Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in hyperactive children: treatment procedure leads to an unconventional study design. Experience with open-label homeopathic treatment preceding the Swiss ADHD placebo controlled, randomised, double-blind, cross-over trial

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with homeopathy is difficult. The Swiss randomised, placebo controlled, cross-over trial in ADHD patients (Swiss ADHD trial) was designed with an open-label screening phase prior to the randomised controlled phase. During the screening phase, the response of each child to successive homeopathic medications was observed until the optimal medication was identified. Only children who reached a predefined level of improvement participated in the randomised, cross-over phase. Although the randomised phase revealed a significant beneficial effect of homeopathy, the cross-over caused a strong carryover effect diminishing the apparent difference between placebo and verum treatment. METHODS: This retrospective analysis explores the screening phase data with respect to the risk of failure to demonstrate a specific effect of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with randomisation at the start of the treatment. RESULTS: During the screening phase, 84% (70/83) of the children responded to treatment and reached eligibility for the randomised trial after a median time of 5 months (range 1-18), with a median of 3 different medications (range 1-9). Thirteen children (16%) did not reach eligibility. Five months after treatment start, the difference in Conners Global Index (CGI) rating between responders and non-responders became highly significant (p = 0.0006). Improvement in CGI was much greater following the identification of the optimal medication than in the preceding suboptimal treatment period (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the necessity of identifying an optimal medication before response to treatment can be expected, randomisation at the start of treatment in an RCT of homeopathy in ADHD children has a high risk of failure to demonstrate a specific treatment effect, if the observation time is shorter than 12 months.

Blind intubation of anaesthetised children with supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q cannot be recommended: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Paediatric supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q were designed as conduits for tracheal intubation. Although fibreoptic-guided intubation has proved successful, blind intubation as a rescue technique has never been evaluated. OBJECTIVE Evaluation of blind intubation through AmbuAura-i and Air-Q. On the basis of fibreoptic view data, we hypothesised that the success rate with the AmbuAura-i would be higher than with the Air-Q. DESIGN A prospective, randomised controlled trial with institutional review board (IRB) approval and written informed consent. SETTING University Childrens' Hospital; September 2012 to July 2014. PATIENTS Eighty children, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I to III, weight 5 to 50 kg. INTERVENTIONS Tracheal intubation was performed through the randomised device with the tip of a fibrescope placed inside and proximal to the tip of the tracheal tube. This permitted sight of tube advancement, but without fibreoptic guidance (visualised blind intubation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome was successfully visualised blind intubation; secondary outcomes included supraglottic airway device success, insertion times, airway leak pressure, fibreoptic view and adverse events. RESULTS Personal data did not differ between groups. In contrast to our hypothesis, blind intubation was possible in 15% with the Air-Q and in 3% with the AmbuAura-i [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 6 to 31 vs. 0 to 13%; P = 0.057]. First attempt supraglottic airway device insertion success rates were 95% (Air-Q) and 100% (AmbuAura-i; 95% CI 83 to 99 vs. 91 to 100; P = 0.49). Median leak pressures were 18 cmH2O (Air-Q) and 17 cmH2O [AmbuAura-i; interquartile range (IQR) 14 to 18 vs. 14 to 19 cmH2O; P = 0.66]. Air-Q insertion was slower (27 vs. 19 s, P < 0.001). There was no difference in fibreoptic view, or adverse events (P > 0.05). In one child (Air-Q size 1.5, tube size 3.5), the tube dislocated during device removal. CONCLUSION Ventilation with both devices is reliable, but success of blind intubation is unacceptably low and cannot be recommended for elective or rescue purposes. If intubation through a paediatric supraglottic airway device is desired, we suggest that fibreoptic guidance is used. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01692522.

Ramucirumab versus placebo as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib (REACH): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND VEGF and VEGF receptor-2-mediated angiogenesis contribute to hepatocellular carcinoma pathogenesis. Ramucirumab is a recombinant IgG1 monoclonal antibody and VEGF receptor-2 antagonist. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ramucirumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib. METHODS In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial (REACH), patients were enrolled from 154 centres in 27 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had hepatocellular carcinoma with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease or stage B disease that was refractory or not amenable to locoregional therapy, had Child-Pugh A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had previously received sorafenib (stopped because of progression or intolerance), and had adequate haematological and biochemical parameters. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks, plus best supportive care, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Randomisation was stratified by geographic region and cause of liver disease with a stratified permuted block method. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01140347. FINDINGS Between Nov 4, 2010, and April 18, 2013, 565 patients were enrolled, of whom 283 were assigned to ramucirumab and 282 were assigned to placebo. Median overall survival for the ramucirumab group was 9·2 months (95% CI 8·0-10·6) versus 7·6 months (6·0-9·3) for the placebo group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·72-1·05]; p=0·14). Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring in 5% or more of patients in either treatment group were ascites (13 [5%] of 277 patients treated with ramucirumab vs 11 [4%] of 276 patients treated with placebo), hypertension (34 [12%] vs ten [4%]), asthenia (14 [5%] vs five [2%]), malignant neoplasm progression (18 [6%] vs 11 [4%]), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (15 [5%] vs 23 [8%]), thrombocytopenia (13 [5%] vs one [<1%]), hyperbilirubinaemia (three [1%] vs 13 [5%]), and increased blood bilirubin (five [2%] vs 14 [5%]). The most frequently reported (≥1%) treatment-emergent serious adverse event of any grade or grade 3 or more was malignant neoplasm progression. INTERPRETATION Second-line treatment with ramucirumab did not significantly improve survival over placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. No new safety signals were noted in eligible patients and the safety profile is manageable. FUNDING Eli Lilly and Co.