Effect of metformin and insulin vs. placebo and insulin on whole body composition in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Some studies indicate potential beneficial effects of metformin on body composition and bone. This trial compared metformin + insulin vs placebo + insulin. Metformin treatment had a small but positive effect on bone quality in the peripheral skeleton, reduced weight gain, and resulted in a more beneficial body composition compared with placebo in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. INTRODUCTION: Glucose-lowering medications affect body composition. We assessed the long-term effects of metformin compared with placebo on whole body bone and body composition measures in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a sub-study of the Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy trial, which was a double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial assessing 18-month treatment with metformin compared with placebo, in combination with different insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The sub-study evaluates the effects on bone mineral content (BMC), density (BMD), and body composition from whole body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans which were assessed at baseline and after 18 months. RESULTS: Metformin had a small, but positive, (p < 0.05) effect on subtotal, appendicular, and legs BMC and BMD compared with placebo. After adjustment for sex, age, vitamin D, smoking, BMI, T2DM duration, HbA1c, and insulin dose, the effects on appendicular BMC and BMD persisted (p < 0.05 for both). The changes in appendicular BMC and BMD corresponded approximately to a 0.7% and 0.5% increase in the metformin group and 0.4% and 0.4% decrease in the placebo group, respectively. These effects were mostly driven by an increase in BMC and BMD in the legs and a loss of BMC and BMD in the arms. During 18 months, all participants increased in weight, fat mass (FM), FM%, and lean mass (LM), but decreased in LM%. The metformin group increased less in weight (subtotal weight (weight-head) - 2.4 [- 3.5, - 1.4] kg, p value < 0.001) and FM (- 1.5 [- 2.3, - 0.8] kg, p value < 0.001) and decreased less in LM% (0.6 [0.2, 1.1] %, p value < 0.001) compared with the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Metformin treatment had a small positive effect on BMC and BMD in the peripheral skeleton and reduced weight gain compared with placebo in insulin-treated patients with T2DM.

[Glucocorticosteroids for people with alcoholic hepatitis (Cochrane review)].

Alcoholic hepatitis (AH) is a form of alcoholic liver disease. Glucocorticosteroids (GCS) are used as anti - inflammatory drugs for people with alcoholic hepatitis. AIM: To assess the benefits and harms of GCS in people with AH. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We identified trials through electronic searches in Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's (CHB) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded. We considered for inclusion randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing GCS versus placebo/no intervention in adult participants with AH. We allowed co - interventions in the trial groups if they were similar. We followed Cochrane methodology, CHB Group methodology using Review Manager 5 and Trial Sequential Analysis(TSA) to perform meta - analysis (M-A), assessed bias risk of the trials, certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Sixteen trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Fifteen trials provided data for analysis (927 participants received GCS, 934 - placebo/no intervention). The GCS were administered to adult participants at different stages of AH orally or parenterally for a median of 28 days. There was no evidence of effect of GCCs on our primary outcomes all - cause mortality up to 3 months following randomisation (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70-1.15; n=1861), on health - related quality of life (MD - 0.04 points; 95% CI -0.11-0.03; n=377; trial = 1) (EQ-5D-3L scale), on the occurrence of serious adverse events during treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85-1.29; n=1861). We found no evidence of a difference between the intervention groups. The risk of bias was high in all the trials except one. The certainty of evidence was very low or low. One of the trials seems to be not industry - funded. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of a difference between GCS and placebo or no intervention on all - cause mortality, health - related quality of life, and serious adverse events during treatment. We cannot exclude increases in adverse events and cannot rule out significant benefits and harms of GCSs. Future trials ought to report depersonalised individual participant data.

