Context: During a stimulated cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), women receive daily doses of gonadotropin follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to induce multifollicular development in the ovaries. A normal response to stimulation (e.g. retrieval of 5 to 15 oocytes) is considered desirable. Generally, the number of eggs retrieved is associated with the dose of FSH. Both hyper-response and poor response are associated with an increased chance of cycle cancellation. In hyper-response, this is due to increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), while poor response cycles are cancelled because the quantity and quality of oocytes is expected to be low. Clinicians often individualise the FSH dose using patient characteristics predictive of ovarian response. Traditionally, this meant women's age, but increasingly, clinicians use various ovarian reserve tests (ORTs). These include basal FSH (bFSH), antral follicle count (AFC), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). It is unclear whether individualising FSH dose improves clinical outcomes. This review updates the 2018 version.

To assess the effects of individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve in women undergoing IVF/ICSI.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared (a) different doses of FSH in women with a defined ORT profile (i.e. predicted low, normal, or high responders based on AMH, AFC, and/or bFSH) or (b) an individualised dosing strategy (based on at least one ORT measure) versus uniform dosing or a different individualised dosing algorithm.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial to study the efficacy and efficiency of a fixed dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) in women undergoing ovarian stimulation.

Abstract: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicentre (n = 5) study was conducted to compare the influence of either a 100 or 200 IU daily fixed-dose regimen of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) on the number of oocytes retrieved and the total dose used in down-regulated women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Fertilization was done by intracytoplasmic sperm injection or conventional in-vitro fertilization. A total of 199 women were treated with FSH, 101 subjects with 100 IU and 98 subjects with 200 IU. In subjects of the 200 IU treatment group, significantly more oocytes were retrieved compared to the 100 IU group (10.6 versus 6.2 oocytes, P < 0.001). The total dose needed to develop at least three follicles with a diameter of > or = 17 mm was significantly lower in the 100 IU treatment group (1114 IU versus 1931 IU, P < 0.001). In the low-dose group, significantly lower serum concentrations of oestradiol, progesterone and FSH were observed at the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin administration. Although more cycle cancellations due to low response were seen in the 100 IU group (n = 24 versus n = 3), the clinical pregnancy rate per started cycle was similar (24.7% in the 100 IU group versus 23.3% in the 200 IU group). In the high-dose group, more side-effects, in particular more cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, were noted. It is concluded that compared to 200 IU, the use of a 100 IU fixed dose is less efficacious in terms of the number of oocytes retrieved, but more efficient as indicated by a lower total dose.

Increasing the daily dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) does not compensate for the age-related decline in retrievable oocytes after ovarian stimulation.

Abstract: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicentre (n = 6) study was conducted to compare the influence of either a 150 or 250 IU daily fixed-dose regimen of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (FSH, Puregon) on the number of oocytes retrieved and the total dose used in down-regulated women between 30 and 39 years of age undergoing ovarian stimulation. In all, 138 women were treated with recombinant FSH, 67 with 150 IU and 71 with 250 IU. The number of oocytes retrieved in the low-dose group was 9.1 compared to 10.6 in the high-dose group (not significant). In the 30-33 years of age class receiving the 250 IU dose, a surplus of 4.2 oocytes (14.8 versus 10.6) was found, whereas in the 37-39 age class nearly one oocyte more was retrieved in the 150 IU group (8.1 versus 7.4). The total dose used to reach the criterion for human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration was 1727 IU for the women treated with 150 IU daily and 2701 IU for the 250 IU treated women (P < 0. 001). No significant relationships were found between serum FSH concentrations as obtained in the early follicular phase and the number of oocytes collected, or the total dose. It is concluded that in women between 30 and 39 years of age, the decline in number of oocytes retrieved with increasing age cannot be overcome by augmenting the daily dose of recombinant FSH from 150 to 250 IU.

A pilot study involving minimal ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: extending the "follicle-stimulating hormone window" combined with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cetrorelix.

Abstract:
To study whether minimal interference in the process of selection of the single dominant follicle may serve as the basis for a simplified ovarian stimulation regimen for IVF.

Single-center randomized pilot study.

Tertiary referral fertility center.

Fifteen normo-ovulatory patients with a regular indication for IVF.

Ovarian stimulation for IVF was begun with 100 or 150 IU/d recombinant FSH starting on cycle day 5. From cycle day 8 or later, cotreatment was begun with 0.25 mg/d GnRH antagonist. No luteal support was provided.

Total number of dominant follicles and characteristics of the endocrine cycle.

Multiple follicle development occurred in five of eight patients in the 100-IU group and in all seven women in the 150-IU group. Follicular phase and luteal phase lengths were normal, but the endocrine profile was abnormal.

A fixed daily dose of 150 IU recombinant FSH starting in the midfollicular phase resulted in ongoing growth of a restricted number of dominant follicles and sufficient oocytes retrieved to lead to ET. A marked reduction in the total amount of gonadotropins administered compared with standard treatment was achieved. Withholding luteal support did not exclude pregnancies.

A randomized, double-blind clinical trial using fixed daily doses of 100 or 200 IU of recombinant FSH in ICSI cycles.

Abstract: The effect of 100 and 200 IU per day recombinant FSH (rFSH) on numbers of oocytes retrieved and the total dose used in ovarian stimulation before intracytoplasmic sperm injection was investigated in a double-blind, randomized multicentre trial. A total of 91 women was treated with a low-dose protocol and 88 with a high-dose regimen at five centres. For each started cycle, significantly more oocytes were retrieved in the 200 IU group than in 100 IU group (12.0 versus 5.7, P < 0.001); total rFSH consumption was 1121 and 1875 IU in the low- and high-dose groups respectively. Significant variations were noted between centres with regard to numbers of oocytes collected per started cycle, ranging from 2.8 to 7.2 in the 100 IU group and from 9.0 to 19.1 in the high-dose group. Exploratory analyses of secondary outcomes suggested there were no differences in vital pregnancy rates per started cycle (19.2 versus 16.9%) and per embryo transfer (26.2 versus 19.3%) in the low- and high dose groups respectively. There were four hospitalizations due to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, all in the 200 IU group.

A prospective, randomized comparison of two starting doses of recombinant FSH in combination with cetrorelix in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI.

Abstract:
A prospective randomized study was carried out in two centres to compare the number of oocytes retrieved after two different starting doses of recombinant human FSH (rhFSH) (Gonal-F) in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles using the multiple dose regimen of the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cetrorelix (Cetrotide) to prevent induction of the premature LH surge.

Sixty women were randomized to receive rhFSH 150 IU ('low'), and 60 women to receive rhFSH 225 IU ('high') as the starting dose for the first 5 days of stimulation. From stimulation day 6 and onwards, including the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration, the women received 0.25 mg of cetrorelix as a daily dose. The primary endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved.

The mean number (+/- SD) of oocytes was 9.1 +/- 4.4 and 11.0 +/- 4.6 in the 'low' and 'high' groups respectively (P = 0.024). The mean number of 75 IU ampoules of rhFSH was significantly lower in the 'low' group (23.0 +/- 6.3 versus 30.5 +/- 5.6, P < 0.0001). The ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle and per embryo transfer were 25.9 and 28.8% versus 25.4 and 26.8% respectively in the 'low' and 'high' rhFSH groups (P = NS).

When using a starting dose of 225 IU rhFSH combined with the multiple dose of 0.25 mg cetrorelix from stimulation day 6, significantly more oocytes were obtained than with a starting dose of 150 IU rhFSH.

A double-blind clinical trial comparing a fixed daily dose of 150 and 250 IU of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in women undergoing in vitro fertilization.

Abstract:
To determine the efficacy and efficiency of two fixed doses of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.

Randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

Fifteen IVF clinics in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela.

Women between 30 and 39 years of age undergoing IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

Daily doses of either 150 IU or 250 IU of recombinant FSH (Puregon) until at least two follicles >or=20 mm were seen on ultrasound.

Number of cumulus-oocyte complexes retrieved and total dose of recombinant FSH used.

Two hundred one women received 150 IU and 203 used 250 IU. In the low-dose group 8.9 oocytes were retrieved compared to 10.2 in the high-dose group (not significant). The 150 IU-treated women received a total of 1,589 IU and the total dose used in 250 IU treated women was 2,492 IU. Implantation rates were 10.0% in the 150 IU group and 10.9% in the 250 IU group. The vital pregnancy rates per started cycle in the low-dose and high-dose groups were 17.1% and 16.7%, respectively. Two women, both in the 250 IU group, were hospitalized because of the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

An increase from 150 IU to 250 IU daily dose of recombinant FSH in women between 30 and 39 years of age has only limited value in augmenting ovarian response.

Comparison of two different fixed doses of follitropin-beta in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: A prospective randomized, double blind clinical trial.

Abstract: A prospective randomized, double blind, single centre study was conducted to compare the efficacy, efficiency and clinical side effects of daily fixed dose regimen of either 100 IU or 200 IU of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone(rFSH) Follitropin beta in down-regulated women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation(COH) for either conventional in vitro fertilization(IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection(ICSI). A total of sixty women were randomly allocated according to the criteria for the treatment by either 100 IU(n = 30) or 200 IU (n = 30) of FSH. Although more cycle cancellations due to low response were observed in the 100 IU group (n = 9 vs n = 2), two cases of mild and moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were noted in the higher dose group. Subjects in the group treated with 200 IU appeared to yield more follicles > 17 mm (4.4 vs 3.3, p = 0.05) and more oocytes compared to the group treated with 100 IU (9.2 versus 6.0 oocytes, NS). The total dosage required to develop at least three follicles according to the protocol was significantly lower in the group treated with 100 IU (1203.33 versus 2106. 67, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, a fixed daily dose of 200 IU of rFSH Follitropin beta compared to a fixed daily dose of 100 IU is more effective in terms of follicles > 17 mm development and the number of oocytes retrieved along with a lower cancellation rate, but less efficient as indicated by a higher total rFSH dose needed

[Results of application of high daily doses of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone in different age groups of women in IVF program].

