Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for large coronary vessel stenting? The BASKET-PROVE (PROspective Validation Examination) trial: study protocol and design

BACKGROUND: Based on a subgroup analysis of 18-month BAsel Stent Kosten Effektivitäts Trial (BASKET) outcome data, we hypothesized that very late (> 12 months) stent thrombosis occurs predominantly after drug-eluting stent implantation in large native coronary vessel stenting. METHODS: To prove or refute this hypothesis, we set up an 11-center 4-country prospective trial of 2260 consecutive patients treated with > or = 3.0-mm stents only, randomized to receive Cypher (Johnson ; Johnson, Miami Lakes, FL), Vision (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Laboratories, IL), or Xience stents (Abbott Vascular). Only patients with left main or bypass graft disease, in-stent restenosis or stent thrombosis, in need of nonheart surgery, at increased bleeding risk, without compliance/consent are excluded. All patients are treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months. The primary end point will be cardiac death/nonfatal myocardial infarction after 24 months with further follow-up up to 5 years. RESULTS: By June 12, 229 patients (10% of the planned total) were included with a baseline risk similar to that of the same subgroup of BASKET (n = 588). CONCLUSIONS: This study will answer several important questions of contemporary stent use in patients with large native vessel stenting. The 2-year death/myocardial infarction-as well as target vessel revascularization-and bleeding rates in these patients with a first- versus second-generation drug-eluting stent should demonstrate the benefit or harm of these stents compared to cobalt-chromium bare-metal stents in this relevant, low-risk group of everyday patients. In addition, a comparison with similar BASKET patients will allow to estimate the impact of 12- versus 6-month dual antiplatelet therapy on these outcomes.

[Study protocol of the VISEP study. Response of the SepNet study group]

In the commentary by Zander et al. the authors appear concerned about the methods and results of our, at that time, unpublished sepsis trial evaluating hydroxyethyl starch (HES) and insulin therapy. Unfortunately, the authors' concerns are based on false assumptions about the design, conduct and modes of action of the compounds under investigation. For instance, in our study the HES solution was not used for maintenance of daily fluid requirements, so that the assumption of the authors that this colloid was used "exclusively" is wrong. Moreover, the manufacturer of Hemohes, the HES product we used, gives no cut-off value for creatinine, thus the assumption that this cut-off value was "doubled" in our study is also incorrect. Other claims by the authors such as that lactated solutions cause elevated lactate levels, iatrogenic hyperglycemia and increase O(2) consumption are unfounded. There is no randomized controlled trial supporting such a claim - this claim is neither consistent with our study data nor with any credible published sepsis guidelines or with routine practice worldwide. We fully support open scientific debate. Our study methods and results have now been published after a strict peer-reviewing process and this data is now open to critical and constructive reviewing. However, in our opinion this premature action based on wrong assumptions and containing comments by representatives of pharmaceutical companies does not contribute to a serious, unbiased scientific discourse.

Development of a screening tool predicting the transition from acute to chronic low back pain for patients in a GP setting: protocol of a multinational prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is by far the most prevalent and costly musculoskeletal problem in our society today. Following the recommendations of the Multinational Musculoskeletal Inception Cohort Study (MMICS) Statement, our study aims to define outcome assessment tools for patients with acute LBP and the time point at which chronic LBP becomes manifest and to identify patient characteristics which increase the risk of chronicity. METHODS: Patients with acute LBP will be recruited from clinics of general practitioners (GPs) in New Zealand (NZ) and Switzerland (CH). They will be assessed by postal survey at baseline and at 3, 6, 12 weeks and 6 months follow-up. Primary outcome will be disability as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); key secondary endpoints will be general health as measured by the acute SF-12 and pain as measured on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). A subgroup analysis of different assessment instruments and baseline characteristics will be performed using multiple linear regression models. This study aims to examine: 1. Which biomedical, psychological, social, and occupational outcome assessment tools are identifiers for the transition from acute to chronic LBP and at which time point this transition becomes manifest. 2. Which psychosocial and occupational baseline characteristics like work status and period of work absenteeism influence the course from acute to chronic LBP. 3. Differences in outcome assessment tools and baseline characteristics of patients in NZ compared with CH. DISCUSSION: This study will develop a screening tool for patients with acute LBP to be used in GP clinics to access the risk of developing chronic LBP. In addition, biomedical, psychological, social, and occupational patient characteristics which influence the course from acute to chronic LBP will be identified. Furthermore, an appropriate time point for follow-ups will be given to detect this transition. The generalizability of our findings will be enhanced by the international perspective of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: [Clinical Trial Registration Number, ACTRN12608000520336].

