scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers on "Randomized controlled trial published in 2006"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Robust and rapid antidepressant effects resulted from a single intravenous dose of an N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist; onset occurred within 2 hours postinfusion and continued to remain significant for 1 week.
Abstract: Context Existing therapies for major depression have a lag of onset of action of several weeks, resulting in considerable morbidity. Exploring pharmacological strategies that have rapid onset of antidepressant effects within a few days and that are sustained would have an enormous impact on patient care. Converging lines of evidence suggest the role of the glutamatergic system in the pathophysiology and treatment of mood disorders. Objective To determine whether a rapid antidepressant effect can be achieved with an antagonist at theN-methyl-D-aspartate receptor in subjects with major depression. Design A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study from November 2004 to September 2005. Setting Mood Disorders Research Unit at the National Institute of Mental Health. Patients Eighteen subjects withDSM-IVmajor depression (treatment resistant). Interventions After a 2-week drug-free period, subjects were given an intravenous infusion of either ketamine hydrochloride (0.5 mg/kg) or placebo on 2 test days, a week apart. Subjects were rated at baseline and at 40, 80, 110, and 230 minutes and 1, 2, 3, and 7 days postinfusion. Main Outcome Measure Changes in scores on the primary efficacy measure, the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Results Subjects receiving ketamine showed significant improvement in depression compared with subjects receiving placebo within 110 minutes after injection, which remained significant throughout the following week. The effect size for the drug difference was very large (d = 1.46 [95% confidence interval, 0.91-2.01]) after 24 hours and moderate to large (d = 0.68 [95% confidence interval, 0.13-1.23]) after 1 week. Of the 17 subjects treated with ketamine, 71% met response and 29% met remission criteria the day following ketamine infusion. Thirty-five percent of subjects maintained response for at least 1 week. Conclusions Robust and rapid antidepressant effects resulted from a single intravenous dose of anN-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist; onset occurred within 2 hours postinfusion and continued to remain significant for 1 week. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT00088699.

2,965 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Natalizumab reduced the risk of the sustained progression of disability and the rate of clinical relapse in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis and hold promise as an effective treatment for relapsed multiple sclerosis.
Abstract: Background Natalizumab is the first α4 integrin antagonist in a new class of selective adhesion-molecule inhibitors. We report the results of a two-year phase 3 trial of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Methods Of a total of 942 patients, 627 were randomly assigned to receive natalizumab (at a dose of 300 mg) and 315 to receive placebo by intravenous infusion every four weeks for more than two years. The primary end points were the rate of clinical relapse at one year and the rate of sustained progression of disability, as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale, at two years. Results Natalizumab reduced the risk of sustained progression of disability by 42 percent over two years (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.77; P<0.001). The cumulative probability of progression (on the basis of Kaplan–Meier analysis) was 17 percent in the natalizumab group and 29 percent in the placebo group. Natalizumab reduced the rate of clinical relapse at one year...

2,940 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
17 May 2006-JAMA
TL;DR: There is evidence of an increased risk of serious infections and a dose-dependent increasedrisk of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF antibody therapy.
Abstract: ContextTumor necrosis factor (TNF) plays an important role in host defense and tumor growth control. Therefore, anti-TNF antibody therapies may increase the risk of serious infections and malignancies.ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which anti-TNF antibody therapies may increase the risk of serious infections and malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis by performing a meta-analysis to derive estimates of sparse harmful events occurring in randomized trials of anti-TNF therapy.Data SourcesA systematic literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and electronic abstract databases of the annual scientific meetings of both the European League Against Rheumatism and the American College of Rheumatology was conducted through December 2005. This search was complemented with interviews of the manufacturers of the 2 licensed anti-TNF antibodies.Study SelectionWe included randomized, placebo-controlled trials of the 2 licensed anti-TNF antibodies (infliximab and adalimumab) used for 12 weeks or more in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Nine trials met our inclusion criteria, including 3493 patients who received anti-TNF antibody treatment and 1512 patients who received placebo.Data ExtractionData on study characteristics to assess study quality and intention-to-treat data for serious infections and malignancies were abstracted. Published information from the trials was supplemented by direct contact between principal investigators and industry sponsors.Data SynthesisWe calculated a pooled odds ratio (Mantel-Haenszel methods with a continuity correction designed for sparse data) for malignancies and serious infections (infection that requires antimicrobial therapy and/or hospitalization) in anti-TNF–treated patients vs placebo patients. We estimated effects for high and low doses separately. The pooled odds ratio for malignancy was 3.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-9.1) and for serious infection was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.3-3.1). Malignancies were significantly more common in patients treated with higher doses compared with patients who received lower doses of anti-TNF antibodies. For patients treated with anti-TNF antibodies in the included trials, the number needed to harm was 154 (95% CI, 91-500) for 1 additional malignancy within a treatment period of 6 to 12 months. For serious infections, the number needed to harm was 59 (95% CI, 39-125) within a treatment period of 3 to 12 months.ConclusionsThere is evidence of an increased risk of serious infections and a dose-dependent increased risk of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF antibody therapy. The formal meta-analysis with pooled sparse adverse events data from randomized controlled trials serves as a tool to assess harmful drug effects.

