Association between humoral serological markers levels and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection after the primary COVID-19 vaccine course among ANRS0001S COV-POPART cohort participants.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the prognostic value of serological humoral markers measured one month after the last dose of the primary COVID-19 vaccine course for predicting the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 SARS-CoV-2 infection over the following six months in specific populations. METHODS: ANRS0001SCOV-POPART is a French nationwide multicenter prospective observational cohort study assessing the immune response to Covid-19 vaccines routinely administered to 11 subgroups of patients with chronic disease and a control group. Participants from the ANRS0001S COV-POPART were included if they received at least two doses of Covid-19 vaccine for the primary vaccine course, had measurements of anti-Spike, anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG-specific or neutralizing antibodies one month after the end of the primary vaccine course, without being infected by SARS-CoV-2 before the measurement. SARS-CoV-2 infections defined by a positive PCR/antigenic test or seroconversion to detectable anti nucleocapsid antibodies were evaluated until the first COVID-19 booster injection. Cox proportional hazards models taking into account interval-censored data were implemented to estimate the association between each antibody level and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Predictive performances were evaluated by the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred seventy adults from a specific population and 1,123 from the control group were included. The cumulative probabilities of SARS-CoV-2 infections at five months after serological measurement were 6.0% 95% confidence interval: [5.0; 7.9] and 10.1% 95% confidence interval: [8.3; 11.9], respectively. Higher levels of anti-Spike IgG antibody were associated with a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the control group, but not in the specific populations. Among the specific populations, AUROC were 74.5%, 74.9%, and 72.4% for anti-Spike IgG, anti-RBD IgG, and neutralizing antibodies, respectively. AUROC were superior in the specific populations, 82.0%, 81.2%, and 81.4% for anti-Spike IgG, anti-RBD IgG, and neutralizing antibodies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine-induced antibody response after the primary course of Covid-19 infection only moderately discriminated between participants developing a SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron wave. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04824651 (first posted: 2021-04-01).

Effect of a comfort scale compared with a pain numerical rate scale on opioids consumption in postanaesthesia care unit: the COMFORT study.

BACKGROUND: The way that pain is assessed in the PACU could impact on postoperative pain and analgesic consumption. However, there is currently no evidence to support this speculation. The authors hypothesised that using a comfort scale reduces postoperative opioid consumption when compared with a standard numerical rating scale (NRS) to evaluate pain in the PACU. METHODS: In this cluster-randomised trial, patients were assessed using either a comfort scale (comfort group) or a pain NRS (NRS group). The primary outcome was the opioid consumption in the PACU. The main secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, length of stay in the PACU, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 885 randomised patients, 860 were included in the analysis. Opioid consumption in the PACU was comparable in the comfort and NRS groups (median [interquartile range [IQR] 0 (0-5) vs 0 (0-6); P=0.2436), irrespective of the type of surgical procedure. The majority of patients did not need any postoperative opioid (59% in the comfort group and 56% in the NRS group, P=0.2260). There was no difference in postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, time to reach an Aldrete score ≥9 after extubation, and global satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Using a comfort scale to assess pain in the PACU did not spare any opioid compared with use of a standard NRS. Further studies focusing on patients at risk of increased postoperative opioid consumption are necessary. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05234216.

