Browsing by Subject "Intention to Treat Analysis"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Colchicine effectiveness in symptom and inflammation modification in knee osteoarthritis (COLKOA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.(Trials, 2015-04-30) Leung, Ying-Ying; Thumboo, Julian; Wong, Bak Siew; Haaland, Ben; Chowbay, Balram; Chakraborty, Bibhas; Tan, Mann Hong; Kraus, Virginia BBACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence and global impact of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), current treatments are palliative. No disease modifying anti-osteoarthritic drug (DMOAD) has been approved. We recently demonstrated significant involvement of uric acid and activation of the innate immune response in osteoarthritis (OA) pathology and progression, suggesting that traditional gout therapy may be beneficial for OA. We therefore assess colchicine, an existing commercially available agent for gout, for a new therapeutic application in KOA. METHODS/DESIGN: COLKOA is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial comparing a 16-week treatment with standard daily dose oral colchicine to placebo for KOA. A total of 120 participants with symptomatic KOA will be recruited from a single center in Singapore. The primary end point is 30% improvement in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score at week 16. Secondary end points include improvement in pain, physical function, and quality of life and change in serum, urine and synovial fluid biomarkers of cartilage metabolism and inflammation. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) substudy will be conducted in 20 participants to evaluate change in synovitis. Logistic regression will be used to compare changes between groups in an intention-to-treat analysis. DISCUSSION: The COLKOA trial is designed to evaluate whether commercially available colchicine is effective for improving signs and symptoms of KOA, and reducing synovial fluid, serum and urine inflammatory and biochemical joint degradation biomarkers. These biomarkers should provide insights into the underlying mechanism of therapeutic response. This trial will potentially provide data to support a new treatment option for KOA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02176460 . Date of registration: 26 June 2014.Item Open Access Effect of Algorithm-Based Therapy vs Usual Care on Clinical Success and Serious Adverse Events in Patients with Staphylococcal Bacteremia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.(JAMA, 2018-09) Holland, Thomas L; Raad, Issam; Boucher, Helen W; Anderson, Deverick J; Cosgrove, Sara E; Aycock, P Suzanne; Baddley, John W; Chaftari, Anne-Marie; Chow, Shein-Chung; Chu, Vivian H; Carugati, Manuela; Cook, Paul; Corey, G Ralph; Crowley, Anna Lisa; Daly, Jennifer; Gu, Jiezhun; Hachem, Ray; Horton, James; Jenkins, Timothy C; Levine, Donald; Miro, Jose M; Pericas, Juan M; Riska, Paul; Rubin, Zachary; Rupp, Mark E; Schrank, John; Sims, Matthew; Wray, Dannah; Zervos, Marcus; Fowler, Vance G; Staphylococcal Bacteremia InvestigatorsImportance
The appropriate duration of antibiotics for staphylococcal bacteremia is unknown.Objective
To test whether an algorithm that defines treatment duration for staphylococcal bacteremia vs standard of care provides noninferior efficacy without increasing severe adverse events.Design, setting, and participants
A randomized trial involving adults with staphylococcal bacteremia was conducted at 16 academic medical centers in the United States (n = 15) and Spain (n = 1) from April 2011 to March 2017. Patients were followed up for 42 days beyond end of therapy for those with Staphylococcus aureus and 28 days for those with coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia. Eligible patients were 18 years or older and had 1 or more blood cultures positive for S aureus or coagulase-negative staphylococci. Patients were excluded if they had known or suspected complicated infection at the time of randomization.Interventions
Patients were randomized to algorithm-based therapy (n = 255) or usual practice (n = 254). Diagnostic evaluation, antibiotic selection, and duration of therapy were predefined for the algorithm group, whereas clinicians caring for patients in the usual practice group had unrestricted choice of antibiotics, duration, and other aspects of clinical care.Main outcomes and measures
Coprimary outcomes were (1) clinical success, as determined by a blinded adjudication committee and tested for noninferiority within a 15% margin; and (2) serious adverse event rates in the intention-to-treat population, tested for superiority. The prespecified secondary outcome measure, tested for superiority, was antibiotic days among per-protocol patients with simple or uncomplicated bacteremia.Results
