Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

BACKGROUND Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys. RESULTS Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers.

Three-year efficacy and safety of new- versus early-generation drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease insights from the ISAR-LEFT MAIN and ISAR-LEFT MAIN 2 trials.

BACKGROUND In percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) has reduced adverse events in comparison to early-generation DES. The aim of the current study was to investigate the long-term clinical efficacy and safety of new-generation DES versus early-generation DES for PCI of unprotected left main coronary artery (uLMCA) disease. METHODS The patient-level data from the ISAR-LEFT MAIN and ISAR-LEFT MAIN 2 randomized trials were pooled. The clinical outcomes of PCI patients assigned to new-generation DES (everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stent) versus early-generation DES (paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stent) were studied. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization and stroke (MACCE, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event). RESULTS In total, 1257 patients were available. At 3 years, the risk of MACCE was comparable between patients assigned to new-generation DES or early-generation DES (28.2 versus 27.5 %, hazard ratio-HR 1.03, 95 % confidence intervals-CI 0.83-1.26; P = 0.86). Definite/probable stent thrombosis was low and comparable between new-generation DES and early-generation DES (0.8 versus 1.6 %, HR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.18-1.57; P = 0.25); in patients treated with new-generation DES no cases occurred beyond 30 days. Diabetes increased the risk of MACCE in patients treated with new-generation DES but not with early-generation DES (P interaction = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS At 3-year follow-up, a PCI with new-generation DES for uLMCA disease shows comparable efficacy to early-generation DES. Rates of stent thrombosis were low in both groups. Diabetes significantly impacts the risk of MACCE at 3 years in patients treated with new-generation DES for uLMCA disease. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00133237; NCT00598637.

The CONSORT Statement: Application within and adaptations for orthodontic trials

High-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are an integral part of evidence-based medicine. RCTs are the bricks and mortar of high-quality systematic reviews, which are important determinants of health care policy and clinical practice. For published research to be used most effectively, investigators and authors should follow the guidelines for accurate and transparent reporting of RCTs. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement and its extensions are among the most widely used reporting guidelines in biomedical research. CONSORT was adopted by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics in 2004. Since 2011, this Journal has been actively implementing compliance with the CONSORT reporting guidelines. The objective of this explanatory article is to highlight the relevance and implications of the various CONSORT items to help authors to achieve CONSORT compliance in their research submissions of RCTs to this and other orthodontic journals.

Clinical effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for depression in routine care: A propensity score based comparison between randomized controlled trials and clinical practice

Background: The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for the treatment of depressive disorders has been demonstrated in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study investigated whether for CBT similar effects can be expected under routine care conditions when the patients are comparable to those examined in RCTs. Method: N=574 CBT patients from an outpatient clinic were stepwise matched to the patients undergoing CBT in the National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program (TDCRP). First, the exclusion criteria of the RCT were applied to the naturalistic sample of the outpatient clinic. Second, propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the remaining naturalistic sample on the basis of baseline covariate distributions. Matched samples were then compared regarding treatment effects using effect sizes, average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) and recovery rates. Results: CBT in the adjusted naturalistic subsample was as effective as in the RCT. However, treatments lasted significantly longer under routine care conditions. Limitations: The samples included only a limited amount of common predictor variables and stemmed from different countries. There might be additional covariates, which could potentially further improve the matching between the samples. Conclusions: CBT for depression in clinical practice might be equally effective as manual-based treatments in RCTs when they are applied to comparable patients. The fact that similar effects under routine conditions were reached with more sessions, however, points to the potential to optimize treatments in clinical practice with respect to their efficiency.