Development and validation of a community acquired sepsis-worsening score in the adult emergency department: a prospective cohort: the CASC score.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a leading cause of death and serious illness that requires early recognition and therapeutic management to improve survival. The quick-SOFA score helps in its recognition, but its diagnostic performance is insufficient. To develop a score that can rapidly identify a community acquired septic situation at risk of clinical complications in patients consulting the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We conducted a monocentric, prospective cohort study in the emergency department of a university hospital between March 2016 and August 2018 (NCT03280992). All patients admitted to the emergency department for a suspicion of a community-acquired infection were included. Predictor variables of progression to septic shock or death within the first 90 days were selected using backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression to develop a clinical score. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to determine the discriminating power of the area under the curve (AUC). We also determined the threshold of our score that optimized the performance required for a sepsis-worsening score. We have compared our score with the NEWS-2 and qSOFA scores. RESULTS: Among the 21,826 patients admitted to the ED, 796 patients were suspected of having community-acquired infection and 461 met the sepsis criteria; therefore, these patients were included in the analysis. The median [interquartile range] age was 72 [54-84] years, 248 (54%) were males, and 244 (53%) had respiratory symptoms. The clinical score ranged from 0 to 90 and included 8 variables with an area under the ROC curve of 0.85 (confidence interval [CI] 95% 0.81-0.89). A cut-off of 26 yields a sensitivity of 88% (CI 95% 0.79-0.93), a specificity of 62% (CI 95% 57-67), and a negative predictive value of 95% (CI 95% 91-97). The area under the ROC curve for our score was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89) versus 0.73 (95% CI, 0.68-0.78) for qSOFA and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.60-0.72) for NEWS-2. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides an accurate clinical score for identifying septic patients consulting the ED early at risk of worsening disease. This score could be implemented at admission.

Blood, Cellular, and Tissular Calcineurin Inhibitors Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Relationship in Heart Transplant Recipients: The INTRACAR Study.

BACKGROUND: After heart transplantation, calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) (cyclosporin A and tacrolimus) are key immunosuppressive drugs to prevent graft rejection. Whole-blood concentration (C blood )-guided therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is systematically performed to improve graft outcomes. However, some patients will still experience graft rejection and/or adverse events despite CNI C blood within the therapeutic range. Other pharmacokinetic parameters, such as the intragraft, or intracellular concentration at the CNI site of action could refine their TDM. Nonetheless, these remain to be explored. The objective of the INTRACAR study was to describe the relationship between whole blood, intragraft, and intracellular CNI concentrations as well as their efficacy in heart transplant recipients (HTR). METHODS: In a cohort of HTR, protocol endomyocardial biopsies (EMB) were collected to assess rejection by anatomopathological analysis. Part of the EMB was used to measure the intragraft concentrations of CNI (C EMB ). C blood and the concentration inside peripheral blood mononuclear cells, (C PBMC ), a cellular fraction enriched with lymphocytes, were also monitored. Concentrations in the 3 matrices were compared between patients with and without biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR). RESULTS: Thirty-four HTR were included, representing nearly 100 pharmacokinetic (PK) samples for each CNI. C blood , C EMB , and C PBMC correlated for both CNI. BPAR was observed in 74 biopsies (39.6%) from 26 patients (76.5%), all except one was of low grade. None of the PK parameters (C blood , C EMB , C PBMC , C EMB/blood , and C PBMC/blood ) was associated with BPAR. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of well-immunosuppressed patients, no association was observed for any of the PK parameters, including C blood , with the occurrence of BPAR. However, a trend was noticed for the C EMB and C EMB/blood of cyclosporin A. Further studies in higher-risk patients may help optimize the use of C EMB and C PBMC for CNI TDM in HTR.

Effect of the Use of Reinforced Stapling on the Occurrence of Pancreatic Fistula After Distal Pancreatectomy: Results of the REPLAY (REinforcement of the Pancreas in distaL pAncreatectomY) Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of the use of a reinforced stapler (RS) during distal pancreatectomy (DP) on postoperative outcomes. BACKGROUND: DP remains associated with significant postoperative morbidity owing to pancreatic fistula (PF). To date, there is no consensus on the management of the pancreatic stump. The use of an RS potentially represents a simple way to decrease the rate of PF. METHODS: The REPLAY study (NCT03030170) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized study. Patients who underwent DP were randomized (1:1 ratio) in 2 groups for the use of a standard stapler (SS) or an RS to close remnant pancreatic parenchyma. The primary endpoint was the rate of overall PF. Secondary endpoints included severity of PF, length of hospital stay, overall morbidity, and rate of readmission for a PF within 90 days. Participants were blinded to the procedure actually carried out. RESULTS: A total of 199 were analyzed (SS, n=99; RS, n=100). One patient who did not undergo surgery was excluded. Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. The rate of overall PF was higher in RS group (SS: 67.7%, RS: 83%, P =0.0121), but the rate of clinically relevant PF was similar (SS: 11.1%, RS: 14%, P =0.5387). Mean length of total hospital stay, readmission for PF, postoperative morbidity, and mortality at 90 days were similar. CONCLUSION: The results of this randomized clinical trial did not favor the use of RS during DP to reduce the rate of PF.

