Unblinded Patients Research Articles

Burst steroid therapy for acute heart failure: The CORTAHF randomized, open-label, pilot trial.

Burst steroid therapy, effective in acute respiratory diseases, may benefit patients with acute heart failure (AHF) in whom inflammatory activation is associated with adverse outcomes. CORTAHF assessed whether burst steroid therapy reduces inflammation and results in better quality of life and clinical outcomes in AHF. Patients with AHF, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide >1500 pg/ml, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) >20 mg/L were randomized 1:1 to oral, once daily 40 mg prednisone for 7 days or usual care, without blinding. Patients were followed for 90 days. A total of 101 patients were randomized. At day 7 the primary endpoint, hsCRP decreased in both arms-adjusted geometric mean ratios (GMRs) were 0.30 and 0.40 in the prednisone and usual care arms (ratio of GMRs 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.00, p = 0.0498). The 90-day risk of worsening heart failure (HF), HF readmission or death as reported by the unblinded investigators was significantly lower in the prednisone group (10.4%) than in usual care (30.8%) (hazard ratio 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.86, p = 0.016). The EQ-5D visual analogue scale score as reported by the unblinded patients increased more in the prednisone group on day 7 (least squares mean difference 2.57, 95% CI 0.12-5.01 points, p = 0.040). All effects were statistically significant in the pre-specified subgroup with centrally-measured interleukin-6 >13 pg/ml. Adverse events, particularly hyperglycaemia, occurred more in the prednisone group with no difference in infection rate. In this small open-label study of patients with AHF, burst steroid therapy was associated with reduced inflammation as measured by hsCRP levels at day 7 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints showed improved quality of life at day 7 and reduced 90-day risk of death or worsening HF. Large prospective studies are needed to evaluate these findings.

Climb up! Head up! Climbing improves posture in Parkinson's disease. A secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial

Objective To investigate the effect of sport climbing on a biomechanical marker of axial posture in patients with Parkinson's disease, as well as its association with age, body mass index and health-related quality-of-life outcome measures. Design Pre-planned secondary analysis of our randomized controlled, semi-blind trial (unblinded patients, blinded assessors) comparing sport climbing to unsupervised exercise. Setting Single-centre study conducted at the Department of Neurology of the Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Participants Forty-eight Parkinson's disease patients (aged 64 ± 8 years, Hoehn & Yahr stage 2–3) were included. Intervention Sport climbers (n = 24) followed a 12-week, 90 min/week supervised top-rope sport climbing course in an indoor climbing gym. The unsupervised training group (n = 24) independently followed the ‘European Physiotherapy Guidelines for Parkinson's Disease’ and World Health Organization recommendations for an active lifestyle for 12 weeks. Main measures Posture was assessed with the horizontal distance of the seventh cervical vertebra to the wall at baseline and after the intervention. Results Participating in the sport climbing group significantly predicted the biomechanical marker of axial posture (P = 0.044). The improvement in the biomechanical marker did not affect the quality of life, depression, fatigue, physical activity or fear of falling. Participants in the sport climbing group showed a significantly decreased horizontal distance of the seventh cervical vertebra to the wall after the intervention (−1.7 cm (95%CI [−2.6, −0.8]). In the unsupervised training group, no difference was found (−0.5 cm; 95%CI −1.3, 0.2]). Conclusions We conclude that sport climbing improves a biomechanical marker of axial posture in Parkinson's disease.

FEops HEARTguide Patient-Specific Computational Simulations for WATCHMAN FLX Left Atrial Appendage Closure: A Retrospective Study

BackgroundThree-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (3D-TEE) is the primary imaging tool for left atrial appendage closure planning. The utility of cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and patient-specific computational models is unknown. ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the FEops HEARTguide patient-specific computational modeling in predicting appropriate device size, location, and compression of the WATCHMAN FLX compared to intraprocedural 3D-TEE. MethodsPatients with both preprocedural and postprocedural CCTA and 3D-TEE imaging of the LAA who received a WATCHMAN FLX left atrial appendage closure device were studied (n = 22). The FEops HEARTguide platform used baseline CCTA imaging to generate a prediction of device size(s), device position(s), and device dimensions. Blinded (without knowledge of implanted device size/position) and unblinded (implant device size/position disclosed) simulations were evaluated. ResultsIn 16 (72.7%) patients, the blind simulation predicted the final implanted device size. In these patients, the 3D-TEE measurements were not significantly different and had excellent correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient (r) ≥ 0.90). No patients had peridevice leak after device implant. In the 6 patients for whom the model did not predict the implanted device size, a larger device size was ultimately implanted as per operator preference. The model measurements of the unblinded patients demonstrated excellent correlation with 3D-TEE. ConclusionsThis is the first study to demonstrate that the FEops HEARTguide model accurately predicts WATCHMAN FLX device implantation characteristics. Future studies are needed to evaluate if computational modeling can improve confidence in sizing, positioning, and compression of the device without compromising technical success.

