Periextubation caffeine in preterm neonates: A randomized dose response trial

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of three dosing regimens of caffeine for preterm infants in the periextubation period. Methods: A randomized double-blind clinical trial of three dosing regimens of caffeine citrate ( 3, 15 and 30 mg/kg) for periextubation management of ventilated preterm infants was undertaken. Infants born < 32 weeks gestation who were ventilated for > 48 h were eligible for the study. Caffeine citrate was given as a once daily dose for a period of 6 days commencing 24 h prior to a planned extubation, or within 6 h of an unplanned extubation. The primary outcome measure was extubation failure, defined as neonates who were unable to be extubated within 48 h of caffeine loading or who required reventilation or doxapram dose within 7 days of caffeine loading. Continuous recordings of oxygen saturation and heart rate were undertaken in a subgroup of enrolled infants. Results: A total of 127 babies were enrolled into the study ( 42, 40, 45, in the 3, 15, and 30 mg/kg groups, respectively). No statistically significant difference was demonstrated in the incidence of extubation failure between dosing groups ( 19, 10, and 11 infants in the 3, 15, and 30 mg/kg groups, respectively), however, infants in the two higher dose groups had statistically significantly less documented apnoea than the lowest dose group. Of the 37 neonates with continuous pulse oximetry recordings, those on higher doses of caffeine recorded a statistically significantly higher mean heart rate, oxygen saturations and less time with oxygen saturations < 85%. Conclusions: This trial indicated there were short-term benefits of decreased apnoea in the immediate periextubation period for ventilated infants born < 32 weeks gestation receiving higher doses of caffeine. Further studies with larger numbers of infants assessing longer-term outcomes are necessary to determine the optimal dosing regimen of caffeine in preterm infants.

Reaching out to promote physical activity in Australia: A statewide randomized controlled trial of a stage-targeted intervention

Purpose. This study examined the broader use of a print-media intervention, which was previously shown to be effective at promoting physical activity to participants recruited from a regional Australian community, as a strategy suitable for a more diverse statewide Population sample. Methods. Participants were randomly selected adults who responded to a telephone interview conducted by the New South Wales Health Department and consented to Participate in a randomized controlled trial. Consenters were allocated to either intervention (n = 361) or control (n = 358) conditions. The intervention, a personalized letter plus stage-targeted booklets, was sent 1 week postbaseline. Data were collected via telephone inter view at baseline and 2 and 8 months and were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi(2) statistics. Results. The groups were similar at baseline (mean age 43 +/- 3 years; 64% women). Process evaluation showed high intervention recall (76% at 2 months) and high follow-up response rules (>85% at 8 months) were achieved. Nonsignificant increases in physical activity were observed (F-1,F-719 = 2.18, p =.14). Discussion. A single mailing of stage-targeted print materials was not effective in promoting increases in physical activity among participants selected from the statewide population. Future research could. examine how the effectiveness of print media might be enhanced, possibly by using supplementary media, community-based Prompts, or other incentives.

Lithium for schizophrenia revisited: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: Clinicians frequently use lithium to augment antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of lithium in the treatment of schizophrenia. Data sources and study selection: Randomized controlled trials examining lithium (as a sole or an adjunctive compound) in participants with schizophrenia or related disorders were searched in the register of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group. No language restrictions were applied. The Boolean phrase [lithium* or lithicarb or eskalith or lithobid or lithane or cibalith-s or quilonum or hypnorex] was used to locate articles. The search strategy initially identified 90 references. The authors of the included studies were contacted to obtain original patient data. The data were combined in a meta-analysis. The main outcome parameters were the number of patients with a clinically significant response and the number of patients leaving the studies early. Results: The meta-analysis includes 20 studies (N = 611). The evidence shows that lithium as a sole agent is ineffective in the treatment of schizophrenia. Eleven trials examined the augmentation of antipsychotics with lithium. More patients who received lithium augmentation than those who received antipsychotics alone were classified as responders. However, the superiority was not consistent across different response thresholds, and when patients with prominent affective symptoms were excluded from the analysis, the advantage of lithium augmentation was not significant (p = .07). Significantly more patients taking lithium left the trials early, suggesting a lower acceptability of lithium augmentation compared with that of taking antipsychotics alone. Conclusion: Despite some evidence in favor of lithium augmentation, the overall results are inconclusive. A large trial of lithium augmentation of antipsychotic medications will be required in order to detect a benefit of small effect size in patients with schizophrenia who lack affective symptoms.

