RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Nephrolithiasis is one of the most common conditions affecting the kidney and is characterized by a high risk of recurrence. Thiazide diuretic agents are widely used for prevention of the recurrence of kidney stones, but data regarding the efficacy of such agents as compared with placebo are limited. Furthermore, dose-response data are also limited. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with recurrent calcium-containing kidney stones to receive hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg once daily or placebo once daily. The main objective was to investigate the dose-response effect for the primary end point, a composite of symptomatic or radiologic recurrence of kidney stones. Radiologic recurrence was defined as the appearance of new stones on imaging or the enlargement of preexisting stones that had been observed on the baseline image. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: In all, 416 patients underwent randomization and were followed for a median of 2.9 years. A primary end-point event occurred in 60 of 102 patients (59%) in the placebo group, in 62 of 105 patients (59%) in the 12.5-mg hydrochlorothiazide group (rate ratio vs. placebo, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.93), in 61 of 108 patients (56%) in the 25-mg group (rate ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.79), and in 49 of 101 patients (49%) in the 50-mg group (rate ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.36). There was no relation between the hydrochlorothiazide dose and the occurrence of a primary end-point event (P = 0.66). Hypokalemia, gout, new-onset diabetes mellitus, skin allergy, and a plasma creatinine level exceeding 150% of the baseline level were more common among patients who received hydrochlorothiazide than among those who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with recurrent kidney stones, the incidence of recurrence did not appear to differ substantially among patients receiving hydrochlorothiazide once daily at a dose of 12.5 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg or placebo once daily. (Funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and Inselspital; NOSTONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03057431.).
Asunto(s)
Diuréticos , Hidroclorotiazida , Cálculos Renales , Humanos , Hidroclorotiazida/administración & dosificación , Hidroclorotiazida/efectos adversos , Hidroclorotiazida/uso terapéutico , Riñón/diagnóstico por imagen , Cálculos Renales/diagnóstico por imagen , Cálculos Renales/prevención & control , Inhibidores de los Simportadores del Cloruro de Sodio/administración & dosificación , Inhibidores de los Simportadores del Cloruro de Sodio/efectos adversos , Inhibidores de los Simportadores del Cloruro de Sodio/uso terapéutico , Recurrencia , Método Doble Ciego , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Diuréticos/administración & dosificación , Diuréticos/efectos adversos , Diuréticos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The effect of early as compared with later initiation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in persons with atrial fibrillation who have had an acute ischemic stroke is unclear. METHODS: We performed an investigator-initiated, open-label trial at 103 sites in 15 countries. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to early anticoagulation (within 48 hours after a minor or moderate stroke or on day 6 or 7 after a major stroke) or later anticoagulation (day 3 or 4 after a minor stroke, day 6 or 7 after a moderate stroke, or day 12, 13, or 14 after a major stroke). Assessors were unaware of the trial-group assignments. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death within 30 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included the components of the composite primary outcome at 30 and 90 days. RESULTS: Of 2013 participants (37% with minor stroke, 40% with moderate stroke, and 23% with major stroke), 1006 were assigned to early anticoagulation and 1007 to later anticoagulation. A primary-outcome event occurred in 29 participants (2.9%) in the early-treatment group and 41 participants (4.1%) in the later-treatment group (risk difference, -1.18 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.84 to 0.47) by 30 days. Recurrent ischemic stroke occurred in 14 participants (1.4%) in the early-treatment group and 25 participants (2.5%) in the later-treatment group (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.07) by 30 days and in 18 participants (1.9%) and 30 participants (3.1%), respectively, by 90 days (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.06). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 2 participants (0.2%) in both groups by 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, the incidence of recurrent ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, major extracranial bleeding, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or vascular death at 30 days was estimated to range from 2.8 percentage points lower to 0.5 percentage points higher (based on the 95% confidence interval) with early than with later use of DOACs. (Funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and others; ELAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03148457.).
Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial , Inhibidores del Factor Xa , Accidente Cerebrovascular Isquémico , Humanos , Anticoagulantes/administración & dosificación , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Fibrilación Atrial/complicaciones , Fibrilación Atrial/tratamiento farmacológico , Embolia/etiología , Embolia/prevención & control , Hemorragia/inducido químicamente , Hemorragias Intracraneales/inducido químicamente , Accidente Cerebrovascular Isquémico/etiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular Isquémico/prevención & control , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & control , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de Tiempo , Inhibidores del Factor Xa/administración & dosificación , Inhibidores del Factor Xa/efectos adversos , Inhibidores del Factor Xa/uso terapéutico , RecurrenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Whether hemorrhagic transformation (HT) modifies the treatment effect of early compared with late initiation of direct oral anticoagulation in people with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation is unknown. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the ELAN trial (Early Versus Late Initiation of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Post-Ischaemic Stroke Patients With Atrial Fibrillation). The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, major extracranial bleeding, systemic embolism, or vascular death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were the individual components, 30- and 90-day functional outcome. We estimated outcomes based on HT, subclassified as hemorrhagic infarction (HI) or parenchymal hemorrhage (PH) on prerandomization imaging (core laboratory rating) using adjusted risk differences between treatment arms. RESULTS: Overall, 247 of 1970 participants (12.5%) had HT (114 HI 1, 77 HI 2, 34 PH 1, 22 PH 2). For the primary outcome, the estimated adjusted risk difference (early versus late) was -2.2% (95% CI, -7.8% to 3.5%) in people with HT (HI: -4.7% [95% CI, -10.8% to 1.4%]; PH: 6.1% [95% CI, -8.5% to 20.6%]) and -0.9% (95% CI, -2.6% to 0.8%) in people without HT. Numbers of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were identical in people with and without HT. With early treatment, the estimated adjusted risk difference for poor 90-day functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score, 3-6) was 11.5% (95% CI, -0.8% to 23.8%) in participants with HT (HI: 7.4% [95% CI, -6.4% to 21.2%]; PH: 25.1% [95% CI, 0.2% to 50.0%]) and -2.6% (95% CI, -7.1% to 1.8%) in people without HT. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of major treatment effect heterogeneity or safety concerns with early compared with late direct oral anticoagulation initiation in people with and without HT. However, early direct oral anticoagulation initiation may worsen functional outcomes in people with PH. REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03148457.
Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes , Fibrilación Atrial , Accidente Cerebrovascular Isquémico , Humanos , Fibrilación Atrial/tratamiento farmacológico , Fibrilación Atrial/complicaciones , Masculino , Femenino , Anciano , Accidente Cerebrovascular Isquémico/tratamiento farmacológico , Administración Oral , Anticoagulantes/administración & dosificación , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Factores de Tiempo , Persona de Mediana Edad , Resultado del Tratamiento , Hemorragias Intracraneales/inducido químicamenteRESUMEN
The decision to treat an incidental finding in an asymptomatic patient results from careful risk-benefit consideration and is often challenging. One of the main aspects is after how many years the group who underwent the intervention and faced the immediate treatment complications will gain a treatment benefit over the conservatively managed group, which maintains a lower but ongoing risk. We identify a common error in decision-making. We illustrate how a risk-based approach using the classical break-even point at the Kaplan-Meier curves can be misleading and advocate for using an outcome-based approach, counting the cumulative number of lost quality-adjusted life years instead. In clinical practice, we often add together the yearly risk of the natural course up to the time point where the number equals the risk of the intervention and assume that the patient will benefit from an intervention beyond this point in time. It corresponds to the crossing of the Kaplan-Meier curves. However, because treatment-related poor outcome occurs at the time of the intervention, while the poor outcome in the conservative group occurs over a given time period, the true benefit of retaining more quality-adjusted life years in the interventional group emerges at a much later time. To avoid overtreatment of patients with asymptomatic diseases, decision-making should be outcome-based with counting the cumulative loss of quality-adjusted life years, rather than risk-based, comparing the interventional risk with the ongoing yearly risk of the natural course.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Asintomáticas , Humanos , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Hallazgos Incidentales , Toma de Decisiones , Medición de Riesgo , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & control , Estimación de Kaplan-MeierRESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Kidney stones are the most common condition affecting the kidney, and characterized by a high rate of recurrence. Thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics (thiazides) are commonly prescribed to prevent the recurrence of kidney stones. This review offers a comprehensive up-to-date assessment of the evidence supporting the use of thiazides for kidney stone recurrence prevention, highlights potential harms associated with treatment, and identifies areas of knowledge that require further investigation. RECENT FINDINGS: The clinical routine to prescribe thiazides for kidney stone prevention has recently been challenged by the findings of the large NOSTONE trial that failed to show superiority of hydrochlorothiazide at doses up to 50âmg daily over placebo in preventing a composite of clinical or radiological recurrence in patients at high risk of recurrence. Yet, adverse events such as new onset diabetes mellitus and gout were more common in patients receiving hydrochlorothiazide compared to placebo. As demonstrated by a novel meta-analysis presented in this review encompassing all randomized placebo-controlled trials with thiazide monotherapy, current trial evidence does not indicate that thiazide monotherapy is significantly better than placebo in preventing kidney stone recurrence. SUMMARY: Given the limited efficacy and possible adverse effects, we advocate for a restrictive use of thiazides for kidney stone recurrence prevention. Clearly, there remains a high unmet medical need for effective, targeted therapies to prevent recurrence of kidney stones.
Asunto(s)
Cálculos Renales , Recurrencia , Prevención Secundaria , Inhibidores de los Simportadores del Cloruro de Sodio , Humanos , Cálculos Renales/prevención & control , Prevención Secundaria/métodos , Inhibidores de los Simportadores del Cloruro de Sodio/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de los Simportadores del Cloruro de Sodio/efectos adversos , Tiazidas/uso terapéutico , Tiazidas/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Hidroclorotiazida/uso terapéutico , Hidroclorotiazida/efectos adversosRESUMEN
Rituximab has improved response rates and overall survival in B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Radiotherapy is an effective treatment modality for lymphomas, but there is uncertainty on its use as consolidation after chemo-immunotherapy mainly in advanced stages. We evaluated its efficacy with a comprehensive meta-analysis and a systematic search of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and abstracts from ASCO, ASH, ESMO and ASTRO published from June 1966 and December 2018. We identified 11 trials that evaluated consolidation radiotherapy following chemotherapy in a randomized fashion in 4'584 patients. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was PFS. As three of the eleven trials were retracted, this data is based on 2414 patients. For the primary endpoint (PFS), we found a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.77 (0.51 to 1.17, pooled (tau2: 0.25; I2: 85%), and a HR of 0.80 (0.53 to 1.21, pooled (bivariate meta-analysis). For overall survival, the HR is 0.93 (0.61 to 1.40; pooled (tau2: 0.25; I2: 74%) and 0.86 (0.58 to 1.27) in a bivariate meta-analysis. The lack of benefit did not change over time (p-value: 0.95 (tau2: 0.32; I2: 88%), and was also absent for PFS when stratifying for chemotherapy, the use of Rituximab, age, the dose of radiotherapy, application to patients in complete remission and with bulky disease. None of the trials used a PET-guided approach. This meta-analysis revealed no survival benefit when consolidation radiotherapy is given to unselected DLBCL patients following chemotherapy. These results need to be considered in future trials in the PET-CT era.