Data-sharing and re-analysis for main studies assessed by the European Medicines Agency-a cross-sectional study on European Public Assessment Reports.

BACKGROUND: Transparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency. METHODS: Two researchers independently identified all studies on new medicines, biosimilars and orphan medicines given approval by the European Commission between January 2017 and December 2019, categorised as 'main studies' in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Sixty-two of these studies were randomly sampled. One researcher retrieved the individual patient data (IPD) for these studies and prepared a dossier for each study, containing the IPD, the protocol and information on the conduct of the study. A second researcher who had no access to study reports used the dossier to run an independent re-analysis of each trial. All results of these re-analyses were reported in terms of each study's conclusions, p-values, effect sizes and changes from the initial protocol. A team of two researchers not involved in the re-analysis compared results of the re-analyses with published results of the trial. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-two main studies in 173 EPARs were identified. Among the 62 studies randomly sampled, we received IPD for 10 trials. The median number of days between data request and data receipt was 253 [interquartile range 182-469]. For these ten trials, we identified 23 distinct primary outcomes for which the conclusions were reproduced in all re-analyses. Therefore, 10/62 trials (16% [95% confidence interval 8% to 28%]) were reproduced, as the 52 studies without available data were considered non-reproducible. There was no change from the original study protocol regarding the primary outcome in any of these ten studies. Spin was observed in the report of one study. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their results supporting decisions that affect millions of people's health across the European Union, most main studies used in EPARs lack transparency and their results are not reproducible for external researchers. Re-analyses of the few trials with available data showed very good inferential reproducibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/mcw3t/.

Tivozanib in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review of the evidence and its dissemination in the scientific literature.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib (Fotivda) is an anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor that was denied access to the US market by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In contrast, it was granted approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma in adults. Given the conflicting decisions from these regulatory agencies, the objectives of the following study are (i) to critically review the evidence supporting the approval of tivozanib; (ii) to analyse the dissemination of this evidence in the literature by way of a citation analysis. METHODS: Pivotal trials were searched by two independent reviewers using Medline, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Public Assessment Report. The risk of bias for each trial was then inductively assessed. Articles citing any of these trials were identified using Web of Sciences. Finally, the quality of the citations was evaluated by two independent reviewers according to standard data extraction methods. RESULTS: The search for primary evidence identified two pivotal studies: TIVO-1 upon which the FDA and the EMA decisions were based, and TIVO-3 which was conducted after the agencies' decisions had been issued. The TIVO-1 trial presented several limitations that compromised causal inference, in relation to (i) design (absence of blinding, inappropriate comparator, and one-way crossover), (ii) poor internal consistency in the results for the primary endpoint, (iii) a discrepancy between a benefit observed for progression-free survival (HR: 0.80, 95% CI [0.64-0.99]) and the absence of difference for overall survival (HR: 1.25, 95% CI [0.95 - 1.62]). Our citation search protocol identified 229 articles that cited TIVO-1 in the 7 years following its publication, among which 151 (65.9%) citing articles discussing efficacy. Presence of spin was identified in 64 (42.4%) of these 151 citing articles, and 39 (25.8%) additional articles citing results without providing enough elements to interpret the TIVO-1 results. CONCLUSION: EMA's approval was based on a single pivotal trial presenting critical limitations, rendering the results from the trial potentially inconclusive. The broad dissemination of TIVO-1 results in the scientific literature may have been affected by spin or results were presented in an inadequate critical manner.

