Preventing vasospasm improves outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: rationale and design of CONSCIOUS-2 and CONSCIOUS-3 trials

Cerebral vasospasm after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is a frequent but unpredictable complication associated with poor outcome. Current vasospasm therapies are suboptimal; new therapies are needed. Clazosentan, an endothelin receptor antagonist, has shown promise in phase 2 studies, and two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (CONSCIOUS-2 and CONSCIOUS-3) are underway to further investigate its impact on vasospasm-related outcome after aSAH. Here, we describe the design of these studies, which was challenging with respect to defining endpoints and standardizing endpoint interpretation and patient care. Main inclusion criteria are: age 18-75 years; SAH due to ruptured saccular aneurysm secured by surgical clipping (CONSCIOUS-2) or endovascular coiling (CONSCIOUS-3); substantial subarachnoid clot; and World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies grades I-IV prior to aneurysm-securing procedure. In CONSCIOUS-2, patients are randomized 2:1 to clazosentan (5 mg/h) or placebo. In CONSCIOUS-3, patients are randomized 1:1:1 to clazosentan 5, 15 mg/h, or placebo. Treatment is initiated within 56 h of aSAH and continued until 14 days after aSAH. Primary endpoint is a composite of mortality and vasospasm-related morbidity within 6 weeks of aSAH (all-cause mortality, vasospasm-related new cerebral infarction, vasospasm-related delayed ischemic neurological deficit, neurological signs or symptoms in the presence of angiographic vasospasm leading to rescue therapy initiation). Main secondary endpoint is extended Glasgow Outcome Scale at week 12. A critical events committee assesses all data centrally to ensure consistency in interpretation, and patient management guidelines are used to standardize care. Results are expected at the end of 2010 and 2011 for CONSCIOUS-2 and CONSCIOUS-3, respectively.

Placebo effect characteristics observed in a single, international, longitudinal study in Huntington's disease

BACKGROUND Classically, clinical trials are based on the placebo-control design. Our aim was to analyze the placebo effect in Huntington's disease. METHODS Placebo data were obtained from an international, longitudinal, placebo-controlled trial for Huntington's disease (European Huntington's Disease Initiative Study Group). One-hundred and eighty patients were evaluated using the Unified Huntington Disease Rating Scale over 36 months. A placebo effect was defined as an improvement of at least 50% over baseline scores in the Unified Huntington Disease Rating Scale, and clinically relevant when at least 10% of the population met it. RESULTS Only behavior showed a significant placebo effect, and the proportion of the patients with placebo effect ranged from 16% (first visit) to 41% (last visit). Nondepressed patients with better functional status were most likely to be placebo-responders over time. CONCLUSIONS In Huntington's disease, behavior seems to be more vulnerable to placebo than overall motor function, cognition, and function

Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials

A system for screening of nutritional risk is described. It is based on the concept that nutritional support is indicated in patients who are severely ill with increased nutritional requirements, or who are severely undernourished, or who have certain degrees of severity of disease in combination with certain degrees of undernutrition. Degrees of severity of disease and undernutrition were defined as absent, mild, moderate or severe from data sets in a selected number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and converted to a numeric score. After completion, the screening system was validated against all published RCTs known to us of nutritional support vs spontaneous intake to investigate whether the screening system could distinguish between trials with a positive outcome and trials with no effect on outcome.

Corticosteroid treatment for community-acquired pneumonia--the STEP trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the third-leading infectious cause of death worldwide. The standard treatment of CAP has not changed for the past fifty years and its mortality and morbidity remain high despite adequate antimicrobial treatment. Systemic corticosteroids have anti-inflammatory effects and are therefore discussed as adjunct treatment for CAP. Available studies show controversial results, and the question about benefits and harms of adjunct corticosteroid therapy has not been conclusively resolved, particularly in the non-critical care setting. METHODS/DESIGN This randomized multicenter study compares a treatment with 7 days of prednisone 50 mg with placebo in adult patients hospitalized with CAP independent of severity. Patients are screened and enrolled within the first 36 hours of presentation after written informed consent is obtained. The primary endpoint will be time to clinical stability, which is assessed every 12 hours during hospitalization. Secondary endpoints will be, among others, all-cause mortality within 30 and 180 days, ICU stay, duration of antibiotic treatment, disease activity scores, side effects and complications, value of adrenal function testing and prognostic hormonal and inflammatory biomarkers to predict outcome and treatment response to corticosteroids. Eight hundred included patients will provide an 85% power for the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary endpoint. DISCUSSION This largest to date double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter trial investigates the effect of adjunct glucocorticoids in 800 patients with CAP requiring hospitalization. It aims to give conclusive answers about benefits and risks of corticosteroid treatment in CAP. The inclusion of less severe CAP patients will be expected to lead to a relatively low mortality rate and survival benefit might not be shown. However, our study has adequate power for the clinically relevant endpoint of clinical stability. Due to discontinuing glucocorticoids without tapering after seven days, we limit duration of glucocorticoid exposition, which may reduce possible side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION 7 September 2009 on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00973154.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Joint lavage for osteoarthritis of the knee

