Search

Objective: Given the global and economic burden of stroke as a major cause of long-term disability, patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data from clinical trials can elucidate differential benefits/harms of interventions from patients' perspectives and influence clinical decision making in stroke care management.Methods: This systematic review examines stroke-related randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in 12 high-impact journals between 2002 and 2016 for (1) associations between trial characteristics and the reporting of PRO measures; and (2) psychometric properties of PRO instruments used in these studies. The study combines clinical trials identified in a prior review with trials identified with an updated literature search.Results: Only 34 of 159 stroke-related RCTs reported PRO measures. Among the 34 trials, most were published in rehabilitation and general medical journals, were conducted in the United States or Europe, were funded by government/non-industry sponsors, and focused on post-stroke care. Thirty-one PRO instruments were employed in these studies. Only 5 instruments were stroke-specific measures, whereas the remaining 26 instruments were generic measures. Eight instruments assessed functional status, 9 measured quality of life, and 14 assessed symptoms. The most common health domains measured were emotional status and physical function.Conclusions: This study highlights the paucity of information from patients' perspective in stroke-related RCTs. This trend may change over time as researchers increase adherence to reporting guidelines for clinical trial protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In nonrandomized, open-label studies, a transcatheter interatrial shunt device (IASD, Corvia Medical) was associated with lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), fewer symptoms, and greater quality of life and exercise capacity in patients with heart failure (HF) and midrange or preserved ejection fraction (EF ≥40%). We conducted the first randomized sham-controlled trial to evaluate the IASD in HF with EF ≥40%.Methods: REDUCE LAP-HF I (Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure) was a phase 2, randomized, parallel-group, blinded multicenter trial in patients with New York Heart Association class III or ambulatory class IV HF, EF ≥40%, exercise PCWP ≥25 mm Hg, and PCWP-right atrial pressure gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Participants were randomized (1:1) to the IASD versus a sham procedure (femoral venous access with intracardiac echocardiography but no IASD placement). The participants and investigators assessing the participants during follow-up were blinded to treatment assignment. The primary effectiveness end point was exercise PCWP at 1 month. The primary safety end point was major adverse cardiac, cerebrovascular, and renal events at 1 month. PCWP during exercise was compared between treatment groups using a mixed-effects repeated measures model analysis of covariance that included data from all available stages of exercise.Results: A total of 94 patients were enrolled, of whom 44 met inclusion/exclusion criteria and were randomized to the IASD (n=22) and control (n=22) groups. Mean age was 70±9 years, and 50% were female. At 1 month, the IASD resulted in a greater reduction in PCWP compared with sham control (P=0.028 accounting for all stages of exercise). Peak PCWP decreased by 3.5±6.4 mm Hg in the treatment group versus 0.5±5.0 mm Hg in the control group (P=0.14). There were no peri-procedural or 1-month major adverse cardiac, cerebrovascular, and renal events in the IASD group and 1 event (worsening renal function) in the control group (P=1.0).Conclusions: In patients with HF and EF ≥40%, IASD treatment reduces PCWP during exercise. Whether this mechanistic effect will translate into sustained improvements in symptoms and outcomes requires further evaluation.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02600234. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT? • The USA, UK and Germany have a strong position in performance of drug and nondrug randomized controlled trials. • Europe's position in the quantitative and qualitative performance in drug randomized controlled trials in particular, and factors that drive the quantitative and qualitative performance of drug randomized controlled trials in Europe, are unknown. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • Europe's position in the quantitative and qualitative performance of randomized controlled drug trials lags behind USA. • Factors are identified that are associated with the difference in publication output between countries. • The number of headquarters of pharmaceutical companies in a country, the research expenditures by pharmaceutical companies, as well as health-related R&D expenditures of a country appear to contribute to a relatively high scientific performance in randomized controlled drug trials. AIMS Performance of randomized controlled drug trials (drugRCTs) adds to the scientific output, scientific knowledge, scientific training and up-to-date status of healthcare and may drive economy. The purpose of this study was to benchmark Europe's position on drugRCTs relative to the rest of the world, and to identify factors that may drive this performance. METHODS The number of scientific publications on drugRCTs, indexed in PubMed and Thomson Scientific/Web of Science database over the period 1995–2004, was used as a proxy measure for the quantitative drugRCT output. The international citation impact of these publications was used as a proxy measure for the qualitative drugRCT output. RESULTS Country's origin of 103 211 publications was determined. After adjustment for population size, the number of drugRCT publications from Europe, USA and Australia/Japan was 102, 124 and 44 publications per million inhabitants, respectively. The proportional increase in publication output from 1995 until 2004 was lower in Europe compared with the USA and Australia/Japan (29.1, 40.1 and 63.4%, respectively). The number of citations per publication was 4.9 in Europe, 7.0 in the USA and 3.4 in Australia/Japan. Within Europe, the UK, Germany and Italy produced most publications. Country-specific factors associated with publication output in Europe were the number of pharmaceutical companies with headquarters in a country ( R2 = 0.71, P < 0.001), national R&D expenditures by pharmaceutical companies ( R2 = 0.63, P < 0.001) and health-related R&D expenditures by national governments ( R2 = 0.22, P = 0.052). CONCLUSIONS When adjusted for population size, quantitative and qualitative performance of drugRCTs in Europe lags behind the USA but is ahead of Australia/Japan. Several factors appear to explain the differences, among which are the number of headquarters of pharmaceutical companies in a country, the research expenditures by pharmaceutical companies, as well as health-related R&D expenditures of a country. To enhance and strengthen Europe's position, researchers may strengthen their collaborations with local pharmaceutical companies, and national governments could increase their budgets for medical research funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]