General Anesthesia versus Sedation, Both with Hemodynamic Control, during Intraarterial Treatment for Stroke: The GASS Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is speculated that the anesthetic strategy during endovascular therapy for stroke may have an impact on the outcome of the patients. The authors hypothesized that conscious sedation is associated with a better functional outcome 3 months after endovascular therapy for the treatment of stroke compared with general anesthesia. METHODS: In this single-blind, randomized trial, patients received either a standardized general anesthesia or a standardized conscious sedation. Blood pressure control was also standardized in both groups. The primary outcome measure was a modified Rankin score less than or equal to 2 (0 = no symptoms; 5 = severe disability) assessed 3 months after treatment. The main secondary outcomes were complications, mortality, reperfusion results, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scores at days 1 and 7. RESULTS: Of 351 randomized patients, 345 were included in the analysis. The primary outcome occurred in 129 of 341 (38%) of the patients: 63 (36%) in the conscious sedation group and 66 (40%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.19]; P = 0.474). Patients in the general anesthesia group experienced more intraoperative hypo- or hypertensive episodes, while the cumulative duration was not different (mean ± SD, 36 ± 31 vs. 39 ± 25 min; P = 0.079). The time from onset and from arrival to puncture were longer in the general anesthesia group (mean difference, 19 min [i.e., -00:19] [95% CI, -0:38 to 0] and mean difference, 9 min [95% CI, -0:18 to -0:01], respectively), while the time from onset to recanalization was similar in both groups. Recanalization was more often successful in the general anesthesia group (144 of 169 [85%] vs. 131 of 174 [75%]; P = 0.021). The incidence of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The functional outcomes 3 months after endovascular treatment for stroke were similar with general anesthesia and sedation. Our results, therefore, suggest that clinicians can use either approach.

Balanced Opioid-free Anesthesia with Dexmedetomidine versus Balanced Anesthesia with Remifentanil for Major or Intermediate Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: It is speculated that opioid-free anesthesia may provide adequate pain control while reducing postoperative opioid consumption. However, there is currently no evidence to support the speculation. The authors hypothesized that opioid-free balanced anesthetic with dexmedetomidine reduces postoperative opioid-related adverse events compared with balanced anesthetic with remifentanil. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive a standard balanced anesthetic with either intraoperative remifentanil plus morphine (remifentanil group) or dexmedetomidine (opioid-free group). All patients received intraoperative propofol, desflurane, dexamethasone, lidocaine infusion, ketamine infusion, neuromuscular blockade, and postoperative lidocaine infusion, paracetamol, nefopam, and patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative opioid-related adverse events (hypoxemia, ileus, or cognitive dysfunction) within the first 48 h after extubation. The main secondary outcomes were episodes of postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: The study was stopped prematurely because of five cases of severe bradycardia in the dexmedetomidine group. The primary composite outcome occurred in 122 of 156 (78%) dexmedetomidine group patients compared with 105 of 156 (67%) in the remifentanil group (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33; P = 0.031). Hypoxemia occurred 110 of 152 (72%) of dexmedetomidine group and 94 of 155 (61%) of remifentanil group patients (relative risk, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.40; P = 0.030). There were no differences in ileus or cognitive dysfunction. Cumulative 0 to 48 h postoperative morphine consumption (11 mg [5 to 21] versus 6 mg [0 to 17]) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (58 of 157 [37%] versus 37 of 157 [24%]; relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.90) were both less in the dexmedetomidine group, whereas measures of analgesia were similar in both groups. Dexmedetomidine patients had more delayed extubation and prolonged postanesthesia care unit stay. CONCLUSIONS: This trial refuted the hypothesis that balanced opioid-free anesthesia with dexmedetomidine, compared with remifentanil, would result in fewer postoperative opioid-related adverse events. Conversely, it did result in a greater incidence of serious adverse events, especially hypoxemia and bradycardia.

Use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and prognosis of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes: A propensity score analysis from the CORONADO study.