2,414 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
07 Jun 2006-JAMA
TL;DR: Compared with SRS alone, the use of W BRT plus SRS did not improve survival for patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases, but intracranial relapse occurred considerably more frequently in those who did not receive WBRT.
Abstract: ContextIn patients with brain metastases, it is unclear whether adding up-front whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) to stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has beneficial effects on mortality or neurologic function compared with SRS alone.ObjectiveTo determine if WBRT combined with SRS results in improvements in survival, brain tumor control, functional preservation rate, and frequency of neurologic death.Design, Setting, and PatientsRandomized controlled trial of 132 patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases, each less than 3 cm in diameter, enrolled at 11 hospitals in Japan between October 1999 and December 2003.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive WBRT plus SRS (65 patients) or SRS alone (67 patients).Main Outcome MeasuresThe primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were brain tumor recurrence, salvage brain treatment, functional preservation, toxic effects of radiation, and cause of death.ResultsThe median survival time and the 1-year actuarial survival rate were 7.5 months and 38.5% (95% confidence interval, 26.7%-50.3%) in the WBRT + SRS group and 8.0 months and 28.4% (95% confidence interval, 17.6%-39.2%) for SRS alone (P = .42). The 12-month brain tumor recurrence rate was 46.8% in the WBRT + SRS group and 76.4% for SRS alone group (P<.001). Salvage brain treatment was less frequently required in the WBRT + SRS group (n = 10) than with SRS alone (n = 29) (P<.001). Death was attributed to neurologic causes in 22.8% of patients in the WBRT + SRS group and in 19.3% of those treated with SRS alone (P = .64). There were no significant differences in systemic and neurologic functional preservation and toxic effects of radiation.ConclusionsCompared with SRS alone, the use of WBRT plus SRS did not improve survival for patients with 1 to 4 brain metastases, but intracranial relapse occurred considerably more frequently in those who did not receive WBRT. Consequently, salvage treatment is frequently required when up-front WBRT is not used.Trial Registrationumin.ac.jp/ctr Identifier: C000000412

1,962 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
08 Mar 2006-JAMA
TL;DR: An updated extension of the CONSORT checklist for reporting noninferiority and equivalence trials is presented, based on the 2010 version of theconsORT Statement and the 2008 CONSORT Statement for the reporting of abstracts, and illustrative examples and explanations for those items that differ from the main 2010consORT checklist are provided.
Abstract: The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement, including a checklist and a flow diagram, was developed to help authors improve their reporting of randomized controlled trials. Its primary focus was on individually randomized trials with 2 parallel groups that assess the possible superiority of one treatment compared with another but is now being extended to other trial designs. Noninferiority and equivalence trials have methodological features that differ from superiority trials and present particular difficulties in design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. Although the rationale for such trials occurs frequently, those designed and described specifically as noninferiority or equivalence trials appear less commonly in the medical literature. The quality of reporting of those that are published is often inadequate. In this article, we present an adapted CONSORT checklist for reporting noninferiority and equivalence trials and provide illustrative examples and explanations for those items amended from the original CONSORT checklist. The intent is to improve reporting of noninferiority and equivalence trials, enabling readers to assess the validity of their results and conclusions.

1,858 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Coaching chronically ill older patients and their caregivers to ensure that their needs are met during care transitions may reduce the rates of subsequent rehospitalization.
Abstract: Background Patients with complex care needs who require care across different health care settings are vulnerable to experiencing serious quality problems. A care transitions intervention designed to encourage patients and their caregivers to assert a more active role during care transitions may reduce rehospitalization rates. Methods Randomized controlled trial. Between September 1, 2002, and August 31, 2003, patients were identified at the time of hospitalization and were randomized to receive the intervention or usual care. The setting was a large integrated delivery system located in Colorado. Subjects (N = 750) included community-dwelling adults 65 years or older admitted to the study hospital with 1 of 11 selected conditions. Intervention patients received (1) tools to promote cross-site communication, (2) encouragement to take a more active role in their care and to assert their pREFERENCES, and (3) continuity across settings and guidance from a “transition coach.” Rates of rehospitalization were measured at 30, 90, and 180 days. Results Intervention patients had lower rehospitalization rates at 30 days (8.3 vs 11.9, P = .048) and at 90 days (16.7 vs 22.5, P = .04) than control subjects. Intervention patients had lower rehospitalization rates for the same condition that precipitated the index hospitalization at 90 days (5.3 vs 9.8, P = .04) and at 180 days (8.6 vs 13.9, P = .046) than controls. The mean hospital costs were lower for intervention patients ($2058) vs controls ($2546) at 180 days (log-transformed P = .049). Conclusion Coaching chronically ill older patients and their caregivers to ensure that their needs are met during care transitions may reduce the rates of subsequent rehospitalization. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT00244491