Differences across health care systems in outcome and cost-utility of surgical and conservative treatment of chronic low back pain: a study protocol

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on differences across health care systems in choice and outcome of the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) with spinal surgery and conservative treatment as the main options. At least six randomised controlled trials comparing these two options have been performed; they show conflicting results without clear-cut evidence for superior effectiveness of any of the evaluated interventions and could not address whether treatment effect varied across patient subgroups. Cost-utility analyses display inconsistent results when comparing surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP. Due to its higher feasibility, we chose to conduct a prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: This study aims to examine if1. Differences across health care systems result in different treatment outcomes of surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP2. Patient characteristics (work-related, psychological factors, etc.) and co-interventions (physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, return-to-work programs, etc.) modify the outcome of treatment for CLBP3. Cost-utility in terms of quality-adjusted life years differs between surgical and conservative treatment of CLBP.This study will recruit 1000 patients from orthopaedic spine units, rehabilitation centres, and pain clinics in Switzerland and New Zealand. Effectiveness will be measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline and after six months. The change in ODI will be the primary endpoint of this study.Multiple linear regression models will be used, with the change in ODI from baseline to six months as the dependent variable and the type of health care system, type of treatment, patient characteristics, and co-interventions as independent variables. Interactions will be incorporated between type of treatment and different co-interventions and patient characteristics. Cost-utility will be measured with an index based on EQol-5D in combination with cost data. CONCLUSION: This study will provide evidence if differences across health care systems in the outcome of treatment of CLBP exist. It will classify patients with CLBP into different clinical subgroups and help to identify specific target groups who might benefit from specific surgical or conservative interventions. Furthermore, cost-utility differences will be identified for different groups of patients with CLBP. Main results of this study should be replicated in future studies on CLBP.

Payone : incentive for epidemic protocol-based anonymity system

Anonymity systems maintain the anonymity of communicating nodes by camouflaging them, either with peer nodes generating dummy traffic or with peer nodes participating in the actual communication process. The probability of any adversary breaking down the anonymity of the communicating nodes is inversely proportional to the number of peer nodes participating in the network. Hence to maintain the anonymity of the communicating nodes, a large number of peer nodes are needed. Lack of peer availability weakens the anonymity of any large scale anonymity system. This work proposes PayOne, an incentive based scheme for promoting peer availability. PayOne aims to increase the peer availability by encouraging nodes to participate in the anonymity system by awarding them with incentives and thereby promoting the anonymity strength. Existing incentive schemes are designed for single path based approaches. There is no incentive scheme for multipath based or epidemic based anonymity systems. This work has been specifically designed for epidemic protocols and has been implemented over MuON, one of the latest entries to the area of multicasting based anonymity systems. MuON is a peer-to-peer based anonymity system which uses epidemic protocol for data dissemination. Existing incentive schemes involve paying every intermediate node that is involved in the communication between the initiator and the receiver. These schemes are not appropriate for epidemic based anonymity systems due to the incurred overhead. PayOne differs from the existing schemes because it involves paying a single intermediate node that participates in the network. The intermediate node can be any random node that participates in the communication and does not necessarily need to lie in the communication path between the initiator and the receiver. The light-weight characteristics of PayOne make it viable for large-scale epidemic based anonymity systems.