Classification and pharmacological treatment of preschool wheezing: changes since 2008.

Since the publication of the European Respiratory Society Task Force report in 2008, significant new evidence has become available on the classification and management of preschool wheezing disorders. In this report, an international consensus group reviews this new evidence and proposes some modifications to the recommendations made in 2008. Specifically, the consensus group acknowledges that wheeze patterns in young children vary over time and with treatment, rendering the distinction between episodic viral wheeze and multiple-trigger wheeze unclear in many patients. Inhaled corticosteroids remain first-line treatment for multiple-trigger wheeze, but may also be considered in patients with episodic viral wheeze with frequent or severe episodes, or when the clinician suspects that interval symptoms are being under reported. Any controller therapy should be viewed as a treatment trial, with scheduled close follow-up to monitor treatment effect. The group recommends discontinuing treatment if there is no benefit and taking favourable natural history into account when making decisions about long-term therapy. Oral corticosteroids are not indicated in mild-to-moderate acute wheeze episodes and should be reserved for severe exacerbations in hospitalised patients. Future research should focus on better clinical and genetic markers, as well as biomarkers, of disease severity.

Long-Term Effects of the Treatment of Depressive Female Inpatients in a Naturalistic Study: Is Early Improvement a Valid Predictor of Outcome?

Objectives: To examine the predictive value of early improvement for short- and long-term outcome in the treatment of depressive female inpatients and to explore the influence of comorbid disorders (CD). Methods: Archival data of a naturalistic sample of 277 female inpatients diagnosed with a depressive disorder was analyzed assessing the BDI at baseline, after 20 days and 30 days, posttreatment, and after 3 to 6 months at follow-up. Early improvement, defined as a decrease in the BDI score of at least 30% after 20 and after 30 days, and CD were analyzed using binary logistic regression. Results: Both early improvement definitions were predictive of remission at posttreatment. Early improvement after 30 days showed a sustained treatment effect in the follow-up phase, whereas early improvement after 20 days failed to show a persistent effect regarding remission at follow-up. CD were not significantly related neither at posttreatment nor at follow-up. At no time point CD moderated the prediction by early improvement. Conclusions: We show that early improvement is a valid predictor for short-term remission and at follow-up in an inpatient setting. CD did not predict outcome. Further studies are needed to identify patient subgroups amenable to more tailored treatments.

What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE To determine if adequacy of randomisation and allocation concealment is associated with changes in effect sizes (ES) when comparing physical therapy (PT) trials with and without these methodological characteristics. DESIGN Meta-epidemiological study. PARTICIPANTS A random sample of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in meta-analyses in the PT discipline were identified. INTERVENTION Data extraction including assessments of random sequence generation and allocation concealment was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between sequence generation, and allocation concealment and ES, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES association between random sequence generation and allocation concealment and ES in PT trials. RESULTS 393 trials included in 43 meta-analyses, analysing 44 622 patients contributed to this study. Adequate random sequence generation and appropriate allocation concealment were accomplished in only 39.7% and 11.5% of PT trials, respectively. Although trials with inappropriate allocation concealment tended to have an overestimate treatment effect when compared with trials with adequate concealment of allocation, the difference was non-statistically significant (ES=0.12; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.30). When pooling our results with those of Nuesch et al, we obtained a pooled statistically significant value (ES=0.14; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.26). There was no difference in ES in trials with appropriate or inappropriate random sequence generation (ES=0.02; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.15). CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that when evaluating risk of bias of primary RCTs in PT area, systematic reviewers and clinicians implementing research into practice should pay attention to these biases since they could exaggerate treatment effects. Systematic reviewers should perform sensitivity analysis including trials with low risk of bias in these domains as primary analysis and/or in combination with less restrictive analyses. Authors and editors should make sure that allocation concealment and random sequence generation are properly reported in trial reports.

