logo logo
Effects of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin on proteinuria in non-diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease (DIAMOND): a randomised, double-blind, crossover trial. Cherney David Z I,Dekkers Claire C J,Barbour Sean J,Cattran Daniel,Abdul Gafor Abdul Halim,Greasley Peter J,Laverman Gozewijn D,Lim Soo Kun,Di Tanna Gian Luca,Reich Heather N,Vervloet Marc G,Wong Muh Geot,Gansevoort Ron T,Heerspink Hiddo J L, The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology BACKGROUND:SGLT2 inhibition decreases albuminuria and reduces the risk of kidney disease progression in patients with type 2 diabetes. These benefits are unlikely to be mediated by improvements in glycaemic control alone. Therefore, we aimed to examine the kidney effects of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in patients with proteinuric kidney disease without diabetes. METHODS:DIAMOND was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial done at six hospitals in Canada, Malaysia, and the Netherlands. Eligible participants were adult patients (aged 18-75 years) with chronic kidney disease, without a diagnosis of diabetes, with a 24-h urinary protein excretion greater than 500 mg and less than or equal to 3500 mg and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 25 mL/min per 1·73 m, and who were on stable renin-angiotensin system blockade. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive placebo and then dapagliflozin 10 mg per day or vice versa. Each treatment period lasted 6 weeks with a 6-week washout period in between. Participants, investigators, and study personnel were masked to assignment throughout the trial and analysis. The primary outcome was percentage change from baseline in 24-h proteinuria during dapagliflozin treatment relative to placebo. Secondary outcomes were changes in measured GFR (mGFR; via iohexol clearance), bodyweight, blood pressure, and concentrations of neurohormonal biomarkers. Analyses were done in accordance with the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03190694. FINDINGS:Between Nov 22, 2017, and April 5, 2019, 58 patients were screened, of whom 53 (mean age 51 years [SD 13]; 32% women) were randomly assigned (27 received dapagliflozin then placebo and 26 received placebo then dapagliflozin). One patient discontinued during the first treatment period. All patients were included in the analysis. Mean baseline mGFR was 58·3 mL/min per 1·73 m (SD 23), median proteinuria was 1110 mg per 24 h (IQR 730-1560), and mean HbA was 5·6% (SD 0·4). The difference in mean proteinuria change from baseline between dapagliflozin and placebo was 0·9% (95% CI -16·6 to 22·1; p=0·93). Compared with placebo, mGFR was changed with dapagliflozin treatment by -6·6 mL/min per 1·73 m (-9·0 to -4·2; p<0·0001) at week 6. This reduction was fully reversible within 6 weeks after dapagliflozin discontinuation. Compared with placebo, bodyweight was reduced by 1·5 kg (0·03-3·0; p=0·046) with dapagliflozin; changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and concentrations of neurohormonal biomarkers did not differ significantly between dapagliflozin and placebo treatment. The numbers of patients who had one or more adverse events during dapagliflozin treatment (17 [32%] of 53) and during placebo treatment (13 [25%] of 52) were similar. No hypoglycaemic events were reported and no deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION:6-week treatment with dapagliflozin did not affect proteinuria in patients with chronic kidney disease without diabetes, but did induce an acute and reversible decline in mGFR and a reduction in bodyweight. Long-term clinical trials are underway to determine whether SGLT2 inhibitors can safely reduce the rate of major clinical kidney outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease with and without diabetes. FUNDING:AstraZeneca. 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30162-5
Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 2·0 mg versus 1·0 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN FORTE): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3B trial. Frías Juan P,Auerbach Pernille,Bajaj Harpreet S,Fukushima Yasushi,Lingvay Ildiko,Macura Stanislava,Søndergaard Anette L,Tankova Tsvetalina I,Tentolouris Nikolaos,Buse John B The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology BACKGROUND:Semaglutide is an effective treatment for type 2 diabetes; however, 20-30% of patients given semaglutide 1·0 mg do not reach glycaemic treatment goals. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 2·0 mg versus 1·0 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of metformin with or without a sulfonylurea. METHODS:We did a 40-week, randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind, phase 3B trial (SUSTAIN FORTE) at 125 outpatient clinics in ten countries. Participants (≥18 years) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA 8·0-10·0%) with metformin and with or without sulfonylurea were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system to 2·0 mg or 1·0 mg once-weekly semaglutide. Participants, site personnel, the clinical study group, and investigators were masked to the randomised treatment. Outcomes included change from baseline at week 40 in HbA (primary outcome) and bodyweight (secondary confirmatory outcome), evaluated through trial product estimand (no treatment discontinuation or without rescue medication) and treatment policy estimand (regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue medication) strategies. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03989232; EudraCT, 2018-004529-96; and WHO, U1111-1224-5162. FINDINGS:Between June 19 and Nov 28, 2019, of 1515 adults assessed for eligibility, 961 participants (mean age 58·0 years [SD 10·0]; 398 [41%] women) were included. Participants were randomly assigned to once-weekly semaglutide 2·0 mg (n=480 [50%]) or 1·0 mg (n=481 [50%]); 462 (96%) patients in the semaglutide 2·0 mg group and 471 (98%) in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group completed the trial. Mean baseline HbA was 8·9% (SD 0·6; 73·3 mmol/mol [SD 6·9]) and BMI was 34·6 kg/m (SD 7·0). Mean change in HbA from baseline at week 40 was -2·2 percentage points with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -1·9 percentage points with semaglutide 1·0 mg (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·23 percentage points [95% CI -0·36 to -0·11]; p=0·0003; trial product estimand) and -2·1 percentage points with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -1·9 percentage points with semaglutide 1·0 mg (ETD -0·18 percentage points [-0·31 to -0·04]; p=0·0098; treatment policy estimand). Mean change in bodyweight from baseline at week 40 was -6·9 kg with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -6·0 kg with semaglutide 1·0 mg (ETD -0·93 kg [95% CI -1·68 to -0·18]; p=0·015; trial product estimand) and -6·4 kg with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -5·6 kg with semaglutide 1·0 mg (ETD -0·77 kg [-1·55 to 0·01]; p=0·054; treatment policy estimand). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most commonly reported adverse events (163 [34%] in the 2·0 mg group and 148 [31%] in the 1·0 mg group). Serious adverse events were similar between treatment groups, reported for 21 (4%) participants given semaglutide 2·0 mg and 25 (5%) participants given semaglutide 1·0 mg. Three deaths were reported during the trial (one in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group and two in the semaglutide 2·0 mg group). INTERPRETATION:Semaglutide 2·0 mg was superior to 1·0 mg in reducing HbA, with additional bodyweight loss and a similar safety profile. This higher dose provides a treatment intensification option for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with semaglutide in need of additional glycaemic control. FUNDING:Novo Nordisk. 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00174-1
Effects of subcutaneous tirzepatide versus placebo or semaglutide on pancreatic islet function and insulin sensitivity in adults with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 1 clinical trial. The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology BACKGROUND:Tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptor agonist, shows a remarkable ability to lower blood glucose, enabling many patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes to achieve normoglycaemia. We aimed to understand the physiological mechanisms underlying the action of tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes. METHODS:This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 1 study was done at two centres in Germany. Eligible patients were aged 20-74 years, had type 2 diabetes for at least 6 months, and were being treated with lifestyle advice and stable doses of metformin, with or without one additional stable dose of another oral antihyperglycaemic medicine, 3 months before study entry. Via a randomisation table, patients were randomly assigned (3:3:2) to subcutaneously receive either tirzepatide 15 mg, semaglutide 1 mg, or placebo once per week. Endpoint measurements were done at baseline and the last week of therapy (week 28). The primary endpoint was the effect of tirzepatide versus placebo on the change in clamp disposition index (combining measures of insulin secretion and sensitivity) from baseline to week 28 of treatment and was analysed in the pharmacodynamic analysis set, which comprised all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of a study drug and had evaluable pharmacodynamic data. Safety was analysed in the safety population, which comprised all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. Secondary endpoints included the effect of tirzepatide versus semaglutide on the change in clamp disposition index from baseline to week 28 of treatment, glucose control, total insulin secretion rate, M value (insulin sensitivity), and fasting and postprandial glucagon concentrations. Exploratory endpoints included the change in fasting and postprandial insulin concentrations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03951753, and is complete. FINDINGS:Between June 28, 2019, and April 8, 2021, we screened 184 individuals and enrolled 117 participants, all of whom were included in the safety population (45 in the tirzepatide 15 mg group, 44 in the semaglutide 1 mg group, and 28 in the placebo group). Because of discontinuations and exclusions due to missing or unevaluable data, 39 patients in each treatment group and 24 patients in the placebo group comprised the pharmacodynamic analysis set. With tirzepatide, the clamp disposition index increased from a least squares mean of 0·3 pmol m L min kg (SE 0·03) at baseline by 1·9 pmol m L min kg (0·16) to total 2·3 pmol m L min kg (SE 0·16) at week 28 and, with placebo, the clamp disposition index did not change much from baseline (least squares mean at baseline 0·4 pmol m L min kg [SE 0·04]; change from baseline 0·0 pmol m L min kg [0·03]; least squares mean at week 28 0·3 [SE 0·03]; estimated treatment difference [ETD] tirzepatide vs placebo 1·92 [95% CI 1·59-2·24]; p<0·0001). The improvement with tirzepatide in clamp disposition index was significantly greater than with semaglutide (ETD 0·84 pmol m L min kg [95% CI 0·46-1·21]). This result reflected significant improvements in total insulin secretion rate (ETD 102·09 pmol min m [51·84-152·33]) and insulin sensitivity (ETD 1·52 mg min kg [0·53-2·52]) for tirzepatide versus semaglutide. On meal tolerance testing, tirzepatide significantly reduced glucose excursions (lower insulin and glucagon concentrations) compared with placebo, with effects on these variables being greater than with semaglutide. The safety profiles of tirzepatide and semaglutide were similar, with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common (11 [24%], 13 [30%], and seven [25%] with nausea; nine [20%], 13 [30%], and six [21%] with diarrhoea; and three [7%], five [11%], and one [4%] with vomiting, for tirzepatide, semaglutide, and placebo, respectively). There were no deaths. INTERPRETATION:The glycaemic efficacy of GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes results from concurrent improvements in key components of diabetes pathophysiology, namely β-cell function, insulin sensitivity, and glucagon secretion. These effects were large and help to explain the remarkable glucose-lowering ability of tirzepatide seen in phase 3 studies. FUNDING:Eli Lilly. 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00085-7