Background Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disorder and a leading cause of pain and physical disability. Observational studies suggested a benefit for joint lavage, but recent, sham-controlled trials yielded conflicting results, suggesting joint lavage not to be effective. Objectives To compare joint lavage with sham intervention, placebo or non-intervention control in terms of effects on pain, function and safety outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to 3 August 2009, checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. Selection criteria We included studies if they were randomised or quasi-randomised trials that compared arthroscopic and non-arthroscopic joint lavage with a control intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. We did not apply any language restrictions. Data collection and analysis Two independent review authors extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. Main results We included seven trials with 567 patients. Three trials examined arthroscopic joint lavage, two non-arthroscopic joint lavage and two tidal irrigation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and we identified a moderate to large degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 65%). We found little evidence for a benefit of joint lavage in terms of pain relief at three months (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.21), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between joint lavage and control of 0.3 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Results for improvement in function at three months were similar (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.11), corresponding to a difference in function scores between joint lavage and control of 0.2 cm on a WOMAC disability sub-scale from 0 to 10. For pain, estimates of effect sizes varied to some degree depending on the type of lavage, but this variation was likely to be explained by differences in the credibility of control interventions: trials using sham interventions to closely mimic the process of joint lavage showed a null-effect. Reporting on adverse events and drop out rates was unsatisfactory, and we were unable to draw conclusions for these secondary outcomes. Authors' conclusions Joint lavage does not result in a relevant benefit for patients with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain relief or improvement of function.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis

Objective To analyse the available evidence on cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, study registers, the Food and Drug Administration website, reference lists of relevant articles, and reports citing relevant articles through the Science Citation Index (last update July 2009). Manufacturers of celecoxib and lumiracoxib provided additional data. Study selection All large scale randomised controlled trials comparing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed eligibility. Data extraction The primary outcome was myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death from cardiovascular disease, and death from any cause. Two investigators independently extracted data. Data synthesis 31 trials in 116 429 patients with more than 115 000 patient years of follow-up were included. Patients were allocated to naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, lumiracoxib, or placebo. Compared with placebo, rofecoxib was associated with the highest risk of myocardial infarction (rate ratio 2.12, 95% credibility interval 1.26 to 3.56), followed by lumiracoxib (2.00, 0.71 to 6.21). Ibuprofen was associated with the highest risk of stroke (3.36, 1.00 to 11.6), followed by diclofenac (2.86, 1.09 to 8.36). Etoricoxib (4.07, 1.23 to 15.7) and diclofenac (3.98, 1.48 to 12.7) were associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular death. Conclusions Although uncertainty remains, little evidence exists to suggest that any of the investigated drugs are safe in cardiovascular terms. Naproxen seemed least harmful. Cardiovascular risk needs to be taken into account when prescribing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

Meta-analysis of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in patients with depression and coronary heart disease

The occurrence of depression in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) substantially increases the likelihood of a poorer cardiovascular prognosis. Although antidepressants are generally effective in decreasing depression, their use in patients with CHD is controversial. We carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the health effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo or no antidepressants in patients with CHD and depression. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register and other trial registries, and references of relevant articles. Primary outcomes were readmission for CHD (including myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and stroke) and all-cause mortality; the secondary outcome was severity of depression symptoms. Seven articles on 6 RCTs involving 2,461 participants were included. One study incorrectly randomized participants, and another was a reanalysis of RCT data. These were considered observational and analyzed separately. When only properly randomized trials were considered (n = 734 patients), patients on SSRIs showed no significant differences in mortality (risk ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.08 to 2.01) or CHD readmission rates (0.74, 0.44 to 1.23) compared to controls. Conversely, when all studies were included, SSRI use was associated with a significant decrease in CHD readmission (0.63, 0.46 to 0.86) and mortality rates (0.56, 0.35 to 0.88). A significantly greater improvement in depression symptoms was always apparent in patients on SSRIs with all selected indicators. In conclusion, in patients with CHD and depression, SSRI medication decreases depression symptoms and may improve CHD prognosis.

