Search

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility of enrolling patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing endovascular coils (EC) and vascular plugs (VP) for proximal splenic artery embolization (pSAE) in high-grade splenic trauma, and to collect data to inform the design of a larger clinical effectiveness trial. Methods: Single-center, prospective, RCT of patients with Grade III–V splenic injuries selected for nonoperative management. Patients were randomized to pSAE with EC or VP. The main outcome was feasibility. We also evaluated technical success, time to stasis, complications, mortality, and splenectomy rates, by estimating rates and 95% confidence intervals. Results: 46 of 50 eligible patients were enrolled (92%, 95% CI 90–100%). Overall, splenic salvage was 98% (45/46; 95% CI 94–100%). Primary technical success was observed in 22 EC patients (96%; 95% CI 87–100%) and 20 VP patients (87%; 95% CI 73–100%). Bayesian analysis suggests a > 80% probability that primary technical success is higher for EC. Two complications (one major and one minor) occurred in the EC group (9%; CI 0–20%) and one major complication occurred in the VP group (4%; CI 0–13%). Conclusions: Randomized comparisons of endovascular devices used for pSAE after trauma are feasible. pSAE using either EC or VP results in excellent rates of splenic salvage in trauma patients with high-grade splenic injuries. These high rates of splenic salvage and low rates of complications make their use as a primary outcome in a future trial problematic. Consideration should be given to technical parameters as a primary outcome for future trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Therapies that significantly improve the neurological and functional recovery of individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) are still urgently needed. The ketogenic diet (KD) has been shown to improve forelimb motor function in an SCI rat model, likely by reducing inflammation and cell death in the spinal cord. Furthermore, our recent pilot study in patients with SCI showed that, compared with a standard hospital diet (SD), 5 weeks of KD started during acute care improved upper extremity motor function and reduced serum levels of a neuroinflammatory blood protein. The primary goals of the current study are to: 1) show the safety and feasibility of administering a KD during acute care for SCI; 2) determine if consuming 5 weeks of a KD significantly improves motor and sensory functions, functional independence and glycemic control; and 3) quantify serum biomarkers that are linked to improvements in neurological recovery and functional independence via targeted proteomics.Methods/design: In a single-masked, longitudinal, randomized, parallel-controlled study, a total of 60 eligible, acutely traumatic spinal cord injured (cervical 5 to thoracic 12) participants ranging in age from 18 to 60 years with American Spinal Injury Association impairment scale (AIS) grades A-C (AIS-A, sensorimotor complete; AIS-B, sensory incomplete/motor complete; and AIS-C, nonfunctional motor incomplete) are being enrolled. Neurological and functional examinations, resting energy expenditure, blood, urine, and stool collections, and protein analyses related to neurological recovery will be performed within 72 h of injury (baseline measure) and repeated after 5 weeks of KD or SD (discharge measure). We anticipate a completion rate of 80% with a total of 48 participants.Discussion: Intervention with a more neuroprotective diet during acute care of SCI can be implemented anywhere in the world at low cost and without major regulatory hurdles. Better functional recovery will lead to a better quality of life and long-term health outcomes in individuals with SCI. While this study targets SCI, if successful it has the potential to improve neurological outcomes for individuals with various traumatic injuries.Trial Registration: NCT03509571 Registered on April 28, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whole blood trauma resuscitation is conceptually appealing and increasingly used but lacks evidence. A randomized controlled trial is needed but challenging to design. A Bayesian approach might be more efficient and more interpretable than a conventional frequentist design. We report the results on an elicitation meeting to create prior probability distributions to help develop such a trial.Methods: In-person expert elicitation meeting, based on Sheffield Elicitation Framework methodology. We used an interactive graphical tool to elicit the quantities of interest (24-hour mortality and certainty required). Two rounds were conducted, with an intervening discussion of deidentified responses. Individual responses were aggregated into probability distributions.Results: Fifteen experts participated. The pooled belief was that the median 24-hour mortality of trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock treated with component therapy (the current standard of care) was 19% (95% credible interval [CrI], 6%-45%), and the median 24-hour mortality of those treated with whole blood, 16% (95% CrI, 5%-39%). The pooled prior distribution for the relative