Asunto(s)
Linfoma de Células B Grandes Difuso , Tomografía Computarizada por Tomografía de Emisión de Positrones , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Linfoma de Células B Grandes Difuso/tratamiento farmacológico , Linfoma de Células B Grandes Difuso/radioterapia , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Rituximab/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Over the last 20 years, diverse outcome measures have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This systematic review aims to identify the readouts used in observational studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation in adult EoE patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase for prospective and retrospective studies (cohorts/case series, randomized open-label, and case-control) evaluating the use of diets, dilation, and topical corticosteroids in adults with EoE. Two authors independently assessed the articles and extracted information about histologic, endoscopic, and patient-reported outcomes and tools used to assess treatment effects. RESULTS: We included 69 studies that met inclusion criteria. EoE-associated endoscopic findings (assessed either as absence/presence or using Endoscopic Reference Score) were evaluated in 24/35, 11/17, and 9/17 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively. Esophageal eosinophil density was recorded in 32/35, 17/17, and 11/17 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively. Patient-reported outcomes were not uniformly used (only in 14, 8, and 3 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively), and most tools were not validated for use in adults with EoE. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of an agreed set of core outcomes that should be recorded and reported in studies in adult EoE patients, endoscopic EoE-associated findings and esophageal eosinophil density are commonly used to assess disease activity in observational studies. Standardization of outcomes and data supporting the use of outcomes are needed to facilitate interpretation of evidence, its synthesis, and comparisons of interventions in meta-analyses of therapeutic trials in adults with EoE.
Asunto(s)
Esofagitis Eosinofílica/terapia , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto/métodos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/métodos , Proyectos de Investigación , Esofagitis Eosinofílica/diagnóstico , Humanos , Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: International oncology societies recommend early palliative care. Specific models to integrate early palliative care efficiently into clinical practice are debated. The authors designed a study to look at the quantitative and qualitative outcomes of an early palliative care intervention in oncological care to decrease stress and improve quality of life. AIMS: To compare a single structured early palliative care intervention added to a usual oncology care in terms of distress and health-related quality of life at baseline compared to 6 months after enrollment. DESIGN: This multicenter randomized controlled trial (NCT01983956) enrolled adult patients with advanced cancer. Participants were either randomly assigned to usual oncology care alone or usual care plus a structured early palliative care intervention. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty adult patients with a variety of advanced cancer diagnoses were randomized. Seventy-four participants were in the intervention and 76 participants in the control group. The primary outcome was the change in patient distress assessed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer at 6 months. Health-related quality of life, the secondary outcome, was assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Questionnaire. RESULTS: The results showed no significant effect of the early palliative care intervention neither on patient distress nor on health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: The addition of an early intervention to usual care for patients with advanced cancer did not improve distress or quality of life. Thus, patients may need more intensive early palliative care with continuous professional support to identify and address their palliative needs early.
Asunto(s)
Enfermería de Cuidados Paliativos al Final de la Vida , Neoplasias , Adulto , Humanos , Neoplasias/terapia , Cuidados Paliativos , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to one of the most critical and boundless waves of publications in the history of modern science. The necessity to find and pursue relevant information and quantify its quality is broadly acknowledged. Modern information retrieval techniques combined with artificial intelligence (AI) appear as one of the key strategies for COVID-19 living evidence management. Nevertheless, most AI projects that retrieve COVID-19 literature still require manual tasks. METHODS: In this context, we pre-sent a novel, automated search platform, called Risklick AI, which aims to automatically gather COVID-19 scientific evidence and enables scientists, policy makers, and healthcare professionals to find the most relevant information tailored to their question of interest in real time. RESULTS: Here, we compare the capacity of Risklick AI to find COVID-19-related clinical trials and scientific publications in comparison with clinicaltrials.gov and PubMed in the field of pharmacology and clinical intervention. DISCUSSION: The results demonstrate that Risklick AI is able to find COVID-19 references more effectively, both in terms of precision and recall, compared to the baseline platforms. Hence, Risklick AI could become a useful alternative assistant to scientists fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.
