Barrie Stokes

Response rate or time to progression as predictors of survival in trials of metastatic colorectal cancer or non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The duration and cost of cancer clinical trials could be reduced if a surrogate endpoint were used in place of survival. We did a meta-analysis to assess the extent to which two surrogates, tumour response and time to progression, are predictive of mortality in metastatic colorectal cancer and non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS Summary data (median time to progression, proportion of patients responding to treatment, and median overall survival) from randomised trials of first-line treatment in colorectal cancer (146 trials) and lung cancer (191 trials) were identified. Data were extracted and analysed by linear regression. We used prediction bands for trials with 250, 500, and 750 patients to identify the surrogate threshold effect that would predict a significant difference in survival. FINDINGS Response to treatment and time to progression correlated with improvement in survival for both lung cancer (p<0.0001 and p=0.0003, respectively) and colorectal cancer (p<0.0001 for both). To predict a significant survival gain in colorectal cancer trials, an improvement of 20% in the number of patients responding to treatment was required in trials with 750 patients, increasing to 26% in trials with 500 patients and 38% in trials with 250 patients. In lung cancer trials, the same prediction required differences in response of 18% for 750 patients, 21% for 500 patients, and 30% for 250 patients. For time to progression for both cancer types, the incremental gain needed to predict a survival improvement was a median of 1.8 months for trials with 750 patients, 2.2 months for 500 patients, and 3.3 months for 250 patients. INTERPRETATION Irrespective of trial size, large differences in tumour response rate are needed to predict a significant survival benefit. If surrogates are chosen as the primary endpoint in a clinical trial, time to progression is the preferred measure because more modest and achievable differences are needed for a significant survival benefit. Trials in metastatic lung cancer and colorectal cancer should measure survival as their primary outcome unless the surrogate outcome difference is anticipated to exceed the threshold effect size.

Hyperbaric Oxygen for Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: A systematic review and critical analysis of the evidence

Poisoning with carbon monoxide (CO) is an important cause of unintentional and intentional injury worldwide. Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) enhances CO elimination and has been postulated to reduce the incidence of neurological sequelae. These observations have led some clinicians to use HBO for selected patients with CO poisoning, although there is considerable variability in clinical practice.This article assesses the effectiveness of HBO compared with normobaric oxygen (NBO) for the prevention of neurological sequelae in patients with acute CO poisoning. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (1966 to present), EMBASE (1980 to present), and the Controlled Trials Register of the Cochrane Collaboration, supplemented by a manual review of bibliographies of identified articles and discussion with recognised content experts.All randomised controlled trials involving people acutely poisoned with CO, regardless of severity, were examined. The primary analysis included all trials from which data could be extracted. Sensitivity analysis examined trials with better validity (defined using the validated instrument of Jadad) and those enrolling more severely poisoned patients.Two reviewers independently extracted from each trial, including information on the number of randomised patients, types of participants, the dose and duration of the intervention, and the prevalence of neurological sequelae at follow-up. A pooled odds ratio (OR) for the presence of neurological symptoms at 1-month follow-up was calculated using a random effects model. Bayesian models were also investigated to illustrate the degree of certainty about clinical effectiveness.Eight randomised controlled trials were identified. Two had no evaluable data and were excluded. The remaining trials were of varying quality and two have been published only as abstracts. The severity of CO poisoning varied among trials. At 1-month follow-up after treatment, sequelae possibly related to CO poisoning were present in 242 of 761 patients (36.1%) treated with NBO, compared with 259 of 718 patients (31.8%) treated with HBO. Restricting the analysis to the trials with the highest quality scores or those that enrolled all patients regardless of severity did not change the lack of statistical significance in the outcome of the pooled analysis. We found empiric evidence of multiple biases that operated to inflate the benefit of HBO in two positive trials. In contrast, the interpretation of negative trials was hampered by low rates of follow-up, unusual interventions for control patients and inclusion of less severely poisoned patients. Collectively, these limitations may have led negative trials to overlook a real and substantial benefit of HBO (type II error).There is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of HBO treatment for patients with CO poisoning. Methodological shortcomings are evident in all published trials, with empiric evidence of bias in some, particularly those that suggest a benefit of HBO. Bayesian analysis further illustrates the uncertainty about a meaningful clinical benefit. Consequently, firm guidelines regarding the use of HBO for patients with CO poisoning cannot be established. Further research is needed to better define the role of HBO, if any, in the treatment of CO poisoning. Such research should not exclude patients with severe poisoning, have a primary outcome that is clinically meaningful and have oversight from an independent data monitoring and ethics committee.

