The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether excluding patients from the analysis of randomised trials are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects and higher heterogeneity between trials. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study based on a collection of meta-analyses of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: 14 meta-analyses including 167 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patient reported pain as an outcome. METHODS: Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of follow-up, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined by using random effects meta-analysis. Estimates of treatment effects were compared between trials with and trials without exclusions from the analysis, and the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials without exclusions was assessed. RESULTS: 39 trials (23%) had included all patients in the analysis. In 128 trials (77%) some patients were excluded from the analysis. Effect sizes from trials with exclusions tended to be more beneficial than those from trials without exclusions (difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.04). However, estimates of bias between individual meta-analyses varied considerably (tau(2)=0.07). Tests of interaction between exclusions from the analysis and estimates of treatment effects were positive in five meta-analyses. Stratified analyses indicated that differences in effect sizes between trials with and trials without exclusions were more pronounced in meta-analyses with high between trial heterogeneity, in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits, and in meta-analyses of complementary medicine. Restriction of meta-analyses to trials without exclusions resulted in smaller estimated treatment benefits, larger P values, and considerable decreases in between trial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Excluding patients from the analysis in randomised trials often results in biased estimates of treatment effects, but the extent and direction of bias is unpredictable. Results from intention to treat analyses should always be described in reports of randomised trials. In systematic reviews, the influence of exclusions from the analysis on estimated treatment effects should routinely be assessed.

Ausschluss von Patienten aus der Analyse: Auswirkungen auf die Ergebnisse randomisierter kontrollierter Studien: Eine meta-epidemiologische Studie

Zielsetzung: Untersuchung, ob der Ausschluss von Patienten aus der statistischen Analyse in randomisierten Studien mit Fehlbewertungen der Wirksamkeit von Behandlungen sowie einer größeren Heterogenität zwischen verschiedenen Studien assoziiert ist. Studiendesign: Meta-epidemiologische Studie auf der Basis einer Sammlung von Metaanalysen randomisierter Studien. Datenquellen: 14 Metaanalysen, die insgesamt 167 Studien berücksichtigten. Diese verglichen die Wirksamkeit therapeutischer Interventionen bei Arthrose des Knie- oder Hüftgelenks mit Kontrollgruppen, die entweder keine Intervention oder Placebo erhielten und verwendeten jeweils Schmerz nach Angaben der Patienten als Endpunkt. Methoden: Zur Berechnung der Effektgrößen wurden die Unterschiede in der durchschnittlichen Schmerzintensität zwischen den Gruppen am Ende durch die gepoolte Standardabweichung dividiert. Die statistische Zusammenfassung der Studien erfolgte durch eine Random-Effects-Metaanalyse. Studien mit und Studien ohne Ausschluss von Patienten aus der statistischen Analyse wurden in Bezug auf die Bewertung der Therapiewirksamkeit gegeneinander verglichen, und die Auswirkungen einer Beschränkung von Metaanalysen auf Studien ohne Patientenausschluss wurden berechnet. Ergebnisse: In 39 Studien (23 %) waren sämtliche Patienten in die Analyse eingeschlossen. In 128 Studien (77 %) wurden Patienten von der Analyse ausgeschlossen. Die Effektgrößen waren in Studien mit Patientenausschluss tendenziell vorteilhafter als in Studien ohne Patientenausschluss (Differenz –0,13; 95-%-Konfidenzintervall –0,29 bis 0,04). Allerdings variierten die Schätzungen der Verzerrung zwischen einzelnen Metaanalysen erheblich (τ2 = 0,07). Untersuchungen der Interaktion zwischen Ausschluss aus der Analyse und Bewertung der Therapiewirksamkeit waren in fünf Metaanalysen positiv. Stratifizierte Analysen zeigten, dass Unterschiede in Bezug auf Effektgrößen zwischen Studien mit versus Studien ohne Patientenausschluss stärker ausfielen in Metaanalysen mit großer Heterogenität zwischen den einzelnen Studien, in Metaanalysen mit großer geschätzter Therapiewirksamkeit und in Metaanalysen aus dem Bereich der Komplementärmedizin. Beschränkten sich die Metaanalysen auf Studien ohne Patientenausschluss, resultierte dies in geringerer geschätzter Therapiewirksamkeit, größeren p-Werten und einer beträchtlichen Minderung der Heterogenität zwischen den einzelnen Studien. Schlussfolgerungen: Der Ausschluss von Patienten aus der statistischen Analyse in randomisierten Studien führt häufig zu Fehleinschätzungen der Therapiewirkungen. Ausmaß und Richtung dieser Verzerrung sind jedoch unvorhersehbar. Berichte randomisierter Studien sollten grundsätzlich Ergebnisse von Intention-to-treat-Analysen nennen. Systematische Übersichtsarbeiten sollten den Einfluss des Patientenausschlusses von der statistischen Analyse auf die Bewertung der Therapiewirksamkeit routinemäßig prüfen.