AIM: To investigate the association between routine use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in patient with type 2 diabetes in a large multicentric study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of the CORONADO study on 2449 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) hospitalized for COVID-19 in 68 French centres. The composite primary endpoint combined tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and death within 7 days of admission. Stabilized weights were computed for patients based on propensity score (DPP-4 inhibitors users vs. non-users) and were used in multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the average treatment effect in the treated as inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS: Five hundred and ninety-six participants were under DPP-4 inhibitors before admission to hospital (24.3%). The primary outcome occurred at similar rates in users and non-users of DPP-4 inhibitors (27.7% vs. 28.6%; p = .68). In propensity analysis, the IPTW-adjusted models showed no significant association between the use of DPP-4 inhibitors and the primary outcome by Day 7 (OR [95% CI]: 0.95 [0.77-1.17]) or Day 28 (OR [95% CI]: 0.96 [0.78-1.17]). Similar neutral findings were found between use of DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of tracheal intubation and death. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the safety of DPP-4 inhibitors for diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic and they should not be discontinued.

Correction to: Phenotypic characteristics and prognosis of inpatients with COVID-19 and diabetes: the CORONADO study.

The authors regret a mistake in Table 1.

Phenotypic characteristics and prognosis of inpatients with COVID-19 and diabetes: the CORONADO study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is a life-threatening infection caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Diabetes has rapidly emerged as a major comorbidity for COVID-19 severity. However, the phenotypic characteristics of diabetes in COVID-19 patients are unknown. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide multicentre observational study in people with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19 in 53 French centres in the period 10-31 March 2020. The primary outcome combined tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and/or death within 7 days of admission. Age- and sex-adjusted multivariable logistic regressions were performed to assess the prognostic value of clinical and biological features with the endpoint. ORs are reported for a 1 SD increase after standardisation. RESULTS: The current analysis focused on 1317 participants: 64.9% men, mean age 69.8 ± 13.0 years, median BMI 28.4 (25th-75th percentile: 25.0-32.7) kg/m2; with a predominance of type 2 diabetes (88.5%). Microvascular and macrovascular diabetic complications were found in 46.8% and 40.8% of cases, respectively. The primary outcome was encountered in 29.0% (95% CI 26.6, 31.5) of participants, while 10.6% (9.0, 12.4) died and 18.0% (16.0, 20.2) were discharged on day 7. In univariate analysis, characteristics prior to admission significantly associated with the primary outcome were sex, BMI and previous treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers, but not age, type of diabetes, HbA1c, diabetic complications or glucose-lowering therapies. In multivariable analyses with covariates prior to admission, only BMI remained positively associated with the primary outcome (OR 1.28 [1.10, 1.47]). On admission, dyspnoea (OR 2.10 [1.31, 3.35]), as well as lymphocyte count (OR 0.67 [0.50, 0.88]), C-reactive protein (OR 1.93 [1.43, 2.59]) and AST (OR 2.23 [1.70, 2.93]) levels were independent predictors of the primary outcome. Finally, age (OR 2.48 [1.74, 3.53]), treated obstructive sleep apnoea (OR 2.80 [1.46, 5.38]), and microvascular (OR 2.14 [1.16, 3.94]) and macrovascular complications (OR 2.54 [1.44, 4.50]) were independently associated with the risk of death on day 7. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATIONS: In people with diabetes hospitalised for COVID-19, BMI, but not long-term glucose control, was positively and independently associated with tracheal intubation and/or death within 7 days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04324736.

