Rituximab as maintenance therapy for ANCA-associated vasculitides: pooled analysis and long-term outcome of 277 patients included in the MAINRITSAN trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of azathioprine (AZA), 18-month fixed-schedule rituximab (RTX), 18-month tailored RTX and 36-month RTX in preventing relapses in patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis who achieved a complete remission after induction therapy. Patients treated with 36-month RTX received either a fixed or a tailored regimen for the first 18 months and a fixed regimen for the last 18 months (36-month fixed/fixed RTX and 36-month tailored/fixed RTX, respectively). METHODS: The Maintenance of Remission using Rituximab in Systemic ANCA-associated Vasculitis (MAINRITSAN) trials sequentially compared: 18-month fixed-schedule RTX versus AZA (MAINRITSAN); 18-month fixed-schedule RTX versus 18-month tailored-RTX (MAINRITSAN2); and extended therapy to 36 months with four additional RTX infusions after MAINRITSAN2 versus placebo (MAINRITSAN3). Patients were then followed prospectively through month 84 and their data were pooled to analyse relapses and adverse events. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival at month 84. RESULTS: 277 patients were enrolled and divided in 5 groups: AZA (n=58), 18-month fixed-schedule RTX (n=97), 18-month tailored-RTX (n=40), 36-month tailored/fixed RTX (n=42), 36-month fixed/fixed RTX (n=41). After adjustment for prognostic factors, 18-month fixed-schedule RTX was superior to AZA in preventing major relapses at month 84 (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.71). The 18-month tailored-RTX regimen was associated with an increased risk of major relapse compared with fixed-schedule regimen (HR 2.92, 95% CI 1.43 to 5.96). The risk of major relapse was similar between 36-month fixed/fixed and 18-month fixed-RTX (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.25). CONCLUSIONS: According to these results, it appears that the 84-month remission rate is higher with an 18-month fixed RTX regimen compared with AZA and 18-month tailored RTX. Also, extending RTX to 36 months does not appear to reduce the long-term relapse rate compared with the 18-month fixed RTX regimen. However, as this study was underpowered to make this comparison, further prospective studies are needed to determine the potential long-term benefits of extending treatment in these patients.

Neonatal Listeriosis Presentation and Outcome: A Prospective Study of 189 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Listeriosis is caused by the foodborne pathogen Listeria monocytogenes. It can present as a maternal-neonatal infection. We implemented a nationwide prospective cohort and analyzed the features of neonatal listeriosis. METHODS: We studied all neonates born alive from mothers with microbiologically proven maternal-neonatal listeriosis enrolled from November 2009 to December 2017. We analyzed presentation, neonatal outcome at discharge, and predictors of severe presentation and outcome. RESULTS: We studied 189 infants; 133 of 189 (70%) had abnormal clinical status at birth, including acute respiratory distress in 106 of 189 (56%). There were 132 of 189 (70%) infants who developed early-onset listeriosis and 12 of 189 (6%) who developed late-onset listeriosis; all presented with acute meningitis. There were 17 of 189 (9%) infants who had major adverse outcomes: 3%, (5 of 189) death; 6% (12 of 189), severe brain injury; and 2% (3 of 189), severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Fifteen of 17 infants were born <34 weeks of gestation (P < .0001 vs infants born ≥34 weeks of gestation). Maternal antimicrobial treatment ≥1 day before delivery was associated with a significant decrease in presentation severity for the infant, resulting in significantly fewer inotropic drugs, fluid resuscitation, and mechanical ventilation requirement (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.51; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal maternal antimicrobial treatment is associated with reduced neonatal listeriosis severity, justifying the prescription of preemptive maternal antimicrobial therapy when maternal-fetal listeriosis is suspected. Neonatal outcome is better than reported earlier, and its major determinant is gestational age at birth. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01520597.