Cisplatin versus cisplatin plus doxorubicin for standard-risk hepatoblastoma

BACKGROUND: Preoperative cisplatin alone may be as effective as cisplatin plus doxorubicin in standard-risk hepatoblastoma (a tumor involving three or fewer sectors of the liver that is associated with an alpha-fetoprotein level of >100 ng per milliliter). METHODS: Children with standard-risk hepatoblastoma who were younger than 16 years of age were eligible for inclusion in the study. After they received one cycle of cisplatin (80 mg per square meter of body-surface area per 24 hours), we randomly assigned patients to receive cisplatin (every 14 days) or cisplatin plus doxorubicin administered in three preoperative cycles and two postoperative cycles. The primary outcome was the rate of complete resection, and the trial was powered to test the noninferiority of cisplatin alone (<10% difference in the rate of complete resection). RESULTS: Between June 1998 and December 2006, 126 patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin and 129 were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin plus doxorubicin. The rate of complete resection was 95% in the cisplatin-alone group and 93% in the cisplatin-doxorubicin group in the intention-to-treat analysis (difference, 1.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.1 to 7.0); these rates were 99% and 95%, respectively, in the per-protocol analysis. Three-year event-free survival and overall survival were, respectively, 83% (95% CI, 77 to 90) and 95% (95% CI, 91 to 99) in the cisplatin group, and 85% (95% CI, 79 to 92) and 93% (95% CI, 88 to 98) in the cisplatin-doxorubicin group (median follow-up, 46 months). Acute grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent with combination therapy (74.4% vs. 20.6%). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with cisplatin plus doxorubicin, cisplatin monotherapy achieved similar rates of complete resection and survival among children with standard-risk hepatoblastoma. Doxorubicin can be safely omitted from the treatment of standard-risk hepatoblastoma. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003912.)

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy followed by surgery in selected patients with stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre phase II trial

BACKGROUND: Stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is usually thought to be unresectable, and is managed with chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy. However, selected patients might benefit from surgical resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The aim of this multicentre, phase II trial was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of a neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy followed by surgery in patients with technically operable stage IIIB NSCLC. METHODS: Between September, 2001, and May, 2006, patients with pathologically proven and technically resectable stage IIIB NSCLC were sequentially treated with three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin with docetaxel), immediately followed by accelerated concomitant boost radiotherapy (44 Gy in 22 fractions) and definitive surgery. The primary endpoint was event-free survival at 12 months. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00030810. FINDINGS: 46 patients were enrolled, with a median age of 60 years (range 28-70). 13 (28%) patients had N3 disease, 36 (78%) had T4 disease. All patients received chemotherapy; 35 (76%) patients received radiotherapy. The main toxicities during chemotherapy were neutropenia (25 patients [54%] at grade 3 or 4) and febrile neutropenia (nine [20%]); the main toxicity after radiotherapy was oesophagitis (ten patients [29%]; nine grade 2, one grade 3). 35 patients (76%) underwent surgery, with pneumonectomy in 17 patients. A complete (R0) resection was achieved in 27 patients. Peri-operative complications occurred in 14 patients, including two deaths (30-day mortality 5.7%). Seven patients required a second surgical intervention. Pathological mediastinal downstaging was seen in 11 of the 28 patients who had lymph-node involvement at enrolment, a complete pathological response was seen in six patients. Event-free survival at 12 months was 54% (95% CI 39-67). After a median follow-up of 58 months, the median overall survival was 29 months (95% CI 16.1-NA), with survival at 1, 3, and 5 years of 67% (95% CI 52-79), 47% (32-61), and 40% (24-55). INTERPRETATION: A treatment strategy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy followed by surgery is feasible in selected patients. Toxicity is considerable, but manageable. Survival compares favourably with historical results of combined treatment for less advanced stage IIIA disease. FUNDING: Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) and an unrestricted educational grant by Sanofi-Aventis (Switzerland).

Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6)

BACKGROUND: Unlike most antihyperglycaemic drugs, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have a glucose-dependent action and promote weight loss. We compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide, a human GLP-1 analogue, with exenatide, an exendin-based GLP-1 receptor agonist. METHODS: Adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on maximally tolerated doses of metformin, sulphonylurea, or both, were stratified by previous oral antidiabetic therapy and randomly assigned to receive additional liraglutide 1.8 mg once a day (n=233) or exenatide 10 microg twice a day (n=231) in a 26-week open-label, parallel-group, multinational (15 countries) study. The primary outcome was change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)). Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00518882. FINDINGS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) for the study population was 8.2%. Liraglutide reduced mean HbA(1c) significantly more than did exenatide (-1.12% [SE 0.08] vs -0.79% [0.08]; estimated treatment difference -0.33; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.18; p<0.0001) and more patients achieved a HbA(1c) value of less than 7% (54%vs 43%, respectively; odds ratio 2.02; 95% CI 1.31 to 3.11; p=0.0015). Liraglutide reduced mean fasting plasma glucose more than did exenatide (-1.61 mmol/L [SE 0.20] vs -0.60 mmol/L [0.20]; estimated treatment difference -1.01 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.37 to -0.65; p<0.0001) but postprandial glucose control was less effective after breakfast and dinner. Both drugs promoted similar weight losses (liraglutide -3.24 kg vs exenatide -2.87 kg). Both drugs were well tolerated, but nausea was less persistent (estimated treatment rate ratio 0.448, p<0.0001) and minor hypoglycaemia less frequent with liraglutide than with exenatide (1.93 vs 2.60 events per patient per year; rate ratio 0.55; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88; p=0.0131; 25.5%vs 33.6% had minor hypoglycaemia). Two patients taking both exenatide and a sulphonylurea had a major hypoglycaemic episode. INTERPRETATION: Liraglutide once a day provided significantly greater improvements in glycaemic control than did exenatide twice a day, and was generally better tolerated. The results suggest that liraglutide might be a treatment option for type 2 diabetes, especially when weight loss and risk of hypoglycaemia are major considerations.

Improved safety and reduction in stent thrombosis associated with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5-year report of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) randomized, noninferiority trial

OBJECTIVES This study sought to report the final 5 years follow-up of the landmark LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) trial. BACKGROUND The LEADERS trial is the first randomized study to evaluate biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) against durable polymer DES. METHODS The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, noninferiority, "all-comers" trial (N = 1,707). All patients were centrally randomized to treatment with either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) (n = 857) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (n = 850). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization within 9 months. Secondary endpoints included extending the primary endpoint to 5 years and stent thrombosis (ST) (Academic Research Consortium definition). Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS At 5 years, the BES was noninferior to SES for the primary endpoint (186 [22.3%] vs. 216 [26.1%], rate ratio [RR]: 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 1.02], p for noninferiority <0.0001, p for superiority = 0.069). The BES was associated with a significant reduction in the more comprehensive patient-orientated composite endpoint of all-cause death, any MI, and all-cause revascularization (297 [35.1%] vs. 339 [40.4%], RR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.98], p for superiority = 0.023). A significant reduction in very late definite ST from 1 to 5 years was evident with the BES (n = 5 [0.7%] vs. n = 19 [2.5%], RR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.10 to 0.68], p = 0.003), corresponding to a significant reduction in ST-associated clinical events (primary endpoint) over the same time period (n = 3 of 749 vs. n = 14 of 738, RR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.71], p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS The safety benefit of the biodegradable polymer BES, compared with the durable polymer SES, was related to a significant reduction in very late ST (>1 year) and associated composite clinical outcomes. (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating [LEADERS] trial; NCT00389220).