Randomized controlled trial of intramuscular droperidol versus midazolam for violence and acute behavioral disturbance: the DORM study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE We determine whether droperidol, midazolam, or the combination is more effective for intramuscular sedation in violent and acute behavioral disturbance in the emergency department (ED). METHODS We conducted a blinded randomized controlled trial of intramuscular sedation for violent and acute behavioral disturbance, comparing droperidol (10 mg), midazolam (10 mg), and droperidol (5 mg)/midazolam (5 mg). Inclusion criteria were patients requiring physical restraint and parenteral sedation. The primary outcome was the duration of the violent and acute behavioral disturbance, defined as the time security staff were required. Secondary outcomes included time until additional sedation was administered, staff and patient injuries, further episodes of violent and acute behavioral disturbance, and drug-related adverse effects. RESULTS From 223 ED patients with violent and acute behavioral disturbance, 91 patients were included; 33 received droperidol, 29 received midazolam, and 29 received the combination. There was no difference in the median duration of the violent and acute behavioral disturbance: 20 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 11 to 37 min) for droperidol, 24 minutes (IQR 13 to 35 minutes) for midazolam, and 25 minutes (IQR 15 to 38 minutes) for the combination. Additional sedation was required in 11 (33%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 19% to 52%) droperidol patients, 18 (62%; 95% CI 42% to 79%) midazolam patients, and 12 (41%; 95% CI 24% to 61%) in the combination group. The hazard ratio for additional sedation in the midazolam versus droperidol group was 2.31 (95% credible interval 1.01 to 4.71); for the combination versus droperidol, 1.18 (95% credible interval 0.46 to 2.50). Patient and staff injuries and number of further episodes of violent and acute behavioral disturbance did not differ between groups. There were two adverse effects for droperidol (6%; 95% CI 1% to 22%), 8 for midazolam (28%; 95% CI 13% to 47%), and 2 for the combination (7%; 95% CI 1% to 24%). An abnormal QT occurred in 2 of 31 (6%; 95% CI 1% to 23%) droperidol patients, which was not different from the other groups. CONCLUSION Intramuscular droperidol and midazolam resulted in a similar duration of violent and acute behavioral disturbance, but more additional sedation was required with midazolam. Midazolam caused more adverse effects because of oversedation, and there was no evidence of QT prolongation associated with droperidol compared with midazolam.

Are antifibrinolytic drugs equivalent in reducing blood loss and transfusion in cardiac surgery? A meta-analysis of randomized head-to-head trials

