Efficacy and effectiveness of an rVSV-vectored vaccine expressing Ebola surface glycoprotein: interim results from the Guinea ring vaccination cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND A recombinant, replication-competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus (rVSV-ZEBOV) is a promising Ebola vaccine candidate. We report the results of an interim analysis of a trial of rVSV-ZEBOV in Guinea, west Africa. METHODS For this open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial, suspected cases of Ebola virus disease in Basse-Guinée (Guinea, west Africa) were independently ascertained by Ebola response teams as part of a national surveillance system. After laboratory confirmation of a new case, clusters of all contacts and contacts of contacts were defined and randomly allocated 1:1 to immediate vaccination or delayed (21 days later) vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV (one dose of 2 × 10(7) plaque-forming units, administered intramuscularly in the deltoid muscle). Adults (age ≥18 years) who were not pregnant or breastfeeding were eligible for vaccination. Block randomisation was used, with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 vs >20 individuals). The study is open label and masking of participants and field teams to the time of vaccination is not possible, but Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of allocation to immediate or delayed vaccination. Taking into account the incubation period of the virus of about 10 days, the prespecified primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus disease with onset of symptoms at least 10 days after randomisation. The primary analysis was per protocol and compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals in immediate vaccination clusters with the incidence in eligible individuals in delayed vaccination clusters. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193. FINDINGS Between April 1, 2015, and July 20, 2015, 90 clusters, with a total population of 7651 people were included in the planned interim analysis. 48 of these clusters (4123 people) were randomly assigned to immediate vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV, and 42 clusters (3528 people) were randomly assigned to delayed vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV. In the immediate vaccination group, there were no cases of Ebola virus disease with symptom onset at least 10 days after randomisation, whereas in the delayed vaccination group there were 16 cases of Ebola virus disease from seven clusters, showing a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI 74·7-100·0; p=0·0036). No new cases of Ebola virus disease were diagnosed in vaccinees from the immediate or delayed groups from 6 days post-vaccination. At the cluster level, with the inclusion of all eligible adults, vaccine effectiveness was 75·1% (95% CI -7·1 to 94·2; p=0·1791), and 76·3% (95% CI -15·5 to 95·1; p=0·3351) with the inclusion of everyone (eligible or not eligible for vaccination). 43 serious adverse events were reported; one serious adverse event was judged to be causally related to vaccination (a febrile episode in a vaccinated participant, which resolved without sequelae). Assessment of serious adverse events is ongoing. INTERPRETATION The results of this interim analysis indicate that rVSV-ZEBOV might be highly efficacious and safe in preventing Ebola virus disease, and is most likely effective at the population level when delivered during an Ebola virus disease outbreak via a ring vaccination strategy. FUNDING WHO, with support from the Wellcome Trust (UK); Médecins Sans Frontières; the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Research Council of Norway; and the Canadian Government through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre, and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

The effects of erythritol air-polishing powder on microbiologic and clinical outcomes during supportive periodontal therapy: Six-month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES To characterize the physical characteristics of a new low abrasive erythritol powder (EPAP) and to evaluate its influence on the clinical and microbiologic parameters over a period of 6 months in patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). METHOD AND MATERIALS Prior to the clinical application, the particle size and abrasion level of EPAP were compared to glycine air-polishing powder (GPAP) ex vivo. Subsequently, 40 chronic periodontitis patients previously enrolled in SPT were randomly assigned into two groups for the treatment with subgingival EPAP or repeated scaling and root planing (SRP). At baseline (BL), bleeding on probing positive (BOP+) sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) of ≥ 4 mm but no detectable calculus were defined as study sites. During SPT, these sites were either treated by EPAP or SRP at BL, 3, and 6 months (3M, 6M). When indicated, additional SRP was provided. Plaque Index, BOP, PPD, clinical attachment level (CAL), and subgingival plaque were evaluated at BL and 6M. RESULTS EPAP yielded lower abrasiveness and smaller particle sizes when compared to GPAP. In 38 patients completing the study, EPAP and SRP resulted in significant reductions of BOP% (EPAP, 40.45%; SRP, 42.53%), PPD (EPAP, -0.67; SRP, -0.68), and increase of CAL (EPAP, 0.48; SRP, 0.61) while at 6M no statistically significant between-group differences were observed (P > .05). Microbiologic evaluation revealed minor shifts in the composition of the subgingival biofilm without influence on periodontopathogenic bacteria. CONCLUSION The subgingival use of EPAP by means of an air-polishing device may be considered safe and may lead to comparable clinical and microbiologic outcomes to those obtained with SRP. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The subgingival use of EPAP appears to represent a promising modality for the removal of subgingival biofilm during SPT.

