Level of evidence for promising subgroup findings: The case of trends and multiple subgroups.

Subgroup analyses are an essential part of fully understanding the complete results from confirmatory clinical trials. However, they come with substantial methodological challenges. In case no statistically significant overall treatment effect is found in a clinical trial, this does not necessarily indicate that no patients will benefit from treatment. Subgroup analyses could be conducted to investigate whether a treatment might still be beneficial for particular subgroups of patients. Assessment of the level of evidence associated with such subgroup findings is primordial as it may form the basis for performing a new clinical trial or even drawing the conclusion that a specific patient group could benefit from a new therapy. Previous research addressed the overall type I error and the power associated with a single subgroup finding for continuous outcomes and suitable replication strategies. The current study aims at investigating two scenarios as part of a nonconfirmatory strategy in a trial with dichotomous outcomes: (a) when a covariate of interest is represented by ordered subgroups, eg, in case of biomarkers, and thus, a trend can be studied that may reflect an underlying mechanism, and (b) when multiple covariates, and thus multiple subgroups, are investigated at the same time. Based on simulation studies, this paper assesses the credibility of subgroup findings in overall nonsignificant trials and provides practical recommendations for evaluating the strength of evidence of subgroup findings in these settings.

Electromagnetic-guided placement of nasoduodenal feeding tubes versus endoscopic placement: a randomized, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Electromagnetic-guided placement (EMP) of a nasoduodenal feeding tube by trained nurses is an attractive alternative to EGD-guided placement (EGDP). We aimed to compare EMP and EGDP in outpatients, ward patients, and critically ill patients with normal upper GI anatomy. METHODS: In 3 centers with no prior experience in EMP, patients were randomized to placement of a single-lumen nasoduodenal feeding tube either with EGDP or EMP. The primary endpoint was post-pyloric position of the tube on abdominal radiography. Patients were followed for 10 days to assess patency and adverse events. The analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: In total, 160 patients were randomized to EGDP (N = 76) or EMP (N = 84). Three patients withdrew informed consent, and no abdominal radiography was performed in 2 patients. Thus, 155 patients (59 intensive care unit, 38%) were included in the analyses. Rates of post-pyloric tube position between EGDP and EMP were comparable (79% vs 82%, odds ratio 1.16; 90% confidence interval, 0.58-2.38; P = .72). Adverse events were observed in 4 patients after EMP (hypoxia, GI blood loss, atrial fibrillation, abdominal pain) and in 4 after EGDP (epistaxis N = 2, GI blood loss, hypoxia). Costs of tube placements were lower for EMP compared with EGDP: $519.09 versus $622.49, respectively (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Success rates and safety of EMP and EGDP in patients with normal upper GI anatomy were comparable. Lower costs and potential logistic advantages may drive centers to adopt EMP as their new standard of care. (Clinical trial registration number: NTR4286.).

Dynamic borrowing through empirical power priors that control type I error.

In order for historical data to be considered for inclusion in the design and analysis of clinical trials, prospective rules are essential. Incorporation of historical data may be of particular interest in the case of small populations where available data is scarce and heterogeneity is not as well understood, and thus conventional methods for evidence synthesis might fall short. The concept of power priors can be particularly useful for borrowing evidence from a single historical study. Power priors employ a parameter γ ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] that quantifies the heterogeneity between the historical study and the new study. However, the possibility of borrowing data from a historical trial will usually be associated with an inflation of the type I error. We suggest a new, simple method of estimating the power parameter suitable for the case when only one historical dataset is available. The method is based on predictive distributions and parameterized in such a way that the type I error can be controlled by calibrating to the degree of similarity between the new and historical data. The method is demonstrated for normal responses in a one or two group setting. Generalization to other models is straightforward.

Comparison of nuisance parameters in pediatric versus adult randomized trials: a meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation.