Efficacy and safety of intramuscular administration of tixagevimab-cilgavimab for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 (TACKLE): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet. Respiratory medicine BACKGROUND:Early intramuscular administration of SARS-CoV-2-neutralising monoclonal antibody combination, tixagevimab-cilgavimab, to non-hospitalised adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 has potential to prevent disease progression. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tixagevimab-cilgavimab in preventing progression to severe COVID-19 or death. METHODS:TACKLE is an ongoing, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 95 sites in the USA, Latin America, Europe, and Japan. Eligible participants were non-hospitalised adults aged 18 years or older with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (determined by RT-PCR or an antigen test) from any respiratory tract specimen collected 3 days or less before enrolment and who had not received a COVID-19 vaccination. A WHO Clinical Progression Scale score from more than 1 to less than 4 was required for inclusion and participants had to receive the study drug 7 days or less from self-reported onset of mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms or measured fever. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a single tixagevimab-cilgavimab 600 mg dose (two consecutive 3 mL intramuscular injections, one each of 300 mg tixagevimab and 300 mg cilgavimab) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified (using central blocked randomisation with randomly varying block sizes) by time from symptom onset, and high-risk versus low-risk of progression to severe COVID-19. Participants, investigators, and sponsor staff involved in the treatment or clinical evaluation and monitoring of the participants were masked to treatment-group assignments. The primary endpoints were severe COVID-19 or death from any cause through to day 29, and safety. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04723394. FINDINGS:Between Jan 28, 2021, and July 22, 2021, 1014 participants were enrolled, of whom 910 were randomly assigned to a treatment group (456 to receive tixagevimab-cilgavimab and 454 to receive placebo). The mean age of participants was 46·1 years (SD 15·2). Severe COVID-19 or death occurred in 18 (4%) of 407 participants in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group versus 37 (9%) of 415 participants in the placebo group (relative risk reduction 50·5% [95% CI 14·6-71·3]; p=0·0096). The absolute risk reduction was 4·5% (95% CI 1·1-8·0; p&lt;0·0001). Adverse events occurred in 132 (29%) of 452 participants in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group and 163 (36%) of 451 participants in the placebo group, and were mostly of mild or moderate severity. There were three COVID-19-reported deaths in the tixagevimab-cilgavimab group and six in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION:A single intramuscular tixagevimab-cilgavimab dose provided statistically and clinically significant protection against progression to severe COVID-19 or death versus placebo in unvaccinated individuals and safety was favourable. Treating mild to moderate COVID-19 earlier in the disease course with tixagevimab-cilgavimab might lead to more favourable outcomes. FUNDING:AstraZeneca. 10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00180-1
Effect of Zuranolone vs Placebo in Postpartum Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA psychiatry Importance:Postpartum depression (PPD) is one of the most common medical complications during and after pregnancy, negatively affecting both mother and child. Objective:To demonstrate the efficacy and safety of zuranolone, a neuroactive steroid γ-aminobutyric acid receptor-positive allosteric modulator, in PPD. Design, Setting, and Participants:This phase 3, double-blind, randomized, outpatient, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted between January 2017 and December 2018 in 27 enrolling US sites. Participant were women aged 18 to 45 years, 6 months or fewer post partum, with PPD (major depressive episode beginning third trimester or ≤4 weeks postdelivery), and baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) score of 26 or higher. Analysis was intention to treat and began December 2018 and ended March 2019. Interventions:Randomization 1:1 to placebo:zuranolone, 30 mg, administered orally each evening for 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary end point was change from baseline in HAMD-17 score for zuranolone vs placebo at day 15. Secondary end points included changes from baseline in HAMD-17 total score at other time points, HAMD-17 response (≥50% score reduction) and remission (score ≤7) rates, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score, and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety score. Safety was assessed by adverse events and clinical assessments. Results:Of 153 randomized patients, the efficacy set comprised 150 patients (mean [SD] age, 28.3 [5.4] years), and 148 (98.7%) completed treatment. A total of 76 patients were randomized to placebo, and 77 were randomized to zuranolone, 30 mg. Zuranolone demonstrated significant day 15 HAMD-17 score improvements from baseline vs placebo (-17.8 vs -13.6; difference, -4.2; 95% CI, -6.9 to -1.5; P = .003). Sustained differences in HAMD-17 scores favoring zuranolone were observed from day 3 (difference, -2.7; 95% CI, -5.1 to -0.3; P = .03) through day 45 (difference, -4.1; 95% CI, -6.7 to -1.4; P = .003). Sustained differences at day 15 favoring zuranolone were observed in HAMD-17 response (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.34-5.16; P = .005), HAMD-17 score remission (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.24-5.17; P = .01), change from baseline for Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score (difference, -4.6; 95% CI, -8.3 to -0.8; P = .02), and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety score (difference, -3.9; 95% CI, -6.7 to -1.1; P = .006). One patient per group experienced a serious adverse event (confusional state in the zuranolone group and pancreatitis in the placebo group). One patient in the zuranolone group discontinued because of an adverse event vs none for placebo. Conclusions and Relevance:In this randomized clinical trial, zuranolone improved the core symptoms of depression as measured by HAMD-17 scores in women with PPD and was generally well tolerated, supporting further development of zuranolone in the treatment of PPD. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02978326. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1559
Dexamethasone treatment for the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Villar Jesús,Ferrando Carlos,Martínez Domingo,Ambrós Alfonso,Muñoz Tomás,Soler Juan A,Aguilar Gerardo,Alba Francisco,González-Higueras Elena,Conesa Luís A,Martín-Rodríguez Carmen,Díaz-Domínguez Francisco J,Serna-Grande Pablo,Rivas Rosana,Ferreres José,Belda Javier,Capilla Lucía,Tallet Alec,Añón José M,Fernández Rosa L,González-Martín Jesús M, The Lancet. Respiratory medicine BACKGROUND:There is no proven specific pharmacological treatment for patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The efficacy of corticosteroids in ARDS remains controversial. We aimed to assess the effects of dexamethasone in ARDS, which might change pulmonary and systemic inflammation and result in a decrease in duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality. METHODS:We did a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in a network of 17 intensive care units (ICUs) in teaching hospitals across Spain in patients with established moderate-to-severe ARDS (defined by a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of 200 mm Hg or less assessed with a positive end-expiratory pressure of 10 cm HO or more and FiO of 0·5 or more at 24 h after ARDS onset). Patients with brain death, terminal-stage disease, or receiving corticosteroids or immunosuppressive drugs were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned based on balanced treatment assignments with a computerised randomisation allocation sequence using blocks of 10 opaque, sealed envelopes to receive immediate treatment with dexamethasone or continued routine intensive care (control group). Patients in the dexamethasone group received an intravenous dose of 20 mg once daily from day 1 to day 5, which was reduced to 10 mg once daily from day 6 to day 10. Patients in both groups were ventilated with lung-protective mechanical ventilation. Allocation concealment was maintained at all sites during the trial. Primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at 28 days, defined as the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation from day of randomisation to day 28. Secondary outcome was all-cause mortality 60 days after randomisation. All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01731795. FINDINGS:Between March 28, 2013, and Dec 31, 2018, we enrolled 277 patients and randomly assigned 139 patients to the dexamethasone group and 138 to the control group. The trial was stopped by the data safety monitoring board due to low enrolment rate after enrolling more than 88% (277/314) of the planned sample size. The mean number of ventilator-free days was higher in the dexamethasone group than in the control group (between-group difference 4·8 days [95% CI 2·57 to 7·03]; p<0·0001). At 60 days, 29 (21%) patients in the dexamethasone group and 50 (36%) patients in the control group had died (between-group difference -15·3% [-25·9 to -4·9]; p=0·0047). The proportion of adverse events did not differ significantly between the dexamethasone group and control group. The most common adverse events were hyperglycaemia in the ICU (105 [76%] patients in the dexamethasone group vs 97 [70%] patients in the control group), new infections in the ICU (eg, pneumonia or sepsis; 33 [24%] vs 35 [25%]), and barotrauma (14 [10%] vs 10 [7%]). INTERPRETATION:Early administration of dexamethasone could reduce duration of mechanical ventilation and overall mortality in patients with established moderate-to-severe ARDS. FUNDING:Fundación Mutua Madrileña, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, The European Regional Development's Funds, Asociación Científica Pulmón y Ventilación Mecánica. 10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30417-5
Adjuvant methotrexate escalated to toxicity for resectable stage III and IV squamous head and neck carcinomas--a prospective, randomized study. Rentschler R E,Wilbur D W,Petti G H,Chonkich G D,Hilliard D A,Camacho E S,Thorpe R B Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology To determine if adjuvant methotrexate (MTX), escalated weekly to toxicity, could improve disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival by preventing recurrent disease, 60 patients with potentially resectable stage III or IV squamous head and neck carcinomas were stratified by primary site, stage, and nutritional status, then randomized by pairs to receive or not receive adjuvant MTX. All received standard surgery and postoperative radiation therapy. Five patients were taken off study because of unresectability at the time of surgery, leaving 55 evaluable patients. There were no statistically significant imbalances in known prognostic factors between the two treatment arms. MTX was begun at 40 mg/m2 and escalated 10 mg/m2 weekly (four doses preoperatively; four doses postoperatively, preradiation therapy; eight doses postradiation therapy) to mucosal or hematologic toxicity. The median peak MTX dose achieved was 80 mg/m2. Although three patients were hospitalized with MTX toxicity, none died of MTX toxicity. No patient receiving MTX had disease progression during treatment, and there was no increase in postoperative complications. Thirty-two patients died (median survival, 19 months); 23 patients are alive with median follow-up of 43 months. There was no statistically significant difference in actuarial DFS (P = 1.0) or overall survival (P = .61). Although patients on the MTX arm appeared to have less local and regional recurrences at first recurrence (thus more distant metastases), this did not reach statistical significance (P = .06). There was no significant difference between the sites of recurrence at death or last follow-up (P = .38). 10.1200/JCO.1987.5.2.278
The 5-year results of a randomized trial of adjuvant radiation therapy after chemotherapy in breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy. Griem K L,Henderson I C,Gelman R,Ascoli D,Silver B,Recht A,Goodman R L,Hellman S,Harris J R Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology The use of adjuvant radiation therapy in breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy has been controversial. In order to assess the necessity and effectiveness of adjuvant radiation therapy in this setting, we reviewed the results in 510 patients with T1-T3 tumors and pathologically positive nodes or tumors larger than 5 cm and negative nodes who were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with four or more positive nodes or at least one positive apical node were randomized to receive either five or ten cycles of cyclophosphamide/Adriamycin (Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH) (CA) and patients with one to three positive nodes or operable tumors larger than 5 cm and pathologically negative nodes were randomized to receive eight cycles of either cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (CMF) or methotrexate and 5-FU (MF) chemotherapy. Two hundred six of these patients were subsequently rerandomized to receive either no further treatment or adjuvant radiotherapy. Thirty-five patients withdrew after randomization, including 34 who declined to receive radiotherapy. Radiation therapy consisted of 4,500 cGy in 5 weeks to the chest wall and appropriate draining lymph nodes. Median follow-up from chemotherapy randomization is 45 months for patients in the CA arm and 53 months for those in the CMF/MF arm. The crude rate of local failure (chest wall or draining lymph node areas) as first site of failure for patients randomized to receive chemotherapy only was 14%; for those randomized to receive both chemotherapy and radiotherapy it was 5% (P = .03). For patients in the CMF/MF arm, the rate of local failure as the first site of failure was nearly the same for patients randomized to chemotherapy only as for those randomized to adjuvant radiotherapy as well (5% v 2%). For patients in the CA arm, the crude rate of local failure was 20% for patients randomized to receive chemotherapy only, and 6% for those randomized to both types of adjuvant treatment (P = .03). Among the 43 patients treated with CA who actually received radiotherapy, there was only one local failure, compared with 12 local failures among the 59 patients (20%) who actually did not receive radiotherapy (P = .007). No significant difference was seen in disease-free survival or overall survival in either the CA or the CMF/MF arm between patients randomized to receive radiation therapy and those randomized to no further treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS) 10.1200/JCO.1987.5.10.1546