Development and preliminary validation of the Sjögren's Tool for Assessing Response (STAR): a consensual composite score for assessing treatment effect in primary Sjögren's syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a composite responder index in primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS): the Sjögren's Tool for Assessing Response (STAR). METHODS: To develop STAR, the NECESSITY (New clinical endpoints in primary Sjögren's syndrome: an interventional trial based on stratifying patients) consortium used data-driven methods based on nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and consensus techniques involving 78 experts and 20 patients. Based on reanalysis of rituximab trials and the literature, the Delphi panel identified a core set of domains with their respective outcome measures. STAR options combining these domains were proposed to the panel for selection and improvement. For each STAR option, sensitivity to change was estimated by the C-index in nine RCTs. Delphi rounds were run for selecting STAR. For the options remaining before the final vote, a meta-analysis of the RCTs was performed. RESULTS: The Delphi panel identified five core domains (systemic activity, patient symptoms, lachrymal gland function, salivary gland function and biological parameters), and 227 STAR options combining these domains were selected to be tested for sensitivity to change. After two Delphi rounds, a meta-analysis of the 20 remaining options was performed. The candidate STAR was then selected by a final vote based on metrological properties and clinical relevance. CONCLUSION: The candidate STAR is a composite responder index that includes all main disease features in a single tool and is designed for use as a primary endpoint in pSS RCTs. The rigorous and consensual development process ensures its face and content validity. The candidate STAR showed good sensitivity to change and will be prospectively validated by the NECESSITY consortium in a dedicated RCT.

Evaluation of the usefulness of ultrasound measurement of the lower uterine segment before delivery of women with a prior cesarean delivery: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The main reason to avoid trial of labor after cesarean delivery is the possibility of uterine rupture. Identifying women at risk is thus an important aim, for it would enable women at low risk to proceed with a secure planned vaginal birth. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of proposing mode of delivery based on the ultrasound measurement of the lower uterine segment thickness on a composite outcome of maternal-fetal mortality and morbidity, compared with usual management, among pregnant women with a previous cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: This multicenter, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, unmasked trial was conducted at 8 referral university hospitals with a neonatal intensive care unit and enrolled 2948 women at 36 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days of gestation with 1 previous low transverse cesarean delivery and no contraindication to trial of labor. Women in the study group had their lower uterine segment thickness measured by ultrasound. Those with measurements >3.5 mm, were encouraged to choose a planned vaginal delivery, and those with measurements ≤3.5 mm, were encouraged to choose a planned repeat cesarean delivery. This measurement was not taken in the control group; their mode of delivery was decided according to standard management. The primary outcome was a composite criterion comprising maternal mortality, uterine rupture, uterine dehiscence, hysterectomy, thromboembolic disease, transfusion, endometritis, perinatal death, or neonatal encephalopathy. Prespecified secondary outcomes were repeat cesarean deliveries, elective or after trial of labor. RESULTS: The study group included 1472 women, and the control group included 1476 women. These groups were similar at baseline. The primary outcome occurred in 3.4% of the study group and 4.3% of the control group (relative risk, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.13: risk difference, -1.0%; 95% confidence interval, -2.4 to 0.5). The uterine rupture rate in the study group was 0.4% and in the control group 0.9% (relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-1.19). The planned cesarean delivery rate was 16.4% in the study group and 13.7% in the control group (relative risk, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.47), whereas the rates of cesarean delivery during labor were 25.1% and 25.0% (relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.14) in the study and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound measurements of lower uterine segment thickness did not result in a statistically significant lower frequency of maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes than standard management. However, because this study was underpowered, further research should be encouraged.

