METHODS: Twenty postmenopausal women with a mean age of 54.59 +/- 1.22 years participated in this randomized, crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. All women received 400 IU of tocopherol daily for 10 weeks or a placebo capsule, before being crossed over for treatment. At intervals of 5 weeks, subjects attended sessions where measurements of arterial stiffness, blood pressure and plasma vitamin E level were taken. Pulse wave velocity measurement, using the automated Complior machine, was used as an index of arterial stiffness.
RESULTS: Plasma vitamin E level was 30.38 +/- 1.56 micromol/l at baseline, after treatment it was 59.01 +/- 3.30 micromol/l and 31.17 +/- 1.37 micromol/l with vitamin E and placebo, respectively (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in pulse wave velocity after 10-week treatment with placebo and vitamin E (9.14 +/- 0.29 versus 9.04 +/- 0.29 m/s, respectively). Similarly, no difference in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was seen between placebo and vitamin E at the end of 10 weeks.
CONCLUSION: Supplementary vitamin E for 10 weeks at 400 IU daily has no effect on arterial stiffness in healthy postmenopausal women.
DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted among incarcerated individuals with HIV and AUDs transitioning to the community from 2010 through 2016.
METHODS: Eligible participants (N = 100) were randomized 2:1 to receive 6 monthly injections of XR-NTX (n = 67) or placebo (n = 33) starting at release and continued for 6 months. The primary and secondary outcomes were the proportion that maintained or improved VS at <200 and <50 copies per milliliter from baseline to 6 months, respectively, using an intention-to-treat analysis.
RESULTS: Participants allocated to XR-NTX improved VS from baseline to 6 months for <200 copies per milliliter (48.0%-64.2%, P = 0.024) and for <50 copies per milliliter (31.0%-56.7%, P = 0.001), whereas the placebo group did not (<200 copies/mL: 64%-42.4%, P = 0.070; <50 copies/mL: 42.0%-30.3%, P = 0.292). XR-NTX participants were more likely to achieve VS than the placebo group at 6 months (<200 copies/mL: 64.2% vs. 42.4%; P = 0.041; <50 copies/mL: 56.7% vs. 30.3%; P = 0.015). XR-NTX independently predicted VS [<200 copies/mL: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.01 to 7.09, P = 0.047; <50 copies/mL: aOR = 4.54; 95% CI = 1.43 to 14.43, P = 0.009] as did receipt of ≥3 injections (<200 copies/mL: aOR = 3.26; 95% CI = 1.26 to 8.47, P = 0.010; <50 copies/mL: aOR = 6.34; 95% CI = 2.08 to 19.29, P = 0.001). Reductions in alcohol consumption (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.98, P = 0.033) and white race (aOR = 5.37, 95% CI = 1.08 to 27.72, P = 0.040) also predicted VS at <50 copies per milliliter.
CONCLUSIONS: XR-NTX improves or maintains VS after release to the community for incarcerated people living with HIV and AUDs.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of RCTs involving topical drugs published in the Archives of Dermatology, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and British Journal of Dermatology for correct classification of studies as vehicle versus placebo-controlled.
METHODS: RCTs involving topical drugs published in the Archives of Dermatology, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and British Journal of Dermatology from January 1999 to November 2008 were identified through PubMed, supplemented by citation lists from the individual journals' web pages. Only original studies that involved using a topical control or used the term topical "vehicle" or "placebo" were selected. The studies were examined for correct classification as vehicle-controlled, the year of publication, country of origin, sample size, funding source and nature of study center.
RESULTS: Out of 132, 64 (49%) correctly classified their studies as vehicle-controlled. Pharmaceutical-funded studies (55%, P=0.01) were significantly associated with the use of correct classification.
LIMITATIONS: As only three peer-reviewed dermatology journals were studied, findings may not be generalized to other dermatology journals and other types of publications.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review highlights a common pitfall in the reporting of studies of topical dermatology drugs.
METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, done in 209 sites in 29 countries, we randomly assigned patients 2:1 with untreated locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer using a block method (block size of six) and an interactive voice-response system with integrated web-response to pembrolizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel; paclitaxel; or gemcitabine plus carboplatin) or placebo plus chemotherapy. Randomisation was stratified by type of on-study chemotherapy (taxane or gemcitabine-carboplatin), PD-L1 expression at baseline (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1 or <1), and previous treatment with the same class of chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting (yes or no). Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, centrally confirmed triple-negative breast cancer; at least one measurable lesion; provision of a newly obtained tumour sample for determination of triple-negative breast cancer status and PD-L1 status by immunohistochemistry at a central laboratory; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1; and adequate organ function. The sponsor, investigators, other study site staff (except for the unmasked pharmacist), and patients were masked to pembrolizumab versus saline placebo administration. In addition, the sponsor, the investigators, other study site staff, and patients were masked to patient-level tumour PD-L1 biomarker results. Dual primary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival assessed in the PD-L1 CPS of 10 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and intention-to-treat populations. The definitive assessment of progression-free survival was done at this interim analysis; follow-up to assess overall survival is continuing. For progression-free survival, a hierarchical testing strategy was used, such that testing was done first in patients with CPS of 10 or more (prespecified statistical criterion was α=0·00411 at this interim analysis), then in patients with CPS of 1 or more (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis, with partial alpha from progression-free survival in patients with CPS of 10 or more passed over), and finally in the intention-to-treat population (α=0·00111 at this interim analysis). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02819518, and is ongoing.
FINDINGS: Between Jan 9, 2017, and June 12, 2018, of 1372 patients screened, 847 were randomly assigned to treatment, with 566 patients in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 281 patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group. At the second interim analysis (data cutoff, Dec 11, 2019), median follow-up was 25·9 months (IQR 22·8-29·9) in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 26·3 months (22·7-29·7) in the placebo-chemotherapy group. Among patients with CPS of 10 or more, median progression-free survival was 9·7 months with pembrolizumab-chemotherapy and 5·6 months with placebo-chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] for progression or death, 0·65, 95% CI 0·49-0·86; one-sided p=0·0012 [primary objective met]). Median progression-free survival was 7·6 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·74, 0·61-0·90; one-sided p=0·0014 [not significant]) among patients with CPS of 1 or more and 7·5 and 5·6 months (HR, 0·82, 0·69-0·97 [not tested]) among the intention-to-treat population. The pembrolizumab treatment effect increased with PD-L1 enrichment. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event rates were 68% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 67% in the placebo-chemotherapy group, including death in <1% in the pembrolizumab-chemotherapy group and 0% in the placebo-chemotherapy group.
INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab-chemotherapy showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus placebo-chemotherapy among patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer with CPS of 10 or more. These findings suggest a role for the addition of pembrolizumab to standard chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.
FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated PHYLLPRO™, a standardized ethanol extract of P. amarus leaves for protection against oxidative stress and recovery from hangover symptoms.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ten days daily oral supplementation of 750 mg/day followed by intoxication was evaluated in a randomized placebo-controlled (containing only excipient), crossover study in 15 subjects (21-50 years old), for oxidative stress, liver damage, alleviating hangover symptoms (Hangover Severity Score: HSS) and mood improvement (Profile-of-Mood-Scores: POMS).
RESULTS: PHYLLPRO™ was able to remove blood alcohol in the active group while the placebo group still had 0.05% at 12 h post-intoxication (p 0.05) from baseline to hour 22 was reported in the placebo group using POMS. Significant anti-inflammatory group effect favouring the active group, by the upregulation of cytokines IL-8 (p = 0.0014) and IL-10 (p = 0.0492) and immunomodulatory effects via IL-12p70 (p = 0.0304) were observed. The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups indicating the safety of PHYLLPRO™.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings of PHYLLPRO™ in managing hangover, inflammation and liver functions following intoxication, is demonstrated. Future studies on PHYLLPRO™ in protecting against oxidative stress and hangover in larger populations is warranted.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose.
MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV1 compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.