The use of nasal dilator strips as a placebo for trials evaluating continuous positive airway pressure

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to compare the objective and subjective effects of continuous positive airway pressure to the use of nasal dilator strips in patients with acromegaly and moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea. METHODS: We studied 12 patients with acromegaly and moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea (male/females = 8/4, age = 52 +/- 8 ys, body mass index = 33.5 +/- 4.6 Kg/m(2), apnea-hypopnea index = 38 +/- 14 events/h) who had been included in a randomized, crossover study to receive three months of treatment with continuous positive airway pressure and nasal dilator strips. All patients were evaluated at study entry and at the end of each treatment by polysomnography, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and treatment satisfaction questionnaires. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01265121 RESULTS: The apnea-hypopnea index values decreased significantly with continuous positive airway pressure treatment but did not change with the use of nasal dilator strips. All of the subjective symptoms improved with both treatments, but these improvements were significantly greater with continuous positive airway pressure than with the nasal dilator strips. CONCLUSION: The use of nasal dilator strips had a much smaller effect on the severity of obstructive sleep apnea in patients with acromegaly and moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea in comparison to the use of continuous positive airway pressure. Moreover, the improvement in several subjective parameters without any significant objective improvement in obstructive sleep apnea resulting from the use of nasal dilator strips is compatible with a placebo effect.

An economic evaluation of antihypertensive therapies based on clinical trials

OBJECTIVE: Hypertension is a major issue in public health, and the financial costs associated with hypertension continue to increase. Cost-effectiveness studies focusing on antihypertensive drug combinations, however, have been scarce. The cost-effectiveness ratios of the traditional treatment (hydrochlorothiazide and atenolol) and the current treatment (losartan and amlodipine) were evaluated in patients with grade 1 or 2 hypertension (HT1-2). For patients with grade 3 hypertension (HT3), a third drug was added to the treatment combinations: enalapril was added to the traditional treatment, and hydrochlorothiazide was added to the current treatment. METHODS: Hypertension treatment costs were estimated on the basis of the purchase prices of the antihypertensive medications, and effectiveness was measured as the reduction in systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (in mm Hg) at the end of a 12-month study period. RESULTS: When the purchase price of the brand-name medication was used to calculate the cost, the traditional treatment presented a lower cost-effectiveness ratio [US$/mm Hg] than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. In the HT3 group, however, there was no difference in cost-effectiveness ratio between the traditional treatment and the current treatment. The cost-effectiveness ratio differences between the treatment regimens maintained the same pattern when the purchase price of the lower-cost medication was used. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the traditional treatment is more cost-effective (US$/mm Hg) than the current treatment in the HT1-2 group. There was no difference in cost-effectiveness between the traditional treatment and the current treatment for the HT3 group.

Stem cell therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus: a review of recent clinical trials

Stem cell therapy is one of the most promising treatments for the near future. It is expected that this kind of therapy can ameliorate or even reverse some diseases. With regard to type 1 diabetes, studies analyzing the therapeutic effects of stem cells in humans began in 2003 in the Hospital das Clínicas of the Faculty of Medicine of Ribeirão Preto - SP USP, Brazil, and since then other centers in different countries started to randomize patients in their clinical trials. Herein we summarize recent data about beta cell regeneration, different ways of immune intervention and what is being employed in type 1 diabetic patients with regard to stem cell repertoire to promote regeneration and/or preservation of beta cell mass.

Ranibizumab (Lucentis) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: evidence from clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) has a poor prognosis if left untreated, frequently resulting in legal blindness. Ranibizumab is approved for treating neovascular AMD. However, further guidance is needed to assist ophthalmologists in clinical practice to optimise treatment outcomes. METHODS: An international retina expert panel assessed evidence available from prospective, multicentre studies evaluating different ranibizumab treatment schedules (ANCHOR, MARINA, PIER, SAILOR, SUSTAIN and EXCITE) and a literature search to generate evidence-based and consensus recommendations for treatment indication and assessment, retreatment and monitoring. RESULTS: Ranibizumab is indicated for choroidal neovascular lesions with active disease, the clinical parameters of which are outlined. Treatment initiation with three consecutive monthly injections, followed by continued monthly injections, has provided the best visual-acuity outcomes in pivotal clinical trials. If continued monthly injections are not feasible after initiation, a flexible strategy appears viable, with monthly monitoring of lesion activity recommended. Initiation regimens of fewer than three injections have not been assessed. Continuous careful monitoring with flexible retreatment may help avoid vision loss recurring. Standardised biomarkers need to be determined. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based guidelines will help to optimise treatment outcomes with ranibizumab in neovascular AMD.