Asunto(s)
Inteligencia Artificial/tendencias , COVID-19/terapia , Interpretación Estadística de Datos , Desarrollo de Medicamentos/tendencias , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/tendencias , Farmacología/tendencias , Inteligencia Artificial/estadística & datos numéricos , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Desarrollo de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Farmacología/estadística & datos numéricos , Sistema de RegistrosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The treatment options for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients include drugs (proton pump inhibitors [PPIs], swallowed topical corticosteroids [STCs]), elimination diets, and dilation. Given the lack of data, we aimed to assess adult EoE patients' satisfaction with different EoE-specific treatment modalities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated therapy satisfaction recalled over a 12-month period using the validated Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication that assesses effectiveness, side effects, convenience, and overall satisfaction. The score for each scale ranges from 0 (dissatisfied) to 100 (satisfied). To evaluate satisfaction with nonpharmacologic therapies, the questionnaire was modified and debriefed into three focus groups. The final questionnaire was sent to 147 patients. RESULTS: The patient response rate was 74%. In the last 12 months, 24, 75, 19, and 9% were treated with PPIs, STCs, elimination diet, and dilation, respectively. Patients identified the following considerations as important for therapy choice: effect on symptoms (89%), effect on esophageal inflammation (76%), side effects (69%), and ease of use (58%). Patients found STCs to be effective (83 points), convenient (83 points), and experienced no side effects when using this therapy. When using STCs alone (43%), overall patient satisfaction was high (86 points). Patients judged PPIs to be most convenient (89 points), STCs to be a bit less convenient (83 points), and diet to be most inconvenient (46 points) of the three therapies examined. CONCLUSIONS: Adult EoE patients consider both therapy effect on symptoms and esophageal inflammation as important criteria when choosing EoE therapy and appear to be satisfied with STC use.
Asunto(s)
Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/epidemiología , Esofagitis Eosinofílica/terapia , Satisfacción del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Dietoterapia , Esofagitis Eosinofílica/epidemiología , Femenino , Grupos Focales , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Suiza/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis. METHODS: For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose. FINDINGS: We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 76 randomised trials with a total of 58â451 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·45) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·74 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for naproxen (p=0·034). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis. INTERPRETATION: On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: rVSV-ZEBOV is a recombinant, replication competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based candidate vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus. We tested the effect of rVSV-ZEBOV in preventing Ebola virus disease in contacts and contacts of contacts of recently confirmed cases in Guinea, west Africa. METHODS: We did an open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial (Ebola ça Suffit!) in the communities of Conakry and eight surrounding prefectures in the Basse-Guinée region of Guinea, and in Tomkolili and Bombali in Sierra Leone. We assessed the efficacy of a single intramuscular dose of rVSV-ZEBOV (2×107 plaque-forming units administered in the deltoid muscle) in the prevention of laboratory confirmed Ebola virus disease. After confirmation of a case of Ebola virus disease, we definitively enumerated on a list a ring (cluster) of all their contacts and contacts of contacts including named contacts and contacts of contacts who were absent at the time of the trial team visit. The list was archived, then we randomly assigned clusters (1:1) to either immediate vaccination or delayed vaccination (21 days later) of all eligible individuals (eg, those aged ≥18 years and not pregnant, breastfeeding, or severely ill). An independent statistician generated the assignment sequence using block randomisation with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 individuals vs >20 individuals). Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of assignments. After a recommendation by an independent data and safety monitoring board, randomisation was stopped and immediate vaccination was also offered to children aged 6-17 years and all identified rings. The prespecified primary outcome was a laboratory confirmed case of Ebola virus disease with onset 10 days or more from randomisation. The primary analysis compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals assigned to immediate vaccination versus eligible contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to delayed vaccination. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193. FINDINGS: In the randomised part of the trial we identified 4539 contacts and contacts of contacts in 51 clusters randomly assigned to immediate vaccination (of whom 3232 were eligible, 2151 consented, and 2119 were immediately vaccinated) and 4557 contacts and contacts of contacts in 47 clusters randomly assigned to delayed vaccination (of whom 3096 were eligible, 2539 consented, and 2041 were vaccinated 21 days after randomisation). No cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among randomly assigned contacts and contacts of contacts vaccinated in immediate clusters versus 16 cases (7 clusters affected) among all eligible individuals in delayed clusters. Vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI 68·9-100·0, p=0·0045), and the calculated intraclass correlation coefficient was 0·035. Additionally, we defined 19 non-randomised clusters in which we enumerated 2745 contacts and contacts of contacts, 2006 of whom were eligible and 1677 were immediately vaccinated, including 194 children. The evidence from all 117 clusters showed that no cases of Ebola virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among all immediately vaccinated contacts and contacts of contacts versus 23 cases (11 clusters affected) among all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts in delayed plus all eligible contacts and contacts of contacts never vaccinated in immediate clusters. The estimated vaccine efficacy here was 100% (95% CI 79·3-100·0, p=0·0033). 52% of contacts and contacts of contacts assigned to immediate vaccination and in non-randomised clusters received the vaccine immediately; vaccination protected both vaccinated and unvaccinated people in those clusters. 5837 individuals in total received the vaccine (5643 adults and 194 children), and all vaccinees were followed up for 84 days. 3149 (53·9%) of 5837 individuals reported at least one adverse event in the 14 days after vaccination; these were typically mild (87·5% of all 7211 adverse events). Headache (1832 [25·4%]), fatigue (1361 [18·9%]), and muscle pain (942 [13·1%]) were the most commonly reported adverse events in this period across all age groups. 80 serious adverse events were identified, of which two were judged to be related to vaccination (one febrile reaction and one anaphylaxis) and one possibly related (influenza-like illness); all three recovered without sequelae. INTERPRETATION: The results add weight to the interim assessment that rVSV-ZEBOV offers substantial protection against Ebola virus disease, with no cases among vaccinated individuals from day 10 after vaccination in both randomised and non-randomised clusters. FUNDING: WHO, UK Wellcome Trust, the UK Government through the Department of International Development, Médecins Sans Frontières, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (through the Research Council of Norway's GLOBVAC programme), and the Canadian Government (through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development).