risk had a median of 0.84 (95% CrI, 0.26-3.1), indicating that the expert group had a 64% prior belief that whole blood decreases 24-hour mortality compared to component therapy.Conclusions: Experts had moderately strong beliefs that whole blood reduces the 24-hour mortality of trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock. These data will assist with the design and planning of a Bayesian trial of whole blood resuscitation, which will help to answer a key question in contemporary transfusion practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Randomised trials are a central component of all evidence-informed health care systems and the evidence coming from them helps to support health care users, health professionals and others to make more informed decisions about treatment. The evidence available to trialists to support decisions on design, conduct and reporting of randomised trials is, however, sparse. Trial Forge is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision-making and in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. This guidance document provides a brief definition of SWATs, an explanation of why they are important and some practical 'top tips' that come from existing experience of doing SWATs. We hope the guidance will be useful to trialists, methodologists, funders, approvals agencies and others in making clear what a SWAT is, as well as what is involved in doing one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate tolerability, safety, and quality-of-life outcomes in non-opioid-pretreated patients with severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component receiving tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR. Methods Eligible patients (average pain intensity [numerical rating scale] ≥ 6; pain DETECT positive/unclear ratings) were randomized to twice-daily tapentadol PR 50 mg or oxycodone/naloxone PR 10 mg/5 mg. After a 21-day titration (maximum twice-daily doses: tapentadol PR 250 mg, or oxycodone/naloxone PR 40 mg/20 mg plus oxycodone PR 10 mg), target doses were continued for 9 weeks. Change in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms ( PAC- SYM) total score from baseline to final evaluation was a primary endpoint. Results For the primary tolerability-related endpoint, the 97.5% exact repeated confidence interval for tapentadol PR minus oxycodone/naloxone PR for the PAC- SYM total score was [−0.259, 0.121], showing noninferiority (upper limit < 0.7). Incidences of constipation and vomiting were significantly lower with tapentadol PR than oxycodone/naloxone PR ( P ≤ 0.045). Confirmatory superiority based on formal noninferiority was shown for the primary effectiveness endpoint (change from baseline to final evaluation in pain intensity) for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (presented separately). Improvements in the Short Form-12 physical component summary and EuroQol-5 Dimension health status index and health state assessment were significantly greater with tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR ( P ≤ 0.024). Conclusions Tapentadol PR had a minimal impact on bowel function (noninferior to oxycodone/naloxone PR) and, along with superior effectiveness (presented separately), was associated with significantly lower incidences of constipation and vomiting and significant improvements in quality-of-life measures vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An international double-blind randomized placebo controlled study evaluated the safety and efficacy of four doses of a new sustained release naloxone capsule to treat Opioid Induced Constipation (OIC). Methods Forty patients taking opioids for noncancer related pain, and experiencing OIC, were randomized into 4 cohorts of 10 patients. A multiple ascending dose design was used to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg naloxone sustained release (NSR) capsules vs placebo. Drug was given once-daily for 3 weeks followed by twice daily (bid) dosing between weeks 4 and 6. Results The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events was highest in the placebo group. The incidence of adverse events among the four active treatment groups were similar. There were no serious adverse events. The number of severe events was low overall but highest in the placebo group. Significant improvements were seen in Spontaneous Bowel Movements with 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg NSR capsules. Mean change in SBMs from baseline of 2.21 ( P = 0.052), 2.37 ( P = 0.032); 4.11 ( P = 0.0005); 5.19 (<0.0001) was noted with NSR 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg, respectively, when taken once daily, compared with 1.38 ( P = 0.2) for patients on placebo therapy. No changes in subjective or objective measures of opioid withdrawal as measured by the Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale or Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale were observed. There was no increase in patient reported pain as measured daily using a visual analogue scale. Conclusions This Phase II study has shown that using a new sustained release formulation to deliver oral naloxone to the colon