Lactobacillus fermentum (PCC®) supplementation and gastrointestinal and respiratory-tract illness symptoms: a randomised control trial in athletes

BACKGROUND Probiotics purportedly reduce symptoms of gastrointestinal and upper respiratory-tract illness by modulating commensal microflora. Preventing and reducing symptoms of respiratory and gastrointestinal illness are the primary reason that dietary supplementation with probiotics are becoming increasingly popular with healthy active individuals. There is a paucity of data regarding the effectiveness of probiotics in this cohort. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a probiotic on faecal microbiology, self-reported illness symptoms and immunity in healthy well trained individuals. METHODS Competitive cyclists (64 males and 35 females; age 35 ± 9 and 36 ± 9 y, VO2max 56 ± 6 and 52 ± 6 ml.kg-1.min-1, mean ± SD) were randomised to either probiotic (minimum 1 × 109 Lactobacillus fermentum (PCC®) per day) or placebo treatment for 11 weeks in a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. The outcome measures were faecal L. fermentum counts, self-reported symptoms of illness and serum cytokines. RESULTS Lactobacillus numbers increased 7.7-fold (90% confidence limits 2.1- to 28-fold) more in males on the probiotic, while there was an unclear 2.2-fold (0.2- to 18-fold) increase in females taking the probiotic. The number and duration of mild gastrointestinal symptoms were ~2-fold greater in the probiotic group. However, there was a substantial 0.7 (0.2 to 1.2) of a scale step reduction in the severity of gastrointestinal illness at the mean training load in males, which became more pronounced as training load increased. The load (duration×severity) of lower respiratory illness symptoms was less by a factor of 0.31 (99%CI; 0.07 to 0.96) in males taking the probiotic compared with placebo but increased by a factor of 2.2 (0.41 to 27) in females. Differences in use of cold and flu medication mirrored these symptoms. The observed effects on URTI had too much uncertainty for a decisive outcome. There were clear reductions in the magnitude of acute exercise-induced changes in some cytokines. CONCLUSION L. fermentum may be a useful nutritional adjunct for healthy exercising males. However, uncertainty in the effects of supplementation on URTI and on symptoms in females needs to be resolved. TRIAL REGISTRATION The trial was registered in the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12611000006943).The study was funded by Christian Hansen A/S, Probiomics and the Australian Institute of Sport

The cost of monitoring warfarin in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation in primary care in Sweden

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is used for the prevention of stroke in chronic atrial fibrillation. The product has a narrow therapeutic index and to obtain treatment success, patients must be maintained within a given therapeutic range (International Normalised Ratio;INR). To ensure a wise allocation of health care resources, scrutiny of costs associated with various treatments is justified. The objective of this study was to estimate the health care cost of INR controls in patients on warfarin treatment with chronic atrial fibrillation in primary care in Sweden. METHODS: Data from various sources were applied in the analysis. Resource consumption was derived from two observational studies based on electronic patient records and two Delphi-panel studies performed in two and three rounds, respectively. Unit costs were taken from official databases and primary health care centres. RESULTS: The mean cost of one INR control was SEK 550. The mean costs of INR controls during the first three months, the first year and during the second year of treatment were SEK 6,811, SEK 16,244 and SEK 8,904 respectively. CONCLUSION: INR controls of patients on warfarin treatment in primary care in Sweden represent a substantial cost to the health care provider and they are particularly costly when undertaken in home care. The cost may however be off-set by the reduced incidence of stroke

Reporting of randomized factorial trials was frequently inadequate.

OBJECTIVES: Factorial designs can allow efficient evaluation of multiple treatments within a single trial. We evaluated the design, analysis, and reporting in a sample of factorial trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of 2 × 2 factorial trials evaluating health-related interventions and outcomes in humans. Using Medline, we identified articles published between January 2015 and March 2018. We randomly selected 100 articles for inclusion. RESULTS: Most trials (78%) did not provide a rationale for using a factorial design. Only 63 trials (63%) assessed the interaction for the primary outcome, and 39/63 (62%) made a further assessment for at least one secondary outcome. 12/63 trials (19%) identified a significant interaction for the primary outcome and 16/39 trials (41%) for at least one secondary outcome. Inappropriate methods of analysis to protect against potential negative effects from interactions were common, with 18 trials (18%) choosing the analysis method based on a preliminary test for interaction, and 13% (n = 10/75) of those conducting a factorial analysis including an interaction term in the model. CONCLUSION: Reporting of factorial trials was often suboptimal, and assessment of interactions was poor. Investigators often used inappropriate methods of analysis to try to protect against adverse effects of interactions