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra el Virus del Ébola , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/prevención & control , Adolescente , Adulto , Niño , Análisis por Conglomerados , Trazado de Contacto , Ebolavirus , Femenino , Guinea , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/diagnóstico , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/transmisión , Humanos , Masculino , Glicoproteínas de Membrana , Persona de Mediana Edad , Resultado del Tratamiento , Vesiculovirus , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Nephrolithiasis is a global healthcare problem with a current lifetime risk of 18.8% in men and 9.4% in women. Given the high cost of medical treatments and surgical interventions as well as the morbidity related to symptomatic stone disease, medical prophylaxis for stone recurrence is an attractive approach. Thiazide diuretics have been the cornerstone of pharmacologic metaphylaxis for more than 40 years. However, evidence for benefits and harms of thiazides in the prevention of calcium containing kidney stones in general remains unclear. In addition, the efficacy of the currently employed low dose thiazide regimens to prevent stone recurrence is not known. METHODS: The NOSTONE trial is an investigator-initiated 3-year prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of standard and low dose hydrochlorothiazide treatment in the recurrence prevention of calcium containing kidney stones. We plan to include 416 adult (≥ 18 years) patients with recurrent (≥ 2 stone episodes in the last 10 years) calcium containing kidney stones (containing ≥50% of calcium oxalate, calcium phosphate or a mixture of both). Patients will be randomly allocated to 50 mg or 25 mg or 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide or placebo. The primary outcome will be incidence of stone recurrence (a composite of symptomatic or radiologic recurrence). Secondary outcomes will be individual components of the composite primary outcome, safety and tolerability of hydrochlorothiazide treatment, changes in urinary biochemistry elicited by hydrochlorothiazide treatment and impact of baseline disease severity, biochemical abnormalities and stone composition on treatment response. DISCUSSION: The NOSTONE study will provide long-sought information on the efficacy of hydrochlorothiazide in the recurrence prevention of calcium containing kidney stones. Strengths of the study include the randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled design, the large amount of patients studied, the employment of high sensitivity and high specificity imaging and the exclusive public funding support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03057431 . Registered on February 20 2017.
Asunto(s)
Diuréticos/administración & dosificación , Hidroclorotiazida/administración & dosificación , Nefrolitiasis/tratamiento farmacológico , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Nefrolitiasis/diagnóstico , Nefrolitiasis/epidemiología , Estudios Prospectivos , Recurrencia , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA), lymph node positivity (LNP) indicates poor prognosis for survival and is central to radiotherapy planning. Over the past three decades, LNP proportion has increased, mainly reflecting enhanced detection with newer imaging modalities; a process known as nodal stage migration. If accompanied by constant T stage distributions, prognosis for both lymph node-positive and lymph node-negative groups may improve without any increase in overall survival for individual patients; a paradox termed the Will Rogers phenomenon. Here, we aim to systematically evaluate the impact of nodal stage migration on survival in SCCA and address a novel hypothesis that this phenomenon results in reduced prognostic discrimination. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-regression to quantify changes in LNP over time and the impact of this change on survival and prognostic discrimination. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomised trials and observational studies in patients with SCCA published between Jan 1, 1970, and Oct 11, 2016. Studies were eligible if patients received chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy as the main treatment, reported LNP proportions (all studies), and reported overall survival (not necessarily present in all studies). We excluded studies with fewer than 50 patients. We extracted study-level data with a standardised, piloted form. The primary outcome measure was 5-year overall survival. To investigate scenarios in which reduced prognostic discrimination might occur, we simulated varying true LNP proportions and true overall survival, and compared these with expected observed outcomes for varying levels of misclassification of true nodal state. FINDINGS: We identified 62 studies reporting LNP proportions, which included 10â569 patients. From these, we included 45 studies (6302 patients) with whole cohort 5-year overall survival, 11 studies with 5-year survival stratified by nodal status, and 20 studies with hazard ratios in our analyses of temporal changes. In 62 studies, the LNP proportions increased from a mean estimate of 15·3% (95% CI 10·5-20·1) in 1980 to 37·1% (34·0-41·3) in 2012 (p<0·0001). In 11 studies with prognostic data, increasing LNP was associated with improved overall survival in both lymph node-positive and lymph node-negative categories, whereas the proportions with combined tumour stage T3 and T4 remained constant. In 20 studies, across a range of LNP proportions from 15% to 40%, the hazard ratios for overall survival of lymph node-positive versus lymph node-negative patients decreased significantly from 2·5 (95% CI 1·8-3·3) at 15% LNP to 1·3 (1·2-1·9; p=0·014) at 40% LNP. The simulated scenarios reproduced this effect if the true LNP proportions were 20% or 25%, but not if the true LNP proportions were 30% or greater. INTERPRETATION: We describe a consequence of staging misclassification in anal cancer that we have termed reduced prognostic discrimination. We used this new observation to infer that the LNP proportions of more than 30% seen in modern clinical series (11 out of 15 studies with a median year since 2007) are higher than the true LNP proportion. The introduction of new staging technologies in oncology might misclassify true disease stage, spuriously informing disease management and ultimately increasing the risk of overtreatment. FUNDING: Bowel Disease Research Foundation.