We performed an open, nonrandomized, multicenter phase-II trial to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of 1 year of treatment with the oral iron chelator deferiprone in 38 mainly nonthalassemic patients with transfusional iron overload. Initial serum ferritin varied between 996 and 11.644 micrograms/l. Patients were treated with 3-6 g of deferiprone daily. Mean urinary iron excretion (UIE) in 36 evaluable patients was 21.0 mg/24 h and was significantly higher in the patients with thalassemia than in those with myelodysplasia. Negative iron balance was achieved in 20 patients (56%). The median duration of treatment was 10 months; due to side effects and other causes only 20 patients completed 1 year of treatment. Mean serum ferritin levels decreased from 3563 micrograms/l at the start of the trial to 2767 micrograms/l at 6 months (26 patients, p < 0.004) and to 2186 micrograms/l at 12 months (20 patients, p < 0.005). Serum ferritin levels normalized in two patients who were no longer transfusion dependent. Deferiprone was clearly not effective in three patients (two with myelofibrosis, one with myelodysplasia). One patient with myelodysplasia developed agranulocytosis after 12 months of treatment; this was rapidly reversible after stopping deferiprone. Three patients had a mild and transient decrease in white blood cell count. Other side effects leading to withdrawal from the trial consisted mainly of nausea (3 patients), arthralgia (2), and skin rash (1). No clinical signs of zinc deficiency were seen, although zinc excretion was increased in three patients. No changes were seen in liver enzymes, creatinine, antinuclear factor, T-cell subsets, cardiac function, visual acuity, and audiogram. Although our results confirm deferiprone as an effective iron chelator in patients with thalassemia and in some patients with other forms of iron overload, there is still some concern about the safety of this drug, which therefore, at this time, should be used exclusively in well-controlled clinical trials.

ObjectiveTo compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients with intraabdominal infections enrolled in prospective randomized trials (PRTs) with those of a cohort of patients not enrolled in a trial. Summary Background DataProspective randomized trials are the gold standard for the evaluation of new treatments. Patients are screened using rigorous eligibility criteria and sometimes are excluded from PRTs because of associated medical conditions or more severe illness. However, the effect that the exclusion of these patients has on the applicability of clinical trial outcomes has not been defined. MethodsOne hundred sixty-eight adults with intraabdominal infection were treated at a single institution during 7 years. Fifty-three patients were enrolled in four PRTs comparing various antibiotic regimens for treatment; 115 were not enrolled. Patient characteristics and outcomes of these two groups were compared. ResultsPatients with infections from appendicitis (n ϭ 68) had a low severity of illness and similar outcomes in both groups. These patients and those for whom a concurrent PRT was unavailable were excluded from subsequent analysis. Eighty-eight patients (42 PRT, 46 not enrolled) with serious infection remained for analysis. Patients enrolled in PRTs were younger, had less severe illness, had a decreased length of stay, a lower incidence of antibiotic resistance, and less frequent extraabdominal infections than those not enrolled in a trial. Patients enrolled in PRTs were more likely to be cured and were less likely to die. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that cure was associated with a lower initial severity of illness, absence of antibiotic resistance, and participation in a PRT. ConclusionsPatients with intraabdominal infection enrolled in PRTs have an increased likelihood of cure and survival. This is due in part to a lower incidence of antibiotic resistance, which may reflect improved drug selection. Patients not enrolled in PRTs are at greater risk for treatment failure and death because of concomitant illness. Outcomes from PRTs may not be applicable to all patients with intraabdominal infections.More than 250 years have passed since a British surgeon, James Lind, 1,2 randomly administered various unproven concoctions for the treatment of scurvy to six groups of 12 men on the deck of a sailing ship. Applying this method, Lind discovered the cure for scurvy and showed the early application of clinical trial methodology.Prospective randomized trials (PRTs) have become the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of new treatments.2,3 They are considered the highest standard of evidence-based medicine 4 and are the method of choice for testing the efficacy of new antibiotics. 3 The goals of clinical trials are to show an advantageous or comparable treatment effect for a new agent and to identify a population of patients with a specific disease for which the treatment will be beneficial. 3,5 To ensure a carefully controlled study that protects the safety of patients and the integrity of ana...

No abstract

No abstract