Worksite Tobacco Prevention: A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Adoption, Dissemination Strategies, and Aggregated Health-Related Outcomes across Companies

Evidence based public health requires knowledge about successful dissemination of public health measures. This study analyses (a) the changes in worksite tobacco prevention (TP) in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland, between 2007 and 2009; (b1) the results of a multistep versus a “brochure only” dissemination strategy; (b2) the results of a monothematic versus a comprehensive dissemination strategy that aim to get companies to adopt TP measures; and (c) whether worksite TP is associated with health- related outcomes. A longitudinal design with randomized control groups was applied. Data on worksite TP and health-related outcomes were gathered by a written questionnaire (baseline

Effect of Health Risk Assessment and Counselling on Health Behaviour and Survival in Older People: A Pragmatic Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND Potentially avoidable risk factors continue to cause unnecessary disability and premature death in older people. Health risk assessment (HRA), a method successfully used in working-age populations, is a promising method for cost-effective health promotion and preventive care in older individuals, but the long-term effects of this approach are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of an innovative approach to HRA and counselling in older individuals for health behaviours, preventive care, and long-term survival. METHODS AND FINDINGS This study was a pragmatic, single-centre randomised controlled clinical trial in community-dwelling individuals aged 65 y or older registered with one of 19 primary care physician (PCP) practices in a mixed rural and urban area in Switzerland. From November 2000 to January 2002, 874 participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and 1,410 to usual care. The intervention consisted of HRA based on self-administered questionnaires and individualised computer-generated feedback reports, combined with nurse and PCP counselling over a 2-y period. Primary outcomes were health behaviours and preventive care use at 2 y and all-cause mortality at 8 y. At baseline, participants in the intervention group had a mean ± standard deviation of 6.9 ± 3.7 risk factors (including unfavourable health behaviours, health and functional impairments, and social risk factors) and 4.3 ± 1.8 deficits in recommended preventive care. At 2 y, favourable health behaviours and use of preventive care were more frequent in the intervention than in the control group (based on z-statistics from generalised estimating equation models). For example, 70% compared to 62% were physically active (odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.16-1.77, p = 0.001), and 66% compared to 59% had influenza vaccinations in the past year (odds ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.66, p = 0.005). At 8 y, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the estimated proportion alive was 77.9% in the intervention and 72.8% in the control group, for an absolute mortality difference of 4.9% (95% CI 1.3%-8.5%, p = 0.009; based on z-test for risk difference). The hazard ratio of death comparing intervention with control was 0.79 (95% CI 0.66-0.94, p = 0.009; based on Wald test from Cox regression model), and the number needed to receive the intervention to prevent one death was 21 (95% CI 12-79). The main limitations of the study include the single-site study design, the use of a brief self-administered questionnaire for 2-y outcome data collection, the unavailability of other long-term outcome data (e.g., functional status, nursing home admissions), and the availability of long-term follow-up data on mortality for analysis only in 2014. CONCLUSIONS This is the first trial to our knowledge demonstrating that a collaborative care model of HRA in community-dwelling older people not only results in better health behaviours and increased use of recommended preventive care interventions, but also improves survival. The intervention tested in our study may serve as a model of how to implement a relatively low-cost but effective programme of disease prevention and health promotion in older individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN 28458424.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Anticoagulation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The Randomized BRAVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND Anticoagulation is required during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. Although an optimal regimen has not been determined, heparin is mainly used. Direct thrombin inhibition with bivalirudin may be an effective alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in this setting. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to determine whether bivalirudin offers an alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS A total of 802 patients with aortic stenosis were randomized to undergo transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during the procedure. The 2 primary endpoints were major bleeding within 48 h or before hospital discharge (whichever occurred first) and 30-day net adverse clinical events, defined as the combination of major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding. RESULTS Anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin did not meet superiority because it did not result in significantly lower rates of major bleeding at 48 h (6.9% vs. 9.0%; relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48 to 1.23; p = 0.27) or net adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days (14.4% vs. 16.1%; relative risk: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.24; risk difference: -1.72; 95% CI: -6.70 to 3.25; p = 0.50); regarding the latter, the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis was met (pnoninferiority < 0.01). Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 48 h were not significantly different (3.5% vs. 4.8%; relative risk: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.43; p = 0.35). At 48 h, the bivalirudin group had significantly fewer myocardial infarctions but more acute kidney injury events than the heparin group; at 30 days, these differences were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial of TAVR procedural pharmacotherapy, bivalirudin did not reduce rates of major bleeding at 48 h or net adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days compared with heparin. Although superiority was not shown, the noninferiority hypothesis was met with respect to the latter factor. Given the lower cost, heparin should remain the standard of care, and bivalirudin can be an alternative anticoagulant option in patients unable to receive heparin in TAVR. (International, Multi-center, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients Undergoing TAVR to Determine the Treatment Effect [Both Safety and Efficacy] of Using Bivalirudin Instead of UFH [BRAVO-2/3]; NCT01651780).

