Context:In vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment is an effective therapy for infertility, but can result in the potentially life-threatening complication, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).Objective:This study aimed to investigate whether kisspeptin-54 can be used to effectively and safely trigger oocyte maturation in women undergoing IVF treatment at high risk of developing OHSS.Setting and Design:This was a phase 2, multi-dose, open-label, randomized clinical trial of 60 women at high risk of developing OHSS carried out during 2013–2014 at Hammersmith Hospital IVF unit, London, United Kingdom.Intervention:Following a standard recombinant FSH/GnRH antagonist protocol, patients were randomly assigned to receive a single injection of kisspeptin-54 to trigger oocyte maturation using an adaptive design for dose allocation (3.2 nmol/kg, n = 5; 6.4 nmol/kg, n = 20; 9.6 nmol/kg, n = 15; 12.8 nmol/kg, n = 20). Oocytes were retrieved 36 h after kisspeptin-54 administration, assessed for maturation, and fertilized by intracytoplasmic sperm injection with subsequent transfer of one or two embryos. Women were routinely screened for the development of OHSS.Main Outcome Measure:Oocyte maturation was measured by oocyte yield (percentage of mature oocytes retrieved from follicles ≥ 14 mm on ultrasound). Secondary outcomes include rates of OHSS and pregnancy.Results:Oocyte maturation occurred in 95% of women. Highest oocyte yield (121%) was observed following 12.8 nmol/kg kisspeptin-54, which was +69% (confidence interval, −16–153%) greater than following 3.2 nmol/kg. At all doses of kisspeptin-54, biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates per transfer (n = 51) were 63, 53, and 45%, respectively. Highest pregnancy rates were observed following 9.6 nmol/kg kisspeptin-54 (85, 77, and 62%, respectively). No woman developed moderate, severe, or critical OHSS.Conclusion:Kisspeptin-54 is a promising approach to effectively and safely trigger oocyte maturation in women undergoing IVF treatment at high risk of developing OHSS.

IMPORTANCEGuidelines recommend against antibiotic use to treat asthma attacks. A study with telithromycin reported benefit, but adverse reactions limit its use.OBJECTIVE To determine whether azithromycin added to standard care for asthma attacks in adults results in clinical benefit. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe Azithromycin Against Placebo in Exacerbations of Asthma (AZALEA) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, a United Kingdom-based multicenter study in adults requesting emergency care for acute asthma exacerbations, ran from September 2011 to April 2014. Adults with a history of asthma for more than 6 months were recruited within 48 hours of presentation to medical care with an acute deterioration in asthma control requiring a course of oral and/or systemic corticosteroids.INTERVENTIONS Azithromycin 500 mg daily or matched placebo for 3 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was diary card symptom score 10 days after randomization, with a hypothesized treatment effect size of −0.3. Secondary outcomes were diary card symptom score, quality-of-life questionnaires, and lung function changes, all between exacerbation and day 10, and time to a 50% reduction in symptom score. RESULTSOf 4582 patients screened at 31 centers, 199 of a planned 380 were randomized within 48 hours of presentation. The major reason for nonrecruitment was receipt of antibiotics (2044 [44.6%] screened patients). Median time from presentation to drug administration was 22 hours (interquartile range, 14-28 hours). Exacerbation characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms and centers. The primary outcome asthma symptom scores were mean (SD), 4.14 (1.38) at exacerbation and 2.09 (1.71) at 10 days for the azithromycin group and 4.18 (1.48) and 2.20 (1.51) for the placebo group, respectively. Using multilevel modeling, there was no significant difference in symptom scores between azithromycin and placebo at day 10 (difference, −0.166; 95% CI, −0.670 to 0.337), nor on any day between exacerbation and day 10. No significant between-group differences were observed in quality-of-life questionnaires or lung function between exacerbation and day 10, or in time to 50% reduction in symptom score. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized population, azithromycin treatment resulted in no statistically or clinically significant benefit. For each patient randomized, more than 10 were excluded because they had already received antibiotics.TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01444469

No abstract

Some data suggest that nocturnal dosing of antihypertensive agents may reduce cardiovascular outcomes more than daytime dosing. This trial was designed to evaluate whether ambulatory blood pressure monitoring levels differ by timing of drug dosing. Patients aged 18 to 80 years with reasonably controlled hypertension (≤150/≤90 mm Hg) on stable therapy of ≥1 antihypertensive agent were recruited from 2 centers in London and Thessaloniki. Patients were randomized to receive usual therapy either in the morning (6 am –11 am ) or evening (6 pm –11 pm ) for 12 weeks when participants crossed over to the alternative timing for a further 12 weeks. Clinic blood pressures and a 24-hour recording were taken at baseline, 12, and 24 weeks and routine blood tests were taken at baseline. The study had 80% power to detect 3 mm Hg difference in mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure (α=0.05) by time of dosing. A 2-level hierarchical regression model adjusted for center, period, and sequence was used. Of 103 recruited patients (mean age, 62; 44% female), 95 patients (92%) completed all three 24-hour recordings. Mean 24-hour systolic and diastolic blood pressures did not differ between daytime and evening dosing. Similarly, morning and evening dosing had no differential impact on mean daytime (7 am –10 pm ) and nighttime (10 pm –7 am ) blood pressure levels nor on clinic levels. Stratification by age (≤65/≥65 years) or sex did not affect results. In summary, among hypertensive patients with reasonably well-controlled blood pressure, the timing of antihypertensive drug administration (morning or evening) did not affect mean 24-hour or clinic blood pressure levels. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01669928.

This randomized clinical trial uses data from the Early Venous Reflux Ablation trial to evaluate the long-term clinical and cost benefits of combined early endovenous ablation and compression compared with compression therapy alone and deferred ablation for treating superficial venous reflux of the leg.

Background Missing data are common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and can bias results if not handled appropriately. A statistically valid analysis under the primary missing-data assumptions should be conducted, followed by sensitivity analysis under alternative justified assumptions to assess the robustness of results. Controlled Multiple Imputation (MI) procedures, including delta-based and reference-based approaches, have been developed for analysis under missing-not-at-random assumptions. However, it is unclear how often these methods are used, how they are reported, and what their impact is on trial results. This review evaluates the current use and reporting of MI and controlled MI in RCTs. Methods A targeted review of phase II-IV RCTs (non-cluster randomised) published in two leading general medical journals (The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine) between January 2014 and December 2019 using MI. Data was extracted on imputation methods, analysis status, and reporting of results. Results of primary and sensitivity analyses for trials using controlled MI analyses were compared. Results A total of 118 RCTs (9% of published RCTs) used some form of MI. MI under missing-at-random was used in 110 trials; this was for primary analysis in 43/118 (36%), and in sensitivity analysis for 70/118 (59%) (3 used in both). Sixteen studies performed controlled MI (1.3% of published RCTs), either with a delta-based (n = 9) or reference-based approach (n = 7). Controlled MI was mostly used in sensitivity analysis (n = 14/16). Two trials used controlled MI for primary analysis, including one reporting no sensitivity analysis whilst the other reported similar results without imputation. Of the 14 trials using controlled MI in sensitivity analysis, 12 yielded comparable results to the primary analysis whereas 2 demonstrated contradicting results. Only 5/110 (5%) trials using missing-at-random MI and 5/16 (31%) trials using controlled MI reported complete details on MI methods. Conclusions Controlled MI enabled the impact of accessible contextually relevant missing data assumptions to be examined on trial results. The use of controlled MI is increasing but is still infrequent and poorly reported where used. There is a need for improved reporting on the implementation of MI analyses and choice of controlled MI parameters.

No abstract

No abstract