BACKGROUND: We wished to compare the nuisance parameters of pediatric vs. adult randomized-trials (RCTs) and determine if the latter can be used in sample size computations of the former. METHODS: In this meta-epidemiologic empirical evaluation we examined meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic-Reviews, with at least one pediatric-RCT and at least one adult-RCT. Within each meta-analysis of binary efficacy-outcomes, we calculated the pooled-control-group event-rate (CER) across separately all pediatric and adult-trials, using random-effect models and subsequently calculated the control-group event-rate risk-ratio (CER-RR) of the pooled-pediatric-CERs vs. adult-CERs. Within each meta-analysis with continuous outcomes we calculated the pooled-control-group effect standard deviation (CE-SD) across separately all pediatric and adult-trials and subsequently calculated the CE-SD-ratio of the pooled-pediatric-CE-SDs vs. adult-CE-SDs. We then calculated across all meta-analyses the pooled-CER-RRs and pooled-CE-SD-ratios (primary endpoints) and the pooled-magnitude of effect-sizes of CER-RRs and CE-SD-ratios using REMs. A ratio < 1 indicates that pediatric trials have smaller nuisance parameters than adult trials. RESULTS: We analyzed 208 meta-analyses (135 for binary-outcomes, 73 for continuous-outcomes). For binary outcomes, pediatric-RCTs had on average 10% smaller CERs than adult-RCTs (summary-CE-RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.98). For mortality outcomes the summary-CE-RR was 0.48 (95% CIs: 0.31, 0.74). For continuous outcomes, pediatric-RCTs had on average 26% smaller CE-SDs than adult-RCTs (summary-CE-SD-ratio: 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant differences in nuisance parameters between pediatric and adult trials were detected. These differences have implications for design of future studies. Extrapolation of nuisance parameters for sample-sizes calculations from adult-trials to pediatric-trials should be cautiously done.

Estimates of subgroup treatment effects in overall nonsignificant trials: To what extent should we believe in them?

In drug development, it sometimes occurs that a new drug does not demonstrate effectiveness for the full study population but appears to be beneficial in a relevant subgroup. In case the subgroup of interest was not part of a confirmatory testing strategy, the inflation of the overall type I error is substantial and therefore such a subgroup analysis finding can only be seen as exploratory at best. To support such exploratory findings, an appropriate replication of the subgroup finding should be undertaken in a new trial. We should, however, be reasonably confident in the observed treatment effect size to be able to use this estimate in a replication trial in the subpopulation of interest. We were therefore interested in evaluating the bias of the estimate of the subgroup treatment effect, after selection based on significance for the subgroup in an overall "failed" trial. Different scenarios, involving continuous as well as dichotomous outcomes, were investigated via simulation studies. It is shown that the bias associated with subgroup findings in overall nonsignificant clinical trials is on average large and varies substantially across plausible scenarios. This renders the subgroup treatment estimate from the original trial of limited value to design the replication trial. An empirical Bayesian shrinkage method is suggested to minimize this overestimation. The proposed estimator appears to offer either a good or a conservative correction to the observed subgroup treatment effect hence provides a more reliable subgroup treatment effect estimate for adequate planning of future studies.

Effect of repetitive intra-arterial infusion of bone marrow mononuclear cells in patients with no-option limb ischemia: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Rejuvenating Endothelial Progenitor Cells via Transcutaneous Intra-arterial Supplementation (JUVENTAS) trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe limb ischemia may not be eligible for conventional therapeutic interventions. Pioneering clinical trials suggest that bone marrow-derived cell therapy enhances neovascularization, improves tissue perfusion, and prevents amputation. The objective of this trial was to determine whether repetitive intra-arterial infusion of bone marrow mononuclear cells (BMMNCs) in patients with severe, nonrevascularizable limb ischemia can prevent major amputation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Rejuvenating Endothelial Progenitor Cells via Transcutaneous Intra-arterial Supplementation (JUVENTAS) trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in 160 patients with severe, nonrevascularizable limb ischemia. Patients were randomly assigned to repetitive (3 times; 3-week interval) intra-arterial infusion of BMMNC or placebo. No significant differences were observed for the primary outcome, ie, major amputation at 6 months, with major amputation rates of 19% in the BMMNC versus 13% in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-3.42). The safety outcome (all-cause mortality, occurrence of malignancy, or hospitalization due to infection) was not significantly different between the groups (relative risk, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-3.38), neither was all-cause mortality at 6 months with 5% versus 6% (relative risk, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-2.80). Secondary outcomes quality of life, rest pain, ankle-brachial index, and transcutaneous oxygen pressure improved during follow-up, but there were no significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Repetitive intra-arterial infusion of autologous BMMNCs into the common femoral artery did not reduce major amputation rates in patients with severe, nonrevascularizable limb ischemia in comparison with placebo. The general improvement in secondary outcomes during follow-up in both the BMMNC and the placebo group, as well, underlines the essential role for placebo-controlled design of future trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00371371.

