CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare a 1-day with a 2-day iodine bowel preparation for CT colonography in a positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients underwent CT colonography and colonoscopy with segmental unblinding. The first 50 patients (group 1) ingested 7 50 ml iodinated contrast starting 2 days before CT colonography. The latter 50 patients (group 2) ingested 4 50 ml iodinated contrast starting 1 day before CT colonography. Per colonic segment measurements of residual stool attenuation and homogeneity were performed, and a subjective evaluation of tagging quality (grade 1-5) was done. Independently, two reviewers performed polyp and carcinoma detection. RESULTS: The tagging density was 638 and 618 HU (p = 0.458) and homogeneity 91 and 86 HU for groups 1 and 2, respectively (p = 0.145). The tagging quality was graded 5 (excellent) in 90% of all segments in group 1 and 91% in group 2 (p = 0.749). Mean per-polyp sensitivity for lesions >or=10 mm was 86% in group 1 and 97% in group 2 (p = 0.355). Patient burden from diarrhoea significantly decreased for patients in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: One-day preparation with meglumine ioxithalamate results in an improved patient acceptability compared with 2-day preparation and has a comparable, excellent image quality and good diagnostic performanc

Children's vomiting following posterior fossa surgery: A retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Nausea and vomiting is a problem for children after neurosurgery and those requiring posterior fossa procedures appear to have a high incidence. This clinical observation has not been quantified nor have risk factors unique to this group of children been elucidated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A six year retrospective chart audit at two Canadian children's hospitals was conducted. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was extracted. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to quantify risk and protective factors at 120 hours after surgery and early vs. late vomiting.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The incidence of vomiting over a ten day postoperative period was 76.7%. Documented vomiting ranged from single events to greater than 20 over the same period. In the final multivariable model: adolescents (age 12 to <17) were less likely to vomit by 120 hours after surgery than other age groups; those who received desflurane, when compared to all other volatile anesthetics, were more likely to vomit, yet the use of ondansetron with desflurane decre kelihood. Children who had intraoperative ondansetron were more likely to vomit in the final multivariable model (perhaps because of its use, in the clinical judgment of the anesthesiologist, for children considered at risk). Children who started vomiting in the first 24 hours were more likely to be school age (groups 4 to <7 and 7 to <12) and receive desflurane. Nausea was not well documented and was therefore not analyzed.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The incidence of vomiting in children after posterior fossa surgery is sufficient to consider all children requiring these procedures to be at high risk for POV. Nausea requires better assessment and documentation.</p

Cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: balancing gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Differences between gastrointestinal and cardiovascular effects of traditional NSAID or cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor (coxib) are affected by drug, dose, duration, outcome definition, and patient gastrointestinal and cardiovascular risk factors. We calculated the absolute risk for each effect.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We sought studies with large amounts of information to calculate annualised rates for clearly defined gastrointestinal (complicated upper gastrointestinal perforations, ulcers, or bleeds, but not symptomatic or endoscopic ulcers) and serious cardiovascular outcomes (antiplatelet trial collaborators – APTC – outcome of fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, or vascular death).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Meta-analyses and large randomised trials specifically analysing serious gastrointestinal bleeding or cardiovascular events occurring with five different coxibs had appropriate data. In total there were 439 complicated upper gastrointestinal events in 49,006 patient years of exposure and 948 serious cardiovascular events in 99,400 patient years of exposure. Complicated gastrointestinal events occurred less frequently with coxibs than NSAIDs; serious cardiovascular events occurred at approximately equal rates. For each coxib, the reduction in complicated upper gastrointestinal events was numerically greater than any increase in APTC events. In the overall comparison, for every 1000 patients treated for a year with coxib rather than NSAID, there would be eight fewer complicated upper gastrointestinal events, but one more fatal or nonfatal heart attack or stroke. Three coxib-NSAID comparisons had sufficient numbers of events for individual comparisons. For every 1000 patients treated for a year with celecoxib rather than an NSAID there would be 12 fewer upper gastrointestinal complications, and two fewer fatal or nonfatal heart attacks or strokes. For rofecoxib there would be six fewer upper gastrointestinal complications, but three more fatal or nonfatal heart attacks or strokes. For lumiracoxib there would be eight fewer upper gastrointestinal complications, but one more fatal or nonfatal heart attack or stroke.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Calculating annualised event rates for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular harm shows that while complicated gastrointestinal events occur more frequently with NSAIDs than coxibs, serious cardiovascular events occur at approximately equal rates. For each coxib, the reduction in complicated upper gastrointestinal events was numerically greater than any increase in APTC events.</p

