Effects of placebos without deception compared with no treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim Our aim was to address the clinical efficacy of open-label placebos compared with no treatment by systematic review, and meta-analysis where possible. Methods We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other NonIndexed Citations (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and clinical trials registers and screened reference lists. We ran the most recent search on April 27 2015. All randomised controlled trials of any medical condition, which had both open-label placebo and no-treatment or treatment as usual groups were included. Two authors independently applied the selection criteria and extracted data. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane criteria. We used random-effects model for meta-analysis. Results After removing duplicates we screened 348 publications, assessed 24 articles for eligibility and identified 5 trials (260 participants) that met our inclusion criteria. The clinical conditions were: irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), depression, allergic rhinitis, back pain and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The overall risk of bias was moderate. All 5 trials were eligible for meta-analysis. We found a positive effect for non-deceptive placebos (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.88, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.14, P<0.00001, I2= 1%). Conclusions Open-label placebos appear to have favorable clinical outcomes, compared to no treatment or no additional treatment. Caution is warranted when interpreting the results due to the limitations including the small number of trials and lack of blinding. Larger definitive trials are now warranted to explore the potential patient benefit of open-label placebos

ELECTRIC BREAKDOWN AS A PROBABILITY PROCESS

ImportanceRecent estimates suggest that more than 26 million people worldwide have heart failure. The syndrome is associated with major symptoms, significantly increased mortality, and extensive use of health care. Evidence-based treatments influence all these outcomes in a proportion of patients with heart failure. Current management also often includes advice to reduce dietary salt intake, although the benefits are uncertain. ObjectiveTo systematically review randomized clinical trials of reduced dietary salt in adult inpatients or outpatients with heart failure. Evidence ReviewSeveral bibliographic databases were systematically searched, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. The methodologic quality of the studies was evaluated, and data associated with primary outcomes of interest (cardiovascular-associated mortality, all-cause mortality, and adverse events, such as stroke and myocardial infarction) and secondary outcomes (hospitalization, length of inpatient stay, change in New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class, adherence to dietary low-salt intake, and changes in blood pressure) were extracted. FindingsOf 2655 retrieved references, 9 studies involving 479 unique participants were included in the analysis. None of the studies included more than 100 participants. The risks of bias in the 9 studies were variable. None of the included studies provided sufficient data on the primary outcomes of interest. For the secondary outcomes of interest, 2 outpatient-based studies reported that NYHA functional class was not improved by restriction of salt intake, whereas 2 studies reported significant improvements in NYHA functional class. Conclusions and RelevanceLimited evidence of clinical improvement was available among outpatients who reduced dietary salt intake, and evidence was inconclusive for inpatients. Overall, a paucity of robust high-quality evidence to support or refute current guidance was available. This review suggests that well-designed, adequately powered studies are needed to reduce uncertainty about the use of this intervention.</p

Lack of evidence for interventions offered in UK fertility centres.

Carl Heneghan and colleagues call for better quality evidence to help people seeking assisted reproduction make informed choices

Characteristics of clinical trials in rare vs. common diseases : A register-based Latvian study

Publisher Copyright: © 2018 Logviss et al. This is an open ccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and eproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Background Conducting clinical studies in small populations may be very challenging; therefore quality of clinical evidence may differ between rare and non-rare disease therapies. Objective This register-based study aims to evaluate the characteristics of clinical trials in rare diseases conducted in Latvia and compare them with clinical trials in more common conditions. Methods The EU Clinical Trials Register (clinicaltrialsregister.eu) was used to identify interventional clinical trials related to rare diseases (n = 51) and to compose a control group of clinical trials in non-rare diseases (n = 102) for further comparison of the trial characteristics. Results We found no significant difference in the use of overall survival as a primary endpoint in clinical trials between rare and non-rare diseases (9.8% vs. 13.7%, respectively). However, clinical trials in rare diseases were less likely to be randomized controlled trials (62.7% vs. 83.3%). Rare and non-rare disease clinical trials varied in masking, with rare disease trials less likely to be double blind (45.1% vs. 63.7%). Active comparators were less frequently used in rare disease trials (36.4% vs. 58.8% of controlled trials). Clinical trials in rare diseases enrolled fewer participants than those in non-rare diseases: In Latvia (mean 18.3 vs. 40.2 subjects, respectively), in the European Economic Area (mean 181.0 vs. 626.9 subjects), and in the whole clinical trial (mean 335.8 vs. 1406.3 subjects). Although, we found no significant difference in trial duration between the groups (mean 38.3 vs. 36.4 months). Conclusions The current study confirms that clinical trials in rare diseases vary from those in non-rare conditions, with notable differences in enrollment, randomization, masking, and the use of active comparators. However, we found no significant difference in trial duration and the use of overall survival as a primary endpoint.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Does Glycine max leaves or Garcinia Cambogia promote weight-loss or lower plasma cholesterol in overweight individuals: a randomized control trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Natural food supplements with high flavonoid content are often claimed to promote weight-loss and lower plasma cholesterol in animal studies, but human studies have been more equivocal. The aim of this study was firstly to determine the effectiveness of natural food supplements containing <it>Glycine max </it>leaves extract (EGML) or <it>Garcinia cambogia </it>extract (GCE) to promote weight-loss and lower plasma cholesterol. Secondly to examine whether these supplements have any beneficial effect on lipid, adipocytokine or antioxidant profiles.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eighty-six overweight subjects (Male:Female = 46:40, age: 20~50 yr, BMI > 23 < 29) were randomly assigned to three groups and administered tablets containing EGML (2 g/day), GCE (2 g/day) or placebo (starch, 2 g/day) for 10 weeks. At baseline and after 10 weeks, body composition, plasma cholesterol and diet were assessed. Blood analysis was also conducted to examine plasma lipoproteins, triglycerides, adipocytokines and antioxidants.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>EGML and GCE supplementation failed to promote weight-loss or any clinically significant change in %body fat. The EGML group had lower total cholesterol after 10 weeks compared to the placebo group (p < 0.05). EGML and GCE had no effect on triglycerides, non-HDL-C, adipocytokines or antioxidants when compared to placebo supplementation. However, HDL-C was higher in the EGML group (p < 0.001) after 10 weeks compared to the placebo group.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Ten weeks of EGML or GCE supplementation did not promote weight-loss or lower total cholesterol in overweight individuals consuming their habitual diet. Although, EGML did increase plasma HDL-C levels which is associated with a lower risk of atherosclerosis.</p

