Trials - Latest articles

A randomised, double-masked phase III/IV study of the efficacy and safety of Avastin(R) (Bevacizumab) intravitreal injections compared to standard therapy in subjects with choroidal neovascularisation secondary to age-related macular degeneration: Clinical trial design

2008-10-14

Background: The management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) has been transformed by the introduction of agents delivered by intravitreal injection which block the action of vascular endothelial growth factor-A (anti-VEGF agents). One such agent in widespread use is bevacizumab which was initially developed for use in oncology. Most of the evidence supporting the use of bevacizumab for nAMD has come from interventional case series and this clinical trial was initiated because of the increasing and widespread use of this agent in the treatment of nAMD (an off-label indication) despite a lack of definitive unbiased safety and efficacy data. Methods: The Avastin (bevacizumab) for CNV (ABC) trial is a double-masked randomised controlled trial comparing intravitreal bevacizumab injections to standard therapy in the treatment of nAMD. Patients are randomised to intravitreal bevacizumab or standard therapy available at the time of trial initiation (verteporfin photodynamic therapy, intravitreal pegaptanib or sham treatment). Ranibizumab treatment was not included in the control arm as it had not been licensed for use at the start of recruitment for this trial. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients gaining [greater than or equal to]15 letters of visual acuity at 1 year and secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients with stable vision and mean visual acuity change.DiscussionThe ABC Trial is the first double-masked randomised control trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab in the treatment of nAMD. This trial fully recruited in November 2007 and results should be available in early 2009. Important design issues for this clinical trial include (a) defining the control group (b) use of gain in vision as primary efficacy end-point and (c) use of pro re nata treatment using intravitreal bevacizumab rather than continuous therapy. Trial Registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN83325075

European trial of free light chain removal by extended haemodialysis in cast nephropathy (EuLITE): A randomised control trial

2008-09-28

Background: Renal failure is a frequent complication of multiple myeloma and when severe is associated with a greatly increased morbidity and mortality. The principal cause of severe renal failure is cast nephropathy, a direct consequence of high concentrations of monoclonal free light chains (FLCs) in patients' sera. FLC removal by extended haemodialysis, using a high cut-off dialyser, has recently been described as a novel therapeutic option. Methods: The EUropean trial of free LIght chain removal by exTEnded haemodialysis in cast nephropathy (EuLITE) trial is a prospective, randomised, multicentre, open label clinical trial to investigate the clinical benefits of FLC removal haemodialysis in patients with cast nephropathy, dialysis dependent acute renal failure and de novo multiple myeloma. Recruitment commenced in May 2008. In total, 90 patients will be recruited. Participants will be randomised, centrally, upon enrolment, to either trial chemotherapy and FLC removal haemodialysis or trial chemotherapy and standard high flux haemodialysis. Trial chemotherapy consists of bortezomib, doxorubicin and dexamethasone. FLC removal haemodialysis is undertaken with two Gambro HCO 1100 dialysers in series using an intensive treatment schedule. The primary outcome for the study is independence of dialysis at 3 months. Secondary outcomes are: duration of dialysis, reduction in serum FLC concentrations; myeloma response and survival.HypothesisFLC removal haemodialysis will increase the rate of renal recovery in patients with severe renal failure secondary to cast nephropathy in de novo multiple myeloma.Trial registrationISRCTN45967602

The VEPRO trial: A cross-over randomised controlled trial comparing 2 progressive lenses for patients with presbyopia