Intra-articular corticosteroid for knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic pain, disability, and decreased quality of life. Despite the long-standing use of intra-articular corticosteroids, there is an ongoing debate about their benefits and safety. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and harms of intra-articular corticosteroids compared with sham or no intervention in people with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, physical function, quality of life, and safety. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (from inception to 3 February 2015), checked trial registers, conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham injection or no treatment in people with knee osteoarthritis. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain, function, quality of life, joint space narrowing, and risk ratios (RRs) for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 27 trials (13 new studies) with 1767 participants in this update. We graded the quality of the evidence as 'low' for all outcomes because treatment effect estimates were inconsistent with great variation across trials, pooled estimates were imprecise and did not rule out relevant or irrelevant clinical effects, and because most trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Intra-articular corticosteroids appeared to be more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.22), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 1.0 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale between corticosteroids and sham injection and translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 (95% CI 6 to 13). An I(2) statistic of 68% indicated considerable between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested some asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -1.21, 95%CI -3.58 to 1.17). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.21), small at 13 weeks (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00), and no evidence of an effect at 26 weeks (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.11). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 63% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.001), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.43). There was evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.05) or at least 100 participants per group (P=0.013), in trials that used concomittant viscosupplementation (P=0.08), and in trials that used concomitant joint lavage (P≤0.001).Corticosteroids appeared to be more effective in function improvement than control interventions (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.09), which corresponds to a difference in functions scores of -0.7 units on standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10 and translates into a NNTB of 10 (95% CI 7 to 33). An I(2) statistic of 69% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -4.07, 95% CI -8.08 to -0.05). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were small to moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.14), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.09), and no evidence of an effect at 13 weeks (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.10) or at 26 weeks (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.28). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 62% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.004), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.52). We found evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.023), in unpublished trials (P=0.023), in trials that used non-intervention controls (P=0.031), and in trials that used concomitant viscosupplementation (P=0.06).Participants on corticosteroids were 11% less likely to experience adverse events, but confidence intervals included the null effect (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.23, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 67% less likely to withdraw because of adverse events, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.07, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 27% less likely to experience any serious adverse event, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.67, I(2)=0%).We found no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on quality of life compared to control (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.28, I(2)=0%). There was also no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on joint space narrowing compared to control interventions (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.46). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Whether there are clinically important benefits of intra-articular corticosteroids after one to six weeks remains unclear in view of the overall quality of the evidence, considerable heterogeneity between trials, and evidence of small-study effects. A single trial included in this review described adequate measures to minimise biases and did not find any benefit of intra-articular corticosteroids.In this update of the systematic review and meta-analysis, we found most of the identified trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham or non-intervention control small and hampered by low methodological quality. An analysis of multiple time points suggested that effects decrease over time, and our analysis provided no evidence that an effect remains six months after a corticosteroid injection.

Do clinicians understand the size of treatment effects? A randomized survey across 8 countries.

BACKGROUND Meta-analyses of continuous outcomes typically provide enough information for decision-makers to evaluate the extent to which chance can explain apparent differences between interventions. The interpretation of the magnitude of these differences - from trivial to large - can, however, be challenging. We investigated clinicians' understanding and perceptions of usefulness of 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes from meta-analyses (standardized mean difference, minimal important difference units, mean difference in natural units, ratio of means, relative risk and risk difference). METHODS We invited 610 staff and trainees in internal medicine and family medicine programs in 8 countries to participate. Paper-based, self-administered questionnaires presented summary estimates of hypothetical interventions versus placebo for chronic pain. The estimates showed either a small or a large effect for each of the 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes. Questions addressed participants' understanding of the magnitude of treatment effects and their perception of the usefulness of the presentation format. We randomly assigned participants 1 of 4 versions of the questionnaire, each with a different effect size (large or small) and presentation order for the 6 formats (1 to 6, or 6 to 1). RESULTS Overall, 531 (87.0%) of the clinicians responded. Respondents best understood risk difference, followed by relative risk and ratio of means. Similarly, they perceived the dichotomous presentation of continuous outcomes (relative risk and risk difference) to be most useful. Presenting results as a standardized mean difference, the longest standing and most widely used approach, was poorly understood and perceived as least useful. INTERPRETATION None of the presentation formats were well understood or perceived as extremely useful. Clinicians best understood the dichotomous presentations of continuous outcomes and perceived them to be the most useful. Further initiatives to help clinicians better grasp the magnitude of the treatment effect are needed.

