IMPORTANCE Outcomes after exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) requiring acute noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are poor and there are few treatments to prevent hospital readmission and death.OBJECTIVE To investigate the effect of home NIV plus oxygen on time to readmission or death in patients with persistent hypercapnia after an acute COPD exacerbation.

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundTuberculosis is the world's leading infectious disease killer. We aimed to identify shorter, safer drug regimens for the treatment of tuberculosis.MethodsWe did a randomised controlled, open-label trial with a multi-arm, multi-stage design. The trial was done in seven sites in South Africa and Tanzania, including hospitals, health centres, and clinical trial centres. Patients with newly diagnosed, rifampicin-sensitive, previously untreated pulmonary tuberculosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1:2 ratio to receive (all orally) either 35 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 15–20 mg/kg ethambutol, 20 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 400 mg moxifloxacin, 20 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 300 mg SQ109, 10 mg/kg rifampicin per day with 300 mg SQ109, or a daily standard control regimen (10 mg/kg rifampicin, 5 mg/kg isoniazid, 25 mg/kg pyrazinamide, and 15–20 mg/kg ethambutol). Experimental treatments were given with oral 5 mg/kg isoniazid and 25 mg/kg pyrazinamide per day for 12 weeks, followed by 14 weeks of 5 mg/kg isoniazid and 10 mg/kg rifampicin per day. Because of the orange discoloration of body fluids with higher doses of rifampicin it was not possible to mask patients and clinicians to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was time to culture conversion in liquid media within 12 weeks. Patients without evidence of rifampicin resistance on phenotypic test who took at least one dose of study treatment and had one positive culture on liquid or solid media before or within the first 2 weeks of treatment were included in the primary analysis (modified intention to treat). Time-to-event data were analysed using a Cox proportional-hazards regression model and adjusted for minimisation variables. The proportional hazard assumption was tested using Schoelfeld residuals, with threshold p<0·05 for non-proportionality. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01785186).FindingsBetween May 7, 2013, and March 25, 2014, we enrolled and randomly assigned 365 patients to different treatment arms (63 to rifampicin 35 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol; 59 to rifampicin 10 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, SQ109; 57 to rifampicin 20 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and SQ109; 63 to rifampicin 10 mg/kg, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and moxifloxacin; and 123 to the control arm). Recruitment was stopped early in the arms containing SQ109 since prespecified efficacy thresholds were not met at the planned interim analysis. Time to stable culture conversion in liquid media was faster in the 35 mg/kg rifampicin group than in the control group (median 48 days vs 62 days, adjusted hazard ratio 1·78; 95% CI 1·22–2·58, p=0·003), but not in other experimental arms. There was no difference in any of the groups in time to culture conversion on solid media. 11 patients had treatment failure or recurrent disease during post-treatment follow-up: one in the 35 mg/kg rifampicin arm and none in the moxifloxacin arm. 45 (12%) of 365 patients reported grade 3–5 adverse events, with similar proportions in each arm.Interpr...

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN33288337.

BackgroundWe previously investigated low doses (105 or 225 mg) of gantenerumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds and removes aggregated amyloid-β by Fc receptor-mediated phagocytosis, in the SCarlet RoAD (SR) and Marguerite RoAD (MR) phase 3 trials. Several lines of evidence suggested that higher doses may be necessary to achieve clinical efficacy. We therefore designed a positron emission tomography (PET) substudy to evaluate the effect of gantenerumab uptitrated to 1200 mg every 4 weeks on amyloid-β plaques as measured using florbetapir PET in patients with prodromal to moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD).MethodsA subset of patients enrolled in the SR and MR studies who subsequently entered the open-label extensions (OLEs) were included in this substudy. Patients were aged 50 to 90 years with a clinical diagnosis of probable prodromal to moderate AD and were included based on a visual read of the original screening scan in the double-blind phase. Patients were assigned to 1 of 5 titration schedules (ranging from 2 to 10 months) with a target gantenerumab dose of 1200 mg every 4 weeks. The main endpoint of this substudy was change in amyloid-β plaque burden from OLE baseline to week 52 and week 104, assessed using florbetapir PET. Florbetapir global cortical signal was calculated using a prespecified standard uptake value ratio method converted to the Centiloid scale.ResultsSixty-seven of the 89 patients initially enrolled had ≥ 1 follow-up scan by August 15, 2018. Mean amyloid levels were reduced by 39 Centiloids by the first year and 59 Centiloids by year 2, a 3.5-times greater reduction than was seen after 2 years at 225 mg in SR. At years 1 and 2, 37% and 51% of patients, respectively, had amyloid-β plaque levels below the amyloid-β positivity threshold.ConclusionResults from this exploratory interim analysis of the PET substudy suggest that gantenerumab doses up to 1200 mg resulted in robust amyloid-β plaque removal at 2 years. PET amyloid levels were consistent with sparse-to-no neuritic amyloid-β plaques in 51% of patients after 2 years of therapy. Amyloid reductions were similar to those observed in other placebo-controlled studies that have suggested potential clinical benefit.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01224106 (SCarlet RoAD) and NCT02051608 (Marguerite RoAD).