Does the addition of cone-beam CT to panoral imaging reduce inferior dental nerve injuries resulting from third molar surgery? A systematic review

ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to examine whether cone-beam CT (CBCT) assessment influences the incidence of nerve injury following high-risk mandibular third molar (MTM) surgery.Study DesignRandomised controlled trials comparing two and three-dimensional imaging for assessing high-risk MTMs were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the Dentistry and Oral Science Source (DOSS) were systematically searched along with extensive grey literature searches, hand searching of web sites, and detailed citation searching up to 3 September 2022. Risk of bias was assessed against the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2.0). Certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsTwo authors independently screened 402 abstracts prior to full text screening of 27 articles, which culminated in seven RCTs for inclusion. Two studies were assessed as high risk of bias overall. The other five raised some concerns largely due to unblinded patients and lack of prior trial registration. Just one study reported significantly less nerve injuries following CBCT. The remaining six articles found no significant difference.ConclusionThe seven RCTs included in this systematic review offered moderate quality evidence that CBCT does not routinely translate to reduced incidence of nerve injury in MTM removal. A single study provided low quality evidence for a consequent change in the surgical approach. Low quality evidence from 3 studies suggested CBCT does not influence the duration of third molar surgery.

Open vs robot-assisted radical cystectomy (BORARC): a double-blinded, randomised feasibility study.

To examine surgical outcomes and feasibility of blinding patients and care providers to the surgical technique of radical cystectomy (RC). Single-centre, parallel-group, double-blinded, randomised feasibility study of open RC (ORC) vs robot-assisted RC with intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) in an 'Enhanced Recovery After Surgery' setup. A total of 50 patients aged ≥18 years with bladder cancer planned for RC with an ileal conduit were included. Patients with previous major abdominal/pelvic surgery, pelvic radiation or anaesthesiological contraindications were excluded. Primary outcomes were proportion of unblinded patients and success of blinding using Bang's Blinding Index. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), complication rates, blood loss, pain, and opioid consumption. A total of 26% of the patients were unblinded before discharge. We demonstrated that patients and doctors remained blinded for the allocated treatment, but nurses did not. Blood loss was greater in the ORC group as was operative time in the iRARC group. We found no difference in complication rate, LOS, or use of analgesics. The present study demonstrates that blinding of surgical technique in RC is possible. The results of secondary outcomes are consistent with the findings of previous unblinded randomised controlled trials. Our study highlights that it is possible to perform a blinded phase III study to explore the optimal surgical technique in RC.

Abstract 12594: Pharmacodynamic Effect of ARO-APOC3, an Investigational Hepatocyte-targeted RNA Interference Therapeutic Targeting Apolipoprotein C3, in Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia and Multifactorial Chylomicronemia

