Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain control in women with primary dysmenorrhoea.

BACKGROUND: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological treatment that works by delivering electrical currents via electrodes attached to the skin at the site of pain. It can be an alternative to pharmacological treatments. The mechanism of action of TENS for pain relief is related to the inhibition of the transmission of painful stimuli, release of endogenous opioids, and reduced muscle ischaemia of the uterus. Although it has been used for primary dysmenorrhoea ((PD); period pain or menstrual cramps), evidence of the efficacy and safety of high-frequency TENS, low-frequency TENS, or other treatments for PD is limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in comparison with placebo, no treatment, and other treatments for primary dysmenorrhoea (PD). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialized Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, and the Korean and Chinese language databases up to 9 April 2024. We also searched for ongoing trials in trials registries and the reference lists of relevant studies for additional trials. Language restrictions were not applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included women (aged 12 to 49 years) with PD. Included trials compared low-frequency TENS or high-frequency TENS with other TENS, placebo, or other treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors screened the trials, extracted the data according to the protocol, assessed the risk of bias using RoB 2, and assessed the certainty of evidence for all review comparisons and primary outcomes (i.e. pain relief and adverse effects) using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review replaces the current review, published in 2009. We included 20 RCTs involving 585 randomized women with high-frequency TENS, low-frequency TENS, placebo or no treatment, or other treatment. We included five comparisons: high-frequency TENS versus placebo or no treatment, low-frequency TENS versus placebo or no treatment, high-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS, high-frequency TENS versus other treatments, and low-frequency TENS versus other treatments. High-frequency TENS versus placebo or no treatment High-frequency TENS may reduce pain compared with placebo or no treatment (mean difference (MD) -1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.51 to -0.28; 10 RCTs, 345 women; low-certainty evidence; I2 = 88%). Two out of three RCTs reported no adverse effects and hence we were unable to estimate the effect of high-frequency TENS on adverse effects. Low-frequency TENS versus placebo or no treatment Low-frequency TENS may reduce pain compared with placebo or no treatment (MD -2.04, 95% CI -2.95 to -1.14; 3 RCTs, 645 women; low-certainty evidence; I2 = 0%). No trials reported adverse effects for this comparison. High-frequency TENS versus low-frequency TENS It is uncertain whether high-frequency TENS had an effect on pain relief compared with low-frequency TENS (MD 0.89, 95% CI -0.19 to 1.96; 3 RCTs, 54 women; low-certainty evidence; I2 = 0%). One trial contributed data on adverse effects but no adverse events occurred. High-frequency TENS versus other treatments It is uncertain whether high-frequency TENS had an effect on pain relief compared to acupressure (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.72 to 0.40; 1 RCT, 18 women; very low-certainty evidence), acetaminophen (paracetamol) (MD -0.98, 95% CI -3.30 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence), and interferential current therapy (MD -0.03, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.98; 2 RCTs, 62 women; low-certainty evidence; I2 = 0%). The occurrence of adverse effects may not differ significantly between high-frequency TENS and NSAIDs (OR 12.06, 95% CI 0.26 to 570.62; 2 RCTs, 88 women; low-certainty evidence; I2 = 78%). Low-frequency TENS versus other treatments It is uncertain whether low-frequency TENS had an effect on pain relief compared with acetaminophen (MD -1.48, 95% CI -3.61 to 0.65; 1 RCT, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported adverse effects for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-frequency TENS and low-frequency TENS may reduce pain compared with placebo or no treatment. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the risk of bias. Future RCTs should focus more on secondary outcomes of this review (e.g. requirement for additional analgesics, limitation of daily activities, or health-related quality of life) and should be designed to ensure a low risk of bias.

Immunosuppressive therapy for IgA nephropathy in children.

BACKGROUND: IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is the most common cause of primary glomerulonephritis. It is a heterogeneous disease with different presentations and high morbidity. Thirty per cent of adults and 20% of children (followed into adulthood) will have a 50% decline in kidney function or develop kidney failure after 10 years. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive therapy for the treatment of IgAN in children. SEARCH METHODS: We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 03 October 2023 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) investigating the treatment of IgAN in children with immunosuppressive therapies compared to placebo, no treatment, supportive care, standard therapy (Japanese protocol), other immunosuppressive therapies or non-immunosuppressive therapies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses were used to summarise estimates of treatment effects. Treatment effects were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the ROBIN-I tool for NRSIs. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). MAIN RESULTS: This review included 13 studies with 686 participants. Ten RCTs included 334 children and 191 adults, and three NRSIs included 151 participants, all children. Most participants had mild kidney disease. The risk of bias was unclear for most of the domains relating to allocation concealment, blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessment. In children with IgAN, it is uncertain if corticosteroid (steroid) therapy, compared to placebo reduces proteinuria (1 study, 64 children and young adults: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.72; low certainty evidence) or the decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (1 study, 64 children and young adults: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.39; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain if steroids reduce proteinuria compared to supportive care (2 studies, 61 children: RR 0.04, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.72; low certainty evidence). Adverse events associated with steroid therapy were not assessed due to heterogeneity in steroid protocols, including dose and duration, and lack of systematic assessment for adverse events in the included studies. Azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, mizoribine, or cyclophosphamide alone or in combination with steroid therapy had uncertain effects on improving proteinuria or preventing eGFR decline in children with IgAN. Fish oil, vitamin E and tonsillectomy had uncertain effects on improving proteinuria or preventing eGFR decline. Effects of other immunosuppressive therapies, secondary outcomes and adverse events were not assessed due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide the management of IgAN in children. There is no evidence to indicate that steroids, other immunosuppressive therapies, or tonsillectomy, when added to optimal supportive care, prevent a decline in eGFR or proteinuria in children with IgAN. Available studies were few, with small numbers, low-quality evidence, high or uncertain risk of bias, did not systematically assess harms associated with treatment, or report net benefits or harms. Severe cases and atypical presentations of IgAN were not included in the reviewed studies, and our findings cannot be generalised to these situations.