1,843 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) was shown to be more effective in reducing suicidal behavior and borderline personality disorder compared with non-behavioral psychotherapy experts.
Abstract: Context Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) is a treatment for suicidal behavior and borderline personality disorder with well-documented efficacy. Objective To evaluate the hypothesis that unique aspects of DBT are more efficacious compared with treatment offered by non–behavioral psychotherapy experts. Design One-year randomized controlled trial, plus 1 year of posttreatment follow-up. Setting University outpatient clinic and community practice. Participants One hundred one clinically referred women with recent suicidal and self-injurious behaviors meeting DSM-IV criteria, matched to condition on age, suicide attempt history, negative prognostic indication, and number of lifetime intentional self-injuries and psychiatric hospitalizations. Intervention One year of DBT or 1 year of community treatment by experts (developed to maximize internal validity by controlling for therapist sex, availability, expertise, allegiance, training and experience, consultation availability, and institutional prestige). Main Outcome Measures Trimester assessments of suicidal behaviors, emergency services use, and general psychological functioning. Measures were selected based on previous outcome studies of DBT. Outcome variables were evaluated by blinded assessors. Results Dialectical behavior therapy was associated with better outcomes in the intent-to-treat analysis than community treatment by experts in most target areas during the 2-year treatment and follow-up period. Subjects receiving DBT were half as likely to make a suicide attempt (hazard ratio, 2.66; P = .005), required less hospitalization for suicide ideation (F 1,92 =7.3; P = .004), and had lower medical risk (F 1,50 =3.2; P = .04) across all suicide attempts and self-injurious acts combined. Subjects receiving DBT were less likely to drop out of treatment (hazard ratio, 3.2; P 1,92 =6.0; P = .007) and psychiatric emergency department visits (F 1,92 =2.9; P = .04). Conclusions Our findings replicate those of previous studies of DBT and suggest that the effectiveness of DBT cannot reasonably be attributed to general factors associated with expert psychotherapy. Dialectical behavior therapy appears to be uniquely effective in reducing suicide attempts.

1,760 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: At 24 weeks, a single course of rituximab with concomitant MTX therapy provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity in patients with active, longstanding RA who had an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF therapies.
Abstract: Objective To determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies and to explore the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rituximab in this population. Methods We evaluated primary efficacy and safety at 24 weeks in patients enrolled in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA (REFLEX) Trial, a 2-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of rituximab therapy. Patients with active RA and an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF agents were randomized to receive intravenous rituximab (1 course, consisting of 2 infusions of 1,000 mg each) or placebo, both with background MTX. The primary efficacy end point was a response on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were responses on the ACR50 and ACR70 improvement criteria, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria at 24 weeks. Additional end points included scores on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (DI), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) instruments, as well as Genant-modified Sharp radiographic scores at 24 weeks. Results Patients assigned to placebo (n = 209) and rituximab (n = 311) had active, longstanding RA. At week 24, significantly more (P < 0.0001) rituximab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients demonstrated ACR20 (51% versus 18%), ACR50 (27% versus 5%), and ACR70 (12% versus 1%) responses and moderate-to-good EULAR responses (65% versus 22%). All ACR response parameters were significantly improved in rituximab-treated patients, who also had clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, disability, and health-related quality of life (demonstrated by FACIT-F, HAQ DI, and SF-36 scores, respectively) and showed a trend toward less progression in radiographic end points. Rituximab depleted peripheral CD20+ B cells, but the mean immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgM, and IgA) remained within normal ranges. Most adverse events occurred with the first rituximab infusion and were of mild-to-moderate severity. The rate of serious infections was 5.2 per 100 patient-years in the rituximab group and 3.7 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. Conclusion At 24 weeks, a single course of rituximab with concomitant MTX therapy provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity in patients with active, longstanding RA who had an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF therapies.

1,586 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
03 May 2006-JAMA
TL;DR: Patients receiving medical management with naltrexone, CBI, or both fared better on drinking outcomes, whereas acamprosate showed no evidence of efficacy, with or without CBI.
Abstract: ContextAlcohol dependence treatment may include medications, behavioral therapies, or both. It is unknown how combining these treatments may impact their effectiveness, especially in the context of primary care and other nonspecialty settings.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of medication, behavioral therapies, and their combinations for treatment of alcohol dependence and to evaluate placebo effect on overall outcome.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRandomized controlled trial conducted January 2001-January 2004 among 1383 recently alcohol-abstinent volunteers (median age, 44 years) from 11 US academic sites with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnoses of primary alcohol dependence.InterventionsEight groups of patients received medical management with 16 weeks of naltrexone (100 mg/d) or acamprosate (3 g/d), both, and/or both placebos, with or without a combined behavioral intervention (CBI). A ninth group received CBI only (no pills). Patients were also evaluated for up to 1 year after treatment.Main Outcome MeasuresPercent days abstinent from alcohol and time to first heavy drinking day.ResultsAll groups showed substantial reduction in drinking. During treatment, patients receiving naltrexone plus medical management (n = 302), CBI plus medical management and placebos (n = 305), or both naltrexone and CBI plus medical management (n = 309) had higher percent days abstinent (80.6, 79.2, and 77.1, respectively) than the 75.1 in those receiving placebos and medical management only (n = 305), a significant naltrexone × behavioral intervention interaction (P = .009). Naltrexone also reduced risk of a heavy drinking day (hazard ratio, 0.72; 97.5% CI, 0.53-0.98; P = .02) over time, most evident in those receiving medical management but not CBI. Acamprosate showed no significant effect on drinking vs placebo, either by itself or with any combination of naltrexone, CBI, or both. During treatment, those receiving CBI without pills or medical management (n = 157) had lower percent days abstinent (66.6) than those receiving placebo plus medical management alone (n = 153) or placebo plus medical management and CBI (n = 156) (73.8 and 79.8, respectively; P<.001). One year after treatment, these between-group effects were similar but no longer significant.ConclusionsPatients receiving medical management with naltrexone, CBI, or both fared better on drinking outcomes, whereas acamprosate showed no evidence of efficacy, with or without CBI. No combination produced better efficacy than naltrexone or CBI alone in the presence of medical management. Placebo pills and meeting with a health care professional had a positive effect above that of CBI during treatment. Naltrexone with medical management could be delivered in health care settings, thus serving alcohol-dependent patients who might otherwise not receive treatment.Trial Registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00006206

