METHODS: In an international, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, symptomatic individuals classified CEAP C0s to C4s were randomized in either treatment arm and treated for 8 weeks. Lower limb symptoms (discomfort, pain and heaviness) were assessed using Visual Analog Scales (VAS), and quality of life (QoL) was measured with the CIVIQ-20 Questionnaire.
RESULTS: A total of 1139 patients were included in the study. Both MPFF treatment regimens were well tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in lower limb symptoms. A non-inferiority of MPFF 1000-mg oral suspension once daily compared to MPFF 500-mg tablet twice daily (P<0.0001) was found for lower limb discomfort (-3.33 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.37 cm for MPFF 500 mg), leg pain (-3.27 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.31 cm for MPFF 500 mg) and leg heaviness (-3.41 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.46 cm for MPFF 500 mg). The patients' QoL was improved by about 20 points on the CIVIQ scale in both groups (19.33 points for MPFF 1000 mg and 20.28 points for MPFF 500 mg).
CONCLUSIONS: MPFF 1000-mg oral suspension and MPFF 500-mg tablets treatments were associated with similar reductions in lower limb symptoms and QoL improvement. The new once daily MPFF1000-mg oral suspension has a similar safety profile to two tablets of MPFF 500 mg, with the advantage of one daily intake, potentially associated with improved patient adherence and easier CVD management.
METHODS: Through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Costs in Oncology study, 1,294 newly diagnosed patients with cancer (Ministry of Health [MOH] hospitals [n = 577], a public university hospital [n = 642], private hospitals [n = 75]) were observed in Malaysia. Cost diaries and questionnaires were used to measure incidence of financial toxicity, encompassing financial catastrophe (FC; out-of-pocket costs ≥ 30% of annual household income), medical impoverishment (decrease in household income from above the national poverty line to below that line after subtraction of cancer-related costs), and economic hardship (inability to make necessary household payments). Predictors of financial toxicity were determined using multivariable analyses.
RESULTS: One fifth of patients had private health insurance. Incidence of FC at 1 year was 51% (MOH hospitals, 33%; public university hospital, 65%; private hospitals, 72%). Thirty-three percent of households were impoverished at 1 year. Economic hardship was reported by 47% of families. Risk of FC attributed to conventional medical care alone was 18% (MOH hospitals, 5%; public university hospital, 24%; private hospitals, 67%). Inclusion of expenditures on nonmedical goods and services inflated the risk of financial toxicity in public hospitals. Low-income status, type of hospital, and lack of health insurance were strong predictors of FC.
CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer may not be fully protected against financial hardships, even in settings with universal health coverage. Nonmedical costs also contribute as important drivers of financial toxicity in these settings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study, 139 women, underwent transvaginal surgery for anterior and/or apical POP > stage 2, 69 patients had SIM A and 70 patients had SSF. The objective cure was defined as POP ≤ stage 1 anterior, apical according to POP-Q. Subjective cure is patient's negative feedback to question 2 and 3 of pelvic organ prolapse distress inventory 6 (POPDI-6). Patient's satisfaction was reported using validated quality of life questionnaires. Multi-channel urodynamic study was used to report any voiding problems related to the prolapse surgery 6 months after surgery.
RESULTS: 119 patients completed a minimum of 3 years follow-up. 89.8% is the overall prolapse correction success rate for SIM A and 73.3% for SSF group (p = 0.020), and 96.6% versus 73.4% at the anterior vaginal compartment respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Statistically significant difference was noticed in apical compartment with 98.3% with SIM A and 85.0% with SSF (p = 0.009). The subjective success rate, 86.4% in the SIM A and 70.0% in the SSF arm (p = 0.030) was significantly noted. Only, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6) showed significant improvement. Operation time and intra-operative blood loss tend to be more with SIM A.
CONCLUSION: SIM A has better 3 years objective and subjective cure rate than SSF in the anterior and/or apical compartment prolapse.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, open-label randomised trial. Patients with MPE will be randomised 1:1 to daily or symptom-guided drainage regimes after IPC insertion. Patient allocation to groups will be stratified for the cancer type (mesothelioma vs others), performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0-1 vs ≥2), presence of trapped lung (vs not) and prior pleurodesis (vs not). The primary outcome is the mean daily dyspnoea score, measured by a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) over the first 60 days. Secondary outcomes include benefits on physical activity levels, rate of spontaneous pleurodesis, complications, hospital admission days, healthcare costs and QoL measures. Enrolment of 86 participants will detect a mean difference of VAS score of 14 mm between the treatment arms (5% significance, 90% power) assuming a common between-group SD of 18.9 mm and a 10% lost to follow-up rate.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Sir Charles Gairdner Group Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the study (number 2015-043). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615000963527; Pre-results.
METHOD: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, parallel-design, open label interventional study to estimate the effectiveness of zolpidem (10 mg) oral tablets versus acupressure on sleep quality and quality of life in patients with CKD-aP on hemodialysis. A total of 58 hemodialysis patients having sleep disturbance due to CKD-aP completed the entire 8-week follow-up. The patients were divided into a control (acupressure) group of 28 patients and an intervention (zolpidem) group of 30 patients.