Systematic Review of Outcome Measures Used in Observational Studies of Adults with Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND Over the last 20 years, diverse outcome measures have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of therapies for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). This systematic review aims to identify the readouts used in observational studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation in adult EoE patients. METHODS We searched MEDLINE and Embase for prospective and retrospective studies (cohorts/case series, randomized open-label, and case-control) evaluating the use of diets, dilation, and topical corticosteroids in adults with EoE. Two authors independently assessed the articles and extracted information about histologic, endoscopic, and patient-reported outcomes and tools used to assess treatment effects. RESULTS We included 69 studies that met inclusion criteria. EoE-associated endoscopic findings (assessed either as absence/presence or using Endoscopic Reference Score) were evaluated in 24/35, 11/17, and 9/17 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively. Esophageal eosinophil density was recorded in 32/35, 17/17, and 11/17 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively. Patient-reported outcomes were not uniformly used (only in 14, 8, and 3 studies of topical corticosteroids, diet, and dilation, respectively), and most tools were not validated for use in adults with EoE. CONCLUSIONS Despite the lack of an agreed set of core outcomes that should be recorded and reported in studies in adult EoE patients, endoscopic EoE-associated findings and esophageal eosinophil density are commonly used to assess disease activity in observational studies. Standardization of outcomes and data supporting the use of outcomes are needed to facilitate interpretation of evidence, its synthesis, and comparisons of interventions in meta-analyses of therapeutic trials in adults with EoE

Increased risk of type I errors in cluster randomised trials with small or medium numbers of clusters: a review, reanalysis,and simulation study

Background: Cluster randomised trials (CRTs) are commonly analysed using mixed-effects models or generalised estimating equations (GEEs). However, these analyses do not always perform well with the small number of clusters typical of most CRTs. They can lead to increased risk of a type I error (finding a statistically significant treatment effect when it does not exist) if appropriate corrections are not used. Methods: We conducted a small simulation study to evaluate the impact of using small-sample corrections for mixed-effects models or GEEs in CRTs with a small number of clusters. We then reanalysed data from TRIGGER, a CRT with six clusters, to determine the effect of using an inappropriate analysis method in practice. Finally, we reviewed 100 CRTs previously identified by a search on PubMed in order to assess whether trials were using appropriate methods of analysis. Trials were classified as at risk of an increased type I error rate if they did not report using an analysis method which accounted for clustering, or if they had fewer than 40 clusters and performed an individual-level analysis without reporting the use of an appropriate small-sample correction. Results: Our simulation study found that using mixed-effects models or GEEs without an appropriate correction led to inflated type I error rates, even for as many as 70 clusters. Conversely, using small-sample corrections provided correct type I error rates across all scenarios. Reanalysis of the TRIGGER trial found that inappropriate methods of analysis gave much smaller P values (P ≤ 0.01) than appropriate methods (P = 0.04–0.15). In our review, of the 99 trials that reported the number of clusters, 64 (65 %) were at risk of an increased type I error rate; 14 trials did not report using an analysis method which accounted for clustering, and 50 trials with fewer than 40 clusters performed an individual-level analysis without reporting the use of an appropriate correction. Conclusions: CRTs with a small or medium number of clusters are at risk of an inflated type I error rate unless appropriate analysis methods are used. Investigators should consider using small-sample corrections with mixed-effects models or GEEs to ensure valid results. Abbreviations: CRT, Cluster randomised trial; CI, Confidence interval; GEE, Generalised estimating equations; TRIGGER, Trial in Gastrointestinal Transfusio

Stakeholder views regarding ethical issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials : study protocol