2008-09-19

Background: The aim of this trial was to compare the effectiveness of two generations of progressive lenses for presbyopia. Methods: A multicenter cross-over randomized controlled trial performed in a primary care setting (5 optical dispensaries) was planned. Two categories of progressive lenses were compared: 1) a new-generation lens (i.e., VARILUX PANAMIC ORMA CRIZAL), which is expensive but a supposed improvement in comfort, and 2) an older-generation lens (i.e., VARILUX CONFORT ORMA CRIZAL), which is less expensive and is considered the reference lens. Patients were randomized to wear one generation of progressive lens for 4 weeks, then cross over to wear the other lens for 4 weeks, without knowing the sequence of lenses.Inclusion criteria were 1) age 43–60 years; 2) outpatients already wearing progressive lenses and referred to an optician ophthalmologist for optical correction prescription within the last 6 months; 3) receiving a correction of ≤3 dioptres in cases of associated myopia, hyperopia or astigmatism; 4) understanding and speaking French and able to answer a questionnaire; and 5) giving written consent to participate in the study.The primary outcome was patient preference for one progressive lens at week 8. Secondary outcomes were subjective measures of bifocal visual performance, including a) near visual acuity, b) visual field, c) kinetic visual skills, d) visual adaptability, e) visual comfort, and f) rapidity of adaptation. Results: 127 patients were randomized to one of the lens groups. Two patients withdrew prematurely; 98.4% and 97.6% patients who wore the new versus older lenses, respectively, wore their progressive lenses every day during the 4-week period 1 and period 2. The number of participants in each of 5 centres varied from 16 (12.6%) to 35 (27.6%).57.9% patients preferred the new-generation lenses, 36.5% the older-generation lenses, and 5.6% had no preference (p = 0.01). The two groups did not differ in any of the measures of bifocal visual performance except near visual acuity. Conclusion: Patients with presbyopia had slightly higher preference for the new-generation than older-generation lens, with no difference in lens groups for most of the visual outcomes assessed.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00635115

Magnet therapy for the relief of pain and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (CAMBRA): A randomised placebo-controlled crossover trial

Stewart J Richmond — 2008-09-12

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis is a common inflammatory autoimmune disease. Although disease activity may be managed effectively with prescription drugs, unproven treatments such as magnet therapy are sometimes used as an adjunct for pain control. Therapeutic devices incorporating permanent magnets are widely available and easy to use. Magnets may also be perceived as a more natural and less harmful alternative to analgesic compounds. Of interest to health service researchers is the possibility that magnet therapy might help to reduce the economic burden of managing chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Magnets are extremely cheap to manufacture and prolonged treatment involves a single cost. Despite this, good quality scientific evidence concerning the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of magnet therapy is scarce. The primary aim of the CAMBRA trial is to investigate the effectiveness of magnet therapy for relieving pain and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis.Methods/DesignThe CAMBRA trial employs a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design. Participant will each wear four devices: a commercially available magnetic wrist strap; an attenuated wrist strap; a demagnetised wrist strap; and a copper bracelet. Device will be allocated in a randomised sequence and each worn for five weeks. The four treatment phases will be separated by wash out periods lasting one week. Both participants and researchers will be blind, as far as feasible, to the allocation of experimental and control devices. In total 69 participants will be recruited from general practices within the UK. Eligible patients will have a verified diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis that is being managed using drugs, and will be experiencing chronic pain. Outcomes measured will include pain, inflammation, disease activity, physical function, medication use, affect, and health related costs. Data will be collected using questionnaires, diaries, manual pill counts and blood tests.DiscussionMagnetism is an inherent property of experimental devices which is hard to conceal. The use of multiple control devices, including a copper bracelet, represents a concerted attempt to overcome methodological limitations associated with trials in this field. The trial began in July 2007. At the time of submission (August 2008) recruitment has finished, with 70 trial participants, and data collection is almost complete.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN51459023

A randomized comparative study of patients undergoing myocardial revascularization with or without cardiopulmonary bypass surgery: The MASS III Trial

2008-08-28

The MASS III Trial is a large project from a single institution, The Heart Institute of the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil (InCor), enrolling patients with coronary artery disease and preserved ventricular function. The aim of the MASS III Trial is to compare medical effectiveness, cerebral injury, quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness of coronary surgery with and without of cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with multivessel coronary disease referred for both strategies. The primary endpoint should be a composite of cardiovascular mortality, cerebrovascular accident, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and refractory angina requiring revascularization. The secondary end points in this trial include noncardiac mortality, presence and severity of angina, quality of life based on the SF-36 Questionnaire, and cost-effectiveness at discharge and at 5-year follow-up. In this scenario, we will analyze the cost of the initial procedure, hospital length of stay, resource utilization, repeat hospitalization, and repeat revascularization events during the follow-up. Exercise capacity will be assessed at 6-months, 12-months, and the end of follow-up. A neurocognitive evaluation will be assessed in a subset of subjects using the Brain Resource Center computerized neurocognitive battery. Furthermore, magnetic resonance imaging will be made to detect any cerebral injury before and after procedures in patients who undergo coronary artery surgery with and without cardiopulmonary bypass.Trials RegistrationClinical Trial registration informationISRCTN59539154 Off-pump vs. on-pump surgery in patients with Stable CAD MASS III

