Is paromomycin an effective and safe treatment against cutaneous leishmaniasis? A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: High cost, poor compliance, and systemic toxicity have limited the use of pentavalent antimony compounds (SbV), the treatment of choice for cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL). Paromomycin (PR) has been developed as an alternative to SbV, but existing data are conflicting. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without language restriction, through August 2007, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy or safety between PR and placebo or SbV. Primary outcome was clinical cure, defined as complete healing, disappearance, or reepithelialization of all lesions. Data were extracted independently by two investigators, and pooled using a random-effects model. Fourteen trials including 1,221 patients were included. In placebo-controlled trials, topical PR appeared to have therapeutic activity against the old world and new world CL, with increased local reactions, when used with methylbenzethonium chloride (MBCL) compared to when used alone (risk ratio [RR] for clinical cure, 2.58 versus 1.01: RR for local reactions, 1.60 versus 1.07). In SbV-controlled trials, the efficacy of topical PR was not significantly different from that of intralesional SbV in the old world CL (RR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-1.89), whereas topical PR was inferior to parenteral SbV in treating the new world CL (0.67; 0.54-0.82). No significant difference in efficacy was found between parenteral PR and parenteral SbV in the new world CL (0.88; 0.56-1.38). Systemic side effects were fewer with topical or parenteral PR than parenteral SbV. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Topical PR with MBCL could be a therapeutic alternative to SbV in selected cases of the old world CL. Development of new formulations with better efficacy and tolerability remains to be an area of future research.

BAYESIAN PHASE I DOSE FINDING IN CANCER TRIALS

This dissertation explores phase I dose-finding designs in cancer trials from three perspectives: the alternative Bayesian dose-escalation rules, a design based on a time-to-dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) model, and a design based on a discrete-time multi-state (DTMS) model. We list alternative Bayesian dose-escalation rules and perform a simulation study for the intra-rule and inter-rule comparisons based on two statistical models to identify the most appropriate rule under certain scenarios. We provide evidence that all the Bayesian rules outperform the traditional ``3+3'' design in the allocation of patients and selection of the maximum tolerated dose. The design based on a time-to-DLT model uses patients' DLT information over multiple treatment cycles in estimating the probability of DLT at the end of treatment cycle 1. Dose-escalation decisions are made whenever a cycle-1 DLT occurs, or two months after the previous check point. Compared to the design based on a logistic regression model, the new design shows more safety benefits for trials in which more late-onset toxicities are expected. As a trade-off, the new design requires more patients on average. The design based on a discrete-time multi-state (DTMS) model has three important attributes: (1) Toxicities are categorized over a distribution of severity levels, (2) Early toxicity may inform dose escalation, and (3) No suspension is required between accrual cohorts. The proposed model accounts for the difference in the importance of the toxicity severity levels and for transitions between toxicity levels. We compare the operating characteristics of the proposed design with those from a similar design based on a fully-evaluated model that directly models the maximum observed toxicity level within the patients' entire assessment window. We describe settings in which, under comparable power, the proposed design shortens the trial. The proposed design offers more benefit compared to the alternative design as patient accrual becomes slower.

Cancer patients' attitudes toward cancer trials

Background. Accurate measurement of attitudes toward participation in cancer treatment trials (CTs) and cancer prevention trials (CPTs) across varied groups could assist health researchers and educators when addressing attitudinal barriers to participation in these trials. ^ Methods. The Attitudes toward Cancer Trials Scales (ACTS) instrument development was based on a conceptual model developed from research literature, clinical practice experience, and empirical testing of items with a sample of 312 respondents. The ACTS contains two scales, the Cancer Trials (CT) scale (4 components; 18 items) and the Cancer Prevention Trials (CPT) scale (3 components; 16 items). Cronbach's alpha values for the CT and CPT scales, respectively, were 0.86 and 0.89. These two scales along with sociodemographic and cancer trial history variables were distributed in a mail survey of former patients of a large cancer research center. The disproportionate stratified probability sampling procedure yielded 925 usable responses (54% response rate). ^ Results. Prevalence of favorable attitudes toward CTs and CPTs was 66% and 69%, respectively. There were no significant differences in mean scale scores by cancer site or gender, but African Americans had more favorable attitudes toward CTs than European Americans. Multiple regression analysis indicated that older age, lower education level, and prior CT participation history were associated with more favorable attitudes toward CTs. Prior CT participation and prior CPT participation were associated with more favorable attitudes toward CPTs. Results also provided evidence of reliability and construct validity for both scales. ^ Conclusions. Middle age, higher education, and European American ethnicity are associated with less positive attitudes about participating in cancer treatment trials. Availability of a psychometrically sound instrument to measure attitudes may facilitate a better understanding decision making regarding participation in CTs and CPTs. It is this author's intention that the ACTS' scales will be used by other investigators to measure attitudes toward CTs and CPTs in various groups of persons, and that the many issues regarding participation in trials might become more explicit. ^