1,584 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Among more severely depressed patients, behavioral activation was comparable to antidepressant medication, and both significantly outperformed cognitive therapy, and the implications of current treatment guidelines and dissemination are discussed.
Abstract: Antidepressant medication is considered the current standard for severe depression, and cognitive therapy is the most widely investigated psychosocial treatment for depression. However, not all patients want to take medication, and cognitive therapy has not demonstrated consistent efficacy across trials. Moreover, dismantling designs have suggested that behavioral components may account for the efficacy of cognitive therapy. The present study tested the efficacy of behavioral activation by comparing it with cognitive therapy and antidepressant medication in a randomized placebo-controlled design in adults with major depressive disorder (N = 241). In addition, it examined the importance of initial severity as a moderator of treatment outcome. Among more severely depressed patients, behavioral activation was comparable to antidepressant medication, and both significantly outperformed cognitive therapy. The implications of these findings for the evaluation of current treatment guidelines and dissemination are discussed.

1,447 citations


Reference EntryDOI
TL;DR: Treatment for periods of 6 months and one year, with donepezil, galantamine or rivastigmine at the recommended dose for people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease produced improvements in cognitive function, on average -2.7 points, in the midrange of the 70 point ADAS-Cog Scale.
Abstract: Background ** This review is awaiting update with a new protocol. The methods used for the review were acceptable when the review was published but do not meet contemporary standards, and the review is also considerably out of date. Therefore, readers should note that the review may not represent a reliable basis for decision making. ** Since the introduction of the first cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) in 1997, most clinicians and probably most patients would consider the cholinergic drugs, donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, to be the first line pharmacotherapy for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. The drugs have slightly different pharmacological properties, but they all work by inhibiting the breakdown of acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter associated with memory, by blocking the enzyme acetylcholinesterase. The most that these drugs could achieve is to modify the clinical manifestations of Alzheimer's disease. Cochrane reviews of each ChEI for Alzheimer's disease have been completed. Objectives To assess the effects of donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine in people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease based on evidence summarised in three existing Cochrane Reviews Search methods The Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register was searched using the terms 'donepezil', 'E2020' , 'Aricept' , galanthamin* galantamin* reminyl, rivastigmine, exelon, "ENA 713" and ENA-713 on 12 June 2005. This Register contains up-to-date records of all major health care databases and many ongoing trial databases. Selection criteria All unconfounded, blinded, randomized trials of at least six months in which treatment with a ChEI at the usual recommended dose was compared with placebo or another ChEI for patients with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. Data collection and analysis Data were extracted by one reviewer (JSB), pooled where appropriate and possible, and the pooled treatment effects, or the risks and benefits of treatment, estimated. Main results The results of 10 randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials demonstrate that treatment for 6 months, with donepezil, galantamine or rivastigmine at the recommended dose for people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease produced improvements in cognitive function, on average -2.37 points (95%CI -2.73 to -2.02, p<0.00001), in the midrange of the 70 point ADAS-Cog Scale. Study clinicians rated global clinical state more positively in treated patients. Benefits of treatment were also seen on measures of activities of daily living and behaviour. None of these treatment effects are large. The effects are similar for patients with severe dementia, although there is very little evidence, from only two trials. More patients leave ChEI treatment groups, (29%), than leave the placebo groups (18%). There is evidence of more adverse events in total in the patients treated with a ChEI than with placebo. Although many types of adverse event were reported, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, were significantly more frequent in the ChEI groups than in placebo. There is only one randomized, double blind study in which two ChEIs are compared, donepezil compared with rivastigmine. There is no evidence of a difference between donepezil and rivastigmine for cognitive function, activities of daily living and behavioural disturbance at two years. Fewer patients suffer adverse events on donepezil than rivastigmine. Authors' conclusions The three cholinesterase inhibitors are efficacious for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Despite the slight variations in the mode of action of the three cholinesterase inhibitors there is no evidence of any differences between them with respect to efficacy. The evidence from one large trial shows fewer adverse events associated with donepezil compared with rivastigmine.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, Carotid endarterectomy is effective in stroke prevention for patients with severe symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis, and Stentation has been widely used as alternative treatment.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Collaborative care is more effective than standard care in improving depression outcomes in the short and longer terms.
Abstract: Background Depression is common in primary care but is suboptimally managed. Collaborative care, that is, structured care involving a greater role of nonmedical specialists to augment primary care, has emerged as a potentially effective candidate intervention to improve quality of primary care and patient outcomes. Methods To quantify the short-term and longer-term effectiveness of collaborative care compared with standard care and to understand mechanisms of action by exploring between-study heterogeneity, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that compared collaborative care with usual primary care in patients with depression. We searched MEDLINE (from the beginning of 1966), EMBASE (from the beginning of 1980), CINAHL (from the beginning of 1980), PsycINFO (from the beginning of 1980), the Cochrane Library (from the beginning of 1966), and DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness) (from the beginning of 1985) databases from study inception to February 6, 2006. Results We found 37 randomized studies including 12 355 patients with depression receiving primary care. Random effects meta-analysis showed that depression outcomes were improved at 6 months (standardized mean difference, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.32), and evidence of longer-term benefit was found for up to 5 years (standardized mean difference, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.31). When exploring determinants of effectiveness, effect size was directly related to medication compliance and to the professional background and method of supervision of case managers. The addition of brief psychotherapy did not substantially improve outcome, nor did increased numbers of sessions. Cumulative meta-analysis showed that sufficient evidence had emerged by 2000 to demonstrate the statistically significant benefit of collaborative care. Conclusions Collaborative care is more effective than standard care in improving depression outcomes in the short and longer terms. Future research needs to address the implementation of collaborative care, particularly in settings other than the United States.

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 2006-Chest
TL;DR: Subgroup analyses suggest the risk may be greater in African Americans compared with Caucasian subjects and whether this risk is due to factors including but not limited to a physiologic treatment effect, genetic factors, or patient behaviors leading to poor outcomes remains unknown.

Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, the authors conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that compared collaborative care with usual primary care in patients with depression and found that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in improving depression outcomes in the short and longer terms.
Abstract: Background: Depression is common in primary care but is suboptimally managed. Collaborative care, that is, structured care involving a greater role of nonmedical specialists to augment primary care, has emerged as a potentially effective candidate intervention to improve quality of primary care and patient outcomes. Methods: To quantify the short-term and longer-term effectiveness of collaborative care compared with standard care and to understand mechanisms of action by exploring between-study heterogeneity, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials that compared collaborative care with usual primary care in patients with depression. We searched MEDLINE (from the beginning of 1966), EMBASE (from the beginning of 1980), CINAHL (from the beginning of 1980), PsycINFO (from the beginning of 1980), the Cochrane Library (from the beginning of 1966), and DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness) (from the beginning of 1985) databases from study inception to February 6, 2006. Results: We found 37 randomized studies including 12 355 patients with depression receiving primary care. Random effects meta-analysis showed that depression outcomes were improved at 6 months (standardized mean difference, 0.25;95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.32), and evidence of longer-term benefit was found for up to 5 years (standardized mean difference, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.31). When exploring determinants of effectiveness, effect size was directly related to medication compliance and to the professional background and method of supervision of case managers. The addition of brief psychotherapy did not substantially improve outcome, nor did increased numbers of sessions. Cumulative meta-analysis showed that sufficient evidence had emerged by 2000 to demonstrate the statistically significant benefit of collaborative care. Conclusions: Collaborative care is more effective than standard care in improving depression outcomes in the short and longer terms. Future research needs to address the implementation of collaborative care, particularly in settings other than the United States.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This report overviews and highlights these important interval developments as deliberated among the task force of CTEPH experts and presented at the 2013 World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension in Nice, France.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In people with schizophrenia whose medication is changed for clinical reasons, there is no disadvantage across 1 year in terms of quality of life, symptoms, or associated costs of care in using FGAs rather than nonclozapine SGAs.
Abstract: Context Second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics (SGAs) are more expensive than first-generation (typical) antipsychotics (FGAs) but are perceived to be more effective, with fewer adverse effects, and preferable to patients. Most evidence comes from short-term efficacy trials of symptoms. Objective To test the hypothesis that in people with schizophrenia requiring a change in treatment, SGAs other than clozapine are associated with improved quality of life across 1 year compared with FGAs. Design A noncommercially funded, pragmatic, multisite, randomized controlled trial of antipsychotic drug classes, with blind assessments at 12, 26, and 56 weeks using intention-to-treat analysis. Setting Fourteen community psychiatric services in the English National Health Service. Participants Two hundred twenty-seven people aged 18 to 65 years withDSM-IVschizophrenia and related disorders assessed for medication review because of inadequate response or adverse effects. Interventions Randomized prescription of either FGAs or SGAs (other than clozapine), with the choice of individual drug made by the managing psychiatrist. Main Outcome Measures Quality of Life Scale scores, symptoms, adverse effects, participant satisfaction, and costs of care. Results The primary hypothesis of significant improvement in Quality of Life Scale scores during the year after commencement of SGAs vs FGAs was excluded. Participants in the FGA arm showed a trend toward greater improvements in Quality of Life Scale and symptom scores. Participants reported no clear preference for either drug group; costs were similar. Conclusions In people with schizophrenia whose medication is changed for clinical reasons, there is no disadvantage across 1 year in terms of quality of life, symptoms, or associated costs of care in using FGAs rather than nonclozapine SGAs. Neither inadequate power nor patterns of drug discontinuation accounted for the result.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Exercise is an effective intervention to improve quality of life, cardiorespiratory fitness, physical functioning and fatigue in breast cancer patients and survivors and larger trials that examine the long-term benefits of exercise are needed for this patient group.
Abstract: Background: Physical exercise has been identified as a potential intervention to improve quality of life in women with breast cancer. We sought to summarize the available evidence concerning the effects of exercise on breast cancer patients and survivors. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, CancerLit, PEDro and SportDiscus as well as conference proceedings, clinical practice guidelines and other unpublished literature resources. We included only randomized controlled trials that examined exercise interventions for breast cancer patients or survivors with quality of life, cardiorespiratory fitness or physical functioning as primary outcomes. We also extracted data on symptoms of fatigue, body composition and adverse effects. Results: Of 136 studies identified, 14 met all the inclusion criteria. Despite significant heterogeneity and relatively small samples, the point estimates in terms of the benefits of exercise for all outcomes were positive even when statistical significance was not achieved. Exercise led to statistically significant improvements in quality of life as assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (weighted mean difference [WMD] 4.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35 to 8.80) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast (WMD 6.62, 95% CI 1.21 to 12.03). Exercise also led to significant improvements in physical functioning and peak oxygen consumption and in reducing symptoms of fatigue. Interpretation: Exercise is an effective intervention to improve quality of life, cardiorespiratory fitness, physical functioning and fatigue in breast cancer patients and survivors. Larger trials that have a greater focus on study quality and adverse effects and that examine the long-term benefits of exercise are needed for this patient group.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Improvements in fatigue were correlated with decreasing joint pain, whereas improvements in symptoms of depression were less correlated with objective measures of skin clearance or joint pain.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Evaluated trials provide level A evidence for the efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, pregabalin and opioids, with a large number of class I trials, followed by topical lidocaine and the newer antidepressants venlafaxine and duloxetine.
Abstract: Neuropathic pain treatment remains unsatisfactory despite a substantial increase in the number of trials. This EFNS Task Force aimed at evaluating the existing evidence about the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Studies were identified using first the Cochrane Database then Medline. Trials were classified according to the aetiological condition. All class I and II controlled trials (according to EFNS classification of evidence) were assessed, but lower-class studies were considered in conditions that had no top level studies. Only treatments feasible in an outpatient setting were evaluated. Effects on pain symptoms/signs, quality of life and comorbidities were particularly searched for. Most of the randomized controlled trials included patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and painful polyneuropathies (PPN) mainly caused by diabetes. These trials provide level A evidence for the efficacy of tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, pregabalin and opioids, with a large number of class I trials, followed by topical lidocaine (in PHN) and the newer antidepressants venlafaxine and duloxetine (in PPN). A small number of controlled trials were performed in central pain, trigeminal neuralgia, other peripheral neuropathic pain states and multiple-aetiology neuropathic pains. The main peripheral pain conditions respond similarly well to tricyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, and pregabalin, but some conditions, such as HIV-associated polyneuropathy, are more refractory. There are too few studies on central pain, combination therapy, and head-to-head comparison. For future trials, we recommend to assess quality of life and pain symptoms or signs with standardized tools.

Journal ArticleDOI
22 Nov 2006-JAMA
TL;DR: Patients in both the surgery and the nonoperative treatment groups improved substantially over a 2-year period, and conclusions about the superiority or equivalence of the treatments are not warranted based on the intent-to-treat analysis.
Abstract: Context Lumbar diskectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed for back and leg symptoms in US patients, but the efficacy of the procedure relative to nonoperative care remains controversial.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Augmentation of citalopram with either sustained-release bupropion or buspirone appears to be useful in actual clinical settings, including a greater reduction in the number and severity of symptoms and fewer side effects and adverse events.
Abstract: Background Although clinicians frequently add a second medication to an initial, ineffective antidepressant drug, no randomized controlled trial has compared the efficacy of this approach. Methods We randomly assigned 565 adult outpatients who had nonpsychotic major depressive disorder without remission despite a mean of 11.9 weeks of citalopram therapy (mean final dose, 55 mg per day) to receive sustained-release bupropion (at a dose of up to 400 mg per day) as augmentation and 286 to receive buspirone (at a dose of up to 60 mg per day) as augmentation. The primary outcome of remission of symptoms was defined as a score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the end of this study; scores were obtained over the telephone by raters blinded to treatment assignment. The 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology — Self-Report (QIDS-SR-16) was used to determine the secondary outcomes of remission (defined as a score of less than 6 at the end of this study) and ...