Myostatin antibody (LY2495655) in older weak fallers: a proof-of-concept, randomised, phase 2 trial. Becker Clemens,Lord Stephen R,Studenski Stephanie A,Warden Stuart J,Fielding Roger A,Recknor Christopher P,Hochberg Marc C,Ferrari Serge L,Blain Hubert,Binder Ellen F,Rolland Yves,Poiraudeau Serge,Benson Charles T,Myers Stephen L,Hu Leijun,Ahmad Qasim I,Pacuch Kelli R,Gomez Elisa V,Benichou Olivier, The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology BACKGROUND:Myostatin inhibits skeletal muscle growth. The humanised monoclonal antibody LY2495655 (LY) binds and neutralises myostatin. We aimed to test whether LY increases appendicular lean body mass (aLBM) and improves physical performance in older individuals who have had recent falls and low muscle strength and power. METHODS:In this proof-of-concept, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel, multicentre, phase 2 study, we recruited patients aged 75 years or older who had fallen in the past year from 21 investigator sites across Argentina, Australia, France, Germany, Sweden, and the USA. Eligible patients had low performance on hand grip strength and chair rise tests, tested with the procedure described by Guralnik and colleagues. Participants were stratified by country, age, hand grip strength, and performance on the chair rise test, and were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated random sequence to receive subcutaneous injections of placebo or 315 mg LY at weeks 0 (randomisation visit), 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, followed by 16 weeks observation. The primary outcome was change in aLBM from baseline to 24 weeks. We measured physical performance as secondary outcomes (four-step stair climbing time, usual gait speed, and time to rise five times from a chair without arms, or with arms for participants unable to do it without arms) and exploratory outcomes (12-step stair climbing test, 6-min walking distance, fast gait speed, hand grip strength, and isometric leg extension strength). Efficacy analyses included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose and had a baseline and at least one subsequent measure. The primary analysis and all other tests of treatment effect (except physical performance tests) were done at a two-sided alpha level of 0·05. Tests of treatment effect on physical performance tests were done at a pre-specified two-sided alpha level of 0·1. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01604408. FINDINGS:Between June 19, 2012, and Dec 12, 2013, we screened 365 patients. 99 were randomly assigned to receive placebo and 102 to receive LY. Treatment was completed in 85 (86%) of patients given placebo and in 82 (80%) given LY. At 24 weeks, the least-squares mean change in aLBM was -0·123 kg (95% CI -0·287 to 0·040) in the placebo group and 0·303 kg (0·135 to 0·470) in the LY group, a difference of 0·43 kg (95% CI 0·192 to 0·660; p<0·0001). Stair climbing time (four-step and 12-step tests), chair rise with arms, and fast gait speed improved significantly from baseline to week 24 with differences between LY and placebo of respectively -0·46 s (p=0·093), -1·28 s (p=0·011), -4·15 s (p=0·054), and 0·05 m/s (p=0·088). No effect was detected for other performance-based measures. Injection site reactions were recorded in nine (9%) patients given placebo and in 31 (30%) patients given LY (p<0·0001), and were generally mild, and led to treatment discontinuation in two patients given LY. INTERPRETATION:Our findings show LY treatment increases lean mass and might improve functional measures of muscle power. Although additional studies are needed to confirm these results, our data suggest LY should be tested for its potential ability to reduce the risk of falls or physical dependency in older weak fallers. FUNDING:Eli Lilly and Company. 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00298-3
Atorvastatin as a stable treatment in bronchiectasis: a randomised controlled trial. Mandal Pallavi,Chalmers James D,Graham Catriona,Harley Catherine,Sidhu Manjit K,Doherty Catherine,Govan John W,Sethi Tariq,Davidson Donald J,Rossi Adriano G,Hill Adam T The Lancet. Respiratory medicine BACKGROUND:Bronchiectasis is characterised by chronic cough, sputum production, and recurrent chest infections. Pathogenesis is poorly understood, but excess neutrophilic airway inflammation is seen. Accumulating evidence suggests that statins have pleiotropic effects; therefore, these drugs could be a potential anti-inflammatory treatment for patients with bronchiectasis. We did a proof-of-concept randomised controlled trial to establish if atorvastatin could reduce cough in patients with bronchiectasis. METHODS:Patients aged 18-79 years were recruited from a secondary-care clinic in Edinburgh, UK. Participants had clinically significant bronchiectasis (ie, cough and sputum production when clinically stable) confirmed by chest CT and two or more chest infections in the preceding year. Individuals were randomly allocated to receive either high-dose atorvastatin (80 mg) or a placebo, given orally once a day for 6 months. Sequence generation was done with a block randomisation of four. Random allocation was masked to study investigators and patients. The primary endpoint was reduction in cough from baseline to 6 months, measured by the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) score, with a lower score indicating a more severe cough (minimum clinically important difference, 1·3 units). Analysis was done by intention-to-treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01299181. FINDINGS:Between June 23, 2011, and Jan 30, 2011, 82 patients were screened for inclusion in the study and 22 were excluded before randomisation. 30 individuals were assigned atorvastatin and 30 were allocated placebo. The change from baseline to 6 months in LCQ score differed between groups, with a mean change of 1·5 units in patients allocated atorvastatin versus -0·7 units in those assigned placebo (mean difference 2·2, 95% CI 0·5-3·9; p=0·01). 12 (40%) of 30 patients in the atorvastatin group improved by 1·3 units or more on the LCQ compared with five (17%) of 30 in the placebo group (difference 23%, 95% CI 1-45; p=0·04). Ten (33%) patients assigned atorvastatin had an adverse event versus three (10%) allocated placebo (difference 23%, 95% CI 3-43; p=0·02). No serious adverse events were recorded. INTERPRETATION:6 months of atorvastatin improved cough on a quality-of-life scale in patients with bronchiectasis. Multicentre studies are now needed to assess whether long-term statin treatment can reduce exacerbations. FUNDING:Chief Scientist's Office. 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70050-5
Dolutegravir as maintenance monotherapy for HIV (DOMONO): a phase 2, randomised non-inferiority trial. Wijting Ingeborg,Rokx Casper,Boucher Charles,van Kampen Jeroen,Pas Suzan,de Vries-Sluijs Theodora,Schurink Carolina,Bax Hannelore,Derksen Maarten,Andrinopoulou Eleni-Rosalina,van der Ende Marchina,van Gorp Eric,Nouwen Jan,Verbon Annelies,Bierman Wouter,Rijnders Bart The lancet. HIV BACKGROUND:The high genetic barrier to resistance of dolutegravir might allow for its use as maintenance monotherapy in patients with HIV. We investigated whether dolutegravir monotherapy was non-inferior to combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) for maintaining virological suppression in patients with HIV-1 infection successfully treated with combination ART. METHODS:We did this open-label, phase 2, randomised non-inferiority trial at two medical centres in the Netherlands. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) were on combination ART, had been virologically suppressed (HIV RNA <50 copies per mL) for at least 6 months, and had CD4 nadirs of 200 cells per μL or higher, HIV RNA zeniths of 100 000 copies per mL or less, and no history of virological failure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via a web-based block randomisation method (variable block sizes of 4 and 6), to switch to dolutegravir monotherapy (50 mg once a day) either immediately or after a delay of 24 weeks of continued combination ART. Randomisation was stratified by HIV RNA zenith (<50 000 copies per mL vs 50 000-99 999 copies per mL). Investigators and patients were not masked to group allocation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with plasma HIV RNA viral loads of less than 200 copies per mL at week 24, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. We did analyses in the on-treatment and intention-to-treat populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02401828. FINDINGS:Between March 10, 2015, and Feb 4, 2016, we randomly assigned 51 patients to the immediate switch group and 53 patients to the delayed switch group. One patient who received immediate monotherapy discontinued treatment at week 12 because of disturbed sleep. At week 24, dolutegravir monotherapy was non-inferior to combination ART, with plasma HIV RNA loads of 200 copies per mL or higher observed in 2% (1/50) of patients in the immediate switch group and in no patients in the delayed switch group (difference 2%, 95% CI -5 to 12). Of patients assigned to the delayed switch group, 47 (89%) switched to dolutegravir monotherapy at week 24, two (4%) of whom subsequently discontinued monotherapy because of headache (n=1) and disturbed sleep (n=1). Eight (8%) of the 95 patients who remained on dolutegravir monotherapy had virological failure; all had therapeutic plasma concentrations of dolutegravir. In three (38%) of the eight patients, mutations associated with resistance were detected in the integrase gene. According to a predefined stopping rule, detection of these mutations led to premature study discontinuation. INTERPRETATION:Dolutegravir monotherapy was non-inferior to combination ART at 24 weeks. However, virological failure continued to occur thereafter and led to dolutegravir resistance. Dolutegravir should not be used as maintenance monotherapy. FUNDING:Erasmus Trustfonds. 10.1016/S2352-3018(17)30152-2
Effect of antidepressant treatment on cognitive impairments associated with depression: a randomised longitudinal study. Shilyansky Carrie,Williams Leanne M,Gyurak Anett,Harris Anthony,Usherwood Timothy,Etkin Amit The lancet. Psychiatry BACKGROUND:Antidepressant treatment failure is a common problem worldwide. In this study, we assess whether or not an important aspect of depression, cognitive impairment, is untreated by antidepressants by studying the effect of acute antidepressant treatment on a range of cognitive domains. METHODS:In this randomised longitudinal study, which is part of the International Study to Predict Optimized Treatment in Depression (iSPOT-D) trial, we assessed the effects of acute antidepressant treatment in a large patient population, across clinical remission outcomes, on a range of cognitive domains: attention, response inhibition, executive function during visuospatial navigation, cognitive flexibility, verbal memory, working memory, decision speed, information processing speed, and psychomotor response speed. We enrolled patients from primary or specialty care clinics in a multicentre, international, open-label, randomised, prospective trial. Eligible patients (aged 18-65 years) were previously untreated or were willing to undergo a 1-week medication washout before the study start, and could not have had inadequate response to study medications in the past. We enrolled a large population of medication-free (ie, untreated) outpatients in a depressive episode and assessed them for cognitive function at enrolment (pre-treatment), and again after 8 weeks of treatment with one of three antidepressant drugs (escitalopram, sertraline, or venlafaxine extended-release). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of the three antidepressants using a blocked randomisation procedure (block size of 12). As a comparison group, we also simultaneously enrolled matched healthy participants. Healthy participants received no medication or intervention, but were assessed for change in cognitive and clinical measures during the same interval and testing protocol. Therefore, this group acts as a test-retest control for the primary outcome measure examined in this study, change in cognitive measures over 8 weeks of treatment in depressed patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00693849. FINDINGS:Between Dec 8, 2008, and Sept 30, 2011, we enrolled 1008 eligible people into the study. Impairment in five domains-attention, response inhibition, verbal memory, decision speed, and information processing-showed no relative improvement with acute treatment (controlling for time or repeated testing), irrespective of antidepressant treatment group, even in patients whose depression remitted acutely according to clinical measures. Broader cognitive impairment was associated with greater illness chronicity (earlier illness onset) but not with symptom severity or previous antidepressant failures. INTERPRETATION:Depression is associated with impairments in higher-order cognitive functions and information processing, which persist independently of clinical symptom change with treatment. We recorded no difference between the three antidepressants tested, with none showing efficacy for these impairments. Although the 8-week treatment period limits interpretation to acute treatment effects, it does highlight cognitive impairment as an untargeted contributor to incomplete treatment success. FUNDING:Brain Resource Company Operations Pty Ltd and NIH. 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00012-2