Effect of nonnormal random components on level and power in group-randomized trials

The use of group-randomized trials is particularly widespread in the evaluation of health care, educational, and screening strategies. Group-randomized trials represent a subset of a larger class of designs often labeled nested, hierarchical, or multilevel and are characterized by the randomization of intact social units or groups, rather than individuals. The application of random effects models to group-randomized trials requires the specification of fixed and random components of the model. The underlying assumption is usually that these random components are normally distributed. This research is intended to determine if the Type I error rate and power are affected when the assumption of normality for the random component representing the group effect is violated. ^ In this study, simulated data are used to examine the Type I error rate, power, bias and mean squared error of the estimates of the fixed effect and the observed intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) when the random component representing the group effect possess distributions with non-normal characteristics, such as heavy tails or severe skewness. The simulated data are generated with various characteristics (e.g. number of schools per condition, number of students per school, and several within school ICCs) observed in most small, school-based, group-randomized trials. The analysis is carried out using SAS PROC MIXED, Version 6.12, with random effects specified in a random statement and restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation specified. The results from the non-normally distributed data are compared to the results obtained from the analysis of data with similar design characteristics but normally distributed random effects. ^ The results suggest that the violation of the normality assumption for the group component by a skewed or heavy-tailed distribution does not appear to influence the estimation of the fixed effect, Type I error, and power. Negative biases were detected when estimating the sample ICC and dramatically increased in magnitude as the true ICC increased. These biases were not as pronounced when the true ICC was within the range observed in most group-randomized trials (i.e. 0.00 to 0.05). The normally distributed group effect also resulted in bias ICC estimates when the true ICC was greater than 0.05. However, this may be a result of higher correlation within the data. ^

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.

Poor Reliability between Cochrane Reviewers and Blinded External Reviewers When Applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in Physical Therapy Trials

OBJECTIVES To test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers. METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (κ). RESULTS In total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (κ  =  0.02, 95%CI: -0.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median κ  = 0.19), ranging from κ  =  -0.04 ("Other bias") to κ  =  0.62 ("Sequence generation"). There was also no agreement (κ  =  -0.29, 95%CI: -0.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level. CONCLUSIONS Risk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed.

Predictors of adverse events among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from a pooled analysis of the COMFORTABLE AMI and EXAMINATION trials

Aims: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of adverse events among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing contemporary primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: Individual data of 2,655 patients from two primary PCI trials (EXAMINATION, N=1,504; COMFORTABLE AMI, N=1,161) with identical endpoint definitions and event adjudication were pooled. Predictors of all-cause death or any reinfarction and definite stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) outcomes at one year were identified by multivariable Cox regression analysis. Killip class III or IV was the strongest predictor of all-cause death or any reinfarction (OR 5.11, 95% CI: 2.48-10.52), definite ST (OR 7.74, 95% CI: 2.87-20.93), and TLR (OR 2.88, 95% CI: 1.17-7.06). Impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (OR 4.77, 95% CI: 2.10-10.82), final TIMI flow 0-2 (OR 1.93, 95% CI: 1.05-3.54), arterial hypertension (OR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.11-2.59), age (OR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.41-2.01), and peak CK (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-1.54) were independent predictors of all-cause death or any reinfarction. Allocation to treatment with DES was an independent predictor of a lower risk of definite ST (OR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.74) and any TLR (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21-0.54). Conclusions: Killip class remains the strongest predictor of all-cause death or any reinfarction among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. DES use independently predicts a lower risk of TLR and definite ST compared with BMS. The COMFORTABLE AMI trial is registered at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00962416. The EXAMINATION trial is registered at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00828087.

The Alexander Technique and musicians: a systematic review of controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders, stress and performance anxiety are common in musicians. Therefore, some use the Alexander Technique (AT), a psycho-physical method that helps to release unnecessary muscle tension and re-educates non-beneficial movement patterns through intentional inhibition of unwanted habitual behaviours. According to a recent review AT sessions may be effective for chronic back pain. This review aimed to evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of AT sessions on musicians' performance, anxiety, respiratory function and posture. METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched up to February 2014 for relevant publications: PUBMED, Google Scholar, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and RILM. The search criteria were "Alexander Technique" AND "music*". References were searched, and experts and societies of AT or musicians' medicine contacted for further publications. RESULTS: 237 citations were assessed. 12 studies were included for further analysis, 5 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 5 controlled but not randomised (CTs), and 2 mixed methods studies. Main outcome measures in RCTs and CTs were music performance, respiratory function, performance anxiety, body use and posture. Music performance was judged by external experts and found to be improved by AT in 1 of 3 RCTs; in 1 RCT comparing neurofeedback (NF) to AT, only NF caused improvements. Respiratory function was investigated in 2 RCTs, but not improved by AT training. Performance anxiety was mostly assessed by questionnaires and decreased by AT in 2 of 2 RCTs and in 2 of 2 CTs. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of outcome measures have been used to investigate the effectiveness of AT sessions in musicians. Evidence from RCTs and CTs suggests that AT sessions may improve performance anxiety in musicians. Effects on music performance, respiratory function and posture yet remain inconclusive. Future trials with well-established study designs are warranted to further and more reliably explore the potential of AT in the interest of musicians.

Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information.

Historical information is always relevant for clinical trial design. Additionally, if incorporated in the analysis of a new trial, historical data allow to reduce the number of subjects. This decreases costs and trial duration, facilitates recruitment, and may be more ethical. Yet, under prior-data conflict, a too optimistic use of historical data may be inappropriate. We address this challenge by deriving a Bayesian meta-analytic-predictive prior from historical data, which is then combined with the new data. This prospective approach is equivalent to a meta-analytic-combined analysis of historical and new data if parameters are exchangeable across trials. The prospective Bayesian version requires a good approximation of the meta-analytic-predictive prior, which is not available analytically. We propose two- or three-component mixtures of standard priors, which allow for good approximations and, for the one-parameter exponential family, straightforward posterior calculations. Moreover, since one of the mixture components is usually vague, mixture priors will often be heavy-tailed and therefore robust. Further robustness and a more rapid reaction to prior-data conflicts can be achieved by adding an extra weakly-informative mixture component. Use of historical prior information is particularly attractive for adaptive trials, as the randomization ratio can then be changed in case of prior-data conflict. Both frequentist operating characteristics and posterior summaries for various data scenarios show that these designs have desirable properties. We illustrate the methodology for a phase II proof-of-concept trial with historical controls from four studies. Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors alleviate prior-data conflicts ' they should encourage better and more frequent use of historical data in clinical trials.

Factorial designs: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trials.

Factorial designs for clinical trials are often encountered in medical, dental, and orthodontic research. Factorial designs assess two or more interventions simultaneously and the main advantage of this design is its efficiency in terms of sample size as more than one intervention may be assessed on the same participants. However, the factorial design is efficient only under the assumption of no interaction (no effect modification) between the treatments under investigation and, therefore, this should be considered at the design stage. Conversely, the factorial study design may also be used for the purpose of detecting an interaction between two interventions if the study is powered accordingly. However, a factorial design powered to detect an interaction has no advantage in terms of the required sample size compared to a multi-arm parallel trial for assessing more than one intervention. It is the purpose of this article to highlight the methodological issues that should be considered when planning, analysing, and reporting the simplest form of this design, which is the 2 × 2 factorial design. An example from the field of orthodontics using two parameters (bracket type and wire type) on maxillary incisor torque loss will be utilized in order to explain the design requirements, the advantages and disadvantages of this design, and its application in orthodontic research.

The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics.

OBJECTIVES Accurate trial reporting facilitates evaluation and better use of study results. The objective of this article is to investigate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in leading orthodontic journals, and to explore potential predictors of improved reporting. METHODS The 50 most recent issues of 4 leading orthodontic journals until November 2013 were electronically searched. Reporting quality assessment was conducted using the modified CONSORT statement checklist. The relationship between potential predictors and the modified CONSORT score was assessed using linear regression modeling. RESULTS 128 RCTs were identified with a mean modified CONSORT score of 68.97% (SD = 11.09). The Journal of Orthodontics (JO) ranked first in terms of completeness of reporting (modified CONSORT score 76.21%, SD = 10.1), followed by American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO) (73.05%, SD = 10.1). Journal of publication (AJODO: β = 10.08, 95% CI: 5.78, 14.38; JO: β = 16.82, 95% CI: 11.70, 21.94; EJO: β = 7.21, 95% CI: 2.69, 11.72 compared to Angle), year of publication (β = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.28, 1.67 for each additional year), region of authorship (Europe: β = 5.19, 95% CI: 1.30, 9.09 compared to Asia/other), statistical significance (significant: β = 3.10, 95% CI: 0.11, 6.10 compared to non-significant) and methodologist involvement (involvement: β = 5.60, 95% CI: 1.66, 9.54 compared to non-involvement) were all significant predictors of improved modified CONSORT scores in the multivariable model. Additionally, median overall Jadad score was 2 (IQR = 2) across journals, with JO (median = 3, IQR = 1) and AJODO (median = 3, IQR = 2) presenting the highest score values. CONCLUSION The reporting quality of RCTs published in leading orthodontic journals is considered suboptimal in various CONSORT areas. This may have a bearing in trial result interpretation and use in clinical decision making and evidence- based orthodontic treatment interventions.

Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology.