Background: Hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) increases the risk of acute pancreatitis and atherosclerosis. In a Phase 1 study (NCT03783377), single subcutaneous doses of investigational RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic ARO-APOC3 (10, 25, 50, and 100 mg; N=24) demonstrated deep and prolonged reductions in apolipoprotein C3 (APOC3) and triglycerides (TG) and increases in HDL-C in healthy volunteers with good tolerability, compared with placebo (N=16). Purpose: We report initial results of the effects of ARO-APOC3 in patients with HTG (fasting TG ≥ 300 mg/dL) or multifactorial chylomicronemia (MCM; fasting TG ≥ 880 mg/dL). Methods: Up to 40 subjects with HTG and 20 subjects with MCM will receive ARO-APOC3 or placebo on days 1 and 29. Pharmacodynamic responses include serum APOC3, TG, and other lipid parameters reported up to week 4 prior to the 2 nd dose. Results: At the data cutoff (16 March 2020), the first 4 enrolled patients with HTG and 6 enrolled patients with MCM were administered ARO-APOC3 50 mg. ARO-APOC3 substantially reduced mean (range) APOC3 levels by 96% (88-99%) in both patient groups at Week 4 (Table). ARO-APOC3 substantially reduced mean (range) TG by 78% (67-87%) in HTG patients and by 92% (90-95%) in MCM patients at Week 4. Three of 4 HTG patients and 3 of 6 MCM patients had TG levels below 150 mg/dL. All MCM patients had TG ≤ 500 mg/dL. To date, ARO-APOC3 has been generally well tolerated with no reports of treatment-related serious or severe adverse events. Two of the 6 unblinded MCM patients experienced a transient ALT elevation to >3X ULN that returned to approximate pre-dose baseline by Day 113. Conclusions: Preliminary results indicate that a single dose of ARO-APOC3 reduces APOC3 levels by >90% and TG by ~80% 4 weeks after treatment in patients with HTG and MCM. The magnitude of treatment effect was similar in both populations and ARO-APOC3 had a favorable safety profile. Using RNAi to silence expression of APOC3 appears promising for treating patients with HTG and MCM.

CTIM-09. DOUBLE-BLINDED, PLACEBO CONTROLLED PHASE 2 STUDY OF ERC1671 IN RECURRENT GLIOBLASTOMA: VACCINE OVERALL SURVIVAL IN BEVACIZUMAB NAIVE AND BEVACIZUMAB RESISTANT PATIENTS

Abstract ERC1671 is an allogeneic/autologous therapeutic vaccine – composed of whole, inactivated tumor cells mixed with tumor- cell lysates. The hypothesized action of ERC1671 is to potentiate the patients’ immune system against the tumor. Goals of this ongoing, phase 2 study are to determine the safety and effectiveness (overall survival) of ERC1671 in combination with GM-CSF and cyclophosphamide as an add-on treatment to bevacizumab at the time of GBM recurrence. To date 22 recurrent bevacizumab-naïve rGBM patients have been randomized to ERC1671/GM-CSF/Cyclophosphamide + Bevacizumab or Placebo + Bevacizumab. Median age is 56.5 (33–74), 7 patients (32%) are female, and average KPS is 82.3 (70–100). Of the 22, two discontinued before completing one cycle of therapy and two remain on blinded treatment. Currently 18 patients are unblinded due to further progression: 8 were on vaccine and 10 on placebo. Five of those on placebo crossed to vaccine at progression. All but one of the 18 are now deceased. Median overall survival of unblinded patients randomized to ERC1671 + Bevacizumab (n = 8) is 264.5 days from the start of study treatment, compared to 182 days for those randomized to placebo + Bevacizumab who did not cross over (n = 5). Median overall survival of unblinded patients on vaccine at randomization or crossover is 328 days after first study treatment (n = 13). While sparse, the data to date suggest pre-treatment and maximal CD4+T lymphocyte count in the peripheral blood correlate with OS more strongly in the ERC1671 group than in the placebo group. First clinical results for toxicity show no difference in the distribution of AEs between the Vaccine and Placebo groups, with no Gr4/Gr5 AEs in either group. This phase 2 randomized, double-blinded study is ongoing, with the addition of one more site.

Comparative efficacy of placebos in short-term antidepressant trials for major depression: a secondary meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials

BackgroundThe issue of unblinded outcome-assessors and patients has repeatedly been stressed as a flaw in allegedly double-blind antidepressant trials. Unblinding bias can for example result from a drug‘s marked side effects. If such unblinding bias is present for a given drug, then it might be expected that the placebos of that drug are rated significantly less effective than that of other antidepressants.MethodsTo test this hypothesis, the present exploratory analysis conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing the efficacy of 19 different placebos in placebo-controlled trials provided in the dataset by Cipriani et al. (Lancet 2018; 391: 1357–66). Primary outcome was efficacy (continuous) estimated on the standardized mean difference (SMD) scale and defined as the pre-post change on the Hamilton Depression scale (HAMD-17), on which information was available in N = 258 trials.ResultsComparative placebo ranking suggested mirtazapine-placebo (SMD -2.0 [− 5.0–1.0 95% CrI]) to be the most, and amitriptyline- (SMD 1.2 [− 1.6–3.9 95% CrI]) and trazodone- (SMD 2.1 [− 0.9–5.2 95% CrI]) placebos to be the least effective placebos. Other placebos suggested to be more effective than amitriptyline- and trazodone-placebos (based on 95% CrIs excluding zero) were citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine placebos. These NMA results were corroborated by the observation that the relative efficacy between drug and placebo was considerably larger for amitriptyline and trazodone than for instance mirtazapine, duloxetine, and venlafaxine, supported by a small and insignificant correlation between drug-efficacy and placebo-efficacy (r = − 0.202, p = 0.408).DiscussionThe present exploratory NMA indicates that distinguishable side effects of older drugs may unblind outcome-assessors thus resulting in overestimation of the average drug-placebo difference and underrating bias in placebo-arms, particularly for the older antidepressant drugs amitriptyline and trazodone. If confirmed in prospective studies, these findings suggest that efficacy rankings for antidepressants are susceptible to bias and should be considered unreliable or misleading. The analysis is limited by the focus on the single-comparison placebos (76%, i.e., placebos assessed in two-arm trials), since double-comparison placebos (25%, i.e., placebos assessed in three-arm trials) are hard to interpret and therefore not included in the present interpretation. Another limitation is the problem of multiplicity, which was only approximately accounted for in the Bayesian NMA by modelling treatment effects as exchangeable.

Does Patient Blinding Influence Clinical Outcomes After Annular Closure Device Implantation? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BackgroundAwareness of treatment group assignment in a clinical trial may influence patient behavior and bias outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to compare 2-year clinical outcomes in blinded vs unblinded patients who were treated with lumbar discectomy and a bone-anchored annular closure device (ACD) for prevention of lumbar disc reherniation.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial comparing lumbar discectomy with (n=272) vs without (n=278) implantation of a bone-anchored ACD. Among patients who received ACD implantation, 35 (13%) were blinded and 237 (87%) were unblinded to treatment allocation. In patients treated with ACD, propensity score-matching (1:1) was performed to account for imbalances in patient characteristics between blinded and unblinded groups. Key clinical outcomes were back pain severity (0–100 scale), leg pain severity (0–100 scale), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI, 0–100 scale), symptomatic reherniation, reoperation at the treated lumbar level, and device- or procedure-related serious adverse events (AEs). Outcomes were reported through 2 years of follow-up, which coincided with the time at which blinded patients were unblinded.ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences in 2-year outcomes between propensity score-matched blinded (n=35) and unblinded (n=35) patients treated with the ACD. In blinded vs unblinded ACD patients compared to baseline, back pain severity decreased by 40 vs 37 points (P=0.61), leg pain severity decreased by 75 points in each group (P>0.99), and ODI decreased by 47 vs 43 points (P=0.19). The risks of symptomatic reherniation (5.7% vs 9.1%; P=0.59), reoperation (8.6% vs 12.2%, P=0.62), and device- or procedure-related serious AEs (5.7% vs 8.9%, P=0.63) were comparably low in blinded and unblinded patients.ConclusionIn patients treated with lumbar discectomy and a bone-anchored ACD, there were no clinically important or statistically significant differences in back pain, leg pain, ODI, symptomatic reherniation, reoperation, or serious AEs over 2 years of follow-up when comparing patients who were blinded vs unblinded to their treatment assignment. The main limitations of this study were the post hoc nature of the analysis and the potential for bias due to surgeon awareness of treatment assignment.

A phase 3 (COSMIC-311), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of cabozantinib in patients with radioiodine (RAI)-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) who have progressed after prior VEGFR-targeted therapy.

