Application of spatial analysis techniques to adjust for fertility trends and identify interplot competition in early stage sugarcane selection trials

Most sugarcane breeding programs in Australia use large unreplicated trials to evaluate clones in the early stages of selection. Commercial varieties that are replicated provide a method of local control of soil fertility. Although such methods may be useful in detecting broad trends in the field, variation often occurs on a much smaller scale. Methods such as spatial analysis adjust a plot for variability by using information from immediate neighbours. These techniques are routinely used to analyse cereal data in Australia and have resulted in increased accuracy and precision in the estimates of variety effects. In this paper, spatial analyses in which the variability is decomposed into local, natural, and extraneous components are applied to early selection trials in sugarcane. Interplot competition in cane yield and trend in sugar content were substantial in many of the trials and there were often large differences in the selections between the spatial and current method used by the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations. A joint modelling approach for tonnes sugar per hectare in response to fertility trends and interplot competition is recommended.

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.

Valerian does not appear to reduce symptoms for patients with chronic insomnia in general practice using a series of randomised n-of-I trials

Objectives: To investigate the effectiveness of valerian for the management of chronic insomnia in general practice. Design: Valerian versus placebo in a series of n-of-1 trials, in Queensland, Australia. Results: Of 42 enrolled patients, 24 (57%) had sufficient data for inclusion into the n-of-1 analysis. Response to valerian was fair for 23 (96%) participants evaluating their 'energy level in the previous day' but poor or modest for all 24 (100%) participants' response to 'total sleep time' and for 23 (96%) participants' response to 'number of night awakenings' and 'morning refreshment'. As a group, the proportion of treatment successes ranged from 0.35 (95% CI 0.23, 0.47) to 0.55 (95% CI 0.43, 0.67) for the six elicited outcome sleep variables. There was no significant difference in the number (P = 0.06), distribution (P = 1.00) or severity (P = 0.46) of side effects between valerian and placebo treatments. Conclusions: Valerian was not shown to be appreciably better than placebo in promoting sleep or sleep-related factors for any individual patient or for all patients as a group. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission - A systematic review of randomized trials

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to determine whether multidisciplinary strategies improve outcomes for heart failure (HF) patients. BACKGROUND Because the prognosis of HF remains poor despite pharmacotherapy, there is increasing interest in alternative models of care delivery for these patients. METHODS Randomized trials of multidisciplinary management programs in HF were identified by searching electronic databases and bibliographies and via contact with experts. RESULTS Twenty-nine trials (5,039 patients) were identified but were not pooled, because of considerable heterogeneity. A priori, we divided the interventions into homogeneous groups that were suitable for pooling. Strategies that incorporated follow-up by a specialized multidisciplinary team (either in a clinic or a non-clinic setting) reduced mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59 to 0.96), HF hospitalizations (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87), and all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92). Programs that focused on enhancing patient self-care activities reduced HF hospitalizations (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.83) and all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.93) but had no effect on mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.94). Strategies that employed telephone contact and advised patients to attend their primary care physician in the event of deterioration reduced HF hospitalizations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99) but not mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29) or all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20). In 15 of 18 trials that evaluated cost, multidisciplinary strategies were cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of patients with HF reduce HF hospitalizations. Those programs that involve specialized follow-up by a multidisciplinary team also reduce mortality and all-cause hospitalizations. (C) 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

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.