RESULTS: A total of 58 patients having CKD-aP and sleep disturbance were recruited. In the control group there was a reduction in the PSQI score with a mean ± SD from 12.28 ± 3.59 to 9.25 ± 3.99, while in the intervention group the reduction in PSQI score with a mean ± SD was from 14.73 ± 4.14 to 10.03 ± 4.04 from baseline to endpoint. However, the EQ5D index score and EQ-visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline for the control group with a mean ± SD was 0.49 ± 0.30 and 50.17 ± 8.65, respectively, while for the intervention group the values were 0.62 ± 0.26 and 47.17 ± 5.82, respectively. The mean EQ5D index score in the control group improved from 0.49 ± 0.30 to 0.53 ± 0.30, but in the intervention group there was no statistical improvement in mean EQ5D index score from 0.62 ± 0.26 to 0.62 ± 0.27 from baseline to week 8. The EQ 5D improved in both groups and the EQ-VAS score was 2.67 points higher at week 8 as compared to baseline in the control group, while in the intervention group the score was 3.33 points higher at week 8 as compared to baseline. Comparing with baseline, the PSQI scores were significantly reduced after week 4 and week 8 (P = life among CKD-aP patients on hemodialysis has been observed in both the control and intervention groups. Zolpidem and acupressure safety profiling showed no severe adverse effect other that drowsiness, nausea and daytime sleeping already reported in literature of zolpidem.
METHODS: The open-label, Phase II ECLIPSE study evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in transfusion-dependent thalassemia or lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes patients randomized 1:1 to receive deferasirox DT or FCT over 24 weeks as a secondary outcome of the study. Three PRO questionnaires were developed to evaluate both deferasirox formulations: 1) Modified Satisfaction with Iron Chelation Therapy Questionnaire; 2) Palatability Questionnaire; 3) Gastrointestinal (GI) Symptom Diary.
RESULTS: One hundred seventy three patients were enrolled; 87 received the FCT and 86 the DT formulation. FCT recipients consistently reported better adherence (easier to take medication, less bothered by time to prepare medication and waiting time before eating), greater satisfaction/preference (general satisfaction and with administration of medicine), and fewer concerns (less worry about not swallowing enough medication, fewer limitations in daily activities, less concern about side effects). FCT recipients reported no taste or aftertaste and could swallow all their medicine with an acceptable amount of liquid. GI summary scores were low for both formulations.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a preference in favor of the deferasirox FCT formulation regardless of underlying disease or age group. Better patient satisfaction and adherence to chelation therapy may reduce iron overload-related complications.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02125877; registered April 26, 2014.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonists in stable COPD.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers' websites as well as the reference list of published trials up to 12 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing combined aclidinium bromide and LABAs in people with stable COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. The primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a short course of an oral steroid or antibiotic, or both; quality of life measured by a validated scale and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs). Where the outcome or study details were not reported, we contacted the study investigators or pharmaceutical company trial co-ordinators (or both) for missing data.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified RCTs comparing aclidinium/formoterol FDC versus aclidinium, formoterol or placebo only. We included seven multicentre trials of four to 52 weeks' duration conducted in outpatient settings. There were 5921 participants, whose mean age ranged from 60.7 to 64.7 years, mostly men with a mean smoking pack-years of 46.4 to 61.3 of which 43.9% to 63.4% were current smokers. They had a moderate-to-severe degree of COPD with a mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) between 50.5% and 61% of predicted normal and the baseline mean FEV1 of 1.23 L to 1.43 L. We assessed performance and detection biases as low for all studies whereas selection, attrition and reporting biases were either low or unclear.FDC versus aclidiniumThere was no evidence of a difference between FDC and aclidinium for exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); quality of life measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -0.92, 95% CI -2.15 to 0.30); participants with significant improvement in SGRQ score (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; 2 trials, 2002 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); non-fatal SAE (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.80; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or adverse events (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with aclidinium, FDC improved symptoms (Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score: MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 2 trials, 2013 participants) with a higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least one unit improvement (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.62; high-certainty evidence); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) being 14 (95% CI 9 to 39).FDC versus formoterolWhen compared to formoterol, combination therapy reduced exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 3 trials, 2694 participants; high-certainty evidence); may decrease SGRQ total score (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.65; 2 trials, 2002 participants; low-certainty evidence; MCID for SGRQ is 4 units); increased TDI focal score (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 2 trials, 2010 participants) with more participants attaining an MCID (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56; high-certainty evidence) and an NNTB of 16 (95% CI 10 to 60). FDC lowered the risk of adverse events compared to formoterol (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.93; 5 trials, 3140 participants; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 22). However, there was no difference between FDC and formoterol for hospital admissions, all-cause mortality and non-fatal SAEs.FDC versus placeboCompared with placebo, FDC demonstrated no evidence of a difference in exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.18; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although estimates were uncertain. Quality of life measure by SGRQ total score was significantly better with FDC compared to placebo (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.33 to -1.50; 2 trials, 1823 participants) resulting in a corresponding increase in SGRQ responders who achieved at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.13; high-certainty evidence) with an NNTB of 7 (95% CI 5 to 12). FDC also improved symptoms measured by TDI focal score (MD 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.69; 2 studies, 1832 participants) with more participants attaining at least one unit improvement in TDI focal score (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.11; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 4). There were no differences in non-fatal SAEs, adverse events and all-cause mortality between FDC and placebo.Combination therapy significantly improved trough FEV1 compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: FDC improved dyspnoea and lung function compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo, and this translated into an increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. Quality of life was better with combination compared to formoterol or placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between FDC and monotherapy or placebo for exacerbations, hospital admissions, mortality, non-fatal SAEs or adverse events. Studies reported a lower risk of moderate exacerbations and adverse events with FDC compared to formoterol; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.