Abstract: A prospective, randomized, comparative study has been carried out to investigate the effectiveness of administration of recombinant FSH (rFSH, Gonal-F) in doses 150 and 225 IU in different age groups of women. 63 patients started a long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocol (GnRHa, Diphereline, 0,1 mg): 31 received rFSH 150 IU/day and 32 - 225 IU/day. The objective was to assess the impact of these dosing regimens in down-regulated women. Duration of treatment for reaching administered criteria for human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG, Profazi) showed that the results in low-dose group and high-dose group were similar (11,8+/-0,2 days versus 11,2+/-0,4 days). Though, the total dose used per cycle of stimulation for group of patients receiving 225 IU was 2493+/-56 IU and 1762+/-37 IU in the 150 IU group (p<0,001). Average number of retrieved oocytes in low-dose group was 7,4+/-0,5 and 8,9+/-0,7 in high-dose group (no significant difference). In the group of women 31-33 years of age receiving 225 IU more oocytes were retrieved (13,1+/-1,1 versus 9,3+/-0,7 in 150 IU treatment group). Thus the patients of the age 37-39 years receiving 150 IU dose a slightly higher number of oocytes were found (6,1+/-0,3 versus 5,3+/-0,4). No significant relationships were found between serum FSH concentrations as obtained in the early follicular phase and the number of oocytes collected, or the total dose. The rates of obtained transferable embryos (1 and 2 degree) were 67% in low-dose group and 54% in high-dose group. There was better quality of retrieved oocytes than in the stimulation protocol with rFSH. According to the clinical pregnancy and delivery rates per cycles (respectively 26 and 23% in 150 IU group, 19 and 16% in the 225 IU group) and embryo transfer per cycle (29 and 25% in 150 IU group, 21 and 18% in 225 IU group) no significant difference has been found. Our study has shown that in women between 31-39 years of age, the decline in number of oocytes retrieved with increasing age cannot be overcome by augmenting the daily dose of recombinant FSH from 150 to 225 IU.

What is the optimum maximal gonadotropin dosage used in microdose flare-up cycles in poor responders?

Abstract:
To find out the optimum maximal dosage of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) in microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog (GnRH-a) flare cycles in poor responders.

Prospective randomized study.

Private infertility clinic.

A total of 119 women were taken into the study.

The study group underwent a microdose protocol with a GnRH-agonist followed by rFSH administration. On the third day of GnRH-a administration, 119 patients were randomized in three groups to receive daily fixed doses of 300 IU of rFSH (group A, n = 38), or 450 IU of rFSH (group B, n = 39), or 600 IU of rFSH (group C, n = 42).

Peak E(2) levels, days of stimulation with rFSH, total rFSH dosage, total number of oocytes retrieved, M2 oocytes retrieved, total number of embryos, number of embryos transferred, number of Grade-1 embryos transferred, clinical pregnancy rate (positive fetal cardiac activity), and cancellation rates of stimulation and embryo transfer.

Clinical pregnancy rates were 13.1%, 15.3%, and 16.1% for group A, group B, and group C, respectively. There were no significant differences in the age, peak serum E(2) concentration, days of stimulation with rFSH, total number of M2 oocytes retrieved, number of embryos transferred, clinical pregnancy rates, and cancellation rates of stimulation and embryo transfer between the three groups except for total rFSH dosage.

There is no need to use doses above 300 IU of rFSH to increase the pregnancy rate in microdose cycles. In addition, because the duration of stimulation does not differ between the groups, the usage of 300 IU rFSH in microdose cycles results in less total amount of rFSH consumed in a cycle compared with higher dosages, and this would obviously cost less money to the patients.

Individual versus standard dose of rFSH in a mild stimulation protocol for intrauterine insemination: a randomized study.

Abstract:
Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) are often used as the first-line treatment for subfertile couples. To minimize the variability in ovarian response in patients' first treatment cycle, we recently developed a recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) dosage nomogram. The nomogram has now been tested.

Multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 228 ovulatory patients scheduled for COS and IUI. Patients were randomized to 'individual' (50-100 IU rFSH/day, n = 113) or 'standard' (75 IU rFSH/day, n = 115) dose. 'Individual' dose was prescribed according to the nomogram, which was based on patients' body weight and antral follicle count. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients with two to three follicles > or = 14 mm (maximum two follicles > or = 18 mm) on the day of hCG (leading follicle = 18 mm). Primary analysis was made by intention-to-treat.

In the 'individual' group, 79/113 (70%) of the patients developed two to three follicles versus 64/115 (56%) in the 'standard' group [absolute difference = 14.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2-26, P = 0.03; absolute difference = 14.4; 95% CI 2-27, P = 0.02, when adjusting for centre]. Among patients with two to three follicles, the proportion of patients with two follicles was 46/79 (58%) in the 'individual' group versus 34/64 (53%) in the 'standard' group, P = 0.54. Ongoing pregnancy rate was 23/113 (20%) in the 'individual' group and 21/115 (18%) in the 'standard' group and the rate of multiple gestations was 1/113 (1%) versus 5/115 (4%), P = 0.21.

This RCT is the first to clinically test a dosage nomogram in ovulatory IUI patients' first rFSH treatment cycle. Dosing according to the nomogram was superior to standard dosing.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00374634.


Context: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common lymphoproliferative disease in adults and currently remains incurable. As the progression-free period shortens after each successive treatment, strategies such as maintenance therapy are needed to improve the degree and duration of response to previous therapies. Monoclonal antibodies, immunomodulatory agents, and targeted therapies are among the available options for maintenance therapy. People with CLL who achieve remission after previous therapy may choose to undergo medical observation or maintenance therapy to deepen the response. Even though there is widespread use of therapeutic maintenance agents, the benefits and harms of these treatments are still uncertain.

To assess the effects and safety of maintenance therapy, including anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, immunomodulatory drug therapy, anti-CD52 monoclonal antibody, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and B-cell lymphoma-2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, for individuals with CLL.

We included RCTs with prospective identification of participants. We excluded cluster-randomised trials, cross-over trial designs, and non-randomised studies. We included studies comparing maintenance therapies with placebo/observation or head-to-head comparisons.

Consolidation with alemtuzumab in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in first remission--experience on safety and efficacy within a randomized multicenter phase III trial of the German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG).

Abstract: Patients with CLL responding to initial chemotherapy with fludarabine alone (F) or in combination with cyclophosphamide (FC) were randomized for treatment with alemtuzumab (30 mg i.v. TIW, 12 weeks) or observation. Of 21 evaluable patients, 11 were randomized to alemtuzumab before the study was stopped due to severe infections in seven of 11 patients. These infections (one life-threatening pulmonary aspergillosis IV; four CMV reactivations III requiring i.v. ganciclovir; one pulmonary tuberculosis III; one herpes zoster III) were successfully treated and not associated with cumulative dose of alemtuzumab. In the observation arm, one herpes zoster infection II and one sinusitis I were documented. At 6 months after randomization, two patients in the alemtuzumab arm converted to CR, while three patients in the observation arm progressed. After alemtuzumab treatment, five of six patients achieved a molecular remission in peripheral blood while all patients in the observation arm remained MRD-positive (P=0.048). At 21.4 months median follow-up, patients receiving alemtuzumab showed a significant longer progression-free survival (no progression vs mean 24.7 months; P=0.036). In conclusion, a consolidation therapy with alemtuzumab is able to achieve molecular remissions and longer survival in CLL, but a safe treatment regimen needs to be determined.

Consolidation with alemtuzumab improves progression-free survival in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) in first remission: long-term follow-up of a randomized phase III trial of the German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG).

Abstract: Alemtuzumab has shown considerable activity in untreated and relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We report our long-term experience in 21 patients within a randomized phase III trial investigating the role of alemtuzumab for consolidation therapy after first-line fludarabine +/- cyclophosphamide, which was stopped prematurely due to severe infections. However, after a median follow-up of 48 months, progression-free survival was significantly prolonged for patients receiving alemtuzumab consolidation compared to those with no further treatment (P = 0.004). Minimal residual disease (MRD) levels were persistently reduced after consolidation. Therefore, despite toxicity, MRD reduction by alemtuzumab consolidation translates into a significantly improved long-term clinical outcome.

Chlorambucil plus rituximab with or without maintenance rituximab as first-line treatment for elderly chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients.

Abstract: In a phase II trial, we evaluated chlorambucil and rituximab (CLB-R) as first-line induction treatment with or without R as maintenance for elderly chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients. Treatment consisted of eight 28-day cycles of CLB (8 mg/m(2) /day, days 1-7) and R (day 1 of cycle 3, 375 mg/m(2) ; cycles 4-8, 500 mg/m(2) ). Responders were randomized to 12 8-week doses of R (375 mg/m(2) ) or observation. As per intention-to-treat analysis, 82.4% (95% CI, 74.25-90.46%) of 85 patients achieved an overall response (OR), 16.5% a complete response (CR), 2.4% a CR with incomplete bone marrow recovery. The OR was similar across Binet stages (A 86.4%, B 81.6%, and C 78.6%) and age categories (60-64 years, 92.3%; 65-69, 85.2%; 70-74, 75.0%; ≥75, 81.0%). CLB-R was well tolerated. After a median follow-up of 34.2 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 34.7 months (95% CI, 33.1-39.5). TP53 abnormalities, complex karyotype, and low CD20 gene expression predicted lack of response; SF3B1 mutation and BIRC3 disruption low CR rates. IGHV mutations significantly predicted PFS. R maintenance tended towards a better PFS than observation and was safe and most beneficial for patients in partial response and for unmutated IGHV cases. CLB-R represents a promising option for elderly CLL patients.