Results of the randomized, placebo-controlled clopidogrel and acetylsalicylic acid in bypass surgery for peripheral arterial disease (CASPAR) trial

OBJECTIVE: Dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel plus acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is superior to ASA alone in patients with acute coronary syndromes and in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We sought to determine whether clopidogrel plus ASA conferred benefit on limb outcomes over ASA alone in patients undergoing below-knee bypass grafting. METHODS: Patients undergoing unilateral, below-knee bypass graft for atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) were enrolled 2 to 4 days after surgery and were randomly assigned to clopidogrel 75 mg/day plus ASA 75 to 100 mg/day or placebo plus ASA 75 to 100 mg/day for 6 to 24 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of index-graft occlusion or revascularization, above-ankle amputation of the affected limb, or death. The primary safety endpoint was severe bleeding (Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue plasminogen activator for Occluded coronary arteries [GUSTO] classification). RESULTS: In the overall population, the primary endpoint occurred in 149 of 425 patients in the clopidogrel group vs 151 of 426 patients in the placebo (plus ASA) group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.23). In a prespecified subgroup analysis, the primary endpoint was significantly reduced by clopidogrel in prosthetic graft patients (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.95; P = .025) but not in venous graft patients (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.94-1.67, not significant [NS]). A significant statistical interaction between treatment effect and graft type was observed (P(interaction) = .008). Although total bleeds were more frequent with clopidogrel, there was no significant difference between the rates of severe bleeding in the clopidogrel and placebo (plus ASA) groups (2.1% vs 1.2%). CONCLUSION: The combination of clopidogrel plus ASA did not improve limb or systemic outcomes in the overall population of PAD patients requiring below-knee bypass grafting. Subgroup analysis suggests that clopidogrel plus ASA confers benefit in patients receiving prosthetic grafts without significantly increasing major bleeding risk.

Does land-based exercise reduce pain and disability associated with hip osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective To determine if clinical guidelines recommending therapeutic exercise for people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) are supported by rigorous scientific evidence. Methods A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with hip OA and comparing some form of land-based exercise program (as opposed to exercises conducted in the water) with a non-exercise group in terms of hip pain and/or self-reported physical function. Results Thirty-two RCTs were identified, but only five met the inclusion criteria. Only one of the five included RCTs restricted recruitment to people with hip OA, the other four RCTs also recruiting participants with knee OA. The five included studies provided data on 204 and 187 hip OA participants for pain and physical function, respectively. Combining the results of the five included RCTs using a fixed-effects model demonstrated a small treatment effect for pain (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.67 to −0.09). No significant benefit in terms of improved self-reported physical function was detected (SMD −0.02; 95% CI −0.31 to 0.28). Conclusion Currently there is only silver level evidence (one small RCT) supporting the benefit of land-based therapeutic exercise for people with symptomatic hip OA in terms of reduced pain and improved physical function. The limited number and small sample size of the included RCTs restricts the confidence that can be attributed to these results.