Antiplatelet therapy duration following bare metal or drug-eluting coronary stents: the dual antiplatelet therapy randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Despite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stents (BMS), the relative risk of stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular events is unclear. Although dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year provides ischemic event protection after DES, ischemic event risk is perceived to be less after BMS, and the appropriate duration of DAPT after BMS is unknown. OBJECTIVE To compare (1) rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) after 30 vs 12 months of thienopyridine in patients treated with BMS taking aspirin and (2) treatment duration effect within the combined cohorts of randomized patients treated with DES or BMS as prespecified secondary analyses. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS International, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing extended (30-months) thienopyridine vs placebo in patients taking aspirin who completed 12 months of DAPT without bleeding or ischemic events after receiving stents. The study was initiated in August 2009 with the last follow-up visit in May 2014. INTERVENTIONS Continued thienopyridine or placebo at months 12 through 30 after stent placement, in 11,648 randomized patients treated with aspirin, of whom 1687 received BMS and 9961 DES. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Stent thrombosis, MACCE, and moderate or severe bleeding. RESULTS Among 1687 patients treated with BMS who were randomized to continued thienopyridine vs placebo, rates of stent thrombosis were 0.5% vs 1.11% (n = 4 vs 9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.64; P = .24), rates of MACCE were 4.04% vs 4.69% (n = 33 vs 38; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.57-1.47; P = .72), and rates of moderate/severe bleeding were 2.03% vs 0.90% (n = 16 vs 7; P = .07), respectively. Among all 11,648 randomized patients (both BMS and DES), stent thrombosis rates were 0.41% vs 1.32% (n = 23 vs 74; HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.50; P < .001), rates of MACCE were 4.29% vs 5.74% (n = 244 vs 323; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87; P < .001), and rates of moderate/severe bleeding were 2.45% vs 1.47% (n = 135 vs 80; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients undergoing coronary stent placement with BMS and who tolerated 12 months of thienopyridine, continuing thienopyridine for an additional 18 months compared with placebo did not result in statistically significant differences in rates of stent thrombosis, MACCE, or moderate or severe bleeding. However, the BMS subset may have been underpowered to identify such differences, and further trials are suggested. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00977938.