Matched vs Nonmatched Placebos in a Randomized Trial of COVID-19 Treatments.

Importance: Matched placebo interventions are complex and resource intensive. Recent evidence suggests matched placebos may not always be necessary. Previous studies have predominantly evaluated potential bias of nonmatched placebos (ie, differing on dose, frequency of administration, or formulation) in pain and mental health, but to date no systematic examination has been conducted in infectious disease. Objective: To test for differences between nonmatched and matched placebo arms with respect to clinical outcome measures across multiple therapeutics for COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a comparative effectiveness research study, a post hoc analysis was conducted of data on individual patients enrolled in a large, multiarm, platform randomized clinical trial in symptomatic adult outpatients with COVID-19 between January 15, 2021, to September 28, 2023, in which the outcomes of both matched and nonmatched placebo groups were reported. Bayesian and frequentist covariate-adjusted techniques were compared with 7 intervention-placebo pairs. Exposures: Seven matched and nonmatched placebo pairs (for a total of 7 comparisons) were evaluated throughout the primary platform trial. Comparisons were made between treatment and its associated matched (concurrent) placebo, as well as with nonmatched placebo (alone and in combination) assessed at a similar time point. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes assessed included hospitalizations, EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level scores, and PROMIS Global-10 scores. Results: A total of 7 intervention-control pairs (N = 2684) were assessed, including 1620 (60.4%) women, with mean (SD) age, 47 (15.2) years; the most common comorbidities were obesity (41.9%) and hypertension (37.9%). In a meta-analysis with decoupled SEs, accounting for overlapping placebo patients, the overall odds ratio (OR) of nonmatched compared with matched placebo was 1.01 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.32), with posterior probability of equivalence, defined as 0.8 ≤ OR ≤ 1.2 (a deviation from perfect equivalence ie, OR = 1, by no more than 0.2) of 85.4%, implying no significant difference. Unadjusted analysis of the event rate difference between all nonmatched and matched placebo groups did not identify any notable differences across all 7 treatment-placebo combinations assessed. Similar analysis that was conducted for patient-reported quality of life outcomes did not yield statistically significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc study of a randomized clinical platform trial, pooling matched and nonmatched placebo patient data did not lead to inconsistencies in treatment effect estimation for any of the investigational drugs. These findings may have significant implications for future platform trials, as the use of nonmatched placebo may improve statistical power, or reduce barriers to placebo implementation.

Early pharmacological interventions for prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in individuals experiencing acute traumatic stress symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Acute traumatic stress symptoms may develop in people who have been exposed to a traumatic event. Although they are usually self-limiting in time, some people develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a severe and debilitating condition. Pharmacological interventions have been proposed for acute symptoms to act as an indicated prevention measure for PTSD development. As many individuals will spontaneously remit, these interventions should balance efficacy and tolerability. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of early pharmacological interventions for prevention of PTSD in adults experiencing acute traumatic stress symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The search was last updated on 23 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials on adults exposed to any kind of traumatic event and presenting acute traumatic stress symptoms, without restriction on their severity. We considered comparisons of any medication with placebo, or with another medication. We excluded trials that investigated medications as an augmentation to psychotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Using a random-effects model, we analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) and calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH). We analysed continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD). Our primary outcomes were PTSD severity and dropouts due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included PTSD rate, functional disability and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies that considered four interventions (escitalopram, hydrocortisone, intranasal oxytocin, temazepam) and involved a total of 779 participants. The largest trial contributed 353 participants and the next largest, 120 and 118 participants respectively. The trials enrolled participants admitted to trauma centres or emergency departments. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally low except for attrition rate, which we rated as high-risk. We could meta-analyse data for two comparisons: escitalopram versus placebo (but limited to secondary outcomes) and hydrocortisone versus placebo. One study compared escitalopram to placebo at our primary time point of three months after the traumatic event. There was inconclusive evidence of any difference in terms of PTSD severity (mean difference (MD) on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS, score range 0 to 136) -11.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.56 to 1.86; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence), dropouts due to adverse events (no participant left the study early due to adverse events; 1 study, 31 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and PTSD rates (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.03 to 13.08; NNTB 37, 95% CI NNTB 15 to NNTH 1; 1 study, 23 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not assess functional disability or quality of life. Three studies compared hydrocortisone to placebo at our primary time point of three months after the traumatic event. We found inconclusive evidence on whether hydrocortisone was more effective in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms compared to placebo (MD on CAPS -7.53, 95% CI -25.20 to 10.13; I2 = 85%; 3 studies, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduced the risk of developing PTSD (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.38; NNTB 14, 95% CI NNTB 8 to NNTH 5; I2 = 36%; 3 studies, 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Evidence on the risk of dropping out due to adverse events is inconclusive (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.13 to 75.43; 2 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether hydrocortisone might improve quality of life (MD on the SF-36 (score range 0 to 136, higher is better) 19.70, 95% CI -1.10 to 40.50; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No study assessed functional disability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides uncertain evidence regarding the use of escitalopram, hydrocortisone, intranasal oxytocin and temazepam for people with acute stress symptoms. It is therefore unclear whether these pharmacological interventions exert a positive or negative effect in this population. It is important to note that acute traumatic stress symptoms are often limited in time, and that the lack of data prevents the careful assessment of expected benefits against side effects that is therefore required. To yield stronger conclusions regarding both positive and negative outcomes, larger sample sizes are required. A common operational framework of criteria for inclusion and baseline assessment might help in better understanding who, if anyone, benefits from an intervention. As symptom severity alone does not provide the full picture of the impact of exposure to trauma, assessment of quality of life and functional impairment would provide a more comprehensive picture of the effects of the interventions. The assessment and reporting of side effects may facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of tolerability.