Equivalence and noninferiority trials – are they viable alternatives for registration of new drugs? (III)

The scientific community's reliance on active-controlled trials is steadily increasing, as widespread agreement emerges concerning the role of these trials as viable alternatives to placebo trials. These trials present substantial challenges with regard to design and interpretation as their complexity increases, and the potential need for larger sample sizes impacts the cost and time variables of the drug development process. The potential efficacy and safety benefits derived from these trials may never be demonstrated by other methods. Active-controlled trials can develop valuable data to inform both prescribers and patients about the dose- and time-dependent actions of any new drug and can contribute to the management and communication of risks associated with the relevant therapeutic products

Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain: systematic review and meta-analysis

A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in chronic conditions like osteoarthritis and tendinitis. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review. Studies were identified by searching electronic databases, and writing to manufacturers. We identified randomised, double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment, in adults with chronic pain. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain of approximately 50% at two weeks, and secondary outcomes were local and systemic adverse events and adverse event-related withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative harm and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, and the effects of trial quality, validity and size, outcome reported, and condition treated, were examined by sensitivity analyses. Twelve new trials were added to 13 trials from a previous review. Fourteen double blind placebo-controlled trials had information from almost 1,500 patients. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo with relative benefit 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.2), NNT 4.6 (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 5.9). Results were not affected by trial quality, validity or size, outcome reported, or condition treated. Three trials with 764 patients comparing a topical with an oral NSAID found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events (6%), systemic adverse events (3%), or the numbers withdrawing due to an adverse event were the same for topical NSAID and placebo. Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating chronic musculoskeletal conditions for two weeks. Larger and longer trials are necessary to fully elucidate the place of topical NSAIDs in clinical practice

Topical NSAIDs for acute pain: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in acute conditions like sprains and strains, with differences between individual drugs for efficacy. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases and writing to manufacturers. We selected randomised double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment in adults with acute pain, and extracted dichotomous information approximating to a 50% reduction in pain at one week, together with details of adverse events and withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative risk and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, with sensitivity analyses where appropriate to investigate differences between individual drugs and aspects of trial design. RESULTS: Twenty-six double blind placebo controlled trials had information from 2,853 patients for evaluation of efficacy. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo in 19 of the 26 trials, with a pooled relative benefit of 1.6 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 1.7), and NNT of 3.8 (95% confidence interval 3.4 to 4.4) compared with placebo for the outcome of half pain relief at seven days. Results were not affected by outcome reported, or condition treated, but smaller trials yielded a larger estimate of efficacy. Indirect comparisons of individual topical NSAIDs showed that ketoprofen was significantly better than all other topical NSAIDs, while indomethacin was barely distinguished from placebo. Three trials, with 433 patients, compared topical with oral NSAID (two trials compared the same drug, one compared different drugs) and found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events, systemic adverse events, or withdrawals due to an adverse event were rare, and no different between topical NSAID and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating acute painful conditions for one week

Systematic review of methods used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event

addresses: Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, St Luke's Campus, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. [email protected]: PMCID: PMC3528446types: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't© 2012 Warren et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Adverse consequences of medical interventions are a source of concern, but clinical trials may lack power to detect elevated rates of such events, while observational studies have inherent limitations. Meta-analysis allows the combination of individual studies, which can increase power and provide stronger evidence relating to adverse events. However, meta-analysis of adverse events has associated methodological challenges. The aim of this study was to systematically identify and review the methodology used in meta-analyses where a primary outcome is an adverse or unintended event, following a therapeutic intervention