Among the 509 patients randomized (mean age, 56.6 [SD, 16.8] years; 226 [44.4%] women), 480 (94.3%) completed the trial. Clinical success was documented in 209 of 255 patients assigned to algorithm-based therapy and 207 of 254 randomized to usual practice (82.0% vs 81.5%; difference, 0.5% [1-sided 97.5% CI, -6.2% to ∞]). Serious adverse events were reported in 32.5% of algorithm-based therapy patients and 28.3% of usual practice patients (difference, 4.2% [95% CI, -3.8% to 12.2%]). Among per-protocol patients with simple or uncomplicated bacteremia, mean duration of therapy was 4.4 days for algorithm-based therapy vs 6.2 days for usual practice (difference, -1.8 days [95% CI, -3.1 to -0.6]).Conclusions and relevance
Among patients with staphylococcal bacteremia, the use of an algorithm to guide testing and treatment compared with usual care resulted in a noninferior rate of clinical success. Rates of serious adverse events were not significantly different, but interpretation is limited by wide confidence intervals. Further research is needed to assess the utility of the algorithm.Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191840.Item Open Access Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy on Mortality, Stroke, Bleeding, and Cardiac Arrest Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.(JAMA, 2019-04) Packer, Douglas L; Mark, Daniel B; Robb, Richard A; Monahan, Kristi H; Bahnson, Tristram D; Poole, Jeanne E; Noseworthy, Peter A; Rosenberg, Yves D; Jeffries, Neal; Mitchell, L Brent; Flaker, Greg C; Pokushalov, Evgeny; Romanov, Alexander; Bunch, T Jared; Noelker, Georg; Ardashev, Andrey; Revishvili, Amiran; Wilber, David J; Cappato, Riccardo; Kuck, Karl-Heinz; Hindricks, Gerhard; Davies, D Wyn; Kowey, Peter R; Naccarelli, Gerald V; Reiffel, James A; Piccini, Jonathan P; Silverstein, Adam P; Al-Khalidi, Hussein R; Lee, Kerry L; CABANA InvestigatorsImportance
Catheter ablation is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its effects on long-term mortality and stroke risk are uncertain.Objective
To determine whether catheter ablation is more effective than conventional medical therapy for improving outcomes in AF.Design, setting, and participants
The Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 centers in 10 countries. A total of 2204 symptomatic patients with AF aged 65 years and older or younger than 65 years with 1 or more risk factors for stroke were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017.Interventions
The catheter ablation group (n = 1108) underwent pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablative procedures at the discretion of site investigators. The drug therapy group (n = 1096) received standard rhythm and/or rate control drugs guided by contemporaneous guidelines.Main outcomes and measures
The primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Among 13 prespecified secondary end points, 3 are included in this report: all-cause mortality; total mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; and AF recurrence.Results
Of the 2204 patients randomized (median age, 68 years; 37.2% female; 42.9% had paroxysmal AF and 57.1% had persistent AF), 89.3% completed the trial. Of the patients assigned to catheter ablation, 1006 (90.8%) underwent the procedure. Of the patients assigned to drug therapy, 301 (27.5%) ultimately received catheter ablation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, over a median follow-up of 48.5 months, the primary end point occurred in 8.0% (n = 89) of patients in the ablation group vs 9.2% (n = 101) of patients in the drug therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65-1.15]; P = .30). Among the secondary end points, outcomes in the ablation group vs the drug therapy group, respectively, were 5.2% vs 6.1% for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38), 51.7% vs 58.1% for death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.93]; P = .001), and 49.9% vs 69.5% for AF recurrence (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45-0.60]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevance
Among patients with AF, the strategy of catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. However, the estimated treatment effect of catheter ablation was affected by lower-than-expected event rates and treatment crossovers, which should be considered in interpreting the results of the trial.Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.Item Open Access Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation or Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in the CABANA Trial.(Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2020-06) Poole, Jeanne E; Bahnson, Tristram D; Monahan, Kristi H; Johnson, George; Rostami, Hoss; Silverstein, Adam P; Al-Khalidi, Hussein R; Rosenberg, Yves; Mark, Daniel B; Lee, Kerry L; Packer, Douglas L; CABANA Investigators and ECG Rhythm Core LabBackground