Long-Term Rituximab Use to Maintain Remission of Antineutrophil Cytoplasmic Antibody-Associated Vasculitis: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Biannual rituximab infusions over 18 months effectively maintain remission after a "standard" remission induction regimen for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of prolonged rituximab therapy in preventing AAV relapses in patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) who have achieved complete remission after completing an 18-month maintenance regimen. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02433522). SETTING: 39 clinical centers in France. PATIENTS: 68 patients with GPA and 29 with MPA who achieved complete remission after the first phase of maintenance therapy. INTERVENTION: Rituximab or placebo infusion every 6 months for 18 months (4 infusions). MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was relapse-free survival at month 28. Relapse was defined as new or reappearing symptoms or worsening disease, with a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score greater than 0. RESULTS: From March 2015 to April 2016, 97 patients (mean age, 63.9 years; 35% women) were randomly assigned, 50 to the rituximab and 47 to the placebo group. Relapse-free survival estimates at month 28 were 96% (95% CI, 91% to 100%) and 74% (CI, 63% to 88%) in the rituximab and placebo groups, respectively, an absolute difference of 22% (CI, 9% to 36%) with a hazard ratio of 7.5 (CI, 1.67 to 33.7) (P = 0.008). Major relapse-free survival estimates at month 28 were 100% (CI, 93% to 100%) versus 87% (CI, 78% to 97%) (P = 0.009), respectively. At least 1 serious adverse event developed in 12 patients (24%) in the rituximab group (with 9 infectious serious adverse events occurring among 6 patients [12%]) versus 14 patients (30%) in the placebo group (with 6 infectious serious adverse events developing among 4 patients [9%]). No deaths occurred in either group. LIMITATION: Potential selection bias based on previous rituximab response and tolerance. CONCLUSION: Extended therapy with biannual rituximab infusions over 18 months was associated with a lower incidence of AAV relapse compared with standard maintenance therapy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: French Ministry of Health and Hoffmann-La Roche.

Role of good oral hygiene on clinical evolution of rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized study nested in the ESPOIR cohort.

OBJECTIVE: There is a relationship between RA and periodontal disease. We aimed to investigate if a good oral hygiene could improve activity of RA. METHODS: The patients with RA according to ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria and included in the French early arthritis ESPOIR cohort were included in a randomized nested study into: (i) intervention group: general recommendations of good oral hygiene including teeth brushing, daily antiseptic mouthwash and twice a year scaling; and (ii) control group: no intervention. The primary end point was the delta DAS28-ESR. RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-two patients were randomized (238 in intervention and 234 in control). 92/238 from the intervention group accepted the procedure and 81 had a first visit to the dentist. 56% of patients had periodontal disease at baseline. Duration of RA was 9.0±0.7 years. Baseline DAS28-ESR was 2.7±1.3. After a median duration of 24 months, delta DAS28-ESR was -0.17±1.29 and -0.09±1.28 in intervention and control groups, respectively (mean difference (complier average causal effect): -0.37 (95% CI -1.12, 0.37), P = 0.33). In the intervention group, there was a significant decrease of the bacteria involved in the red complex: Porphyromonas gingivalis (P = 0.002), Tannerella forsythia (P = 0.002) and Treponema denticola (P = 0.019). The patients with baseline periodontal disease and those who became negative for one red complex bacterium had a slightly more important decrease of DAS28-ESR. CONCLUSION: Oral hygiene instruction together with regular scaling and polishing of the teeth significantly decreased the load of periodontal pathogens but did not decrease RA activity. This intervention should be tested in patients with earlier RA and more active disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01831648.

Causes of fever in pregnant women with acute undifferentiated fever: a prospective multicentric study.

The etiologies of undifferentiated fever in pregnant women have not been studied thoroughly. Because of its non-specific presentation but severe prognosis, listeriosis is often suspected in this setting, but in most cases not confirmed. We studied the causes of undifferentiated fever in pregnant women who received preemptive listeriosis treatment. We conducted from November 1, 2011, to June 30, 2013, a prospective multicentric observational cohort study of pregnant women referred to obstetrical wards with undifferentiated fever and who received listeriosis preemptive treatment. Clinical and biological features, treatment, outcome, and final diagnosis were collected. We enrolled 103 febrile pregnant women. A cause was identified in 77/103 (75%): viral infection in 52/103 (50%, influenza in 21 (20%)), bacterial infection in 22 (21%, including 16 pyelonephritis (16%) and 3 pneumonias (3%)), and TORCH infection in 3 (3%, varicella, toxoplasmosis, and cytomegalovirus primo-infections, n=1, each). Viral infections collected during influenza outbreaks (December-March) accounted for 43/57 (75%) cases. Two fetal losses were reported in the context of febrile pneumonia. Final diagnoses required adapting medical care in 46/77 (60%) of cases, for bacterial, influenza, or TORCH infections. A large array of benign to potentially severe infections manifests as acute undifferentiated fever in pregnant women, requiring careful repeated evaluation.