This work is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through the Project Grant competition (competitive, peer reviewed), award number PJT-153045. Jeremy Grimshaw holds a Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake and a CIHR Foundation Grant (FDN-143269). Charles Weijer holds a Canada Research Chair in Bioethics. Joanne McKenzie is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship (1143429). Vipul Jairath hold a personal Endowed Chair at Western University (John and Susan McDonald Endowed Chair). Marion Campbell is based with the Health Services Research Unit which is core-funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. Ian Graham is a CIHR Foundation Grant recipient (FDN# 143237).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Narrow-band Imaging for Detection of Neoplasia at Colonoscopy: a Meta-analysis of Data From Individual Patients in Randomized Controlled Trials

Background & Aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality assurance measure for colonoscopy. Some studies suggest that narrow band imaging (NBI) may be more effective at detection of adenomas than white-light endoscopy (WLE) when bowel preparation is optimal. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from individual patients in randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of NBI to WLE in detection of adenomas. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, through April 2017, for randomized controlled trials that assessed detection of colon polyps by high-definition WLE vs NBI and from which data on individual patients was available. The primary outcome measure was ADR adjusted for bowel preparation quality. Multilevel regression models were used with patients nested within trials, and trial included as a random effect. Results We collected data from 11 trials, comprising 4491 patients and 6636 polyps detected. Adenomas were detected in 952/2251 (42.3%) participants examined by WLE vs 1011/2239 (45.2%) participants examined by NBI (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] for detection of adenoma by WLE vs NBI, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01–1.29; P=.04). NBI outperformed WLE only when bowel preparation was best: adequate preparation OR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.92–1.24; P=.38) vs best preparation OR, 1.30 (95% CI, 1.04–1.62; P=.02). Second-generation bright NBI had a better ADR than WLE (second-generation NBI OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05–1.56; P=.02), whereas first-generation NBI did not. NBI detected more non-adenomatous polyps than WLE (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06–1.44; P=.008) and flat polyps than WLE (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.02–1.51; P=.03). Conclusions In a meta-analysis of data from individual patients in randomized controlled trials, we found NBI to have a higher ADR than WLE, and that this effect is greater when bowel preparation is optimal

An International Consensus to Standardize Integration of Histopathology in Ulcerative Colitis Clinical Trials

Background & Aims: Histopathology is an emerging treatment target in ulcerative colitis (UC) clinical trials. Our aim was to provide guidance on standardizing biopsy collection protocols, identifying optimal evaluative indices, and defining thresholds for histologic response and remission after treatment. Methods: An international, interdisciplinary expert panel of 19 gastroenterologists and gastrointestinal pathologists was assembled. A modified RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness methodology was used to address relevant issues. A total of 138 statements were derived from a systematic review of the literature and expert opinion. Each statement was anonymously rated as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate using a 9-point scale. Survey results were reviewed and discussed before a second round of voting. Results: Histologic measurements collected using a uniform biopsy strategy are important for assessing disease activity and determining therapeutic efficacy in UC clinical trials. Multiple biopsy strategies were deemed acceptable, including segmental biopsies collected according to the endoscopic appearance. Biopsies should be scored for architectural change, lamina propria chronic inflammation, basal plasmacytosis, lamina propria and epithelial neutrophils, epithelial damage, and erosions/ulcerations. The Geboes score, Robarts Histopathology Index, and Nancy Index were considered appropriate for assessing histologic activity; use of the modified Riley score and Harpaz Index were uncertain. Histologic activity at baseline should be required for enrollment, recognizing this carries operational implications. Achievement of histologic improvement or remission was considered an appropriate and realistic therapeutic target. Current histologic indices require validation for pediatric populations. Conclusions: These recommendations provide a framework for standardized implementation of histopathology in UC trials. Additional work is required to address operational considerations and areas of uncertainty

Trial summary and protocol for a phase II randomised placebo-controlled double-blinded trial of Interleukin 1 blockade in Acute Severe Colitis: the IASO trial.