A review of RCTs in four medical journals to assess the use of imputation to overcome missing data in quality of life outcomes

Shona Fielding, Graeme Maclennan, Jonathan A Cook and Craig R Ramsay — 2008-08-11

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are perceived as the gold-standard method for evaluating healthcare interventions, and increasingly include quality of life (QoL) measures. The observed results are susceptible to bias if a substantial proportion of outcome data are missing. The review aimed to determine whether imputation was used to deal with missing QoL outcomes. Methods: A random selection of 285 RCTs published during 2005/6 in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were identified. Results: QoL outcomes were reported in 61 (21%) trials. Six (10%) reported having no missing data, 20 (33%) reported ≤ 10% missing, eleven (18%) 11%–20% missing, and eleven (18%) reported >20% missing. Missingness was unclear in 13 (21%). Missing data were imputed in 19 (31%) of the 61 trials. Imputation was part of the primary analysis in 13 trials, but a sensitivity analysis in six. Last value carried forward was used in 12 trials and multiple imputation in two. Following imputation, the most common analysis method was analysis of covariance (10 trials). Conclusion: The majority of studies did not impute missing data and carried out a complete-case analysis. For those studies that did impute missing data, researchers tended to prefer simpler methods of imputation, despite more sophisticated methods being available.

A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the safety, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and satisfaction with point of care testing in a general practice setting – rationale, design and baseline characteristics

2008-08-06

Background: Point of care testing (PoCT) may be a useful adjunct in the management of chronic conditions in general practice (GP). The provision of pathology test results at the time of the consultation could lead to enhanced clinical management, better health outcomes, greater convenience and satisfaction for patients and general practitioners (GPs), and savings in costs and time. It could also result in inappropriate testing, increased consultations and poor health outcomes resulting from inaccurate results. Currently there are very few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in GP that have investigated these aspects of PoCT.Design/MethodsThe Point of Care Testing in General Practice Trial (PoCT Trial) was an Australian Government funded multi-centre, cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the safety, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and satisfaction of PoCT in a GP setting.The PoCT Trial covered an 18 month period with the intervention consisting of the use of PoCT for seven tests used in the management of patients with diabetes, hyperlipidaemia and patients on anticoagulant therapy. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients within target range, a measure of therapeutic control. In addition, the PoCT Trial investigated the safety of PoCT, impact of PoCT on patient compliance to medication, stakeholder satisfaction, cost effectiveness of PoCT versus laboratory testing, and influence of geographic location.DiscussionThe paper provides an overview of the Trial Design, the rationale for the research methodology chosen and how the Trial was implemented in a GP environment. The evaluation protocol and data collection processes took into account the large number of patients, the broad range of practice types distributed over a large geographic area, and the inclusion of pathology test results from multiple pathology laboratories.The evaluation protocol developed reflects the complexity of the Trial setting, the Trial Design and the approach taken within the funding provided. The PoCT Trial is regarded as a pragmatic RCT, evaluating the effectiveness of implementing PoCT in GP and every effort was made to ensure that, in these circumstances, internal and external validity was maintained.Trial Registration12612605000272695

Non-invasive cardiac assessment in high risk patients (The GROUND study): rationale, objectives and design of a multi-center randomized controlled clinical trial

2008-08-01

Background: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a common disease associated with a considerably increased risk of future cardiovascular events and most of these patients will die from coronary artery disease (CAD). Screening for silent CAD has become an option with recent non-invasive developments in CT (computed tomography)-angiography and MR (magnetic resonance) stress testing. Screening in combination with more aggressive treatment may improve prognosis. Therefore we propose to study whether a cardiac imaging algorithm, using non-invasive imaging techniques followed by treatment will reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in PAD patients free from cardiac symptoms.DesignThe GROUND study is designed as a prospective, multi-center, randomized clinical trial. Patients with peripheral arterial disease, but without symptomatic cardiac disease will be asked to participate. All patients receive a proper risk factor management before randomization. Half of the recruited patients will enter the 'control group' and only undergo CT calcium scoring. The other half of the recruited patients (index group) will undergo the non invasive cardiac imaging algorithm followed by evidence-based treatment. First, patients are submitted to CT calcium scoring and CT angiography. Patients with a left main (or equivalent) coronary artery stenosis of > 50% on CT will be referred to a cardiologist without further imaging. All other patients in this group will undergo dobutamine stress magnetic resonance (DSMR) testing. Patients with a DSMR positive for ischemia will also be referred to a cardiologist. These patients are candidates for conventional coronary angiography and cardiac interventions (coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous cardiac interventions (PCI)), if indicated. All participants of the trial will enter a 5 year follow up period for the occurrence of cardiovascular events. Sequential interim analysis will take place. Based on sample size calculations about 1200 patients are needed to detect a 24% reduction in primary outcome.ImplicationsThe GROUND study will provide insight into the question whether non-invasive cardiac imaging reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral arterial disease, but without symptoms of coronary artery disease.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00189111