Cost-effectiveness of rituximab versus azathioprine for maintenance treatment in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis.

OBJECTIVES: Rituximab was proven superior to azathioprine for maintenance treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV). The high cost of rituximab might, however, limit its routine use. This study determined the cost-effectiveness of intravenous rituximab (5 x 500 mg until month 18), versus oral azathioprine (2 mg/kg per day, gradually decreased between month 12 and 22), for maintenance treatment of patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis, microscopic polyangiitis, or renal-limited vasculitis, aged 18-75. METHODS: We performed a single-trial based economic evaluation. MAINRITSAN was a 28-month multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled open-label trial. We estimated the cost of healthcare resources and quality of life using prospectively collected data. Healthcare costs were estimated from the perspective of the French Social Health Insurance's perspective, using 2016 tariffs for reimbursement. Utilities were derived from Short Form 36 scores. We estimated total average cost, incremental cost per incremental relapse averted and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty over relapses, severe adverse events, discount rate, utility weights, time horizon and the cost of rituximab. Costs drivers were tested using a generalised linear model. RESULTS: Total average costs were €13,387 (€11,605-€15,646) and €10,217 (€7,567-12,949) in the rituximab and azathioprine groups respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €12,824 per relapse averted and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) €37,782 per QALY gained. Besides the unit cost of rituximab, the major cost drivers were relapses and severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance treatment by rituximab could be cost-effective for preventing relapses in patients with AAV.

Long-term efficacy of remission-maintenance regimens for ANCA-associated vasculitides.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term efficacy of remission-maintenance regimens in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)-associated vasculitides. METHODS: The 28-month Maintenance of Remission using Rituximab in Systemic ANCA-associated Vasculitis trial compared rituximab with azathioprine to maintain remission in patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing granulomatosis with polyangiitis, microscopic polyangiitis or renal-limited ANCA-associated vasculitis. Thereafter, prospective patient follow-up lasted until month 60. The primary endpoint was the major-relapse rate at month 60. Relapse and serious adverse event-free survival were also assessed. RESULTS: Among the 115 enrolled patients, only one was lost to follow-up at month 60. For the azathioprine and rituximab groups, respectively, at month 60, the major relapse-free survival rates were 49.4% (95% CI 38.0% to 64.3%) and 71.9% (95% CI 61.2% to 84.6%) (p=0.003); minor and major relapse-free survival rates were 37.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 52.2%) and 57.9% (95% CI 46.4% to 72.2%) (p=0.012); overall survival rates were 93.0% (95% CI 86.7% to 99.9%) and 100% (p=0.045) and cumulative glucocorticoid use was comparable. Quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity analysis showed that rituximab-treated patients had 12.6 months more without relapse or toxicity than those given azathioprine (p<0.001). Antiproteinase-3-ANCA positivity and azathioprine arm were independently associated with higher risk of relapse. HRs of positive ANCA to predict relapse increased over time. CONCLUSION: The rate of sustained remission for ANCA-associated vasculitis patients, following rituximab-based or azathioprine-based maintenance regimens, remained superior over 60 months with rituximab, with better overall survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00748644.

Comparison of individually tailored versus fixed-schedule rituximab regimen to maintain ANCA-associated vasculitis remission: results of a multicentre, randomised controlled, phase III trial (MAINRITSAN2).

