Search

The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard for evaluating the causal effects of medications. Limitations of RCTs have led to increasing interest in using real‐world evidence (RWE) to augment RCT evidence and inform decision making on medications. Although RWE can be either randomized or nonrandomized, nonrandomized RWE can capitalize on the recent proliferation of large healthcare databases and can often answer questions that cannot be answered in randomized studies due to resource constraints. However, the results of nonrandomized studies are much more likely to be impacted by confounding bias, and the existence of unmeasured confounders can never be completely ruled out. Furthermore, nonrandomized studies require more complex design considerations which can sometimes result in design‐related biases. We discuss questions that can help investigators or evidence consumers evaluate the potential impact of confounding or other biases on their findings: Does the design emulate a hypothetical randomized trial design? Is the comparator or control condition appropriate? Does the primary analysis adjust for measured confounders? Do sensitivity analyses quantify the potential impact of residual confounding? Are methods open to inspection and (if possible) replication? Designing a high‐quality nonrandomized study of medications remains challenging and requires broad expertise across a range of disciplines, including relevant clinical areas, epidemiology, and biostatistics. The questions posed in this paper provide a guiding framework for assessing the credibility of nonrandomized RWE and could be applied across many clinical questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vitiligo was an autoimmune disease and some guidelines for the management of vitiligo encouraged the use of NB‐UVB combination therapies to enhance repigmentation. Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of current NB‐UVB combination regimen at the improvement in repigmentation through a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Methods: We searched the electronic databases for randomized controlled trials related to NB‐UVB combination therapy for vitiligo till October 2022. STATA15.0 software was applied to carrying out data analysis. Results: A total of 28 eligible studies involving 1194 participants were enrolled in the analysis. The NMA results revealed that compared with NB‐UVB, carboxytherapy [OR = 32.35, 95% CI (1.79, 586.05)], Er: YAG laser+ topical 5% 5‐FU [OR = 10.74, 95% CI (4.05, 28.49)], needling/micro‐needling [OR = 3.42, 95% CI (1.18, 9.88)], betamethasone intramuscular injection [OR = 3.08, 95% CI (1.17, 8.13)], topical tacrolimus [OR = 2.54, 95% CI (1.30, 4.94)], and oral Chinese herbal medicine compound [OR = 2.51, 95% CI (1.40, 4.50)] integrated with NB‐UVB were more efficacious in excellent to complete repigmentation response rate (≥75%). Besides, NB‐UVB+ Er: YAG laser+ topical 5% 5‐FU [OR = 0.17, 95% CI (0.04, 0.67)] and NB‐UVB+ needling/micro‐needling [OR = 0.24, 95% CI (0.06, 0.88)] were less likely evaluated as ineffective repigmentation response (≤25%). Conclusions: All combination therapies ranked higher than NB‐UVB monotherapy in inducing successful repigmentation and avoiding failed treatment in patients with vitiligo. Comprehensive consideration, NB‐UVB+ Er: YAG laser+ topical 5% 5‐FU and NB‐UVB+ needling/microneedling would be the preferred therapeutic approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Haemodialysis plastic cannulae have been limited to incident arterio‐venous fistulae cannulation or in those who require a more flexible in situ access device. The feasibility of plastic cannulae in prevalent patients on haemodialysis has not been reported. Objective: To determine the feasibility of plastic cannulae in prevalent haemodialysis patients. Design: Prospective feasibility crossover randomised control trial. Participants: Adults diagnosed with chronic kidney disease G5 requiring haemodialysis three or more times per week via a native arteriovenous fistula previously cannulated for at least 6 weeks. Measurements: Cannulation success rate, cannulation manipulation type, arterial and venous needle pressure. Patient needle‐related anxiety as measured by the 4‐item Patient Health Questionnaire and Meditation in Dialysis Questionnaire and nurse satisfaction. Results: Eight patients completed 12 weeks plastic canulae and metal needles. Plastic cannulae were less likely to be successful in cannulation compared to metal needles (odds ratio = 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05–0.48; p = 0.001). There was no effect of type of needle on the change in arterial needle pressure or change in venous needle pressure and no effect of plastic needle on repositioning (relative risk [RR] = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.385, 3.089; p =.871) or gauze pillow application (RR = 0.936; 95% CI: 0.467, 1.874; p =.851) than metal needles, relative to no manipulation. There were low rates of psychological distress or needle‐related anxiety towards plastic or metal needles. Conclusions: Plastic cannulae are feasible in prevalent haemodialysis patients, however, metal needles are still preferred in a haemodialysis center that has historically used metal needles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fluid treatment in sepsis is a challenge and clinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) volumes. We aimed to determine whether a 24‐h protocol restricting IV fluid was feasible in adult patients with sepsis without shock presenting to the emergency department (ED). Methods: The REFACED Sepsis trial is an investigator‐initiated, multicenter, randomized, open‐label, feasibility trial, assigning sepsis patients without shock to 24 h of restrictive, crystal IV fluid administration or standard care. In the IV fluid restriction group fluid boluses were only permitted if predefined criteria for hypoperfusion occurred. Standard care was at the discretion of the treating team. The primary outcome was total IV crystalloid fluid volumes at 24 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included