Hypnosis and communication reduce pain and anxiety in peripheral intravenous cannulation: Effect of Language and Confusion on Pain During Peripheral Intravenous Catheterization (KTHYPE), a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians traditionally warn patients of pain before peripheral i.v. cannulation (PIVC). However, using words related to pain or undesirable experiences can result in greater pain and anxiety. The use of positive words can improve pain perception and subjective patient experience. We aimed to compare the effects of three types of communication, including hypnotic communication, on pain, comfort, and anxiety in patients during PIVC. METHODS: The Effect of Language and Confusion on Pain During Peripheral Intravenous Catheterization (KTHYPE) trial is a randomised, parallel, single-blind, multicentre study of patients undergoing PIVC on the dorsal face of the hand before surgery. Patients from three hospitals were randomly allocated to one of three groups: PIVC performed with a hypnosis technique (hypnosis group), negative connotation (nocebo group), and neutral connotation (neutral group). The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of pain measured with a 0-10 numerical rating scale just after PIVC. RESULTS: Of the 272 subjects analysed (hypnosis, n=89; nocebo, n=92; neutral, n=91), pain after PIVC was lower in the hypnosis group (mean [standard deviation]; range) (1.5 [1.9]; 0-5) compared with the neutral (3.5 [2.3]; 0-9; P<0.0001) and nocebo groups (3.8 [2.5]; 0-10; P<0.0001). Whilst anxiety was higher and comfort lower before PIVC in the hypnosis group, anxiety decreased and comfort perception increased after PIVC when hypnosis was used. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first well-designed RCTs showing a significant benefit of a hypnosis technique during a routine procedure, such as PIVC. The results could facilitate implementation of hypnosis in daily clinical care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02662322.

Vibration of effects from diverse inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical choices: 9216 different ways to perform an indirect comparison meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different methodological choices such as inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical models can yield different results and inferences when meta-analyses are performed. We explored the range of such differences, using several methodological choices for indirect comparison meta-analyses to compare nalmefene and naltrexone in the reduction of alcohol consumption as a case study. METHODS: All double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nalmefene to naltrexone or one of these compounds to a placebo in the treatment of alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorders were considered. Two reviewers searched for published and unpublished studies in MEDLINE (August 2017), the Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov and contacted pharmaceutical companies, the European Medicines Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration. The indirect comparison meta-analyses were performed according to different inclusion/exclusion criteria (based on medical condition, abstinence of patients before inclusion, gender, somatic and psychiatric comorbidity, psychological support, treatment administered and dose, treatment duration, outcome reported, publication status, and risk of bias) and different analytical models (fixed and random effects). The primary outcome was the vibration of effects (VoE), i.e. the range of different results of the indirect comparison between nalmefene and naltrexone. The presence of a "Janus effect" was investigated, i.e. whether the 1st and 99th percentiles in the distribution of effect sizes were in opposite directions. RESULTS: Nine nalmefene and 51 naltrexone RCTs were included. No study provided a direct comparison between the drugs. We performed 9216 meta-analyses for the indirect comparison with a median of 16 RCTs (interquartile range = 12-21) included in each meta-analysis. The standardized effect size was negative at the 1st percentile (- 0.29, favouring nalmefene) and positive at the 99th percentile (0.29, favouring naltrexone). A total of 7.1% (425/5961) of the meta-analyses with a negative effect size and 18.9% (616/3255) of those with a positive effect size were statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical models for meta-analysis can result in entirely opposite results. VoE evaluations could be performed when overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic yield contradictory result. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on October 19, 2016, in the Open Science Framework (OSF, protocol available at https://osf.io/7bq4y/ ).

Impact of a targeted monitoring on data-quality and data-management workload of randomized controlled trials: A prospective comparative study.

AIMS: Monitoring risk-based approaches in clinical trials are encouraged by regulatory guidance. However, the impact of a targeted source data verification (SDV) on data-management (DM) workload and on final data quality needs to be addressed. METHODS: MONITORING was a prospective study aiming at comparing full SDV (100% of data verified for all patients) and targeted SDV (only key data verified for all patients) followed by the same DM program (detecting missing data and checking consistency) on final data quality, global workload and staffing costs. RESULTS: In all, 137 008 data including 18 124 key data were collected for 126 patients from 6 clinical trials. Compared to the final database obtained using the full SDV monitoring process, the final database obtained using the targeted SDV monitoring process had a residual error rate of 1.47% (95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.53%) on overall data and 0.78% (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.91%) on key data. There were nearly 4 times more queries per study with targeted SDV than with full SDV (mean ± standard deviation: 132 ± 101 vs 34 ± 26; P = .03). For a handling time of 15 minutes per query, the global workload of the targeted SDV monitoring strategy remained below that of the full SDV monitoring strategy. From 25 minutes per query it was above, increasing progressively to represent a 50% increase for 45 minutes per query. CONCLUSION: Targeted SDV monitoring is accompanied by increased workload for DM, which allows to obtain a small proportion of remaining errors on key data (<1%), but may substantially increase trial costs.