Survival of bonded lingual retainers with chemical or photo polymerization over a 2-year period: a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION The objective of this trial was to compare the survival rates of mandibular lingual retainers bonded with either chemically cured or light-cured adhesive after orthodontic treatment. METHODS Patients having undergone orthodontic treatment at a private orthodontic office were randomly allocated to fixed retainers placed with chemically cured composite or light-cured composite. Eligibility criteria included no active caries, restorations, or fractures on the mandibular anterior teeth, and adequate oral hygiene. The main outcome was any type of first-time lingual retainer breakage; pattern of failure (adapted adhesive remnant index scores) was a secondary outcome. Randomization was accomplished with random permuted blocks of 20 patients with allocation concealed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. Patients were reviewed at 1, 3, and 6 months and then every 6 months after placement of the retainer until completion of the study. Data were analyzed using survival analysis including Cox regression; sensitivity analysis was carried out after data imputation for subjects lost to follow-up. RESULTS Two hundred twenty patients (median age, 16 years; interquartile range, 2; range, 12-47 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either chemical or light curing. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, the median follow-up period was 2.19 years (range, 0.003-3.64 years), and 16 patients were lost to follow-up. At a minimum follow-up of 2 years, 47 of 110 (42.7%) and 55 of 110 (50.0%) retainers had some type of failure with chemically cured and light-cured adhesive, respectively (log-rank test, P = 0.35). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, and the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.70; P = 0.47). There was weak evidence that age is a significant predictor for lingual retainer failures (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = 0.08). Adhesive remnant index scoring was possible for only 66 of the 102 (64.7%) failures and did not differ between composites (Fisher exact test, P = 0.16). No serious harm was observed other than gingivitis associated with plaque accumulation. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study indicated no evidence that survival of mandibular lingual retainers differs between chemically and light-cured adhesives. The overall failure rate was 46.4%; however, this included any type of failure, which may have exaggerated the overall failure rate.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in dental specialty journals

OBJECTIVES A widespread assessment of the reporting of RCT abstracts published in dental journals is lacking. Our aim was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts published in leading dental specialty journals using, as a guide, the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. METHODS Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in seven dental specialty journals. The quality of abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified checklist based on the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS 228 RCT abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions, objectives and conclusions within abstracts were adequate. Inadequately reported items included: title, participants, outcomes, random number generation, numbers randomized and effect size estimate. Randomization restrictions, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis, harms, registration and funding were rarely described. CONCLUSIONS The mean overall reporting quality score was suboptimal at 62.5% (95% CI: 61.9, 63.0). Significantly better abstract reporting was noted in certain specialty journals and in multicenter trials.

Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale in cryptogenic embolism

BACKGROUND The options for secondary prevention of cryptogenic embolism in patients with patent foramen ovale are administration of antithrombotic medications or percutaneous closure of the patent foramen ovale. We investigated whether closure is superior to medical therapy. METHODS We performed a multicenter, superiority trial in 29 centers in Europe, Canada, Brazil, and Australia in which the assessors of end points were unaware of the study-group assignments. Patients with a patent foramen ovale and ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or a peripheral thromboembolic event were randomly assigned to undergo closure of the patent foramen ovale with the Amplatzer PFO Occluder or to receive medical therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal stroke, TIA, or peripheral embolism. Analysis was performed on data for the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS The mean duration of follow-up was 4.1 years in the closure group and 4.0 years in the medical-therapy group. The primary end point occurred in 7 of the 204 patients (3.4%) in the closure group and in 11 of the 210 patients (5.2%) in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio for closure vs. medical therapy, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 1.62; P=0.34). Nonfatal stroke occurred in 1 patient (0.5%) in the closure group and 5 patients (2.4%) in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.02 to 1.72; P=0.14), and TIA occurred in 5 patients (2.5%) and 7 patients (3.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.23 to 2.24; P=0.56). CONCLUSIONS Closure of a patent foramen ovale for secondary prevention of cryptogenic embolism did not result in a significant reduction in the risk of recurrent embolic events or death as compared with medical therapy. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00166257.).

Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents in women: a patient-level pooled analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) in the treatment of coronary artery disease have been assessed in several randomised trials. However, none of these trials were powered to assess the safety and efficacy of DES in women because only a small proportion of recruited participants were women. We therefore investigated the safety and efficacy of DES in female patients during long-term follow-up. METHODS We pooled patient-level data for female participants from 26 randomised trials of DES and analysed outcomes according to stent type (bare-metal stents, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES). The primary safety endpoint was a composite of death or myocardial infarction. The secondary safety endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy endpoint was target-lesion revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS Of 43,904 patients recruited in 26 trials of DES, 11,557 (26·3%) were women (mean age 67·1 years [SD 10·6]). 1108 (9·6%) women received bare-metal stents, 4171 (36·1%) early-generation DES, and 6278 (54·3%) newer-generation DES. At 3 years, estimated cumulative incidence of the composite of death or myocardial infarction occurred in 132 (12·8%) women in the bare-metal stent group, 421 (10·9%) in the early-generation DES group, and 496 (9·2%) in the newer-generation DES group (p=0·001). Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 13 (1·3%), 79 (2·1%), and 66 (1·1%) women in the bare-metal stent, early-generation DES, and newer-generation DES groups, respectively (p=0·01). The use of DES was associated with a significant reduction in the 3 year rates of target-lesion revascularisation (197 [18·6%] women in the bare-metal stent group, 294 [7·8%] in the early-generation DES group, and 330 [6·3%] in the newer-generation DES group, p<0·0001). Results did not change after adjustment for baseline characteristics in the multivariable analysis. INTERPRETATION The use of DES in women is more effective and safe than is use of bare-metal stents during long-term follow-up. Newer-generation DES are associated with an improved safety profile compared with early-generation DES, and should therefore be thought of as the standard of care for percutaneous coronary revascularisation in women. FUNDING Women in Innovation Initiative of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Chemotherapy for isolated locoregional recurrence of breast cancer (CALOR): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND Patients with isolated locoregional recurrences (ILRR) of breast cancer have a high risk of distant metastasis and death from breast cancer. We aimed to establish whether adjuvant chemotherapy improves the outcome of such patients. METHODS The CALOR trial was a pragmatic, open-label, randomised trial that accrued patients with histologically proven and completely excised ILRR after unilateral breast cancer who had undergone a mastectomy or lumpectomy with clear surgical margins. Eligible patients were enrolled from hospitals worldwide and were centrally randomised (1:1) to chemotherapy (type selected by the investigator; multidrug for at least four courses recommended) or no chemotherapy, using permuted blocks, and stratified by previous chemotherapy, oestrogen-receptor and progesterone-receptor status, and location of ILRR. Patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive ILRR received adjuvant endocrine therapy, radiation therapy was mandated for patients with microscopically involved surgical margins, and anti-HER2 therapy was optional. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. All analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00074152. FINDINGS From Aug 22, 2003, to Jan 31, 2010, 85 patients were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy and 77 were assigned to no chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 4·9 years (IQR 3·6-6 ·0), 24 (28%) patients had disease-free survival events in the chemotherapy group compared with 34 (44%) in the no chemotherapy group. 5-year disease-free survival was 69% (95% CI 56-79) with chemotherapy versus 57% (44-67) without chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0·59 [95% CI 0·35-0·99]; p=0·046). Adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly more effective for women with oestrogen-receptor-negative ILRR (pinteraction=0·046), but analyses of disease-free survival according to the oestrogen-receptor status of the primary tumour were not statistically significant (pinteraction=0·43). Of the 81 patients who received chemotherapy, 12 (15%) had serious adverse events. The most common adverse events were neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and intestinal infection. INTERPRETATION Adjuvant chemotherapy should be recommended for patients with completely resected ILRR of breast cancer, especially if the recurrence is oestrogen-receptor negative. FUNDING US Department of Health and Human Services, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK), Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Australian and New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group, Swedish Cancer Society, Oncosuisse, Cancer Association of South Africa, Foundation for Clinical Research of Eastern Switzerland (OSKK), Grupo Español de Investigación en Cáncer de Mama (GEICAM), and the Dutch Breast Cancer Trialists' Group (BOOG).