Subgroup analyses in confirmatory clinical trials: time to be specific about their purposes.

BACKGROUND: It is well recognized that treatment effects may not be homogeneous across the study population. Subgroup analyses constitute a fundamental step in the assessment of evidence from confirmatory (Phase III) clinical trials, where conclusions for the overall study population might not hold. Subgroup analyses can have different and distinct purposes, requiring specific design and analysis solutions. It is relevant to evaluate methodological developments in subgroup analyses against these purposes to guide health care professionals and regulators as well as to identify gaps in current methodology. METHODS: We defined four purposes for subgroup analyses: (1) Investigate the consistency of treatment effects across subgroups of clinical importance, (2) Explore the treatment effect across different subgroups within an overall non-significant trial, (3) Evaluate safety profiles limited to one or a few subgroup(s), (4) Establish efficacy in the targeted subgroup when included in a confirmatory testing strategy of a single trial. We reviewed the methodology in line with this "purpose-based" framework. The review covered papers published between January 2005 and April 2015 and aimed to classify them in none, one or more of the aforementioned purposes. RESULTS: In total 1857 potentially eligible papers were identified. Forty-eight papers were selected and 20 additional relevant papers were identified from their references, leading to 68 papers in total. Nineteen were dedicated to purpose 1, 16 to purpose 4, one to purpose 2 and none to purpose 3. Seven papers were dedicated to more than one purpose, the 25 remaining could not be classified unambiguously. Purposes of the methods were often not specifically indicated, methods for subgroup analysis for safety purposes were almost absent and a multitude of diverse methods were developed for purpose (1). CONCLUSIONS: It is important that researchers developing methodology for subgroup analysis explicitly clarify the objectives of their methods in terms that can be understood from a patient's, health care provider's and/or regulator's perspective. A clear operational definition for consistency of treatment effects across subgroups is lacking, but is needed to improve the usability of subgroup analyses in this setting. Finally, methods to particularly explore benefit-risk systematically across subgroups need more research.

Neurological injury after neonatal cardiac surgery: a randomized, controlled trial of 2 perfusion techniques.

BACKGROUND: Complex neonatal cardiac surgery is associated with cerebral injury. In particular, aortic arch repair, requiring either deep hypothermic circulatory arrest (DHCA) or antegrade cerebral perfusion (ACP), entails a high risk of perioperative injury. It is unknown whether ACP results in less cerebral injury than DHCA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-seven neonates with an aortic arch obstruction presenting for univentricular or biventricular repair were randomized to either DHCA or ACP. Preoperatively and 1 week after surgery, magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 36 patients (1 patient died during the hospital stay). The presence of new postoperative cerebral injury was scored, and results were entered into a sequential analysis, which allows for immediate data analysis. After the 36th patient, it was clear that there was no difference between DHCA and ACP in terms of new cerebral injury. Preoperatively, 50% of patients had evidence of cerebral injury. Postoperatively, 14 of 18 DHCA patients (78%) had new injury versus 13 of 18 ACP patients (72%) (P=0.66). White matter injury was the most common type of injury in both groups, but central infarctions occurred exclusively after ACP (0 vs. 6/18 [33%]; P=0.02). Early motor and cognitive outcomes at 24 months were assessed and were similar between groups (P=0.28 and P=0.25, respectively). Additional analysis revealed lower postoperative arterial Pco2 as a risk factor for new white matter injury (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this group of neonates undergoing complex cardiac surgery, we were unable to demonstrate a difference in the incidence of perioperative cerebral injury after ACP compared with DHCA. Both techniques resulted in a high incidence of new white matter injury, with central infarctions occurring exclusively after ACP. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01032876.

The need to balance merits and limitations from different disciplines when considering the stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design.