OBJECTIVE: To compare individually tailored, based on trimestrial biological parameter monitoring, to fixed-schedule rituximab reinfusion for remission maintenance of antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides (AAVs). METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) in complete remission after induction therapy were included in an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. All tailored-arm patients received a 500 mg rituximab infusion at randomisation, with rituximab reinfusion only when CD19+B lymphocytes or ANCA had reappeared or ANCA titre rose markedly based on trimestrial testing until month 18. Controls received a fixed 500 mg rituximab infusion on days 0 and 14 postrandomisation, then 6, 12 and 18 months after the first infusion. The primary endpoint was the number of relapses (new or reappearing symptom(s) or worsening disease with Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS)>0) at month 28 evaluated by an independent Adjudication Committee blinded to treatment group. RESULTS: Among the 162 patients (mean age: 60 years; 42% women) included, 117 (72.2%) had GPA and 45 (27.8%) had MPA. Preinclusion induction therapy included cyclophosphamide for 100 (61.7%), rituximab for 61 (37.6%) and methotrexate for 1 (0.6%). At month 28, 21 patients had suffered 22 relapses: 14/81 (17.3%) in 13 tailored-infusion recipients and 8/81 (9.9%) in 8 fixed-schedule patients (p=0.22). The tailored-infusion versus fixed-schedule group, respectively, received 248 vs 381 infusions, with medians (IQR) of 3 (2-4) vs 5 (5-5) administrations. CONCLUSION: AAV relapse rates did not differ significantly between individually tailored and fixed-schedule rituximab regimens. Individually tailored-arm patients received fewer rituximab infusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01731561; Results.

Discordance Between Drug Adherence as Reported by Patients and Drug Importance as Assessed by Physicians.

PURPOSE: Among patients on long-term medical therapy, we compared (1) patient and physician assessments of drug adherence and of drug importance and (2) drug adherence reported by patients with drug importance as assessed by their physicians. METHODS: We recruited to the study patients receiving at least 1 long-term drug treatment from both hospital and ambulatory settings in France. We compared drug adherence reported by patients and drug importance assessed by physicians using Spearman correlation coefficients. Reasons for nonadherence were collected with open-ended questions and classified as intentional or unintentional. RESULTS: Between April and August 2014, we recruited 128 patients taking 498 drugs. Patients and physicians showed only weak agreement in their assessments of drug adherence (r = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.11) and drug importance (r = 0.07; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.13). We did not find any correlation between physician-assessed drug importance and patient-reported drug adherence (r = -0.04; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06). In all, 94 (18.9%) of the drugs that physicians considered important were not correctly taken by patients. Patients intentionally did not adhere to 26 (48.1%) of the drugs for which they reported reasons for nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial discordance between patient and physician evaluations of drug adherence and drug importance. Nearly 20% of drugs considered important by physicians were not correctly taken by patients. These findings highlight the need for better patient-physician collaboration in drug treatment.

Meta-analyses including non-randomized studies of therapeutic interventions: a methodological review.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing number of meta-analyses including data from non-randomized studies for therapeutic evaluation. We aimed to systematically assess the methods used in meta-analyses including non-randomized studies evaluating therapeutic interventions. METHODS: For this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE via PubMed, from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 for meta-analyses including at least one non-randomized study evaluating therapeutic interventions. Etiological assessments and meta-analyses with no comparison group were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process and meta-analysis methods. RESULTS: One hundred eighty eight meta-analyses were selected: 119 included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) and 69 only NRSI. Half of the meta-analyses (n = 92, 49%) evaluated non-pharmacological interventions. "Grey literature" was searched for 72 meta-analyses (38%). An assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias was reported in 135 meta-analyses (72%) but this assessment considered the risk of confounding bias in only 33 meta-analyses (18%). In 130 meta-analyses (69%), the design of each NRSI was not clearly specified. In 131 (70%), whether crude or adjusted estimates of treatment effect for NRSI were combined was unclear or not reported. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed in 182 meta-analyses (97%) and further explored in 157 (84%). Reporting bias was assessed in 127 (68%). CONCLUSIONS: Some key methodological components of the systematic review process-search for grey literature, description of the type of NRSI included, assessment of risk of confounding bias and reporting of whether crude or adjusted estimates were combined-are not adequately carried out or reported in meta-analyses including NRSI.

