Randomized placebo-controlled trial of ursodeoxycholic acid with vitamin e in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

BACKGROUND ; AIMS: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a frequent liver disease that can progress to cirrhosis and for which there is no recognized therapy. UDCA and vitamin E have been considered separately as therapeutic options and have not been shown to be effective. This study tested their combination. METHODS: Patients with elevated aminotransferase levels and drinking less than 40 g alcohol/week with biopsy-proven NASH were randomly assigned to receive UDCA 12-15 mg.kg-1.day-1 with vitamin E 400 IU twice a day (UDCA/Vit E), UDCA with placebo (UDCA/P), or placebo/placebo (P/P). After 2 years, they underwent a second liver biopsy. Biopsy specimens were collected, blinded, and scored by a single liver pathologist. RESULTS: Forty eight patients were included, 15 in the UDCA/Vit E group, 18 in the UDCA/P group, and 15 in the P/P group; 8 patients dropped out, none because of side effects. Baseline parameters were not significantly different between the 3 groups. Body mass index remained unchanged during the study. Serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels diminished significantly in the UDCA/Vit E group. Neither the AST nor the ALT levels improved in the P/P group and only the ALT levels in the UDCA/P group. Histologically, the activity index was unchanged at the end of the study in the P/P and UDCA/P groups, but it was significantly better in the UDCA/Vit E group, mostly as a result of regression of steatosis. CONCLUSIONS: Two years of treatment with UDCA in combination with vitamin E improved laboratory values and hepatic steatosis of patients with NASH. Larger trials are warranted.

Effects of ursodeoxycholic acid in combination with vitamin E on adipokines and apoptosis in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Adipokines and hepatocellular apoptosis participate in the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). In a randomized trial ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) with vitamin E (VitE) improved serum aminotransferases and hepatic histology. The present work evaluates the effect of this combination on adipokines and hepatocellular apoptosis. METHODS: Circulating levels of adiponectin, resistin, leptin, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, retinol binding protein-4, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and tumour necrosis factor-alpha were measured by enzyme-linked immunoassays at the beginning and after 2 years of treatment with either UDCA+VitE, UDCA+placebo (P) or P+P. Apoptosis was assessed by immunohistochemistry for activated caspase-3 and circulating levels of apoptosis-associated cytokeratin 18 fragments (M30). RESULTS: Levels of adiponectin increased in patients treated with UDCA+VitE, whereas they decreased in the two other groups (P<0.04) and correlated with the improvement of liver steatosis (P<0.04). M30 levels worsened in the P/P group and improved in the other two groups. They correlated with hepatocellular apoptosis (P<0.02) and steatosis (P<0.02) as well as negatively with adiponectin levels (P<0.04). CONCLUSIONS: UDCA+VitE improves not only aminotransferase levels and liver histology of patients with NASH, but also decreases hepatocellular apoptosis and restores circulating levels of adiponectin. These results suggest that the UDCA+VitE combination has metabolic effects in addition to its beneficial cytoprotective properties.

Speech outcome in complete unilateral cleft lip and palate - a comparison of three methods of the hard palate closure.

The aim of this study was to compare the speech in subjects with cleft lip and palate, in whom three methods of the hard palate closure were used. One hundred and thirty-seven children (96 boys, 41 girls; mean age = 12 years, SD = 1·2) with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP) operated by a single surgeon with a one-stage method were evaluated. The management of the cleft lip and soft palate was comparable in all subjects; for hard palate repair, three different methods were used: bilateral von Langenbeck closure (b-vL group, n = 39), unilateral von Langenbeck closure (u-vL group, n = 56) and vomerplasty (v-p group, n = 42). Speech was assessed: (i) perceptually for the presence of a) hypernasality, b) compensatory articulations (CAs), c) audible nasal air emissions (ANE) and d) speech intelligibility; (ii) for the presence of compensatory facial grimacing, (iii) with clinical intra-oral evaluation and (iv) with videonasendoscopy. A total rate of hypernasality requiring pharyngoplasty was 5·1%; total incidence post-oral compensatory articulations (CAs) was 2·2%. The overall speech intelligibility was good in 84·7% of cases. Oronasal fistulas (ONFs) occurred in 15·7% b-vL subjects, 7·1% u-vL subjects and 50% v-p subjects (P < 0·001). No statistically significant intergroup differences for hypernasality, CAs and intelligibility were found (P > 0·1). In conclusion, the speech after early one-stage repair of CUCLP was satisfactory. The method of hard palate repair affected the incidence of ONFs, which, however, caused relatively mild and inconsistent speech errors.

[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.

Terutroban versus aspirin in patients with cerebral ischaemic events (PERFORM): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial

Patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at high risk of recurrent stroke or other cardiovascular events. We compared the selective thromboxane-prostaglandin receptor antagonist terutroban with aspirin in the prevention of cerebral and cardiovascular ischaemic events in patients with a recent non-cardioembolic cerebral ischaemic event.

Long-term results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial VIII: adjuvant chemotherapy plus goserelin compared with either therapy alone for premenopausal patients with node-negative breast cancer

The International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial VIII compared long-term efficacy of endocrine therapy (goserelin), chemotherapy [cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF)], and chemoendocrine therapy (CMF followed by goserelin) for pre/perimenopausal women with lymph-node-negative breast cancer.

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.

Interpreting Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98: a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, early breast cancer

The Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study is a four-arm trial comparing 5 years of monotherapy with tamoxifen or with letrozole or with sequences of 2 years of one followed by 3 years of the other for postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early invasive breast cancer. From 1998 to 2003, BIG -98 enrolled 8,010 women. The enhanced design f the trial enabled two complementary analyses of efficacy and safety. Collection of tumor specimens further enabled treatment comparisons based on tumor biology. Reports of BIG 1-98 should be interpreted in relation to each individual patient as she weighs the costs and benefits of available treatments.