ObjectiveTo assess the adequacy of reporting of non-inferiority trials alongside the consistency and utility of current recommended analyses and guidelines.DesignReview of randomised clinical trials that used a non-inferiority design published between January 2010 and May 2015 in medical journals that had an impact factor >10 (JAMA Internal Medicine, Archives Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine).Data sourcesOvid (MEDLINE).MethodsWe searched for non-inferiority trials and assessed the following: choice of non-inferiority margin and justification of margin; power and significance level for sample size; patient population used and how this was defined; any missing data methods used and assumptions declared and any sensitivity analyses used.ResultsA total of 168 trial publications were included. Most trials concluded non-inferiority (132; 79%). The non-inferiority margin was reported for 98% (164), but less than half reported any justification for the margin (77; 46%). While most chose two different analyses (91; 54%) the most common being intention-to-treat (ITT) or modified ITT and per-protocol, a large number of articles only chose to conduct and report one analysis (65; 39%), most commonly the ITT analysis. There was lack of clarity or inconsistency between the type I error rate and corresponding CIs for 73 (43%) articles. Missing data were rarely considered with (99; 59%) not declaring whether imputation techniques were used.ConclusionsReporting and conduct of non-inferiority trials is inconsistent and does not follow the recommendations in available statistical guidelines, which are not wholly consistent themselves. Authors should clearly describe the methods used and provide clear descriptions of and justifications for their design and primary analysis. Failure to do this risks misleading conclusions being drawn, with consequent effects on clinical practice.

BackgroundSelection bias occurs when recruiters selectively enrol patients into the trial based on what the next treatment allocation is likely to be. This can occur even if appropriate allocation concealment is used if recruiters can guess the next treatment assignment with some degree of accuracy. This typically occurs in unblinded trials when restricted randomisation is implemented to force the number of patients in each arm or within each centre to be the same. Several methods to reduce the risk of selection bias have been suggested; however, it is unclear how often these techniques are used in practice.MethodsWe performed a review of published trials which were not blinded to assess whether they utilised methods for reducing the risk of selection bias. We assessed the following techniques: (a) blinding of recruiters; (b) use of simple randomisation; (c) avoidance of stratification by site when restricted randomisation is used; (d) avoidance of permuted blocks if stratification by site is used; and (e) incorporation of prognostic covariates into the randomisation procedure when restricted randomisation is used. We included parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) in 2010.ResultsWe identified 152 eligible trials. Most trials (98 %) provided no information on whether recruiters were blind to previous treatment allocations. Only 3 % of trials used simple randomisation; 63 % used some form of restricted randomisation, and 35 % did not state the method of randomisation. Overall, 44 % of trials were stratified by site of recruitment; 27 % were not, and 29 % did not report this information. Most trials that did stratify by site of recruitment used permuted blocks (58 %), and only 15 % reported using random block sizes. Many trials that used restricted randomisation also included prognostic covariates in the randomisation procedure (56 %).ConclusionsThe risk of selection bias could not be ascertained for most trials due to poor reporting. Many trials which did provide details on the randomisation procedure were at risk of selection bias due to a poorly chosen randomisation methods. Techniques to reduce the risk of selection bias should be more widely implemented.

BackgroundBlinded outcome assessment is recommended in open-label trials to reduce bias, however it is not always feasible. It is therefore important to find other means of reducing bias in these scenarios.MethodsWe describe two randomised trials where blinded outcome assessment was not possible, and discuss the strategies used to reduce the possibility of bias.ResultsTRIGGER was an open-label cluster randomised trial whose primary outcome was further bleeding. Because of the cluster randomisation, all researchers in a hospital were aware of treatment allocation and so could not perform a blinded assessment. A blinded adjudication committee was also not feasible as it was impossible to compile relevant information to send to the committee in a blinded manner. Therefore, the definition of further bleeding was modified to exclude subjective aspects (such as whether symptoms like vomiting blood were severe enough to indicate the outcome had been met), leaving only objective aspects (the presence versus absence of active bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract confirmed by an internal examination).TAPPS was an open-label trial whose primary outcome was whether the patient was referred for a pleural drainage procedure. Allowing a blinded assessor to decide whether to refer the patient for a procedure was not feasible as many clinicians may be reluctant to enrol patients into the trial if they cannot be involved in their care during follow-up. Assessment by an adjudication committee was not possible, as the outcome either occurred or did not. Therefore, the decision pathway for procedure referral was modified. If a chest x-ray indicated that more than a third of the pleural space filled with fluid, the patient could be referred for a procedure; otherwise, the unblinded clinician was required to reach a consensus on referral with a blinded assessor. This process allowed the unblinded clinician to be involved in the patient’s care, while reducing the potential for bias.ConclusionsWhen blinded outcome assessment is not possible, it may be useful to modify the outcome definition or method of assessment to reduce the risk of bias.Trial registrationTRIGGER: ISRCTN85757829. Registered 26 July 2012.TAPPS: ISRCTN47845793. Registered 28 May 2012.