14 research outputs found

    The RAPID-CTCA trial (Rapid Assessment of Potential Ischaemic Heart Disease with CTCA) - a multicentre parallel-group randomised trial to compare early computerised tomography coronary angiography versus standard care in patients presenting with suspected or confirmed acute coronary syndrome: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Emergency department attendances with chest pain requiring assessment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are a major global health issue. Standard assessment includes history, examination, electrocardiogram (ECG) and serial troponin testing. Computerised tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) enables additional anatomical assessment of patients for coronary artery disease (CAD) but has only been studied in very low-risk patients. This trial aims to investigate the effect of early CTCA upon interventions, event rates and health care costs in patients with suspected/confirmed ACS who are at intermediate risk. METHODS/DESIGN: Participants will be recruited in about 35 tertiary and district general hospitals in the UK. Patients ≥18 years old with symptoms with suspected/confirmed ACS with at least one of the following will be included: (1) ECG abnormalities, e.g. ST-segment depression >0.5 mm; (2) history of ischaemic heart disease; (3) troponin elevation above the 99(th) centile of the normal reference range or increase in high-sensitivity troponin meeting European Society of Cardiology criteria for 'rule-in' of myocardial infarction (MI). The early use of ≥64-slice CTCA as part of routine assessment will be compared to standard care. The primary endpoint will be 1-year all-cause death or recurrent type 1 or type 4b MI at 1 year, measured as the time to such event. A number of secondary clinical, process and safety endpoints will be collected and analysed. Cost effectiveness will be estimated in terms of the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. We plan to recruit 2424 (2500 with ~3% drop-out) evaluable patients (1212 per arm) to have 90% power to detect a 20% versus 15% difference in 1-year death or recurrent type 1 MI or type 4b MI, two-sided p < 0.05. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. The relationship between intervention and the primary outcome will be analysed using Cox proportional hazard regression adjusted for study site (used to stratify the randomisation), age, baseline Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, previous CAD and baseline troponin level. The results will be expressed as a hazard ratio with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals and p value. DISCUSSION: The Rapid Assessment of Potential Ischaemic Heart Disease with CTCA (RAPID-CTCA) trial will recruit 2500 participants across about 35 hospital sites. It will be the first study to investigate the role of CTCA in the early assessment of patients with suspected or confirmed ACS who are at intermediate risk and including patients who have raised troponin measurements during initial assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN19102565 . Registered on 3 October 2014. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02284191

    Assessment of Ovarian Function in Phase 3 (Neo)adjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Evaluation

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Loss of ovarian function is a recognized adverse effect of chemotherapy for breast cancer and of great importance to patients. Little is known about the ovarian toxicity of newer cancer treatments. This study examined whether breast cancer clinical trials include assessment of the impact of trial interventions on ovarian function. METHODS: Eligible trials were phase III (neo)adjuvant trials of pharmacologic treatments for breast cancer, recruiting between June 2008 and October 2019, which included premenopausal women. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and EudraCT were searched. Data were extracted from trial publications, protocols, databases, and a survey sent to all trial chairs. Tests of statistical significance were 2-sided. RESULTS: Of 2354 records identified, 141 trials were eligible. Investigational treatments included chemotherapy (36.9%), HER2 targeted (24.8%), endocrine (12.8%), immunotherapy (7.8%), cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (5.0%), and poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (2.8%). Ovarian function was a prespecified endpoint in 13 (9.2%) trials. Forty-five (31.9%) trials collected ovarian function data, but only 33 (23.4%) collected posttrial-intervention data. Common postintervention data collected included menstruation (15.6%), pregnancy (13.5%), estradiol (9.9%), and follicle-stimulating hormone levels (8.5%). Only 4 (2.8%) trials collected postintervention anti-müllerian hormone levels, and 3 (2.1%) trials collected antral follicle count. Of 22 trials investigating immunotherapy, cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors, or poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors, none specified ovarian function as an endpoint, but 4 (18.2%) collected postintervention ovarian function data. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of pharmacologic interventions on ovarian function is infrequently assessed in phase III breast cancer (neo)adjuvant trials that include premenopausal women. Trialists should consider inclusion of ovarian function endpoints when designing clinical trials, given its importance for informed decision making

    Regimen selection in the OPTIONS trial of HIV salvage therapy: drug resistance, prior therapy, and race–ethnicity determine the degree of regimen complexity

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Regimen selection for highly treatment-experienced patients is complicated. METHODS: Using a web-based utility, study team members reviewed antiretroviral (ARV) history and resistance data and recommended individual ARV regimens and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) options for treatment-experienced participants consisting of 3–4 of the following agents: raltegravir (RAL), darunavir (DRV)/ritonavir, tipranavir (TPV)/ritonavir, etravirine (ETR), maraviroc (MVC), and enfuvirtide (ENF). We evaluated team recommendations and site selection of regimen and NRTIs. Associations between baseline factors and the selection of a complex regimen (defined as including four ARV agents or ENF) were explored with logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 413 participants entered the study. Participants initiated the first or second recommended regimen 86% of the time and 21% of participants started a complex regimen. In a multivariable model, ARV resistance to NRTI (odds ratio [OR]=2.2), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI, OR=6.2) or boosted protease inhibitor (PI, OR=6.6), prior use of integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI, OR=25), and race–ethnicity (all P≤0.01) were associated with selection of a complex regimen. Black non-Hispanic (OR=0.5) and Hispanic participants from the continental US (OR=0.2) were less likely to start a complex regimen, compared to white non-Hispanics. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-center trial, we developed a web-based utility that facilitated treatment recommendations for highly treatment-experienced patients. Drug resistance, prior INSTI use, and race–ethnicity were key factors in decisions to select a more complex regimen
    corecore