TPS6097 Background: Treatment options are limited for patients with RAI-refractory DTC that is resistant to VEGFR-targeted therapy. Cabozantinib inhibits receptor tyrosine kinases including VEGFR2, MET, AXL, and RET, which are implicated in the development of DTC, and has shown clinical activity in early-phase studies of patients with RAI-refractory DTC. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with RAI-refractory DTC who have progressed during or after prior VEGFR-targeted therapy. Methods: This is a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT03690388). The co-primary endpoints are progression-free survival and objective response rate evaluated by blinded independent radiology committee (BIRC) per RECIST v 1.1. Additional endpoints include safety, overall survival, quality of life, and changes in relevant biomarker levels (eg, thyroglobulin). Approximately 300 patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either cabozantinib (60 mg QD orally) or placebo. Randomization is stratified by prior treatment with lenvatinib and age (≤ 65 yrs vs > 65 yrs). Eligible patients must have a pathologic diagnosis of DTC and must have been previously treated with or deemed ineligible for treatment with iodine-131 for DTC. Patients must have received lenvatinib or sorafenib for DTC and progressed during or following treatment with a VEGFR inhibitor. Up to 2 prior VEGFR-targeting TKI agents are allowed. Patients randomized to placebo may be eligible for real time on-study crossover to cabozantinib based on BIRC confirmation of disease progression. Unblinded patients randomized to cabozantinib may continue on study treatment if there is clinical benefit per investigator. Key words: Radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer, cabozantinib, VEGFR-targeted therapy, trial-in-progress. Clinical trial information: NCT03690388.

Primary, secondary, and quality-of-life endpoint results from the phase III AFFIRM study of MDV3100, an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor.

4519^ Background: MDV3100, a novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI), inhibits: 1) binding of androgens to AR, 2) AR nuclear translocation, and 3) association of AR with DNA. MDV3100 was active in a phase I-II trial enrolling pre- and post-docetaxel castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients. The AFFIRM trial evaluated whether MDV3100 could provide benefit to men with post-docetaxel CRPC. Methods: In this double-blind, multinational phase III study, patients who had received docetaxel-based chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to MDV3100 160 mg/day or placebo. Treatment with corticosteroids was allowed but not required. Patients were stratified by baseline ECOG and mean brief pain inventory score. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Other efficacy endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), time to PSA progression (TTPP), soft tissue objective response (PR+CR), PSA response, and quality of life (QoL) response (FACT-P). Results: 800 patients were randomized to MDV3100 and 399 to placebo with respective median treatment durations of 8.3 and 3.0 months.Based on a planned interim analysis at 520 deaths, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended the study be unblinded and placebo patients offered MDV3100. Efficacy results are presented (Table). The most common MDV3100 events with an incidence higher than placebo were fatigue (34% vs 29%), diarrhea (21% vs 18%), and hot flush (20% vs 10%). Grade >3 events of interest were cardiac disorders (0.9% MDV3100 vs 2% placebo), fatigue (6% MDV3100 vs 7% placebo), seizure (0.6% MDV3100 vs. 0% placebo), and LFT abnormalities (0.4% MDV3100 vs 0.8% placebo). Conclusions: MDV3100, a novel ARSI, is well-tolerated and significantly prolongs OS, slows disease progression, and improves QoL in men with post-docetaxel CRPC. [Table: see text]

Pre-admission NT-proBNP improves diagnostic yield and risk stratification – the NT-proBNP for EValuation of dyspnoeic patients in the Emergency Room and hospital (BNP4EVER) study

Amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level is useful to diagnose or exclude acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in dyspnoeic patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). To evaluate the impact of ED NT-proBNP testing on admission, length of stay (LOS), discharge diagnosis and long-term outcome. Dyspnoeic patients were randomized in the ED to NT-proBNP testing. Admission and discharge diagnoses, and outcomes were examined. During 17 months, 470 patients were enrolled and followed for 2.0±1.3 years. ADHF likelihood, determined at study conclusion by validated criteria, established ADHF diagnosis as unlikely in 86 (17%), possible in 120 (24%), and likely in 293 (59%) patients. The respective admission rates in these subgroups were 80, 91, and 96%, regardless of blinding, and 61.9% of blinded vs. 74.5% of unblinded ADHF-likely patients were correctly diagnosed at discharge (p=0.029), with similar LOS. 2-year mortality within subgroups was unaffected by test, but was lower in ADHF-likely patients with NT-proBNP levels below median (5000 pg/ml) compared with those above median (p=0.002). Incidence of recurrent cardiac events tracked NT-proBNP levels. ED NT-proBNP testing did not affect admission, LOS, 2-year survival, or recurrent cardiac events among study patients but improved diagnosis at discharge, and allowed risk stratification even within the ADHF-likely group. (ClinicalTrials.gov#NCT00271128).

Effect of MDV3100, an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI), on overall survival in patients with prostate cancer postdocetaxel: Results from the phase III AFFIRM study.