An overview of the objectives of and the approaches to propensity score analyses

The assessment of treatment effects from observational studies may be biased with patients not randomly allocated to the experimental or control group. One way to overcome this conceptual shortcoming in the design of such studies is the use of propensity scores to adjust for differences of the characteristics between patients treated with experimental and control interventions. The propensity score is defined as the probability that a patient received the experimental intervention conditional on pre-treatment characteristics at baseline. Here, we review how propensity scores are estimated and how they can help in adjusting the treatment effect for baseline imbalances. We further discuss how to evaluate adequate overlap of baseline characteristics between patient groups, provide guidelines for variable selection and model building in modelling the propensity score, and review different methods of propensity score adjustments. We conclude that propensity analyses may help in evaluating the comparability of patients in observational studies, and may account for more potential confounding factors than conventional covariate adjustment approaches. However, bias due to unmeasured confounding cannot be corrected for.

Pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (CAPACITY): two randomised trials

Background Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is a progressive and fatal lung disease with inevitable loss of lung function. The CAPACITY programme (studies 004 and 006) was designed to confirm the results of a phase 2 study that suggested that pirfenidone, a novel antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory drug, reduces deterioration in lung function in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Methods In two concurrent trials (004 and 006), patients (aged 40–80 years) with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis were randomly assigned to oral pirfenidone or placebo for a minimum of 72 weeks in 110 centres in Australia, Europe, and North America. In study 004, patients were assigned in a 2:1:2 ratio to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, pirfenidone 1197 mg/day, or placebo; in study 006, patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day or placebo. The randomisation code (permuted block design) was computer generated and stratified by region. All study personnel were masked to treatment group assignment until after final database lock. Treatments were administered orally, 801 mg or 399 mg three times a day. The primary endpoint was change in percentage predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) at week 72. Analysis was by intention to treat. The studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00287729 and NCT00287716. Findings In study 004, 174 of 435 patients were assigned to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, 87 to pirfenidone 1197 mg/day, and 174 to placebo. In study 006, 171 of 344 patients were assigned to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, and 173 to placebo. All patients in both studies were analysed. In study 004, pirfenidone reduced decline in FVC (p=0·001). Mean FVC change at week 72 was −8·0% (SD 16·5) in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day group and −12·4% (18·5) in the placebo group (difference 4·4%, 95% CI 0·7 to 9·1); 35 (20%) of 174 versus 60 (35%) of 174 patients, respectively, had a decline of at least 10%. A significant treatment effect was noted at all timepoints from week 24 and in an analysis over all study timepoints (p=0·0007). Mean change in percentage FVC in the pirfenidone 1197 mg/day group was intermediate to that in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day and placebo groups. In study 006, the difference between groups in FVC change at week 72 was not significant (p=0·501). Mean change in FVC at week 72 was −9·0% (SD 19·6) in the pirfenidone group and −9·6% (19·1) in the placebo group, and the difference between groups in predicted FVC change at week 72 was not significant (0·6%, −3·5 to 4·7); however, a consistent pirfenidone effect was apparent until week 48 (p=0·005) and in an analysis of all study timepoints (p=0·007). Patients in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day group had higher incidences of nausea (125 [36%] of 345 vs 60 [17%] of 347), dyspepsia (66 [19%] vs 26 [7%]), vomiting (47 [14%] vs 15 [4%]), anorexia (37 [11%] vs 13 [4%]), photosensitivity (42 [12%] vs 6 [2%]), rash (111 [32%] vs 40 [12%]), and dizziness (63 [18%] vs 35 [10%]) than did those in the placebo group. Fewer overall deaths (19 [6%] vs 29 [8%]) and fewer deaths related to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (12 [3%] vs 25 [7%]) occurred in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day groups than in the placebo groups. Interpretation The data show pirfenidone has a favourable benefit risk profile and represents an appropriate treatment option for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Antinociceptive activity of pre- versus post-operative intra-articular bupivacaine in goats undergoing stifle arthrotomy