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This randomized controlled clinical trial was designed to confirm initial clinical benefits observed in a small, open‐label trial using intraputamenal (Ipu) infusion of recombinant human GDNF (liatermin).
Abstract: Objective Glial cell line–derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) exerts potent trophic influence on midbrain dopaminergic neurons. This randomized controlled clinical trial was designed to confirm initial clinical benefits observed in a small, open-label trial using intraputamenal (Ipu) infusion of recombinant human GDNF (liatermin). Methods Thirty-four PD patients were randomized 1 to 1 to receive bilateral continuous Ipu infusion of liatermin 15μg/putamen/day or placebo. The primary end point was the change in Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor score in the practically defined off condition at 6 months. Secondary end points included other UPDRS scores, motor tests, dyskinesia ratings, patient diaries, and 18F-dopa uptake. Results At 6 months, mean percentage changes in “off” UPDRS motor score were −10.0% and −4.5% in the liatermin and placebo groups, respectively. This treatment difference was not significant (95% confidence interval, −23.0 to 12.0, p = 0.53). Secondary end point results were similar between the groups. A 32.5% treatment difference favoring liatermin in mean 18F-dopa influx constant (p = 0.019) was observed. Serious, device-related adverse events required surgical repositioning of catheters in two patients and removal of devices in another. Neutralizing antiliatermin antibodies were detected in three patients (one on-study and two in the open-label extension). Interpretation Liatermin did not confer the predetermined level of clinical benefit to patients with PD despite increased 18F-dopa uptake. It is uncertain whether technical differences between this trial and positive open-label studies contributed in any way this negative outcome. Ann Neurol 2006

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The ESPRIT results, combined with the results of previous trials, provide sufficient evidence to prefer the combination regimen of aspirin plus dipyridamole over aspirin alone as antithrombotic therapy after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A small beneficial effect of memantine at six months in moderate to severe AD is suggested and the statistical significance of these benefits could be overturned by data from two unpublished studies which are known to show no significant effect.
Abstract: Background Memantine, a low affinity antagonist to glutamate NMDA receptors, may prevent excitatory neurotoxicity in dementia. Objectives To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with Alzheimer's disease (AD), vascular (VD) and mixed dementia. Search methods The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group was searched on 8 February 2006. This register contains references from all major healthcare databases and many ongoing trial databases and is updated regularly. In addition, the search engines Copernic and Google were used to identify unpublished trials through inspection of the websites of licensing bodies like the FDA , EMEA and NICE and of companies' websites (Lundbeck, Merz, Forest, Suntori etc) and clinical trials registries. Selection criteria Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomized trials of memantine in people with dementia. Data collection and analysis Data were pooled where possible. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and observed case (OC) analyses are reported. Main results 1. Moderate to severe AD. Two out of three six month studies show a small beneficial effect of memantine. Pooled data indicate a beneficial effect at six months on cognition (2.97 points on the 100 point SIB, 95% CI 1.68 to 4.26, P < 0.00001), activities of daily living (1.27 points on the 54 point ADCS-ADLsev, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.09, P = 0.003) and behaviour (2.76 points on the 144 point NPI, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.63, P=0.004), supported by clinical impression of change (0.28 points on the 7 point CIBIC+, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41, P < 0.0001). 2. Mild to moderate AD. Pooled data from three unpublished studies indicate a marginal benefical effect at six months on ITT cognition (0.99 points on the 70 point ADAS-Cog, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.78, P = 0.01) which was barely detectable clinically (0.13 CIBIC+ points, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.25, P = 0.03) but no effect on behaviour, activities of daily living or OC analysis of cognition. 3. Mild to moderate vascular dementia. Pooled data from two six month studies indicated a small beneficial effect of memantine on cognition (1.85 ADAS-Cog points, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.83, P = 0.0002), and behaviour (0.84 95% CI 0.06 to 0.91, P = 0.03) but this was not supported by clinical global measures. 4. Patients taking memantine were slightly less likely to develop agitation (134/1739, 7.7% versus 175/1873, 9.3% OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.99, P = 0.04). This effect was slightly larger, but still small, in moderate to severe AD (58/506 [12%] vs 88/499 [18%]; OR = 0.6, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.86, P = 0.005). There is no evidence either way about whether it has an effect on agitation which is already present. 5. Memantine is well tolerated. Authors' conclusions Memantine has a small beneficial effect at six months in moderate to severe AD. In patients with mild to moderate dementia, the small beneficial effect on cognition was not clinically detectable in those with vascular dementia and was detectable in those with AD. Memantine is well tolerated.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Treatment with a low dose of pravastatin reduces the risk of coronary heart disease in Japan by much the same amount as higher doses have shown in Europe and the USA.