LBA1 Background: MDV3100, a novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI), competitively inhibits binding of androgens to the androgen receptor (AR), inhibits AR nuclear translocation, and inhibits association of the AR with DNA (Tran et al, Science. 2009;324:787). MDV3100 was selected for development based on activity in prostate cancer model systems with overexpressed AR, and was active in a phase I-II trial enrolling pre- and post-chemotherapy treated patients with progressive castration resistant disease (CRPC) (Scher et al, Lancet. 2010;375:1437). The AFFIRM trial evaluated whether MDV3100 could prolong overall survival (OS) in men with CRPC who progressed following docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase III study ( NCT00974311 ), patients who had received ≤ 2 regimens of docetaxel-based chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to MDV3100 160 mg/day or placebo. Treatment with corticosteroids was allowed but not required. Patients were stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean brief pain inventory score. The primary endpoint was OS. Other efficacy endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (PFS), time to first skeletal-related event, time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, and circulating tumor cell count conversion rate. Results: 1,199 patients were randomized between Sep 2009 and Nov 2010. Based on a planned interim analysis at 520 death events, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) recommended the study be unblinded and placebo patients offered MDV3100 due to a significant OS benefit (p<0.0001; hazard ratio 0.631). The estimated median OS was 18.4 months for MDV3100 treated compared to 13.6 months for placebo treated men, a median OS difference of 4.8 months. Data to be available include PFS, time to PSA progression, and safety. Conclusions: MDV3100, a novel ARSI, significantly improves OS in men with postdocetaxel-treated CRPC reducing the risk of death by 37% relative to placebo. The IDMC determined the risk:benefit of MDV3100 was favorable and recommended the phase III AFFIRM trial be unblinded.

Local Anesthesia with Bupivacaine and Lidocaine for Vertebral Fracture Trial (LABEL): A Report of Outcomes and Comparison with the Investigational Vertebroplasty Efficacy and Safety Trial (INVEST)

INVEST is a recently published double-blind placebo controlled randomized trial that demonstrated similar improvements in pain between blinded vertebroplasty and sham-vertebroplasty groups. LABEL is a trial determining the efficacy of pain relief of an injection of lidocaine and bupivacaine at the site of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures in unblinded patients. We compared outcomes from the unblinded LABEL trial with those of blinded control patients from the lead site of the INVEST, exploring the role of blinding on the benefit of local anesthesia infusion for painful vertebral compression fractures. Nineteen patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures underwent unblinded injection of lidocaine and bupivacaine at the site of painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Patients were given the option of undergoing vertebroplasty at any time following the procedure. Primary outcome measures were change in the RDQ and pain (at rest, with activity, and average 24-hour pain) at days 1 and 3 following the injection. Day 3 change in RDQ scores and change in average 24-hour pain were compared for LABEL and INVEST control patients from the lead site (n = 16). Among patients in the LABEL trial, we detected no significant improvement in RDQ scores, pain at rest, and average 24-hour pain at days 1 and 3, whereas pain with activity improved significantly at both time points. INVEST control patients from the lead site experienced significantly greater improvement in average pain during 24 hours at days 1 (P = .03) and 3 (P = .04) and significantly greater improvements in RDQ scores at day 3 (P = .006) than patients from LABEL. An unblinded injection of local anesthesia is ineffective in treating pain from osteoporotic compression fractures. This suggests that factors other than local anesthesia were responsible for the observed improvement in the control group in INVEST.

Effects of Diagnostic Information, Per Se, on Patient Outcomes in Acute Radiculopathy and Low Back Pain

We conducted a prospective randomized study of patients with acute low back pain and/or radiculopathy to assess the effect of knowledge of diagnostic findings on clinical outcome. The practice of ordering spinal imaging, perhaps unintentionally, includes a large number of patients for whom the imaging test is performed for purposes of reassurance or because of patient expectations. If this rationale is valid, one would expect to see a measurable effect from diagnostic information, per se. A total of 246 patients with acute (<3 weeks) low back pain (LBP) and/or radiculopathy (150 LBP and 96 radiculopathy patients) were recruited. Patients were randomized using a stratified block design with equal allocation to either the unblinded group (MR imaging results provided within 48 hours) or the blinded group (both patient and physician blinded to MR imaging results.) After the initial MR imaging, patients followed 6 weeks of conservative management. Roland function, visual pain analog, absenteeism, Short Form (SF)-36 Health Status Survey, self-efficacy scores, and Fear Avoidance Questionnaire were completed at presentation; 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks; and 6, 12, and 24 months. Improvement of Roland score by 50% or more and patient satisfaction assessed by Cherkin symptom satisfaction measure were considered a positive outcome. Clinical outcome at 6 weeks was similar for unblinded and blinded patients. Self-efficacy, fear avoidance beliefs, and the SF-36 subscales were similar over time for blinded and unblinded patients, except for the general health subscale on the SF-36. General health of the blinded group improved more than for the unblinded group (P = .008). Patient knowledge of imaging findings do not alter outcome and are associated with a lesser sense of well-being.