The effect of metformin versus placebo in combination with insulin analogues on bone mineral density and trabecular bone score in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Some antihyperglycemic medications have been found to affect bone metabolism. We assessed the long-term effects of metformin compared with placebo on bone mineral density (BMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Metformin had no significant effect on BMD in the spine and hip or TBS compared with a placebo. INTRODUCTION: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk of fractures despite a high bone mass. Some antihyperglycemic medications have been found to affect bone metabolism. We assessed the long-term effects of metformin compared with placebo on bone mineral density (BMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS). METHODS: This was a sub-study of a multicenter, randomized, 18-month placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial with metformin vs. placebo in combination with different insulin regimens (the Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy trial) in patients with T2DM. BMD in the spine and hip and TBS in the spine were assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at baseline and after 18 months follow-up. RESULTS: Four hundred seven patients were included in this sub-study. There were no between-group differences in BMD or TBS. From baseline to 18 months, TBS decreased significantly in both groups (metformin group, - 0.041 [- 0.055, - 0.027]; placebo group - 0.046 [- 0.058, - 0.034]; both p < 0.001). BMD in the spine and total hip did not change significantly from baseline to 18 months. After adjustments for gender, age, vitamin D, smoking, BMI, duration of T2DM, HbA1c, and insulin dose, the TBS between-group differences increased but remained non-significant. HbA1c was negatively associated with TBS (p = 0.009) as was longer duration of diabetes, with the femoral neck BMD (p = 0.003). Body mass index had a positive effect on the hip and femoral neck BMD (p < 0.001, p = 0.045, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Eighteen months of treatment with metformin had no significant effect on BMD in the spine and hip or TBS in patients with T2DM compared with a placebo. TBS decreased significantly in both groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00657943).

Systematic overview and critical appraisal of meta-analyses of interventions in intensive care medicine.

RATIONALE: Meta-analysed intervention effect estimates are perceived to represent the highest level of evidence. However, such effects and the randomized clinical trials which are included in them need critical appraisal before the effects can be trusted. OBJECTIVE: Critical appraisal of a predefined set of all meta-analyses on interventions in intensive care medicine to assess their quality and assessed the risks of bias in those meta-analyses having the best quality. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search to select all meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials on interventions used in intensive care medicine. Selected meta-analyses were critically appraised for basic scientific criteria, (1) presence of an available protocol, (2) report of a full search strategy, and (3) use of any bias risk assessment of included trials. All meta-analyses which qualified these criteria were scrutinized by full "Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews" ROBIS evaluation of 4 domains of risks of bias, and a "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" PRISMA evaluation. RESULTS: We identified 467 meta-analyses. A total of 56 meta-analyses complied with these basic scientific criteria. We scrutinized the risks of bias in the 56 meta-analyses by full ROBIS evaluation and a PRISMA evaluation. Only 4 meta-analyses scored low risk of bias in all the 4 ROBIS domains and 41 meta-analyses reported all 27 items of the PRISMA checklist. CONCLUSION: In contrast with what might be perceived as the highest level of evidence only 0.9% of all meta-analyses were judged to have overall low risk of bias.

STRIDER (Sildenafil TheRapy in dismal prognosis early onset fetal growth restriction): an international consortium of randomised placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Severe, early-onset fetal growth restriction due to placental insufficiency is associated with a high risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity with long-lasting sequelae. Placental insufficiency is the result of abnormal formation and function of the placenta with inadequate remodelling of the maternal spiral arteries. There is currently no effective therapy available. Some evidence suggests sildenafil citrate may improve uteroplacental blood flow, fetal growth, and meaningful infant outcomes. The objective of the Sildenafil TheRapy In Dismal prognosis Early onset fetal growth Restriction (STRIDER) collaboration is to evaluate the effectiveness of sildenafil versus placebo in achieving healthy perinatal survival through the conduct of randomised clinical trials and systematic review including individual patient data meta-analysis. METHODS: Five national/bi-national multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trials have been launched. Women with a singleton pregnancy between 18 and 30 weeks with severe fetal growth restriction of likely placental origin, and where the likelihood of perinatal death/severe morbidity is estimated to be significant are included. Participants will receive either sildenafil 25 mg or matching placebo tablets orally three times daily from recruitment to 32 weeks gestation. DISCUSSION: The STRIDER trials were conceived and designed through international collaboration. Although the individual trials have different primary outcomes for reasons of sample size and feasibility, all trials will collect a standard set of outcomes including survival without severe neonatal morbidity at time of hospital discharge. This is a summary of all the STRIDER trial protocols and provides an example of a prospectively planned international clinical research collaboration. All five individual trials will contribute to a pre-planned systematic review of the topic including individual patient data meta-analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: New Zealand and Australia: ACTRN12612000584831 . Registered 30/05/2012. Canada: NCT02442492 . Registered 05/05/2015. Ireland: CT 900/572/1 . Registered 15/07/2015. The Netherlands: NCT02277132 . Registered 29/09/2014. United Kingdom: ISRCTN39133303 . Registered 31/07/2014.