BACKGROUND: Various papers have addressed pros and cons of the stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design (SWD). However, some issues have not or only limitedly been addressed. Our aim was to provide a comprehensive overview of all merits and limitations of the SWD to assist researchers, reviewers and medical ethics committees when deciding on the appropriateness of the SWD for a particular study. METHODS: We performed an initial search to identify articles with a methodological focus on the SWD, and categorized and discussed all reported advantages and disadvantages of the SWD. Additional aspects were identified during multidisciplinary meetings in which ethicists, biostatisticians, clinical epidemiologists and health economists participated. All aspects of the SWD were compared to the parallel group cluster randomized design. We categorized the merits and limitations of the SWD to distinct phases in the design and conduct of such studies, highlighting that their impact may vary depending on the context of the study or that benefits may be offset by drawbacks across study phases. Furthermore, a real-life illustration is provided. RESULTS: New aspects are identified within all disciplines. Examples of newly identified aspects of an SWD are: the possibility to measure a treatment effect in each cluster to examine the (in)consistency in effects across clusters, the detrimental effect of lower than expected inclusion rates, deviation from the ordinary informed consent process and the question whether studies using the SWD are likely to have sufficient social value. Discussions are provided on e.g. clinical equipoise, social value, health economical decision making, number of study arms, and interim analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Deciding on the use of the SWD involves aspects and considerations from different disciplines not all of which have been discussed before. Pros and cons of this design should be balanced in comparison to other feasible design options as to choose the optimal design for a particular intervention study.

Periprocedural hemodynamic depression is associated with a higher number of new ischemic brain lesions after stenting in the International Carotid Stenting Study-MRI Substudy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is associated with a higher risk of both hemodynamic depression and new ischemic brain lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). We assessed whether the occurrence of hemodynamic depression is associated with these lesions in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis treated by CAS or CEA in the randomized International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS)-MRI substudy. METHODS: The number and total volume of new ischemic lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging 1 to 3 days after CAS or CEA was measured in the ICSS-MRI substudy. Hemodynamic depression was defined as periprocedural bradycardia, asystole, or hypotension requiring treatment. The number of new ischemic lesions was the primary outcome measure. We calculated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals per treatment with Poisson regression comparing the number of lesions in patients with or without hemodynamic depression. RESULTS: A total of 229 patients were included (122 allocated CAS; 107 CEA). After CAS, patients with hemodynamic depression had a mean of 13 new diffusion-weighted imaging lesions, compared with a mean of 4 in those without hemodynamic depression (risk ratio, 3.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.73-6.50). The number of lesions after CEA was too small for reliable analysis. Lesion volumes did not differ between patients with or without hemodynamic depression. CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated by CAS, periprocedural hemodynamic depression is associated with an excess of new ischemic lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging. The findings support the hypothesis that hypoperfusion increases the susceptibility of the brain to embolism. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN25337470.

Primary Care Triple P for parents of NICU graduates with behavioral problems: a randomized, clinical trial using observations of parent-child interaction.

BACKGROUND: Preterm-born or asphyxiated term-born children show more emotional and behavioral problems at preschool age than term-born children without a medical condition. It is uncertain whether parenting intervention programs aimed at the general population, are effective in this specific group. In earlier findings from the present trial, Primary Care Triple P was not effective in reducing parent-reported child behavioral problems. However, parenting programs claim to positively change child behavior through enhancement of the parent-child interaction. Therefore, we investigated whether Primary Care Triple P is effective in improving the quality of parent-child interaction and increasing the application of trained parenting skills in parents of preterm-born or asphyxiated term-born preschoolers with behavioral problems. METHODS: For this pragmatic, open randomized clinical trial, participants were recruited from a cohort of infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care units of two Dutch hospitals. Children aged 2-5 years, with a gestational age <32 weeks and/or birth weight <1500 g and children with a gestational age 37-42 weeks and perinatal asphyxia were included. After screening for a t-score ≥60 on the Child Behavior Checklist, children were randomly assigned to Primary Care Triple P (n = 34) or a wait-list control group (n = 33). Trial outcomes were the quality of parent-child interaction and the application of trained parenting skills, both scored from structured observation tasks. RESULTS: There was no effect of the intervention on either of the observational outcome measures at the 6-month trial endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Primary Care Triple P, is not effective in improving the quality of parent-child interaction nor does it increase the application of trained parenting skills in parents of preterm-born or asphyxiated term-born children with behavioral problems. Further research should focus on personalized care for these parents, with an emphasis on psychological support to reduce stress and promote self-regulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands National Trial Register NTR2179 . Registered 26 January 2010.

Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus.

BACKGROUND: Nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus are at increased risk for health care-associated infections with this organism. Decolonization of nasal and extranasal sites on hospital admission may reduce this risk. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, we assessed whether rapid identification of S. aureus nasal carriers by means of a real-time polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) assay, followed by treatment with mupirocin nasal ointment and chlorhexidine soap, reduces the risk of hospital-associated S. aureus infection. RESULTS: From October 2005 through June 2007, a total of 6771 patients were screened on admission. A total of 1270 nasal swabs from 1251 patients were positive for S. aureus. We enrolled 917 of these patients in the intention-to-treat analysis, of whom 808 (88.1%) underwent a surgical procedure. All the S. aureus strains identified on PCR assay were susceptible to methicillin and mupirocin. The rate of S. aureus infection was 3.4% (17 of 504 patients) in the mupirocin-chlorhexidine group, as compared with 7.7% (32 of 413 patients) in the placebo group (relative risk of infection, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.75). The effect of mupirocin-chlorhexidine treatment was most pronounced for deep surgical-site infections (relative risk, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.62). There was no significant difference in all-cause in-hospital mortality between the two groups. The time to the onset of nosocomial infection was shorter in the placebo group than in the mupirocin-chlorhexidine group (P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The number of surgical-site S. aureus infections acquired in the hospital can be reduced by rapid screening and decolonizing of nasal carriers of S. aureus on admission. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN56186788.)

Laparoscopic total gastrectomy versus open total gastrectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The possible advantages of laparoscopic (assisted) total gastrectomy (LTG) versus open total gastrectomy (OTG) have not been reviewed systematically. The aim of this study was to systematically review the short-term outcomes of LTG versus OTG in the treatment of gastric cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Embase was conducted. All original studies comparing LTG with OTG were included for critical appraisal. Data describing short-term outcomes were pooled and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of eight original studies that compared LTG (n = 314) with OTG (n = 384) in patients with gastric cancer fulfilled quality criteria and were selected for review and meta-analysis. LTG compared with OTG was associated with a significant reduction of intraoperative blood loss (weighted mean difference = 227.6 ml; 95 % CI 144.3-310.9; p < 0.001), a reduced risk of postoperative complications (risk ratio = 0.51; 95 % CI 0.33-0.77), and shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference 4.0 = days; 95 % CI 1.4-6.5; p < 0.001). These benefits were at the cost of longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 55.5 min; 95 % CI 24.8-86.2; p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality rates were comparable for LTG (0.9 %) and OTG (1.8 %) (risk ratio = 0.68; 95 % CI 0.20-2.36). CONCLUSION: LTG shows better short term outcomes compared with OTG in eligible patients with gastric cancer. Future studies should evaluate 30- and 60-day mortality, radicality of resection, and long-term follow-up in LTG versus OTG, preferably in randomized trials.

Brief parenting intervention for parents of NICU graduates: a randomized, clinical trial of Primary Care Triple P.

BACKGROUND: Preterm-born or asphyxiated term-born children who received neonatal intensive care show more emotional and behavioral problems than term-born children without a medical condition. It is uncertain whether regular parenting intervention programs to which the parents of these children are usually referred, are effective in reducing child problem behavior in this specific population. Our objective was to investigate whether a regular, brief parenting intervention, Primary Care Triple P, is effective in decreasing emotional and behavioral problems in preterm-born or asphyxiated term-born preschoolers. METHODS: For this pragmatic, open randomized clinical trial, participants were recruited from a cohort of infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care units (NICU) of two Dutch hospitals. Children born with a gestational age <32 weeks or birth weight <1500 g and children born at a gestational age 37-42 weeks with perinatal asphyxia were included. After screening for a t-score ≥60 on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), children were randomly assigned to Primary Care Triple P (n = 34) or a wait-list control group (n = 33). The primary outcome was child emotional and behavioral problems reported by parents on the CBCL, 6 months after the start of the trial. RESULTS: There was no effect of the intervention on the CBCL at the trial endpoint (t64 = 0.54, P = .30). On secondary measurements of child problem behavior, parenting style, parenting stress, and parent perceived child vulnerability, groups either did not differ significantly or the intervention group showed more problems. In both the intervention and control group there was a significant decrease in emotional and behavioral problems during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Primary Care Triple P, a brief parenting intervention, is not effective in reducing child emotional and behavioral problems in preterm-born children or term-born children with perinatal asphyxia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands National Trial Register (NTR): NTR2179.

