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

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

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

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

Sirolimus versus paclitaxel coronary stents in clinical practice

Objectives: We aimed at comparing the long term clinical outcome of SES and PES in routine clinical practice. Background: Although sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) more effectively reduce neointimal hyperplasia than paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), uncertainty prevails whether this difference translates into differences in clinical outcomes outside randomized controlled trials with selected patient populations and protocol-mandated angiographic follow-up. Methods: Nine hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a drug-eluting stent between May 2004 and February 2005: 467 patients with 646 lesions received SES, 437 patients with 600 lesions received PES. Clinical follow-up was obtained at 2 years without intervening routine angiographic follow-up. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: At 2 years, the primary endpoint was less frequent with SES (12.9%) than PES (17.6%, HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.98, P = 0.04). The difference in favor of SES was largely driven by a lower rate of target lesion revascularisation (TLR; 4.1% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.05), whereas rates of death (6.4% vs. 7.6%, P = 0.49), MI (1.9% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.21), or definite stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.27) were similar for both stent types. The benefit regarding reduced rates of TLR was significant in nondiabetic (3.6% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.04) but not in diabetic patients (5.6% vs. 6.1%, P = 0.80). Conclusions: SES more effectively reduced the need for repeat revascularization procedures than PES when used in routine clinical practice. The beneficial effect is maintained up to 2 years and may be less pronounced in diabetic patients.

Sample size estimation: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trial designs

Proper sample size estimation is an important part of clinical trial methodology and closely related to the precision and power of the trial's results. Trials with sufficient sample sizes are scientifically and ethically justified and more credible compared with trials with insufficient sizes. Planning clinical trials with inadequate sample sizes might be considered as a waste of time and resources, as well as unethical, since patients might be enrolled in a study in which the expected results will not be trusted and are unlikely to have an impact on clinical practice. Because of the low emphasis of sample size calculation in clinical trials in orthodontics, it is the objective of this article to introduce the orthodontic clinician to the importance and the general principles of sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials to serve as guidance for study designs and as a tool for quality assessment when reviewing published clinical trials in our specialty. Examples of calculations are shown for 2-arm parallel trials applicable to orthodontics. The working examples are analyzed, and the implications of design or inherent complexities in each category are discussed.

Double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing real versus placebo acupuncture to improve tolerance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy without sedation: a study protocol

Background Sedation prior to performance of diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGDE) is widespread and increases patient comfort. But 98% of all serious adverse events during EGDEs are ascribed to sedation. The S3 guideline for sedation procedures in gastrointestinal endoscopy published in 2008 in Germany increases patient safety by standardization. These new regulations increase costs because of the need for more personnel and a prolonged discharge procedure after examinations with sedation. Many patients have difficulties to meet the discharge criteria regulated by the S3 guideline, e.g. the call for a second person to escort them home, to resign from driving and working for the rest of the day, resulting in a refusal of sedation. Therefore, we would like to examine if an acupuncture during elective, diagnostic EGDEs could increase the comfort of patients refusing systemic sedation. Methods/Design A single-center, double blinded, placebo controlled superiority trial to compare the success rates of elective, diagnostic EGDEs with real and placebo acupuncture. All patients aged 18 years or older scheduled for elective, diagnostic EGDE who refuse a systemic sedation are eligible. 354 patients will be randomized. The primary endpoint is the rate of successful EGDEs with the randomized technique. Intervention: Real or placebo acupuncture before and during EGDE. Duration of study: Approximately 24 months. Discussion Organisation/Responsibility The ACUPEND - Trial will be conducted in accordance with the protocol and in compliance with the moral, ethical, and scientific principles governing clinical research as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (1989) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Center (IEZ) of the University Hospital Heidelberg is responsible for design and conduct of the trial, including randomization and documentation of patients' data. Data management and statistical analysis will be performed by the independent Institute for Medical Biometry and Informatics (IMBI) and the Center of Clinical Trials (KSC) at the Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg.

