Standardized definitions and clinical endpoints in trials investigating endovascular repair of aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVES Endovascular therapy is a rapidly expanding option for the treatment of patients with aortic dissection (AD) and various studies have been published. These trials, however, are often difficult to interpret and compare because they do not utilize uniform clinical endpoint definitions. METHODS The DEFINE Group is a collaborative effort of an ad hoc multidisciplinary team from various specialties involved in AD therapy in Europe and the United States. DEFINE's goal was to arrive at a broad based consensus for baseline and endpoint definitions in trials for endovascular therapy of various vascular pathologies. In this project, which started in December 2006, the individual team members reviewed the existing pertinent literature. Following this, a series of telephone conferences and face-to-face meetings were held to agree upon definitions. Input was also obtained from regulatory (United States Food and Drug Administration) and industry (device manufacturers with an interest in peripheral endovascular revascularization) stakeholders, respectively. RESULTS These efforts resulted in the present document containing proposed baseline and endpoint definitions for clinical and morphological outcomes. Although the consensus has inevitably included certain arbitrary consensus choices and compromises, adherence to these proposed standard definitions would provide consistency across future trials, thereby facilitating evaluation of clinical effectiveness and safety of various endovascular revascularization techniques. CONCLUSIONS This current document is based on a broad based consensus involving relevant stakeholders from the medical community, industry and regulatory bodies. It is proposed that the consensus document may have value for study design of future clinical trials in endovascular AD therapy as well as for regulatory purposes.

Two- to 9-year clinical results of alumina ceramic-on-ceramic THA

From June 1997 to June 2003 we performed 194 total hip arthroplasties on 173 patients using alumina ceramic-on-ceramic bearings as part of a prospective United States Food and Drug Administration/Investigational Device Exemption study. The average patient age at surgery was 49.9 years. Minimum followup time was 2 years (mean 4.3 years, range 2-9 years). We evaluated survival rate, implant- and nonimplant-related complications. Clinical outcomes included the Merle d'Aubigné score. We assessed radiographs for signs of osteolysis, component loosening, and implant wear. No patients had osteolysis and there were no hip dislocations. Implant survivorship for all hips with aseptic revision of any component was 96% (CI, 91-100) at 9 year; survivorship for hips without prior surgery was 99.3%, (CI, 98-100). There was a 1.7% incidence of implant-related complications. Our data help confirm two United States FDA/IDE studies on alumina ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty that reported low aseptic revision rates and low revision rates for instability. Total hip arthroplasty using alumina ceramic-on-ceramic implants is a safe and reliable procedure in the comparably young and active patient.

Clinical endpoints in peripheral endovascular revascularization trials: a case for standardized definitions

BACKGROUND: Endovascular therapy is a rapidly expanding option for the treatment of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), leading to a myriad of published studies reporting on various revascularization strategies. However, these reports are often difficult to interpret and compare because they do not utilize uniform clinical endpoint definitions. Moreover, few of these studies describe clinical outcomes from a patients' perspective. METHODS AND RESULTS: The DEFINE Group is a collaborative effort of an ad-hoc multidisciplinary team from various specialties involved in peripheral arterial disease therapy in Europe and the United States. DEFINE's goal was to arrive at a broad based consensus for baseline and endpoint definitions in peripheral endovascular revascularization trials for chronic lower limb ischemia. In this project, which started in 2006, the individual team members reviewed the existing pertinent literature. Following this, a series of telephone conferences and face-to-face meetings were held to agree upon definitions. Input was also obtained from regulatory (United States Food and Drug Administration) and industry (device manufacturers with an interest in peripheral endovascular revascularization) stakeholders, respectively. The efforts resulted in the current document containing proposed baseline and endpoint definitions in chronic lower limb PAD. Although the consensus has inevitably included certain arbitrary choices and compromises, adherence to these proposed standard definitions would provide consistency across future trials, thereby facilitating evaluation of clinical effectiveness and safety of various endovascular revascularization techniques. CONCLUSION: This current document is based on a broad based consensus involving relevant stakeholders from the medical community, industry and regulatory bodies. It is proposed that the consensus document may have value for study design of future clinical trials in chronic lower limb ischemia as well as for regulatory purposes.