Five-year follow up of a randomised controlled trial comparing subtotal with total abdominal hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the rates of urinary incontinence (UI) and other complications of subtotal abdominal hysterectomy (SAH) with total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) at 5 years after surgery. DESIGN: Randomised clinical trial with central, computer-generated randomisation. SETTING: Danish multi-centre trial performed in 11 departments of gynaecology. POPULATION: Women referred with benign uterine diseases scheduled for abdominal hysterectomy. METHODS: Women were randomised to either SAH (n = 161) or TAH (n = 158). Follow-up data were collected from participants using postal questionnaires sent out 5 years after surgery. Complications of hysterectomy were further examined by scrutinising registered discharge summaries following hospitalisation. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were conducted. Potential bias caused by missing data was handled using multiple imputation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was UI. Secondary outcomes included constipation, prolapse of the vaginal vault or cervical stump, satisfaction with sexual life, pelvic pain, postoperative complications and vaginal bleeding. RESULTS: The response rate was 234/319 (73.4%). A significantly higher proportion of respondents had urinary incontinence 5 years after SAH 34/113 (30.1%) than TAH 21/119 (17.6%) (RR 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.06-2.75, P = 0.026). This difference reduced after multiple imputation to account for missing data (RR 1.37, 95% confidence interval 0.99-1.89, P = 0.052). Eleven of the 101 women (11%) in the SAH group still experienced vaginal bleeding. No other differences were found between the two types of abdominal hysterectomy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A smaller proportion of women suffered from UI after TAH than after SAH 5 years postoperatively. Around one in ten women continued to experience vaginal bleeding 5 years after SAH.

Cognitive remediation combined with an early intervention service in first episode psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: This randomised clinical trial assessed the effects of a 16-week cognitive remediation programme (NEUROCOM) combined with an early intervention service (EIS) vs. EIS alone. METHOD: One hundred and seventeen patients with first episode psychosis were randomly assigned to 4 months cognitive remediation combined with EIS vs. EIS alone. Statistical analysis of effect was based on intention to treat. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients (83.8%) participated in post-training assessments at 4 months and 92 (78.6%) in 12-month follow-up assessments. No effects were found on the primary outcome measure functional capacity. At the post-training assessment, the intervention group had improved significantly on Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Cohen's d=0.54, P=0.01), Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS), General Psychopathology Scale (Cohen's d=0.51, P=0.05) and the verbal learning domain (Cohen's d=0.46, P=0.02). At follow-up assessment, the intervention group retained the significant improvements on the verbal learning domain (Cohen's d=0.58, P<0.05). Furthermore, significant improvements were observed on the working memory domain (Cohen's d=0.56, P=0.01) and PANSS positive symptoms (Cohen's d=0.44, P=0.04), while improvement on the composite score was marginally significant (Cohen's d=0.34, P=0.05). CONCLUSION: In accordance with other cognitive remediation programmes, this programme demonstrates some immediate and long-term effect on cognitive functioning, symptoms and self-esteem.

Specialized psychosocial treatment plus treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU for patients with cannabis use disorder and psychosis: the CapOpus randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis abuse in psychotic patients is associated with rehospitalizations, reduced adherence and increased symptom severity. Previous psychosocial interventions have been ineffective in cannabis use, possibly because of low sample sizes and short interventions. We investigated whether adding CapOpus to treatment as usual (TAU) reduces cannabis use in patients with cannabis use disorder and psychosis. Method A total of 103 patients with psychosis and cannabis use disorder were centrally randomized to 6 months of CapOpus plus TAU (n = 52) or TAU (n = 51). CapOpus consisted mainly of motivational interviewing and cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT). TAU was targeted primarily at the psychotic disorder. The primary outcome was self-reported days with cannabis use in the preceding month. RESULTS: Pre-randomization cannabis use frequency was 14.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.7-17.1] days/month. Post-treatment, the ratio of days/month with cannabis use in CapOpus versus TAU was 0.76 (95% CI 0.38-1.50) (p = 0.42), and 0.80 (95% CI 0.21-3.10) (p = 0.75) at the 4-month follow-up. From 46.4 (95% CI 36.4-56.3) monthly joints pre-randomization, consumption fell to 27.3 (95% CI 12.6-41.9) joints in CapOpus and 48.2 (95% CI 31.8-64.6) in TAU (p = 0.06). Follow-up amounts were 28.4 (95% CI 13.5-43.2) and 41.6 (95% CI 25.2-58.0) joints (p = 0.23). Several subgroup analyses suggested benefits of CapOpus. CONCLUSIONS: CapOpus did not reduce the frequency, but possibly the amount, of cannabis use. This is similar to the findings of previous trials in this population. Implementation of CapOpus-type interventions is thus not warranted at present but subgroup analyses call for further trials.

