Why Are Women Less Represented in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Trials?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Fewer women than men tend to be enrolled in clinical trials of intracerebral hemorrhage. It is unclear whether this reflects lower prevalence of intracerebral hemorrhage in women, selection bias, or poor recruitment efforts. We undertook this study to examine differences between men and women in the reasons for exclusion from the iDEF trial (Intracerebral Hemorrhage Deferoxamine). METHODS: The screen failure log included 29 different reasons for exclusion. Chi-square statistics were used to evaluate the differences in reasons for exclusion between men and women. RESULTS: A total of 38.2% of participants in iDEF were women. Three thousand nine hundred eighty-two women (45.7%) and 4736 men (54.3%) were screen failures (P<0.0001). Similar proportions of women (1.28%) and men (1.73%) were excluded due to inability to obtain consent (P=0.1). Patients or families declined participation in 1.26% of women versus 1.31% of men (P=0.9). More women than men failed screening because of age>80 (22.40% versus 12.61%; adjusted P=0.0007) and preexisting do-not-resuscitate/do-not-intubate (3.69% versus 2.83%; adjusted P=0.067). CONCLUSIONS: Lower rates of women enrollment in the iDEF trial may be attributed to older age. Inability to obtain consent or declining participation was similar between women and men, arguing against selection bias. Our findings should be confirmed in other intracerebral hemorrhage trials to determine best strategies to improve women's representation in future trials.

The EPISOD study: long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The EPISOD (Evaluating Predictors and Interventions in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction) study randomized patients with post-cholecystectomy pain, and little or no objective evidence for biliary obstruction, to sphincterotomy or sham intervention. Results at 1 year showed no benefit for the active treatment. We now report the outcomes at up to 5 years. METHODS: One hundred three patients completing 1 year, and still blinded to treatment allocation, were enrolled and followed by phone every 6 months for a median of 58 months (range, 17-71 months). Their success was assessed at the final visit by 2 criteria: (1) a low pain score (Recurrent Abdominal Pain and Disability instrument [RAPID] <6) and (2) much or very much improved on the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) questionnaire (both with no repeat intervention and not taking narcotics). RESULTS: By the RAPID criteria, success rates for the patients in the sphincterotomy and sham arms were similar: 26/65 (40%) versus 16/38 (42%), respectively. However, by the PGIC criteria, actively treated patients fared worse: 16/43 (37%) versus 16/22 (73%). A total of 75 patients underwent active treatment during the entire study. Their success rate by the RAPID criteria was 31 (41%) compared with 16 (62%) who had no active treatment at any time. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm our initial report that endoscopic sphincterotomy is no better than sham intervention in these patients (and, by some criteria, worse), and that ERCP can no longer be recommended. The patients have genuine and often severe symptoms, and further research is needed to establish effective management. (Clinical trial registration number: 00688662 05/3/2008.).

Effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy for suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction on pain-related disability following cholecystectomy: the EPISOD randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Abdominal pain after cholecystectomy is common and may be attributed to sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Management often involves endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with manometry and sphincterotomy. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether endoscopic sphincterotomy reduces pain and whether sphincter manometric pressure is predictive of pain relief. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Multicenter, sham-controlled, randomized trial involving 214 patients with pain after cholecystectomy without significant abnormalities on imaging or laboratory studies, and no prior sphincter treatment or pancreatitis randomly assigned (August 6, 2008-March 23, 2012) to undergo sphincterotomy or sham therapy at 7 referral medical centers. One-year follow-up was blinded. The final follow-up visit was March 21, 2013. INTERVENTIONS: After ERCP, patients were randomized 2:1 to sphincterotomy (n = 141) or sham (n = 73) irrespective of manometry findings. Those randomized to sphincterotomy with elevated pancreatic sphincter pressures were randomized again (1:1) to biliary or to both biliary and pancreatic sphincterotomies. Seventy-two were entered into an observational study with conventional ERCP managemeny. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Success of treatment was defined as less than 6 days of disability due to pain in the prior 90 days both at months 9 and 12 after randomization, with no narcotic use and no further sphincter intervention. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients (37%; 95% CI, 25.9%-48.1%) in the sham treatment group vs 32 (23%; 95% CI, 15.8%-29.6%) in the sphincterotomy group experienced successful treatment (adjusted risk difference, -15.6%; 95% CI, -28.0% to -3.3%; P = .01). Of the patients with pancreatic sphincter hypertension, 14 (30%; 95% CI, 16.7%-42.9%) who underwent dual sphincterotomy and 10 (20%; 95% CI, 8.7%-30.5%) who underwent biliary sphincterotomy alone experienced successful treatment. Thirty-seven treated patients (26%; 95% CI,19%-34%) and 25 patients (34%; 95% CI, 23%-45%) in the sham group underwent repeat ERCP interventions (P = .22). Manometry results were not associated with the outcome. No clinical subgroups appeared to benefit from sphincterotomy more than others. Pancreatitis occurred in 15 patients (11%) after primary sphincterotomies and in 11 patients (15%) in the sham group. Of the nonrandomized patients in the observational study group, 5 (24%; 95% CI, 6%-42%) who underwent biliary sphincterotomy, 12 (31%; 95% CI, 16%-45%) who underwent dual sphincterotomy, and 2 (17%; 95% CI, 0%-38%) who did not undergo sphincterotomy had successful treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with abdominal pain after cholecystectomy undergoing ERCP with manometry, sphincterotomy vs sham did not reduce disability due to pain. These findings do not support ERCP and sphincterotomy for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00688662.