Three-year efficacy and safety of a new 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system

AbstractObjectiveTo assess 3-year data on the efficacy and safety of a new 52-mg levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive (LNG20) designed for up to 7 years use.Study DesignNulliparous and parous women aged 16–45 years at enrollment with regular menstrual cycles and requesting contraception were enrolled in an open-label, partially randomized trial to evaluate LNG20. The primary outcome was pregnancy rate for women aged 16–35 years calculated as the Pearl Index. Women aged 36–45 years received LNG20 for safety evaluation only. All participants had in-person or phone follow-up approximately every 3 months during the study.ResultsA total of 1600 women aged 16–35 years and 151 women aged 36–45 years agreed to LNG20 placement, including 1011 (57.7%) nulliparous and 438 (25.1%) obese women. Successful placement occurred in 1714 (97.9%) women. Six pregnancies occurred, four of which were ectopic. The Pearl Index for LNG20 was 0.15 (95% CI 0.02–0.55) through Year 1, 0.26 (95% CI 0.10–0.57) through Year 2, and 0.22 (95% CI 0.08–0.49) through Year 3. The cumulative life-table pregnancy rate was 0.55 (95% CI 0.24–1.23) through 3 years. Expulsion was reported in 62 (3.5%) participants, most (50 [80.6%]) during the first year of use. Of women who discontinued LNG20 and desired pregnancy, 86.8% conceived spontaneously within 12 months. Pelvic infection was diagnosed in 10 (0.6%) women. Only 26 (1.5%) LNG20 users discontinued due to bleeding complaints.ConclusionThe LNG20 intrauterine system is highly effective and safe over 3 years of use in nulliparous and parous women.Implications statementA new 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system is effective and safe for nulliparous and parous women for at least 3 years

Public-Access Defibrillation and Survival After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Background The rate of survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is low. It is not known whether this rate will increase if laypersons are trained to attempt defibrillation with the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). Methods We conducted a prospective, community-based, multicenter clinical trial in which we randomly assigned community units (e.g., shopping malls and apartment complexes) to a structured and monitored emergency-response system involving lay volunteers trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) alone or in CPR and the use of AEDs. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Results More than 19,000 volunteer responders from 993 community units in 24 North American regions participated. The two study groups had similar unit and volunteer characteristics. Patients with treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the two groups were similar in age (mean, 69.8 years), proportion of men (67 percent), rate of cardiac arrest in a public location (70 percent), and rate of witnessed cardiac arrest (72 percent). No inappropriate shocks were delivered. There were more survivors to hospital discharge in the units assigned to have volunteers trained in CPR plus the use of AEDs (30 survivors among 128 arrests) than there were in the units assigned to have volunteers trained only in CPR (15 among 107; P=0.03; relative risk, 2.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.07 to 3.77); there were only 2 survivors in residential complexes. Functional status at hospital discharge did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions Training and equipping volunteers to attempt early defibrillation within a structured response system can increase the number of survivors to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in public locations. Trained laypersons can use AEDs safely and effectively

The use of interim data and Data Monitoring Committee recommendations in randomized controlled trial reports: frequency, implications and potential sources of bias

Background: Interim analysis of accumulating trial data is important to protect participant safety during randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) often undertake such analyses, but their widening role may lead to extended use of interim analysis or recommendations that could potentially bias trial results.Methods: Systematic search of eight major publications: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, CID, JAMA, JCO, Lancet and NEJM, including all randomised controlled trials ( RCTs) between June 2000 and May 2005 to identify RCTs that reported use of interim analysis, with or without DMC involvement. Recommendations made by the DMC or based on interim analysis were identified and potential sources of bias assessed. Independent double data extraction was performed on all included trials.Results: We identified 1772 RCTs, of which 470 (27%; 470/1772) reported the use of a DMC and a further 116 (7%; 116/1772) trials reported some form of interim analysis without explicit mention of a DMC. There were 28 trials ( 24 with a formal DMC), randomizing a total of 79396 participants, identified as recommending changes to the trial that may have lead to biased results. In most of these, some form of sample size re-estimation was recommended with four trials also reporting changes to trial endpoints. The review relied on information reported in the primary publications and methods papers relating to the trials, higher rates of use may have occurred but not been reported.Conclusion: The reported use of interim analysis and DMCs in clinical trials has been increasing in recent years. It is reassuring that in most cases recommendations were made in the interest of participant safety. However, in practice, recommendations that may lead to potentially biased trial results are being made

Hands-on time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is affected by the process of teambuilding: a prospective randomised simulator-based trial