Eligibility for and outcome of hepatitis C treatment of HIV-coinfected individuals in clinical practice: the Swiss HIV cohort study

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality of individuals co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV) is often determined by the course of their HCV infection. Only a selected proportion of those in need of HCV treatment are studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We analysed the prevalence of HCV infection in a large cohort, the number of individuals requiring treatment, the eligibility for HCV treatment, and the outcome of the combination therapy with pegylated interferon-a and ribavirin in routine practice. METHODS: We analysed prescription patterns of HCV treatment and treatment outcomes among participants from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study with detectable hepatitis C viraemia (between January 2001 and October 2004). Efficacy was measured by the number of patients with undetectable HCV RNA at the end of therapy (EOTR) and at 6 months after treatment termination (SVR). Intention-to-continue-treatment principles were used. RESULTS: A total of 2150 of 7048 (30.5%) participants were coinfected with HCV; HCV RNA was detected in 60%, and not assessed in 26% of HCV-antibody-positive individuals. One hundred and sixty (12.5%) of HCV-RNA-positive patients started treatment. In patients infected with HCV genotypes 1/4 or 2/3, EOTR was achieved in 43.3% and 81.2% of patients, respectively, and SVR rates were 28.4% and 51.8%, respectively. More than 50% of the HCV-treated patients would have been excluded from two large published RCTs due to demographic, clinical and laboratory criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clinical and psychosocial obstacles encountered in clinical practice, HCV treatment in HIV-coinfected individuals is feasible with results similar to those obtained in RCTs.

Identifying breast cancer patients at risk for Central Nervous System (CNS) metastases in trials of the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG)

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether a high-risk group could be defined among patients with operable breast cancer in whom a search of occult central nervous system (CNS) metastases was justified. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated data from 9524 women with early breast cancer (42% node-negative) who were randomized in International Breast Cancer Study Group clinical trials between 1978 and 1999, and treated without anthracyclines, taxanes, or trastuzumab. We identified patients whose site of first event was CNS and those who had a CNS event at any time. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 13 years. The 10-year incidence (10-yr) of CNS relapse was 5.2% (1.3% as first recurrence). Factors predictive of CNS as first recurrence included: node-positive disease (10-yr = 2.2% for > 3 N+), estrogen receptor-negative (2.3%), tumor size > 2 cm (1.7%), tumor grade 3 (2.0%), < 35 years old (2.2%), HER2-positive (2.7%), and estrogen receptor-negative and node-positive (2.6%). The risk of subsequent CNS recurrence was elevated in patients experiencing lung metastases (10-yr = 16.4%). CONCLUSION: Based on this large cohort we were able to define risk factors for CNS metastases, but could not define a group at sufficient risk to justify routine screening for occult CNS metastases.

Validity and clinical significance of biomechanical testing of implant/bone interface

Purpose: The aim of this paper was to review the clinical literature on the Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and Periotest techniques in order to assess the validity and prognostic value of each technique to detect implants at risk for failure. Material and methods: A search was made using the PubMed database to find clinical studies using the RFA and/or Periotest techniques. Results: A limited number of clinical reports were found. No randomized-controlled clinical trials or prospective cohort studies could be found for validity testing of the techniques. Consequently, only a narrative review was prepared to cover general aspects of the techniques, factors influencing measurements and the clinical relevance of the techniques. Conclusions: Factors such as bone density, upper or lower jaw, abutment length and supracrestal implant length seem to influence both RFA and Periotest measurements. Data suggest that high RFA and low Periotest values indicate successfully integrated implants and that low/decreasing RFA and high/increasing Periotest values may be signs of ongoing disintegration and/or marginal bone loss. However, single readings using any of the techniques are of limited clinical value. The prognostic value of the RFA and Periotest techniques in predicting loss of implant stability has yet to be established in prospective clinical studies. To cite this article: Aparicio C, Lang N P, Rangert B. Validity and clinical significance of biomechanical testing of implant/bone interface. Clin. Oral Imp. Res., 17 (Suppl. 2), 2006; 2-7.