Tramadol for chronic pain in adults: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain in adults is a frequent clinical symptom with a significant impact on patient well-being. Therefore, sufficient pain management is of utmost importance. While tramadol is a commonly used pain medication, the quality of evidence supporting its use has been questioned considering the observed adverse events. Our objective will be to assess the benefits and harms of tramadol compared with placebo or no intervention for chronic pain. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of tramadol in any dose, formulation, or duration. We will accept placebo or no intervention as control interventions. We will include adult participants with any type of chronic pain, including cancer-related pain. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by Cochrane and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors ('bias') and random errors ('play of chance') will be assessed. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DISCUSSION: Although tramadol is often being used to manage chronic pain conditions, the beneficial and harmful effects of this intervention are unknown. The present review will systematically assess the current evidence on the benefits and harms of tramadol versus placebo or no intervention to inform clinical practice and future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019140334.

Effects of cognitive therapy versus interpersonal psychotherapy in patients with major depressive disorder: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetime at tremendous suffering and cost. Cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy are treatment options, but their effects have only been limitedly compared in systematic reviews. METHOD: Using Cochrane systematic review methodology we compared the benefits and harm of cognitive therapy versus interpersonal psychotherapy for major depressive disorder. Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, Psychlit, PsycInfo, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2010. Continuous outcome measures were assessed by mean difference and dichotomous outcomes by odds ratio. We conducted trial sequential analysis to control for random errors. RESULTS: We included seven trials randomizing 741 participants. All trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of the four trials reporting data at cessation of treatment on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed no significant difference between the two interventions [mean difference -1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.35 to 0.32]. Meta-analysis of the five trials reporting data at cessation of treatment on the Beck Depression Inventory showed comparable results (mean difference -1.29, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.14). Trial sequential analysis indicated that more data are needed to definitively settle the question of a differential effect. None of the included trial reported on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials with low risk of bias and low risk of random errors are needed, although the effects of cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy do not seem to differ significantly regarding depressive symptoms. Future trials should report on adverse events.

Cost-utility and value-of-information analysis of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND: : A recent systematic review found early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) to be safe and to shorten total hospital stay compared with delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (DLC) for acute cholecystitis. The cost-effectiveness of ELC versus DLC for acute cholecystitis is unknown. METHODS: : A decision tree model estimating and comparing costs to the UK National Health Service (NHS) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained following a policy of either ELC or DLC was developed with a time horizon of 1 year. Uncertainty was investigated with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and value-of-information analysis estimated the likely return from further investment in research in this area. RESULTS: : ELC is less costly (approximately - pound820 per patient) and results in better quality of life (+0.05 QALYs per patient) than DLC. Given a willingness-to-pay threshold of pound20 000 per QALY gained, there is a 70.9 per cent probability that ELC is cost effective compared with DLC. Full implementation of ELC could save the NHS pound8.5 million per annum. CONCLUSION: : The results of this decision analytic modelling study suggest that on average ELC is less expensive and results in better quality of life than DLC. Future research should focus on quality-of-life measures alone.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND: : In many countries laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is mainly performed after the acute episode has settled because of the anticipated increased risk of morbidity and higher conversion rate from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy. METHODS: : A systematic review was performed with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC; performed within 1 week of onset of symptoms) versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy (performed at least 6 weeks after symptoms settled) for acute cholecystitis. Trials were identified from The Cochrane Library trials register, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and reference lists. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference was calculated with 95 per cent confidence intervals (c.i.) based on intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: : Five trials with 451 patients were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of bile duct injury (RR 0.64 (95 per cent c.i. 0.15 to 2.65)) or conversion to open cholecystectomy (RR 0.88 (95 per cent c.i. 0.62 to 1.25)). The total hospital stay was shorter by 4 days for ELC (mean difference -4.12 (95 per cent c.i. -5.22 to -3.03) days). CONCLUSION: : ELC during acute cholecystitis appears safe and shortens the total hospital stay.

Exercise program for prevention of groin pain in football players: a cluster-randomized trial.