Effect of online hemodiafiltration on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes.

In patients with ESRD, the effects of online hemodiafiltration on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events are unclear. In this prospective study, we randomly assigned 714 chronic hemodialysis patients to online postdilution hemodiafiltration (n=358) or to continue low-flux hemodialysis (n=356). The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. The main secondary endpoint was a composite of major cardiovascular events, including death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, therapeutic coronary intervention, therapeutic carotid intervention, vascular intervention, or amputation. After a mean 3.0 years of follow-up (range, 0.4-6.6 years), we did not detect a significant difference between treatment groups with regard to all-cause mortality (121 versus 127 deaths per 1000 person-years in the online hemodiafiltration and low-flux hemodialysis groups, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.20). The incidences of cardiovascular events were 127 and 116 per 1000 person-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.39). Receiving high-volume hemodiafiltration during the trial associated with lower all-cause mortality, a finding that persisted after adjusting for potential confounders and dialysis facility. In conclusion, this trial did not detect a beneficial effect of hemodiafiltration on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events compared with low-flux hemodialysis. On-treatment analysis suggests the possibility of a survival benefit among patients who receive high-volume hemodiafiltration, although this subgroup finding requires confirmation.

Stenting versus surgery in patients with carotid stenosis after previous cervical radiation therapy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with both carotid stenosis and previously cervical radiation therapy are considered "high risk" for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) seems a reasonable alternative, but neither the operative risk for CEA nor the effectiveness of CAS has been proven. The purpose of this study was to evaluate perioperative and long-term outcome of both procedures in patients with radiation therapy. METHODS: A systematic search strategy with the synonyms "carotid artery stenosis" and "cervical irradiation" was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. To provide and compare estimates of outcomes, pooled and metaregression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles comprising 533 patients undergoing radiation therapy (361 CAS and 172 CEA) fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed perioperative risk for "any cerebrovascular adverse event" (CVE) of 3.9% (95% CI, 2.3%-6.7%) in CAS studies against 3.5% (95% CI, 1.5%-8.0%) in CEA studies (P=0.77). Risk for cranial nerve injury (CNI) after CEA was 9.2% (95% CI, 3.7%-21.1%) versus none after CAS. Late outcome showed rates of CVE favoring CEA (P=0.014). The rate of restenosis >50% was significantly higher in patients treated with CAS compared with CEA (P<0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Both CAS and CEA proved to be feasible revascularization techniques with low risk for CVE. Although patients undergoing CEA had more temporary CNI, higher rates of late CVE and restenosis were identified after CAS.

Multifactorial intervention with nurse practitioners does not change cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Strict implementation of guidelines directed at multiple targets reduces vascular risk in diabetic patients. Whether this also applies to patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is uncertain. To evaluate this, the MASTERPLAN Study randomized 788 patients with CKD (estimated GFR 20-70 ml/min) to receive additional intensive nurse practitioner support (the intervention group) or nephrologist care (the control group). The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. During a mean follow-up of 4.62 years, modest but significant decreases were found for blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, anemia, proteinuria along with the increased use of active vitamin D or analogs, aspirin and statins in the intervention group compared to the controls. No differences were found in the rate of smoking cessation, weight reduction, sodium excretion, physical activity, or glycemic control. Intensive control did not reduce the rate of the composite end point (21.3/1000 person-years in the intervention group compared to 23.8/1000 person-years in the controls (hazard ratio 0.90)). No differences were found in the secondary outcomes of vascular interventions, all-cause mortality or end-stage renal disease. Thus, the addition of intensive support by nurse practitioner care in patients with CKD improved some risk factor levels, but did not significantly reduce the rate of the primary or secondary end points.

