Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of the Cochlear Osia System and Baha Attract System in Patients with Conductive or Mixed Hearing Loss or Single-Sided Deafness.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-utility of the active transcutaneous Osia® System versus the passive transcutaneous Baha® Attract System for patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss or single-sided deafness in an Australian healthcare setting. In the absence of direct comparative evidence, an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) of the clinical effectiveness and utility gains was needed. The ITC was informed by three studies identified through a systematic literature review. A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of the Osia System. The literature review identified three studies suitable to inform an ITC: Mylanus et al. 2020 and Briggs et al. 2022 (Osia System) and den Besten et al. 2019 (Baha Attract System). The Osia System was found to be clinically superior to the Baha Attract System, across objective audiological outcomes resulting in a clinically meaningful utility benefit of 0.03 measured by the Health Utility Index with at least equivalent safety. In conclusion, the Osia System is more effective than the Baha Attract System, providing better hearing and health-related quality of life outcomes. In an Australian healthcare setting, the Osia System is cost-effective as demonstrated in a cost-utility analysis versus the Baha Attract System.

Estimation of the treatment effect following a clinical trial that stopped early for benefit.

When a clinical trial stops early for benefit, the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of the treatment effect may be subject to overestimation bias. Several authors have proposed adjusting for this bias using the conditional MLE, which is obtained by conditioning on early stopping. However, this approach has a fundamental problem in that the adjusted estimate may not be in the direction of benefit, even though the study has stopped early due to benefit. In this paper, we address this problem by embedding both the MLE and the conditional MLE within a broader class of penalised likelihood estimates, and choosing a member of the class that is a favourable compromise between the two. This penalised MLE, and its associated confidence interval, always lie in the direction of benefit when the study stops early for benefit. We study its properties using both simulations and analyses of the ENZAMET trial in metastatic prostate cancer. Conditional on stopping early for benefit, the method is found to have good unbiasedness and coverage properties, along with very favourable efficiency at earlier interim analyses. We recommend the penalised MLE as a supplementary analysis to a conventional primary analysis when a clinical trial stops early for benefit.

Changes to aspects of ongoing randomised controlled trials with fixed designs.

BACKGROUND: Despite careful planning, changes to some aspects of an ongoing randomised clinical trial (RCT), with a fixed design, may be warranted. We sought to elucidate the distinction between legitimate versus illegitimate changes to serve as a guide for less experienced clinical trialists and other stakeholders. METHODS: Using data from a large trial of statin therapy for secondary prevention, we generated a set of simulated trial datasets under the null hypothesis (H0) and a set under an alternative hypothesis (H1). Through analysis of these simulated trials, we assessed the performance of the strategy of changing aspects of the design/analysis with knowledge of treatment allocation (illegitimate) versus the strategy of making changes without knowledge of treatment allocation (legitimate). Performance was assessed using the type 1 error, as well as measures of absolute and relative bias in the treatment effect. RESULTS: Illegitimate changes led to a relative bias of 61% under H1, and a type 1 error rate under H0 of 23%-well in excess of the 5% significance level targeted. Legitimate changes produced unbiased estimates under H1 and did not inflate the type 1 error rate under H0. CONCLUSIONS: Changes to pre-specified aspects of the design and analysis of an ongoing RCT may be a necessary response to unforeseen circumstances. Such changes risk introducing a bias if undertaken with knowledge of treatment allocation. Legitimate changes need to be adequately documented to provide assurance to all stakeholders of their validity.

Cefoperazone-sulbactam for treatment of intra-abdominal infections: results from a randomized, parallel group study in India.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of a third-generation cephalosporin and metronidazole, with or without an aminoglycoside, often are used for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections in surgical settings. Simpler regimens that preserve an adequate spectrum of coverage, but allow easier administration and have fewer side effects, may be a more desirable option. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, active comparator study evaluated the effectiveness (non-inferiority hypothesis) of the beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination cefoperazone-sulbactam (2-8 g/day), compared with ceftazidime (2-6 g/day)-amikacin (15 mg/kg/day)-metronidazole (500 mg three times daily) in 154 and 152 subjects, respectively, having intra-abdominal infections. The study was conducted at 17 centers in India. RESULTS: Non-inferiority of cefoperazone-sulbactam (91.9%) compared with ceftazidime-amikacin-metronidazole (81.8%) was demonstrated for continued resolution of clinical signs and symptoms at the 30-day follow-up (primary endpoint) with a treatment difference of 10.1% (95% confidence interval 2.1%, 18.1%; pre-defined non-inferiority limit > -12.5%). Superiority of cefoperazone-sulbactam also was demonstrated for this endpoint, with significantly more subjects achieving continued resolution at the 30-day follow-up than in the comparator group (p = 0.015). On microbiologic outcomes, cefoperazone-sulbactam had higher success rates than ceftazidime-amikacin-metronidazole (92.9% vs. 80.0%). The pathogens (202 isolated) isolated most commonly were Escherichia coli (38.6%) and Klebsiella spp. (12.9%). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 6.5% and 16.4% in the cefoperazone-sulbactam and ceftazidime-amikacin-metronidazole groups, respectively, with more discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events in the comparator arm (3.2% vs. 9.9%). CONCLUSION: Empirical cefoperazone-sulbactam monotherapy could be a useful adjunct to surgical intervention for intra-abdominal infections.

