Early toxicity from preoperative radiotherapy with continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil for resectable adenocarcinoma of the rectum: A phase II trial for the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group

Purpose: To assess the toxicity and the efficacy of preoperative radiotherapy with continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the rectum. Methods and Materials: Eligible patients had newly diagnosed localized adenocarcinoma of the rectum within 12 cm of the anal verge, Stage T3-4, and were suitable for curative resection. Eighty-two patients were treated with radiotherapy-50.4 Gy in 28 fractions in 5.6 weeks, given concurrently with continuous infusion 5-FU, using either 96-h/week infusion at 300 mg/m(2)/day or 7-days/week infusion at 225 mg/m(2)/day. Results: The median age was 59 years (range, 27-87), and 67% of patients were male. Pretreatment stages of the rectal cancer were T3, 89% and resectable T4, 11%, with endorectal ultrasound confirmation in 67% of patients. Grade 3 acute toxicity occurred in 5 of 82 patients (6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2-14%). Types of surgical resection were anterior resection, 61%; abdominoperineal resection, 35%; and other procedures, 4%. There was no operative mortality. Anastomotic leakage after low anterior resection occurred in 3 of 50 patients (6%; 95% CI, 1-17%). The pathologic complete response rate was 16% (95% CI, 9-26%). Pathologic Stages T2 or less occurred in 51%. Conclusion: Preoperative radiotherapy with continuous infusion 5-FU for locally advanced rectal cancer is a safe regimen, with a significant downstaging effect. It does not seem to lead to a significant increase in serious surgical complications. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc.

Clinical trials with glycoprotein IIB/IIIA antagonists - No benefit without bleeding?

As the glycoprotein GPIIb/IIIa receptor is the final common pathway in platelet aggregation, antagonists of this receptor cause a profound inhibition of aggregation induced by any agonist. The short-term efficacy and safety of GPIIb/IIIa antagonists in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty was demonstrated with murine 7E3 Fab, but this antibody was immunogenic. Abciximab is a chimeric human-mouse monoclonal antibody that is less immunogenic. The first major trial with a GPIIb/IIIa antagonist was the EPIC trial with abciximab, which showed that abciximab reduced the ischemic complications of coronary balloon angioplasty and atherectomy in high-risk patients, but increased the risk of bleeding. Subsequent studies showed that using less concurrent heparin reduced bleeding. Abciximab also reduced the rate of revascularization. Further studies have shown that the benefits of abciximab extended to all patients undergoing angioplasty (EPILOG), including patients with unstable angina (CAPTURE) and acute myocardial infarction (RAPPORT). Clinical trials with eptifibatide and tirofiban have failed to demonstrate benefit, at the doses used, in angioplasty. Abciximab and eptifibatide, but not oral xemilofiban, improve the safety of the coronary stenting procedure. Shortterm intravenous treatment with lamifiban, eptifibatide or tirofiban is beneficial in acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina, non-Q wave myocardial infarction). Orally active GPIIb/IIIa antagonists are being developed for use in acute coronary syndromes and myocardial infarction. However, no benefit has been shown with lefradafiban in acute coronary syndromes and sibrafiban and orbofiban are harmful. Eptifibatide, lamifiban and abciximab improve coronary patency in myocardial infarction, and long-term trials of GPIIb/IIIa antagonists are being conducted in acute myocardial infarction. Abciximab can cause thrombocytopenia, and all the GPIIb/IIIa antagonists increase the incidence of bleeding, but there is no excess of intracranial hemorrhage. (C) 2001 Prous Science. All rights reserved.

Randomisation in clinical trials

Randomisation is the process of assigning clinical trial participants to treatment groups. Randomisation gives each participant a known (usually equal) chance of being assigned to any of the groups. Successful randomisation requires that group assignment cannot be predicted in advance.

Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

Objective. To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of data, encourage more complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the preparation and review of research proposals and manuscripts, and allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the risks and benefits of treatment. Methods. Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 27 specialists from academia. governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a consensus meeting and identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain. Conclusions. There was a consensus that chronic pain clinical trials should assess outcomes representing six core domains: (1) pain, (2) physical functioning, (3) emotional functioning, (4) participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment, (5) symptoms and adverse events, (6) participant disposition (e.g. adherence to the treatment regimen and reasons for premature withdrawal from the trial). Although consideration should be given to the assessment of each of these domains, there may be exceptions to the general recommendation to include all of these domains in chronic pain trials. When this occurs, the rationale for not including domains should be provided. It is not the intention of these recommendations that assessment of the core domains should be considered a requirement for approval of product applications by regulatory agencies or that a treatment must demonstrate statistically significant effects for all of the relevant core domains to establish evidence of its efficacy. (C) 2003 International Association for the Study of Pain.

Outcome variables for osteoarthritis clinical trials: the OMERACT-OARSI set of responder criteria

Improvement in analysis and reporting results of osteoarthritis (OA) clinical trials has been recently obtained because of harmonization and standardization of the selection of outcome variables (OMERACT 3 and OARSI). Moreover, OARSI has recently proposed the OARSI responder criteria. This composite index permits presentation of results of symptom modifying clinical trials in OA based on individual patient responses (responder yes/no). The 2 organizations (OMERACT and OARSI) established. a task force aimed at evaluating: (1) the variability of observed placebo and active treatment effects using the OARSI responder criteria; and (2) the possibility of proposing a simplified set of criteria. The conclusions of the task force were presented and discussed during the OMERACT 6 conference, where a simplified set of responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI set of criteria) was proposed.

OMERACT-OARSI Initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials revisited.

Background: The OARSI Standing Committee for Clinical Trials Response Criteria Initiative had developed two sets of responder criteria to present the results of changes after treatment in three symptomatic domains (pain, function, and patient's global assessment) as a single variable for clinical trials (1). For each domain, a response was defined by both a relative and an absolute change, with different cut-offs with regard to the drug, the route of administration and the OA localization. Objective: To propose a simplified set of responder criteria with a similar cut-off, whatever the drug, the route or the OA localization. Methods: Data driven approach: (1) Two databases were considered The 'elaboration' database with which the formal OARSI sets of responder criteria were elaborated and The 'revisit' database. (2) Six different scenarios were evaluated: The two formal OARSI sets of criteria Four proposed scenarios of simplified sets of criteria Data from clinical randomized blinded placebo controlled trials were used to evaluate the performances of the two formal scenarios with two different databases ('elaboration' versus 'revisit') and those of the four proposed simplified scenarios within the 'revisit' database. The placebo effect, active effect, treatment effect, and the required sample arm size to obtain the placebo effect and the active treatment effect observed were the performances evaluated for each of the six scenarios. Experts' opinion approach: Results were discussed among the participants of the OMERACT VI meeting, who voted to select the definite OMERACT-OARSI set of criteria (one of the six evaluated scenarios). Results: Data driven approach: Fourteen trials totaling 1886 CA patients and fifteen studies involving 8164 CA patients were evaluated in the 'elaboration' and the 'revisit' databases respectively. The variability of the performances observed in the 'revisit' database when using the different simplified scenarios was similar to that observed between the two databases ('elaboration' versus 'revisit') when using the formal scenarios. The treatment effect and the required sample arm size were similar for each set of criteria. Experts' opinion approach: According to the experts, these two previous performances were the most important of an optimal set of responder criteria. They chose the set of criteria considering both pain and function as evaluation domain and requiring an absolute change and a relative change from baseline to define a response, with similar cut-offs whatever the drug, the route of administration or the CA localization. Conclusion: This data driven and experts' opinion approach is the basis for proposing an optimal simplified set of responder criteria for CA clinical trials. Other studies, using other sets of CA patients, are required in order to further validate this proposed OMERACT - OARSI set of criteria. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The comprehensive osteoarthritis test: a simple index for measurement of treatment effects in clinical trials