Practical use of dabigatran etexilate for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, and is the most prevalent factor for cardioembolic stroke. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been the standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with AF since the early 1990s. They are very effective for the prevention of cardioembolic stroke, but are limited by factors such as drug-drug interactions, food interactions, slow onset and offset of action, haemorrhage and need for routine anticoagulation monitoring to maintain a therapeutic international normalised ratio (INR). Multiple new oral anticoagulants have been developed as potential replacements for VKAs for stroke prevention in AF. Most are small synthetic molecules that target thrombin (e.g. dabigatran etexilate) or factor Xa (e.g. rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, YM150). These drugs have predictable pharmacokinetics that allow fixed dosing without routine laboratory monitoring. Dabigatran etexilate, the first of these new oral anticoagulants to be approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular AF, represents an effective and safe alternative to VKAs. Under the auspices of the Regional Anticoagulation Working Group, a multidisciplinary group of experts in thrombosis and haemostasis from Central and Eastern Europe, an expert panel with expertise in AF convened to discuss practical, clinically important issues related to the long-term use of dabigatran for stroke prevention in non-valvular AF. The practical information reviewed in this article will help clinicians make appropriate use of this new therapeutic option in daily clinical practice.

Clinical outcome of patients with and without diabetes mellitus after percutaneous coronary intervention with the resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent: 2-year results from the prospectively pooled analysis of the international global RESOLUTE program

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to describe the process to obtain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the expanded indication for treatment with the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) (Medtronic, Inc., Santa Rosa, California) in patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes. BACKGROUND The R-ZES is the first drug-eluting stent specifically indicated in the United States for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes. METHODS We pooled patient-level data for 5,130 patients from the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program. A performance goal prospectively determined in conjunction with the FDA was established as a rate of target vessel failure at 12 months of 14.5%. In addition to the FDA pre-specified cohort of less complex patients with diabetes (n = 878), we evaluated outcomes of the R-ZES in all 1,535 patients with diabetes compared with all 3,595 patients without diabetes at 2 years. RESULTS The 12-month rate of target vessel failure in the pre-specified diabetic cohort was 7.8% (upper 95% confidence interval: 9.51%), significantly lower than the performance goal of 14.5% (p < 0.001). After 2 years, the cumulative incidence of target lesion failure in patients with noninsulin-treated diabetes was comparable to that of patients without diabetes (8.0% vs. 7.1%). The higher risk insulin-treated population demonstrated a significantly higher target lesion failure rate (13.7%). In the whole population, including complex patients, rates of stent thrombosis were not significantly different between patients with and without diabetes (1.2% vs. 0.8%). CONCLUSIONS The R-ZES is safe and effective in patients with diabetes. Long-term clinical data of patients with noninsulin-treated diabetes are equivalent to patients without diabetes. Patients with insulin-treated diabetes remain a higher risk subset. (The Medtronic RESOLUTE Clinical Trial; NCT00248079; Randomized, Two-arm, Non-inferiority Study Comparing Endeavor-Resolute Stent With Abbot Xience-V Stent [RESOLUTE-AC]; NCT00617084; The Medtronic RESOLUTE US Clinical Trial (R-US); NCT00726453; RESOLUTE International Registry: Evaluation of the Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent System in a 'Real-World' Patient Population [R-Int]; NCT00752128; RESOLUTE Japan-The Clinical Evaluation of the MDT-4107 Drug-Eluting Coronary Stent [RJ]; NCT00927940).

Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis

Whether the two drug-eluting stents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration-a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent-are associated with increased risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis compared with bare-metal stents is uncertain. Our aim was to compare the safety and effectiveness of these stents.

Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions

BACKGROUND: Although most clinical trials of coronary stents have measured nominally identical safety and effectiveness end points, differences in definitions and timing of assessment have created confusion in interpretation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Academic Research Consortium is an informal collaboration between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe. Two meetings, in Washington, DC, in January 2006 and in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2006, sponsored by the Academic Research Consortium and including representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and all device manufacturers who were working with the Food and Drug Administration on drug-eluting stent clinical trial programs, were focused on consensus end point definitions for drug-eluting stent evaluations. The effort was pursued with the objective to establish consistency among end point definitions and provide consensus recommendations. On the basis of considerations from historical legacy to key pathophysiological mechanisms and relevance to clinical interpretability, criteria for assessment of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis were developed. The broadly based consensus end point definitions in this document may be usefully applied or recognized for regulatory and clinical trial purposes. CONCLUSION: Although consensus criteria will inevitably include certain arbitrary features, consensus criteria for clinical end points provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices.