Future trials of endovascular mechanical recanalisation therapy in acute ischemic stroke patients: a position paper endorsed by ESMINT and ESNR : Part I: Current situation and major research questions

A new era of stroke treatment may have begun with mechanical thrombectomy (MT) by fully deployed closed-cell self-expanding stents (stent-triever). Multiple case series and the first randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have now been published. More studies are under way involving large numbers of patients, which in turn has resulted in less strict "pragmatic" study protocols. Problems with current trials include a lack of standardisation in the conduct of the recanalisation procedure, the definition of primary endpoints such as the grade of arterial recanalisation and tissue reperfusion, and the post-surgical care provided. In Part 1 of this two part series, we outline the current situation and the major research questions.

Learning from failure--rationale and design for a study about discontinuation of randomized trials (DISCO study)

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be discontinued because of apparent harm, benefit, or futility. Other RCTs are discontinued early because of insufficient recruitment. Trial discontinuation has ethical implications, because participants consent on the premise of contributing to new medical knowledge, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) spend considerable effort reviewing study protocols, and limited resources for conducting research are wasted. Currently, little is known regarding the frequency and characteristics of discontinued RCTs. Methods/Design Our aims are, first, to determine the prevalence of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons; second, to determine whether the risk of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons differs between investigator- and industry-initiated RCTs; third, to identify risk factors for RCT discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment; fourth, to determine at what stage RCTs are discontinued; and fifth, to examine the publication history of discontinued RCTs. We are currently assembling a multicenter cohort of RCTs based on protocols approved between 2000 and 2002/3 by 6 RECs in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. We are extracting data on RCT characteristics and planned recruitment for all included protocols. Completion and publication status is determined using information from correspondence between investigators and RECs, publications identified through literature searches, or by contacting the investigators. We will use multivariable regression models to identify risk factors for trial discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment. We aim to include over 1000 RCTs of which an anticipated 150 will have been discontinued due to insufficient recruitment. Discussion Our study will provide insights into the prevalence and characteristics of RCTs that were discontinued. Effective recruitment strategies and the anticipation of problems are key issues in the planning and evaluation of trials by investigators, Clinical Trial Units, RECs and funding agencies. Identification and modification of barriers to successful study completion at an early stage could help to reduce the risk of trial discontinuation, save limited resources, and enable RCTs to better meet their ethical requirements.

Treatment of adolescents with early-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders: in search of a rational, evidence-informed approach

Purpose of review: We aimed to review literature on the efficacy and tolerability of psychosocial and psychopharmacological interventions in youth with early-onset schizophrenia spectrum disorders (EOS). A rationale for pragmatic psychopharmacology in EOS, including dosing, switching and adverse effect monitoring and management, is provided. Recent findings: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over the last 8 years demonstrated benefits of psychosocial interventions (i.e. psychoeducation, cognitive remediation, cognitive behavioural therapy) for EOS without clear advantages of one psychosocial treatment over another. Six large, placebo-controlled, short-term RCTs over the last 4 years demonstrated that aripiprazole, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine and risperidone, but not ziprasidone, were superior to placebo. Except for clozapine's superiority in treatment-refractory EOS, efficacy appeared similar across studied first-generation and second-generation antipsychotics, but tolerability varied greatly across individual agents. Summary: Antipsychotics are efficacious in the treatment of EOS. Given the lack of efficacy differences between antipsychotics (except for clozapine for treatment-refractory EOS), we propose that tolerability considerations need to guide choice of antipsychotics. Further and longer-term efficacy and effectiveness studies are urgently needed that should also explore pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic augmentation strategies.

A randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of supported employment

Although numerous randomised controlled trials indicated the superiority of supported employment (SE), we still have too little evidence that SE is more effective than traditional vocational rehabilitation programmes (TVR) in Western European countries with highly developed social security and welfare systems, sophisticated rehabilitation programmes and high thresholds to the open labour market. The aim of this study is to prove the efficacy of SE in Switzerland.

Integrated care in patients with schizophrenia: results of trials published between 2011 and 2013 focusing on effectiveness and efficiency

Purpose of review: Overview on integrated care trials focusing on effectiveness and efficiency published from 2011 to 2013. Recent findings: Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 non-RCT studies were published from 2011 to 2013. Studies differed in several methodological aspects such as study population, psychotherapeutic approaches used, outcome parameters, follow-up times, fidelities, and implementation of the integrated care model and the nation-specific healthcare context with different control conditions. This makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Most studies demonstrated relevant improvements regarding symptoms (P = 0.001) and functioning (P = 0.01), quality of life (P = 0.01), adherence (P <0.05) and patient's satisfaction (P = 0.01), and reduction of caregiver's stress (P < 0.05). Mean total costs were favoring or at least equalizing costs but with positive effects found on subjective health favoring integrated care models. Summary: There is an increasing interest in the effectiveness and efficiency of integrated care models in patients with mental disorders, specifically in those with severe and persistent mental illness. To increase generalizability, future trials should exactly describe rationales and content of integrated care model and control conditions.