STAR 3 randomized controlled trial to compare sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy with multiple daily injections in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: research design, methods, and baseline characteristics of enrolled subjects.

BACKGROUND: Sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAPT) integrates real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and offers an alternative to multiple daily injections (MDI). Previous studies provide evidence that SAPT may improve clinical outcomes among people with type 1 diabetes. Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy for A1c Reduction (STAR) 3 is a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of SAPT to that of MDI in subjects with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Subjects were randomized to either continue with MDI or transition to SAPT for 1 year. Subjects in the MDI cohort were allowed to transition to SAPT for 6 months after completion of the study. SAPT subjects who completed the study were also allowed to continue for 6 months. The primary end point was the difference between treatment groups in change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) percentage from baseline to 1 year of treatment. Secondary end points included percentage of subjects with HbA1c < or =7% and without severe hypoglycemia, as well as area under the curve of time spent in normal glycemic ranges. Tertiary end points include percentage of subjects with HbA1c < or =7%, key safety end points, user satisfaction, and responses on standardized assessments. RESULTS: A total of 495 subjects were enrolled, and the baseline characteristics similar between the SAPT and MDI groups. Study completion is anticipated in June 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this randomized controlled trial should help establish whether an integrated RT-CGM and CSII system benefits patients with type 1 diabetes more than MDI.

Prostate biopsy in selecting candidates for hemiablative focal therapy.

Focal therapy (FT) for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) is growing from a concept to reality because of increased interest of both patients and physicians. Selection protocols, however, are yet to be established. We discuss the role of prostate biopsy in candidate selection for FT and highlight the different strategies and technical aspects of the use of prostate biopsy in this setting. In our opinion, prostate biopsy plays a major role in the selection process and tailoring appropriate treatment strategy to the patient. FT necessitates dedicated biopsy schemes that would reliably predict the extent, nature, and location of PCa in selected patients. Currently, there is insufficient scientific evidence to propose a specific biopsy scheme that could fit every candidate, providing accurate characterization of the disease in the individual patient. Further research is necessary to establish solid selection protocols that would reliably identify appropriate candidates for FT of PCa.

Safety and efficacy of rivastigmine in adolescents with Down syndrome: long-term follow-up.

Following the completion of a 20-week, open-label study of the safety and efficacy of liquid rivastigmine for adolescents with Down syndrome, 5 of the 10 adolescents in the clinical trial continued long-term rivastigmine therapy and 5 did not. After an average period of 38 months, all 10 subjects returned for a follow-up assessment to determine the safety and efficacy of long-term rivastigmine use. Rivastigmine was well tolerated and overall health appeared to be unaffected by long-term rivastigmine use. Performance change on cognitive and language measures administered at the termination of the open-label clinical trial was compared between the two groups. No between-group difference in median performance change across the long-term period was found, suggesting that the long-term use of rivastigmine does not improve cognitive and language performance. However, two subjects demonstrated remarkable improvement in adaptive function over the long-term period. Both subjects had received long-term rivastigmine therapy. The discussion addresses the challenge of assessing cognitive change in clinical trials using adolescents with Down syndrome as subjects and the use of group versus individual data to evaluate the relevance of medication effects.