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias del Ano/mortalidad , Neoplasias del Ano/patología , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/mortalidad , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/patología , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático/métodos , Ganglios Linfáticos/patología , Anciano , Neoplasias del Ano/terapia , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/terapia , Causas de Muerte , Quimioradioterapia/métodos , Ensayos Clínicos Fase III como Asunto , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Invasividad Neoplásica/patología , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Pronóstico , Análisis de Supervivencia , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the backbone of osteoarthritis pain management. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different preparations and doses of NSAIDs on osteoarthritis pain in a network meta-analysis. METHODS: For this network meta-analysis, we considered randomised trials comparing any of the following interventions: NSAIDs, paracetamol, or placebo, for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of relevant articles for trials published between Jan 1, 1980, and Feb 24, 2015, with at least 100 patients per group. The prespecified primary and secondary outcomes were pain and physical function, and were extracted in duplicate for up to seven timepoints after the start of treatment. We used an extension of multivariable Bayesian random effects models for mixed multiple treatment comparisons with a random effect at the level of trials. For the primary analysis, a random walk of first order was used to account for multiple follow-up outcome data within a trial. Preparations that used different total daily dose were considered separately in the analysis. To assess a potential dose-response relation, we used preparation-specific covariates assuming linearity on log relative dose. FINDINGS: We identified 8973 manuscripts from our search, of which 74 randomised trials with a total of 58,556 patients were included in this analysis. 23 nodes concerning seven different NSAIDs or paracetamol with specific daily dose of administration or placebo were considered. All preparations, irrespective of dose, improved point estimates of pain symptoms when compared with placebo. For six interventions (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 30 mg/day, 60 mg/day, and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 mg/day and 50 mg/day), the probability that the difference to placebo is at or below a prespecified minimum clinically important effect for pain reduction (effect size [ES] -0·37) was at least 95%. Among maximally approved daily doses, diclofenac 150 mg/day (ES -0·57, 95% credibility interval [CrI] -0·69 to -0·46) and etoricoxib 60 mg/day (ES -0·58, -0·73 to -0·43) had the highest probability to be the best intervention, both with 100% probability to reach the minimum clinically important difference. Treatment effects increased as drug dose increased, but corresponding tests for a linear dose effect were significant only for celecoxib (p=0·030), diclofenac (p=0·031), and naproxen (p=0·026). We found no evidence that treatment effects varied over the duration of treatment. Model fit was good, and between-trial heterogeneity and inconsistency were low in all analyses. All trials were deemed to have a low risk of bias for blinding of patients. Effect estimates did not change in sensitivity analyses with two additional statistical models and accounting for methodological quality criteria in meta-regression analysis. INTERPRETATION: On the basis of the available data, we see no role for single-agent paracetamol for the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis irrespective of dose. We provide sound evidence that diclofenac 150 mg/day is the most effective NSAID available at present, in terms of improving both pain and function. Nevertheless, in view of the safety profile of these drugs, physicians need to consider our results together with all known safety information when selecting the preparation and dose for individual patients. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405340-104762) and Arco Foundation, Switzerland.
Asunto(s)
Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/administración & dosificación , Artralgia/tratamiento farmacológico , Osteoartritis de la Cadera/tratamiento farmacológico , Osteoartritis de la Rodilla/tratamiento farmacológico , Anciano , Artralgia/etiología , Teorema de Bayes , Relación Dosis-Respuesta a Droga , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Osteoartritis de la Cadera/complicaciones , Osteoartritis de la Rodilla/complicaciones , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A recombinant, replication-competent vesicular stomatitis virus-based vaccine expressing a surface glycoprotein of Zaire Ebolavirus (rVSV-ZEBOV) is a promising Ebola vaccine candidate. We report the results of an interim analysis of a trial of rVSV-ZEBOV in Guinea, west Africa. METHODS: For this open-label, cluster-randomised ring vaccination trial, suspected cases of Ebola virus disease in Basse-Guinée (Guinea, west Africa) were independently ascertained by Ebola response teams as part of a national surveillance system. After laboratory confirmation of a new case, clusters of all contacts and contacts of contacts were defined and randomly allocated 1:1 to immediate vaccination or delayed (21 days later) vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV (one dose of 2â×â10(7) plaque-forming units, administered intramuscularly in the deltoid muscle). Adults (age ≥18 years) who were not pregnant or breastfeeding were eligible for vaccination. Block randomisation was used, with randomly varying blocks, stratified by location (urban vs rural) and size of rings (≤20 vs >20 individuals). The study is open label and masking of participants and field teams to the time of vaccination is not possible, but Ebola response teams and laboratory workers were unaware of allocation to immediate or delayed vaccination. Taking into account the incubation period of the virus of about 10 days, the prespecified primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus disease with onset of symptoms at least 10 days after randomisation. The primary analysis was per protocol and compared the incidence of Ebola virus disease in eligible and vaccinated individuals in immediate vaccination clusters with the incidence in eligible individuals in delayed vaccination clusters. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, number PACTR201503001057193. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2015, and July 20, 2015, 90 clusters, with a total population of 7651 people were included in the planned interim analysis. 