Raltegravir versus efavirenz in antiretroviral-naive pregnant women living with HIV (NICHD P1081): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial. João Esaú C,Morrison R Leavitt,Shapiro David E,Chakhtoura Nahida,Gouvèa Maria Isabel S,de Lourdes B Teixeira Maria,Fuller Trevon L,Mmbaga Blandina T,Ngocho James S,Njau Boniface N,Violari Avy,Mathiba Ruth,Essack Zaakirah,Pilotto Jose Henrique S,Moreira Luis Felipe,Rolon Maria Jose,Cahn Pedro,Prommas Sinart,Cressey Timothy R,Chokephaibulkit Kulkanya,Werarak Peerawong,Laimon Lauren,Hennessy Roslyn,Frenkel Lisa M,Anthony Patricia,Best Brookie M,Siberry George K,Mirochnick Mark The lancet. HIV BACKGROUND:Although antiretroviral regimens containing integrase inhibitors rapidly suppress HIV viral load in non-pregnant adults, few published data from randomised controlled trials have compared the safety and efficacy of any integrase inhibitor to efavirenz when initiated during pregnancy. We compared safety and efficacy of antiretroviral therapy with either raltegravir or efavirenz in late pregnancy. METHODS:An open-label, randomised controlled trial was done at 19 hospitals and clinics in Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, and the USA. Antiretroviral-naive pregnant women (20-<37 weeks gestation) living with HIV were assigned to antiretroviral regimens containing either raltegravir (400 mg twice daily) or efavirenz (600 mg each night) plus lamivudine 150 mg and zidovudine 300 mg twice daily (or approved alternative backbone regimen), using a web-based, permuted-block randomisation stratified by gestational age and backbone regimen. The primary efficacy outcome was plasma HIV viral load below 200 copies per mL at (or near) delivery. The primary efficacy analysis included all women with a viral load measurement at (or near) delivery who had viral load of at least 200 copies per mL before treatment and no genotypic resistance to any study drugs; secondary analyses eliminated these exclusion criteria. The primary safety analyses included all women who received study drug, and their infants. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01618305. FINDINGS:From Sep 5, 2013, to Dec 11, 2018, 408 women were enrolled (206 raltegravir, 202 efavirenz) and 394 delivered on-study (200 raltegravir, 194 efavirenz); 307 were included in the primary efficacy analysis (153 raltegravir, 154 efavirenz). 144 (94%) women in the raltegravir group and 129 (84%) in the efavirenz group met the primary efficacy outcome (absolute difference 10%, 95% CI 3-18; p=0·0015); the difference primarily occurred among women enrolling later in pregnancy (interaction p=0·040). Frequencies of severe or life-threatening adverse events were similar among mothers (30% in each group; 61 raltegravir, 59 efavirenz) and infants (25% in each group; 50 raltegravir, 48 efavirenz), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION:Our findings support major guidelines. The integrase inhibitor dolutegravir is currently a preferred regimen for the prevention of perinatal HIV transmission with raltegravir recommended as a preferred or alternative integrase inhibitor for pregnant women living with HIV. FUNDING:Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 10.1016/S2352-3018(20)30038-2
Cognitive behavioural therapy for adherence and depression in patients with HIV: a three-arm randomised controlled trial. Safren Steven A,Bedoya C Andres,O'Cleirigh Conall,Biello Katie B,Pinkston Megan M,Stein Michael D,Traeger Lara,Kojic Erna,Robbins Gregory K,Lerner Jonathan A,Herman Debra S,Mimiaga Matthew J,Mayer Kenneth H The lancet. HIV BACKGROUND:Depression is highly prevalent in people with HIV and has consistently been associated with poor antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence. Integrating cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for depression with adherence counselling using the Life-Steps approach (CBT-AD) has an emerging evidence base. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of CBT-AD. METHODS:In this three-arm randomised controlled trial in HIV-positive adults with depression, we compared CBT-AD with information and supportive psychotherapy plus adherence counselling using the Life-Steps approach (ISP-AD), and with enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU) including Life-Steps adherence counselling only. Participants were recruited from three sites in New England, USA (two hospital settings and one community health centre). Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive CBT-AD (one Life-Steps session plus 11 weekly integrated sessions lasting up to 1 h each), ISP-AD (one Life-Steps session plus 11 weekly integrated sessions lasting up to 1 h each), or ETAU (one Life-Steps session and five assessment visits roughly every 2 weeks), randomisation was done with allocation software, in pairs, and stratified by three variables: study site, whether or not participants had been prescribed antidepressant medication, and whether or not participants had a history of injection drug use. The primary outcome was ART adherence at the end of treatment (4 month assessment) assessed via electronic pill caps (Medication Event Monitoring System [MEMS]) with correction for pocketed doses, analysed by intention to treat. FINDINGS:Patients were recruited from Feb 26, 2009, to June 21, 2012. Patients who were assigned to CBT-AD (94 randomly assigned, 83 completed assessment) had greater improvements in adherence (estimated difference 1·00 percentage point per visit, 95% CI 0·34 to 1·66, p=0·003) and depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies depression [CESD] score estimated difference -0·41, -0·66 to -0·16, p=0·001; Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale [MADRS] score -4·69, -8·09 to -1·28, p=0·007; clinical global impression [CGI] score -0·66, -1·11 to -0·21, p=0·005) than did patients who had ETAU (49 assigned, 46 completed assessment) after treatment (4 months). No significant differences in adherence were noted between CBT-AD and ISP-AD (97 assigned, 87 completed assessment). No study-related adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION:Integrating evidenced-based treatment for depression with evidenced-based adherence counselling is helpful for individuals living with HIV/AIDS and depression. Future efforts should examine how to best disseminate effective psychosocial depression treatments such as CBT-AD to people living with HIV/AIDS and examine the cost-effectiveness of such approaches. FUNDING:National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 10.1016/S2352-3018(16)30053-4
Effects of tesamorelin on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in HIV: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial. The lancet. HIV BACKGROUND:Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a substantial cause of comorbidity in people with HIV and there are no proven pharmacological treatments for the disease in this population. We assessed the effects of tesamorelin on liver fat and histology in people with HIV and NAFLD. METHODS:This randomised, double-blind, multicentre study with identical placebo as a comparator was done in a hospital and a medical research centre in the USA. People with HIV infection and a hepatic fat fraction (HFF) of 5% or more by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either tesamorelin 2 mg once daily or placebo once daily for 12 months, followed by a 6-month open-label phase during which all participants received tesamorelin 2 mg daily. The randomisation list was prepared by the study statistician using a permuted block algorithm within each stratum with randomly varying block sizes. The primary endpoint was change in HFF between baseline and 12 months. The primary safety endpoint was glucose. Analysis was by intention to treat using all available data. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02196831. FINDINGS:61 patients were enrolled between Aug 20, 2015, and Jan 16, 2019, of whom 30 received tesamorelin and 30 received placebo. Patients receiving tesamorelin had a greater reduction of HFF than did patients receiving placebo, with an absolute effect size of -4·1% (95% CI -7·6 to -0·7, p=0·018), corresponding to a -37% (95% CI -67 to -7, p=0·016) relative reduction from baseline. After 12 months, 35% of individuals receiving tesamorelin and 4% receiving placebo had a HFF of less than 5% (p=0·0069). Changes in fasting glucose and glycated haemoglobin were not different between groups at 12 months. Individuals in the tesamorelin group experienced more localised injection site complaints than those in the placebo group, though none were judged to be serious. INTERPRETATION:Tesamorelin might be beneficial in people with HIV and NAFLD. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of tesamorelin on liver histology. FUNDING:National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 10.1016/S2352-3018(19)30338-8
Monotherapy of stable angina with nicardipine hydrochloride: double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study. Gheorghiade M,Weiner D A,Chakko S,Lessem J N,Klein M D European heart journal The effect of nicardipine hydrochloride, a calcium-channel blocking agent, was studied in 46 patients with stable angina in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, repeated cross-over protocol, using a 30 or 40 mg dose of nicardipine or placebo three times a day. Mean resting heart rate and blood pressure did not change significantly with 30 mg nicardipine; heart rate increased from 81 +/- 10 to 88 +/- 13 beats min-1, systolic blood pressure decreased from 129 +/- 18 to 119 +/- 16 mmHg, and diastolic blood pressure from 81 +/- 12 to 74 +/- 11 mmHg (P less than 0.01 for all three variables) with a 40 mg dose. Using a treadmill exercise protocol, mean exercise duration increased from 5.4 +/- 1.8 to 6.0 +/- 1.8 min (P less than 0.01) with 30 mg nicardipine, and from 5.8 +/- 1.7 to 6.6 +/- 1.9 min (P less than 0.01) with 40 mg. Time to onset of angina increased from 4.6 +/- 1.9 to 5.2 +/- 1.7 min (P less than 0.05) with 30 mg and from 5.1 +/- 1.8 to 5.7 +/- 1.8 min (P = NS) with 40 mg. Mean anginal frequency and sublingual nitroglycerin consumption were low during the cross-over placebo period and did not change significantly during therapy with nicardipine. Non-cardiac side-effects were mild and required the withdrawal of only one patient from the study. However, during nicardipine therapy four patients had unstable angina and two developed a non-Q wave myocardial infarction. Of these patients, five were receiving a beta-adrenergic blocker that was discontinued prior to the study.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a059553
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial of cimetidine and pirenzepine in nonulcer dyspepsia. Talley N J,McNeil D,Hayden A,Piper D W Gastroenterology Nonulcer dyspepsia remains a difficult disorder to treat because it is a heterogeneous syndrome. Once patients with the irritable bowel syndrome, esophagitis, and other organic diseases are excluded, there remain patients with dyspepsia of unknown cause (termed "essential dyspepsia") and patients with dyspepsia plus symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux without esophagitis. The aim of this study was to determine whether cimetidine or pirenzepine is efficacious in relieving the symptoms of these latter subgroups. Sixty-two consecutive patients were studied who had chronic upper abdominal pain or nausea where endoscopy had shown no evidence of peptic ulceration, esophagitis, or malignancy; 47 had essential dyspepsia, and 15 had dyspepsia plus gastroesophageal reflux. They were initially randomized to either cimetidine or placebo, or pirenzepine or placebo. Patients continued each medication for 1 mo, and, after a washout period, crossed over when again symptomatic; 51 patients completed cimetidine and placebo, and 50 completed pirenzepine and placebo. The results showed that cimetidine was superior to placebo in decreasing the number of upper abdominal pain episodes weekly and the severity of pain, but the absolute improvement was small. Pirenzepine was not superior to placebo in decreasing symptoms. 10.1016/0016-5085(86)90451-8
Randomized comparative study of therapeutic paracentesis with and without intravenous albumin in cirrhosis. Ginès P,Titó L,Arroyo V,Planas R,Panés J,Viver J,Torres M,Humbert P,Rimola A,Llach J Gastroenterology It has recently been shown that repeated large-volume paracentesis associated with intravenous albumin infusion is a rapid, effective, and safe therapy of ascites in cirrhosis. To investigate whether intravenous albumin infusion is necessary in the treatment of cirrhotics with large-volume paracentesis, 105 patients with tense ascites were randomly allocated into two groups. Fifty-two patients (group 1) were treated with paracentesis (4-6 L/day until disappearance of ascites) plus intravenous albumin infusion (40 g after each tap), and 53 (group 2) with paracentesis without albumin infusion. After disappearance of ascites, patients were discharged from the hospital with diuretics. Patients developing tense ascites during follow-up were treated according to their initial schedule. Paracentesis was effective in eliminating the ascites in 50 patients from group 1 and in 48 from group 2, with the duration of the hospital stay being approximately 11 days in both groups. Paracentesis plus intravenous albumin did not induce significant changes in standard renal function tests, plasma renin activity, and plasma aldosterone. In contrast, paracentesis without albumin was associated with a significant increase in blood urea nitrogen, a marked elevation in plasma renin activity and plasma aldosterone concentration, and a significant reduction in serum sodium concentration. One patient from group 1 and 11 from group 2 developed renal impairment or severe hyponatremia after treatment, or both (chi 2 = 9.19; p less than 0.01). The development of these complications could not be predicted by clinical and laboratory data before treatment. Although the probability of survival after entry into the study was similar in patients from both groups, a multivariate analysis identified the development of hyponatremia or renal impairment, or both, following the first paracentesis treatment and the occurrence of other complications during the first hospitalization (encephalopathy, gastrointestinal bleeding, and severe infection) as being the only independent predictors of mortality. These results indicate that intravenous albumin infusion is important in avoiding renal and electrolyte complications and activation of endogenous vasoactive systems in cirrhotics with ascites who are treated with repeated large-volume paracentesis. The development of such complications may impair survival in these patients. 10.1016/0016-5085(88)90691-9
Randomized controlled trial of topical hyperbaric oxygen for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Leslie C A,Sapico F L,Ginunas V J,Adkins R H Diabetes care The effect of 2 wk of topical hyperbaric oxygen (THO) treatment on the healing of diabetic foot ulcers without associated gangrene was evaluated in a prospective, controlled, and randomized manner in 28 patients. There were 12 patients in the THO group (group 1) and 16 in the control group (group 2). Clinical management of the two patient groups was similar except for THO treatment in the group 1 patients. Clinical parameters, including age, sex, baseline fasting serum glucose levels, duration of diabetes mellitus, duration of foot ulcers, presence of peripheral neuropathy or arterial insufficiency, and evidence of osteomyelitis as determined by radiographs and/or radionuclide scans, were comparable in both groups of patients. No statistical differences (Student's t test) were seen in the number of microorganisms isolated from curettage cultures of the base of the ulcer at days 0, 7, and 14 of the study between groups 1 and 2. In contrast to previous studies, there was a paucity of anaerobic microorganisms isolated from these foot ulcers without associated gangrenous changes. Ulcer areas were estimated by multiplying the maximum width by the maximum length in millimeters at days 0, 7, and 14. Analysis of variance and Student's t test revealed progressive significant reductions in the ulcer areas in both groups when days 0, 7, and 14 were compared and in ulcer depths in both groups when days 0 and 14 were compared. However, such ulcer size changes did not differ statistically between the control and THO groups. A trend toward slower healing was observed in the THO group. Healing of diabetic foot ulcers was not accelerated by THO in this study. 10.2337/diacare.11.2.111
A randomized experiment comparing random and cutoff-based assignment. Shadish William R,Galindo Rodolfo,Wong Vivian C,Steiner Peter M,Cook Thomas D Psychological methods In this article, we review past studies comparing randomized experiments to regression discontinuity designs, mostly finding similar results, but with significant exceptions. The latter might be due to potential confounds of study characteristics with assignment method or with failure to estimate the same parameter over methods. In this study, we correct the problems by randomly assigning 588 participants to be in a randomized experiment or a regression discontinuity design in which they are otherwise treated identically, comparing results estimating both the same and different parameters. Analysis includes parametric, semiparametric, and nonparametric methods of modeling nonlinearities. Results suggest that estimates from regression discontinuity designs approximate the results of randomized experiments reasonably well but also raise the issue of what constitutes agreement between the 2 estimates. 10.1037/a0023345
Effect of non-invasive ventilation after extubation in critically ill patients with obesity in France: a multicentre, unblinded, pragmatic randomised clinical trial. The Lancet. Respiratory medicine BACKGROUND:Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and oxygen therapy (high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO] or standard oxygen) following extubation have never been compared in critically ill patients with obesity. We aimed to compare NIV (alternating with HFNO or standard oxygen) and oxygen therapy (HFNO or standard oxygen) following extubation of critically ill patients with obesity. METHODS:In this multicentre, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial, conducted in 39 intensive care units in France, critically ill patients with obesity undergoing extubation were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the NIV group or the oxygen therapy group. Two randomisations were performed: first, randomisation to either NIV or oxygen therapy, and second, randomisation to either HFNO or standard oxygen (also 1:1), which was nested within the first randomisation. Blinding of the randomisation was not possible, but the statistician was masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 3 days after extubation, a composite of reintubation for mechanical ventilation, switch to the other study treatment, or premature discontinuation of study treatment. The primary outcome was analysed by intention to treat. Effect of medical and surgical status was assessed. The reintubation within 3 days was analysed by intention to treat and after a post-hoc crossover analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04014920. FINDINGS:From Oct 2, 2019, to July 17, 2021, of the 1650 screened patients, 981 were enrolled. Treatment failure occurred in 66 (13·5%) of 490 patients in the NIV group and in 130 (26·5%) of 491 patients in the oxygen-therapy group (relative risk 0·43; 95% CI 0·31-0·60, p<0·0001). Medical or surgical status did not modify the effect of NIV group on the treatment-failure rate. Reintubation within 3 days after extubation was similar in the non-invasive ventilation group and in the oxygen therapy group in the intention-to-treat analysis (48 (10%) of 490 patients and 59 (12%) of 491 patients, p=0·26) and lower in the NIV group than in the oxygen-therapy group in the post-hoc cross-over (51 (9%) of 560 patients and 56 (13%) of 421 patients, p=0·037) analysis. No severe adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION:Among critically ill adults with obesity undergoing extubation, the use of NIV was effective to reduce treatment-failure within 3 days. Our results are relevant to clinical practice, supporting the use of NIV after extubation of critically ill patients with obesity. However, most of the difference in the primary outcome was due to patients in the oxygen therapy group switching to NIV, and more evidence is needed to conclude that an NIV strategy leads to improved patient-centred outcomes. FUNDING:French Ministry of Health. 10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00529-X
Use of metformin to treat pregnant women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PregMet2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Løvvik Tone S,Carlsen Sven M,Salvesen Øyvind,Steffensen Berglind,Bixo Marie,Gómez-Real Francisco,Lønnebotn Marianne,Hestvold Kristin V,Zabielska Renata,Hirschberg Angelica L,Trouva Anastasia,Thorarinsdottir Solveig,Hjelle Sissel,Berg Ann Hilde,Andræ Frida,Poromaa Inger S,Mohlin Johanna,Underdal Maria,Vanky Eszter The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology BACKGROUND:Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk of pregnancy complications. Epi-analysis of two previous randomised controlled trials that compared metformin with placebo during pregnancy in women with PCOS showed a significant reduction in late miscarriages and preterm births in the metformin group. The aim of this third randomised trial (PregMet2) was to test the hypothesis that metformin prevents late miscarriage and preterm birth in women with PCOS. METHODS:PregMet2 was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre trial done at 14 hospitals in Norway, Sweden, and Iceland. Singleton pregnant women with PCOS aged 18-45 years were eligible for inclusion. After receiving information about the study at their first antenatal visit or from the internet, women signed up individually to participate in the study. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive metformin or placebo by computer-generated random numbers. Randomisation was in blocks of ten for each country and centre; the first block had a random size between one and ten to assure masking. Participants were assigned to receive oral metformin 500 mg twice daily or placebo during the first week of treatment, which increased to 1000 mg twice daily or placebo from week 2 until delivery. Placebo tablets and metformin tablets were identical and participants and study personnel were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the composite incidence of late miscarriage (between week 13 and week 22 and 6 days) and preterm birth (between week 23 and week 36 and 6 days), analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and admission of the neonate to the neonatal intensive care unit. We also did a post-hoc individual participant data analysis of pregnancy outcomes, pooling data from the two previous trials with the present study. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01587378, and EudraCT, number 2011-002203-15. FINDINGS:The study took place between Oct 19, 2012, and Sept 1, 2017. We randomly assigned 487 women to metformin (n=244) or placebo (n=243). In the intention-to-treat analysis, our composite primary outcome of late miscarriage and preterm birth occurred in 12 (5%) of 238 women in the metformin group and 23 (10%) of 240 women in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·22-1·08; p=0·08). We found no significant differences for our secondary endpoints, including incidence of gestational diabetes (60 [25%] of 238 women in the metformin group vs 57 [24%] of 240 women in the placebo group; OR 1·09, 95% CI 0·69-1·66; p=0·75). We noted no substantial between-group differences in serious adverse events in either mothers or offspring, and no serious adverse events were considered drug-related by principal investigators. In the post-hoc pooled analysis of individual participant data from the present trial and two previous trials, 18 (5%) of 397 women had late miscarriage or preterm delivery in the metformin group compared with 40 (10%) of 399 women in the placebo group (OR 0·43, 95% CI 0·23-0·79; p=0·004). INTERPRETATION:In pregnant women with PCOS, metformin treatment from the late first trimester until delivery might reduce the risk of late miscarriage and preterm birth, but does not prevent gestational diabetes. FUNDING:Research Council of Norway, Novo Nordisk Foundation, St Olav's University Hospital, and Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 10.1016/S2213-8587(19)30002-6
Maintenance of response to oral octreotide compared with injectable somatostatin receptor ligands in patients with acromegaly: a phase 3, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Fleseriu Maria,Dreval Alexander,Bondar Irina,Vagapova Gulnar,Macut Djuro,Pokramovich Yulia G,Molitch Mark E,Leonova Nina,Raverot Gerald,Grineva Elena,Poteshkin Yury E,Gilgun-Sherki Yossi,Ludlam William H,Patou Gary,Haviv Asi,Gordon Murray B,Biermasz Nienke R,Melmed Shlomo,Strasburger Christian J The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology BACKGROUND:Despite biochemically responding to injectable somatostatin receptor ligands (iSRLs), many patients with acromegaly experience treatment burdens. We aimed to assess maintenance of biochemical response and symptomatic control with oral octreotide capsules versus iSRLs in patients with acromegaly who previously tolerated and responded to both. METHODS:This global, open-label, randomised controlled phase 3 trial was done in 29 clinical sites in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, and the USA. Eligible patients were adults aged 18-75 years with acromegaly who were receiving iSRLs (long-acting octreotide or lanreotide autogel) for at least 6 months before baseline with a stable dose for at least 4 months, and were deemed to be biochemically responding (insulin-like growth factor I [IGF-I] <1·3 × upper limit of normal [ULN] and mean integrated growth hormone <2·5 ng/mL). In the 26-week run-in phase, all patients received oral octreotide (40 mg a day, optional titration to 60 or 80 mg a day). Eligibility for the randomised treatment phase was completion of the run-in phase as a biochemical responder (IGF-I <1·3 × ULN and mean integrated growth hormone <2·5 ng/mL at week 24) and investigator assessment of acromegaly being adequately controlled. Patients were randomly assigned (3:2) to oral octreotide capsules or iSRL at the same dose and interval as before enrolment. Randomisation and drug dispensing were conducted through a qualified randomisation service provider (eg, interactive web or voice response system). The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority assessment (margin -20 percentage points) of proportion of participants maintaining biochemical response throughout the randomised treatment phase (IGF-I <1·3 × ULN using time-weighted average; assessed by comparing the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the difference in biochemical response between groups). IGF-I was assessed once a month during the run-in and randomised treatment phases (single sample). Efficacy and safety assessments were performed on the randomised population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02685709. FINDINGS:Between Feb 11, 2016, and Aug 20, 2020, 218 patients were assessed for eligibility. 72 patients were excluded, and 146 participants were enrolled into the run-in phase. 116 patients completed the run-in phase and 30 participants discontinued treatment. 92 participants were randomly assigned to oral octreotide (n=55) or iSRL (n=37). 50 (91%) of 55 participants who received oral octreotide (95% CI 44-53) and 37 (100%) of 37 participants who received iSRLs (34-37) maintained biochemical response. The lower bound of the 2-sided 95% CI for the adjusted difference in proportions between the two treatment groups achieved the prespecified non-inferiority criterion of -20% (95% CI -19·9 to 0·5). 19 (35%) of 55 participants in the oral octreotide group and 15 (41%) of 37 participants in the iSRL group had treatment-related adverse events; the most common of which in both groups were gastrointestinal. INTERPRETATION:Oral octreotide was non-inferior to iSRL treatment, and might be a favourable alternative to iSRLs for many patients with acromegaly. FUNDING:Chiasma. TRANSLATION:For the Russian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section. 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00296-5
Antipsychotic medication versus psychological intervention versus a combination of both in adolescents with first-episode psychosis (MAPS): a multicentre, three-arm, randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study. Morrison Anthony P,Pyle Melissa,Maughan Daniel,Johns Louise,Freeman Daniel,Broome Matthew R,Husain Nusrat,Fowler David,Hudson Jemma,MacLennan Graeme,Norrie John,Shiers David,Hollis Chris,James Anthony, The lancet. Psychiatry BACKGROUND:Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis. METHODS:We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14-18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data on trial referral and recruitment, session attendance or medication adherence, retention, and treatment acceptability) and the proposed primary efficacy outcome was total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at 6 months. Primary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported according to as-treated status, for all patients who had received at least one session of CBT or family intervention, or at least one dose of antipsychotics. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. FINDINGS:Of 101 patients referred to the study, 61 patients (mean age 16·3 years [SD 1·3]) were recruited from April 10, 2017, to Oct 31, 2018, 18 of whom were randomly assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics, and 21 to antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. The trial recruitment rate was 68% of our target sample size of 90 participants. The study had a low referral to recruitment ratio (around 2:1), a high rate of retention (51 [84%] participants retained at the 6-month primary endpoint), a high rate of adherence to psychological intervention (defined as six or more sessions of CBT; in 32 [82%] of 39 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups), and a moderate rate of adherence to antipsychotic medication (defined as at least 6 consecutive weeks of exposure to antipsychotics; in 28 [65%] of 43 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups). Mean scores for PANSS total at the 6-month primary endpoint were 68·6 (SD 17·3) for antipsychotic monotherapy (6·2 points lower than at randomisation), 59·8 (13·7) for psychological intervention (13·1 points lower than at randomisation), and 62·0 (15·9) for antipsychotics plus psychological intervention (13·9 points lower than at randomisation). A good clinical response at 6 months (defined as ≥50% improvement in PANSS total score) was achieved in four (22%) of 18 patients receiving antipsychotic monotherapy, five (31%) of 16 receiving psychological intervention, and five (29%) of 17 receiving antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. In as-treated groups, serious adverse events occurred in eight [35%] of 23 patients in the combined group, two [13%] of 15 in the antipsychotics group, four [24%] of 17 in the psychological intervention group, and four [80%] of five who did not receive any treatment. No serious adverse events were considered to be related to participation in the trial. INTERPRETATION:This trial is the first to show that a head-to-head clinical trial comparing psychological intervention, antipsychotics, and their combination is safe in young people with first-episode psychosis. However, the feasibility of a larger trial is unclear because of site-specific recruitment challenges, and amendments to trial design would be needed for an adequately powered clinical and cost-effectiveness trial that provides robust evidence. FUNDING:National Institute for Health Research. 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30248-0
Fast multiplex bacterial PCR of bronchoalveolar lavage for antibiotic stewardship in hospitalised patients with pneumonia at risk of Gram-negative bacterial infection (Flagship II): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. Respiratory medicine BACKGROUND:PCR-based testing has transformed the management of suspected respiratory viral infections. We aimed to determine whether multiplex bacterial PCR of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid aids antibiotic stewardship in patients with pneumonia. METHODS:This investigator-initiated, multicentre, randomised controlled trial was conducted at two tertiary care centres in Switzerland (University Hospital of Basel and Kantonsspital St Gallen). Patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to hospital with suspected pneumonia, had a clinical indication for bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage, and were at risk of Gram-negative bacterial infection were included. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the multiplex bacterial PCR group or the conventional microbiology control group using a random allocation sequence. Treating physicians were not masked, but the committee panel was masked to patient randomisation. All patients underwent bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage and samples were assessed by conventional microbiological culture (and additionally, in the PCR group, by multiplex bacterial PCR for Gram-negative rods using the Unyvero Hospitalized Pneumonia [HPN] Cartridge; Curetis, Holzgerlingen, Germany). Patients received empirical antibiotic therapy as clinically indicated by the treating physician. In the PCR group, a recommendation regarding antibiotic therapy was made approximately 5 h after taking the sample. The primary outcome was the time in hours on inappropriate antibiotic therapy from bronchoscopy to discharge or to 30 days after bronchoscopy. This trial was registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ISRCTN95828556. FINDINGS:Between May 31, 2017, and Sept 25, 2019, 740 patients with pneumonia were screened for eligibility and 208 were included and randomly assigned to the PCR group (n=100) or conventional microbiology control group (n=108). The mean age of patients was 65·9 years (SD 14·0) and 135 (65%) were male. After daily follow-up until hospital discharge or for a maximum of 30 days, the duration of inappropriate antibiotic treatment was significantly shorter by 38·6 h (95% CI 19·5-57·7) in the PCR group than in the control group (adjusted mean 47·1 h [34·7-59·5] vs 85·7 h [78·8-95·6]; p<0·0001), which translates as a decrease in the duration of inappropriate antibiotic therapy of 45·0% (37·9-52·1). Adverse events due to antimicrobial therapy occurred in nine patients (five [5%] in the PCR group vs four [4%] in the control group) and due to bronchoscopy occurred in four patients (two [1%] vs two [1%]). There were eight (8%) deaths in the PCR group and 11 (10%) in the control group. All in-hospital deaths were attributed to a respiratory cause. INTERPRETATION:Multiplex bacterial PCR examination of bronchoalveolar lavage decreases the duration of inappropriate antibiotic therapy of patients admitted to hospital with pneumonia and at risk of Gram-negative rod infection. This approach warrants further consideration in future antibiotic stewardship strategies. FUNDING:Curetis and the Clinic of Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonary Cell Research, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland. 10.1016/S2213-2600(22)00086-8
Effect of a physical activity and behaviour maintenance programme on functional mobility decline in older adults: the REACT (Retirement in Action) randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. Public health BACKGROUND:Mobility limitations in old age can greatly reduce quality of life, generate substantial health and social care costs, and increase mortality. Through the Retirement in Action (REACT) trial, we aimed to establish whether a community-based active ageing intervention could prevent decline in lower limb physical functioning in older adults already at increased risk of mobility limitation. METHODS:In this pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, single-blind, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial, we recruited older adults (aged 65 years or older and who are not in full-time employment) with reduced lower limb physical functioning (Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB] score 4-9) from 35 primary care practices across three sites (Bristol and Bath; Birmingham; and Devon) in England. Participants were randomly assigned to receive brief advice (three healthy ageing education sessions) or a 12-month, group-based, multimodal physical activity (64 1-h exercise sessions) and behavioural maintenance (21 45-min sessions) programme delivered by charity and community or leisure centre staff in local communities. Randomisation was stratified by site and adopted a minimisation approach to balance groups by age, sex, and SPPB score, using a centralised, online, randomisation algorithm. Researchers involved in data collection and analysis were masked but participants were not because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was change in SPPB score at 24 months, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN45627165. FINDINGS:Between June 20, 2016, and Oct 30, 2017, 777 participants (mean age 77·6 [SD 6·8] years; 66% female; mean SPPB score 7·37 [1·56]) were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=410) and control (n=367) groups. Primary outcome data at 24 months were provided by 628 (81%) participants (294 in the control group and 334 in the intervention group). At the 24-month follow-up, the SPPB score (adjusted for baseline SPPB score, age, sex, study site, and exercise group) was significantly greater in the intervention group (mean 8·08 [SD 2·87]) than in the control group (mean 7·59 [2·61]), with an adjusted mean difference of 0·49 (95% CI 0·06-0·92; p=0·014), which is just below our predefined clinically meaningful difference of 0·50. One adverse event was related to the intervention; the most common unrelated adverse events were heart conditions, strokes, and falls. INTERPRETATION:For older adults at risk of mobility limitations, the REACT intervention showed that a 12-month physical activity and behavioural maintenance programme could help prevent decline in physical function over a 24-month period. FUNDING:National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme (13/164/51). 10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00004-4
Efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin versus placebo and the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus placebo in young people with type 2 diabetes (DINAMO): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel group, phase 3 trial. The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology BACKGROUND:The incidence of type 2 diabetes in young people is increasing, but treatments remain limited. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of an empagliflozin dosing regimen versus placebo and linagliptin versus placebo on glycaemic control in young people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS:In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 108 centres in 15 countries, participants with type 2 diabetes (aged 10-17 years; HbA 6·5-10·5% [48-91 mmol/mol]) who had been previously treated with metformin or insulin were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to oral empagliflozin 10 mg, oral linagliptin 5 mg, or placebo. Participants in the empagliflozin group who did not have HbA below 7·0% (<53 mmol/mol) by week 12 underwent a second double-blinded randomisation (1:1) at week 14, either remaining on 10 mg or increasing to 25 mg. Participants in the placebo group were randomly reassigned (1:1:1) in a double-blinded manner at week 26 to linagliptin 5 mg or one of the empagliflozin doses (10 mg or 25 mg). Investigators were masked throughout the trial and received assignments of blinded medication kits through interactive response technology for all participants at the initial randomisation and for the re-randomisations at weeks 14 and 26. The primary outcome was change from baseline in HbA at 26 weeks. For empagliflozin, results were based on a pooled analysis for all participants on empagliflozin. Safety was assessed until week 52. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03429543. FINDINGS:Between April 26, 2018, and May 26, 2022, of 262 screened participants, 158 (60%) were randomly assigned to treatment (53 [34%] to placebo, 52 [33%] to empagliflozin 10 mg, and 53 [34%] to linagliptin). For the primary outcome, the adjusted mean HbA change from baseline at week 26 was -0·84% [-9·2 mmol/mol] in the empagliflozin pooled group versus placebo (95% CI -1·50 to -0·19 [-16·4 to -2·1]; p=0·012); the corresponding change from baseline for linagliptin versus placebo was -0·34% [-3·8 mmol/mol; 95% CI -0·99 to 0·30 [-10·8 to 3·3]; p=0·29). Adverse events occurred in 34 (64%) participants in the placebo group, 40 (77%) in the empagliflozin pooled group, and 37 (71%) in the linagliptin group, up to week 26. Of these, severe adverse events were reported in two (4%) participants in the placebo group, one (2%) in the empagliflozin pooled group, and one (2%) in the linagliptin group. Hypoglycaemia was the most frequently reported adverse event with higher rates for those on active drug treatment compared with placebo. No severe hypoglycaemia cases were reported. INTERPRETATION:Empagliflozin provided clinically relevant placebo-corrected reductions in HbA, whereas linagliptin did not, and might offer a new treatment option for young people with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING:The Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company Alliance. 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00387-4
Targeted smoking cessation for dual users of combustible and electronic cigarettes: a randomised controlled trial. Martinez Ursula,Simmons Vani N,Sutton Steven K,Drobes David J,Meltzer Lauren R,Brandon Karen O,Byrne Margaret M,Harrell Paul T,Eissenberg Thomas,Bullen Christopher R,Brandon Thomas H The Lancet. Public health BACKGROUND:Although many smokers use electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to quit smoking, most continue to smoke while vaping. This dual use might delay cessation and increase toxicant exposure. We aimed to test the efficacy of a self-help intervention designed to help dual users to quit smoking. METHODS:In this three-arm randomised controlled trial we recruited individuals in the USA using Facebook and multimedia advertisements. Included participants were 18 years or older, smoked at least weekly in the preceding year, and vaped at least weekly in the preceding month. We used computer generated randomisation with balanced-permuted blocks (block size 10, with 2-4-4 ratio) to allocate participants to assessment only (ASSESS group), generic smoking cessation self-help booklets (GENERIC group), or booklets targeting dual users (eTARGET group). Individuals in the generic or targeted intervention groups received monthly cessation materials for 18 months, with assessments every 3 months for 24 months. The main outcome was self-reported 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence at each assessment point. All randomly allocated participants were included in primary analyses using generalised estimating equations for each of 20 datasets created by multiple imputation. Analysis of the χs produced an F test. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02416011, and is now closed. FINDINGS:Between July 12, 2016, and June 30, 2017, we randomly assigned 2896 dual users (575 to assessment, 1154 to generic intervention, and 1167 to targeted self-help). 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence increased from 14% at 3 months to 42% at 24 months (F=67·1, p<0·0001) in the overall sample. Targeted self-help resulted in higher smoking abstinence than did assessment alone throughout the treatment period (F=10·20, p=0·0014 [α=0·017]). The generic intervention group had abstinence rates between those of the assessment and targeted groups, but did not significantly differ from either when adjusted for multiple comparisons (GENERIC vs eTARGET F=1·79, p=0·18 [α=0·05]; GENERIC vs ASSESS F=4·29, p=0·039 [α=0·025]). Differences between study groups attenuated after the interventions ended. INTERPRETATION:A targeted self-help intervention with high potential for dissemination could be efficacious in promoting smoking cessation among dual users of combustible cigarettes and e-cigarettes. FUNDING:National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Cancer Institute. 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30307-8
Association of Efficacy of Resistance Exercise Training With Depressive Symptoms: Meta-analysis and Meta-regression Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Gordon Brett R,McDowell Cillian P,Hallgren Mats,Meyer Jacob D,Lyons Mark,Herring Matthew P JAMA psychiatry Importance:The physical benefits of resistance exercise training (RET) are well documented, but less is known regarding the association of RET with mental health outcomes. To date, no quantitative synthesis of the antidepressant effects of RET has been conducted. Objectives:To estimate the association of efficacy of RET with depressive symptoms and determine the extent to which logical, theoretical, and/or prior empirical variables are associated with depressive symptoms and whether the association of efficacy of RET with depressive symptoms accounts for variability in the overall effect size. Data Sources:Articles published before August 2017, located using Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Study Selection:Randomized clinical trials included randomization to RET (n = 947) or a nonactive control condition (n = 930). Data Extraction and Synthesis:Hedges d effect sizes were computed and random-effects models were used for all analyses. Meta-regression was conducted to quantify the potential moderating influence of participant and trial characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures:Randomized clinical trials used validated measures of depressive symptoms assessed at baseline and midintervention and/or postintervention. Four primary moderators were selected a priori to provide focused research hypotheses about variation in effect size: total volume of prescribed RET, whether participants were healthy or physically or mentally ill, whether or not allocation and/or assessment were blinded, and whether or not the RET intervention resulted in a significant improvement in strength. Results:Fifty-four effects were derived from 33 randomized clinical trials involving 1877 participants. Resistance exercise training was associated with a significant reduction in depressive symptoms with a moderate-sized mean effect ∆ of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.48-0.83; z = 7.35; P < .001). Significant heterogeneity was indicated (total Q = 216.92, df = 53; P < .001; I2 = 76.0% [95% CI, 72.7%-79.0%]), and sampling error accounted for 32.9% of observed variance. The number needed to treat was 4. Total volume of prescribed RET, participant health status, and strength improvements were not significantly associated with the antidepressant effect of RET. However, smaller reductions in depressive symptoms were derived from randomized clinical trials with blinded allocation and/or assessment. Conclusions and Relevance:Resistance exercise training significantly reduced depressive symptoms among adults regardless of health status, total prescribed volume of RET, or significant improvements in strength. Better-quality randomized clinical trials blinding both allocation and assessment and comparing RET with other empirically supported treatments for depressive symptoms are needed. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.0572
Amisulpride, aripiprazole, and olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (BeSt InTro): a pragmatic, rater-blind, semi-randomised trial. Johnsen Erik,Kroken Rune A,Løberg Else-Marie,Rettenbacher Maria,Joa Inge,Larsen Tor Ketil,Reitan Solveig Klæbo,Walla Berit,Alisauskiene Renata,Anda Liss Gøril,Bartz-Johannessen Christoffer,Berle Jan Øystein,Bjarke Jill,Fathian Farivar,Hugdahl Kenneth,Kjelby Eirik,Sinkeviciute Igne,Skrede Silje,Stabell Lena,Steen Vidar M,Fleischhacker W Wolfgang The lancet. Psychiatry BACKGROUND:Amisulpride, aripiprazole, and olanzapine are first-line atypical antipsychotics that have not previously been compared head-to-head in a pragmatic trial. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these agents in a controlled trial. METHODS:This pragmatic, rater-blind, randomised controlled trial was done in three academic centres of psychiatry in Norway, and one in Austria. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (F20-29), and had symptoms of active psychosis. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive oral amisulpride, aripiprazole, or olanzapine. Treatment allocation was open to patients and staff, and starting dose, treatment changes, and adjustments were left to the discretion of the treating physician. Computer-generated randomisation lists for each study centre were prepared by independent statisticians. Patients were followed up for 52 weeks after random assignment, during which assessments were done 8 times by researchers masked to treatment. The primary outcome was reduction of the Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 52 weeks, and primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01446328. FINDINGS:Between Oct 20, 2011, and Dec 30, 2016, we assessed 359 patients for eligibility. 215 patients were excluded (107 did not meet inclusion criteria, 82 declined to participate, 26 other reasons). 144 patients (mean baseline PANSS total estimated score 78·4 [SD 1·4]) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive amisulpride (44 patients), aripiprazole (48 patients) or olanzapine (52 patients). After 52 weeks, the patients allocated to amisulpride had a PANSS total score reduction of 32·7 points (SD 3·1) compared with 21·9 points reduction with aripiprazole (SD 3·9, p=0·027) and 23·3 points with olanzapine (2·9, p=0·025). We observed weight gain and increases of serum lipids and prolactin in all groups. 26 serious adverse events (SAEs) among 20 patients were registered (four [9%] of 44 patients allocated to amisulpride, ten [21%] of 48 patients allocated to aripiprazole, and six [12%] of 52 patients allocated to olanzapine), with no statistically significant differences between the study drugs. 17 (65%) of the 26 SAEs occurred during the use of the study drug, with readmission or protracted hospital admission accounting for 13 SAEs. One death by suicide, one unspecified death, and one life-threatening accident occurred during follow-up, after cessation of treatment. INTERPRETATION:Amisulpride was more efficacious than aripiprazole or olanzapine for reducing the PANSS total scores in adults with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Side-effect differences among the groups were generally small. This study supports the notion that clinically relevant efficacy differences exist between antipsychotic drugs. Future research should aim to compare first-line antipsychotics directly in pragmatic clinical trials that reflect everyday clinical practice. FUNDING:The Research Council of Norway, the Western Norway Regional Health Trust, and participating hospitals and universities. 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30341-2
Integrated HIV testing, prevention, and treatment intervention for key populations in India: a cluster-randomised trial. Solomon Sunil S,Solomon Suniti,McFall Allison M,Srikrishnan Aylur K,Anand Santhanam,Verma Vinita,Vasudevan Canjeevaram K,Balakrishnan Pachamuthu,Ogburn Elizabeth L,Moulton Lawrence H,Kumar Muniratnam S,Sachdeva Kuldeep Singh,Laeyendecker Oliver,Celentano David D,Lucas Gregory M,Mehta Shruti H, The lancet. HIV BACKGROUND:To achieve reductions in HIV incidence, we need strategies to engage key population at risk for HIV in low-income and middle-income countries. We evaluated the effectiveness of integrated care centres in India that provided single-venue HIV testing, prevention, and treatment services for people who inject drugs (PWID) and men who have sex with men (MSM). METHODS:We did baseline respondent-driven sampling surveys in 27 sites across India, and selected 22 of these (12 PWID and ten MSM) for a cluster randomised trial on the basis of high HIV prevalence and logistical considerations. We used stratified (by PWID and MSM), restricted randomisation to allocate sites to either the integrated care intervention or usual care (11 sites per group). We implemented integrated care centres in 11 cities (six PWID integrated care centres embedded within opioid agonist treatment centres and five MSM centres within government-sponsored health services), with a single integrated care centre per city in all but one city. After a 2-year intervention phase, we did respondent-driven sampling evaluation surveys of target population members who were aged 18 years or older at all sites. The primary outcome was self-reported HIV testing in the previous 12 months (recent testing), determined via the evaluation survey. We used a biometric identification system to estimate integrated care centre exposure (visited an integrated care centre at least once) among evaluation survey participants at intervention sites. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01686750. FINDINGS:Between Oct 1, 2012, and Dec 19, 2013, we recruited 11 993 PWID and 9997 MSM in the baseline survey and, between Aug, 1 2016, and May 27, 2017, surveyed 11 721 PWID and 10 005 MSM in the evaluation survey using respondent-driven sampling, across the 22 trial sites. During the intervention phase, integrated care centres provided HIV testing for 14 698 unique clients (7630 PWID and 7068 MSM. In the primary population-level analysis, recent HIV testing was 31% higher at integrated care centres than at usual care sites (adjusted prevalence ratio [PR] 1·31, 95% CI 0·95-1·81, p=0·09). Among survey participants at intervention sites, integrated care centre exposure was lower than expected (median exposure 40% at PWID sites and 24% at MSM sites). In intervention sites, survey participants who visited an integrated care centre were more likely to report recent HIV testing than were participants who had not (adjusted PR 3·46, 2·94-4·06). INTERPRETATION:Although integrated care centres increased HIV testing among visitors, our low exposure findings suggest that the scale-up of a single integrated care centre in most cities was insufficient to serve the large PWID and MSM populations. Future work should address the use of population size estimates to guide the dose of combination HIV interventions targeting key populations. FUNDING:US National Institutes of Health and the Elton John AIDS Foundation. 10.1016/S2352-3018(19)30034-7
Physiotherapy breathing retraining for asthma: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. Respiratory medicine BACKGROUND:Despite effective pharmacotherapy, asthma continues to impair quality of life for most patients. Non-pharmacological approaches, including breathing retraining, are therefore of great interest to patients. However, clinicians rarely advocate breathing retraining and access to this intervention is restricted for most patients due to the limited availability of suitable physiotherapists and poor integration of breathing retraining into standard care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a digital self-guided breathing retraining intervention. METHODS:In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 34 general practices in the UK. Eligibility criteria for patients with asthma were broad, comprising a physician diagnosis of asthma, age of 16-70 years, receipt of at least one anti-asthma medication in the previous year, and impaired asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [AQLQ] score of <5·5). We developed a self-guided intervention, which was delivered as a DVD plus a printed booklet (DVDB). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the DVDB intervention, three face-to-face breathing retraining sessions, or standard care, in a 2:1:2 ratio, for 12 months. Randomisation was achieved using the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit telephone randomisation service by use of random number generators. The primary outcome was the AQLQ score in the intention-to-treat population at 12 months. The trial was powered to show equivalence between the two active intervention groups, and superiority of both intervention groups over usual care. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported and physiological measures of asthma control, patient acceptability, and health-care costs. This trial was registered with International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISRCTN88318003. FINDINGS:Between Nov 5, 2012 and Jan 28, 2014, invitations to participate in the study were sent to 15 203 patients with general practitioner-diagnosed asthma, of whom 655 were recruited into the study. AQLQ scores at 12 months were significantly higher in the DVDB group (mean 5·40, SD 1·14) than in the usual care group (5·12, SD 1·17; adjusted mean difference 0·28, 95% CI 0·11 to 0·44), and in the face-to-face group (5·33, SD 1·06) than in the usual care group (adjusted mean difference 0·24, 95% CI 0·04 to 0·44); AQLQ scores were similar between the DVDB group and the face-to-face group (0·04, 95% CI -0·16 to 0·24). There were no significant differences between the randomisation groups in FEV1 or fraction of exhaled nitric oxide. 744 adverse events occurred in 272 patients: 101 (39%) of 261 patients in the DVDB group, 55 (42%) of 132 patients in the face-to-face group, and 132 (50%) of 262 in the usual care group, with patients reporting one or more event. 11 (4%) patients in the DVDB group, four (3%) patients in the face-to-face group, and 20 (8%) patients in the usual care group had a serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION:Breathing retraining programmes improve quality of life in patients with incompletely controlled asthma despite having little effect on lung function or airway inflammation. Such programmes can be delivered conveniently and cost-effectively as a self-guided digital audiovisual programme, so might also reduce health-care costs. FUNDING:UK National Institute of Health Research. 10.1016/S2213-2600(17)30474-5
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT): results of feasibility study. The DCCT Research Group. Diabetes care The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) is a multicenter, randomized, clinical study designed to determine whether an intensive treatment regimen directed at maintaining blood glucose concentrations as close to normal as possible will affect the appearance or progression of early vascular complications in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). We present the baseline characteristics and 1-yr results of the initial cohort of 278 subjects randomized in phase II of the trial, a phase designed to answer several feasibility questions before initiating a full-scale trial. During phase II, recruitment was completed on schedule. The 191 adults and 87 adolescents were randomized either to standard treatment (90 adults and 42 adolescents), designed to approximate conventional diabetes treatment, or to experimental treatment (101 adults and 45 adolescents), designed to achieve near-normal blood glucose and HbA1c concentrations. With few exceptions, baseline demographic, ophthalmologic, renal, and other medical characteristics were evenly distributed by randomization between the two treatment groups in both age strata. Glycemic control at baseline, as assessed by HbA1c concentrations and by blood glucose profiles, was comparable between the treatment groups in both age strata. The treatment strategies employed produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences in HbA1c concentrations and blood glucose profiles between the experimental- and standard-group subjects for both adults and adolescents. These differences were maintained throughout the feasibility phase. Except for an increased incidence of hypoglycemia in the experimental group, the two treatment regimens maintained or improved the clinical well-being of subjects in both groups. Adherence and completeness of follow-up were excellent (greater than 95%), and the methods employed to measure biochemical and pathologic characteristics of IDDM proved to be reliable, reproducible, and precise. The feasibility phase of the DCCT demonstrated that a complex multicenter, randomized study of the relationship between diabetes control and complications can be performed. The full-scale, long-term trial therefore has been initiated. 10.2337/diacare.10.1.1
Safety and efficacy of rituximab in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (RIN-1 study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Tahara Masayuki,Oeda Tomoko,Okada Kazumasa,Kiriyama Takao,Ochi Kazuhide,Maruyama Hirofumi,Fukaura Hikoaki,Nomura Kyoichi,Shimizu Yuko,Mori Masahiro,Nakashima Ichiro,Misu Tatsuro,Umemura Atsushi,Yamamoto Kenji,Sawada Hideyuki The Lancet. Neurology BACKGROUND:Pharmacological prevention against relapses in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is developing rapidly. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, against relapses in patients with NMOSD. METHODS:We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial at eight hospitals in Japan. Patients aged 16-80 years with NMOSD who were seropositive for aquaporin 4 (AQP4) antibody, were taking 5-30 mg/day oral steroids, and had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 7·0 or less were eligible for the study. Individuals taking any other immunosuppressants were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) either rituximab or placebo by a computer-aided dynamic random allocation system. The doses of concomitant steroid (converted to equivalent doses of prednisolone) and relapses in previous 2 years were set as stratification factors. Participants and those assessing outcomes were unaware of group assignments. Rituximab (375 mg/m) was administered intravenously every week for 4 weeks, then 6-month interval dosing was done (1000 mg every 2 weeks, at 24 weeks and 48 weeks after randomisation). A matching placebo was administered intravenously. Concomitant oral prednisolone was gradually reduced to 2-5 mg/day, according to the protocol. The primary outcome was time to first relapse within 72 weeks. Relapses were defined as patient-reported symptoms or any new signs consistent with CNS lesions and attributable objective changes in MRI or visual evoked potential. The primary analysis was done in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients) and safety analyses were done in the safety analysis set (all patients who received at least one infusion of assigned treatment). The primary analysis was by intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the UMIN clinical trial registry, UMIN000013453. FINDINGS:Between May 10, 2014, and Aug 15, 2017, 38 participants were recruited and randomly allocated either rituximab (n=19) or placebo (n=19). Three (16%) patients assigned rituximab discontinued the study and were analysed as censored cases. Seven (37%) relapses occurred in patients allocated placebo and none were recorded in patients assigned rituximab (group difference 36·8%, 95% CI 12·3-65·5; log-rank p=0·0058). Eight serious adverse events were recorded, four events in three (16%) patients assigned rituximab (lumbar compression fracture and infection around nail of right foot [n=1], diplopia [n=1], and uterine cancer [n=1]) and four events in two (11%) people allocated to placebo (exacerbation of glaucoma and bleeding in the right eye chamber after surgery [n=1], and visual impairment and asymptomatic white matter brain lesion on MRI [n=1]); all patients recovered. No deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION:Rituximab prevented relapses for 72 weeks in patients with NMOSD who were AQP4 antibody-positive. This study is limited by its small sample size and inclusion of participants with mild disease activity. However, our results suggest that rituximab could be useful maintenance therapy for individuals with NMOSD who are AQP4 antibody-positive. FUNDING:Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, and Zenyaku Kogyo. 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30066-1
School-based interventions to prevent anxiety and depression in children and young people: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The lancet. Psychiatry BACKGROUND:Rates of anxiety and depression are increasing among children and young people. Recent policies have focused on primary prevention of mental disorders in children and young people, with schools at the forefront of implementation. There is limited information for the comparative effectiveness of the multiple interventions available. METHODS:We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for published and unpublished, passive and active-controlled randomised and quasi-randomised trials. We included educational setting-based, universal, or targeted interventions in which the primary aim was the prevention of anxiety and depression in children and young people aged 4-18 years. Primary outcomes were post-intervention self-report anxiety and depression, wellbeing, suicidal ideation, or self-harm. We assessed risk of bias following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We estimated standardised mean differences (SMD) using random effects network meta-analysis in a Bayesian framework. The study is registered with PROPSERO, number CRD42016048184. FINDINGS:1512 full-text articles were independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers, from which 137 studies of 56 620 participants were included. 20 studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was weak evidence to suggest that cognitive behavioural interventions might reduce anxiety in primary and secondary settings. In universal secondary settings, mindfulness and relaxation-based interventions showed a reduction in anxiety symptoms relative to usual curriculum (SMD -0·65, 95% credible interval -1·14 to -0·19). There was a lack of evidence to support any one type of intervention being effective to prevent depression in universal or targeted primary or secondary settings. Comparison-adjusted funnel plots suggest the presence of small-study effects for the universal secondary anxiety analysis. Network meta-analysis was not feasible for wellbeing or suicidal ideation or self-harm outcomes, and results are reported narratively. INTERPRETATION:Considering unclear risk of bias and probable small study effects for anxiety, we conclude there is little evidence that educational setting-based interventions focused solely on the prevention of depression or anxiety are effective. Future research could consider multilevel, systems-based interventions as an alternative to the downstream interventions considered here. FUNDING:UK National Institute for Health Research. 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30403-1
A mindfulness-based intervention to increase resilience to stress in university students (the Mindful Student Study): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Galante Julieta,Dufour Géraldine,Vainre Maris,Wagner Adam P,Stochl Jan,Benton Alice,Lathia Neal,Howarth Emma,Jones Peter B The Lancet. Public health BACKGROUND:The rising number of young people going to university has led to concerns about an increasing demand for student mental health services. We aimed to assess whether provision of mindfulness courses to university students would improve their resilience to stress. METHODS:We did this pragmatic randomised controlled trial at the University of Cambridge, UK. Students aged 18 years or older with no severe mental illness or crisis (self-assessed) were randomly assigned (1:1), via remote survey software using computer-generated random numbers, to receive either an 8 week mindfulness course adapted for university students (Mindfulness Skills for Students [MSS]) plus mental health support as usual, or mental health support as usual alone. Participants and the study management team were aware of group allocation, but allocation was concealed from the researchers, outcome assessors, and study statistician. The primary outcome was self-reported psychological distress during the examination period, as measured with the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), with higher scores indicating more distress. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12615001160527. FINDINGS:Between Sept 28, 2015, and Jan 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 616 students to the MSS group (n=309) or the support as usual group (n=307). 453 (74%) participants completed the CORE-OM during the examination period and 182 (59%) MSS participants completed at least half of the course. MSS reduced distress scores during the examination period compared with support as usual, with mean CORE-OM scores of 0·87 (SD 0·50) in 237 MSS participants versus 1·11 (0·57) in 216 support as usual participants (adjusted mean difference -0·14, 95% CI -0·22 to -0·06; p=0·001), showing a moderate effect size (β -0·44, 95% CI -0·60 to -0·29; p<0·0001). 123 (57%) of 214 participants in the support as usual group had distress scores above an accepted clinical threshold compared with 88 (37%) of 235 participants in the MSS group. On average, six students (95% CI four to ten) needed to be offered the MSS course to prevent one from experiencing clinical levels of distress. No participants had adverse reactions related to self-harm, suicidality, or harm to others. INTERPRETATION:Our findings show that provision of mindfulness training could be an effective component of a wider student mental health strategy. Further comparative effectiveness research with inclusion of controls for non-specific effects is needed to define a range of additional, effective interventions to increase resilience to stress in university students. FUNDING:University of Cambridge and National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England. 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30231-1