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrests are handled by teams rather than by individual health-care workers. Recent investigations demonstrate that adherence to CPR guidelines can be less than optimal, that deviations from treatment algorithms are associated with lower survival rates, and that deficits in performance are associated with shortcomings in the process of team-building. The aim of this study was to explore and quantify the effects of ad-hoc team-building on the adherence to the algorithms of CPR among two types of physicians that play an important role as first responders during CPR: general practitioners and hospital physicians. METHODS: To unmask team-building this prospective randomised study compared the performance of preformed teams, i.e. teams that had undergone their process of team-building prior to the onset of a cardiac arrest, with that of teams that had to form ad-hoc during the cardiac arrest. 50 teams consisting of three general practitioners each and 50 teams consisting of three hospital physicians each, were randomised to two different versions of a simulated witnessed cardiac arrest: the arrest occurred either in the presence of only one physician while the remaining two physicians were summoned to help ("ad-hoc"), or it occurred in the presence of all three physicians ("preformed"). All scenarios were videotaped and performance was analysed post-hoc by two independent observers. RESULTS: Compared to preformed teams, ad-hoc forming teams had less hands-on time during the first 180 seconds of the arrest (93 +/- 37 vs. 124 +/- 33 sec, P > 0.0001), delayed their first defibrillation (67 +/- 42 vs. 107 +/- 46 sec, P > 0.0001), and made less leadership statements (15 +/- 5 vs. 21 +/- 6, P > 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Hands-on time and time to defibrillation, two performance markers of CPR with a proven relevance for medical outcome, are negatively affected by shortcomings in the process of ad-hoc team-building and particularly deficits in leadership. Team-building has thus to be regarded as an additional task imposed on teams forming ad-hoc during CPR. All physicians should be aware that early structuring of the own team is a prerequisite for timely and effective execution of CPR

Implantable or External Defibrillators for Individuals at Increased Risk of Cardiac Arrest: Where Cost-Effectiveness Hits Fiscal Reality

Objcetives:  Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are highly effective at preventing cardiac arrest, but their availability is limited by high cost. Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are likely to be less effective, but also less expensive. We used decision analysis to evaluate the clinical and economic trade-offs of AEDs, ICDs, and emergency medical services equipped with defibrillators (EMS-D) for reducing cardiac arrest mortality. Methods:  A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of three strategies in adults meeting entry criteria for the MADIT II Trial: strategy 1, individuals experiencing cardiac arrest are treated by EMS-D; strategy 2, individuals experiencing cardiac arrest are treated with an in-home AED; and strategy 3, individuals receive a prophylactic ICD. The model was then used to quantify the aggregate societal benefit of these three strategies under the conditions of a constrained federal budget. Results:  Compared with EMS-D, in-home AEDs produced a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $5225 ($104,500 per QALY), while ICDs produced a gain of 0.90 QALYs at a cost of $114,660 ($127,400 per QALY). For every $1 million spent on defibrillators, 1.7 additional QALYs are produced by purchasing AEDs (9.6 QALYs/$million) instead of ICDs (7.9 QALYs/$million). Results were most sensitive to defibrillator complication rates and effectiveness, defibrillator cost, and adults’ risk of cardiac arrest. Conclusions:  Both AEDs and ICDs reduce cardiac arrest mortality, but AEDs are significantly less expensive and less effective. If financial constraints were to lead to rationing of defibrillators, it might be preferable to provide more people with a less effective and less expensive intervention (in-home AEDs) instead of providing fewer people with a more effective and more costly intervention (ICDs).Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74790/1/j.1524-4733.2006.00118.x.pd

Cost-effectiveness of In-home Automated External Defibrillators for Individuals at Increased Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death

In-home automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are increasingly recommended as a means for improving survival of cardiac arrests that occur at home. The current study was conducted to explore the relationship between individuals' risk of cardiac arrest and cost-effectiveness of in-home AED deployment. Design : Markov decision model employing a societal perspective. Patients : Four hypothetical cohorts of American adults 60 years of age at progressively greater risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD): 1) all adults (annual probability of SCD 0.4%); 2) adults with multiple SCD risk factors (probability 2%); 3) adults with previous myocardial infarction (probability 4%); and 4) adults with ischemic cardiomyopathy unable to receive an implantable defibrillator (probability 6%). Intervention : Strategy 1: individuals suffering an in-home cardiac arrest were treated with emergency medical services equipped with AEDs (EMS-D). Strategy 2: individuals suffering an in-home cardiac arrest received initial treatment with an in-home AED, followed by EMS. Results : Assuming cardiac arrest survival rates of 15% with EMS-D and 30% with AEDs, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALY) of providing in-home AEDs to all adults 60 years of age is $216,000. Costs of providing in-home AEDs to adults with multiple risk factors (2$132,000, $104,000, and$88,000, respectively. Conclusions : The cost-effectiveness of in-home AEDs is intimately linked to individuals' risk of SCD. However, providing in-home AEDs to all adults over age 60 appears relatively expensive.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/72168/1/j.1525-1497.2005.40247.x.pd