Intent-to-treat analysis of the placebo-controlled trial of letrozole for extended adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer: NCIC CTG MA.17

BackgroundMA.17 evaluated letrozole or placebo after 5 years of tamoxifen and showed significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) for letrozole [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57, P=0.00008]. The trial was unblinded and placebo patients were offered letrozole. Patients and methodsAn intent-to-treat analysis of all outcomes, before and after unblinding, on the basis of the original randomization was carried out. ResultsIn all, 5187 patients were randomly allocated to the study at baseline and, at unblinding, 1579 (66%) of 2383 placebo patients accepted letrozole. At median follow-up of 64 months (range 16–95), 399 recurrences or contralateral breast cancers (CLBCs) (164 letrozole and 235 placebo) occurred. Four-year DFS was 94.3% (letrozole) and 91.4% (placebo) [HR 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55–0.83, P=0.0001] and showed superiority for letrozole in both node-positive and -negative patients. Corresponding 4-year distant DFS was 96.3% and 94.9% (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62–1.03, P=0.082). Four-year overall survival was 95.1% for both groups. The annual rate of CLBC was 0.28% for letrozole and 0.46% for placebo patients (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.97, P=0.033). ConclusionsPatients originally randomly assigned to receive letrozole within 3 months of stopping tamoxifen did better than placebo patients in DFS and CLBC, despite 66% of placebo patients taking letrozole after unblinding.

Randomized phase III trial of sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC): Impact of crossover on survival

4524 Background: Sorafenib was approved for advanced RCC in the USA December 2005. A Phase III randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial demonstrated an estimated 39% improvement in survival for patients receiving sorafenib versus placebo (HR= 0.72, p = 0.018) (ECCO 2005). These data supported independently reviewed doubling of PFS to 24 weeks in RCC patients receiving sorafenib compared with placebo (12 weeks) (p &lt; 0.000001) (ASCO 2005). Based on the statistical significance and magnitude of PFS benefit, patients were unblinded and placebo patients allowed to crossover to sorafenib in April 2005. A prospectively planned interim OS analysis reflecting impact of crossover of placebo patients is presented. Methods: OS data up to November 30, 2005, were analyzed in this interim analysis using a stratified log-rank test comparing the two treatment groups. In order to examine the effect of crossover on OS, a secondary analysis was performed censoring data from patients randomized to placebo at June 30, 2005. Results: A total of 903 patients were randomized (451 to sorafenib, 452 to placebo) and &gt;200 placebo patients crossed over to sorafenib. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment arms. There were 367 deaths. The median OS was 19.3 months for sorafenib versus 15.9 months for placebo (HR = 0.77; 95% CI 0.63, 0.95; p = 0.015); although this did not attain the level of significance specified for the interim analysis (α = 0.009), a continued favorable trend in survival benefit was observed. With censoring of crossover data, the median OS was 19.3 months for sorafenib versus 14.3 months for placebo (HR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.58, 0.93; p = 0.010). Conclusion: Sorafenib is the first novel, oral approved treatment for advanced RCC in more than a decade. Previous information on the effect of crossover on OS in randomized oncology studies is limited. The lower HR observed after censoring placebo patients crossed over to sorafenib suggests a continued beneficial effect of sorafenib. Final results await more mature data. [Table: see text]

NCIC CTG MA.17: Intent to treat analysis (ITT) of randomized patients after a median follow-up of 54 months