Lithium lacks effect on survival in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a phase IIb randomised sequential trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and efficacy of lithium for the treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in a randomised, placebo controlled, double blind, sequential trial. METHODS: Between November 2008 and June 2011, 133 patients were randomised to receive lithium carbonate (target blood level 0.4-0.8 mEq/l) or placebo as add-on treatment with riluzole. The primary endpoint was survival, defined as death, tracheostomal ventilation or non-invasive ventilation for more than 16 h/day. Secondary outcome measures consisted of the revised ALS Functional Rating Scale and forced vital capacity. Analysis was by intention to treat and according to a sequential trial design. RESULTS: 61 patients reached a primary endpoint, 33 of 66 in the lithium group and 28 of 67 patients in the placebo group. Lithium did not significantly affect survival (cumulative survival probability of 0.73 in the lithium group (95% CI 0.63 to 0.86) vs 0.75 in the placebo group (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87) at 12 months and 0.62 in the lithium group (95% CI 0.50 to 0.76) vs 0.67 in the placebo group (95% CI 0.56 to 0.81) at 16 months). Secondary outcome measures did not differ between treatment groups. No major safety concerns were encountered. CONCLUSIONS: This trial, designed to detect a modest effect of lithium, did not demonstrate any beneficial effect on either survival or functional decline in patients with ALS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1448. Name of trial registry: Lithium trial in ALS.

Combination of biodegradable stent placement and single-dose brachytherapy is associated with an unacceptably high complication rate in the treatment of dysphagia from esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: For the palliative treatment of dysphagia, esophageal stent placement provides immediate improvement, whereas brachytherapy offers better long-term relief. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of concurrent brachytherapy and biodegradable stent placement. DESIGN: Prospective, single-arm study. SETTING: Two tertiary-care referral centers. PATIENTS: Nineteen consecutive patients with significant dysphagia resulting from unresectable esophageal cancer, with a life expectancy of more than 3 months. INTERVENTION: Single-dose brachytherapy (12 Gy) on day 1 followed by biodegradable stent placement on day 2. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Intervention-related major complications (determined by an expert panel) and dysphagia. RESULTS: Nineteen patients (13 men, median age 66 years [interquartile range (IQR) 59-71] years) were included; 7 patients (37%) also received palliative chemotherapy. After inclusion of 19 patients, the study was ended prematurely because the safety threshold was exceeded. In total, 28 major complications occurred in 17 patients (89%). In 9 patients (47%), major complications were determined intervention-related (severe retrosternal pain with or without vomiting [n = 6], hematemesis [n = 1], recurrent dysphagia [n = 2]. Dysphagia scores decreased significantly from a median of 3 (IQR 3-4) to a median of 1 (IQR 0-3) after 1 month (P < .001). Despite adequate luminal patency in 17 patients (89%), normal diet could not be tolerated in 7 patients (37%) because of retrosternal pain and vomiting. LIMITATIONS: Lack of routine endoscopy or contrast esophagram to evaluate recurrent dysphagia during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Despite restoration of luminal patency, a combined treatment of brachytherapy and biodegradable stent placement cannot be recommended for the palliative treatment of esophageal cancer because of an unacceptably high intervention-related major complication rate.

Poor compliance with guidelines on anemia treatment in a cohort of chronic hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Guidelines for the management of anemia and iron deficiency in chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients have been developed to standardize therapy and improve clinical outcome. The present study evaluated compliance with anemia guidelines and investigated whether differences between centers were present. METHODS: Data on anemia management from patients in the baseline cohort of the CONTRAST study (NCT00205556) were analyzed. 598 chronic HD patients (62% male, age 63.6 ± 14.0 years) from 26 Dutch dialysis centers were included. RESULTS: Mean hemoglobin (Hb) level was 11.9 ± 1.3 g/dl and Hb was ≥11.0 g/dl in 81% of the patients. Compliance with all anemia targets (Hb 11.0-12.0 g/dl, transferrin saturation ratio ≥20%, ferritin 100-500 ng/ml) was reached in 11.6% (95% CI 7.8-17.0) of the patients, with a wide range among centers (4-26%, adjusted for case mix, treatment-related factors and center-specific characteristics). CONCLUSION: Compliance with anemia targets in stable HD patients was poor and showed a wide variation between treatment facilities.