Groin injuries cause major problems in sports and particularly in football. Exercise is effective in treating adductor-related groin pain, but no trials have been published regarding the specific prevention of groin pain or prevention specifically targeting overuse injuries in sport using exercise programs. We performed a cluster-randomized trial including 55 football clubs representing 1211 players. The clubs were randomized to an exercise program aimed at preventing groin injuries (n=27) or to a control group training as usual (n=28). The intervention program consisted of six exercises including strengthening (concentric and eccentric), coordination, and core stability exercises for the muscles related to the pelvis. Physiotherapists assigned to each club registered all groin injuries. Twenty-two clubs in each group completed the study, represented by 977 players. There was no significant effect of the intervention (HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.40-1.19). The risk of a groin injury was reduced by 31%, but this reduction was not significant. A univariate analysis showed that having had a previous groin injury almost doubles the risk of developing a new groin injury and playing at a higher level almost triples the risk of developing a groin injury.

Robustness assessments are needed to reduce bias in meta-analyses that include zero-event randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: Meta-analysis of randomized trials with binary data can use a variety of statistical methods. Zero-event trials may create analytic problems. We explored how different methods may impact inferences from meta-analyses containing zero-event trials. METHODS: Five levels of statistical methods are identified for meta-analysis with zero-event trials, leading to numerous data analyses. We used the binary outcomes from our Cochrane review of randomized trials of laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy for patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis to illustrate the influence of statistical method on inference. RESULTS: In seven meta-analyses of seven outcomes from 15 trials, there were zero-event trials in 0 to 71.4% of the trials. We found inconsistency in significance in one of seven outcomes (14%; 95% confidence limit 0.4%-57.9%). There was also considerable variability in the confidence limits, the intervention-effect estimates, and heterogeneity for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The statistical method may influence the inference drawn from a meta-analysis that includes zero-event trials. Robustness assessments are needed to reduce bias in meta-analyses that include zero-event trials.

Compliance with and short-term adverse events from clarithromycin versus placebo in patients with stable coronary heart disease: the CLARICOR trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized placebo-controlled double-blind CLARICOR trial investigated the influence of clarithromycin versus placebo on cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with chronic coronary artery disease (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 00121550). The trial randomized 2172 patients to 500 mg of clarithromycin daily versus 2200 patients to matching placebo for 14 days. This paper presents protocol-specified analysis of the patient-reported information regarding their compliance and non-serious adverse events during the 14 days of treatment as well as serious adverse events (mortality and hospitalizations) during the first 30 days after randomization. METHODS: Randomized clinical trial focusing on patient-reported information regarding their compliance and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the randomized patients, 99% reported information regarding their compliance and adverse events. A 100% tablet intake was reported by 90% of the clarithromycin group and by 93.7% of the placebo group. Of the clarithromycin patients, 39.5% reported at least one non-serious adverse event versus 25.1% of the placebo patients (P < 0.001). Gastrointestinal adverse reactions were reported 950 times by 697 patients (32.3%) in the clarithromycin group and 485 times by 390 patients (17.9%) in the placebo group (P < 0.001). No significant differences were seen in other non-serious or serious adverse events during the first month after inclusion. Short-term non-serious adverse events did not explain the previously reported long-term significantly increased mortality associated with clarithromycin. CONCLUSIONS: Gastrointestinal adverse reactions are common during clarithromycin administration, but at least half are also seen with a placebo.

Assessment of risk of bias in randomized clinical trials in surgery.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with low risk of bias is considered the highest level of evidence available for evaluating an intervention. Bias in RCTs may overestimate or underestimate the true effectiveness of an intervention. METHODS: The causes of bias in surgical trials as described by The Cochrane Collaboration, and the methods that can be used to avoid them, are reviewed. RESULTS: Blinding is difficult in many surgical trials but careful trial design can reduce the bias risk due to lack of blinding. It is possible to conduct surgical trials with low risk of bias by using appropriate trial design. CONCLUSION: The risk of providing a treatment based on a biased effect estimate must be balanced against the difficulty of conducting trials with very low risk of bias. Better understanding of the risk of bias may result in improved trials with a closer estimate of the true effectiveness of an intervention.