Ofatumumab maintenance versus observation in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (PROLONG): an open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study.

Abstract:
Ofatumumab is a human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that has proven efficacy as monotherapy in refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ofatumumab maintenance treatment versus observation for patients in remission after re-induction treatment for relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

This open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study enrolled patients aged 18 years or older from 130 centres in 24 countries who had chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in complete or partial remission after second-line or third-line treatment. Eligible patients had a WHO performance status of 0-2, had a response assessment within the previous 3 months, did not have refractory disease, autoimmune haemolytic anaemia requiring treatment, chronic or active infection requiring treatment, and had not previously received maintenance treatment or autologous or allogeneic stem-cell transplant. Using a randomisation list generated by a central computerised system and an interactive voice recognition system, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive ofatumumab (300 mg followed by 1000 mg 1 week later and every 8 weeks for up to 2 years) or undergo observation. Randomisation was stratified by number and type of previous treatment and remission status after induction treatment (block size of four). Treatment assignment was open label. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report the results of a prespecified interim analysis after two-thirds of the planned study events (disease progression or death) had happened. This trial is closed to accrual but follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00802737.

Between May 6, 2010, and June 19, 2014, we enrolled 474 patients: 238 patients were randomly assigned to receive ofatumumab maintenance treatment and 236 to undergo observation. One (<1%) patient in the ofatumumab group did not receive the allocated intervention (withdrawal of consent). The median follow-up was 19·1 months (IQR 10·3-28·8). Progression-free survival was improved in patients assigned to the ofatumumab group (29·4 months, 95% CI 26·2-34·2) compared with those assigned to observation (15·2 months, 11·8-18·8; hazard ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events up to 60 days after last treatment were neutropenia (56 [24%] of 237 patients in the ofatumumab group vs 23 [10%] of 237 in the observation group) and infections (31 [13%] vs 20 [8%]). 20 (8%) of 237 patients in the ofatumumab group and three (1%) of 237 patients in the observation group had adverse events that led to permanent discontinuation of treatment. Up to 60 days after last treatment, two deaths related to adverse events occurred in the ofatumumab treatment group and five deaths related to adverse events occurred in the observation group; no deaths were attributed to the study drug.

These data are important for the development of optimum maintenance strategies in patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, notably in the present era of targeted drugs, many of which are to be used until progression.

Phase III, randomized study of ofatumumab versus physicians' choice of therapy and standard versus extended-length ofatumumab in patients with bulky fludarabine-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Abstract: We report results of a randomized, phase III study of ofatumumab versus physicians' choice treatment in patients with bulky fludarabine-refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia and explore extended versus standard-length ofatumumab treatment. Patients (79 ofatumumab, 43 physicians' choice) completed a median 6 (ofatumumab) or 3 (physicians' choice) months' therapy. Ofatumumab-treated patients with stable disease or better were randomized (2:1) to 6 months' extended ofatumumab treatment or observation. Although the study did not meet the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee (ofatumumab: 5.4 months, physicians' choice: 3.6 months; p = 0.27), median PFS by investigators was significantly longer for ofatumumab versus physicians' choice (7.0 versus 4.5 months; p = 0.003) as was time to next therapy (median 11.5 versus 6.5 months; p = 0.0004). PFS and time to next therapy were significantly longer with ofatumumab extended treatment than observation (p = 0.026 and p = 0.002, respectively; n = 37). The adverse-event profile of long-term ofatumumab administration showed no unexpected findings (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01313689).

Dose intensification and molecular responses in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia: a phase II single centre study.

Abstract: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia is a condition which has a median age of 65 years but approximately 10% of patients are younger than 50. Fludarabine has been shown to produce better response rates than conventional single agent or combination chemotherapy but as yet no improved survival. We have treated a series of 10 patients presenting with de novo (six) or relapsed (four) chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) with fludarabine as cytoreduction treatment and consolidation of the response with CD34 selected peripheral blood stem cell transplantation using cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation (TBI) as conditioning therapy. We report here on the progenitor cell harvest characteristics and clinical and molecular responses to both fludarabine and high-dose consolidation. Our results indicate that at 3 months post transplant clinical remissions were induced in 10/10 patients and molecular responses in 7/8 (88%) evaluable patients. Molecular relapses occurred on long-term follow-up at 6, 9, 12 and 24 months post transplant but patients continued in clinical and haematological remission. Two patients have died from progressive disease and a third patient from aggressive high grade lymphoma. Median survival from the time of transplantation for the group overall was 22 months (range 6-45). There was no procedure-related mortality in the first 100 days.

Consolidation therapy with high-dose cyclophosphamide improves the quality of response in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia treated with fludarabine as induction therapy.

Abstract: Fludarabine is the most active agent in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Despite this activity only a minority of patients treated with fludarabine achieve a complete response. We evaluated a new treatment program of sequential therapy with fludarabine followed by high-dose cyclophosphamide in previously untreated patients with CLL. This report details the results in 25 patients with previously untreated CLL. Patients received fludarabine (25 mg/m2/day x 5 days every 4 weeks for six cycles) as induction followed by consolidation with high-dose cyclophosphamide at one of three dose levels 1.5 g/m2, 2.25 g/m2, or 3 g/m2 administered every 2 weeks for three doses. High-dose cyclophosphamide was given with G-CSF support (5 microg/kg/day days 3-12). Complete response (CR) required a normal physical examination, normal CBC, a normal bone marrow evaluation including no residual lymphoid nodules on biopsy. A nodular response was defined as a complete response with the exception of an occasional residual nodule seen on bone marrow biopsy. Flow cytometric analysis for CD5:CD19 dual staining and kappa/lambda clonal excess was performed in all patients as a sensitive measure of minimal residual disease (MRD). Selected patients had patient/tumor-specific oligonucleotides generated that were subsequently used in a polymerase chain reaction as an extremely sensitive measure of MRD. There were no treatment-related deaths and no patient encountered unacceptable toxicity. After completion of this sequential regimen 76% (95% confidence interval: 59-93%) of patients had a major response: eight (32%) achieved a CR, four (16%) a nodular response, seven (28%) a PR, and six patients (24%) failed. Four patients withdrew from study during induction with fludarabine and did not receive at least one cycle of cyclophosphamide. Of the 21 patients who received consolidation with cyclophosphamide 10 (48%) had an improved quality of response when compared to that achieved with fludarabine. Two patients (8%) had no disease detectable by flow cytometry ('flow cytometric' CR) after six cycles of fludarabine. This improved to nine patients (36%) after high-dose cyclophosphamide. Following consolidation with high-dose cyclophosphamide three patients (12%) tested negative by PCR. All of these patients had morphologic evidence of residual disease after six cycles of fludarabine. Consolidation with high-dose cyclophosphamide increased the fraction of patients achieving a nodular response or CR three-fold (16% to 48%). This appears to be clinically relevant because with a median follow-up of 52 (range 34-78) months the projected 6-year survival for patients achieving a CR or NR is 91% compared to 41% for all others (P = 0.012). We conclude that sequential therapy with fludarabine followed by high-dose cyclophosphamide in previously untreated patients with CLL is safe and can improve the quality of response in a large proportion of patients compared to therapy with fludarabine alone.

Clonotypic polymerase chain reaction confirms minimal residual disease in CLL nodular PR: results from a sequential treatment CLL protocol.

Abstract: Patient-tumor-specific oligonucleotides were generated for the detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) in a highly specific and sensitive clonotypic polymerase chain reaction (cPCR). The clone-specific region of highest diversity, CDR-III, was PCR amplified and sequenced. Nested CDR-III clonotypic primers were used in a semi-nested cPCR with a sensitivity of at least 1 in 10(5) cells. Patients with protocol-eligible Rai intermediate or high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) received induction with fludarabine 25 mg/m(2) per day for 5 days every 4 weeks for 6 cycles, followed by consolidative high-dose cyclophosphamide (1.5, 2.25, or 3g/m(2)). cPCR was performed on peripheral blood and bone marrow mononuclear cells. All 5 patients achieving a clinical partial remission (PR) studied by cPCR were positive. Five patients achieved nodular PR (nPR) (residual nodules or suspicious lymphocytic infiltrates in a bone marrow biopsy as the sole suggestion of residual disease). Five of 5 patients with nPR were cPCR positive. In contrast, flow cytometry for CD5-CD19 dual staining and kappa--lambda clonal excess detected MRD in only 3 of the same 5 nPR patients, all of whom were cPCR positive, and immunohistochemistry detected MRD in only 1 of 4 assessable patients. Three of 7 CR patients evaluable by cPCR had MRD. Only 1 CR patient had MRD by flow cytometry; that patient was also cPCR positive. These data support the conclusions that nodular PR in CLL represents MRD and that clonotypic PCR detects MRD in CLL more frequently than flow cytometry or immunohistochemistry. (Blood. 2001;97:1929-1936)

Safety and efficacy of subcutaneous Campath-1H for treating residual disease in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia responding to fludarabine.