How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach

Background External validity of study results is an important issue from a clinical point of view. From a methodological point of view, however, the concept of external validity is more complex than it seems to be at first glance. Methods Methodological review to address the concept of external validity. Results External validity refers to the question whether results are generalizable to persons other than the population in the original study. The only formal way to establish the external validity would be to repeat the study for that specific target population. We propose a three-way approach for assessing the external validity for specified target populations. (i) The study population might not be representative for the eligibility criteria that were intended. It should be addressed whether the study population differs from the intended source population with respect to characteristics that influence outcome. (ii) The target population will, by definition, differ from the study population with respect to geographical, temporal and ethnical conditions. Pondering external validity means asking the question whether these differences may influence study results. (iii) It should be assessed whether the study's conclusions can be generalized to target populations that do not meet all the eligibility criteria. Conclusion Judging the external validity of study results cannot be done by applying given eligibility criteria to a single target population. Rather, it is a complex reflection in which prior knowledge, statistical considerations, biological plausibility and eligibility criteria all have place.

Personalized therapy in pain management: where do we stand?

Genomic variations influencing response to pharmacotherapy of pain are currently under investigation. Drug-metabolizing enzymes represent a major target of ongoing research in order to identify associations between an individual's drug response and genetic profile. Polymorphisms of the cytochrome P450 enzymes (CYP2D6) influence metabolism of codeine, tramadol, hydrocodone, oxycodone and tricyclic antidepressants. Blood concentrations of some NSAIDs depend on CYP2C9 and/or CYP2C8 activity. Genomic variants of these genes associate well with NSAIDs' side effect profile. Other candidate genes, such as those encoding (opioid) receptors, transporters and other molecules important for pharmacotherapy in pain management, are discussed; however, study results are often equivocal. Besides genetic variants, further variables, for example, age, disease, comorbidity, concomitant medication, organ function as well as patients' compliance, may have an impact on pharmacotherapy and need to be addressed when pain therapists prescribe medication. Although pharmacogenetics as a diagnostic tool has the potential to improve patient therapy, well-designed studies are needed to demonstrate superiority to conventional dosing regimes.

Prevention, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of sepsis: 1st revision of S-2k guidelines of the German Sepsis Society (Deutsche Sepsis-Gesellschaft e.V. (DSG)) and the German Interdisciplinary Association of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI))

Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements and recommendations that assist the physicians and patients in making decisions about appropriate health care measures for specific clinical circumstances taking into account specific national health care structures. The 1(st) revision of the S-2k guideline of the German Sepsis Society in collaboration with 17 German medical scientific societies and one self-help group provides state-of-the-art information (results of controlled clinical trials and expert knowledge) on the effective and appropriate medical care (prevention, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care) of critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The guideline had been developed according to the "German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal" of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF). In view of the inevitable advancements in scientific knowledge and technical expertise, revisions, updates and amendments must be periodically initiated. The guideline recommendations may not be applied under all circumstances. It rests with the clinician to decide whether a certain recommendation should be adopted or not, taking into consideration the unique set of clinical facts presented in connection with each individual patient as well as the available resources.

[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.

S100A1 gene therapy for heart failure: a novel strategy on the verge of clinical trials

Representing the common endpoint of various cardiovascular disorders, heart failure (HF) shows a dramatically growing prevalence. As currently available therapeutic strategies are not capable of terminating the progress of the disease, HF is still associated with a poor clinical prognosis. Among the underlying molecular mechanisms, the loss of cardiomyocyte Ca(2+) cycling integrity plays a key role in the pathophysiological development and progression of the disease. The cardiomyocyte EF-hand Ca(2+) sensor protein S100A1 emerged as a regulator both of sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR), sarcomere and mitochondrial function implicating a significant role in cardiac physiology and dysfunction. In this review, we aim to recapitulate the translation of S100A1-based investigation from first clinical observations over basic research experiments back to a near-clinical setting on the verge of clinical trials today. We also address needs for further developments towards "second-generation" gene therapy and discuss the therapeutic potential of S100A1 gene therapy for HF as a promising novel strategy for future cardiologists. This article is part of a Special Section entitled "Special Section: Cardiovascular Gene Therapy".

Systems medicine and integrated care to combat chronic noncommunicable diseases

We propose an innovative, integrated, cost-effective health system to combat major non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular, chronic respiratory, metabolic, rheumatologic and neurologic disorders and cancers, which together are the predominant health problem of the 21st century. This proposed holistic strategy involves comprehensive patient-centered integrated care and multi-scale, multi-modal and multi-level systems approaches to tackle NCDs as a common group of diseases. Rather than studying each disease individually, it will take into account their intertwined gene-environment, socio-economic interactions and co-morbidities that lead to individual-specific complex phenotypes. It will implement a road map for predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory (P4) medicine based on a robust and extensive knowledge management infrastructure that contains individual patient information. It will be supported by strategic partnerships involving all stakeholders, including general practitioners associated with patient-centered care. This systems medicine strategy, which will take a holistic approach to disease, is designed to allow the results to be used globally, taking into account the needs and specificities of local economies and health systems.

