Search

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of modern glucose-monitoring strategies on glycemic and patient-related outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and recent myocardial infarction (MI) and assess cost effectiveness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: LIBERATES was a multicenter two-arm randomized trial comparing self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), also known as flash CGM, in individuals with T2D and recent MI, treated with insulin and/or a sulphonylurea before hospital admission. The primary outcome measure was time in range (TIR) (glucose 3.9–10 mmol/L/day) on days 76–90 post-randomization. Secondary and exploratory outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), clinical outcome, quality of life (QOL), and cost effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 141 participants randomly assigned (median age 63 years; interquartile range 53, 70), 73% of whom were men, isCGM was associated with increased TIR by 17 min/day (95% credible interval −105 to +153 min/day), with 59% probability of benefit. Users of isCGM showed lower hypoglycemic exposure (<3.9 mmol/L) at days 76–90 (−80 min/day; 95% CI −118, −43), also evident at days 16–30 (−28 min/day; 95% CI −92, 2). Compared with baseline, HbA1c showed similar reductions of 7 mmol/mol at 3 months in both study arms. Combined glycemic emergencies and mortality occurred in four isCGM and seven SMBG study participants. QOL measures marginally favored isCGM, and the intervention proved to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SMBG, isCGM in T2D individuals with MI marginally increases TIR and significantly reduces hypoglycemic exposure while equally improving HbA1c, explaining its cost effectiveness. Studies are required to understand whether these glycemic differences translate into longer-term clinical benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomization is the foundation of any clinical trial involving treatment comparison. It helps mitigate selection bias, promotes similarity of treatment groups with respect to important known and unknown confounders, and contributes to the validity of statistical tests. Various restricted randomization procedures with different probabilistic structures and different statistical properties are available. The goal of this paper is to present a systematic roadmap for the choice and application of a restricted randomization procedure in a clinical trial.Methods: We survey available restricted randomization procedures for sequential allocation of subjects in a randomized, comparative, parallel group clinical trial with equal (1:1) allocation. We explore statistical properties of these procedures, including balance/randomness tradeoff, type I error rate and power. We perform head-to-head comparisons of different procedures through simulation under various experimental scenarios, including cases when common model assumptions are violated. We also provide some real-life clinical trial examples to illustrate the thinking process for selecting a randomization procedure for implementation in practice.Results: Restricted randomization procedures targeting 1:1 allocation vary in the degree of balance/randomness they induce, and more importantly, they vary in terms of validity and efficiency of statistical inference when common model assumptions are violated (e.g. when outcomes are affected by a linear time trend; measurement error distribution is misspecified; or selection bias is introduced in the experiment). Some procedures are more robust than others. Covariate-adjusted analysis may be essential to ensure validity of the results. Special considerations are required when selecting a randomization procedure for a clinical trial with very small sample size.Conclusions: The choice of randomization design, data analytic technique (parametric or nonparametric), and analysis strategy (randomization-based or population model-based) are all very important considerations. Randomization-based tests are robust and valid alternatives to likelihood-based tests and should be considered more frequently by clinical investigators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare the effects of rituximab versus placebo on salivary gland ultrasound (SGUS) in primary Sjögren's syndrome (PSS) in a multicentre, multiobserver phase III trial substudy.Methods: Subjects consenting to SGUS were randomised to rituximab or placebo given at weeks 0, 2, 24 and 26, and scanned at baseline and weeks 16 and 48. Sonographers completed a 0-11 total ultrasound score (TUS) comprising domains of echogenicity, homogeneity, glandular definition, glands involved and hypoechoic foci size. Baseline-adjusted TUS values were analysed over time, modelling change from baseline at each time point. For each TUS domain, we fitted a repeated-measures logistic regression model to model the odds of a response in the rituximab arm (≥1-point improvement) as a function of the baseline score, age category, disease duration and time point.Results: 52 patients (n=26 rituximab and n=26 placebo) from nine centres completed baseline and one or more follow-up visits. Estimated between-group differences (rituximab-placebo) in baseline-adjusted TUS were -1.2 (95% CI -2.1 to -0.3; P=0.0099) and -1.2 (95% CI -2.0 to -0.5; P=0.0023) at weeks 16 and 48. Glandular definition improved in the rituximab arm with an OR of 6.8 (95% CI 1.1 to 43.0; P=0.043) at week 16 and 10.