549 Background: MA.17 evaluated letrozole (LET) or placebo (PLAC) after 5 years of tamoxifen (Tam) and showed [median follow-up 30 months (mos)] significant improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) for LET [hazard ratio (HR) 0.57, p = 0.00008]. The trial was unblinded and PLAC patients (pts) were offered LET. An ITT analysis of all outcomes, before and after unblinding, based on the original randomization was performed. Methods: A stratified log-rank test was used to compare DFS, distant (D)DFS, overall survival (OS) and incidence of contra-lateral breast cancer (CBC). The Cox regression model used baseline stratification variables and two prespecified factors, menopausal status at the start of Tam and time on Tam. Subgroup analyses for DFS and OS were performed for the two prespecified subsets. All p-values were two-sided Results: 5187 pts were randomized at baseline and, at unblinding, 1655 of 2268 PLAC pts accepted LET. At median follow-up of 54 mos (range,16–86) 363 recurrences or CBC’s (144 LET and 219 PLAC) occurred; 118 LET and 176 PLAC pts had recurrent disease and 26 LET and 43 PLAC pts had CBC. 4 year DFS was 94.3% (LET) and 91.4% (PLAC) (HR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52 - 0.79; p = 0.00002). Corresponding 4 year DDFS was 96.2% and 94.9% (HR 0.76; 0.58–0.99; p = 0.041). 4 year OS was 95.0% (LET) and 95.1% (PLAC) (HR 1.00; 0.78–1.28; p = 0.99). LET was equally effective in node +ve and -ve pts (i.e., similar HRs) in DFS. OS was not significantly different for LET and PLAC in any subgroup. The annual rate of CBC was 0.29% LET (0.18–0.40) and 0.47% PLAC (0.34–0.61); HR 0.61 (0.38–0.98) p = 0.037. 255 pts had died as of the data cut-off (128 LET and 127 PLAC). Conclusions: In this ITT analysis, pts originally randomized to LET within 3 months of stopping Tam did better than PLAC pts in DFS, DDFS and CBC, despite 73% of PLAC pts crossing to LET after unblinding. This highlights the strong beneficial effect of extended adjuvant therapy with LET. [Table: see text]

A Randomized Trial of Ganciclovir versus Ganciclovir Plus Immune Globulin for Prophylaxis Against Epstein-Barr Virus Related Posttransplant Lymphoproliferative Disorder

Transplant recipients who are Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-seronegative and receive organs from seropositive donors (EBV D+/R-) are at increased risk for posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) and may benefit from antiviral prophylaxis. We performed a multi-center trial assessing two different antiviral regimens and their effect on EBV replication. EBV D+/R- solid organ transplant recipients were randomized to receive either ganciclovir and placebo or ganciclovir and immunoglobulin (IG) for 3 months. Following this, patients were unblinded and IG patients received additional IG therapy until 6 months. EBV viral loads were done at least monthly. RESULTS.: Thirty-four patients (25 pediatric, 9 adult) completed the protocol (16 placebo; 18 IG). The incidence of a detectable viral load within the first year posttransplant was 13/16 (81.3%) in the ganciclovir arm vs. 13/18 (72.2%) in the ganciclovir and IG arm (P=0.8). Time to first detectable viral load, and time to high-level viral load were not significantly different. By repeated measures ANOVA analysis, and by estimation of viral load AUC, no significant effect of randomization group was observed on EBV viral loads. PTLD developed in 3 (8.8%) patients (all in IG arm; P=0.23). No significant difference in EBV viral load suppression was observed when ganciclovir was compared with ganciclovir and IG in high-risk EBV D+/R- patients.

Educational benefits of blinding students to information acquired and management plans generated by other physicians

At our university, Internal Medicine clerks are members of a team responsible for the care of patients hospitalized on a teaching ward. Clerks first encounter their patients after the latter have been fully worked up by other physicians who have examined them and initiated investigations and management. Clerks are thus deprived of the opportunity to practice information acquisition, hypothesis generation and problem solving. We therefore undertook a 'blinding' initiative wherein each clerk was required to work up at least one hospitalized patient per week without access to the patient chart and without knowledge of information acquired and hypotheses generated by other physicians. Weekly data collection during the 8-week experiment with 40 clinical clerks revealed that work up of 'blinded' patients was more time-consuming and more difficult than work up of unblinded patients. Clerks were appreciative of the educational value of blinding. Teaching faculty felt clerk 'blinding' to be a practical approach to approximating the true conduct of medical practice and as such was useful for student learning.