Communication about standard treatment options and clinical trials: can we teach doctors new skills to improve patient outcomes?

BACKGROUND: The International Breast Cancer Study Group conducted a phase III trial in Australian/New Zealand (ANZ) and Swiss/German/Austrian (SGA) centres on training doctors in clear and ethical information delivery about treatment options and strategies to encourage shared decision making. METHODS: Medical, surgical, gynaecological and radiation oncologists, and their patients for whom adjuvant breast cancer therapy was indicated, were eligible. Doctors were randomised to participate in a workshop with standardised teaching material and role playing. Patients were recruited in the experimental and control groups before and after the workshop. RESULTS: In ANZ centres, 21 eligible doctors recruited a total of 304 assessable patients. In SGA centres, 41 doctors recruited 390 patients. The training was well accepted. There was no overall effect on patient decisional conflict (primary endpoint) 2 weeks after the consultation. Overall, patients were satisfied with their treatment decision, their consultation and their doctors' consultation skills. Considerable variation was observed in patient outcomes between SGA and ANZ centres; the effect sizes of the intervention were marginal (<0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision making remains a challenge. A sustained training effect may require more intensive training tailored to the local setting. Cross-cultural differences need attention in conducting trials on communication interventions.

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.

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials

The efficacy of durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) is delivered at the expense of delayed healing of the stented vessel. Biodegradable polymer DES aim to avoid this shortcoming and may potentially improve long-term clinical outcomes, with benefit expected to accrue over time. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).

Pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (CAPACITY): two randomised trials

Background Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is a progressive and fatal lung disease with inevitable loss of lung function. The CAPACITY programme (studies 004 and 006) was designed to confirm the results of a phase 2 study that suggested that pirfenidone, a novel antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory drug, reduces deterioration in lung function in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Methods In two concurrent trials (004 and 006), patients (aged 40–80 years) with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis were randomly assigned to oral pirfenidone or placebo for a minimum of 72 weeks in 110 centres in Australia, Europe, and North America. In study 004, patients were assigned in a 2:1:2 ratio to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, pirfenidone 1197 mg/day, or placebo; in study 006, patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day or placebo. The randomisation code (permuted block design) was computer generated and stratified by region. All study personnel were masked to treatment group assignment until after final database lock. Treatments were administered orally, 801 mg or 399 mg three times a day. The primary endpoint was change in percentage predicted forced vital capacity (FVC) at week 72. Analysis was by intention to treat. The studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00287729 and NCT00287716. Findings In study 004, 174 of 435 patients were assigned to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, 87 to pirfenidone 1197 mg/day, and 174 to placebo. In study 006, 171 of 344 patients were assigned to pirfenidone 2403 mg/day, and 173 to placebo. All patients in both studies were analysed. In study 004, pirfenidone reduced decline in FVC (p=0·001). Mean FVC change at week 72 was −8·0% (SD 16·5) in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day group and −12·4% (18·5) in the placebo group (difference 4·4%, 95% CI 0·7 to 9·1); 35 (20%) of 174 versus 60 (35%) of 174 patients, respectively, had a decline of at least 10%. A significant treatment effect was noted at all timepoints from week 24 and in an analysis over all study timepoints (p=0·0007). Mean change in percentage FVC in the pirfenidone 1197 mg/day group was intermediate to that in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day and placebo groups. In study 006, the difference between groups in FVC change at week 72 was not significant (p=0·501). Mean change in FVC at week 72 was −9·0% (SD 19·6) in the pirfenidone group and −9·6% (19·1) in the placebo group, and the difference between groups in predicted FVC change at week 72 was not significant (0·6%, −3·5 to 4·7); however, a consistent pirfenidone effect was apparent until week 48 (p=0·005) and in an analysis of all study timepoints (p=0·007). Patients in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day group had higher incidences of nausea (125 [36%] of 345 vs 60 [17%] of 347), dyspepsia (66 [19%] vs 26 [7%]), vomiting (47 [14%] vs 15 [4%]), anorexia (37 [11%] vs 13 [4%]), photosensitivity (42 [12%] vs 6 [2%]), rash (111 [32%] vs 40 [12%]), and dizziness (63 [18%] vs 35 [10%]) than did those in the placebo group. Fewer overall deaths (19 [6%] vs 29 [8%]) and fewer deaths related to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (12 [3%] vs 25 [7%]) occurred in the pirfenidone 2403 mg/day groups than in the placebo groups. Interpretation The data show pirfenidone has a favourable benefit risk profile and represents an appropriate treatment option for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Completeness of reporting in randomized controlled trials of 3 vaccines: a review of adherence to the CONSORT checklist

Clear reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vaccines is important for understanding results and assessing their validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement provides guidance to help authors reporting RCTs. The objective was to assess the completeness of reporting of RCTs of vaccines based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist.