Plos One
-
Review Comparative Study
The role of systematic reviews in pharmacovigilance planning and Clinical Trials Authorisation application: example from the SLEEPS trial.
Adequate sedation is crucial to the management of children requiring assisted ventilation on Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU). The evidence-base of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area is small and a trial was planned to compare midazolam and clonidine, two sedatives widely used within PICUs neither of which being licensed for that use. The application to obtain a Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) required a dossier summarising the safety profiles of each drug and the pharmacovigilance plan for the trial needed to be determined by this information. A systematic review was undertaken to identify reports relating to the safety of each drug. ⋯ No adverse reactions were identified in addition to those specified within the SmPC for the licensed use of the drugs. Based on this information and the wide spread use of both sedatives in routine practice the pharmacovigilance plan was restricted to adverse reactions. The Clinical Trials Authorisation was granted based on the data presented in the SmPC and the pharmacovigilance plan within the clinical trial protocol restricting collection and reporting to adverse reactions.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Design and initial results of a multi-phase randomized trial of ceftriaxone in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Ceftriaxone increases expression of the astrocytic glutamate transporter, EAAT2, which might protect from glutamate-mediated excitotoxicity. A trial using a novel three stage nonstop design, incorporating Phases I-III, tested ceftriaxone in ALS. Stage 1 determined the cerebrospinal fluid pharmacokinetics of ceftriaxone in subjects with ALS. Stage 2 evaluated safety and tolerability for 20-weeks. Analysis of the pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and safety was used to determine the ceftriaxone dosage for Stage 3 efficacy testing. ⋯ The goals of Stages 1 and 2 of the ceftriaxone trial were successfully achieved. Based on the pre-specified decision rules, the DSMB recommended the use of ceftriaxone 4 g/d (divided BID) for Stage 3, which recently closed.
-
Review Meta Analysis
The effects of calcium channel blockers in the prevention of stroke in adults with hypertension: a meta-analysis of data from 273,543 participants in 31 randomized controlled trials.
Hypertension is a major risk factor for the development of stroke. It is well known that lowering blood pressure decreases the risk of stroke in people with moderate to severe hypertension. However, the specific effects of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) against stroke in patients with hypertension as compared to no treatment and other antihypertensive drug classes are not known. ⋯ In a pooled analysis of data of 31 RCTs measuring the effect of CCBs on stroke, CCBs reduced stroke more than placebo and β-adrenergic blockers, but were not different than ACEIs and diuretics. More head to head RCTs are warranted.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Systematic review and meta-analysis of therapeutic hypothermia in animal models of spinal cord injury.
Therapeutic hypothermia is a clinically useful neuroprotective therapy for cardiac arrest and neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and may potentially be useful for the treatment of other neurological conditions including traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). The pre-clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of hypothermia in acute SCI broadly utilise either systemic hypothermia or cooling regional to the site of injury. The literature has not been uniformly positive with conflicting studies of varying quality, some performed decades previously. ⋯ Systemic hypothermia appears to be a promising potential method of treating acute SCI on the basis of meta-analysis of the pre-clinical literature and the results of high quality animal studies.
-
Comparative Study
Programmatic cost evaluation of nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening in the emergency department.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends nontargeted opt-out HIV screening in healthcare settings. Cost effectiveness is critical when considering potential screening methods. Our goal was to compare programmatic costs of nontargeted opt-out rapid HIV screening with physician-directed diagnostic rapid HIV testing in an urban emergency department (ED) as part of the Denver ED HIV Opt-Out Trial. ⋯ Compared to diagnostic testing, nontargeted HIV screening was more costly but identified more HIV infections. More effective and less costly testing strategies may be required to improve the identification of patients with undiagnosed HIV infection in the ED.