Search

Introduction: A combination of self-reported questionnaire and administrative data could potentially enhance ascertainment of outcomes and alleviate the limitations of both in follow up studies. However, it is uncertain how access to only one of these data sources to assess outcomes impact study findings. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether the study findings would be altered if the outcomes were assessed by different data sources alone or in combination. Methods: At 50-year follow-up of participants in a randomized trial, we assessed the effect of antenatal betamethasone exposure on the diagnosis of diabetes, pre-diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, mental health disorders, and asthma using a self-reported questionnaire, administrative data, a combination of both, or any data source, with or without adjudication by an expert panel of five clinicians. Differences between relative risks derived from each data source were calculated using the Bland-Altman approach. Results: There were 424 participants (46% of those eligible, aged 49 years, SD 1, 50% male). There were no differences in study outcomes between participants exposed to betamethasone and those exposed to placebo when the outcomes were assessed using different data sources. When compared to the study findings determined using adjudicated outcomes, the mean difference (limits of agreement) in relative risks derived from other data sources were: self-reported questionnaires 0.02 (-0.35 to 0.40), administrative data 0.06 (-0.32 to 0.44), both questionnaire and administrative data 0.01 (-0.41 to 0.43), and any data source, 0.01 (-0.08 to 0.10). Conclusion: Utilizing a self-reported questionnaire, administrative data, both questionnaire and administrative data, or any of these sources for assessing study outcomes had no impact on the study findings compared with when study outcomes were assessed using adjudicated outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine whether a therapeutic approach of intensive serum urate lowering results in improved bone erosion scores in patients with erosive gout. Methods: We undertook a 2‐year, double‐blind randomized controlled trial of 104 participants with erosive gout who were receiving serum urate–lowering therapy orally and who had serum urate levels of ≥0.30 mmoles/liter at baseline. Participants were randomly assigned to either an intensive serum urate target of <0.20 mmoles/liter or a standard target of <0.30 mmoles/liter (considered the standard according to rheumatology guidelines). Oral serum urate–lowering therapy was titrated to target using a standardized protocol (with the maximum approved doses of allopurinol, probenecid, febuxostat, and benzbromarone). The primary end point was the total computed tomography (CT) bone erosion score. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) gout core outcome domains were secondary end points. Results: Although the serum urate levels were significantly lower in the intensive target group compared to the standard target group over the study period (P = 0.002), fewer participants in the intensive target group achieved the randomized serum urate target level by year 2 (62% versus 83% of patients in the standard target group; P < 0.05). The intensive target group required higher doses of allopurinol (mean ± SD 746 ± 210 mg/day versus 497 ± 186 mg/day; P < 0.001) and received more combination therapy (P = 0.0004) compared to the standard target group. We observed small increases in CT bone erosion scores in both serum urate target groups over 2 years, with no between‐group difference (P = 0.20). OMERACT core outcome domains (gout flares, tophi, pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, health‐related quality of life, and activity limitation) improved in both groups over 2 years, with no between‐group differences. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups. Conclusion: Compared to a serum urate target of <0.30 mmoles/liter, more intensive serum urate lowering is difficult to achieve with an oral urate‐lowering therapy. Intensive serum urate lowering leads to a high medication burden and does not improve bone erosion scores in patients with erosive gout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Prophylactic oral dextrose gel reduces neonatal hypoglycemia, but later benefits or harms remain unclear.Objective: To assess the effects on later development of prophylactic dextrose gel for infants born at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia.Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective follow-up of a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in 18 Australian and New Zealand hospitals from January 2015 to May 2019. Participants were late preterm or term at-risk infants; those randomized in 9 New Zealand centers (n = 1359) were included and followed up between January 2017 and July 2021.Interventions: Infants were randomized to prophylactic 40% dextrose (n = 681) or placebo (n = 678) gel, 0.5 mL/kg, massaged into the buccal mucosa 1 hour after birth.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this follow-up study was neurosensory impairment at 2 years' corrected age. There were 44 secondary outcomes, including cognitive, language, and motor composite Bayley-III scores (mean [SD], 100 [15]; higher scores indicate better performance).Results: Of eligible infants, 1197 (91%) were assessed (581 females [49%]). Neurosensory impairment was not significantly different between the dextrose and placebo gel groups (20.8% vs 18.7%; unadjusted risk difference [RD], 2.09% [95% CI, -2.43% to 6.60%]; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.13 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.41]). The risk of cognitive and language delay was not significantly different between the dextrose and placebo groups (cognitive: 7.6% vs 5.3%; RD, 2.32% [95% CI, -0.46% to 5.11%]; aRR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.91 to 2.17]; language: 17.0% vs 14.7%; RD, 2.35% [95% CI, -1.80% to 6.50%]; aRR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.54]). However, the dextrose gel group had a significantly higher risk of motor delay (2.5% vs 0.7%; RD, 1.81% [95% CI, 0.40% to 3.23%]; aRR, 3.79 [95% CI, 1.27 to 11.32]) and significantly lower composite scores for cognitive (adjusted mean difference [aMD], -1.30 [95% CI, -2.55 to -0.05]), language (aMD, -2.16 [95% CI, -3.86 to -0.46]), and motor (aMD, -1.40 [95% CI, -2.60 to -0.20]) performance. There were no significant differences between groups in the other 27 secondary outcomes.Conclusions and Relevance: Among late preterm and term infants born at risk of neonatal hypoglycemia, prophylactic oral 40% dextrose gel at 1 hour of age, compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in the risk of neurosensory impairment at 2 years' corrected age. However, the study may have been underpowered to detect a small but potentially clinically important increase in risk, and further research including longer-term follow-up is required.Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12614001263684. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]