Internet-Based Guided Self-Help for Several Anxiety Disorders: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a Tailored With a Standardized Disorder-Specific Approach

Internet-delivered self-help with minimal therapist guidance has shown promising results for a number of diagnoses. Most of the evidence comes from studies evaluating standardized disorder-specific treatments. A recent development in the field includes transdiagnostic and tailored Internet-based treatments that address comorbid symptoms and a broader range of patients. This study evaluated an Internet-based tailored guided self-help treatment, which targeted symptoms of social anxiety disorder, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. The tailored treatment was compared both with standardized disorder-specific Internet-based treatment and with a wait-list control group. Both active treatment conditions were based on cognitive-behavioral therapy and lasted for 8 weeks. A total of 132 individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for at least one of the anxiety disorders were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 conditions. Both treatment groups showed significant symptom reductions as compared with the wait-list control group on primary disorder-unspecific measures of anxiety, depression, and general symptomatology and on secondary anxiety disorder-specific measures. Based on the intention-to-treat sample, mean between-group effect sizes were d = 0.80 for the tailored treatment and d = 0.82 for the standardized treatment, versus wait-list controls. Treatment gains were maintained at 6-month follow-up. No differences were found between the 2 active treatment conditions on any of the measures, including a telephone-administered diagnostic interview conducted at posttreatment. The findings suggest that both Internet-based tailored guided self-help treatments and Internet-based standardized treatments are promising treatment options for several anxiety disorders

Short-term vs conventional glucocorticoid therapy in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the REDUCE randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE International guidelines advocate a 7- to 14-day course of systemic glucocorticoid therapy in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the optimal dose and duration are unknown. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether a short-term (5 days) systemic glucocorticoid treatment in patients with COPD exacerbation is noninferior to conventional (14 days) treatment in clinical outcome and whether it decreases the exposure to steroids. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS REDUCE: (Reduction in the Use of Corticosteroids in Exacerbated COPD), a randomized, noninferiority multicenter trial in 5 Swiss teaching hospitals, enrolling 314 patients presenting to the emergency department with acute COPD exacerbation, past or present smokers (≥20 pack-years) without a history of asthma, from March 2006 through February 2011. INTERVENTIONS Treatment with 40 mg of prednisone daily for either 5 or 14 days in a placebo-controlled, double-blind fashion. The predefined noninferiority criterion was an absolute increase in exacerbations of at most 15%, translating to a critical hazard ratio of 1.515 for a reference event rate of 50%. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE Time to next exacerbation within 180 days. RESULTS Of 314 randomized patients, 289 (92%) of whom were admitted to the hospital, 311 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and 296 in the per-protocol analysis. Hazard ratios for the short-term vs conventional treatment group were 0.95 (90% CI, 0.70 to 1.29; P = .006 for noninferiority) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 0.93 (90% CI, 0.68 to 1.26; P = .005 for noninferiority) in the per-protocol analysis, meeting our noninferiority criterion. In the short-term group, 56 patients (35.9%) reached the primary end point; 57 (36.8%) in the conventional group. Estimates of reexacerbation rates within 180 days were 37.2% (95% CI, 29.5% to 44.9%) in the short-term; 38.4% (95% CI, 30.6% to 46.3%) in the conventional, with a difference of -1.2% (95% CI, -12.2% to 9.8%) between the short-term and the conventional. Among patients with a reexacerbation, the median time to event was 43.5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 13 to 118) in the short-term and 29 days (IQR, 16 to 85) in the conventional. There was no difference between groups in time to death, the combined end point of exacerbation, death, or both and recovery of lung function. In the conventional group, mean cumulative prednisone dose was significantly higher (793 mg [95% CI, 710 to 876 mg] vs 379 mg [95% CI, 311 to 446 mg], P < .001), but treatment-associated adverse reactions, including hyperglycemia and hypertension, did not occur more frequently. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In patients presenting to the emergency department with acute exacerbations of COPD, 5-day treatment with systemic glucocorticoids was noninferior to 14-day treatment with regard to reexacerbation within 6 months of follow-up but significantly reduced glucocorticoid exposure. These findings support the use of a 5-day glucocorticoid treatment in acute exacerbations of COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN19646069.