An Assessment of the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trial Reports Published in Prosthodontic and Implant Dentistry Journals

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in prosthodontic and implant dentistry journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS The last 30 issues of 9 journals in the field of prosthodontic and implant dentistry (Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Implant Dentistry, International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, and Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry) were hand-searched for RCTs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS From the 3,667 articles screened, a total of 147 RCTs were identified and included. The number of published RCTs increased with time. The overall distribution of a high risk of bias assessment varied across the domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool: 8% for random sequence generation, 18% for allocation concealment, 41% for masking, 47% for blinding of outcome assessment, 7% for incomplete outcome data, 12% for selective reporting, and 41% for other biases. CONCLUSION The distribution of high risk of bias for RCTs published in the selected prosthodontic and implant dentistry journals varied among journals and ranged from 8% to 47%, which can be considered as substantial.

Time-Efficiency Analysis Comparing Digital and Conventional Workflows for Implant Crowns: A Prospective Clinical Crossover Trial

PURPOSE To compare time-efficiency in the production of implant crowns using a digital workflow versus the conventional pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospective clinical study used a crossover design that included 20 study participants receiving single-tooth replacements in posterior sites. Each patient received a customized titanium abutment plus a computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) zirconia suprastructure (for those in the test group, using digital workflow) and a standardized titanium abutment plus a porcelain-fused-to-metal crown (for those in the control group, using a conventional pathway). The start of the implant prosthetic treatment was established as the baseline. Time-efficiency analysis was defined as the primary outcome, and was measured for every single clinical and laboratory work step in minutes. Statistical analysis was calculated with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS All crowns could be provided within two clinical appointments, independent of the manufacturing process. The mean total production time, as the sum of clinical plus laboratory work steps, was significantly different. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) time was 185.4 ± 17.9 minutes for the digital workflow process and 223.0 ± 26.2 minutes for the conventional pathway (P = .0001). Therefore, digital processing for overall treatment was 16% faster. Detailed analysis for the clinical treatment revealed a significantly reduced mean ± SD chair time of 27.3 ± 3.4 minutes for the test group compared with 33.2 ± 4.9 minutes for the control group (P = .0001). Similar results were found for the mean laboratory work time, with a significant decrease of 158.1 ± 17.2 minutes for the test group vs 189.8 ± 25.3 minutes for the control group (P = .0001). CONCLUSION Only a few studies have investigated efficiency parameters of digital workflows compared with conventional pathways in implant dental medicine. This investigation shows that the digital workflow seems to be more time-efficient than the established conventional production pathway for fixed implant-supported crowns. Both clinical chair time and laboratory manufacturing steps could be effectively shortened with the digital process of intraoral scanning plus CAD/CAM technology.

Retrievability of implant-supported crowns when using three different cements: a controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to analyze the removal of implant-supported crowns retained by three different cements using an air-accelerated crown remover and to evaluate the patients' response to the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS This controlled clinical trial was conducted with 21 patients (10 women, 11 men; mean age: 51 ± 10.2 years) who had received a total of 74 implants (all placed in the posterior zone of the mandible). Four months after implant surgery, the crowns were cemented on standard titanium abutments of different heights. Three different cements (two temporary: Harvard TEMP and Improv; and one definitive: Durelon) were used and randomly assigned to the patients. Eight months later, one blinded investigator removed all crowns. The number of activations of the instrument (CORONAflex, KaVo) required for crown removal was recorded. The patients completed a questionnaire retrospectively to determine the impact of the procedure and to gauge their subjective perception. A linear regression model and descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. RESULTS All crowns could be retrieved without any technical complications or damage. Both abutment height (P = .019) and cement type (P = .004) had a significant effect on the number of activations, but the type of cement was more important. An increased total number of activations had no or only a weak correlation to the patients' perception of concussion, noise, pain, and unwillingness to use the device. CONCLUSIONS Cemented implant crowns can be removed, and the application of an air-accelerated device is a practicable method. A type of cement with appropriate retention force has to be selected. The impact on the patients' subjective perception should be taken into account.