Study rationale and design of the CIMT trial: the Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have an increased mortality rate primarily because of macrovascular disease. Where T2DM patients cannot be managed sufficiently through diet, exercise and peroral antidiabetic drugs, that is when haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is above 7.0%, it is yet unknown whether a combination of metformin and insulin analogues is superior to insulin analogues alone. Nor is it known which insulin analogue regimen is the optimal. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the effect of an 18-month treatment with metformin vs. placebo in combination with one of three insulin analogue regimens, the primary outcome measure being carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) in T2DM patients. DESIGN: A randomized, stratified, multicentre trial having a 2 x 3 factorial design. The metformin part is double masked and placebo controlled. The insulin treatment is open. The intervention period is 18 months. PATIENT POPULATION: Nine hundred and fifty patients with T2DM and HbA1c > or = 7.5% on treatment with oral hypoglycaemic agents or on insulin treatment and deemed able, by the investigator, to manage once-daily insulin therapy with a long-acting insulin analogue. RANDOMIZATION: Central randomization stratified for age (above 65 years), previous insulin treatment and treatment centre. INTERVENTIONS: Metformin 1 g x two times daily vs. placebo (approximately 475 patients vs. 475 patients) in combination with insulin detemir before bedtime (approximately 315 patients) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 before dinner with the possibility to increase to two or three injections daily (approximately 315 patients) or insulin aspart before the main meals (three times daily) and insulin detemir before bedtime (approximately 315 patients). Intervention follows a treat-to-target principle in all six arms aiming for an HbA1c < or = 7.0%. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure is the change in CIMT from baseline to 18 months. Secondary outcome measures comprises the composite outcome of death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke or amputation assessed by an adjudication committee blinded to intervention, other cardiovascular clinical outcomes, average postprandial glucose increment from 0 to 18 months, hypoglycaemia and any inadvertent medical episodes. In addition, change in plaque formation in the carotids, HbA1c, cardiovascular biomarkers, body composition, progression of microvascular complications and quality of life will be assessed as tertiary outcome measures. TIME SCHEDULE: Patient enrolment started May 2008. Follow-up is expected to finish in March 2011. CONCLUSION: CIMT is designed to provide evidence as to whether metformin is advantageous even during insulin treatment and to provide evidence regarding which insulin analogue regimen is most advantageous with regard to cardiovascular disease.

Ivabradine for coronary artery disease and/or heart failure-a protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease and heart failure are both highly prevalent diseases with a global prevalence of 93 million and 40 million. These patients are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. The management of these patients involves medical therapy, and both diseases can be treated using the heart rate-lowering drug ivabradine. However, the evidence regarding the use of ivabradine in the treatment of coronary artery disease and/or heart failure is unclear. Our objective is to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of ivabradine in the treatment of coronary artery disease and/or heart failure. METHODS: This protocol for a systematic review was undertaken using the recommendations of The Cochrane Collaboration, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P), and the eight-step assessment procedure suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues. We plan to include all relevant randomised clinical trials assessing the use of ivabradine in the treatment of coronary artery disease and/or heart failure. We will search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), and BIOSIS in order to identify relevant trials. We will begin the searches in February 2019. All included trials will be assessed and classified at low risk of bias or at high risk of bias. Our primary conclusions will be based on the results from the primary outcomes at low risk of bias. Extracted data will be analysed using Review Manager 5.3 and Trial Sequential Analysis 0.9.5.10. We will create a 'Summary of Findings' table in which we will present our primary and secondary outcomes, and we will assess the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). DISCUSSION: The systematic review will have the potential to aid clinicians in decision-making regarding ivabradine and to benefit patients with coronary artery disease and/or heart failure. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018112082.

Systematic review: primary and secondary prevention of gastrointestinal cancers with antioxidant supplements.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on whether antioxidant supplements prevent gastrointestinal cancers is contradictory. AIM: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements in preventing gastrointestinal cancers. METHODS: Using the Cochrane Collaboration methodology, we reviewed the randomized trials comparing antioxidant supplements with placebo or no intervention on the occurrence of gastrointestinal cancers. We searched electronic databases and reference lists until October, 2007. Our outcome measures were gastrointestinal cancers, overall mortality and adverse events. Outcomes were reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on random-effects and fixed-effect models meta-analyses. RESULTS: We identified 20 randomized trials (211,818 participants) assessing beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium. The trial quality was generally high. The antioxidant supplements were without a significant effect on the occurrence of gastrointestinal cancers (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.06, I(2) = 54.0%). The heterogeneity seemed to be explained by bias risk (low-bias risk trials RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96-1.13 compared to high-bias risk trials RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.80, test of interaction P < 0.0005) and type of antioxidant supplement (beta-carotene potentially increasing and selenium potentially decreasing cancer risk). Antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on mortality in a random-effects model meta-analysis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97-1.07, I(2) = 53.5%) but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model meta-analysis (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: We could not find evidence that the studied antioxidant supplements prevented gastrointestinal cancers. On the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality.