Balloon kyphoplasty versus non-surgical fracture management for treatment of painful vertebral body compression fractures in patients with cancer: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-randomised trials have reported benefits of kyphoplasty in patients with cancer and vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty compared with non-surgical management for patients with cancer who have painful VCFs. METHODS: The Cancer Patient Fracture Evaluation (CAFE) study was a randomised controlled trial at 22 sites in Europe, the USA, Canada, and Australia. We enrolled patients aged at least 21 years who had cancer and one to three painful VCFs. Patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated minimisation randomisation algorithm to kyphoplasty or non-surgical management (control group). Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was back-specific functional status measured by the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire (RDQ) score at 1 month. Outcomes at 1 month were analysed by modified intention to treat, including all patients with data available at baseline and at 1 month follow-up. Patients in the control group were allowed to crossover to receive kyphoplasty after 1 month. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00211237. FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2005, and March 11, 2008, 134 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to kyphoplasty (n=70) or non-surgical management (n=64). 65 patients in the kyphoplasty group and 52 in the control group had data available at 1 month. The mean RDQ score in the kyphoplasty group changed from 17·6 at baseline to 9·1 at 1 month (mean change -8·3 points, 95% CI -6·4 to -10·2; p<0·0001). The mean score in the control group changed from 18·2 to 18·0 (mean change 0·1 points; 95% CI -0·8 to 1·0; p=0·83). At 1 month, the kyphoplasty treatment effect for RDQ was -8·4 points (95% CI -7·6 to -9·2; p<0·0001). The most common adverse events within the first month were back pain (four of 70 in the kyphoplasty group and five of 64 in the control group) and symptomatic vertebral fracture (two and three, respectively). One patient in the kyphoplasty group had an intraoperative non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, which resolved and was attributed to anaesthesia. Another patient in this group had a new VCF, which was thought to be device related. INTERPRETATION: For painful VCFs in patients with cancer, kyphoplasty is an effective and safe treatment that rapidly reduces pain and improves function. FUNDING: Medtronic Spine LLC.

Cost-effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir versus nelfinavir as the first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy regimen for HIV infection.

PURPOSE: Selecting the optimal treatment regimen for antiviral-naive patients may be difficult, given the concern about the antiviral activity, the development of drug resistance, and the increase in drug costs. This study evaluates the costs and effectiveness of using lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) vs. nelfinavir (NFV), both coadministered with stavudine and lamivudine, as the first HAART regimen in treating HIV patients, based on the results from the published clinical trial M98-863. METHOD: A Markov model was developed using a combination of viral load (VL) and CD4 count as surrogate markers to define health states. VL and CD4 count data from the 48-week analysis of the clinical trial were used as measures of effect. The impact of resistance difference between NFV and LPV/r was also examined. RESULTS: Over the first 5 years, the model estimated that LPV/r could save $3,461 USD per patient in total HIV care costs compared with NFV. If the resistance advantage of LPV/r was taken into account, the cost savings by LPV/r increased to $5,546 USD. For longer term projection, without considering the resistance difference, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) for LPV/r vs. NFV was $6,653 USD per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). This CER compares favorably to therapies for HIV disease and for common drug treatments for other conditions and is well within accepted thresholds for health policy makers. CONCLUSION: When treatment options are being considered, this study suggests that use of LPV/r in the first antiretroviral regimen, as compared to NFV, is cost-effective based on improved efficacy and resistance.

Brief assessment of priority symptoms in hormone refractory prostate cancer: the FACT Advanced Prostate Symptom Index (FAPSI).

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to construct and validate a brief, clinically-relevant symptom index for advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Questions were extracted from a commonly-used multi-dimensional cancer quality of life instrument with prostate-specific items, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). Surveys of disease-related symptoms were presented to an international sample of 44 expert physicians. Each expert narrowed the list to no more than five of the most important symptoms or concerns to monitor when assessing the value of treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Symptoms/concerns endorsed at a frequency greater than chance probability (17%) were retained for the symptom index and called the FACT Advanced Prostate Symptom Index-8 (FAPSI-8): pain (three items), fatigue, weight loss, urinary difficulties (two items), and concern about the condition becoming worse. The FAPSI-8 was validated using data from a clinical trial of 288 men being treated for hormone refractory prostate cancer. RESULTS: The FAPSI-8 showed good internal consistency (r = 0.67-0.80); association with existing FACT scales (e.g., FACT-P, Physical Well-being, Functional Well-being; r = 0.44-0.85, p <.0001), responsiveness to clinical change (Guyatt's Responsiveness statistic = 1.29), and ability to differentiate patients by performance status (p <.0001). A six-item alternate version of the FAPSI was also evaluated with comparable results. CONCLUSIONS: This project produced a reliable and valid list of the eight most important clinician-rated targets of drug therapy for advanced prostate cancer. These questions perform comparably to the longer derivative questionnaire. Examination of patient agreement with this priority list and the extent to which changes in these 8 targets are related to meaningful clinical benefit to the patient are important next steps for future research.

Randomized, open-label preference study of two cyclosporine capsule formulations (usp modified) in stable solid-organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Prior research has indicated patient dissatisfaction with the odor, size, and taste of cyclosporine capsules, as well as the halitosis and body odor the capsules can cause. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this investigation were to (1) compare the overall cyclosporine capsule preference (Gengraf vs Neoral) in stable, solid-organ transplant recipients, (2) assess patient preference based on specific capsule attributes, and (3) determine the reliability of the Cyclosporine Capsule SatiSfaCtion Survey (original to this study). METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, preference study, patients were recruited from 144 centers in North America with established transplant programs. Solid-organ transplant recipients who had taken stable doses of cyclosporine (Neoral) for >/=2 consecutive months were randomized in a 9:1 ratio to receive another cyclosporine formulation (Gengraf) or to remain on Neoral therapy. Patients completed the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey prior to randomization (baseline survey) and after taking the study drug for 4 weeks (final survey). The survey consisted of multiple attribute items with high face validity in assessing patients' perceptions and preferences with regard to their overall experience, as well as specific attributes of cyclosporine capsules known to affect patient acceptance. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 1906 patients (1211 men, 693 women [sex unknown in 2 patients]; mean [SD] age, 50.2 [12.4] years). A total of 1708 patients were switched to Gengraf; 198 continued on Neoral. Based on their overall experience with both capsule formulations, the majority of patients switched to Gengraf (61.9%) responded that they preferred the Gengraf capsule, compared with 13.7% who preferred the Neoral capsule and 24.4% who indicated no preference (P < 0.001). A similar preference for Gengraf was observed based on capsule odor (66.3%), ease of swallowing (51.5%), taste (57.1%), and impact on breath odor (52.5%) and body odor (48.4%) (P < 0.001 for each test). The results of internal consistency and reproducibility calculations were high for the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey. Internal consistency ranged from alpha = 0.84 to 0.95 for the subscales and was alpha = 0.95 for the overall score. Ranges for reproducibility in the subscales were r = 0.75 to 0.79, with an overall reproducibility of r = 0.85. Guyatt's responsiveness statistics for the subscale and overall scores were moderately high to very high, indicating that the survey is capable of measuring change in response to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Of the transplant recipients receiving Gengraf in this study, most preferred Gengraf to Neoral based on overall experience, capsule odor, difficulty swallowing, taste, breath odor, and body odor. Among all study patients, fewer patients receiving Gengraf were bothered by capsule odor, difficulty in swallowing, taste, or the impact on breath or body odor compared with patients who continued to receive Neoral. Internal consistency, reproducibility, and responsiveness results show that the Cyclosporine Capsule Satisfaction Survey is a psychometrically valid instrument that is appropriate for use in clinical trials.