Physicians' Preferences for Active-controlled versus Placebo-controlled Trials of New Antihypertensive Drugs

To evaluate physicians' preferences for referring patients to, and using information from, active-controlled trials (ACTs) versus placebo-controlled trials (PCTs) of new antihypertensive drugs. DESIGN AND SETTING Nationwide mailed survey, with telephone contact of nonresponders to assess nonresponse bias. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand two hundred primary care physicians randomly selected from the American Medical Association's Master File. Of 1,154 physicians eligible to respond, 651 (56.4%) returned completed questionnaires. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured physicians' stated willingness to encourage hypertensive patients to enroll in ACTs and PCTs of new antihypertensive drugs, their views of the relative merits of ACTs versus PCTs, their stated willingness to prescribe new drugs tested in ACTs or PCTs, and their views regarding the overall justifiability of the 2 designs. Physicians were significantly more likely to indicate they would encourage their patients to enroll in ACTs than in PCTs ( P < .0001). Physicians thought ACTs provided more valuable information for their practices, were more likely to lead to a public health benefit, offered enrolled patients greater opportunity for personal benefit, and were less likely to expose enrolled patients to unnecessary risks (all P < .0001). Physicians were more likely to prescribe new drugs that had been compared in ACTs ( P < .0001), and viewed ACTs as a more justifiable method for testing new antihypertensive drugs ( P < .0001). There was no evidence of nonresponse bias for these main results. CONCLUSIONS: Although PCTs remain the standard method for testing new antihypertensive drugs, physicians strongly prefer ACTs. Using ACTs to test new antihypertensive drugs may enhance the efficiency of patient recruitment and more strongly influence physicians' prescribing practices.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73302/1/j.1525-1497.2002.11024.x.pd

Randomized clinical trial comparing blunt tapered and standard needles in closing abdominal fascia.

Contains fulltext : 47695.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Glove perforation frequently occurs during the course of surgical procedures, introducing risks for both surgeons and patients. The aim of this study was to compare the use of blunt tapered and "sharp" needles during abdominal wall closure with respect to the incidence of glove perforation and the convenience of needle handling. A series of 200 patients undergoing laparotomy in a 6-month period for general surgical disorders were randomized to two groups; in one, the abdominal fascia was closed with a blunt tapered needle; in the other, a sharp needle was used. The main outcome measures were glove perforation and convenience of handling the needle. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. In all, 56 glove perforations occurred during 40 (20%) surgical procedures. Perforation rates differed significantly: 12% for the blunt (n = 100) tapered needle and 28% (n = 100) for the sharp needle (p = 0.003). Only in 12 cases (21%) was the glove perforation detected at surgery. The type of needle (odds ratio 0.35, p = 0.006) and time taken to close the fascia (odds ratio 1.001, p = 0.05) significantly affected the risk of glove perforation. At multivariate logistic regression analysis the type of needle (odds ratio 0.23, p = 0.004) and the visual analog linear scale (VAS) for ease of needle handling (odds ratio 1.18, p = 0.019) were important predictive factors for glove perforation. With the blunt tapered needle, the VAS was significantly (p = 0.0003) higher at primary laparotomy than at relaparotomy. Use of the blunt tapered needle reduces the incidence of glove perforation. Laborious closure predicts glove perforation. Blunt tapered needles are less convenient in closing a scarred abdominal fascia