AIM Abstracts of randomized clinical trials are extremely important as trial appraisal is often based on the information included here. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of RCT abstracts in journals of Oral Implantology. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six leading Implantology journals were screened for RCTs between years 2008 and 2012. A 21-item modified CONSORT for abstracts checklist was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling were employed for data analysis. RESULTS One hundred and sixty three RCT abstracts were included in this study. The majority of the RCTs were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research (42.9%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 58.6% (95% CI: 57.6-59.7). The highest score was noted in the European Journal of Oral Implantology (63.8%; 95% CI: 61.8-65.8). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that abstract quality score was related to publication journal and number of research centers involved. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions (89.0%), objectives (77.9%) and conclusions (74.8%) while failed to report randomization procedures, allocation concealment, effect estimate, confidence intervals, and funding. Registration of RCTs was not reported in any of the abstracts. CONCLUSIONS The reporting quality in abstracts of RCTs published in Oral Implantology journals needs to be improved. Editors and authors should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines in order to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting.

Sample size in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: are numbers justified?

Sample size calculations are advocated by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group to justify sample sizes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to analyse the reporting of sample size calculations in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals. The performance of sample size calculations was assessed and calculations verified where possible. Related aspects, including number of authors; parallel, split-mouth, or other design; single- or multi-centre study; region of publication; type of data analysis (intention-to-treat or per-protocol basis); and number of participants recruited and lost to follow-up, were considered. Of 139 RCTs identified, complete sample size calculations were reported in 41 studies (29.5 per cent). Parallel designs were typically adopted (n = 113; 81 per cent), with 80 per cent (n = 111) involving two arms and 16 per cent having three arms. Data analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis in a small minority of studies (n = 18; 13 per cent). According to the calculations presented, overall, a median of 46 participants were required to demonstrate sufficient power to highlight meaningful differences (typically at a power of 80 per cent). The median number of participants recruited was 60, with a median of 4 participants being lost to follow-up. Our finding indicates good agreement between projected numbers required and those verified (median discrepancy: 5.3 per cent), although only a minority of trials (29.5 per cent) could be examined. Although sample size calculations are often reported in trials published as RCTs in orthodontic speciality journals, presentation is suboptimal and in need of significant improvement.

Timing of bacterial carriage sampling in vaccine trials: A modelling study.

BACKGROUND Pathogenic bacteria are often asymptomatically carried in the nasopharynx. Bacterial carriage can be reduced by vaccination and has been used as an alternative endpoint to clinical disease in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Vaccine efficacy (VE) is usually calculated as 1 minus a measure of effect. Estimates of vaccine efficacy from cross-sectional carriage data collected in RCTs are usually based on prevalence odds ratios (PORs) and prevalence ratios (PRs), but it is unclear when these should be measured. METHODS We developed dynamic compartmental transmission models simulating RCTs of a vaccine against a carried pathogen to investigate how VE can best be estimated from cross-sectional carriage data, at which time carriage should optimally be assessed, and to which factors this timing is most sensitive. In the models, vaccine could change carriage acquisition and clearance rates (leaky vaccine); values for these effects were explicitly defined (facq, 1/fdur). POR and PR were calculated from model outputs. Models differed in infection source: other participants or external sources unaffected by the trial. Simulations using multiple vaccine doses were compared to empirical data. RESULTS The combined VE against acquisition and duration calculated using POR (VEˆacq.dur, (1-POR)×100) best estimates the true VE (VEacq.dur, (1-facq×fdur)×100) for leaky vaccines in most scenarios. The mean duration of carriage was the most important factor determining the time until VEˆacq.dur first approximates VEacq.dur: if the mean duration of carriage is 1-1.5 months, up to 4 months are needed; if the mean duration is 2-3 months, up to 8 months are needed. Minor differences were seen between models with different infection sources. In RCTs with shorter intervals between vaccine doses it takes longer after the last dose until VEˆacq.dur approximates VEacq.dur. CONCLUSION The timing of sample collection should be considered when interpreting vaccine efficacy against bacterial carriage measured in RCTs.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for a more transparent and objective appraisal of the evidence. They may decrease the number of false-negative results and prevent delays in the introduction of effective interventions into clinical practice. However, as for any other tool, their misuse can result in severely misleading results. In this article, we discuss the main steps that should be taken when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, namely the preparation of a review protocol, identification of eligible trials, and data extraction, pooling of treatment effects across trials, investigation of potential reasons for differences in treatment effects across trials, and complete reporting of the review methods and findings. We also discuss common pitfalls that should be avoided, including the use of quality assessment tools to derive summary quality scores, pooling of data across trials as if they belonged to a single large trial, and inappropriate uses of meta-regression that could result in misleading estimates of treatment effects because of regression to the mean or the ecological fallacy. If conducted and reported properly, systematic reviews and meta-analyses will increase our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the available evidence, which may eventually facilitate clinical decision making.