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the peri-operative analgesic efficacy of intra-articular bupivacaine administered before or after stifle arthrotomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blind, placebo-controlled experimental trial. ANIMALS: Thirty-nine healthy goats. METHODS: The goats were allocated randomly to one of three intra-articular treatment groups: group PRE (bupivacaine before and saline after surgery), group POST (saline before and bupivacaine after surgery) and group CON (saline before and after surgery). Anaesthesia was maintained with a constant end-tidal sevoflurane of 2.5%. Intra-operatively heart rate (HR), respiratory rate and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) after critical surgical events (CSE) were recorded and compared with pre-incision values. Propofol requirements to maintain surgical anaesthesia were recorded. Flunixin was administered for 5 days. Post-operative pain assessment at 20 minutes, 2 hours, 4 hours after recovery and on day 2 and 3 included a multidimensional pain score (MPS), a lameness score and mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT) testing. Rescue analgesia consisted of systemic opioids. Data were analysed using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, Friedman or chi-square tests as appropriate. RESULTS: Intra-operatively, group PRE had lower HR and MAP at several CSEs than groups POST/CON and required less propofol [0 mg kg(-1) (0-0 mg kg(-1))] than group POST/CON [0.3 mg kg(-1) (0-0.6 mg kg(-1))]. Post-operatively, group POST had significantly higher peri-articular MNTs than groups PRE and CON up to 4 hours after recovery. No treatment effect was detected for MPS, lameness scores and rescue analgesic consumption at any time point. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Pre-operative intra-articular bupivacaine provided notable intra-operative analgesia in goats undergoing stifle arthrotomy but did not reduce post-operative pain. Post-operative intra-articular bupivacaine provided a short lasting reduction of peri-articular hyperalgesia without affecting the requirements for systemic analgesia. Multimodal perioperative pain therapy is recommended to provide adequate analgesia for stifle arthrotomy in goats.

Design, conduct, and analysis of a multicenter, pharmacogenomic, biomarker study in matched patients with severe sepsis treated with or without drotrecogin Alfa (activated)

A genomic biomarker identifying patients likely to benefit from drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DAA) may be clinically useful as a companion diagnostic. This trial was designed to validate biomarkers (improved response polymorphisms (IRPs)). Each IRP (A and B) contains two single nucleotide polymorphisms that were associated with a differential DAA treatment effect.

Orexin receptor antagonism, a new sleep-enabling paradigm: a proof-of-concept clinical trial

The orexin system is a key regulator of sleep and wakefulness. In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study, 161 primary insomnia patients received either the dual orexin receptor antagonist almorexant, at 400, 200, 100, or 50 mg in consecutive stages, or placebo on treatment nights at 1-week intervals. The primary end point was sleep efficiency (SE) measured by polysomnography; secondary end points were objective latency to persistent sleep (LPS), wake after sleep onset (WASO), safety, and tolerability. Dose-dependent almorexant effects were observed on SE , LPS , and WASO . SE improved significantly after almorexant 400 mg vs. placebo (mean treatment effect 14.4%; P < 0.001). LPS (–18 min (P = 0.02)) and WASO (–54 min (P < 0.001)) decreased significantly at 400 mg vs. placebo. Adverse-event incidence was dose-related. Almorexant consistently and dose-dependently improved sleep variables. The orexin system may offer a new treatment approach for primary insomnia.

Prostate specific antigen expression does not necessarily correlate with prostate cancer cell growth

PURPOSE: The antiproliferative effects of pharmacological agents used for androgen ablative therapy in prostate cancer, including goserelin, bicalutamide and cyproterone acetate (Fluka Chemie, Buchs, Switzerland), were tested in vitro. It was determined whether they affected prostate specific antigen mRNA and protein expression independent of growth inhibition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Goserelin, bicalutamide (AstraZeneca, Zug, Switzerland) and cyproterone acetate were added to prostate specific antigen expressing, androgen dependent LNCaP and androgen independent C4-2 cell line (Urocor, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) cultures. Proliferation was determined by the 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazoliumbromide assay (Roche, Mannheim, Germany). Prostate specific antigen mRNA expression was assessed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Secreted prostate specific antigen protein levels were quantified by microparticle enzyme-immunoassay. RESULTS: Goserelin inhibited cell growth and prostate specific antigen protein secretion in LNCaP and C4-2 cells. Prostate specific antigen mRNA expression was not decreased. Bicalutamide did not affect cell growth or prostate specific antigen mRNA expression in LNCaP or C4-2 cells, although it significantly decreased prostate specific antigen protein secretion in LNCaP and to a lesser extent in C4-2 cells. Cyproterone acetate decreased the growth of C4-2 but not of LNCaP cells. It did not affect prostate specific antigen mRNA or protein expression in either cell line. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate specific antigen expression does not necessarily correlate with cell growth. Without a substantial effect on cell growth bicalutamide lowers prostate specific antigen synthesis, whereas cyproterone acetate decreases cell growth with no effect on prostate specific antigen secretion. Prostate specific antigen expression may be influenced by growth inhibition but also by altered mRNA and protein levels depending on the agent, its concentration and the cell line evaluated. For interpreting clinical trials prostate specific antigen is not necessarily a surrogate end point marker for a treatment effect on prostate cancer cell growth.

A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints

Publication bias and related bias in meta-analysis is often examined by visually checking for asymmetry in funnel plots of treatment effect against its standard error. Formal statistical tests of funnel plot asymmetry have been proposed, but when applied to binary outcome data these can give false-positive rates that are higher than the nominal level in some situations (large treatment effects, or few events per trial, or all trials of similar sizes). We develop a modified linear regression test for funnel plot asymmetry based on the efficient score and its variance, Fisher's information. The performance of this test is compared to the other proposed tests in simulation analyses based on the characteristics of published controlled trials. When there is little or no between-trial heterogeneity, this modified test has a false-positive rate close to the nominal level while maintaining similar power to the original linear regression test ('Egger' test). When the degree of between-trial heterogeneity is large, none of the tests that have been proposed has uniformly good properties.

Comparison of analgesic efficacy of preoperative or postoperative carprofen with or without preincisional mepivacaine epidural anesthesia in canine pelvic or femoral fracture repair

OBJECTIVE: To compare analgesic efficacy of preoperative versus postoperative administration of carprofen and to determine, if preincisional mepivacaine epidural anesthesia improves postoperative analgesia in dogs treated with carprofen. STUDY DESIGN: Blind, randomized clinical study. ANIMALS: Dogs with femoral (n=18) or pelvic (27) fractures. METHODS: Dogs were grouped by restricted randomization into 4 groups: group 1 = carprofen (4 mg/kg subcutaneously) immediately before induction of anesthesia, no epidural anesthesia; group 2 = carprofen immediately after extubation, no epidural anesthesia; group 3 = carprofen immediately before induction, mepivacaine epidural block 15 minutes before surgical incision; and group 4 = mepivacaine epidural block 15 minutes before surgical incision, carprofen after extubation. All dogs were administered carprofen (4 mg/kg, subcutaneously, once daily) for 4 days after surgery. Physiologic variables, nociceptive threshold, lameness score, pain, and sedation (numerical rating scale [NRS], visual analog scale [VAS]), plasma glucose and cortisol concentration, renal function, and hemostatic variables were measured preoperatively and at various times after surgery. Dogs with VAS pain scores >30 were administered rescue analgesia. RESULTS: Group 3 and 4 dogs had significantly lower pain scores and amount of rescue analgesia compared with groups 1 and 2. VAS and NRS pain scores were not significantly different among groups 1 and 2 or among groups 3 and 4. There was no treatment effect on renal function and hemostatic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative carprofen combined with mepivacaine epidural anesthesia had superior postoperative analgesia compared with preoperative carprofen alone. When preoperative epidural anesthesia was performed, preoperative administration of carprofen did not improve postoperative analgesia compared with postoperative administration of carprofen. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Preoperative administration of systemic opioid agonists in combination with regional anesthesia and postoperative administration of carprofen provides safe and effective pain relieve in canine fracture repair.