allows successful treatment of OIC without comprising the desired opioid effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES:This multicenter, phase 3 trial evaluated oral lubiprostone for constipation associated with non-methadone opioids in patients with chronic noncancer-related pain.METHODS:Adults with opioid-induced constipation (OIC; <3 spontaneous bowel movements [SBMs] per week) were randomized 1:1 to double-blind lubiprostone 24 μg or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the overall SBM response rate. Responders had at least moderate response (≥1 SBM improvement over baseline frequency) in all treatment weeks with available observed data, as well as full response (≥3 SBMs per week) for at least 9 of the 12 treatment weeks.RESULTS:In total, 431 patients were randomized; 212 each received lubiprostone and placebo, and 7 were not treated. Overall, the SBM response rate was significantly higher for patients treated with lubiprostone vs. placebo (27.1 vs. 18.9%, respectively; P=0.030). Overall mean change from baseline in SBM frequency was significantly greater with lubiprostone vs. placebo (3.2 vs. 2.4, respectively; P=0.001). The median time to first SBM was significantly shorter with lubiprostone vs. placebo (23.5 vs. 37.7 h, respectively; P=0.004). Compared with placebo, the patients treated with lubiprostone exhibited significant improvements in straining (P=0.004), stool consistency (P<0.001), and constipation severity (P=0.010). No significant differences were observed in quality-of-life measures or the use of rescue medication; however, the percentage of patients who used rescue medication was consistently lower in the lubiprostone group than in the placebo group at months 1 (34.9 vs. 37.7%), 2 (23.4 vs. 26.6%), and 3 (20.5 vs. 22.0%). Adverse events (AEs) >5% were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain (lubiprostone: 11.3, 9.9, 4.2, and 7.1%, respectively; placebo, 3.8, 4.7, 5.2, and 0%, respectively). None of the serious AEs (lubiprostone, 3.3%; placebo, 2.8%) were related to lubiprostone.CONCLUSIONS:Lubiprostone significantly improved symptoms of OIC and was well tolerated in patients with chronic noncancer pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a randomized trial which compared the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening methods in the Netherlands. CRC screening strategies compared in the trial were immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (I-FOBT), guaiac FOBT, or no screening in patients aged 50-70 years. The trial found that I-FOBT is a cost-effective screening technique for CRC. It also dominated both G-FOBT and no screening.

Background: Pragmatic randomised controlled trials are often used in primary care to evaluate the effect of a treatment strategy. In these trials it is difficult to achieve both high internal validity and high generalisability. This article will discuss several methodological challenges in designing and conducting a pragmatic primary care based randomised controlled trial, based on our experiences in the DIAMOND-study and will discuss the rationale behind the choices we made. From the successes as well as the problems we experienced the quality of future pragmatic trials may benefit. Discussion: The first challenge concerned choosing the clinically most relevant interventions to compare and enable blinded comparison, since two interventions had very different appearances. By adding treatment steps to one treatment arm and adding placebo to both treatment arms both internal and external validity were optimized. Nevertheless, although blinding is essential for a high internal validity, it should be warily considered in a pragmatic trial because it decreases external validity. Choosing and recruiting a representative selection of participants was the second challenge. We succeeded in retrieving a representative relatively large patient sample by carefully choosing (few) inclusion and exclusion criteria, by random selection, by paying much attention to participant recruitment and taking the participant's reasons to participate into account. Good and regular contact with the GPs and patients was to our opinion essential. The third challenge was to choose the primary outcome, which needed to reflect effectiveness of the treatment in every day practice. We also designed our protocol to follow every day practice as much as possible, although standardized treatment is usually preferred in trials. The aim of this was our fourth challenge: to limit the number of protocol deviations and increase external validity. Summary: It is challenging to design and conduct a pragmatic trial. Thanks to thorough preparation, we were able to collect highly valid data. To our opinion, a critical deliberation of where on the pragmatic - explanatory spectrum you want your trial to be on forehand, in combination with consulting publications especially on patient recruitment procedures, has been helpful in conducting a successful trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial," by Wendy Atkin and colleagues, published in the May 8, 2010 issue of the publication, along with the response from the article's authors.