Abstract:
Recent observations suggested that targeted monoclonal antibodies might be best employed in lymphoid malignancies under conditions of minimal residual disease. This prompted us to investigate the role of Campath-1H as treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in whom fludarabine (FAMP) had produced a marked disease debulking with persistence of bone marrow (BM) infiltration or a complete remission (CR) without the disappearance of the molecular aberration (IgH monoclonal expression). As intravenous Campath-1H is almost invariably associated with reactions, sometimes of WHO grade 3-4, we adopted the subcutaneous route of administration, which proved to induce rare and mild adverse reactions but had comparable efficacy. DESIGN AND METHODS. Nine patients (7 males, 2 females) with a median age of 55 years (range 41-61) who responded to FAMP (1 had a CR, 5 a nodular partial remission [PRN], and 3 a partial remission [PR]), according to NCI Working Group Criteria, received subcutaneous Campath-1H, three times a week for 6 weeks in escalating doses up to 10 mg. Monoclonal rearrangement of IgH was present in all patients before immunotherapy. Patients received acyclovir and cotrimoxazole as infection prophylaxis. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), at the dosage of 5-10 microg/kg/die, or intermediate-dose Ara-C (800 mg/m(2)/q 12h x 6 doses), was administered to obtain peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) mobilization.

All patients were evaluable for response. Five patients, 2 in PR and 3 in PRN after FAMP treatment, reached a CR. Three patients, one in PR, one in PRN and one in CR, converted to a molecular remission. In four out of seven patients PBSC harvesting was successful; more than 2.5 x 10(6) cells/kg were collected from all these patients. Collection was polyclonal for IgH gene rearrangement in three cases. One patient has been transplanted after cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation as conditioning regimen, without complications and with rapid hemopoietic engraftment. All patients were evaluable for toxicity. A WHO grade 1-2 skin reaction was observed in 5 patients at the site of injection. No infectious episodes were recorded. Two out of three patients presenting cytomegalovirus reactivation, without pneumonia, were successfully treated with oral gancyclovir.

Subcutaneous Campath-1H administered to CLL patients with residual BM disease after FAMP proved to be safe and effective. Of nine patients, three obtained a molecular CR and five converted into a morphologic and immunophenotypic CR. In four of seven patients submitted to PBSC mobilization, this treatment also allowed a harvest uncontaminated by CD5/CD19 double-positive CLL cells, which was polyclonal for IgH gene rearrangement in three cases.

Alemtuzumab in previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients who also had received fludarabine.

Abstract:
This phase II pilot study determined the efficacy and safety of alemtuzumab (Campath-1H; Burroughs Wellcome, United Kingdom) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), all of whom had previously received fludarabine and other chemotherapy regimens.

Twenty-four patients were treated with intravenous alemtuzumab at six centers in the United States. The target dose of 30 mg over 2 hours, three times weekly, was administered for up to 16 weeks. Responses were evaluated by an independent panel of experts using 1996 National Cancer Institute-sponsored Working Group criteria. Safety assessments included analysis of lymphocyte subpopulations. Antimicrobial prophylaxis was not mandatory.

Eight patients (33%) achieved a major response (all partial remissions), with a median time to response of 3.9 months (range, 1.6 to 5.3 months). The median duration of response was 15.4 months (range, 4.6 to >or= 38.0 months), the median time to disease progression was 19.6 months (range, 7.7 to >or= 42.0 months), and the median survival time was 35.8 months (range, 8.8 to >or= 47.1 months). Acute infusion-related events, mainly grades 1 and 2, were most common and most severe in the first week. Ten patients (eight nonresponders and two responders) experienced major infections on-study. Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia was reported in two patients on-study; neither had received prophylaxis. Median CD4+ and CD8+ counts decreased and then began to increase by the end of the study, with further recovery by 1-month follow-up. One of 53 samples obtained from 10 patients had a low titer of alemtuzumab antibodies.

Alemtuzumab has significant activity in poor-prognosis, fludarabine-treated CLL patients. However, because of a relatively high incidence of opportunistic infections accompanying profound lymphopenia, future protocols should include mandatory prophylaxis.


Context: Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question.

To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types.

We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.

Randomized trials versus observational studies in adolescent pregnancy prevention.

Abstract: The objective of this study is to compare the results of randomized trials and observational studies of interventions to prevent adolescent pregnancy. We identified published and unpublished reports through computerized searches of CATLINE, CINAHL, CONFERENCE PAPERS INDEX, DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS ONLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, NTIS, POPLINE, PsycINFO, and SOCIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS; manual searches of eight relevant journals; reference lists from primary articles; and contact with content experts. We included randomized trials and observational studies that evaluated the impact of primary prevention interventions including sex education classes, school-based clinics, free-standing clinics, physician/nurse practitioner practice-based service, improved access, and community-based programs on four outcomes: sexual intercourse, birth control use, responsible sexual behavior, or pregnancy in adolescents. One investigator abstracted the data and a second conducted a detailed review of the abstraction. We identified 13 randomized trials and 17 observational studies. We generated estimates of the impact of the interventions separately for males and females for all four outcomes for both observational studies and randomized trials. For six of the eight outcomes the summary odds ratios for the observational studies showed a significant intervention benefit (P<0.05) while the randomized trials did not show a benefit for any outcome in either females or males. The difference between the results of the observational studies and randomized trials was statistically significant in two of the eight outcomes (P<0.05 for initiation of intercourse and pregnancy in females). Observational studies yield systematically greater estimates of treatment effects than randomized trials of adolescent pregnancy prevention interventions. Public policy or individual patient treatment decisions should be based on observational studies only when randomized trials are unavailable and only with careful consideration of possible biases.

A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials.

Abstract:
For many years it has been claimed that observational studies find stronger treatment effects than randomized, controlled trials. We compared the results of observational studies with those of randomized, controlled trials.

We searched the Abridged Index Medicus and Cochrane data bases to identify observational studies reported between 1985 and 1998 that compared two or more treatments or interventions for the same condition. We then searched the Medline and Cochrane data bases to identify all the randomized, controlled trials and observational studies comparing the same treatments for these conditions. For each treatment, the magnitudes of the effects in the various observational studies were combined by the Mantel-Haenszel or weighted analysis-of-variance procedure and then compared with the combined magnitude of the effects in the randomized, controlled trials that evaluated the same treatment.

There were 136 reports about 19 diverse treatments, such as calcium-channel-blocker therapy for coronary artery disease, appendectomy, and interventions for subfertility. In most cases, the estimates of the treatment effects from observational studies and randomized, controlled trials were similar. In only 2 of the 19 analyses of treatment effects did the combined magnitude of the effect in observational studies lie outside the 95 percent confidence interval for the combined magnitude in the randomized, controlled trials.

We found little evidence that estimates of treatment effects in observational studies reported after 1984 are either consistently larger than or qualitatively different from those obtained in randomized, controlled trials.

A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies.

Abstract:
There is controversy about the value of evidence about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions from non-randomised study designs. Advocates for quasi-experimental and observational (QEO) studies argue that evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often difficult or impossible to obtain, or is inadequate to answer the question of interest. Advocates for RCTs point out that QEO studies are more susceptible to bias and refer to published comparisons that suggest QEO estimates tend to find a greater benefit than RCT estimates. However, comparisons from the literature are often cited selectively, may be unsystematic and may have failed to distinguish between different explanations for any discrepancies observed.

The aim was to investigate the association between methodological quality and the magnitude of estimates of effectiveness by comparing systematically estimates of effectiveness derived from RCTs and QEO studies. Quantifying any such association should help healthcare decision-makers to judge the strength of evidence from non-randomised studies. Two strategies were used to minimise the influence of differences in external validity between RCTs and QEO studies: a comparison of the RCT and QEO study estimates of effectiveness of any intervention, where both estimates were reported in a single paper a comparison of the RCT and QEO study estimates of effectiveness for specified interventions, where the estimates were reported in different papers. The authors also sought to identify study designs that have been proposed to address one or more of the problems often found with conventional RCTs.

Relevant literature was identified from: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, and the Science Citation Index. References of relevant papers already identified experts. Electronic searches were very difficult to design and yielded few papers for the first strategy and when identifying study designs. CHOICE OF INTERVENTIONS TO REVIEW FOR STRATEGIES 1 AND 2: For strategy 1, any intervention was eligible. For strategy 2, interventions for which the population, intervention and outcome investigated were anticipated to be homogeneous across studies were selected for review: Mammographic screening (MSBC) of women to reduce mortality from breast cancer. Folic acid supplementation (FAS) to prevent neural tube defects in women trying to conceive. DATA EXTRACTION AND QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Data were extracted by the first author and checked by the second author. Disagreements were negotiated with reference to the paper concerned. For strategy 1, study quality was scored using a checklist to assess whether the RCT and QEO study estimates were derived from the same populations, whether the assessment of outcomes was 'blinded', and the extent to which the QEO study estimate took account of possible confounding. For strategy 2, a more detailed instrument was used to assess study quality on four dimensions: the quality of reporting, the generalisability of the results, and the extent to which estimates of effectiveness may have been subject to bias or confounding. All quality assessments were carried out by three people. DATA SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS: For strategy 1, pairs of comparisons between RCT and QEO study estimates were classified as high or low quality. Seven indices of the size of discrepancies between estimates of effect size and outcome frequency were calculated, where possible, for each comparison. Distributions of the size and direction of discrepancies were compared for high- and low-quality comparisons. FOR STRATEGY 2, THREE ANALYSES WERE CARRIED OUT: Attributes of the instrument were described by k statistics, percentage agreement, and Cronbach's a values. Regression analyses were used to investigate -variations in study quality. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies.

Abstract:
There is substantial debate about whether the results of nonrandomized studies are consistent with the results of randomized controlled trials on the same topic.

To compare results of randomized and nonrandomized studies that evaluated medical interventions and to examine characteristics that may explain discrepancies between randomized and nonrandomized studies.

MEDLINE (1966-March 2000), the Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2000), and major journals were searched.

Forty-five diverse topics were identified for which both randomized trials (n = 240) and nonrandomized studies (n = 168) had been performed and had been considered in meta-analyses of binary outcomes.

Data on events per patient in each study arm and design and characteristics of each study considered in each meta-analysis were extracted and synthesized separately for randomized and nonrandomized studies.

Very good correlation was observed between the summary odds ratios of randomized and nonrandomized studies (r = 0.75; P<.001); however, nonrandomized studies tended to show larger treatment effects (28 vs 11; P =.009). Between-study heterogeneity was frequent among randomized trials alone (23%) and very frequent among nonrandomized studies alone (41%). The summary results of the 2 types of designs differed beyond chance in 7 cases (16%). Discrepancies beyond chance were less common when only prospective studies were considered (8%). Occasional differences in sample size and timing of publication were also noted between discrepant randomized and nonrandomized studies. In 28 cases (62%), the natural logarithm of the odds ratio differed by at least 50%, and in 15 cases (33%), the odds ratio varied at least 2-fold between nonrandomized studies and randomized trials.

Despite good correlation between randomized trials and nonrandomized studies-in particular, prospective studies-discrepancies beyond chance do occur and differences in estimated magnitude of treatment effect are very common.

Hierarchy of evidence: differences in results between non-randomized studies and randomized trials in patients with femoral neck fractures.

Abstract:
There have been a number of non-randomized studies comparing arthroplasty with internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures. However, there remains considerable debate about whether the results of non-randomized studies are consistent with the results of randomized, controlled trials. Given the economic burden of hip fractures, it remains essential to identify therapies to improve outcomes; however, whether data from non-randomized studies of an intervention should be used to guide patient care remains unclear. We aimed to determine whether the pooled results of mortality and revision surgery among non-randomized studies were similar to those of randomized trials in studies comparing arthroplasty with internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures.

We conducted a Medline search from 1969 to June 2002, identifying both randomized and non-randomized studies comparing internal fixation with arthroplasty in patients with femoral neck fractures. Additional strategies to identify relevant articles included Cochrane database, SCISEARCH, textbooks, annual meeting programs, and content experts. We abstracted information on mortality and revision rates in each study and compared the pooled results between non-randomized and randomized studies. In addition, we explored potential reasons for dissimilar results between the two study designs.

We identified 140 citations that addressed the general topic of comparison of arthroplasty and internal fixation for hip fracture. Of these, 27 studies met the eligibility criteria, 13 of which were non-randomized studies and 14 of which were randomized trials. Mortality data was available in all 13 non-randomized studies ( n=3108 patients) and in 12 randomized studies ( n=1767 patients). Non-randomized studies overestimated the risk of mortality by 40% when compared with the results of randomized trials (relative risk 1.44 vs 1.04, respectively). Information on revision risk was available in 9 non-randomized studies ( n=2764 patients) and all 14 randomized studies ( n=1901 patients). Both estimates from non-randomized and randomized studies revealed a significant reduction in the risk of revision surgery with arthroplasty compared with internal fixation (relative risk 0.38 vs 0.23, respectively). The reduction in the risk of revision surgery with arthroplasty compared with internal fixation was 62% for non-randomized studies and 77% for randomized trials. Thus, non-randomized studies underestimated the relative benefit of arthroplasty by 19.5%. Non-randomized studies with point estimates of relative risk similar to the pooled estimate for randomized trials all controlled for patient age, gender, and fracture displacement in their comparisons of mortality. We were unable to identify reasons for differences in the revision rate results between the study designs.

Similar to other reports in medical subspecialties, non-randomized studies provided results dissimilar to randomized trials of arthroplasty vs internal fixation for mortality and revision rates in patients with femoral neck fractures. Investigators should be aware of these discrepancies when evaluating the merits of alternative surgical interventions, especially when both randomized trials and non-randomized comparative studies are available.

Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies.

Abstract:
Information on major harms of medical interventions comes primarily from epidemiologic studies performed after licensing and marketing. Comparison with data from large-scale randomized trials is occasionally feasible. We compared evidence from randomized trials with that from epidemiologic studies to determine whether they give different estimates of risk for important harms of medical interventions.

We targeted well-defined, specific harms of various medical interventions for which data were already available from large-scale randomized trials (> 4000 subjects). Nonrandomized studies involving at least 4000 subjects addressing these same harms were retrieved through a search of MEDLINE. We compared the relative risks and absolute risk differences for specific harms in the randomized and nonrandomized studies.

Eligible nonrandomized studies were found for 15 harms for which data were available from randomized trials addressing the same harms. Comparisons of relative risks between the study types were feasible for 13 of the 15 topics, and of absolute risk differences for 8 topics. The estimated increase in relative risk differed more than 2-fold between the randomized and nonrandomized studies for 7 (54%) of the 13 topics; the estimated increase in absolute risk differed more than 2-fold for 5 (62%) of the 8 topics. There was no clear predilection for randomized or nonrandomized studies to estimate greater relative risks, but usually (75% [6/8]) the randomized trials estimated larger absolute excess risks of harm than the nonrandomized studies did.

Nonrandomized studies are often conservative in estimating absolute risks of harms. It would be useful to compare and scrutinize the evidence on harms obtained from both randomized and nonrandomized studies.

Examining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: comparing results of randomized trials and nonrandomized studies of interventions for low back pain.

Abstract:
Literature review.

To assess the influence of various factors in statistical heterogeneity of meta-analyses of interventions for low back pain. One of these factors was study design: randomized controlled trial (RCT) versus nonrandomized study (NRS).

The presence of statistical heterogeneity poses a challenge to the conduct and interpretation of meta-analyses.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library up to May 2005 for comparative studies of interventions for low back pain. The interventions with the highest number of NRSs were selected. All NRSs and RCTs of the same interventions were combined using meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed according to study design and other factors that were selected by a panel of 20 experts.

NRSs frequently either agree with RCTs or underestimate the effects compared with RCTs. The interventions and the respective factors that explained statistical heterogeneity were a) surgery versus conservative treatments (17 NRSs and 8 RCTs): study design (odds ratio, OR: 1.56 and 4.69 for nonrandomized and randomized studies, respectively), pain duration (OR: 1.75 and 3.55 for chronic and acute, respectively), and involvement of workers' compensation (OR: 1.85 and 5.07, with and without, respectively); b) surgery with fusion versus surgery without fusion (17 NRSs and 3 RCTs): spondylolisthesis (OR: 2.15 and 1.22, with and without, respectively); c) Instrumented fusion versus noninstrumented fusion (15 NRSs and 8 RCTs): previous surgery (OR: 2.89 and 1.36, with and without, respectively) and levels fused (OR: 1.50 and 2.98, single and multilevel, respectively).

Comparisons between RCTs and NRSs may be influenced by various factors, including study design. However, other factors were more powerful explanatory variables than study design. These factors included pain duration, involvement of workers' compensation, presence of spondylolisthesis, previous surgery, and levels fused.

Methods in health services research. Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies.

Use of observational databases to evaluate the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection: comparison of cohort studies with randomized trials. EuroSIDA, the French Hospital Database on HIV and the Swiss HIV Cohort Study Groups.

Abstract:
It is important to assess the extent of bias when comparing the clinical efficacy of antiretroviral regimens in observational databases because, with the current lack of planned large trials, such analyses may represent the only means of assessing the risk of serious clinical events associated with new regimens. We aimed to compare the results from observational databases with those from randomized trials.

Three treatment comparisons from randomized trials [Delta, AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) 175, Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS (CPCRA) 007 and ACTC 320] were mimicked in cohorts: (i) zidovudine monotherapy versus combination regimens of two nucleoside analogues; (ii) zidovudine combined with either didanosine or zalcitabine; and (iii) a dual combination versus a triple regimen including a protease inhibitor. Data for over 10 000 patients from the French Hospital Database on HIV, the EuroSIDA study and the Swiss HIV cohort study were analysed for each of the comparisons. Progression to AIDS disease or death was analysed in Cox models, adjusting for baseline differences, and results compared with randomized trials.

For comparison (i) the adjusted relative risk estimates from cohorts were between 0.61 and 0.84, favouring combinations over monotherapy, compared with 0.57 to 0.63 for trials. For comparison (ii) relative risk estimates from cohorts ranged from 0.81 to 1.01 compared with 0.77 to 0.92 for trials. For comparison (iii), two of the cohorts showed similar results to the ACTG 320 trial but one indicated a higher risk of progression on triple therapy [relative risk 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.441, in direct contrast to the trial result (relative risk 0.50, 95% CI 0.33-0.76).

Serious biases can be present when comparing outcomes from the use of antiretroviral regimens in observational studies. However, such bias is not inevitable and careful interpretation of the results from several observational studies considered together is likely to be informative, guiding the design of new trials.

Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.

Abstract:
In the hierarchy of research designs, the results of randomized, controlled trials are considered to be evidence of the highest grade, whereas observational studies are viewed as having less validity because they reportedly overestimate treatment effects. We used published meta-analyses to identify randomized clinical trials and observational studies that examined the same clinical topics. We then compared the results of the original reports according to the type of research design.