Drug eluting and bare metal stents in people with and without diabetes: collaborative network meta-analysis

Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of three types of stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, and bare metal) in people with and without diabetes mellitus. Design Collaborative network meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), relevant websites, reference lists, conference abstracts, reviews, book chapters, and proceedings of advisory panels for the US Food and Drug Administration. Manufacturers and trialists provided additional data. Review methods Network meta-analysis with a mixed treatment comparison method to combine direct within trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Overall mortality was the primary safety end point, target lesion revascularisation the effectiveness end point. Results 35 trials in 3852 people with diabetes and 10 947 people without diabetes contributed to the analyses. Inconsistency of the network was substantial for overall mortality in people with diabetes and seemed to be related to the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (P value for interaction 0.02). Restricting the analysis to trials with a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more, inconsistency was reduced considerably and hazard ratios for overall mortality were near one for all comparisons in people with diabetes: sirolimus eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.88 (95% credibility interval 0.55 to 1.30), paclitaxel eluting stents compared with bare metal stents 0.91 (0.60 to 1.38), and sirolimus eluting stents compared with paclitaxel eluting stents 0.95 (0.63 to 1.43). In people without diabetes, hazard ratios were unaffected by the restriction. Both drug eluting stents were associated with a decrease in revascularisation rates compared with bare metal stents in people both with and without diabetes. Conclusion In trials that specified a duration of dual antiplatelet therapy of six months or more after stent implantation, drug eluting stents seemed safe and effective in people both with and without diabetes.

Report from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases workshop on drug allergy

Allergic reactions to drugs are a serious public health concern. In 2013, the Division of Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases sponsored a workshop on drug allergy. International experts in the field of drug allergy with backgrounds in allergy, immunology, infectious diseases, dermatology, clinical pharmacology, and pharmacogenomics discussed the current state of drug allergy research. These experts were joined by representatives from several National Institutes of Health institutes and the US Food and Drug Administration. The participants identified important advances that make new research directions feasible and made suggestions for research priorities and for development of infrastructure to advance our knowledge of the mechanisms, diagnosis, management, and prevention of drug allergy. The workshop summary and recommendations are presented herein.

American Society of Hematology/American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of epoetin and darbepoetin in adult patients with cancer

Purpose: To update American Society of Hematology/American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations for use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in patients with cancer. Methods: An Update Committee reviewed data published between January 2007 and January 2010. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. Results: The literature search yielded one new individual patient data analysis and four literature-based meta-analyses, two systematic reviews, and 13 publications reporting new results from randomized controlled trials not included in prior or new reviews. Recommendations: For patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy who have a hemoglobin (Hb) level less than 10 g/dL, the Update Committee recommends that clinicians discuss potential harms (eg, thromboembolism, shorter survival) and benefits (eg, decreased transfusions) of ESAs and compare these with potential harms (eg, serious infections, immune-mediated adverse reactions) and benefits (eg, rapid Hb improvement) of RBC transfusions. Individual preferences for assumed risk should contribute to shared decisions on managing chemotherapy-induced anemia. The Committee cautions against ESA use under other circumstances. If used, ESAs should be administered at the lowest dose possible and should increase Hb to the lowest concentration possible to avoid transfusions. Available evidence does not identify Hb levels 10 g/dL either as thresholds for initiating treatment or as targets for ESA therapy. Starting doses and dose modifications after response or nonresponse should follow US Food and Drug Administration-approved labeling. ESAs should be discontinued after 6 to 8 weeks in nonresponders. ESAs should be avoided in patients with cancer not receiving concurrent chemotherapy, except for those with lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Caution should be exercised when using ESAs with chemotherapeutic agents in diseases associated with increased risk of thromboembolic complications. Table 1 lists detailed recommendations.

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents

New-generation coronary stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between the two types of stents on the basis of prospectively adjudicated end points endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration.

Hylan versus hyaluronic acid for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intraarticular high-molecular hylan with standard preparations of hyaluronic acids in osteoarthritis of the knee. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing hylan with a hyaluronic acid in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Trials were identified by systematic searches of Central, Medline, EMBase, Cinahl, the Food and Drug Administration, and Science Citation Index supplemented by hand searches of conference proceedings and reference lists (last update November 2006). Literature screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain-related outcomes between treatment and control groups at the end of the trial, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Thirteen trials with a pooled total of 2,085 patients contributed to the meta-analysis. The pooled effect size was -0.27 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.55, 0.01), favoring hylan, but between-trial heterogeneity was high (I(2) = 88%). Trials with blinded patients, adequate concealment of allocation, and an intent-to-treat analysis had pooled effect sizes near null. The meta-analyses on safety revealed an increased risk associated with hylan for any local adverse events (relative risk [RR] 1.91; 95% CI 1.04, 3.49; I(2) = 28%) and for flares (RR 2.04; 95% CI 1.18, 3.53; I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSION: Given the likely lack of a superior effectiveness of hylan over hyaluronic acids and the increased risk of local adverse events associated with hylan, we discourage the use of intraarticular hylan in patients with knee osteoarthritis in clinical research or practice.