total fluid volumes, feasibility measures, and patient‐centered outcomes. Results: We included 123 patients (restrictive 61 patients and standard care 62 patients) in the primary analysis. A total of 32% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28%–37%) of eligible patients meeting all inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria were included. At 24 h, the mean (±SD) IV crystalloid fluid volumes were 562 (±1076) ml versus 1370 (±1438) ml in the restrictive versus standard care group (mean difference –801 ml, 95% CI −1257 to −345 ml, p = 0.001). Protocol violations occurred in 21 (34%) patients in the fluid‐restrictive group. There were no differences between groups in adverse events, use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, acute kidney failure, length of stay, or mortality. Conclusions: A protocol restricting IV crystalloid fluids in ED patients with sepsis reduced 24‐h fluid volumes compared to standard care. A future trial powered toward patient‐centered outcomes appears feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) allows the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expedite the availability of therapeutics in the context of a public health emergency. To date, an evidentiary standard for clinical efficacy to support an EUA has not yet been established. This review examines the clinical data submitted in support of EUA for antiviral and anti‐inflammatory therapeutics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) through December of 2021 and the resilience of the authorization as new clinical data arose subsequent to the authorization. In the vast majority of cases, EUA was supported by at least one well‐powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) where statistically significant efficacy was demonstrated. This included branded medications already approved for use outside of the context of COVID‐19. When used, the standard of a single RCT seemed to provide adequate evidence of clinical efficacy, such that subsequent clinical studies generally supported or expanded the EUA of the therapeutic in question. The lone generic agent that was granted EUA (chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine) was not supported by a well‐controlled RCT, and the EUA was withdrawn within 3 months time. This highlighted not only the ambiguity of the EUA standard, but also the need to provide avenues through which high quality clinical evidence for the efficacy of a generic medication could be obtained. Therefore, maintaining the clinical trial networks assembled during the COVID‐19 pandemic could be a critical component of our preparation for future pandemics. Consideration could also be given to establishing a single successful RCT as regulatory guidance for obtaining an EUA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Metacognitive training for depression (D‐MCT) is a novel low‐intensity group training for economic treatment of depression. Previous studies demonstrate its efficacy in moderately depressed outpatients. The present study evaluated efficacy and patients' perspective of the D‐MCT in severely depressed psychiatric inpatients. Methods: In a randomized‐controlled trial, 75 individuals with a major depressive disorder (MDD) were allocated to D‐MCT versus euthymic therapy as add‐on (twice a week) to cognitive‐behavioural‐based (CBT) inpatient‐care. Depressive symptoms (HDRS, BDI), dysfunctional (meta)cognition (DAS, MCQ‐30) and subjective appraisal were assessed at baseline, 4 weeks (post) and 3 months (follow‐up). Results: Participants in both conditions showed a large decline in depression at post and follow‐up‐assessment. No superior add‐effect of D‐MCT versus active control emerged for depression severity on top of the inpatient care. However, among patients with a diagnosis of MDD with no (vs. at least one) comorbidity, D‐MCT participants showed a larger decline in depressive (meta‐)cognition at follow‐up with medium‐to‐large effect sizes. D‐MCT was evaluated as superior in overall appraisal, treatment preference, motivation and satisfaction. Limitations: The follow‐up time interval of 3 months may have been too short to detect long‐term effects. There is emerging evidence that modification of (meta)cognition unfolds its full effects only with time. Effects of CBT inpatient‐care on outcome parameters cannot be differentiated. Conclusions: Although D‐MCT as an add‐on was not superior in complete case analyses, results suggest greater benefit for patients with MDD and no comorbidity. D‐MCT proved feasible in acute‐psychiatric inpatient‐care and was highly accepted by patients. Future studies should investigate the role of modified (meta)cognition on long‐term treatment outcome, including dropout and relapse rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns regarding both the limited generalizability and the slow pace of traditional randomized trials have led to calls for greater use of real‐world evidence (RWE) in the evaluation of new treatments or products. The RWE label has been used to refer to a variety of departures from the methods of traditional randomized controlled trials. Recognizing this complexity and potential confusion, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine convened a series of workshops to clarify and address questions regarding the use of RWE to evaluate new medical treatments. Those workshops identified three specific dimensions in which RWE studies might differ from traditional clinical trials: use of real‐world data (data extracted from health system records or data captured by mobile devices), delivery of real‐world treatment (open‐label treatments delivered in community settings by community practitioners), and real‐world treatment assignment (including nonrandomized comparisons and variations on random assignment such as before‐after or stepped‐wedge designs). For any RWE study, decisions regarding each of these dimensions depends on the specific research question, characteristics of the potential study settings, and characteristics of the settings where study results would be applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]