Antioxidant supplementation for sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) refers to a group of genetic disorders characterized by the presence of an abnormal haemoglobin molecule called haemoglobin S (HbS). When subjected to oxidative stress from low oxygen concentrations, HbS molecules form rigid polymers, giving the red cell the typical sickle shape. Antioxidants have been shown to reduce oxidative stress and improve outcomes in other diseases associated with oxidative stress. Therefore, it is important to review and synthesize the available evidence on the effect of antioxidants on the clinical outcomes of people with SCD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antioxidant supplementation for improving health outcomes in people with SCD. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 15 August 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing antioxidant supplementation to placebo, other antioxidants, or different doses of antioxidants, in people with SCD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence, and reported according to Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 1609 participants in 26 studies, with 17 comparisons. We rated 13 studies as having a high risk of bias overall, and 13 studies as having an unclear risk of bias overall due to study limitations. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence. Only eight studies reported on our important outcomes at six months. Vitamin C (1400 mg) plus vitamin E (800 mg) versus placebo Based on evidence from one study in 83 participants, vitamin C (1400 mg) plus vitamin E (800 mg) may not be better than placebo at reducing the frequency of crisis (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 2.18), the severity of pain (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.37), or adverse effects (AE), of which the most common were headache, nausea, fatigue, diarrhoea, and epigastric pain (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.00). Vitamin C plus vitamin E may increase the risk of SCD-related complications (acute chest syndrome: RR 2.66, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.13; 1 study, 83 participants), and increase haemoglobin level (median (interquartile range) 90 (81 to 96) g/L versus 93.5 (84 to 105) g/L) (1 study, 83 participants) compared to placebo. However, the evidence for all the above effects is very uncertain. The study did not report on quality of life (QoL) of participants and their caregivers, nor on frequency of hospitalization. Zinc versus placebo Zinc may not be better than placebo at reducing the frequency of crisis at six months (rate ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.29; 1 study, 36 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether zinc is better than placebo at improving sickle cell-related complications (complete healing of leg ulcers at six months: RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 6.72; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Zinc may be better than placebo at increasing haemoglobin level (g/dL) (MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.26; 1 study, 36 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on severity of pain, QoL, AE, and frequency of hospitalization. N-acetylcysteine versus placebo N-acetylcysteine (NAC) 1200 mg may not be better than placebo at reducing the frequency of crisis in SCD, reported as pain days (rate ratio 0.99 days, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.84; 1 study, 96 participants; low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from one study (96 participants) suggests NAC (1200 mg) may not be better than placebo at reducing the severity of pain (MD 0.17, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.87). Compared to placebo, NAC (1200 mg) may not be better at improving physical QoL (MD -1.80, 95% CI -5.01 to 1.41) and mental QoL (MD 2.00, 95% CI -1.45 to 5.45; very low-certainty evidence), reducing the risk of adverse effects (gastrointestinal complaints, pruritus, or rash) (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.14; low-certainty evidence), reducing the frequency of hospitalizations (rate ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; low-certainty evidence), and sickle cell-related complications (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 101.48; very low-certainty evidence), or increasing haemoglobin level (MD -0.18 g/dL, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.04; low-certainty evidence). L-arginine versus placebo L-arginine may not be better than placebo at reducing the frequency of crisis (monthly pain) (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.95; 1 study, 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, L-arginine may be better than placebo at reducing the severity of pain (MD -1.41, 95% CI -1.65 to -1.18; 2 studies, 125 participants; low-certainty evidence). One participant allocated to L-arginine developed hives during infusion of L-arginine, another experienced acute clinical deterioration, and a participant in the placebo group had clinically relevant increases in liver function enzymes. The evidence is very uncertain whether L-arginine is better at reducing the mean number of days in hospital compared to placebo (MD -0.85 days, 95% CI -1.87 to 0.17; 2 studies, 125 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Also, L-arginine may not be better than placebo at increasing haemoglobin level (MD 0.4 g/dL, 95% CI -0.50 to 1.3; 2 studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study in this comparison reported on QoL and sickle cell-related complications. Omega-3 versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence shows no evidence of a difference in the risk of adverse effects of omega-3 compared to placebo (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.48; 1 study, 67 participants). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that omega-3 may not be better than placebo at increasing haemoglobin level (MD 0.36 g/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.93; 1 study, 67 participants). The study did not report on frequency of crisis, severity of pain, QoL, frequency of hospitalization, and sickle cell-related complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was inconsistent evidence on all outcomes to draw conclusions on the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidants. However, L-arginine may be better than placebo at reducing the severity of pain at six months, and zinc may be better than placebo at increasing haemoglobin level. We are uncertain whether other antioxidants are beneficial for SCD. Larger studies conducted on each comparison would reduce the current uncertainties.

Comparative effectiveness of different placebos and comparator groups for hand osteoarthritis exploring the impact of contextual factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the pain relief effects of comparators (placebos and untreated control groups) in hand osteoarthritis trials and the impact of contextual factors. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to December 26, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials of people with hand osteoarthritis with a placebo or an untreated control group. We assessed the Risk of Bias with Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool version 2. Each comparator was contrasted with a null-arm, imputed as having a zero change from baseline with the same standard deviation as the comparator. We combined the standardised mean differences with a random effects meta-analysis. The contextual factors' effect was explored in meta-regression and stratified models with pain as the dependent variable. RESULTS: 84 trials (7262 participants) were eligible for quantitative synthesis, of which 76 (6462 participants) were eligible for the stratified analyses. Placebos were superior to their matched null-arms in relieving pain with an effect size of -0.51 (95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.42), while untreated control groups were not. When analysing all comparators, blinded trial designs and low risk of bias were associated with higher pain relief compared to an open-label trial design and some concern or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The placebo response on pain for people with hand osteoarthritis was increased by appropriate blinding and a lower risk of bias assessment. Placebos were superior to a null-arm, while untreated control groups were not. Results emphasise the importance of using appropriate comparators in clinical trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42022298984.

Antibiotics for treatment of leptospirosis.

BACKGROUND: Leptospirosis is a disease transmitted from animals to humans through water, soil, or food contaminated with the urine of infected animals, caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for the management of leptospirosis. Despite the widespread use of antibiotic treatment for leptospirosis, there seems to be insufficient evidence to determine its effectiveness or to recommend antibiotic use as a standard practice. This updated systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the use of antibiotics in treating leptospirosis, building upon a previously published Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotics versus placebo, no intervention, or another antibiotic for the treatment of people with leptospirosis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised clinical trials following standard Cochrane procedures. The date of the last search was 27 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised clinical trials of various designs that examined the use of antibiotics for treating leptospirosis. We did not impose any restrictions based on the age, sex, occupation, or comorbidities of the participants involved in the trials. Our search encompassed trials that evaluated antibiotics, regardless of the method of administration, dosage, and schedule, and compared them with placebo or no intervention, or compared different antibiotics. We included trials regardless of the outcomes reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: During the preparation of this review, we adhered to the Cochrane methodology and used Review Manager. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events (nosocomial infection). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, proportion of people with adverse events considered non-serious, and days of hospitalisation. To assess the risk of bias of the included trials, we used the RoB 2 tool, and for evaluating the certainty of evidence we used GRADEpro GDT software. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD), both accompanied by their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the random-effects model for all our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. For our primary outcome analyses, we included trial data from the longest follow-up period. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine randomised clinical trials comprising 1019 participants. Seven trials compared two intervention groups and two trials compared three intervention groups. Amongst the trials comparing antibiotics versus placebos, four trials assessed penicillin and one trial assessed doxycycline. In the trials comparing different antibiotics, one trial evaluated doxycycline versus azithromycin, one trial assessed penicillin versus doxycycline versus cefotaxime, and one trial evaluated ceftriaxone versus penicillin. One trial assessed penicillin with chloramphenicol and no intervention. Apart from two trials that recruited military personnel stationed in endemic areas or military personnel returning from training courses in endemic areas, the remaining trials recruited people from the general population presenting to the hospital with fever in an endemic area. The participants' ages in the included trials was 13 to 92 years. The treatment duration was seven days for penicillin, doxycycline, and cephalosporins; five days for chloramphenicol; and three days for azithromycin. The follow-up durations varied across trials, with three trials not specifying their follow-up periods. Three trials were excluded from quantitative synthesis; one reported zero events for a prespecified outcome, and two did not provide data for any prespecified outcomes. Antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.79; I2 = 8%; 3 trials, 367 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin or chloramphenicol versus placebo on adverse events considered non-serious (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.17; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 162 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed serious adverse events. Antibiotics versus another antibiotic The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus cephalosporin on all-cause mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.04; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 348 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or versus doxycycline (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.46; 1 trial, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cefotaxime versus doxycycline on all-cause mortality (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.78; 1 trial, 169 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus doxycycline on serious adverse events (nosocomial infection) (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.62; 1 trial, 168 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or versus cefotaxime (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.02; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of doxycycline versus cefotaxime on serious adverse events (nosocomial infection) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.15 to 7.02; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of penicillin versus cefotaxime (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.47; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence), versus doxycycline (RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.66; 1 trial, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or versus chloramphenicol on adverse events considered non-serious (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.67; 1 trial, 52 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Funding Six of the nine trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources and three trials did not mention funding source. Four of the six trials mentioning sources received funds from public or governmental sources or from international charitable sources, and the remaining two, in addition to public or governmental sources, received support in the form of trial drug supply directly from pharmaceutical companies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As the certainty of evidence is very low, we do not know if antibiotics provide little to no effect on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, or adverse events considered non-serious. There is a lack of definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for treating leptospirosis infection, and the absence of trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes further adds to this limitation.

Intravenous immunoglobulin for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) causes progressive or relapsing weakness and numbness of the limbs, which lasts for at least two months. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) could help to reduce symptoms. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin in people with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 8 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that tested any dose of IVIg versus placebo, plasma exchange, or corticosteroids in people with definite or probable CIDP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was significant improvement in disability within six weeks after the start of treatment, as determined and defined by the study authors. Our secondary outcomes were change in mean disability score within six weeks, change in muscle strength (Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score) within six weeks, change in mean disability score at 24 weeks or later, frequency of serious adverse events, and frequency of any adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for our main outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with 372 participants (235 male) from Europe, North America, South America, and Israel. There was low statistical heterogeneity between the trial results, and the overall risk of bias was low for all trials that contributed data to the analysis. Five trials (235 participants) compared IVIg with placebo, one trial (20 participants) compared IVIg with plasma exchange, two trials (72 participants) compared IVIg with prednisolone, and one trial (45 participants) compared IVIg with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP). We included one new trial in this update, though it contributed no data to any meta-analyses. IVIg compared with placebo increases the probability of significant improvement in disability within six weeks of the start of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 3.36; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 5 trials, 269 participants; high-certainty evidence). Since each trial used a different disability scale and definition of significant improvement, we were unable to evaluate the clinical relevance of the pooled effect. IVIg compared with placebo improves disability measured on the Rankin scale (0 to 6, lower is better) two to six weeks after the start of treatment (mean difference (MD) -0.26 points, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.05; 3 trials, 90 participants; high-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with placebo probably improves disability measured on the Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) scale (1 to 10, lower is better) after 24 weeks (MD 0.80 points, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37; 1 trial, 117 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.87; 3 trials, 315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial comparing IVIg with plasma exchange reported none of our main outcomes. IVIg compared with prednisolone probably has little or no effect on the probability of significant improvement in disability four weeks after the start of treatment (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.68; 1 trial, 29 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and little or no effect on change in mean disability measured on the Rankin scale (MD 0.21 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.61; 1 trial, 24 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and prednisolone in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.69; 1 cross-over trial, 32 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably increases the likelihood of significant improvement in disability two weeks after starting treatment (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.38; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably has little or no effect on change in disability measured on the Rankin scale two weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.63; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or on change in mean disability measured with the Overall Neuropathy Limitation Scale (ONLS, 1 to 12, lower is better) 24 weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.03 points, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.97; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events may be higher with IVIg compared with IVMP (RR 4.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 86.78; 1 trial, 45 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from RCTs shows that IVIg improves disability for at least two to six weeks compared with placebo, with an NNTB of 4. During this period, IVIg probably has similar efficacy to oral prednisolone and IVMP. Further placebo-controlled trials are unlikely to change these conclusions. In one large trial, the benefit of IVIg compared with placebo in terms of improved disability score persisted for 24 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the long-term benefits and harms of IVIg relative to other treatments.

Baru nuts reduce abdominal adiposity in type 2 diabetic adults: a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial / Amêndoa de baru reduz a adiposidade abdominal de adultos com diabetes Mellitus tipo 2: um estudo randomizado, placebo-controlado, crossover

ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of baru nuts supplementation on body composition and metabolic profile in adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods: This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial with 30 adults with type 2 diabetes. The assay had two periods of 12 weeks each, with a washout period of 12 weeks between treatments. The subjects were randomized and received the two treatments in alternate periods: supplementation of 30g baru nuts or placebo. Anthropometry, body composition, blood pressure, blood sampling, food intake, and physical activity data were analyzed. Results: Baru nut intake reduced waist circumference (p=0.032), compared to placebo group. In the intra-group analysis, baru nut intake reduced total cholesterol (p=0.012) and LDL-c (p=0.017). Conclusion: The daily intake of baru nuts improved abdominal adiposity. Therefore, these nuts should be included in the diet to improve the health status of adults with type 2 diabetes.

RESUMO: Objetivo: Avaliar o efeito da suplementação com amêndoa de baru sobre a composição corporal e perfil metabólico de adultos com diabetes Mellitus tipo 2. Métodos: Este é um estudo randomizado, placebo-controlado, crossover com 30 adultos com diabetes Mellitus tipo 2. O ensaio clínico foi dividido em dois períodos de 12 semanas cada, com um washout de 12 semanas entre os tratamentos. Os sujeitos foram randomizados e receberam dois tratamentos em períodos alternativos: suplementação com 30 g de amêndoa de baru ou placebo. Foram coletados dados referentes à antropometria, composição corporal, pressão arterial, amostras de sangue, ingestão de alimentos e práticas de atividade física. Resultados: A ingestão de amêndoa de baru reduziu a circunferência da cintura (p=0,032), em comparação com o grupo placebo. Na análise intragrupo, a ingestão de amêndoa de baru também reduziu o colesterol total (p=0,012) e LDL-c (p=0,017). Conclusão: A ingestão diária de amêndoa de baru melhorou a adiposidade abdominal, portanto, deve ser incluída na dieta para a melhora do estado de saúde de adultos com diabetes Mellitus tipo 2.

Remotely Provided Open-Label Placebo Reduces Frequency of and Impairment by Allergic Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Placebos being prescribed with full honesty and disclosure (i.e., open-label placebo [OLP]) have been shown to reduce symptom burden in a variety of conditions. With regard to allergic rhinitis, previous research provided inconclusive evidence for the effects of OLP, possibly related to a separate focus on either symptom severity or symptom frequency. Overcoming this limitation of previous research, the present study aimed to examine the effects of OLP on both the severity and frequency of allergic symptoms. METHODS: In a randomized-controlled trial, patients with allergic rhinitis ( N = 74) were randomized to OLP or treatment as usual (TAU). Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, OLP was administered remotely in a virtual clinical encounter. Participants took placebo tablets for 14 days. The primary outcomes were the severity and frequency of allergic symptoms. The secondary end point was allergy-related impairment. RESULTS: OLP did not significantly improve symptom severity over TAU ( F (1,71) = 3.280, p = .074, η2 = 0.044) but did reduce symptom frequency ( F (1,71) = 7.272, p = .009, η2 = 0.093) and allergy-related impairment more than TAU ( F (1,71) = 6.445, p = .013, η2 = 0.083), reflecting medium to large effects. The use of other antiallergic medication did not influence the results. CONCLUSIONS: Although OLP was able to lower the frequency of allergic symptoms and allergy-related impairment substantially, its effects on symptom severity were weaker. The remote provision of OLP suggests that physical contact between patients and providers might not be necessary for OLP to work.

Otitis media (acute): antimicrobial prescribing

This guideline sets out an antimicrobial prescribing strategy for acute otitis media (ear infection). It aims to limit antibiotic use and reduce antimicrobial resistance. Acute otitis media can be caused by viruses or bacteria. It lasts for about a week, and most children get better in 3 days without antibiotics. Serious complications are rare. In March 2022, we reviewed the evidence and added a recommendation on eardrops containing an anaesthetic and an analgesic because a licensed preparation is now available in the UK. For more information, see update information.

Etrolizumab versus adalimumab or placebo as induction therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (HIBISCUS): two phase 3 randomised, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-ß7 integrin monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission relative to placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. The HIBISCUS studies aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab to adalimumab and placebo for induction of remission in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: HIBISCUS I and HIBISCUS II were identically designed, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled studies of etrolizumab, adalimumab, and placebo in adult (18-80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) who were naive to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. All patients had an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In both studies, patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks; subcutaneous adalimumab 160 mg on day 1, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg at weeks 4, 6, and 8; or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants, and baseline disease activity. All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was induction of remission at week 10 (defined as MCS of 2 or lower, with individual subscores of 1 or lower, and rectal bleeding subscore of 0) with etrolizumab compared with placebo. Pooled analyses of both studies comparing etrolizumab and adalimumab were examined for several clinical and endoscopic endpoints. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163759 (HIBISCUS I), NCT02171429 (HIBISCUS II). FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2014, and May 25, 2020, each study screened 652 patients (HIBISCUS I) and 613 patients (HIBISCUS II). Each study enrolled and randomly assigned 358 patients (HIBISCUS I etrolizumab n=144, adalimumab n=142, placebo n=72; HIBISCUS II etrolizumab n=143; adalimumab n=143; placebo n=72). In HIBISCUS I, 28 (19·4%) of 144 patients in the etrolizumab group and five (6·9%) of 72 patients in the placebo group were in remission at week 10, with an adjusted treatment difference of 12·3% (95% CI 1·6 to 20·6; p=0·017) in favour of etrolizumab. In HIBISCUS II, 26 (18·2%) of 143 patients in the etrolizumab group and eight (11·1%) of 72 patients in the placebo group were in remission at week 10, with an adjusted treatment difference of 7·2% (95% CI -3·8 to 16·1; p=0·17). In the pooled analysis, etrolizumab was not superior to adalimumab for induction of remission, endoscopic improvement, clinical response, histological remission, or endoscopic remission; however, similar numerical results were observed in both groups. In HIBISCUS I, 50 (35%) of 144 patients in the etrolizumab group reported any adverse event, compared with 61 (43%) of 142 in the adalimumab group and 26 (36%) of 72 in the placebo group. In HIBISCUS II, 63 (44%) of 143 patients in the etrolizumab group reported any adverse event, as did 62 (43%) of 143 in the adalimumab group and 33 (46%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse event in all groups was ulcerative colitis flare. The incidence of serious adverse events in the pooled patient population was similar for etrolizumab (15 [5%] of 287) and placebo (seven [5%] of 144) and lower for adalimumab (six [2%] of 285). Two patients in the etrolizumab group died; neither death was deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Etrolizumab was superior to placebo for induction of remission in HIBISCUS I, but not in HIBISCUS II. Etrolizumab was well tolerated in both studies. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Association of Single-blind Placebo Run-in Periods With the Placebo Response in Randomized Clinical Trials of Antidepressants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Single-blind placebo run-in (PRI) periods are common in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of treatment for depression. They aim to increase sensitivity to detect drug effects; however, the association of PRI periods with study outcomes remains unclear. This is concerning given the costs of PRI periods to patients and investigators. Objective: To examine the association of the use of PRI periods with the placebo response, drug response, and drug-placebo difference among RCTs of antidepressants. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO, as well as repositories of unpublished studies, were systematically searched up to July 2021. Study Selection: Included studies were double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs of antidepressant medication among adults with depressive disorders. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted into a coding sheet, including the characteristics of studies, the characteristics of PRI periods, and the outcomes of studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Study outcomes were the primary depression symptom measure reported by the RCT. These outcomes were used to calculate effect sizes (Hedges g) of the within-group drug response and placebo response as well as the drug-placebo difference. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate effect sizes, and subgroup analyses were used to compare outcomes depending on use of PRI periods. Results: A total of 347 trials (representing 89 183 participants) were included; 174 studies (50%) reported using a single-blind PRI period. Response outcome data were available for 189 studies. Studies using PRI periods reported a smaller placebo response (g = 1.05 [95% CI, 0.98-1.11]; I2 = 82%) than studies that did not use a PRI period (g = 1.15 [95% CI, 1.09-1.21]; I2 = 81%; P = .02). Subgroup analysis showed a larger drug response size among studies that did not use a PRI period (g = 1.55 [95% CI, 1.49-1.61]; I2 = 85%) than those that did use a PRI period (g = 1.42 [95% CI, 1.36-1.48]; I2 = 81%; P = .001). The drug-placebo difference did not differ by use of PRI periods (g = 0.33 [95% CI, 0.29-0.38]; I2 = 47% for use of a PRI period vs g = 0.34 [95% CI, 0.30-0.38]; I2 = 54% for no use of PRI periods; P = .92). The likelihood of response to drug vs placebo also did not differ between studies that used a PRI period (odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.76-2.03]) and those that did not use a PRI period (odds ratio, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.65-1.89]; P = .18). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that RCTs using PRI periods yield smaller within-group changes across both placebo and drug groups compared with RCTs without PRI periods. The reduction in effect size across groups was equivalent in magnitude. Consequently, PRI studies do not observe larger drug-placebo differences, suggesting that they do not increase trial sensitivity. As such, given the resources and probable deception required and risk to external validity, the practice of using PRI periods in RCTs of antidepressants should be ended.