48 of these clusters (4123 people) were randomly assigned to immediate vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV, and 42 clusters (3528 people) were randomly assigned to delayed vaccination with rVSV-ZEBOV. In the immediate vaccination group, there were no cases of Ebola virus disease with symptom onset at least 10 days after randomisation, whereas in the delayed vaccination group there were 16 cases of Ebola virus disease from seven clusters, showing a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI 74·7-100·0; p=0·0036). No new cases of Ebola virus disease were diagnosed in vaccinees from the immediate or delayed groups from 6 days post-vaccination. At the cluster level, with the inclusion of all eligible adults, vaccine effectiveness was 75·1% (95% CI -7·1 to 94·2; p=0·1791), and 76·3% (95% CI -15·5 to 95·1; p=0·3351) with the inclusion of everyone (eligible or not eligible for vaccination). 43 serious adverse events were reported; one serious adverse event was judged to be causally related to vaccination (a febrile episode in a vaccinated participant, which resolved without sequelae). Assessment of serious adverse events is ongoing. INTERPRETATION: The results of this interim analysis indicate that rVSV-ZEBOV might be highly efficacious and safe in preventing Ebola virus disease, and is most likely effective at the population level when delivered during an Ebola virus disease outbreak via a ring vaccination strategy. FUNDING: WHO, with support from the Wellcome Trust (UK); Médecins Sans Frontières; the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the Research Council of Norway; and the Canadian Government through the Public Health Agency of Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, International Development Research Centre, and Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra el Virus del Ébola , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/prevención & control , Adulto , Ebolavirus/inmunología , Femenino , Vectores Genéticos , Guinea/epidemiología , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/epidemiología , Humanos , Incidencia , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Glicoproteínas de Membrana/metabolismo , Persona de Mediana Edad , Vacunación/métodos , Vesiculovirus/metabolismo , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Up to 40% of ischaemic strokes are cryptogenic. A strong association between cryptogenic stroke and the prevalence of patent foramen ovale (PFO) suggests paradoxical embolism via PFO as a potential cause. Randomized trials failed to demonstrate superiority of PFO closure over medical therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized trials comparing percutaneous PFO closure against medical therapy or devices head-to-head published or presented by March 2013 were identified through a systematic search. We performed a network meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness and safety of PFO closure with different devices when compared with medical therapy. We included four randomized trials (2963 patients with 9309 patient-years). Investigated devices were Amplatzer (AMP), STARFlex (STF), and HELEX (HLX). Patients allocated to PFO closure with AMP were less likely to experience a stroke than patients allocated to medical therapy [rate ratio (RR) 0.39; 95% CI: 0.17-0.84]. No significant differences were found for STF (RR 1.01; 95% CI: 0.44-2.41), and HLX (RR, 0.71; 95% CI: 0.17-2.78) when compared with medical therapy. The probability to be best in preventing strokes was 77.1% for AMP, 20.9% for HLX, 1.7% for STF, and 0.4% for medical therapy. No significant differences were found for transient ischaemic attack and death. The risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation was more pronounced for STF (RR 7.67; 95% CI: 3.25-19.63), than AMP (RR 2.14; 95% CI: 1.00-4.62) and HLX (RR 1.33; 95%-CI 0.33-4.50), when compared with medical therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of PFO closure depends on the device used. PFO closure with AMP appears superior to medical therapy in preventing strokes in patients with cryptogenic embolism.
Asunto(s)
Embolia Paradójica/complicaciones , Foramen Oval Permeable/terapia , Adulto , Fibrilación Atrial/etiología , Fibrilación Atrial/terapia , Oclusión con Balón/instrumentación , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Foramen Oval Permeable/complicaciones , Humanos , Masculino , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Dispositivo Oclusor Septal , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & control , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Several countries are working to adapt clinical trial regulations to align the approval process to the level of risk for trial participants. The optimal framework to categorize clinical trials according to risk remains unclear, however. Switzerland is the first European country to adopt a risk-based categorization procedure in January 2014. We assessed how accurately and consistently clinical trials are categorized using two different approaches: an approach using criteria set forth in the new law (concept) or an intuitive approach (ad hoc). METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial with a method-comparison study nested in each arm. We used clinical trial protocols from eight Swiss ethics committees approved between 2010 and 2011. Protocols were randomly assigned to be categorized in one of three risk categories using the concept or the ad hoc approach. Each protocol was independently categorized by the trial's sponsor, a group of experts and the approving ethics committee. The primary outcome was the difference in categorization agreement between the expert group and sponsors across arms. Linear weighted kappa was used to quantify agreements, with the difference between kappas being the primary effect measure. RESULTS: We included 142 of 231 protocols in the final analysis (concept=78; ad hoc=64). Raw agreement between the expert group and sponsors was 0.74 in the concept and 0.78 in the ad hoc arm. Chance-corrected agreement was higher in the ad hoc (kappa: 0.34 (95% confidence interval=0.10-0.58)) than in the concept arm (0.27 (0.06-0.50)), but the difference was not significant (p=0.67). LIMITATIONS: The main limitation was the large number of protocols excluded from the analysis mostly because they did not fit with the clinical trial definition of the new law. CONCLUSION: A structured risk categorization approach was not better than an ad hoc approach. Laws introducing risk-based approaches should provide guidelines, examples and templates to ensure correct application.
Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/clasificación , Regulación Gubernamental , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/legislación & jurisprudencia , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/normas , Consenso , Proyectos Piloto , Medición de Riesgo/legislación & jurisprudencia , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , SuizaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Acute postoperative pain is one of the most disturbing complaints in open heart surgery, and is associated with a risk of negative consequences. Several trials investigated the effects of psychological interventions to reduce acute postoperative pain and improve the course of physical and psychological recovery of participants undergoing open heart surgery. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention in adults undergoing open heart surgery on pain, pain medication, mental distress, mobility, and time to extubation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2013), EMBASE (1980 to September 2013), Web of Science (all years to September 2013), and PsycINFO (all years to September 2013) for eligible studies. We used the 'related articles' and 'cited by' options of eligible studies to identify additional relevant studies. We also checked lists of references of relevant articles and previous reviews. We also searched the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text Database (all years to September 2013) and contacted the authors of primary studies to identify any unpublished material. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention in adults undergoing open heart surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (SK and JR) independently assessed trials for eligibility, estimated the risk of bias and extracted all data. We calculated effect sizes for each comparison (Hedges' g) and meta-analysed data using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen trials were included (2164 participants).No study reported data on the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Only one study reported data on the number of participants below 30/100 mm on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in pain intensity. Psychological interventions have no beneficial effects in reducing pain intensity measured with continuous scales in the medium-term interval (g -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.20, 4 studies, 413 participants, moderate quality evidence) nor in the long-term interval (g 0.12, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.33, 3 studies, 280 participants, low quality evidence).No study reported data on median time to remedication or on number of participants remedicated. Only one study provided data on postoperative analgesic use. Studies reporting data on mental distress in the medium-term interval revealed a small beneficial effect of psychological interventions (g 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62, 12 studies, 1144 participants, low quality evidence). Likewise, a small beneficial effect of psychological interventions on mental distress was obtained in the long-term interval (g 0.28, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.51, 11 studies, 1320 participants, low quality evidence). There were no beneficial effects of psychological interventions on mobility in the medium-term interval (g 0.23, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.67, 3 studies, 444 participants, low quality evidence) nor in the long-term interval (g 0.29, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.71, 4 studies, 423 participants, low quality evidence). Only one study reported data on time to extubation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of outcomes (two-thirds) we could not perform a meta-analysis since outcomes were not measured, or data were provided by one trial only. Psychological interventions have no beneficial effects on reducing postoperative pain intensity or enhancing mobility. There is low quality evidence that psychological interventions reduce postoperative mental distress. Due to limitations in methodological quality, a small number of studies, and large heterogeneity, we rated the quality of the body of evidence as low. Future trials should measure crucial outcomes (e.g. number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline) and should focus to enhance the quality of the body of evidence in general. Altogether, the current evidence does not clearly support the use of psychological interventions to reduce pain in participants undergoing open heart surgery.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo/terapia , Terapia Conductista/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Cardíacos/efectos adversos , Dolor Postoperatorio/terapia , Terapia por Relajación/métodos , Dolor Agudo/psicología , Adulto , Anciano , Terapia Cognitivo-Conductual , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dimensión del Dolor , Dolor Postoperatorio/psicología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Several treatment strategies are available for adults with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma, but studies assessing two alternative standards of care-increased dose bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPPescalated), and doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD)-were not powered to test differences in overall survival. To guide treatment decisions in this population of patients, we did a systematic review and network meta-analysis to identify the best initial treatment strategy. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, and conference proceedings for randomised controlled trials published between January, 1980, and June, 2013, that assessed overall survival in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma given BEACOPPbaseline, BEACOPPescalated, BEACOPP variants, ABVD, cyclophosphamide (mechlorethamine), vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (C[M]OPP), hybrid or alternating chemotherapy regimens with ABVD as the backbone (eg, COPP/ABVD, MOPP/ABVD), or doxorubicin, vinblastine, mechlorethamine, vincristine, bleomycin, etoposide, and prednisone combined with radiation therapy (the Stanford V regimen). We assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed their quality. We then pooled the data and used a Bayesian random-effects model to combine direct comparisons with indirect evidence. We also reconstructed individual patient survival data from published Kaplan-Meier curves and did standard random-effects Poisson regression. Results are reported relative to ABVD. The primary outcome was overall survival. FINDINGS: We screened 2055 records and identified 75 papers covering 14 eligible trials that assessed 11 different regimens in 9993 patients, providing 59â651 patient-years of follow-up. 1189 patients died, and the median follow-up was 5·9 years (IQR 4·9-6·7). Included studies were of high methodological quality, and between-trial heterogeneity was negligible (τ(2)=0·01). Overall survival was highest in patients who received six cycles of BEACOPPescalated (HR 0·38, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 0·20-0·75). Compared with a 5 year survival of 88% for ABVD, the survival benefit for six cycles of BEACOPPescalated is 7% (95% CrI 3-10)-ie, a 5 year survival of 95%. Reconstructed individual survival data showed that, at 5 years, BEACOPPescalated has a 10% (95% CI 3-15) advantage over ABVD in overall survival. INTERPRETATION: Six cycles of BEACOPPescalated significantly improves overall survival compared with ABVD and other regimens, and thus we recommend this treatment strategy as standard of care for patients with access to the appropriate supportive care.