Rituximab versus azathioprine for ANCA-associated vasculitis maintenance therapy: impact on global disability and health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and functional capability of rituximab vs azathioprine for ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) maintenance therapy. METHODS: In a 24-month phase III randomised-controlled trial, 115 patients over time received rituximab or azathioprine for AAV maintenance therapy. Mean changes of 36-item Short-form Health Survey (SF-36) and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores from baseline were analysed. RESULTS: Mean improvements of HAQ scores, from baseline to month 24 were significantly better for the rituximab (0.16 points lower) than the azathioprine group (p=0.038). As demonstrated by SF-36, study patients' baseline HRQOL was significantly impaired compared with age- and sex-matched US norms. At month 24, mean changes from baseline of SF-36 physical component score tended to be better for the rituximab group (+3.95 points, p=0.067) whereas mean changes from baseline of the SF-36 mental component score were significantly better for the azathioprine group (+4.23 points, p=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Azathioprine-treated patients' for AAV maintenance therapy showed a decline in physical abilities when compared to RTX at M24 in the MAINRITSAN trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov/, NCT00748644.

Non-TNF-Targeted Biologic vs a Second Anti-TNF Drug to Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients With Insufficient Response to a First Anti-TNF Drug: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: One-third of patients with rheumatoid arthritis show inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors; little guidance on choosing the next treatment exists. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a non-TNF-targeted biologic (non-TNF) vs a second anti-TNF drug for patients with insufficient response to a TNF inhibitor. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 300 patients (conducted between 2009-2012) with rheumatoid arthritis, with persistent disease activity (disease activity score in 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] ≥ 3.2 [range, 0-9.3]) and an insufficient response to anti-TNF therapy were included in a 52-week multicenter, pragmatic, open-label randomized clinical trial. The final follow-up date was in August 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a non-TNF-targeted biologic agent or an anti-TNF that differed from their previous treatment. The choice of the biologic prescribed within each randomized group was left to the treating clinician. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with good or moderate response according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) scale at week 24. Secondary outcomes included the EULAR response at weeks 12 and 52; at weeks 12, 24, and 52; DAS28ESR, low disease activity (DAS28 ≤3.2), remission (DAS28 ≤2.6); serious adverse events; and serious infections. RESULTS: Of the 300 randomized patients (243 [83.2%] women; mean [SD] age, 57.1 [12.2] years; baseline DAS28-ESR, 5.1 [1.1]), 269 (89.7%) completed the study. At week 24, 101 of 146 patients (69%) in the non-TNF group and 76 (52%) in the second anti-TNF group achieved a good or moderate EULAR response (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.37; P = .004, with imputation of missing data; absolute difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 6.2% to 28.2%). The DAS28-ESR was lower in the non-TNF group than in the second anti-TNF group (mean difference adjusted for baseline differences, -0.43; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.14; P = .004). At weeks 24 and 52, more patients in the non-TNF group vs the second anti-TNF group showed low disease activity (45% vs 28% at week 24; OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.43; P = .004 and 41% vs 23% at week 52; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.86; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with anti-TNF drugs but with inadequate primary response, a non-TNF biologic agent was more effective in achieving a good or moderate disease activity response at 24 weeks than was the second anti-TNF medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01000441.

Comparison of serious adverse events posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in corresponding journal articles.

BACKGROUND: The reporting of serious adverse events (SAEs) in clinical trials is crucial to assess the balance between benefits and risks. For trials with serious adverse events posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we assessed the consistency between SAEs posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and those published in corresponding journal articles. METHODS: All records from ClinicalTrials.gov up to February 2014 were automatically exported in XML format. Among these, we identified all phase III or IV randomized controlled trials with at least one SAE posted. For a random sample of 300 of these trials, we searched for corresponding publications using MEDLINE via PubMed and extracted safety results from the articles. RESULTS: Among the sample of 300 trials with SAEs posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, 78 (26%) did not have a corresponding publication, and 20 (7%) had a publication that did not match the ClinicalTrials.gov record. For the 202 remaining trials, 26 published articles (13%) did not mention SAEs, 4 (2%) reported no SAEs, and 33 (16%) did not report the total number of SAEs per treatment group. Among the remaining 139 trials, for 44 (32%), the number of SAEs per group published did not match those posted at ClinicalTrials.gov. For 31 trials, the number of SAEs was greater at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article, with a difference ≥30 % for at least one group for 21. Only 33 trials (11%) had a publication reporting matching numbers of SAE and describing the type of SAE. CONCLUSIONS: Many trials with SAEs posted at ClinicalTrials.gov are not yet published, omit the reporting of these SAEs in corresponding publications, or report a discrepant number of SAEs as compared with ClinicalTrials.gov. These results underline the need to consult ClinicalTrials.gov for more information on serious harms.