B-cell depletion with obinutuzumab for the treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Randomised trials of type I anti-CD20 antibodies rituximab and ocrelizumab failed to show benefit in proliferative lupus nephritis (LN). We compared obinutuzumab, a humanised type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that induces potent B-cell depletion, with placebo for the treatment of LN in combination with standard therapies. METHODS: Patients with LN receiving mycophenolate and corticosteroids were randomised to obinutuzumab 1000 mg or placebo on day 1 and weeks 2, 24 and 26, and followed through week 104. The primary endpoint was complete renal response (CRR) at week 52. Exploratory analyses through week 104 were conducted. The prespecified alpha level was 0.2. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were randomised and received blinded infusions. Achievement of CRR was greater with obinutuzumab at week 52 (primary endpoint, 22 (35%) vs 14 (23%) with placebo; percentage difference, 12% (95% CI -3.4% to 28%), p=0.115) and at week 104 (26 (41%) vs 14 (23%); percentage difference, 19% (95% CI 2.7% to 35%), p=0.026). Improvements in other renal response measures, serologies, estimated glomerular filtration rate and proteinuria were greater with obinutuzumab. Obinutuzumab was not associated with increases in serious adverse events, serious infections or deaths. Non-serious infusion-related reactions occurred more frequently with obinutuzumab. CONCLUSIONS: Improved renal responses through week 104 were observed in patients with LN who received obinutuzumab plus standard therapies compared with standard therapies alone. Obinutuzumab was well tolerated and no new safety signals were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02550652.

Trial of Spesolimab for Generalized Pustular Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare, life-threatening, inflammatory skin disease characterized by widespread eruption of sterile pustules. Interleukin-36 signaling is involved in the pathogenesis of this disorder. Spesolimab, a humanized anti-interleukin-36 receptor monoclonal antibody, is being studied for the treatment of GPP flares. METHODS: In a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with a GPP flare in a 2:1 ratio to receive a single 900-mg intravenous dose of spesolimab or placebo. Patients in both groups could receive an open-label dose of spesolimab on day 8, an open-label dose of spesolimab as a rescue medication after day 8, or both and were followed to week 12. The primary end point was a Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) pustulation subscore of 0 (range, 0 [no visible pustules] to 4 [severe pustulation]) at the end of week 1. The key secondary end point was a GPPGA total score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear skin) at the end of week 1; scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater disease severity. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were enrolled: 35 were assigned to receive spesolimab and 18 to receive placebo. At baseline, 46% of the patients in the spesolimab group and 39% of those in the placebo group had a GPPGA pustulation subscore of 3, and 37% and 33%, respectively, had a pustulation subscore of 4. At the end of week 1, a total of 19 of 35 patients (54%) in the spesolimab group had a pustulation subscore of 0, as compared with 1 of 18 patients (6%) in the placebo group (difference, 49 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21 to 67; P<0.001). A total of 15 of 35 patients (43%) had a GPPGA total score of 0 or 1, as compared with 2 of 18 patients (11%) in the placebo group (difference, 32 percentage points; 95% CI, 2 to 53; P = 0.02). Drug reactions were reported in 2 patients who received spesolimab, in 1 of them concurrently with a drug-induced hepatic injury. Among patients assigned to the spesolimab group, infections occurred in 6 of 35 (17%) through the first week; among patients who received spesolimab at any time in the trial, infections had occurred in 24 of 51 (47%) at week 12. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 23 of 50 patients (46%) who received at least one dose of spesolimab. CONCLUSIONS: In a phase 2 randomized trial involving patients with GPP, the interleukin-36 receptor inhibitor spesolimab resulted in a higher incidence of lesion clearance at 1 week than placebo but was associated with infections and systemic drug reactions. Longer and larger trials are warranted to determine the effect and risks of spesolimab in patients with pustular psoriasis. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; Effisayil 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03782792.).