Double-blind comparison of ziprasidone and risperidone in the treatment of Chinese patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ziprasidone versus risperidone in Chinese subjects with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. METHODS: In patients meeting the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders criteria for schizophrenia and with a Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score ≥60 were randomly assigned to six weeks of double-blind treatment with ziprasidone 40-80 mg twice daily or risperidone 1-3 mg bid, flexibly dosed. Noninferiority was demonstrated if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in PANSS total score improvement from baseline in the evaluable population was smaller than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 10 units. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 118 ziprasidone-treated and 121 risperidone-treated subjects. Improvement (reduction) from baseline to week 6 in PANSS total score was (-35.6 [95% CI: -38.6, -32.6]) for ziprasidone and (-37.1 [95% CI: -39.9, -34.4]) for risperidone. Noninferiority was demonstrated in the evaluable population with a difference score of 1.5 [95% CI: -2.5, 5.5]. Mean prolactin levels decreased at week 6 compared with baseline for ziprasidone (-3.5 ng/mL), but significantly increased for risperidone (61.1 ng/mL; P < 0.001). More risperidone-treated subjects (14.9%) than ziprasidone-treated subjects (4.2%) reported weight gain ≥7%. Akathisia and somnolence in the ziprasidone group and akathisia and insomnia in the risperidone group were the most common side effects. Treatment-related/treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 79.7% and 71.1% of ziprasidone-treated and risperidone-treated subjects, respectively. CONCLUSION: In Chinese subjects, ziprasidone was as effective as risperidone, with less weight gain and less prolactin elevation.

Efficacy and safety of the doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system for the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia.

This study was carried out to obtain information on the efficacy and safety of the controlled release formulation of the doxazosin Gastrointestinal Therapeutic System (GITS) in Taiwanese subjects with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Studies of doxazosin in Asian populations for this indication have lacked data particularly from Taiwan. This was an 8-week, post-marketing, open-label, non-comparative study. Eighty male subjects (mean age=64 years) with BPH received doxazosin GITS 4 mg once daily. At week 4, subjects who achieved an increase in maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) of ≥3mL/s and a ≥30% reduction in the total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) continued on doxazosin GITS 4 mg for the remaining 4 weeks; all other subjects were up-titrated to 8 mg once daily. Change from baseline at weeks 4 and 8 (primary endpoint) in IPSS and Qmax was evaluated using two-sided paired t tests for the intent-to-treat population. Safety was assessed throughout the study. A total of 53 (66.3%) subjects completed the study. Baseline Qmax and IPSS were 10.7+3.4 mL/s and 20.6+5.4, respectively. At week 8, a significant increase from baseline in Qmax of 3.3+4.6 mL/s (95% confidence interval = 2.2-4.4, p< 0.001) and a significant decrease in total IPSS of -8.9 + 7.0 (95% confidence interval=-10.5 to -7.3, p< 0.001) was observed. The most common treatment-related adverse event was dizziness. Doxazosin GITS 4 mg per day (with an 8-mg titration step) effectively improved symptoms of BPH. The results from this study provide further information for clinicians on the use of doxazosin GITS for the treatment of BPH, particularly in Taiwanese patients.

Risk of serious NSAID-related gastrointestinal events during long-term exposure: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Exposure to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with increased risk of serious gastrointestinal (GI) events compared with non-exposure. We investigated whether that risk is sustained over time. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (to 2002); MEDLINE, EMBASE, Derwent Drug File and Current Contents (1999-2002); manual searching of reviews (1999-2002). STUDY SELECTION: From 479 search results reviewed and 221 articles retrieved, seven studies of patients exposed to prescription non-selective NSAIDs for more than 6 months and reporting time-dependent serious GI event rates were selected for quantitative data synthesis. These were stratified into two groups by study design. DATA EXTRACTION: Incidence of GI events and number of patients at specific time points were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-regression analyses were performed. Change in risk was evaluated by testing whether the slope of the regression line declined over time. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provided evaluable data from five NSAID arms (aspirin, naproxen, two ibuprofen arms, and diclofenac). When the RCT data were combined, a small significant decline in annualised risk was seen: - 0.005% (95% CI, - 0.008% to - 0.001%) per month. Sensitivity analyses were conducted because there was disparity within the RCT data. The pooled estimate from three cohort studies showed no significant decline in annualised risk over periods up to 2 years: - 0.003% (95% CI, - 0.008% to 0.003%) per month. CONCLUSIONS: Small decreases in risk over time were observed; these were of negligible clinical importance. For patients who need long-term (> 6 months) treatment, precautionary measures should be considered to reduce the net probability of serious GI events over the anticipated treatment duration. The effect of intermittent versus regular daily therapy on long-term risk needs further investigation.