Journal ArticleDOI
07 Apr 2006-Trials
TL;DR: Factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies, identified from the administrative databases held by the two funding bodies, are explored.
Abstract: A commonly reported problem with the conduct of multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that recruitment is often slower or more difficult than expected, with many trials failing to reach their planned sample size within the timescale and funding originally envisaged. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies: the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme. The cohort of trials was identified from the administrative databases held by the two funding bodies. 114 trials that recruited participants between 1994 and 2002 met the inclusion criteria. The full scientific applications and subsequent trial reports submitted by the trial teams to the funders provided the principal data sources. Associations between trial characteristics and recruitment success were tested using the Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test where appropriate. Less than a third (31%) of the trials achieved their original recruitment target and half (53%) were awarded an extension. The proportion achieving targets did not appear to improve over time. The overall start to recruitment was delayed in 47 (41%) trials and early recruitment problems were identified in 77 (63%) trials. The inter-relationship between trial features and recruitment success was complex. A variety of strategies were employed to try to increase recruitment, but their success could not be assessed. Recruitment problems are complex and challenging. Many of the trials in the cohort experienced recruitment difficulties. Trials often required extended recruitment periods (sometimes supported by additional funds). While this is of continuing concern, success in addressing the trial question may be more important than recruitment alone.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Despite the successful completion of this efficacy trial of AIDSVAX B/E (VaxGen), the vaccine did not prevent HIV-1 infection or delay HIV- 1 disease progression.
Abstract: In Thailand phase 1/2 trials of monovalent subtype B and bivalent subtype B/E (CRF01_AE) recombinant glycoprotein 120 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) vaccines were successfully conducted from 1995 to 1998 prompting the first HIV-1 vaccine efficacy trial in Asia. This randomized double-blind placebo-controlled efficacy trial of AIDSVAX B/E (VaxGen) which included 36-months of follow-up was conducted among injection drug users (IDUs) in Bangkok Thailand. The primary end point was HIV-1 infection; secondary end points included plasma HIV-1 load CD4 cell count onset of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-defining conditions and initiation of antiretroviral therapy. A total of 2546 IDUs were enrolled between March 1999 and August 2000; the median age was 26 years and 93.4% were men. The overall HIV-1 incidence was 3.4 infections/100 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0-3.9 infections/100 person-years) and the cumulative incidence was 8.4%. There were no differences between the vaccine and placebo arms. HIV-1 subtype E (83 vaccine and 81 placebo recipients) accounted for 77% of infections. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at 0.1% (95% CI -30.8% to 23.8%; P = .99 log-rank test). No statistically significant effects of the vaccine on secondary end points were observed. Despite the successful completion of this efficacy trial the vaccine did not prevent HIV-1 infection or delay HIV-1 disease progression. (authors)

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This randomized controlled trial provides promising data on the specificity and generalizability of joint attention and play interventions for young children with autism.
Abstract: Background: Delays and deficits in joint attention and symbolic play constitute two important developmental problems in young children with autism. These areas of deficit have been well studied in autism but have rarely been the focus of treatment efforts (see Kasari, Freeman, & Paparella, 2001). In this study, we examine the efficacy of targeted interventions of joint attention and symbolic play. Methods: Participants were 58 children with autism aged 3 and 4 years (46 boys). Children were randomized to a joint attention intervention, a symbolic play intervention, or control group. Interventions were conducted 30 minutes daily for 5–6 weeks. Both structured assessments of joint attention and play skills and mother–child interactions were collected pre and post intervention by independent assessors. Results: Results indicate that both intervention groups improved significantly over the control group on certain behaviors. Children in the joint attention intervention initiated significantly more showing and responsiveness to joint attention on the structured joint attention assessment and more child-initiated joint attention in the mother–child interaction. The children in the play group showed more diverse types of symbolic play in interaction with their mothers and higher play levels on both the play assessment and in interaction with their mothers. Conclusions: This randomized controlled trial provides promising data on the specificity and generalizability of joint attention and play interventions for young children with autism. Future studies need to examine the long-term effects of these early interventions on children's development.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Adalimumab was well-tolerated during the 24-week study period and was associated with a significant and sustained reduction in the signs and symptoms of active ankylosing spondylitis.
Abstract: Objective To evaluate the safety and efficacy of adalimumab, a fully human recombinant IgG1 monoclonal antibody that specifically targets human tumor necrosis factor, in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods This was a multicenter, randomized (2:1 ratio), double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate a subcutaneous injection of adalimumab, 40 mg every other week, compared with placebo for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients with a 20% response according to the ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis International Working Group criteria for improvement (ASAS20) at week 12. Secondary outcome measures included the ASAS20 at week 24 and multiple measures of disease activity, spinal mobility, and function, as well as ASAS partial remission. Results At week 12, 58.2% of adalimumab-treated patients (121 of 208) achieved an ASAS20 response, compared with 20.6% of placebo-treated patients (22 of 107) (P < 0.001). More patients in the adalimumab group (45.2% [94 of 208]) than in the placebo group (15.9% [17 of 107]) had at least a 50% improvement in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index at week 12 (P < 0.001). Significant improvements in the ASAS40 response and the response according to the ASAS5/6 criteria at weeks 12 and 24 were also demonstrated (P < 0.001). Partial remission was achieved by more adalimumab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients (22.1% versus 5.6%; P < 0.001). Adalimumab-treated patients reported more adverse events (75.0% versus 59.8% of placebo-treated patients; P < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of infections. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. Conclusion Adalimumab was well-tolerated during the 24-week study period and was associated with a significant and sustained reduction in the signs and symptoms of active AS.