A search of the Medline data base for articles published in five major medical journals from 1991 to 1995 identified meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses of either cohort or case-control studies that assessed the same intervention. For each of five topics, summary estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated on the basis of data from the individual randomized, controlled trials and the individual observational studies.

For the five clinical topics and 99 reports evaluated, the average results of the observational studies were remarkably similar to those of the randomized, controlled trials. For example, analysis of 13 randomized, controlled trials of the effectiveness of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine in preventing active tuberculosis yielded a relative risk of 0.49 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.70) among vaccinated patients, as compared with an odds ratio of 0.50 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.65) from 10 case-control studies. In addition, the range of the point estimates for the effect of vaccination was wider for the randomized, controlled trials (0.20 to 1.56) than for the observational studies (0.17 to 0.84).

The results of well-designed observational studies (with either a cohort or a case-control design) do not systematically overestimate the magnitude of the effects of treatment as compared with those in randomized, controlled trials on the same topic.


Context: Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators, immunosuppressants and biological agents. Although each one of these therapies reduces relapse frequency and slows disability accumulation compared to no treatment, their relative benefit remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2015.

To compare the efficacy and safety, through network meta-analysis, of interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, daclizumab, laquinimod, azathioprine, immunoglobulins, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, diroximel fumarate, fludarabine, interferon beta 1-a and beta 1-b, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, mycophenolate mofetil, ofatumumab, ozanimod, ponesimod, rituximab, siponimod and steroids for the treatment of people with RRMS.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more of the available immunomodulators and immunosuppressants as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or to another active agent, in adults with RRMS.

Every-other-day interferon beta-1b versus once-weekly interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis: results of a 2-year prospective randomised multicentre study (INCOMIN).

Abstract:
The three interferon beta preparations approved for treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) differ in dose and frequency of administration. Interferon beta-1a 30 microg is administered once a week, interferon beta-1a 22 microg or 44 microg is given three times a week, and interferon beta-1b 250 microg is administered on alternate days. No clinical study directly comparing the different regimens has been published. The INCOMIN study was designed to compare the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) benefits of on-alternate-day interferon beta-1b 250 microg with once-weekly interferon beta-1a 30 microg.

INCOMIN was a 2-year, prospective, randomised, multicentre study. 188 patients with relapsing-remitting MS were assigned to interferon beta-1b (n=96) or interferon beta-1a (n=92). Primary outcome measures were the proportion of patients free from relapses and that of patients free from new proton density/T2 lesions at MRI assessment. Several secondary outcome measures were also assessed. Analysis was by intention to treat.

Over 2 years, 49 (51%) individuals administered interferon beta-1b remained relapse-free compared with 33 (36%) given interferon beta-1a relative risk of relapse 0.76; 95% CI 0.59-0.9; p=0.03); and 42 (55%) compared with 19 (26%), respectively, remained free from new T2 lesions at MRI (relative risk of new T2 lesion 0.6; 0.45-0.8; p<0.0003). In both groups, the differences between the two treatments increased during the second year. There were also significant differences in favour of interferon beta-1b in most of the secondary outcome measures, including delay of confirmed disease progression.

High-dose interferon beta-1b administered every other day is more effective than interferon beta-1a given once a week.

No difference in efficacy of two different doses of intravenous immunoglobulins in MS: clinical and MRI assessment.

Abstract: We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy of low and high dose of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in relapsing/remitting (RR) multiple sclerosis (MS). Patients (n = 49) with clinical definite RR MS were randomly allocated to three groups and treated with 0.2 g/kg (n = 17) or 0.4 g/kg (n = 15) once a month of IVIG and placebo (n = 17) for 12 months. Clinical data were assessed monthly and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed every 3 months during the study period. Annual relapse rate (ARR) and change of the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Neurological Rating Scale Score (NRSS) from baseline to study conclusion were used as the clinical end-points. For MRI activity total lesion volume on T2-weighted image (T2WI), new lesions and gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced lesions on T1WI were analysed. ARR in both IVIG groups (0.88 for 0.2 g/kg and 0.86 for 0.4 g/kg) was reduced compared with placebo (1.24) during treatment period. Neurological disability measured with EDSS decreased slightly in both the IVIG groups (0.029 and 0.066, respectively) and increased by 0.29 in placebo (P = 0.0117). The neurologic impairment measured by NRSS showed similar trend. The total lesion volume on T2WI increased by 13.56% in placebo whereas in the 0.4 g/kg IVIG group decreased by -3.95% and in the 0.2 g/kg IVIG group increased by 3.6%. The cumulative numbers of Gd-enhancing lesions and new T2WI lesions in the IVIG groups were reduced in comparison with the placebo group. Our findings suggest that the dose 0.2 g/kg of IVIG is equally effective as 0.4 g/kg in reducing MS activity.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Abstract:
Natalizumab is the first alpha4 integrin antagonist in a new class of selective adhesion-molecule inhibitors. We report the results of a two-year phase 3 trial of natalizumab in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Of a total of 942 patients, 627 were randomly assigned to receive natalizumab (at a dose of 300 mg) and 315 to receive placebo by intravenous infusion every four weeks for more than two years. The primary end points were the rate of clinical relapse at one year and the rate of sustained progression of disability, as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale, at two years.

Natalizumab reduced the risk of sustained progression of disability by 42 percent over two years (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.77; P<0.001). The cumulative probability of progression (on the basis of Kaplan-Meier analysis) was 17 percent in the natalizumab group and 29 percent in the placebo group. Natalizumab reduced the rate of clinical relapse at one year by 68 percent (P<0.001) and led to an 83 percent reduction in the accumulation of new or enlarging hyperintense lesions, as detected by T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), over two years (mean numbers of lesions, 1.9 with natalizumab and 11.0 with placebo; P<0.001). There were 92 percent fewer lesions (as detected by gadolinium-enhanced MRI) in the natalizumab group than in the placebo group at both one and two years (P<0.001). The adverse events that were significantly more frequent in the natalizumab group than in the placebo group were fatigue (27 percent vs. 21 percent, P=0.048) and allergic reaction (9 percent vs. 4 percent, P=0.012). Hypersensitivity reactions of any kind occurred in 25 patients receiving natalizumab (4 percent), and serious hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 8 patients (1 percent).

Natalizumab reduced the risk of the sustained progression of disability and the rate of clinical relapse in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Adhesion-molecule inhibitors hold promise as an effective treatment for relapsing multiple sclerosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00027300.).

Evidence of interferon beta-1a dose response in relapsing-remitting MS: the OWIMS Study. The Once Weekly Interferon for MS Study Group.

Abstract:
To compare efficacy of interferon beta-1a, 22 microg or 44 microg weekly, with placebo in relapsing MS.

Uncertainty exists concerning the optimal dose regimen for interferon beta in relapsing-remitting MS. Many patients and physicians prefer the convenience and lesser side effects of an injection given once weekly (qw) as opposed to three times weekly. Pharmacokinetic data and information on biologic markers suggest that this frequency may be suboptimal.

Randomized, double-blind study of interferon beta-1a 22 microg, 44 microg, or placebo administered by weekly subcutaneous injection for 48 weeks. Proton density (PD)/T2-weighted and T1-weighted-gadolinium MRI scans during 24 weeks of therapy were analyzed for the number of combined unique (CU) lesions (primary outcome). Biannual PD/T2 scans were analyzed for T2 activity and burden of disease (BOD).

CU lesions at 24 weeks had a median of 0.71/scan with placebo, 0.5/scan with 22 microg (not significant), and 0.33/scan with 44 microg (p = 0.002). T2 new lesion count/scan (mean/median) at 48 weeks was 3.2/1.5 for placebo, 2.4/1.0 for 22 microg (p = 0.03), and 1.5/1.0 for 44 microg (p = 0.0005). BOD at 48 weeks showed a median increase of 5.9% for placebo compared with a decrease of 1.4% in the 44 microg group (p = 0.0058) and 2% in the 22 microg group (p = 0.0018). No clinical variable, apart from steroid use in the 44 microg qw group (p = 0.014), showed significance.

These data confirm an MRI benefit of interferon beta-1a at low dose in MS, but highlight the limited clinical effect. Taken together with other studies, the data demonstrate a dose-effect relationship for both clinical and MRI variables.

European/Canadian multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the effects of glatiramer acetate on magnetic resonance imaging--measured disease activity and burden in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. European/Canadian Glatiramer Acetate Study Group.

Abstract: Two prior double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials demonstrated that glatiramer acetate (GA) reduces relapse rates in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). This study was designed to determine the effect, onset, and durability of any effect of GA on disease activity monitored with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with RRMS. Two hundred thirty-nine eligible patients were randomized to receive either 20 mg GA (n = 119) or placebo (n = 120) by daily subcutaneous injection. Eligibility required one or more relapses in the 2 years before entry and at least one enhancing lesion on a screening MRI. The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase during which all patients studied underwent monthly MRI scans and clinical assessments over 9 months. The primary outcome measure was the total number of enhancing lesions on T1-weighted images. Secondary outcome measures included the proportion of patients with enhancing lesions, the number of new enhancing lesions and change in their volume; the number of new lesions detected on T2-weighted images and change in their volume, and the change in volume of hypointense lesions seen on unenhanced T1-weighted images. Clinical measures of disease activity were also evaluated. The active treatment and placebo groups were comparable at entry for all demographic, clinical, and MRI variables. Treatment with GA showed a significant reduction in the total number of enhancing lesions compared with placebo (-10.8, 95% confidence interval -18.0 to -3.7; p = 0.003). Consistent differences favoring treatment with GA were seen for almost all secondary end points examined: number of new enhancing lesions (p < 0.003), monthly change in the volume of enhancing lesions (p = 0.01), and change in volume (p = 0.006) and number of new lesions seen on T2-weighted images (p < 0.003). The relapse rate was also significantly reduced by 33% for GA-treated patients (p = 0.012). All effects increased over time. Glatiramer acetate significantly reduced MRI-measured disease activity and burden.

