Search

The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement, which includes a checklist and a flow diagram, is a guideline developed to help authors improve the reporting of the findings from randomized controlled trials. It was updated most recently in 2010. Its primary focus is on individually randomized trials with 2 parallel groups that assess the possible superiority of one treatment compared with another. The CONSORT Statement has been extended to other trial designs such as cluster randomization, and recommendations for noninferiority and equivalence trials were made in 2006. In this article, we present an updated extension of the CONSORT checklist for reporting noninferiority and equivalence trials, based on the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement and the 2008 CONSORT Statement for the reporting of abstracts, and provide illustrative examples and explanations for those items that differ from the main 2010 CONSORT checklist. The intent is to improve reporting of noninferiority and equivalence trials, enabling readers to assess the reliability of their results and conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort.Objective: To determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation; reducing duration of mechanical ventilation; and improving patients' interaction with nursing care.Design, Setting, and Patients: Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials carried out from 2007 to 2010. The MIDEX trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in 9 European countries; the PRODEX trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in 6 European countries and 2 centers in Russia. Included were adult ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours (midazolam, n = 251, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 249; propofol, n = 247, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 251).Interventions: Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials.Main Outcome Measures: For each trial, we tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were patients' ability to communicate pain (measured using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol population (midazolam, n = 233, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 223).Results: Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.18) and dexmedetomidine/propofol, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours [IQR, 67-337]) vs midazolam (164 hours [IQR, 92-380]; P = .03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours [IQR, 45-257]) vs propofol (118 hours [IQR, 48-327]; P = .24). Patients' interaction (measured using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference vs midazolam, 19.7 [95% CI, 15.2-24.2]; P < .001; and vs propofol, 11.2 [95% CI, 6.4-15.9]; P < .001). Length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality were similar. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] vs 29/250 [11.6%]; P = .007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] vs 13/250 [5.2%]; P < .001).Conclusions: Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. More adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00481312, NCT00479661. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: At 30-day follow-up, patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing early invasive treatment in the ACUITY trial with bivalirudin monotherapy vs heparin plus glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors had noninferior rates of adverse ischemic events with reduced rates of major bleeding. Deferred upstream use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors for selective administration to patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) resulted in a significant reduction in major bleeding, although a small increase in composite ischemia could not be excluded.Objective: To determine 1-year ischemic outcomes for patients in the ACUITY trial.Design, Setting, and Patients: A prospective, randomized, open-label trial with 1-year clinical follow-up at 450 academic and community-based institutions in 17 countries. A total of 13,819 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing invasive treatment were enrolled between August 23, 2003, and December 5, 2005.Interventions: Patients were assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (n = 4603), bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (n = 4604), or bivalirudin monotherapy (n = 4612). Of these patients, 4605 were assigned to routine upstream GP IIb/IIIa administration and 4602 were deferred to selective GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration.Main Outcome Measure: Composite ischemia (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia) at 1 year.Results: Composite ischemia at 1 year occurred in 15.4% of patients assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and 16.0% assigned to bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (compared with heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95-1.16; P = .35), and 16.2% assigned to bivalirudin monotherapy (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95-1.17; P = .29). Mortality at 1 year occurred in an estimated 3.9% of patients assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, 3.9% assigned to bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22; P = .92), and 3.8% assigned to bivalirudin monotherapy (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77-1.18; P = .67). Composite ischemia occurred in 16.3% of patients assigned to deferred use compared with 15.2% of patients assigned to upstream administration (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.97-1.20; P = .15).Conclusions: At 1 year, no statistically significant difference in rates of composite ischemia or mortality among patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing invasive treatment with the 3 therapies was found. There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of composite ischemia between patients receiving routine upstream administration of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors vs deferring their use for patients undergoing PCI.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00093158. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Because acute decompensated heart failure causes substantial morbidity and mortality, there is a need for agents that at least improve hemodynamics and relieve symptoms without adversely affecting survival.Objective: To assess the effect of a short-term intravenous infusion of levosimendan or dobutamine on long-term survival.Design, Setting, and Patients: The Survival of Patients With Acute Heart Failure in Need of Intravenous Inotropic Support (SURVIVE) study was a randomized, double-blind trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravenous levosimendan or dobutamine in 1327 patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure who required inotropic support. The trial was conducted at 75 centers in 9 countries and patients were randomized between March 2003 and December 2004.Interventions: Intravenous levosimendan (n = 664) or intravenous dobutamine (n = 663).Main Outcome Measure: All-cause mortality at 180 days.Results: All-cause mortality at 180 days occurred in 173 (26%) patients in the levosimendan group and 185 (28%) patients in the dobutamine group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.13; P = .40). The levosimendan group had greater decreases in B-type natriuretic peptide level at 24 hours that persisted through 5 days compared with the dobutamine group (P<.001 for all time points). There were no statistical differences between treatment groups for the other secondary end points (all-cause mortality at 31 days, number of days alive and out of the hospital, patient global assessment, patient assessment of dyspnea at 24 hours, and cardiovascular mortality at 180 days). There was a higher incidence of cardiac failure in the dobutamine group. There were higher incidences of atrial fibrillation, hypokalemia, and headache in the levosimendan group.Conclusion: Despite an initial reduction in plasma B-type natriuretic peptide level in patients in the levosimendan group compared with patients in the dobutamine group, levosimendan did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality at 180 days or affect any secondary clinical outcomes.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00348504. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: In patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who undergo an early, invasive treatment strategy, current guidelines recommend administration of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (Gp IIb/IIIa) inhibitors, either upstream to all patients prior to angiography or deferred for selective use in the catheterization laboratory just prior to angioplasty. The preferred approach is undetermined.Objective: To determine the optimal strategy for the use of Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an early, invasive treatment strategy.Design: Prospective, randomized, open-label trial with 30-day clinical follow-up.Setting: Four hundred fifty academic and community-based institutions in 17 countries.Patients: A total of 9207 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy.Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either routine upstream (n=4605) or deferred selective (n=4602) Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration, respectively.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was assessment of noninferiority of deferred Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor use compared with upstream administration for the prevention of composite ischemic events (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia) at 30 days, using a 1-sided alpha level of .025. Major secondary end points included noninferiority or superiority of major bleeding and net clinical outcomes (composite ischemia or major bleeding).Results: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used more frequently (98.3% vs 55.7%, respectively) and for a significantly longer duration (median, 18.3 vs 13.1 hours; P<.001) in patients in the upstream group compared with the deferred group. Composite ischemia at 30 days occurred in 7.9% of patients assigned to deferred use compared with 7.1% of patients assigned to upstream administration (relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.97-1.29; P = .044 for noninferiority; P = .13 for superiority); as such, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. Deferred use compared with upstream use resulted in reduced 30-day rates of major bleeding (4.9% vs 6.1%, respectively; P<.001 for noninferiority; P = .009 for superiority) and similar rates of net clinical outcomes (11.7% vs 11.7%; P<.001 for noninferiority; P = .93 for superiority).Conclusions: Among patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, deferring the routine upstream use of Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors for selective administration in the cardiac catheterization laboratory only to patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in a numerical increase in composite ischemia that, while not statistically significant, did not meet the criterion for noninferiority. This finding was offset by a significant reduction in major bleeding.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00093158. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]