evidence.