Natalizumab plus interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Abstract:
Interferon beta is used to modify the course of relapsing multiple sclerosis. Despite interferon beta therapy, many patients have relapses. Natalizumab, an alpha4 integrin antagonist, appeared to be safe and effective alone and when added to interferon beta-1a in preliminary studies.

We randomly assigned 1171 patients who, despite interferon beta-1a therapy, had had at least one relapse during the 12-month period before randomization to receive continued interferon beta-1a in combination with 300 mg of natalizumab (589 patients) or placebo (582 patients) intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 116 weeks. The primary end points were the rate of clinical relapse at 1 year and the cumulative probability of disability progression sustained for 12 weeks, as measured by the Expanded Disability Status Scale, at 2 years.

Combination therapy resulted in a 24 percent reduction in the relative risk of sustained disability progression (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.61 to 0.96; P=0.02). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative probability of progression at two years were 23 percent with combination therapy and 29 percent with interferon beta-1a alone. Combination therapy was associated with a lower annualized rate of relapse over a two-year period than was interferon beta-1a alone (0.34 vs. 0.75, P<0.001) and with fewer new or enlarging lesions on T(2)-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (0.9 vs. 5.4, P<0.001). Adverse events associated with combination therapy were anxiety, pharyngitis, sinus congestion, and peripheral edema. Two cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, one of which was fatal, were diagnosed in natalizumab-treated patients.

Natalizumab added to interferon beta-1a was significantly more effective than interferon beta-1a alone in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Additional research is needed to elucidate the benefits and risks of this combination treatment. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00030966.).

Oral fingolimod (FTY720) for relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Abstract:
Fingolimod (FTY720) is a new oral immunomodulating agent under evaluation for the treatment of relapsing multiple sclerosis.

We randomly assigned 281 patients to receive oral fingolimod, at a dose of 1.25 mg or 5.0 mg, or a placebo once daily, and we followed these patients for 6 months with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical evaluations (core study, months 0 to 6). The primary end point was the total number of gadolinium-enhanced lesions recorded on T(1)-weighted MRI at monthly intervals for 6 months. In an extension study in which the investigators and patients remained unaware of the dose assignments (months 7 to 12), patients who received placebo underwent randomization again to one of the fingolimod doses.

A total of 255 patients completed the core study. The median total number of gadolinium-enhanced lesions on MRI was lower with 1.25 mg of fingolimod (1 lesion, P<0.001) and 5.0 mg of fingolimod (3 lesions, P=0.006) than with placebo (5 lesions). The annualized relapse rate was 0.77 in the placebo group, as compared with 0.35 in the group given 1.25 mg of fingolimod (P=0.009) and 0.36 in the group given 5.0 mg of fingolimod (P=0.01). For the 227 patients who completed the extension study, the number of gadolinium-enhanced lesions and relapse rates remained low in the groups that received continuous fingolimod, and both measures decreased in patients who switched from placebo to fingolimod. Adverse events included nasopharyngitis, dyspnea, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Clinically asymptomatic elevations of alanine aminotransferase levels were more frequent with fingolimod (10 to 12%, vs. 1% in the placebo group). One case of the posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome occurred in the 5.0-mg group. Fingolimod was also associated with an initial reduction in the heart rate and a modest decrease in the forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

In this proof-of-concept study, fingolimod reduced the number of lesions detected on MRI and clinical disease activity in patients with multiple sclerosis. Evaluation in larger, longer-term studies is warranted. (Clinicaltrials.gov numbers, NCT00333138 [core study] and NCT00235430 [ClinicalTrials.gov] [extension].).

Full results of the Evidence of Interferon Dose-Response-European North American Comparative Efficacy (EVIDENCE) study: a multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded comparison of low-dose weekly versus high-dose, high-frequency interferon beta-1a for relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Abstract:
Interferon (IFN)-beta therapy represents an important advance in the management of relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS), but information about the relative benefits and risks of available preparations is limited.

This report describes the full results of the Evidence of Interferon Dose-response-European North American Comparative Efficacy (EVIDENCE) study, combining analyses that were previously reported in separate publications for different phases of the study.

The EVIDENCE study was a multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded comparison of 2 IFN-beta dosing regimens. In the study, patients with relapsing MS were randomly assigned to SC IFN-beta1a 44 lag TIW (Rebif, Serono Inc., Geneva, Switzerland) or IM IFN-betala 30 mug QW (Avonex, Biogen Idec, Cambridge, Massachusetts) for 1 to 2 years. The primary clinical end point during the comparative phase was the proportion of patients who remained free from relapses; secondary and tertiary clinical end points included the annualized relapse rate and time to first relapse, re- spectively. All clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluations were performed by blinded assessors. In the crossover phase of the study, patients who were originally randomized to low-dose QW treatment switched to the high-dose TIW treatment for an additional 8 months. Adverse events were determined by spontaneous reporting and monthly laboratory testing during the comparative phase.

A total of 677 patients were enrolled in the study and evenly randomized to treatment; 605 patients completed the comparative phase and 439 completed the crossover phase. During the comparative phase, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the high-dose TIW treatment group remained free from relapses when compared with patients in the low-dose QW treatment group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0; P = 0.023). The high-dose TIW regimen was also associated with a significant reduction in the annualized relapse rate (-17%; P = 0.033) and a prolonged time to first relapse (hazard ratio, 0.70; P = 0.002). MRI measures of disease activity were significantly reduced in the high-dose TIW group compared with the low-dose QW treatment. During the crossover phase, a 50% reduction in mean relapse rates was observed in patients who converted from low-dose QW treatment to high-dose TIW treatment (P < 0.001), with significant concomitant reductions in MRI activity. Injection-site reactions were significantly more common with high-dose TIW treatment than with low-dose QW treatment (85% vs 33%; P < 0.001). Neutralizing antibody formation was more common with high-dose TIW treatment than with low-dose QW treatment (26% vs 3%; P < 0.001).

The comparative phase of the EVIDENCE study found that treatment of MS with SC IFN-beta1a 44 microg TIW was associated with a significant reduction in clinical and imaging measures of disease activity over 1 to 2 years, when compared with IM IFN-betala 30 microg QW treatment. The crossover phase found that patients who changed from low-dose QW treatment to high-dose TIW treatment experienced enhanced benefits of treatment without a substantial increase in adverse events.

Intravenous immunoglobulin in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a dose-finding trial.

Abstract:
Several studies have reported a reduction of relapses after the long-term administration of IV immunoglobulin (IVIG) to patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), but they were mostly small and differed in terms of predefined outcome variables and treatment regimen. We therefore set out to test two different doses of a new formulation of immunoglobulin termed IGIV-C 10% for suppression of both clinical and MRI disease activity as well as safety.

One hundred twenty-seven patients with RRMS participated in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Forty-four and 42 patients received treatment with 0.2 and 0.4 g/kg of IGIV-C 10%, and 41 patients received an equal volume of placebo (0.1% albumin) every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of relapse-free patients. The main secondary endpoint was lesion activity assessed by 6-weekly MRI.

Baseline variables were similar in IVIG- and placebo-treated groups. After 1 year, the proportion of relapse-free patients did not differ statistically according to treatment (IVIG 0.2 g/kg: 57%; IVIG 0.4 g/kg: 60%; placebo: 68%), and there was no difference regarding the cumulative number of unique newly active MRI lesions (median numbers: IVIG 0.2 g/kg: 8.0; IVIG 0.4 g/kg: 5.0; placebo: 7.2) after 48 weeks. There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of adverse events.

Although IV immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment was well tolerated, this study did not substantiate a beneficial effect of IVIG in doses ranging from 0.2 to 0.4 g/kg. This result seriously questions the utility of IVIG for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Efficacy and safety of oral fumarate in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb study.

Abstract:
Oral fumarate (BG00012) might have dual anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of BG00012 in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

257 patients, aged 18-55 years, with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis were randomly assigned to receive 120 mg once daily (n=64), 120 mg three times daily (n=64), or 240 mg three times daily (n=64) BG00012, or placebo (n=65) for 24 weeks. During an extension period of 24 weeks for safety assessment, patients treated with placebo received BG00012 240 mg three times daily. The primary endpoint was total number of new gadolinium enhancing (GdE) lesions on brain MRI scans at weeks 12, 16, 20, and 24. Additional endpoints included cumulative number of new GdE lesions (weeks 4-24), new or enlarging T2-hyperintense lesions, new T1-hypointense lesions at week 24, and annualised relapse rate. Analysis was done on the efficacy-evaluable population. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00168701.

Treatment with BG00012 240 mg three times daily reduced by 69% the mean total number of new GdE lesions from week 12 to 24 compared with placebo (1.4 vs 4.5, p<0.0001). It also reduced number of new or enlarging T2-hyperintense (p=0.0006) and new T1-hypointense (p=0.014) lesions compared with placebo. BG00012 reduced annualised relapse rate by 32% (0.44 vs 0.65 for placebo; p=0.272). Adverse events more common in patients given BG00012 than in those given placebo included abdominal pain, flushing, and hot flush. Dose-related adverse events in patients on BG00012 were headache, fatigue, and feeling hot.