Background & Aims: Two European randomized trials (N = 30,000) compared guaiac fecal occult blood testing with quantitative fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and showed better attendance rates and test characteristics for FIT. We aimed to identify the most cost-effective FIT cutoff level for referral to colonoscopy based on data from these trials and allowing for differences in screening ages. Methods: We used the validated MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis (MISCAN)-Colon microsimulation model to estimate costs and effects of different screening strategies for FIT cutoff levels of 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200 ng/mL hemoglobin. For each cutoff level, screening strategies were assessed with various age ranges and screening intervals. We assumed sufficient colonoscopy capacity for all strategies. Results: At all cost levels, FIT screening was most effective with the 50 ng/mL cutoff level. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of biennial screening between ages 55 and 75 years using FIT at 50 ng/mL, for example, was 3900 euro per life year gained. Annual screening had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 14,900 euro per life year gained, in combination with a wider age range (between ages 45 and 80 years). In the sensitivity analysis, 50 ng/mL remained the preferred cutoff level. Conclusions: FIT screening is more cost-effective at a cutoff level of 50 ng/mL than at higher cutoff levels. This supports the recommendation to use FIT at a cutoff level of 50 ng/mL, which is considerably lower than the values used in current practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prednisone is commonly used for initial short-term therapy of episodic cluster headaches before preventive medication such as verapamil becomes effective, but this strategy has not been tested in large randomised trials. We aimed to access the safety and efficacy of this treatment approach.Methods: This study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in ten specialised headache centres in Germany. Patients with episodic cluster headaches who were aged between 18 and 65 years and within a current pain episode for not more than 30 days, received 100 mg oral prednisone for 5 days followed by tapering of 20 mg every 3 days, or matching placebo (17 days total exposure). All patients received oral verapamil for long-term prevention, starting with 40 mg three times daily and increasing to 120 mg three times daily by day 19; patients then continued with verapamil 120 mg throughout the study. Randomisation was computer-generated at a 1:1 ratio by use of an interactive web-response system, with stratification according to age, sex, and participating site. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were unaware of treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the mean number of attacks within the first week of treatment with prednisone compared with placebo. An attack was defined as a unilateral headache with moderate-to-severe intensity of at least five on a numerical rating scale. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which consisted of all patients who had been randomly assigned to a trial group and received at least one dose of prednisone or placebo. The study was stopped early due to slow recruitment and expired funding. The study was registered with EudraCT (2011-006204-13) and with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00004716).Findings: Between April 5, 2013, and Jan 11, 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients dropped out immediately and 116 patients were randomly assigned (57 patients to prednisone and 59 patients to placebo); 109 patients were included in the mITT analysis (53 patients assigned to prednisone and 56 patients assigned to placebo). Participants in the prednisone group had a mean of 7·1 (SD 6·5) attacks within the first week compared with 9·5 (6·0) attacks in the placebo group (difference -2·4 attacks, 95% CI -4·8 to -0·03; p=0·002). Two serious adverse events occurred, both in the placebo group (inguinal hernia and severe deterioration of cluster headache). A total of 270 adverse events were observed: in the prednisone group, 37 (71%) of 52 patients reported 135 adverse events (most common were headache, palpitations, dizziness, and nausea) and in the placebo group, 39 (71%) of 55 patients had 135 adverse events (most common were nausea, dizziness, and headache).Interpretation: Oral prednisone was an effective short-term preventive therapy in our population of patients with episodic cluster headache. Our findings support the use of prednisone as a first-line treatment in parallel to the up-titration of verapamil, although the efficacy of prednisone alongside other long-term prevention requires additional investigation.Funding: German Federal Ministry for Education and Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study we aimed to investigate the clinical effect of a Cistus extract (CYSTUS052) in 160 patients with infections of the upper respiratory tract. The extract contains a high percentage of highly polymeric polyphenols. In cell culture and in a mouse model it exerts antiviral and antimicrobial activities. Principal active constituents of the genus Cistus are polyphenolic compounds. Plant-derived polyphenols have been shown to be strong antioxidants with potential health benefits. Various reports have appeared on the antiviral and antibacterial potential, including several reports describing the antiviral activity of polyphenols against influenza virus. Clinical studies on the effectiveness of Cistus incanus are scarce. Only one controlled application observation study demonstrated the effectiveness of a Cistus extract. The present randomised, placebo-controlled clinical study was designed to compare the symptom scores in patients with common cold treated either with CYSTUS052 or with placebo. A score of subjective symptoms decreased significantly over the course of treatment with Cistus, whereas treatment with placebo resulted in a less distinct decrease of symptoms. Among the inflammatory markers investigated, the C-reactive protein was mostly affected by Cistus and decreased significantly in the treatment group. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]