Bright light in elderly subjects with nonseasonal major depressive disorder: a double blind randomised clinical trial using early morning bright blue light comparing dim red light treatment

2008-07-31

Background: Depression frequently occurs in the elderly. Its cause is largely unknown, but several studies point to disturbances of biological rhythmicity. In both normal aging, and depression, the functioning of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) is impaired, as evidenced by an increased prevalence of day-night rhythm perturbations, such as sleeping disorders. Moreover, the inhibitory SCN neurons on the hypothalamus-pituitary adrenocortical axis (HPA-axis) have decreased activity and HPA-activity is enhanced, when compared to non-depressed elderly. Using bright light therapy (BLT) the SCN can be stimulated. In addition, the beneficial effects of BLT on seasonal depression are well accepted. BLT is a potentially safe, nonexpensive and well accepted treatment option. But the current literature on BLT for depression is inconclusive.Methods/DesignThis study aims to show whether BLT can reduce non-seasonal major depression in elderly patients. Randomized double blind placebo controlled trial in 126 subjects of 60 years and older with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD, DSM-IV/SCID-I). Subjects are recruited through referrals of psychiatric outpatient clinics and from case finding from databases of general practitioners and old-people homes in the Amsterdam region. After inclusion subjects are randomly allocated to the active (bright blue light) vs. placebo (dim red light) condition using two Philips Bright Light Energy boxes type HF 3304 per subject, from which the light bulbs have been covered with bright blue- or dim red light- permitting filters. Patients will be stratified by use of antidepressants. Prior to treatment a one-week period without light treatment will be used. At three time points several endocrinological, psychophysiological, psychometrically, neuropsychological measures are performed: just before the start of light therapy, after completion of three weeks therapy period, and three weeks thereafter.DiscussionIf BLT reduces nonseasonal depression in elderly patients, then additional lightning may easily be implemented in the homes of patients to serve as add-on treatment to antidepressants or as a stand-alone treatment in elderly depressed patients. In addition, if our data support the role of a dysfunctional biological clock in depressed elderly subjects, such a finding may guide further development of novel chronobiological oriented treatment strategies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00332670

Meta-analysis of trials comparing anastrozole and tamoxifen for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer

Adnan Aydiner and Faruk Tas — 2008-07-29

ObjectiveIt was aimed to review the literature and make a meta-analysis of the trials on both upfront, switching, and sequencing anastrozole in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. Methods: The PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed for randomized-controlled trials comparing anastrozole with tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. Results: The combined hazard rate of 4 trials for event-free survival (EFS) was 0.77 (95%CI: 0.70–0.85) (P < 0.0001) for patients treated with anastrozole compared with tamoxifen. In the second analysis in which only ITA, ABCSG 8, and ARNO 95 trials were included and ATAC (upfront trial) was excluded, combined hazard rate for EFS was 0.64 (95%CI: 0.52–0.79) (P < 0.0001). In the third analysis including hazard rate for recurrence-free survival (excluding non-disease related deaths) of estrogen receptor-positive patients for ATAC trial and hazard rate for EFS of all patients for the rest of the trials, combined hazard rate was 0.73 (95%CI: 0.65–0.81) (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Anastrozole appears to have superior efficacy than tamoxifen in the adjuvant hormonal treatment of early breast cancer. Until further clinical evidence comes up, aromatase inhibitors should be the initial hormonal therapy in postmenopausal early breast cancer patients and switching should only be considered for patients who are currently receiving tamoxifen.