The contribution of genomics in the medicine of tomorrow, clinical applications and issues.

Fifteen years after the completion of first human genome sequencing, the technique is almost a commodity but there is still little evidence of its usefulness as a diagnostic, prognostic or therapeutic tool. In France, the France genomics plan 2025 was launched in 2015 with the goal of integrating genomic tests into clinical practice and developing a National genomics network including industrial partnerships. Reflection on scientific applications and operational or societal issues is needed to make recommendations to help better associate Genomics and the medicine of tomorrow. In the perspective of personalized Evidence-based Medicine, studies with an appropriate methodological level to improve the definition of evidence should be promoted. The many operational challenges require the implementation of organisations and means to streamline the process of results reporting, and regulatory adaptations concerning the status of professions involved, the management of data generated, and the consent of patients. In parallel, genetic training for healthcare professionals and raising awareness on genetic tests for the public should be considered. The ethical stake should also be taken into account, especially on the participation of the patient in decisions concerning them and integrating the notion of uncertainty into the information given. The sociological effects on the experience and expectations of patients and the general population towards genomic medicine should also be evaluated to improve information, prevention and support for people. Finally, medico-economic studies must be conducted to inform policy-makers on the cost-effectiveness of complete genome sequencing for population health.

Consumption of a Carbonated Beverage with High-Intensity Sweeteners Has No Effect on Insulin Sensitivity and Secretion in Nondiabetic Adults.

Background: The effects of the regular intake of beverages containing high-intensity sweeteners on insulin sensitivity in healthy individuals remain controversial. Objective: This trial compared the effects of the consumption of a carbonated beverage containing aspartame and acesulfame K (high-intensity sweeteners beverage-HISB) with those of an unsweetened, no-calorie carbonated beverage (UB) on insulin sensitivity and secretion in nondiabetic adults. Methods: SEDULC was a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Nondiabetic adults [mean age 31 y, 44% men, body mass index (BMI; kg/m²) 19-29] who did not consume high-intensity sweeteners were randomized 1:1 to drink 1 of the 2 carbonated beverages, 2 cans (330 mL each)/d, for 12 wk. After a 4-wk washout period, participants were switched to the opposite beverage for 12 wk. The primary outcome tested was the change in insulin sensitivity as assessed by the Matsuda Insulin Sensitivity Index (MISI) after an oral glucose load. Secondary outcomes were indexes of insulin secretion. Results: Sixty individuals were enrolled and 50 completed the study (28 nonoverweight and 22 overweight participants). The change in MISI from baseline did not significantly differ between beverages and noninferiority was demonstrated (difference = -0.23; 95% CI: -1.31, 0.85; P < 0.0001). The change in insulinogenic (means ± SEMs: 0.23 ± 0.14 for HISB compared with 0.08 ± 0.1 for UB) and disposition indexes (2.70 ± 0.99 for HISB compared with 1.62 ± 0.90 for UB) did not differ, and no differences in insulin secretion estimates were confirmed by the Stumvoll indexes. Consuming the high-intensity sweeteners did not affect body weight, self-reported dietary consumption, or self-reported physical activity. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the daily consumption of 2 cans of a beverage containing aspartame and acesulfame K over 12 wk has no significant effect on insulin sensitivity and secretion in nondiabetic adults. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02031497.

Serum hCG threshold to assess medical abortion success.