Comparison of the effects of cetylpyridinium chloride with an essential oil mouth rinse on dental plaque and gingivitis - a six-month randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of an experimental mouth rinse containing 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) (Crest Pro-Health) with those provided by a commercially available mouth rinse containing essential oils (EOs) (Listerine) on dental plaque accumulation and prevention of gingivitis in an unsupervised 6-month randomized clinical trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This double-blind, 6-month, parallel group, positively controlled study involved 151 subjects balanced and randomly assigned to either positive control (EO) or experimental (CPC) mouth rinse treatment groups. At baseline, subjects received a dental prophylaxis procedure and began unsupervised rinsing twice a day with 20 ml of their assigned mouthwash for 30 s after brushing their teeth for 1 min. Subjects were assessed for gingivitis and gingival bleeding by the Gingival index (GI) of Löe ; Silness (1963) and plaque by the Silness ; Löe (1964) Plaque index at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of rinsing. At 3 and 6 months, oral soft tissue health was assessed. Microbiological samples were also taken for community profiling by the DNA checkerboard method. RESULTS: Results show that after 3 and 6 months of rinsing, there were no significant differences (p=0.05) between the experimental (CPC) and the positive control mouth rinse treatment groups for overall gingivitis status, gingival bleeding, and plaque accumulation. At 6 months, the covariant (baseline) adjusted mean GI and bleeding sites percentages for the CPC and the EO rinses were 0.52 and 0.53 and 8.7 and 9.3, respectively. Both mouth rinses were well tolerated by the subjects. Microbiological community profiles were similar for the two treatment groups. Statistically, a significant greater reduction in bleeding sites was observed for the CPC rinse versus the EO rinse. CONCLUSION: The essential findings of this study indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in the anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis benefits between the experimental CPC mouth rinse and the positive control EO mouth rinse over a 6-month period.

Drug-eluting stent and coronary thrombosis: biological mechanisms and clinical implications

Although rare, stent thrombosis remains a severe complication after stent implantation owing to its high morbidity and mortality. Since the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES), most interventional centers have noted stent thrombosis up to 3 years after implantation, a complication rarely seen with bare-metal stents. Some data from large registries and meta-analyses of randomized trials indicate a higher risk for DES thrombosis, whereas others suggest an absence of such a risk. Several factors are associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis, including the procedure itself (stent malapposition and/or underexpansion, number of implanted stents, stent length, persistent slow coronary blood flow, and dissections), patient and lesion characteristics, stent design, and premature cessation of antiplatelet drugs. Drugs released from DES exert distinct biological effects, such as activation of signal transduction pathways and inhibition of cell proliferation. As a result, although primarily aimed at preventing vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration (ie, key factors in the development of restenosis), they also impair reendothelialization, which leads to delayed arterial healing, and induce tissue factor expression, which results in a prothrombogenic environment. In the same way, polymers used to load these drugs have been associated with DES thrombosis. Finally, DES impair endothelial function of the coronary artery distal to the stent, which potentially promotes the risk of ischemia and coronary occlusion. Although several reports raise the possibility of a substantially higher risk of stent thrombosis in DES, evidence remains inconclusive; as a consequence, both large-scale and long-term clinical trials, as well as further mechanistic studies, are needed. The present review focuses on the pathophysiological mechanisms and pathological findings of stent thrombosis in DES.

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

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

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

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

Randomized, double-blind comparative trial of subunit and virosomal influenza vaccines for immunocompromised patients

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, no study to date has compared the effects of a subunit influenza vaccine with those of a virosomal influenza vaccine on immunocompromised patients. METHODS: A prospective, double-blind, randomized study was conducted to compare the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of subunit and virosomal influenza vaccines for adult patients who had an immunosuppressive disease or who were immunocompromised as a result of treatment. RESULTS: There were 304 patients enrolled in our study: 131 with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, 47 with a chronic rheumatologic disease, 74 who underwent a renal transplant, 47 who received long-term hemodialysis, and 5 who had some other nephrologic disease. There were 151 patients who received the subunit vaccine and 153 patients who received the virosomal vaccine. A slightly higher percentage of patients from the subunit vaccine group were protected against all 3 influenza vaccine strains after being vaccinated, compared with patients from the virosomal vaccine group (41% vs. 30% of patients; P = .03). Among HIV-infected patients, the level of HIV RNA, but not the CD4 cell count, was an independent predictor of vaccine response. Among renal transplant patients, treatment with mycophenolate significantly reduced the immune response to vaccination. The 2 vaccines were comparable with regard to the frequency and severity of local and systemic reactions within 7 days after vaccination. Disease-specific scores for the activity of rheumatologic diseases did not indicate flare-ups 4-6 weeks after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: For immunosuppressed patients, the subunit vaccine was slightly more immunogenic than the virosomal vaccine. The 2 vaccines were comparable with regard to reactogenicity. Vaccine response decreased with increasing degree of immune suppression. Among HIV-infected patients, the viral load, rather than the CD4 cell count, predicted the protective immune response to the vaccine. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00783380 .

Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications

OBJECTIVES To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.