Search

Background Despite numerous studies and meta-analyses the prognostic effect of cardiac rehabilitation is still under debate. This update of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcome Study (CROS II) provides a contemporary and practice focused approach including only cardiac rehabilitation interventions based on published standards and core components to evaluate cardiac rehabilitation delivery and effectiveness in improving patient prognosis. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Randomised controlled trials and retrospective and prospective controlled cohort studies evaluating patients after acute coronary syndrome, coronary artery bypass grafting or mixed populations with coronary artery disease published until September 2018 were included. Resulte Based on CROS inclusion criteria out of 7096 abstracts six additional studies including 8671 patients were identified (two randomised controlled trials, two retrospective controlled cohort studies, two prospective controlled cohort studies). In total, 31 studies including 228,337 patients were available for this meta-analysis (three randomised controlled trials, nine prospective controlled cohort studies, 19 retrospective controlled cohort studies; 50,653 patients after acute coronary syndrome 14,583, after coronary artery bypass grafting 163,101, mixed coronary artery disease populations; follow-up periods ranging from 9 months to 14 years). Heterogeneity in design, cardiac rehabilitation delivery, biometrical assessment and potential confounders was considerable. Controlled cohort studies showed a significantly reduced total mortality (primary endpoint) after cardiac rehabilitation participation in patients after acute coronary syndrome (prospective controlled cohort studies: hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.69; retrospective controlled cohort studies HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.76; prospective controlled cohort studies odds ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.48), but the single randomised controlled trial fulfilling the CROS inclusion criteria showed neutral results. Cardiac rehabilitation participation was also associated with reduced total mortality in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting (retrospective controlled cohort studies HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.70, one single randomised controlled trial without fatal events), and in mixed coronary artery disease populations (retrospective controlled cohort studies HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.77; two out of 10 controlled cohort studies with neutral results). Conclusion CROS II confirms the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation participation after acute coronary syndrome and after coronary artery bypass grafting in actual clinical practice by reducing total mortality under the conditions of current evidence-based coronary artery disease treatment. The data of CROS II, however, underscore the urgent need to define internationally accepted minimal standards for cardiac rehabilitation delivery as well as for scientific evaluation.

Supplemental material, 20200303_MDM_Supplement.rjf_online_supp for Comparison of Methods for Estimating Therapy Effects by Indirect Comparisons: A Simulation Study by Dorothea Weber, Katrin Jensen and Meinhard Kieser in Medical Decision Making

Additional file 1. Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Checklist: recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents.

Background Naturalistic developmental behavioural interventions (NDBI) have been shown to improve autism-specific symptoms in young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). NDBI approaches, such as the ASD-specific Frankfurt Early Intervention Programme for ASD (A-FFIP), are based on ASD-specific developmental and learning aspects. A-FFIP is a low-intensity intervention which can easily be implemented in the local health care/social welfare system. The aim of the present study is to establish 1-year efficacy of the manualised early intervention programme A-FFIP in toddlers and preschool children with ASD. It is hypothesised that A-FFIP will result in improved ASD-specific symptoms compared to early intervention as usual (EIAU). Child- and family-specific secondary outcomes, as well as moderators and mediators of outcome, will be explored. Methods/design A prospective, multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled, phase-III trial comparing A-FFIP versus EIAU. A total of 134 children (A-FFIP: 67, EIAU: 67) aged 24–66 months at baseline assessment meeting the criteria for ASD (DSM-5) will be included. The primary outcome is the absolute change of the total score of the Brief Observation of Social Communication Change (BOSCC-AT) between baseline (T2) and 1-year follow-up (T6). The treatment effect will be tested, adjusted for relevant covariates applying a mixed model for repeated measures. Secondary outcomes are BOSCC social communication and repetitive-behaviour scores, single ASD symptoms, language, cognition, psychopathology, parental well-being and family quality of life. Predictors, moderators and mediating mechanisms will be explored. Discussion If efficacy of the manualised A-FFIP early intervention is established, the current study has the potential to change clinical practice strongly towards the implementation of a low-intensity, evidence-based, natural early intervention in ASD. Early intervention in ASD requires specialist training, which subsequently needs to be developed or included into current training curricula. Trial registration German Registry for Clinical Trials (Deutscher Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS); ID: 00016330. Retrospectively registered on 4 January 2019. URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00016330.

Einleitung: Meta-Analysen dienen der quantitativen Synthese aller aktuell vorhandenen Evidenz aus klinischen Studien. Um die Aktualität zu gewährleisten, fordern Organisationen, wie zum Beispiel die Cochrane Collaboration, dass systematische Reviews und damit die darin enthalten Meta-Analysen[zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL], 63. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie e.V. (GMDS)

Introduction: In medical practice, physicians often face situations where various therapy options exist. Ideally, all these therapies were previously compared in one (or several) trials. However, often only two- (or even one-) arm trials were conducted comparing only a subset of all possible therapies.[for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], 63. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie e.V. (GMDS)