The BRAIN TRIAL: a randomised, placebo controlled trial of a Bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist (Anatibant) in patients with traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND Cerebral oedema is associated with significant neurological damage in patients with traumatic brain injury. Bradykinin is an inflammatory mediator that may contribute to cerebral oedema by increasing the permeability of the blood-brain barrier. We evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the non-peptide bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist Anatibant in the treatment of patients with traumatic brain injury. During the course of the trial, funding was withdrawn by the sponsor. METHODS Adults with traumatic brain injury and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 12 or less, who had a CT scan showing an intracranial abnormality consistent with trauma, and were within eight hours of their injury were randomly allocated to low, medium or high dose Anatibant or to placebo. Outcomes were Serious Adverse Events (SAE), mortality 15 days following injury and in-hospital morbidity assessed by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), the Disability Rating Scale (DRS) and a modified version of the Oxford Handicap Scale (HIREOS). RESULTS 228 patients out of a planned sample size of 400 patients were randomised. The risk of experiencing one or more SAEs was 26.4% (43/163) in the combined Anatibant treated group, compared to 19.3% (11/57) in the placebo group (relative risk = 1.37; 95% CI 0.76 to 2.46). All cause mortality in the Anatibant treated group was 19% and in the placebo group 15.8% (relative risk 1.20, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.36). The mean GCS at discharge was 12.48 in the Anatibant treated group and 13.0 in the placebo group. Mean DRS was 11.18 Anatibant versus 9.73 placebo, and mean HIREOS was 3.94 Anatibant versus 3.54 placebo. The differences between the mean levels for GCS, DRS and HIREOS in the Anatibant and placebo groups, when adjusted for baseline GCS, showed a non-significant trend for worse outcomes in all three measures. CONCLUSION This trial did not reach the planned sample size of 400 patients and consequently, the study power to detect an increase in the risk of serious adverse events was reduced. This trial provides no reliable evidence of benefit or harm and a larger trial would be needed to establish safety and effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN23625128.

Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in general practice investigating the effectiveness of acupuncture against migraine.

BACKGROUND Migraine is a chronic neurologic disease that can severely affect the patient's quality of life. Although in recent years many randomised studies have been carried out to investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture as a treatment for migraine, it remains a controversial issue. Our aim is to determine whether acupuncture, applied under real conditions of clinical practice in the area of primary healthcare, is more effective than conventional treatment. METHODS/DESIGN The design consists of a pragmatic multi-centre, three-armed randomised controlled trial, complemented with an economic evaluation of the results achieved, comparing the effectiveness of verum acupuncture with sham acupuncture, and with a control group receiving normal care only. Patients eligible for inclusion will be those presenting in general practice with migraine and for whom their General Practitioner (GP) is considering referral for acupuncture. Sampling will be by consecutive selection, and by randomised allocation to the three branches of the study, in a centralised way following a 1:1:1 distribution (verum acupuncture; sham acupuncture; conventional treatment). Secondly, one patient in three will be randomly selected from each of the acupuncture (verum or sham) groups for a brain perfusion study (by single photon emission tomography). The treatment with verum acupuncture will consist of 8 treatment sessions, once a week, at points selected individually by the acupuncturist. The sham acupuncture group will receive 8 sessions, one per week, with treatment being applied at non-acupuncture points in the dorsal and lumbar regions, using the minimal puncture technique. The control group will be given conventional treatment, as will the other two groups. DISCUSSION This trial will contribute to available evidence on acupuncture for the treatment of migraine. The primary endpoint is the difference in the number of days with migraine among the three groups, between the baseline period (the 4 weeks prior to the start of treatment) and the period from weeks 9 to 12. As a secondary aspect, we shall record the index of laterality and the percentage of change in the mean count per pixel in each region of interest measured by the brain perfusion tomography, performed on a subsample of the patients within the real and sham acupuncture groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98703707.

Rationale and design of a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled multicenter trial to study efficacy, security, and long term effects of intermittent repeated levosimendan administration in patients with advanced heart failure: LAICA study.

BACKGROUND Advanced heart failure (HF) is associated with high morbidity and mortality; it represents a major burden for the health system. Episodes of acute decompensation requiring frequent and prolonged hospitalizations account for most HF-related expenditure. Inotropic drugs are frequently used during hospitalization, but rarely in out-patients. The LAICA clinical trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of monthly levosimendan infusion in patients with advanced HF to reduce the incidence of hospital admissions for acute HF decompensation. METHODS The LAICA study is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial. It aims to recruit 213 out-patients, randomized to receive either a 24-h infusion of levosimendan at 0.1 μg/kg/min dose, without a loading dose, every 30 days, or placebo. RESULTS The main objective is to assess the incidence of admission for acute HF worsening during 12 months. Secondarily, the trial will assess the effect of intermittent levosimendan on other variables, including the time in days from randomization to first admission for acute HF worsening, mortality and serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS The LAICA trial results could allow confirmation of the usefulness of intermittent levosimendan infusion in reducing the rate of hospitalization for HF worsening in advanced HF outpatients.