INTRODUCTION: Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a severe manifestation of ulcerative colitis (UC) that warrants hospitalisation. Despite significant advances in therapeutic options for UC and in the medical management of steroid-refractory ASUC, the initial treatment paradigm has not changed since 1955 and is based on the use of intravenous corticosteroids. This treatment is successful in approximately 50% of patients but failure of this and subsequent medical therapy still occurs, with colectomy rates of up to 40% reported. The Interleukin 1 (IL-1) blockade in Acute Severe Colitis (IASO) trial aims to investigate whether antagonism of IL-1 signalling using anakinra in addition to intravenous corticosteroid treatment can improve outcomes in patients with ASUC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: IASO is a phase II, multicentre, two-arm (parallel group), randomised (1:1), placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial of short-duration anakinra in ASUC. Its primary outcome will be the incidence of medical (eg, infliximab/ciclosporin) or surgical rescue therapy (colectomy) within 10 days following the commencement of intravenous corticosteroid therapy. Secondary outcomes will include disease activity, time to clinical response, time to rescue therapy, colectomy incidence by day 98 post intravenous corticosteroids and safety. The trial aims to recruit 214 patients across 20 sites in the UK. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has received approval from the Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/EE/0347), the Health Research Authority (Ref: 201505) and Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. We plan to present trial findings at scientific conferences and publish in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43717130; EudraCT 2017-001389-10.NIH

A biomarker-stratified comparison of top-down versus accelerated step-up treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed Crohn's disease (PROFILE):a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial

Background: Management strategies and clinical outcomes vary substantially in patients newly diagnosed with Crohn's disease. We evaluated the use of a putative prognostic biomarker to guide therapy by assessing outcomes in patients randomised to either top-down (ie, early combined immunosuppression with infliximab and immunomodulator) or accelerated step-up (conventional) treatment strategies. Methods: PROFILE (PRedicting Outcomes For Crohn's disease using a moLecular biomarker) was a multicentre, open-label, biomarker-stratified, randomised controlled trial that enrolled adults with newly diagnosed active Crohn's disease (Harvey-Bradshaw Index ≥7, either elevated C-reactive protein or faecal calprotectin or both, and endoscopic evidence of active inflammation). Potential participants had blood drawn to be tested for a prognostic biomarker derived from T-cell transcriptional signatures (PredictSURE-IBD assay). Following testing, patients were randomly assigned, via a secure online platform, to top-down or accelerated step-up treatment stratified by biomarker subgroup (IBDhi or IBDlo), endoscopic inflammation (mild, moderate, or severe), and extent (colonic or other). Blinding to biomarker status was maintained throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission to week 48. Remission was defined by a composite of symptoms and inflammatory markers at all visits. Flare required active symptoms (HBI ≥5) plus raised inflammatory markers (CRP &gt;upper limit of normal or faecal calprotectin ≥200 μg/g, or both), while remission was the converse—ie, quiescent symptoms (HBI &lt;5) or resolved inflammatory markers (both CRP ≤ the upper limit of normal and calprotectin &lt;200 μg/g) or both. Analyses were done in the full analysis (intention-to-treat) population. The trial has completed and is registered (ISRCTN11808228). Findings: Between Dec 29, 2017, and Jan 5, 2022, 386 patients (mean age 33·6 years [SD 13·2]; 179 [46%] female, 207 [54%] male) were randomised: 193 to the top-down group and 193 to the accelerated step-up group. Median time from diagnosis to trial enrolment was 12 days (range 0–191). Primary outcome data were available for 379 participants (189 in the top-down group; 190 in the accelerated step-up group). There was no biomarker–treatment interaction effect (absolute difference 1 percentage points, 95% CI –15 to 15; p=0·944). Sustained steroid-free and surgery-free remission was significantly more frequent in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (149 [79%] of 189 patients vs 29 [15%] of 190 patients, absolute difference 64 percentage points, 95% CI 57 to 72; p&lt;0·0001). There were fewer adverse events (including disease flares) and serious adverse events in the top-down group than in the accelerated step-up group (adverse events: 168 vs 315; serious adverse events: 15 vs 42), with fewer complications requiring abdominal surgery (one vs ten) and no difference in serious infections (three vs eight). Interpretation: Top-down treatment with combination infliximab plus immunomodulator achieved substantially better outcomes at 1 year than accelerated step-up treatment. The biomarker did not show clinical utility. Top-down treatment should be considered standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed active Crohn's disease. Funding: Wellcome and PredictImmune Ltd.</p