Impact of a nurse-led programme on comorbidity management and impact of a patient self-assessment of disease activity on the management of rheumatoid arthritis: results of a prospective, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial (COMEDRA).

OBJECTIVES: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients are at an increased risk of developing comorbid conditions. A close monitoring of the disease targeting a status of low disease activity is associated with a better outcome. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the impact of a nurse-led programme on comorbidities and the impact of patient self-assessment of disease activity on the management of RA. METHODS: We enrolled 970 patients (mean age 58 years, 79% women) in a prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label, 6-month trial. In the comorbidity group (n=482), the nurse checked comorbidities and sent the programme results to the attending physicians. In the self-assessment group (n=488), the nurse taught the patient how to calculate his/her Disease Activity Score which had to be reported on a booklet to be shared with the treating rheumatologist. The number of measures taken for comorbidities and the percentage of patients recording a change (initiation, switch or increased dose) in disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in the 6 months follow-up period of the study defined the outcomes of the trial. RESULTS: The number of measures taken per patient was statistically higher in the comorbidity group: 4.54±2.08 versus 2.65±1.57 (p<0.001); incidence rate ratio: 1.78 (1.61-1.96) and DMARD therapy was changed more frequently in the self-assessment group: 17.2% versus 10.9% (OR=1.70 (1.17; 2.49), p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the short-term benefit of a nurse-led programme on RA comorbidity management and the impact of patient self-assessment of disease activity on RA treatment intensification. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT #01315652.

Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners' confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians' confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed. METHODS: We planned a three-arm parallel-group randomized trial. French general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate and were blinded to the study's aim. We used a representative sample of 75 abstracts of pharmaceutical industry-funded randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and indexed in PubMed. Each abstract was standardized and reported in three formats: 1) no mention of the funding source or CoI; 2) reporting the funding source only; and 3) reporting the funding source and CoI. GPs were randomized according to a computerized randomization on a secure Internet system at a 1:1:1 ratio to assess one abstract among the three formats. The primary outcome was GPs' confidence in the abstract conclusions (0, not at all, to 10, completely confident). The study was planned to detect a large difference with an effect size of 0.5. RESULTS: Between October 2012 and June 2013, among 605 GPs contacted, 354 were randomized, 118 for each type of abstract. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) in GPs' confidence in abstract findings was 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0) (P = 0.84) for abstracts reporting the funding source only versus no funding source or CoI; -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4) (P = 0.39) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus no funding source and CoI; and -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2) (P = 0.15) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus the funding source only. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a large impact of trial report abstracts mentioning funding sources or CoI on GPs' confidence in the conclusions of the abstracts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01679873.

Testing an innovative device against airborne Aspergillus contamination.

Aspergillus fumigatus is a major airborne nosocomial pathogen that is responsible for severe mycosis in immunocompromised patients. We studied the efficacy of an innovative mobile air-treatment device in eliminating A. fumigatus from the air following experimental massive contamination in a high-security room. Viable mycological particles were isolated from sequential air samples in order to evaluate the device's effectiveness in removing the fungus. The concentration of airborne conidia was reduced by 95% in 18 min. Contamination was reduced below the detection threshold in 29 min, even when the machine was at the lowest airflow setting. In contrast, during spontaneous settling with no air treatment, conidia remained airborne for more than 1 h. This indoor air contamination model provided consistent and reproducible results. Because the air purifier proved to be effective at eliminating a major contaminant, it may prove useful in preventing air-transmitted disease agents. In an experimental space mimicking a hospital room, the AirLyse air purifier, which uses a combination of germicidal ultraviolet C irradiation and titanium photocatalysis, effectively eliminated Aspergillus conidia. Such a mobile device may be useful in routine practice for lowering microbiological air contamination in the rooms of patients at risk.