Epoetin and Darbepoetin for Managing Anemia in Patients Undergoing Cancer Treatment: Comparative Effectiveness Update

Objectives: To update the 2006 systematic review of the comparative benefits and harms of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) strategies and non-ESA strategies to manage anemia in patients undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiation for malignancy (excluding myelodysplastic syndrome and acute leukemia), including the impact of alternative thresholds for initiating treatment and optimal duration of therapy. Data sources: Literature searches were updated in electronic databases (n=3), conference proceedings (n=3), and Food and Drug Administration transcripts. Multiple sources (n=13) were searched for potential gray literature. A primary source for current survival evidence was a recently published individual patient data meta-analysis. In that meta-analysis, patient data were obtained from investigators for studies enrolling more than 50 patients per arm. Because those data constitute the most currently available data for this update, as well as the source for on-study (active treatment) mortality data, we limited inclusion in the current report to studies enrolling more than 50 patients per arm to avoid potential differential endpoint ascertainment in smaller studies. Review methods: Title and abstract screening was performed by one or two (to resolve uncertainty) reviewers; potentially included publications were reviewed in full text. Two or three (to resolve disagreements) reviewers assessed trial quality. Results were independently verified and pooled for outcomes of interest. The balance of benefits and harms was examined in a decision model. Results: We evaluated evidence from 5 trials directly comparing darbepoetin with epoetin, 41 trials comparing epoetin with control, and 8 trials comparing darbepoetin with control; 5 trials evaluated early versus late (delay until Hb ≤9 to 11 g/dL) treatment. Trials varied according to duration, tumor types, cancer therapy, trial quality, iron supplementation, baseline hemoglobin, ESA dosing frequency (and therefore amount per dose), and dose escalation. ESAs decreased the risk of transfusion (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.64; I2 = 51%; 38 trials) without evidence of meaningful difference between epoetin and darbepoetin. Thromboembolic event rates were higher in ESA-treated patients (pooled RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.30 to 1.74; I2 = 0%; 37 trials) without difference between epoetin and darbepoetin. In 14 trials reporting the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Fatigue subscale, the most common patient-reported outcome, scores decreased by −0.6 in control arms (95% CI, −6.4 to 5.2; I2 = 0%) and increased by 2.1 in ESA arms (95% CI, −3.9 to 8.1; I2 = 0%). There were fewer thromboembolic and on-study mortality adverse events when ESA treatment was delayed until baseline Hb was less than 10 g/dL, in keeping with current treatment practice, but the difference in effect from early treatment was not significant, and the evidence was limited and insufficient for conclusions. No evidence informed optimal duration of therapy. Mortality was increased during the on-study period (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 37 trials). There was one additional death for every 59 treated patients when the control arm on-study mortality was 10 percent and one additional death for every 588 treated patients when the control-arm on-study mortality was 1 percent. A cohort decision model yielded a consistent result—greater loss of life-years when control arm on-study mortality was higher. There was no discernible increase in mortality with ESA use over the longest available followup (pooled HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.10; I2 = 38%; 44 trials), but many trials did not include an overall survival endpoint and potential time-dependent confounding was not considered. Conclusions: Results of this update were consistent with the 2006 review. ESAs reduced the need for transfusions and increased the risk of thromboembolism. FACT-Fatigue scores were better with ESA use but the magnitude was less than the minimal clinically important difference. An increase in mortality accompanied the use of ESAs. An important unanswered question is whether dosing practices and overall ESA exposure might influence harms.

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.

Anesthesia or sedation for gastroenterologic endoscopies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Because propofol is the sedative preferred by gastroenterologists, we focus this review on gastroenterologist-directed propofol sedation, provide simulations of the respiratory depressant effect of different dosing protocols and give a perspective on future developments in computer-assisted sedation techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: Propofol use by nonanesthesiologists remains a contraindication in the package insert of propofol in most countries. Sedation guidelines produced by the American Society of Gastroenterology partially contradict those produced by the American Society of Anesthesiologists for sedation by nonanesthesiologists, whereas the German guidelines were developed with anesthesiologists involved. The use of fospropofol, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for sedation, is considered an alternative to propofol by some gastroenterologists. Methodological errors in earlier pharmacological studies have to be solved before widespread use of fospropofol is justified, however. Our simulations show that dosing protocols with small boluses administered at reasonable intervals induce less respiratory depression than large boluses. Interindividual variability of propofol-induced respiratory depression is illustrated by different pharmacokinetic and dynamic parameter sets used in the simulation. Two computer-assisted propofol infusion systems are currently being investigated. They not only incorporate the target effect but also the side effects, which may limit respiratory depression. SUMMARY: Propofol use by gastroenterologists may be well tolerated if appropriate patient selection, staff training, monitoring and low-dose sedation protocols are applied.