Objective. To assess the measurement properties of a simple index of symptom severity in osteoarthritis (OA) of the hips and knees. Methods. Both the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the proposed new Comprehensive Osteoarthritis Test (COAT) instrument were completed weekly by 125 subjects in the context of a randomized, 12-week, 3 parallel-arm clinical trial. The reliabilities of the various scales were assessed on a weekly basis by use of Cronbach's alpha coefficients. The validity of the COAT total scale was assessed by correlation with the WOMAC total scale on a weekly basis with correlation coefficients, and in terms of the correlations between subject-level intercepts and slopes over time. The relative responsiveness of the WOMAC and COAT total scales was assessed using a multilevel (longitudinal) multivariate (WOMAC, COAT) linear model. Results. The WOMAC and COAT total scales were highly reliable (mean over weeks: WOMAC alpha = 0.98; COAT alpha = 0.97). The correlations between the WOMAC and COAT scales were very high (mean over weeks = 0.92; subject-level intercepts = 0.91, slopes = 0.88). The COAT total scale was significantly more responsive than the WOMAC total scale in the active treatment (34.8% improvement vs 26.8%; p = 0.002). Conclusion. The COAT total scale is simple to administer, reliable, valid, and responsive to treatment effects.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on physical interventions for lateral epicondylalgia

A systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of physical interventions for lateral epicondylalgia ( tennis elbow) was carried out. Seventy six randomised controlled trials were identified, 28 of which satisfied the minimum criteria for meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that extracorporeal shock wave therapy is not beneficial in the treatment of tennis elbow. There is a lack of evidence for the long term benefit of physical interventions in general. However, further research with long term follow up into manipulation and exercise as treatments is indicated.

Comparison of clinical trials with sildenafil, vardenafil and tadalafil in erectile dysfunction

Erectile dysfunction (ED) affects up to 50% of men, between 40 and 70 years of age. In the first major trial of sildenafil in ED, at 24 weeks, improved erections were reported by 77 and 84% of men taking sildenafil 50 and 100 mg, respectively. Subsequently, sildenafil has been reported to be effective in men with ED associated with diabetes and prostate cancer, and in psychogenic ED. Sildenafil is safe in men with coronary artery disease, provided it is not used with the nitrates (a contraindication). The most commonly reported adverse effects with sildenafil are headache, flushing and dyspepsia. Vardenafil is more potent and more selective than sildenafil at inhibiting phosphodiesterase-5. Vardenafil is similarly effective to sildenafil in the treatment of ED. The only advantage that vardenafil has over sildenafil is that it does not inhibit phosphodiesterase-6 to alter colour perception, a rare side effect which sometimes occurs with sildenafil. Tadalafil has a longer duration of action than sildenafil and vardenafil. Tadalafil is similarly effective as sildenafil in the treatment of ED. In comparison studies, tadalafil is preferred to sildenafil (50/100 mg) by men with ED, possibly because of its longer duration of action. of the phosphodiesterase inhibitors, tadalafil may displace sildenafil as the drug of choice among men with ED.

Multi-centre Phase II trial of the polyamine synthesis inhibitor SAM486A (CGP48664) in patients with metastatic melanoma

Purpose: To determine the activity and tolerability of SAM496A, an inhibitor of S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase (SAMDC), in patients with metastatic melanoma who had not received prior chemotherapy. Selected patients were offered participation in two sub-studies examining early changes in tumor metabolism with FDG-PET and changes in tumor polyamine content. Patients and methods: Fifteen patients with measurable metastatic melanoma, normal cardiac function, and no known CNS metastases were eligible and received SAM486A by 1-hour IV infusion daily for 5 days every 3 weeks. Response was assessed by SWOG criteria. Results: No patient had a confirmed partial response. Fatigue/lethargy, myalgia and neutropenia were the main toxicities but no febrile neutropenia or grade 4 non-hematological toxicity occurred. Five patients had PET scans pre-treatment and on days 8-12 of cycle 1. No patient had reduction of tumor metabolism. Serial biopsy in one patient showed alterations in polyamines consistent with SAMDC inhibition. Conclusions: Using the present dose and schedule of administration, SAM486A does not have significant therapeutic potential in patients with metastatic melanoma.