Single-agent versus combination chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and a performance status of 2 : prognostic factors and treatment selection based on two large randomized clinical trials

Purpose: Data from two randomized phase III trials were analyzed to evaluate prognostic factors and treatment selection in the first-line management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with performance status (PS) 2. Patients and Methods: Patients randomized to combination chemotherapy (carboplatin and paclitaxel) in one trial and single-agent therapy (gemcitabine or vinorelbine) in the second were included in these analyses. Both studies had identical eligibility criteria and were conducted simultaneously. Comparison of efficacy and safety was performed between the two cohorts. A regression analysis identified prognostic factors and subgroups of patients that may benefit from combination or single-agent therapy. Results: Two hundred one patients were treated with combination and 190 with single-agent therapy. Objective responses were 37 and 15%, respectively. Median time to progression was 4.6 months in the combination arm and 3.5 months in the single-agent arm (p < 0.001). Median survival imes were 8.0 and 6.6 months, and 1-year survival rates were 31 and 26%, respectively. Albumin <3.5 g, extrathoracic metastases, lactate dehydrogenase ≥200 IU, and 2 comorbid conditions predicted outcome. Patients with 0-2 risk factors had similar outcomes independent of treatment, whereas patients with 3-4 factors had a nonsignificant improvement in median survival with combination chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results show that PS2 non-small cell lung cancer patients are a heterogeneous group who have significantly different outcomes. Patients treated with first-line combination chemotherapy had a higher response and longer time to progression, whereas overall survival did not appear significantly different. A prognostic model may be helpful in selecting PS 2 patients for either treatment strategy. © 2009 by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

Missing data in randomized clinical trials for weight loss: scope of the problem, state of the field, and performance of statistical methods.

BACKGROUND: Dropouts and missing data are nearly-ubiquitous in obesity randomized controlled trails, threatening validity and generalizability of conclusions. Herein, we meta-analytically evaluate the extent of missing data, the frequency with which various analytic methods are employed to accommodate dropouts, and the performance of multiple statistical methods. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases (2000-2006) for articles published in English and manually searched bibliographic references. Articles of pharmaceutical randomized controlled trials with weight loss or weight gain prevention as major endpoints were included. Two authors independently reviewed each publication for inclusion. 121 articles met the inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted treatment, sample size, drop-out rates, study duration, and statistical method used to handle missing data from all articles and resolved disagreements by consensus. In the meta-analysis, drop-out rates were substantial with the survival (non-dropout) rates being approximated by an exponential decay curve (e(-lambdat)) where lambda was estimated to be .0088 (95% bootstrap confidence interval: .0076 to .0100) and t represents time in weeks. The estimated drop-out rate at 1 year was 37%. Most studies used last observation carried forward as the primary analytic method to handle missing data. We also obtained 12 raw obesity randomized controlled trial datasets for empirical analyses. Analyses of raw randomized controlled trial data suggested that both mixed models and multiple imputation performed well, but that multiple imputation may be more robust when missing data are extensive. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Our analysis offers an equation for predictions of dropout rates useful for future study planning. Our raw data analyses suggests that multiple imputation is better than other methods for handling missing data in obesity randomized controlled trials, followed closely by mixed models. We suggest these methods supplant last observation carried forward as the primary method of analysis.

Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in abstracts of the 2005 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Objective: To determine the quality of abstracts reporting randomized clinical trials (RCT) at the 2005 Annual Scientific Meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Methods: All 2005 abstracts including late-breaking abstracts were assessed. An abstract was deemed to be reporting an RCT if it indicated that participants were randomized in the title or body of the abstract. RCT were excluded if they included only pharmacokinetic data. The CONSORT checklist was applied and relevant data extracted. We defined manufacturer support as acknowledgment of industry support or industry employee as co-author.

Results: Of 2146 abstracts, 143 (6.7%) reported RCT. Of these, 78.3% were drug trials, and 63.6% indicated manufacturer support. Only 30.8% of abstracts used "randomized" in the title, 44.1% did not explicitly state whether blinding was undertaken, and only 7.0% clearly stated who was blinded. Thirty percent of studies did not give an explicit definition of eligibility criteria of participants. While 84.6% explicitly described the experimental intervention, only 37.1% explicitly described the comparator intervention. Only 21% explicitly stated that an intention to treat analysis was performed. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were reported in 48.3%. While most abstracts reported summary results for each treatment group, only 35.7% reported effect size with its precision.

Conclusion: The quality of reporting is suboptimal in many RCT abstracts. Abstracts reporting RCT would benefit from a structured approach that ensures more detailed reporting of eligibility criteria, active and comparator interventions, flow of participants, and adequate summary and precision of results.

Maintaining Tissue Perfusion in High-Risk Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Mislabeling controlled clinical trials (CCTs) as "randomized clinical trials (RCTs)" in dental specialty journals

This study aimed to investigate whether studies published in dental journals with the highest impact factor, representing the 5 major dental specialties and titled as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are truly RCTs. A second objective was to explore the association of journal type and other publication characteristics on correct classification.