Effects of hydroxychloroquine on symptomatic improvement in primary Sjögren syndrome: the JOQUER randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Primary Sjögren syndrome is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by mouth and eye dryness, pain, and fatigue. Hydroxychloroquine is the most frequently prescribed immunosuppressant for the syndrome. However, evidence regarding its efficacy is limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the main symptoms of primary Sjögren syndrome: dryness, pain, and fatigue. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From April 2008 to May 2011, 120 patients with primary Sjögren syndrome according to American-European Consensus Group Criteria from 15 university hospitals in France were randomized in a double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Participants were assessed at baseline, week 12, week 24 (primary outcome), and week 48. The last follow-up date for the last patient was May 15, 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine (400 mg/d) or placebo until week 24. All patients were prescribed hydroxychloroquine between weeks 24 and 48. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a 30% or greater reduction between weeks 0 and 24 in scores on 2 of 3 numeric analog scales (from 0 [best] to 10 [worst]) evaluating dryness, pain, and fatigue. RESULTS: At 24 weeks, the proportion of patients meeting the primary end point was 17.9% (10/56) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 17.2% (11/64) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.37-2.78; P = .98). Between weeks 0 and 24, the mean (SD) numeric analog scale score for dryness changed from 6.38 (2.14) to 5.85 (2.57) in the placebo group and 6.53 (1.97) to 6.22 (1.87) in the hydroxychloroquine group. The mean (SD) numeric analog scale score for pain changed from 4.92 (2.94) to 5.08 (2.48) in the placebo group and 5.09 (3.06) to 4.59 (2.90) in the hydroxychloroquine group. The mean (SD) numeric analog scale for fatigue changed from 6.26 (2.27) to 5.72 (2.38) in the placebo group and 6.00 (2.52) to 5.94 (2.40) in the hydroxychloroquine group. All but 1 patient in the hydroxychloroquine group had detectable blood levels of the drug. Hydroxychloroquine had no efficacy in patients with anti-SSA autoantibodies, high IgG levels, or systemic involvement. During the first 24 weeks, there were 2 serious adverse events in the hydroxychloroquine group and 3 in the placebo group; in the last 24 weeks, there were 3 serious adverse events in the hydroxychloroquine group and 4 in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with primary Sjögren syndrome, the use of hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo did not improve symptoms during 24 weeks of treatment. Further studies are needed to evaluate longer-term outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00632866.

Timing and completeness of trial results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act requires results from clinical trials of Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs to be posted at ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 y after trial completion. We compared the timing and completeness of results of drug trials posted at ClinicalTrials.gov and published in journals. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov on March 27, 2012, for randomized controlled trials of drugs with posted results. For a random sample of these trials, we searched PubMed for corresponding publications. Data were extracted independently from ClinicalTrials.gov and from the published articles for trials with results both posted and published. We assessed the time to first public posting or publishing of results and compared the completeness of results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov versus published in journal articles. Completeness was defined as the reporting of all key elements, according to three experts, for the flow of participants, efficacy results, adverse events, and serious adverse events (e.g., for adverse events, reporting of the number of adverse events per arm, without restriction to statistically significant differences between arms for all randomized patients or for those who received at least one treatment dose). From the 600 trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we randomly sampled 50% (n = 297) had no corresponding published article. For trials with both posted and published results (n = 202), the median time between primary completion date and first results publicly posted was 19 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 30 mo), and the median time between primary completion date and journal publication was 21 mo (first quartile = 14, third quartile = 28 mo). Reporting was significantly more complete at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article for the flow of participants (64% versus 48% of trials, p<0.001), efficacy results (79% versus 69%, p = 0.02), adverse events (73% versus 45%, p<0.001), and serious adverse events (99% versus 63%, p<0.001). The main study limitation was that we considered only the publication describing the results for the primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need to search ClinicalTrials.gov for both unpublished and published trials. Trial results, especially serious adverse events, are more completely reported at ClinicalTrials.gov than in the published article.