The CABANA (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation) trial randomized 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed a nonsignificant 14% relative reduction in the primary outcome of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest.Objectives
The purpose of this study was to assess recurrence of AF in the CABANA trial.Methods
The authors prospectively studied CABANA patients using a proprietary electrocardiogram recording monitor for symptom-activated and 24-h AF auto detection. The AF recurrence endpoint was any post-90-day blanking atrial tachyarrhythmias lasting 30 s or longer. Biannual 96-h Holter monitoring was used to assess AF burden. Patients who used the CABANA monitors and provided 90-day post-blanking recordings qualified for this analysis (n = 1,240; 56% of CABANA population). Treatment comparisons were performed using a modified intention-to-treat approach.Results
Median age of the 1,240 patients was 68 years, 34.4% were women, and AF was paroxysmal in 43.0%. Over 60 months of follow-up, first recurrence of any symptomatic or asymptomatic AF (hazard ratio: 0.52; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.60; p < 0.001) or first symptomatic-only AF (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.39 to 0.61; p < 0.001) were both significantly reduced in the catheter ablation group. Baseline Holter AF burden in both treatment groups was 48%. At 12 months, AF burden in ablation patients averaged 6.3%, and in drug-therapy patients, 14.4%. AF burden was significantly less in catheter ablation compared with drug-therapy patients across the 5-year follow-up (p < 0.001). These findings were not sensitive to the baseline pattern of AF.Conclusions
Catheter ablation was effective in reducing recurrence of any AF by 48% and symptomatic AF by 51% compared with drug therapy over 5 years of follow-up. Furthermore, AF burden was also significantly reduced in catheter ablation patients, regardless of their baseline AF type. (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial [CABANA]; NCT00911508).Item Open Access Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS-HF.(Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020-12-08) Fudim, Marat; Brooksbank, Jeremy; Giczewska, Anna; Greene, Stephen J; Grodin, Justin L; Martens, Pieter; Ter Maaten, Jozine M; Sharma, Abhinav; Verbrugge, Frederik H; Chakraborty, Hrishikesh; Bart, Bradley A; Butler, Javed; Hernandez, Adrian F; Felker, G Michael; Mentz, Robert JBackground Ultrafiltration is not commonly used because of higher incidence of worsening renal function without improved decongestion. We examined differential outcomes of high versus low fluid removal and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (EF) in CARRESS-HF (Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure). Methods and Results Baseline characteristics in the ultrafiltration arm were compared according to 24-hour ultrafiltration-based fluid removal above versus below the median. Patients were stratified by EF (≤40% or >40%). We compared clinical parameters of clinical decongestion during the hospitalization based on initial (≤24 hours) response to ultrafiltration. Cox-proportional hazards models were used to identify associations between fluid removal <24 hours and composite of death, hospitalization, or unscheduled outpatient/emergency department visit during study follow-up. The intention-to-treat analysis included 93 patients. Within 24 hours, median fluid removal was 1.89 L (Q1, Q3: 1.22, 3.16). The high fluid removal group had a greater urine output (9.08 versus 6.23 L, P=0.027) after 96 hours. Creatinine change from baseline to 96 hours was similar in both groups (0.10 mg/dL increase, P=0.610). The EF >40% group demonstrated larger increases of change in creatinine (P=0.023) and aldosterone (P=0.038) from baseline to 96 hours. Among patients with EF >40%, those with above median fluid removal (n=17) when compared with below median (n=17) had an increased rate of the combined end point (87.5% versus 47.1%, P=0.014). Conclusions In patients with acute heart failure, higher initial fluid removal with ultrafiltration had no association with worsening renal function. In patients with EF >40%, ultrafiltration was associated with worsening renal function irrespective of fluid removal rate and higher initial fluid removal was associated with higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes, highlighting variable responses to decongestive therapy.