Recommendations from the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL)

International audienceAbstractRare diseases are an important public health issue with high unmet need. The introduction of the EU Regulation on orphan medicinal products (OMP) has been successful in stimulating investment in the research and development of OMPs. Despite this advancement, patients do not have universal access to these new medicines. There are many factors that affect OMP uptake, but one of the most important is the difficulty of making pricing and reimbursement (P&R) decisions in rare diseases. Until now, there has been little consensus on the most appropriate assessment criteria, perspective or appraisal process. This paper proposes nine principles to help improve the consistency of OMP P&R assessment in Europe and ensure that value assessment, pricing and funding processes reflect the specificities of rare diseases and contribute to both the sustainability of healthcare systems and the sustainability of innovation in this field. These recommendations are the output of the European Working Group for Value Assessment and Funding Processes in Rare Diseases (ORPH-VAL), a collaboration between rare disease experts, patient representatives, academics, health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners, politicians and industry representatives. ORPH-VAL reached its recommendations through careful consideration of existing OMP P&R literature and through a wide consultation with expert stakeholders, including payers, regulators and patients. The principles cover four areas: OMP decision criteria, OMP decision process, OMP sustainable funding systems and European co-ordination. This paper also presents a guide to the core elements of value relevant to OMPs that should be consistently considered in all OMP appraisals. The principles outlined in this paper may be helpful in drawing together an emerging consensus on this topic and identifying areas where consistency in payer approach could be achievable and beneficial. All stakeholders have an obligation to work together to ensure that the promise of OMP’s is realised

Strengthening retinopathy of prematurity screening and treatment services in Nigeria: a case study of activities, challenges and outcomes 2017-2020.

OBJECTIVES: Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) will become a major cause of blindness in Nigerian children unless screening and treatment services expand. This article aims to describe the collaborative activities undertaken to improve services for ROP between 2017 and 2020 as well as the outcome of these activities in Nigeria. DESIGN: Descriptive case study. SETTING: Neonatal intensive care units in Nigeria. PARTICIPANTS: Staff providing services for ROP, and 723 preterm infants screened for ROP who fulfilled screening criteria (gestational age <34 weeks or birth weight ≤2000 g, or sickness criteria). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A WhatsApp group was initiated for Nigerian ophthalmologists and neonatologists in 2018. Members participated in a range of capacity-building, national and international collaborative activities between 2017 and 2018. A national protocol for ROP was developed for Nigeria and adopted in 2018; 1 year screening outcome data were collected and analysed. In 2019, an esurvey was used to collect service data from WhatsApp group members for 2017-2018 and to assess challenges in service provision. RESULTS: In 2017 only six of the 84 public neonatal units in Nigeria provided ROP services; this number had increased to 20 by 2018. Of the 723 babies screened in 10 units over a year, 127 (17.6%) developed any ROP; and 29 (22.8%) developed type 1 ROP. Only 13 (44.8%) babies were treated, most by intravitreal bevacizumab. The screening criteria were revised in 2020. Challenges included lack of equipment to regulate oxygen and to document and treat ROP, and lack of data systems. CONCLUSION: ROP screening coverage and quality improved after national and international collaborative efforts. To scale up and improve services, equipment for neonatal care and ROP treatment is urgently needed, as well as systems to monitor data. Ongoing advocacy is also essential