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 105.9; P=0.050) at week 48.Conclusions: We demonstrated statistically significant improvement in TUS after rituximab compared with placebo. This encourages further research into both B cell depletion therapies in PSS and SGUS as an imaging biomarker.Trial Registration Number: 65360827, 2010-021430-64; Results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Among patients with suspected coronary heart disease (CHD), rates of invasive angiography are considered too high.Objective: To test the hypothesis that among patients with suspected CHD, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)-guided care is superior to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines-directed care and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS)-guided care in reducing unnecessary angiography.Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, 3-parallel group, randomized clinical trial using a pragmatic comparative effectiveness design. From 6 UK hospitals, 1202 symptomatic patients with suspected CHD and a CHD pretest likelihood of 10% to 90% were recruited. First randomization was November 23, 2012; last 12-month follow-up was March 12, 2016.Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (240:481:481) to management according to UK NICE guidelines or to guided care based on the results of CMR or MPS testing.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was protocol-defined unnecessary coronary angiography (normal fractional flow reserve >0.8 or quantitative coronary angiography [QCA] showing no percentage diameter stenosis ≥70% in 1 view or ≥50% in 2 orthogonal views in all coronary vessels ≥2.5 mm diameter) within 12 months. Secondary end points included positive angiography, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and procedural complications.Results: Among 1202 symptomatic patients (mean age, 56.3 years [SD, 9.0]; women, 564 [46.9%] ; mean CHD pretest likelihood, 49.5% [SD, 23.8%]), number of patients with invasive coronary angiography after 12 months was 102 in the NICE guidelines group (42.5% [95% CI, 36.2%-49.0%])], 85 in the CMR group (17.7% [95% CI, 14.4%-21.4%]); and 78 in the MPS group (16.2% [95% CI, 13.0%-19.8%]). Study-defined unnecessary angiography occurred in 69 (28.8%) in the NICE guidelines group, 36 (7.5%) in the CMR group, and 34 (7.1%) in the MPS group; adjusted odds ratio of unnecessary angiography: CMR group vs NICE guidelines group, 0.21 (95% CI, 0.12-0.34, P < .001); CMR group vs the MPS group, 1.27 (95% CI, 0.79-2.03, P = .32). Positive angiography proportions were 12.1% (95% CI, 8.2%-16.9%; 29/240 patients) for the NICE guidelines group, 9.8% (95% CI, 7.3%-12.8%; 47/481 patients) for the CMR group, and 8.7% (95% CI, 6.4%-11.6%; 42/481 patients) for the MPS group. A MACE was reported at a minimum of 12 months in 1.7% of patients in the NICE guidelines group, 2.5% in the CMR group, and 2.5% in the MPS group (adjusted hazard ratios: CMR group vs NICE guidelines group, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.52-3.57]; CMR group vs MPS group, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.46-1.95]).Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with suspected angina, investigation by CMR resulted in a lower probability of unnecessary angiography within 12 months than NICE guideline-directed care, with no statistically significant difference between CMR and MPS strategies. There were no statistically significant differences in MACE rates.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01664858. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate whether rituximab, an anti-B cell therapy, improves symptoms of fatigue and oral dryness in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS)., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial that included health economic analysis. Anti-Ro-positive patients with primary SS, symptomatic fatigue, and oral dryness were recruited from 25 UK rheumatology clinics from August 2011 to January 2014. Patients were centrally randomized to receive either intravenous (IV) placebo (250 ml saline) or IV rituximab (1,000 mg in 250 ml saline) in 2 courses at weeks 0, 2, 24, and 26, with pre- and postinfusion medication including corticosteroids. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a 30% reduction in either fatigue or oral dryness at 48 weeks, as measured by visual analog scale. Other outcome measures included salivary and lacrimal flow rates, quality of life, scores on the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index and EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index, symptoms of ocular and overall dryness, pain, globally assessed disease activity, and cost-effectiveness., Results: All 133 patients who were randomized to receive placebo (n = 66) or rituximab (n = 67) were included in the primary analysis. Among patients with complete data, 21 of 56 placebo-treated patients and 24 of 61 rituximab-treated patients achieved the primary end point. After multiple imputation of missing outcomes, response rates in the placebo and rituximab groups were 36.8% and 39.8%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 1.13 [95% confidence interval 0.50, 2.55]). There were no significant improvements in any outcome measure except for unstimulated salivary flow. The mean ± SD costs per patient for rituximab and placebo were £10,752 ± 264.75 and £2,672 ± 241.71, respectively. There were slightly more adverse events (AEs) reported in total for rituximab, but there was no difference in serious AEs (10 in each group)., Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that rituximab is neither clinically effective nor cost-effective in this patient population., (© 2017, American College of Rheumatology.)