Three-dimensional, task-specific robot therapy of the arm after stroke: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Arm hemiparesis secondary to stroke is common and disabling. We aimed to assess whether robotic training of an affected arm with ARMin--an exoskeleton robot that allows task-specific training in three dimensions-reduces motor impairment more effectively than does conventional therapy. METHODS: In a prospective, multicentre, parallel-group randomised trial, we enrolled patients who had had motor impairment for more than 6 months and moderate-to-severe arm paresis after a cerebrovascular accident who met our eligibility criteria from four centres in Switzerland. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive robotic or conventional therapy using a centre-stratified randomisation procedure. For both groups, therapy was given for at least 45 min three times a week for 8 weeks (total 24 sessions). The primary outcome was change in score on the arm (upper extremity) section of the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA-UE). Assessors tested patients immediately before therapy, after 4 weeks of therapy, at the end of therapy, and 16 weeks and 34 weeks after start of therapy. Assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but patients, therapists, and data analysts were unmasked. Analyses were by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00719433. FINDINGS: Between May 4, 2009, and Sept 3, 2012, 143 individuals were tested for eligibility, of whom 77 were eligible and agreed to participate. 38 patients assigned to robotic therapy and 35 assigned to conventional therapy were included in analyses. Patients assigned to robotic therapy had significantly greater improvements in motor function in the affected arm over the course of the study as measured by FMA-UE than did those assigned to conventional therapy (F=4.1, p=0.041; mean difference in score 0.78 points, 95% CI 0.03-1.53). No serious adverse events related to the study occurred. INTERPRETATION: Neurorehabilitation therapy including task-oriented training with an exoskeleton robot can enhance improvement of motor function in a chronically impaired paretic arm after stroke more effectively than conventional therapy. However, the absolute difference between effects of robotic and conventional therapy in our study was small and of weak significance, which leaves the clinical relevance in question.

Vandetanib in locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND No effective standard treatment exists for patients with radioiodine-refractory, advanced differentiated thyroid carcinoma. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of vandetanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of RET, VEGFR and EGFR signalling, in this setting. METHODS In this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid carcinoma (papillary, follicular, or poorly differentiated) at 16 European medical centres. Eligible patients were sequentially randomised in a 1:1 ratio with a standard computerised scheme to receive either vandetanib 300 mg per day (vandetanib group) or matched placebo (placebo group), balanced by centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population based on investigator assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00537095. FINDINGS Between Sept 28, 2007, and Oct 16, 2008, we randomly allocated 72 patients to the vandetanib group and 73 patients to the placebo group. By data cutoff (Dec 2, 2009), 113 (78%) patients had progressed (52 [72%] patients in the vandetanib group and 61 [84%] in the placebo group) and 40 (28%) had died (19 [26%] patients in the vandetanib group and 21 [29%] in the placebo group). Patients who received vandetanib had longer PFS than did those who received placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·63, 60% CI 0·54-0·74; one-sided p=0·008): median PFS was 11·1 months (95% CI 7·7-14·0) for patients in the vandetanib group and 5·9 months (4·0-8·9) for patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were QTc prolongation (ten [14%] of 73 patients in the vandetanib group vs none in the placebo group), diarrhoea (seven [10%] vs none), asthenia (five [7%] vs three [4%]), and fatigue (four [5%] vs none). Two patients in the vandetanib group and one in the placebo group died from treatment-related serious adverse events (haemorrhage from skin metastases and pneumonia in the vandetanib group and pneumonia in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION Vandetanib is the first targeted drug to show evidence of efficacy in a randomised phase 2 trial in patients with locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Further investigation of tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in this setting is warranted. FUNDING AstraZeneca.