The effectiveness of hylan G-F 20 in patients with knee osteoarthritis: an application of two sets of response criteria developed by the OARSI and one set developed by OMERACT-OARSI

Objective: Secondary analyses of a previously conducted 1-year randomized controlled trial were performed to assess the application of responder criteria in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) using different sets of responder criteria developed by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) (Propositions A and B) for intra-articular drugs and Outcome Measures in Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT)-OARSI (Proposition D). Methods: Two hundred fifty-five patients with knee OA were randomized to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20 (AC + H) or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20 (AC). A patient was defined as a responder at month 12 based on change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and function (0-100 normalized scale) and patient global assessment of OA in the study knee (at least one-category improvement in very poor, poor, fair, good and very good). All propositions incorporate both minimum relative and absolute changes. Results: Results demonstrated that statistically significant differences in responders between treatment groups, in favor of hylan G-F 20, were detected for Proposition A (AC + H = 53.5%, AC = 25.2%), Proposition B (AC + H = 56.7%, AC = 32.3%) and Proposition D (AC + H = 66.9%, AC = 42.5%). The highest effectiveness in both treatment groups was observed with Proposition D, whereas Proposition A resulted in the lowest effectiveness in both treatment groups. The treatment group differences always exceeded the required 20% minimum clinically important difference between groups established a priori, and were 28.3%, 24.4% and 24.4% for Propositions A, B and D, respectively. Conclusion: This analysis provides evidence for the capacity of OARSI and OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria to detect clinically important statistically detectable differences between treatment groups. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Randomized trial of 8 Gy in 1 versus 20 Gy in 5 fractions of radiotherapy for neuropathic pain due to bone metastases (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, TROG 96.05)

Background and purpose: Despite numerous randomized trials investigating radiotherapy (RT) fractionation schedules for painful bone metastases, there are very few data on RT for bone metastases causing pain with a neuropathic component. The Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group undertook a randomized trial comparing the efficacy of a single 8 Gy (8/1) with 20 Gy in 5 fractions (20/5) for this type of pain. Materials and methods: Eligible patients had radiological evidence of bone metastases from a known malignancy with no change in systemic therapy within 6 weeks before or anticipated within 4 weeks after RT, no other metastases along the distribution of the neuropathic pain and no clinical or radiological evidence of cord/cauda equina compression. All patients gave written informed consent. Primary endpoints were pain response within 2 months of commencement of RT and time to treatment failure (TTF). The hypothesis was that 8/1 is at least as effective as 20/5 and the planned sample size was 270 patients. Results: Between February 1996 and December 2002, 272 patients were randomized (8/1:20/5 = 137:135) from 15 centres (Australia 11, New Zealand 3, UK 1). The commonest primary cancers were lung (31%), prostate (29%) and breast (8%); index sites were spine (89%), rib (9%), other (2%); 72% of patients were males and the median age was 67 (range 2989). The median overall survival (95% CI) for all randomized patients was 4.8 mo (4.2-5.7 mo). The intention-to-treat overall response rates (95% Cl) for 8/1 vs 20/5 were 53% (45-62%) vs 61% (53-70%), P = 0.18. Corresponding figures for complete response were 26% (18-34%) vs 27% (19-35%), P = 0.89. The estimated median TTFs (95% CI) were 2.4 mo (2.0-3.3 mo) vs 3.7 mo (3.1-5.9 mo) respectively. The hazard ratio (95% Cl) for the comparison of TTF curves was 1.35 (0.99-1.85), log-rank P = 0.056. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of re-treatment, cord compression or pathological fracture by arm. Conclusions: 8/1 was not shown to be as effective as 20/5, nor was it statistically significantly worse. Outcomes were generally poorer for 8/1, although the quantitative differences were relatively small. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

WOMAC 20, 50, 70 response levels in patients treated with Rofecoxib for osteoarthritis

Aim of study: The goal of this post-hoc analysis was to examine the difference between treatment groups when varying the target response level from at least a 20% improvement from baseline, to at least 50% and 70% improvements in Phase III studies of rofecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis. Methods: The analysis focused on results from two 6-week, placebo-controlled, ibuprofen-comparator, Phase III osteoarthritis studies. These studies employed a flare design requiring a minimum level of symptoms at entry following discontinuation of prior analgesics. Two definitions of ‘‘patient improved’’ from baseline were used: (1) WOMAC-P: a reduction in the WOMAC pain score and (2) WOMAC-PFS: a reduction in the WOMAC pain score and either a reduction in the WOMAC stiffness or function score. The improvement target was increased from 20% to 50% to 70%, relative to baseline, to investigate how the increase affects the ability to detect the differences between treatment groups. Analyses were conducted on the average and last of all measurements collected during a 6-week treatment period. Results: In the ibuprofen-comparator studies, 1545 patients were randomized to placebo, rofecoxib 12.5 mg once daily, rofecoxib 25 mg once daily, and ibuprofen 800 mg three times daily in a 1:3:3:3 ratio. The percentages of patients who met the improvement targets decrease as the target increases from 20% to 50% to 70%. There were meaningful differences between the active treatment and placebo that were inversely related to the improvement target. For example, there was a 31 (P ! 0.001), 21 (P ! 0.001), and 12 (P ! 0.001) percentage-point difference between rofecoxib 25 mg and placebo for the 20%, 50%, and 70% targets for WOMAC-P. For WOMAC-PFS, the differences between rofecoxib 25 mg and placebo were 33 (P ! 0.001), 18 (P ! 0.001), and 9 (P ! 0.01) percentage points for the 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement targets. Conclusions: Meaningful differences between active treatments and placebo were detected at all three response levels associated with the WOMAC-P and WOMAC-PFS endpoints. The differences between groups were more dramatic at the 20% and 50% response levels. The WOMAC (20,50,70)-P and WOMAC (20,50,70)-PFS endpoints further confirm, at an individual patient level, the clinical benefit of rofecoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis that was previously reported as a difference in means.