BackgroundAprotinin has been shown to be effective in reducing peri-operative blood loss and the need for re-operation due to continued bleeding in cardiac surgery. The lysine analogues tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA) are cheaper, but it is not known if they are as effective as aprotinin.MethodsStudies were identified by searching electronic databases and bibliographies of published articles. Data from head-to-head trials were pooled using a conventional (Cochrane) meta-analytic approach and a Bayesian approach which estimated the posterior probability of TXA and EACA being equivalent to aprotinin; we used as a non-inferiority boundary a 20% increase in the rates of transfusion or re-operation because of bleeding.ResultsPeri-operative blood loss was significantly greater with TXA and EACA than with aprotinin: weighted mean differences were 106 mls (95% CI 37 to 227 mls) and 185 mls (95% CI 134 to 235 mls) respectively. The pooled relative risks (RR) of receiving an allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion with TXA and EACA, compared with aprotinin, were 1.08 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.32) and 1.14 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.55) respectively. The equivalent Bayesian posterior mean relative risks were 1.15 (95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 0.90 to 1.68) and 1.21 (95% BCI 0.79 to 1.82) respectively. For transfusion, using a 20% non-inferiority boundary, the posterior probabilities of TXA and EACA being non-inferior to aprotinin were 0.82 and 0.76 respectively. For re-operation the Cochrane RR for TXA vs. aprotinin was 0.98 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.88), compared with a posterior mean Bayesian RR of 0.63 (95% BCI 0.16 to 1.46). The posterior probability of TXA being non-inferior to aprotinin was 0.92, but this was sensitive to the inclusion of one small trial.ConclusionThe available data are conflicting regarding the equivalence of lysine analogues and aprotinin in reducing peri-operative bleeding, transfusion and the need for re-operation. Decisions are sensitive to the choice of clinical outcome and non-inferiority boundary. The data are an uncertain basis for replacing aprotinin with the cheaper lysine analogues in clinical practice. Progress has been hampered by small trials and failure to study clinically relevant outcomes.

Giving and receiving of gifts between pharmaceutical companies and medical specialists in Australia

Background: This study investigated the ‘gift‐relationship’ between pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

A randomised controlled trial of intramuscular vs. intravenous antivenom for latrodectism—the RAVE study

BACKGROUND Widow spider-bite causes latrodectism and is associated with significant morbidity worldwide. Antivenom is given by both the intravenous (IV) and intramuscular (IM) routes and it is unclear which is more effective. AIM To compare the effectiveness of IV vs. IM redback spider antivenom. DESIGN Randomized controlled trial. METHODS Patients with latrodectism were given either IV or IM antivenom according to a randomized double-dummy, double-blind protocol. The first antivenom treatment was followed by another identical treatment after two hours if required. The primary outcome was a clinically significant reduction in pain two hours after the last treatment. A fully Bayesian analysis was used to estimate the probability of the desired treatment effect, predetermined as an absolute difference of 20%. RESULTS We randomly allocated 126 patients to receive antivenom IV (64) and IM (62). After antivenom treatment pain improved in 40/64(62%) in the IV group vs. 33/62(53%) in the IM group (+9%; 95% Credible Interval [CrI]: -8% to +26%). The probability of a difference greater than zero (IV superior) was 85% but the probability of a difference >20% was only 10%. In 55 patients with systemic effects, these improved in 58% after IV antivenom vs. 65% after IM antivenom (-8%; 95% CrI: -32% to +17%). Twenty-four hours after antivenom pain had improved in 84% in the IV group vs. 71% in the IM group (+13%; 95% CrI: -2% to +27%). A meta-analysis including data from a previous trial found no difference in the primary outcome between IV and IM administration. DISCUSSION The difference between IV and IM routes of administration of widow spider antivenom is, at best, small and does not justify routinely choosing one route over the other. Furthermore, antivenom may provide no benefit over placebo.

Attitudes of physicians and public to pharmaceutical industry ‘gifts’

Background: Few studies have reported the attitudes of both individual doctors and members of the public toward the appropriateness of ‘gifts’ from pharmaceutical companies.

Cooperative partnerships or conflict‐of‐interest? A national survey of interaction between the pharmaceutical industry and medical organizations

Abstract

Sedation assessment tool to score acute behavioural disturbance in the emergency department.

Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the sedation assessment tool (SAT) in assessing patient response to treatment for acute behavioural disturbance (ABD).

Route of administration of redback spider bite antivenom: Determining clinician beliefs to facilitate Bayesian analysis of a clinical trial

Objective:  To determine current beliefs of Australasian emergency physicians, to form the basis of ‘stopping rules’ for a clinical trial of intravenous (i.v.) versus intramuscular (i.m.) redback spider antivenom.