OBJECTIVES: The main aim of the study was to establish a threshold for serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) level that ruled out ongoing pregnancy after induced medical abortion (MA). The secondary aim was to discover risk factors for the need for uterine aspiration. METHODS: This prospective study included women who underwent MA with mifepristone-misoprostol at ≤9 weeks of gestation between 2012 and 2014. Serum hCG levels were measured 14-21 days after MA. The main outcome measure, ongoing pregnancy, was defined as the presence of an embryo with cardiac activity on transvaginal ultrasonography after MA. The receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted to determine the optimal serum hCG threshold. Risk factors for the need for uterine aspiration were calculated using multivariate logistic regression and expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The study included 814 women. Mean gestational age was 46.5 ± 7.4 days for ongoing pregnancies and 44.2 ± 4.8 days for MA success (p = .43). The ongoing pregnancy rate after MA was 0.9%. A serum hCG threshold ≥900 IU/l to diagnose ongoing pregnancy gave 100% sensitivity and 81.5% specificity, compared with 85.7% sensitivity and 83.5% specificity using a threshold ≥1000 IU/l. Independent risk factors for uterine aspiration requirement were: gravidity (OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.1, 13.2; p = .001), gestational age >6 weeks (OR 6.0; 95% CI 1.8, 6.0; p = .006) and previous surgical abortion (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.1, 5.2; p < .001). CONCLUSION: Serum hCG measurement <900 IU/l, 14-21 days after MA, is an efficient strategy for excluding ongoing pregnancy after first trimester MA.

[ISO 9001certification of a quality management system in a clinical investigation center]. / Certification ISO 9001 d'un système de management qualité dans un centre d'investigation clinique.

Beyond the application of legal requirements, clinical trials must have a permanent approach of quality control. The clinical investigation centers (CICs) are academic structures of clinical research certified by the French National institute of health and medical research (Inserm) and whose functioning relies on recommendations of good practice. It is important to accompany this standardization of practices by the implementation of a quality management system. This article presents the process that enabled the CIC of Rennes to become certified ISO 9001 by French standards association (Afnor) certification in May, 2016. The application of the fundamental principles of the standard ISO 9001 in the domain of clinical research is approached. The problem of the perimeter for the certification and the related process mapping are exposed. The activities of methodology, management and analysis of clinical studies were chosen for the initial certification of the CIC of Rennes. The perspectives for the extension of the perimeter of certification are also approached at the end of article.

Effect of Continuous versus Intermittent Subglottic Suctioning on Tracheal Mucosa by the Mallinckrodt TaperGuard Evac Oral Tracheal Tube in Intensive Care Unit Ventilated Patients: A Prospective Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A risk of tracheal mucosa injury induced by subglottic suctioning has been raised. Therefore, this prospective randomized study aims to compare the effect of continuous suctioning of subglottic secretions versus intermittent suctioning of subglottic secretions (CSSS vs. ISSS) secretions on tracheal mucosa in front of the suctioning port of the endotracheal tube. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients requiring intubation or reintubation in Intensive Care Unit with an expected ventilation duration > 24 h were eligible. Participants received CSSS at -20 mmHg or ISSS at -100 mmHg during 15 s and no suction during 8 s. The effect on tracheal mucosa in front of the suction port was assessed after intubation (T0) and before extubation (T1) using bronchoscopy. Tracheal mucosa damages were graded into five categories (no injury, erythema, edema, ulceration, or necrosis). The occurrence (no injury observed at T0 but present at T1) or the worsening (injury observed at T0 exacerbating at T1) was studied. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were included and 53 patients (CSSS, n = 26 and ISSS, n = 27) were evaluable on the primary endpoint. The occurrence or worsening of tracheal mucosal damages did not differ between the two groups (CSSS, n = 7 [27%] vs. ISSS, n = 5 [17%], P = 0.465). Daily average volume of suctioned secretion was higher with ISSS (74 ± 100 ml vs. 20 ± 25 ml, P < 0.001). Impossibility to aspirate was higher with CSSS (0.14 ± 0.16 per day vs. 0.03 ± 0.07 per day, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that tracheal mucosal damages did not differ between CSSS and ISSS. The aspirated volume was higher and impossibility to aspirate was lower with ISSS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01555229.