10,387 research outputs found

    Rituximab or cyclosporine in the treatment of membranous nephropathy

    Get PDF

    Duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND Since 2004, a regimen of 6 months of treatment with oxaliplatin plus a fluoropyrimidine has been standard adjuvant therapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. However, since oxaliplatin is associated with cumulative neurotoxicity, a shorter duration of therapy could spare toxic effects and health expenditures. METHODS We performed a prospective, preplanned, pooled analysis of six randomized, phase 3 trials that were conducted concurrently to evaluate the noninferiority of adjuvant therapy with either FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) administered for 3 months, as compared with 6 months. The primary end point was the rate of disease-free survival at 3 years. Noninferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of therapy could be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.12. RESULTS After 3263 events of disease recurrence or death had been reported in 12,834 patients, the noninferiority of 3 months of treatment versus 6 months was not confirmed in the overall study population (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.15). Noninferiority of the shorter regimen was seen for CAPOX (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.06) but not for FOLFOX (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.26). In an exploratory analysis of the combined regimens, among the patients with T1, T2, or T3 and N1 cancers, 3 months of therapy was noninferior to 6 months, with a 3-year rate of disease-free survival of 83.1% and 83.3%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12). Among patients with cancers that were classified as T4, N2, or both, the disease-free survival rate for a 6-month duration of therapy was superior to that for a 3-month duration (64.4% vs. 62.7%) for the combined treatments (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23; P=0.01 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stage III colon cancer receiving adjuvant therapy with FOLFOX or CAPOX, noninferiority of 3 months of therapy, as compared with 6 months, was not confirmed in the overall population. However, in patients treated with CAPOX, 3 months of therapy was as effective as 6 months, particularly in the lower-risk subgroup. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.

    Comparison of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in a Basal-Bolus regimen, with insulin aspart as the mealtime insulin, in patients with type 1 diabetes: A 52-week, multinational, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target noninferiority trial

    Get PDF
    Objective: The primary study objective was to determine whether insulin detemir (detemir) was noninferior to insulin glargine (glargine) as the basal insulin in a basal-bolus regimen, with insulin aspart as the mealtime insulin, in terms of glycemic control at the end of 52 weeks in patients with type I diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: This multinational, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target, noninferiority trial enrolled patients aged >= 18 years who had had T1DM for at least 12 months, had been taking a basal-bolus insulin regimen for at least 3 months, and had a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) value <= 11.0% at screening. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either detemir or glargine for 52 weeks. The basal insulin was initially administered once daily (in the evening) in both groups; if patients in the detemir group were achieving the plasma glucose (PG) target before breakfast but not before dinner, they were switched to twice-daily administration. Glargine was administered once daily throughout the trial, according to its approved labeling. Each patient attended 13 study visits and received 16 scheduled telephone calls from the trial site. The primary efficacy end point was glycemic control (HbA(1c)) after 52 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included the number of patients achieving an HbAlc value <= 7.0%, with or without a major hypoglycemic episode in the last month of treatment; fasting PG (FPG); within-patient variation in self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG) before breakfast and dinner; and 10-point SMPG profiles. The noninferiority margin was 0.4%, consistent with US Food and Drug Administration guidelines. Results: Four hundred forty-three patients (mean [SD] age, 42 [12] years; body mass index, 26.5 [4.0] kg/m(2); duration of diabetes, 17.2 [11.4] years; HbA(1c), 8.1% [1.1%]) received study treatment. After 52 weeks, the estimated mean HbA(1c) did not differ significantly between the detemir and glargine groups (7.57% and 7.56%, respectively; mean difference, 0.01%; 95% CI -0.13 to 0.16), consistent with the noninferiority of detemir to glargine. The corresponding estimated changes in HbA(1c) were -0.53% and -0.54%. In the 90 patients who completed the trial on once-dally detemir and the 173 patients who completed the trial on twice-daily detemir, the estimated changes in HbA(1c) were-0.49% and -0.58%, respectively. After 52 weeks, there were no significant differences in the proportions of those receiving detemir and glargine who achieved an HbA(1c) value <= 7.0% without major hypo-glycemia (31.9% and 28.9%, respectively). In addition, there were no significant differences in estimated mean FPG (8.58 and 8.81 rnmol/L; mean difference, -0.23 mmol/L; 95% CI, -1.04 to 0.58) or in basal insulin doses. The basal insulin dose was numerically higher in patients receiving detemir twice rather than once daily (0.47 vs 0.33 U/kg, respectively). The relative risks for total and nocturnal hypoglycemia with detemir versus glargine were 0.94 and 1.12, respectively (both, P = NS). Six patients (2.0%) randomized to the detemir group and 4 (2.7%) randomized to the glargine group withdrew due to adverse events. Conclusions: During 52 weeks of basal-bolus therapy in patients with T1DM, detemir was noninferior to glargine in terms of overall glycemic control (HbA(1c)). When used according to the approved labeling, detemir and glargine did not differ in tolerability or in terms of the occurrence of hypoglycemia. (Clin Ther. 2009; 31:2086-2097) (C) 2009 Excerpta Medica Inc

    Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke

    Get PDF
    Background Recurrent stroke is a frequent, disabling event after ischemic stroke. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two antiplatelet regimens — aspirin plus extendedrelease dipyridamole (ASA–ERDP) versus clopidogrel. Methods In this double-blind, 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive 25 mg of aspirin plus 200 mg of extended-release dipyridamole twice daily or to receive 75 mg of clopidogrel daily. The primary outcome was first recurrence of stroke. The secondary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular causes. Sequential statistical testing of noninferiority (margin of 1.075), followed by superiority testing, was planned. Results A total of 20,332 patients were followed for a mean of 2.5 years. Recurrent stroke occurred in 916 patients (9.0%) receiving ASA–ERDP and in 898 patients (8.8%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11). The secondary outcome occurred in 1333 patients (13.1%) in each group (hazard ratio for ASA–ERDP, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07). There were more major hemorrhagic events among ASA–ERDP recipients (419 [4.1%]) than among clopidogrel recipients (365 [3.6%]) (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.32), including intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.83). The net risk of recurrent stroke or major hemorrhagic event was similar in the two groups (1194 ASA–ERDP recipients [11.7%], vs. 1156 clopidogrel recipients [11.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11). Conclusions The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for noninferiority but showed similar rates of recurrent stroke with ASA–ERDP and with clopidogrel. There is no evidence that either of the two treatments was superior to the other in the prevention of recurrent stroke. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153062.

    Sample size for comparing negative binomial rates in noninferiority and equivalence trials with unequal follow-up times

    Full text link
    We derive the sample size formulae for comparing two negative binomial rates based on both the relative and absolute rate difference metrics in noninferiority and equivalence trials with unequal follow-up times, and establish an approximate relationship between the sample sizes required for the treatment comparison based on the two treatment effect metrics. The proposed method allows the dispersion parameter to vary by treatment groups. The accuracy of these methods is assessed by simulations. It is demonstrated that ignoring the between-subject variation in the follow-up time by setting the follow-up time for all individuals to be the mean follow-up time may greatly underestimate the required size, resulting in underpowered studies. Methods are provided for back-calculating the dispersion parameter based on the published summary results

    Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTS: At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053038 .)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
    corecore