The anti-inflammatory effects and favourable safety profile of BG00012 warrant further long-term phase III studies in large patient groups.


Context: Lumbar puncture is a common invasive procedure performed in newborns for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Approximately one in two lumbar punctures fail, resulting in both short- and long-term negative consequences for the clinical management of patients. The most common positions used to perform lumbar puncture are the lateral decubitus and sitting position, and each can impact the success rate and safety of the procedure. However, it is uncertain which position best improves patient outcomes.

To assess the benefits and harms of the lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone positions for lumbar puncture in newborn infants.

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving newborn infants of postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days, undergoing lumbar puncture for any indication, comparing different positions (i.e. lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone position) during the procedure.

Lumbar Puncture in the prone position for Low Birth Weight Neonates.

Abstract:
Lumbar puncture in the lateral decubitus position will make the neonates uncomfortable and is likely to cause position change and unstable vital signs, and the application of sedative drugs will cause adverse effects. This study explored a novel method for lumbar puncture in the prone position for low weight neonates.

The neonates were randomly assigned into the standard position group receiving lumbar puncture in the lateral decubitus position; and the improved position group receiving lumbar puncture in the prone position. The success rate of first time attempts and the overall success rate of lumbar puncture, incidence of adverse effects, NIAPAS scores were collected and compared between these two groups. The difference in success rate and adverse effects incidence rate was analysed through Chi-square. Student's t-test was used for the test of NIAPAS rating.

The improved position group had a higher success rate of first attempt and overall success rate, significantly lower incidence of adverse effect and lower NIAPAS scores than those of the standard position group (P<0.05).

This lumbar puncture in the prone position is safer, more effective, and more comfortable for preterm neonates and those with low birth weight. Thus, this method is worth of further promotion.

Registration number, ChiCTR2100049923; Date of Registration, August 11, 2021; Retrospectively registered.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Positioning for Lumbar Puncture in Young Infants.

Abstract:
The lateral and sitting positions are those most widely used to perform lumbar puncture (LP) in infants. This study sought to compare LP success rates by position. Secondary outcomes were successful LP on the first attempt and rates of procedural complications.

Infants aged 1 to 90 days undergoing LP in our pediatric emergency department between June 1, 2012 and October 31, 2013 were randomized to 1 position or the other. Successful LP was defined as collection of cerebrospinal fluid with a red blood cell count of less than 10,000 cells/mm on either of the first 2 attempts. Electronic medical records were reviewed for patient information, cerebrospinal fluid results, and procedural complications. Providers completed a questionnaire detailing their previous LP experience and technique. Primary results were analyzed using the intention-to-treat principle.

We enrolled 168 infants. Of 167 with data eligible for analysis, 82 (49%) were randomized to the lateral position. There was no statistically significant difference in LP success rate between the lateral (77%, 63/82) and sitting (72%, 61/85) positions (difference, 5.1%; 95% confidence interval, -8.2%-18.3%). There were no significant differences in success on the first LP attempt or the rates of procedural complications.

Among infants 1 to 90 days of age, this study found no difference in LP success between the lateral and sitting positions.

Study protocol: NeoCLEAR: Neonatal Champagne Lumbar punctures Every time - An RCT: a multicentre, randomised controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial to investigate techniques to increase lumbar puncture success.

Abstract:
The neonatal period carries the highest risk of bacterial meningitis (~ 1 in 5000 births), bearing high mortality (~ 10%) and morbidity (20-50%) rates. Lumbar puncture (LP) remains essential to the diagnosis of meningitis. Though LP is a common procedure in neonates, success rates are lower (50-60%) than in other patient populations. None of the currently-practised neonatal LP techniques are supported by evidence from adequately-powered, randomised controlled trials (RCTs). NeoCLEAR aims to compare two modifications to the traditional technique which are free, accessible, and commonly practised: sitting (as opposed to lying) position, and 'early' (as opposed to 'late') stylet removal.

Written parental informed consent permitting, infants in neonatal/maternity wards, of 27

Two modifications to the traditional LP technique (sitting vs lying position; and early vs late stylet removal) will be simultaneously investigated in an efficient and appropriately-powered 2 × 2 factorial RCT design. Analysis will identify the optimal techniques (in terms of obtaining easily-interpretable cerebrospinal fluid), as well as the impact on infants, parents and healthcare systems whilst providing robust safety data. Using a pragmatic RCT design, all practitioners will be trained in all LP techniques, but there will inevitably be variation between unit practice guidelines and other aspects of individual care. An improved LP technique would result in: • Fewer uninterpretable samples, repeated attempts and procedures • Reduced distress for infants and families • Decreased antibiotic use and risk of antibiotic resistance • Reduced healthcare costs due to fewer procedures, reduced length of stay, shorter antibiotic courses, and minimised antibiotic-associated complications TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14040914. Date assigned: 26/06/2018.

Assessment of infant position and timing of stylet removal to improve lumbar puncture success in neonates (NeoCLEAR): an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial.

Abstract:
Newborn infants are the highest-risk age group for bacterial meningitis. Lumbar punctures are therefore frequently performed in neonates, but success rates are low (50-60%). In Neonatal Champagne Lumbar punctures Every time-A Randomised Controlled Trial (NeoCLEAR), we sought to optimise infant lumbar puncture by evaluating two modifications to traditional technique: sitting position versus lying down and early stylet removal (stylet removal after transecting the subcutaneous tissue) versus late stylet removal.

NeoCLEAR was an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, conducted in 21 UK neonatal and maternity units. Infants requiring lumbar puncture at 27

Between Aug 3, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 1082 infants were randomly assigned to sitting (n=546) or lying (n=536), and early (n=549) or late (n=533) stylet removal. 1076 infants were followed-up until discharge and included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. 961 (89%) infants were term, and 936 (87%) were younger than 3 days. Successful first lumbar puncture was more frequently observed in sitting than in lying position (346 [63·7%] of 543 vs 307 [57·6%] of 533; adjusted risk ratio 1·10 [95% CI 1·01 to 1·21], p=0·029; number needed to treat=16). Timing of stylet removal had no discernible effect on the primary outcome (338 [62·0%] of 545 infants in the early stylet removal group and 315 [59·3%] of 531 in the late stylet removal group had a successful first lumbar puncture; adjusted risk ratio 1·04 [95% CI 0·94-1·15], p=0·45). Sitting was associated with fewer desaturations than was lying (median lowest oxygen saturations during first lumbar puncture 93% [IQR 89-96] vs 90% [85-94]; median difference 3·0% [2·1-3·9], p<0·0001). One infant from the sitting plus late stylet removal group developed a scrotal haematoma 2 days after lumbar puncture, which was deemed to be possibly related to lumbar puncture.

NeoCLEAR is the largest trial investigating paediatric lumbar puncture so far. Success rates were improved when sitting rather than lying. Sitting lumbar puncture is safe, cost neutral, and well tolerated. We predominantly recruited term neonates younger than 3 days; other populations warrant further study. Neonatal lumbar puncture is commonly performed worldwide; these results therefore strongly support the widespread adoption of sitting technique for neonatal lumbar puncture.

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Spinal anaesthesia for inguinal herniotomy in preterm infants sedated with nitrous oxide: a comparison of lumbar puncture in the lateral or sitting position.

Abstract: This study compares spinal anaesthesia for inguinal herniotomy in preterm infants in the lateral or sitting position. Thirty patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. One hour before spinal anaesthesia, a eutetic mixture of local anaesthetic cream was applied to the lower lumbar spine. Sedation with nitrous oxide 50% in oxygen was given to all patients before and during induction of spinal anaesthesia, and throughout surgery. Lumbar punctures were performed at the L4-5 interspace using a 2.5 cm 22 G needle. Isobaric bupivacaine 0.5% with epinephrine 1 : 200 000 at a bupivacaine dose of 1 mg.kg-1 was injected in the lateral or sitting position. Measurements included heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, maximum sensory block height and duration of motor block and analgesia. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in any measured parameters. Median [range] maximum block height was T5[T4-T7] in the lateral group and T5[T4-T5] in the sitting group. The median [range] duration of motor blockade was 67 [50-85] min in the lateral group and 63 [50-80] min in the sitting group. Our results indicate that in preterm infants sedated with nitrous oxide, spinal anaesthesia for inguinal herniotomy performed with isobaric bupivacaine 0.5% at a dose 1.0 mg.kg-1 in the lateral or sitting position is equally effective and is associated with minimal side effects.

The effect of lumbar puncture position in sick neonates.

Abstract: Clinical deterioration has been observed in sick neonates during lumbar puncture. This study was done to determine if hypoxemia occurred during lumbar puncture, if hypoxemia was position dependent, if transcutaneous PO2 (TcPO2) monitoring effected hypoxemia, and what possible mechanisms were involved. Twenty-six neonates received lumbar punctures in either a standard lateral knee-chest position, sitting position, or modified lateral without knee-chest position. Care was taken not to extend or flex the neck. Mean TcPO2 was lower for standard lateral than sitting or modified lateral positions. The time TcPO2 was under 50 mm Hg was greater for standard lateral positions than sitting or modified lateral positions. Increased intraesophageal pressure, in the standard lateral position, suggests extrathoracic compression of the chest by the abdominal contents. We recommend lumbar punctures be done in the sitting or modified lateral position.