Involuntary reflexive pelvic floor muscle training in addition to standard training versus standard training alone for women with stress urinary incontinence: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND Pelvic floor muscle training is effective and recommended as first-line therapy for female patients with stress urinary incontinence. However, standard pelvic floor physiotherapy concentrates on voluntary contractions even though the situations provoking stress urinary incontinence (for example, sneezing, coughing, running) require involuntary fast reflexive pelvic floor muscle contractions. Training procedures for involuntary reflexive muscle contractions are widely implemented in rehabilitation and sports but not yet in pelvic floor rehabilitation. Therefore, the research group developed a training protocol including standard physiotherapy and in addition focused on involuntary reflexive pelvic floor muscle contractions. METHODS/DESIGN The aim of the planned study is to compare this newly developed physiotherapy program (experimental group) and the standard physiotherapy program (control group) regarding their effect on stress urinary incontinence. The working hypothesis is that the experimental group focusing on involuntary reflexive muscle contractions will have a higher improvement of continence measured by the International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence (short form), and - regarding secondary and tertiary outcomes - higher pelvic floor muscle activity during stress urinary incontinence provoking activities, better pad-test results, higher quality of life scores (International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire) and higher intravaginal muscle strength (digitally tested) from before to after the intervention phase. This study is designed as a prospective, triple-blinded (participant, investigator, outcome assessor), randomized controlled trial with two physiotherapy intervention groups with a 6-month follow-up including 48 stress urinary incontinent women per group. For both groups the intervention will last 16 weeks and will include 9 personal physiotherapy consultations and 78 short home training sessions (weeks 1-5 3x/week, 3x/day; weeks 6-16 3x/week, 1x/day). Thereafter both groups will continue with home training sessions (3x/week, 1x/day) until the 6-month follow-up. To compare the primary outcome, International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire (short form) between and within the two groups at ten time points (before intervention, physiotherapy sessions 2-9, after intervention) ANOVA models for longitudinal data will be applied. DISCUSSION This study closes a gap, as involuntary reflexive pelvic floor muscle training has not yet been included in stress urinary incontinence physiotherapy, and if shown successful could be implemented in clinical practice immediately. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT02318251 ; 4 December 2014 First patient randomized: 11 March 2015.

Treatment of optic neuritis with erythropoietin (TONE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial-study protocol.

INTRODUCTION Optic neuritis leads to degeneration of retinal ganglion cells whose axons form the optic nerve. The standard treatment is a methylprednisolone pulse therapy. This treatment slightly shortens the time of recovery but does not prevent neurodegeneration and persistent visual impairment. In a phase II trial performed in preparation of this study, we have shown that erythropoietin protects global retinal nerve fibre layer thickness (RNFLT-G) in acute optic neuritis; however, the preparatory trial was not powered to show effects on visual function. METHODS AND ANALYSIS Treatment of Optic Neuritis with Erythropoietin (TONE) is a national, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial with two parallel arms. The primary objective is to determine the efficacy of erythropoietin compared to placebo given add-on to methylprednisolone as assessed by measurements of RNFLT-G and low-contrast visual acuity in the affected eye 6 months after randomisation. Inclusion criteria are a first episode of optic neuritis with decreased visual acuity to ≤0.5 (decimal system) and an onset of symptoms within 10 days prior to inclusion. The most important exclusion criteria are history of optic neuritis or multiple sclerosis or any ocular disease (affected or non-affected eye), significant hyperopia, myopia or astigmatism, elevated blood pressure, thrombotic events or malignancy. After randomisation, patients either receive 33 000 international units human recombinant erythropoietin intravenously for 3 consecutive days or placebo (0.9% saline) administered intravenously. With an estimated power of 80%, the calculated sample size is 100 patients. The trial started in September 2014 with a planned recruitment period of 30 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION TONE has been approved by the Central Ethics Commission in Freiburg (194/14) and the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (61-3910-4039831). It complies with the Declaration of Helsinki, local laws and ICH-GCP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01962571.