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.
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.
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.
METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, time-to-event trial, 143 adults were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either intravenous eculizumab (at a dose of 900 mg weekly for the first four doses starting on day 1, followed by 1200 mg every 2 weeks starting at week 4) or matched placebo. The continued use of stable-dose immunosuppressive therapy was permitted. The primary end point was the first adjudicated relapse. Secondary outcomes included the adjudicated annualized relapse rate, quality-of-life measures, and the score on the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), which ranges from 0 (no disability) to 10 (death).
RESULTS: The trial was stopped after 23 of the 24 prespecified adjudicated relapses, given the uncertainty in estimating when the final event would occur. The mean (±SD) annualized relapse rate in the 24 months before enrollment was 1.99±0.94; 76% of the patients continued to receive their previous immunosuppressive therapy during the trial. Adjudicated relapses occurred in 3 of 96 patients (3%) in the eculizumab group and 20 of 47 (43%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.20; P<0.001). The adjudicated annualized relapse rate was 0.02 in the eculizumab group and 0.35 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.15; P<0.001). The mean change in the EDSS score was -0.18 in the eculizumab group and 0.12 in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, -0.29; 95% CI, -0.59 to 0.01). Upper respiratory tract infections and headaches were more common in the eculizumab group. There was one death from pulmonary empyema in the eculizumab group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AQP4-IgG-positive NMOSD, those who received eculizumab had a significantly lower risk of relapse than those who received placebo. There was no significant between-group difference in measures of disability progression. (Funded by Alexion Pharmaceuticals; PREVENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01892345; EudraCT number, 2013-001150-10.).
METHODS: This multicenter, parallel, open-label, randomized controlled trial investigated the clinical efficacy of WPS in 126 malnourished CAPD patients with serum albumin <40 g/L and body mass index (BMI) <24 kg/m2. Patients randomized to the intervention group (IG, n = 65) received protein powder (27.4 g) for 6 months plus dietary counseling (DC) while the control group (CG, n = 61) received DC only. Anthropometry, biochemistry, malnutrition-inflammation-score (MIS), dietary intake inclusive of dialysate calories, handgrip strength (HGS) and quality of life (QOL) were assessed at baseline and 6 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed by effect size (Cohen's d) comparisons within and between groups.
RESULTS: Seventy-four patients (n = 37 per group) completed the study. Significantly more IG patients (59.5%) achieved dietary protein intake (DPI) adequacy of 1.2 g/kg per ideal body weight (p 0.05). A higher DPI paralleled significant increases in serum urea (mean Δ: IG = +2.39 ± 4.36 mmol/L, p = 0.002, d = 0.57 vs CG = -0.39 ± 4.59 mmol/L, p > 0.05, d = 0.07) and normalized protein catabolic rate, nPCR (mean Δ: IG = +0.11 ± 0.14 g/kg/day, p 0.05, d = 0.09) for IG compared to CG patients. Although not significant, comparison for changes in post-dialysis weight (mean Δ: +0.64 ± 1.16 kg vs +0.02 ± 1.36 kg, p = 0.076, d = 0.58) and mid-arm circumference (mean Δ: +0.29 ± 0.93 cm vs -0.12 ± 0.71 cm, p = 0.079, d = 0.24) indicated trends favoring IG vs CG. Other parameters remained unaffected by treatment comparisons. CG patients had a significant decline in QOL physical component (mean Δ = -6.62 ± 16.63, p = 0.020, d = 0.47). Using changes in nPCR level as a marker of WPS intake within IG, 'positive responders' achieved significant improvement in weight, BMI, skinfold measures and serum urea (all p 0.05).
CONCLUSION: A single macronutrient approach with WPS in malnourished CAPD patients was shown to achieve DPI adequacy and improvements in weight, BMI, skin fold measures, serum urea and nPCR level. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03367000).