Giving and taking: ethical treatment assignment in controlled trials.

The current version of the Declaration of Helsinki states that 'the benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new intervention must be tested against those of the best current proven intervention(s) … '. This wording implies that it is acceptable for patients to be assigned to receive an unproven new intervention and to be denied a best current proven intervention. We assert that patients being invited to participate in controlled trials cannot, ethically, be expected to forego proven beneficial forms of care. Patients being treated in controlled trials should not knowingly be disadvantaged compared with similar patients being treated in usual clinical care, where they have access to beneficial care. In this article, we have tried to separate for discussion 'the withholding of effective care from trial participants', 'informed consent to treatment', 'blinding' and 'use of placebos'.

Effects of Combined Varenicline With Nicotine Patch and of Extended Treatment Duration on Smoking Cessation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Smoking cessation medications are routinely used in health care. Research suggests that combining varenicline with the nicotine patch, extending the duration of varenicline treatment, or both, may increase cessation effectiveness. Objective: To compare combinations of varenicline plus the nicotine or placebo patch vs combinations used for either 12 weeks (standard duration) or 24 weeks (extended duration). Design, Settings, and Participants: Double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial conducted from November 11, 2017, to July 9, 2020, at 1 research clinic in Madison, Wisconsin, and at 1 clinic in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Of the 5836 adults asked to participate in the study, 1251 who smoked 5 cigarettes/d or more were randomized. Interventions: All participants received cessation counseling and were randomized to 1 of 4 medication groups: varenicline monotherapy for 12 weeks (n = 315), varenicline plus nicotine patch for 12 weeks (n = 314), varenicline monotherapy for 24 weeks (n = 311), or varenicline plus nicotine patch for 24 weeks (n = 311). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was carbon monoxide-confirmed self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 52 weeks. Results: Among 1251 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 49.1 [11.9] years; 675 [54.0%] women), 751 (60.0%) completed treatment and 881 (70.4%) provided final follow-up. For the primary outcome, there was no significant interaction between the 2 treatment factors of medication type and medication duration (odds ratio [OR], 1.03 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.17]; P = .66). For patients randomized to 24-week vs 12-week treatment duration, the primary outcome occurred in 24.8% (154/622) vs 24.3% (153/629), respectively (risk difference, -0.4% [95% CI, -5.2% to 4.3%]; OR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.15]). For patients randomized to varenicline combination therapy vs varenicline monotherapy, the primary outcome occurred in 24.3% (152/625) vs 24.8% (155/626), respectively (risk difference, 0.4% [95% CI, -4.3% to 5.2%]; OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.12]). Nausea occurrence ranged from 24.0% to 30.9% and insomnia occurrence ranged from 24.4% to 30.5% across the 4 groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults smoking 5 cigarettes/d or more, there were no significant differences in 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 52 weeks among those treated with combined varenicline plus nicotine patch therapy vs varenicline monotherapy, or among those treated for 24 weeks vs 12 weeks. These findings do not support the use of combined therapy or of extended treatment duration. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03176784.

Cancer Antigen 15-3/Mucin 1 Levels in CCTG MA.32: A Breast Cancer Randomized Trial of Metformin vs Placebo.

Background: Circulating levels of cancer antigen (CA) 15-3, a tumor marker and regulator of cellular metabolism, were reduced by metformin in a nonrandomized neoadjuvant study. We examined the effects of metformin (vs placebo) on CA 15-3 in participants of MA.32, a phase III randomized trial in early-stage breast cancer. Methods: A total of 3649 patients with T1-3, N0-3, M0 breast cancer were randomly assigned; pretreatment and 6-month on-treatment fasting plasma were centrally assayed for CA 15-3. Genomic DNA was analyzed for the rs11212617 single nucleotide polymorphism. Absolute and relative change of CA 15-3 (metformin vs placebo) were compared using Wilcoxon rank and t tests. Regression models adjusted for baseline differences and assessed key interactions. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Mean (SD) age was 52.4 (10.0) years. The majority of patients had T2/3, node-positive, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer treated with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and hormone therapy. Mean (SD) baseline CA 15-3 was 17.7 (7.6) and 18.0 (8.1 U/mL). At 6 months, CA 15-3 was statistically significantly reduced in metformin vs placebo arms (absolute geometric mean reduction in CA 15-3 = 7.7% vs 2.0%, P < .001; relative metformin: placebo level of CA 15-3 [adjusted for age, baseline body mass index, and baseline CA 15-3] = 0.94, 95% confidence interval = 0.92 to 0.96). This reduction was independent of tumor characteristics, perioperative systemic therapy, baseline body mass index, insulin, and the single nucleotide polymorphism status (all Ps > .11). Conclusions: Our observation that metformin reduces CA 15-3 by approximately 6% was corroborated in a large placebo-controlled randomized trial. The clinical implications of this reduction in CA 15-3 will be explored in upcoming efficacy analyses of breast cancer outcomes in MA.32.