Cluster randomized clinical trials in orthodontics: design, analysis and reporting issues

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) use as the unit of randomization clusters, which are usually defined as a collection of individuals sharing some common characteristics. Common examples of clusters include entire dental practices, hospitals, schools, school classes, villages, and towns. Additionally, several measurements (repeated measurements) taken on the same individual at different time points are also considered to be clusters. In dentistry, CRTs are applicable as patients may be treated as clusters containing several individual teeth. CRTs require certain methodological procedures during sample calculation, randomization, data analysis, and reporting, which are often ignored in dental research publications. In general, due to similarity of the observations within clusters, each individual within a cluster provides less information compared with an individual in a non-clustered trial. Therefore, clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared with non-clustered randomized designs, and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this article to highlight with relevant examples the important methodological characteristics of cluster randomized designs as they may be applied in orthodontics and to explain the problems that may arise if clustered observations are erroneously treated and analysed as independent (non-clustered).

Bayesian doubly optimal group sequential designs for randomized clinical trials

When conducting a randomized comparative clinical trial, ethical, scientific or economic considerations often motivate the use of interim decision rules after successive groups of patients have been treated. These decisions may pertain to the comparative efficacy or safety of the treatments under study, cost considerations, the desire to accelerate the drug evaluation process, or the likelihood of therapeutic benefit for future patients. At the time of each interim decision, an important question is whether patient enrollment should continue or be terminated; either due to a high probability that one treatment is superior to the other, or a low probability that the experimental treatment will ultimately prove to be superior. The use of frequentist group sequential decision rules has become routine in the conduct of phase III clinical trials. In this dissertation, we will present a new Bayesian decision-theoretic approach to the problem of designing a randomized group sequential clinical trial, focusing on two-arm trials with time-to-failure outcomes. Forward simulation is used to obtain optimal decision boundaries for each of a set of possible models. At each interim analysis, we use Bayesian model selection to adaptively choose the model having the largest posterior probability of being correct, and we then make the interim decision based on the boundaries that are optimal under the chosen model. We provide a simulation study to compare this method, which we call Bayesian Doubly Optimal Group Sequential (BDOGS), to corresponding frequentist designs using either O'Brien-Fleming (OF) or Pocock boundaries, as obtained from EaSt 2000. Our simulation results show that, over a wide variety of different cases, BDOGS either performs at least as well as both OF and Pocock, or on average provides a much smaller trial. ^

Pronounced reduction of postprandial glucagon by lixisenatide:a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists improve islet function and delay gastric emptying in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of the once-daily prandial GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), glucagon and insulin levels. Methods: Six randomized, placebo-controlled studies of lixisenatide 20μg once daily were included in this analysis: lixisenatide as monotherapy (GetGoal-Mono), as add-on to oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs; GetGoal-M, GetGoal-S) or in combination with basal insulin (GetGoal-L, GetGoal-Duo-1 and GetGoal-L-Asia). Change in 2-h PPG and glucose excursion were evaluated across six studies. Change in 2-h glucagon and postprandial insulin were evaluated across two studies. A meta-analysis was performed on least square (LS) mean estimates obtained from analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)-based linear regression. Results: Lixisenatide significantly reduced 2-h PPG from baseline (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -4.9mmol/l, p<0.001) and glucose excursion (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -4.5mmol/l, p<0.001). As measured in two studies, lixisenatide also reduced postprandial glucagon (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -19.0ng/l, p<0.001) and insulin (LS mean difference vs. placebo: -64.8 pmol/l, p<0.001). There was a stronger correlation between 2-h postprandial glucagon and 2-h PPG with lixisenatide than with placebo. Conclusions: Lixisenatide significantly reduced 2-h PPG and glucose excursion together with a marked reduction in postprandial glucagon and insulin; thus, lixisenatide appears to have biological effects on blood glucose that are independent of increased insulin secretion. These effects may be, in part, attributed to reduced glucagon secretion. © 2014 John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Effectiveness of inulin intake on indicators of chronic constipation; a meta-analysis of controlled randomized clinical trials

Background: Constipation is an intestinal dysfunction. Prebiotics, such as inulin, can improve bowel function by positively influencing intestinal biota. Aim: To analyze the scientific evidence for the role of inulin in improving bowel function in patients with chronic constipation. Methods: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials was conducted, grounded on a literature search for the period 1995-2013 (descriptors: inulin & constipation) on PubMed, ScieLo and Central Trials Register Cochrane databases. A total of 24 articles were found, 5 of them were selected for this meta-analysis, involving 252 subjects (experimental group: n = 144, control group: n = 108). The quality of the studies was assessed using the Jadad scale. Results: We found a significant overall effect of inulin on stool frequency (DEM = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.04, 1.34), stool consistency (Bristol scale) (DEM = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.45), transit time (DEM = -0.57, 95% CI: -0.99, -0.15) and hardness of stool (RR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.26, 0.70). Pain and bloating do not improve with inulin intake. Conclusions: inulin intake has a positive effect on bowel function.

Zinc for treating of children and adolescents with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder : a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials

This study systematically reviews the randomized clinical trials examining the effect of zinc on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), searching the PubMed/Medline and Scholar Google databases. All randomized controlled trials that examined zinc as the intervention, and ADHD as the primary outcome were included. Only three randomized controlled trials, one which included a community sample and two that included clinical samples, met inclusion criteria. The only trial that was well controlled and randomized according to the baseline zinc level showed that using zinc, either alone or in combination with stimulants, did not improve ADHD. Considering the lack of clear evidence for the effect of zinc on ADHD and the possible effect of zinc on the nervous system, more clinical studies are needed to prove or disprove the effect of zinc as a monotherapy or adjuvant therapy.