0
selected
-
1.
Hiding unhealthy heart outcomes in a low-fat diet trial: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial finds that postmenopausal women with established coronary heart disease were at increased risk of an adverse outcome if they consumed a low-fat 'heart-healthy' diet.
Noakes, TD
Open heart. 2021;(2)
Abstract
The Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial (WHIRCDMT) was designed to test whether the US Department of Agriculture's 1977 Dietary Guidelines for Americans protects against coronary heart disease (CHD) and other chronic diseases. The only significant finding in the original 2006 WHIRCDMT publication was that postmenopausal women with CHD randomised to a low-fat 'heart-healthy' diet in 1993 were at 26% greater risk of developing additional CHD events compared with women with CHD eating the control diet. A 2017 WHIRCDMT publication includes data for an additional 5 years of follow-up. It finds that CHD risk in this subgroup of postmenopausal women had increased further to 47%-61%. The authors present three post-hoc rationalisations to explain why this finding is 'inadmissible': (1) only women in this subgroup were less likely to adhere to the prescribed dietary intervention; (2) their failure to follow the intervention diet increased their CHD risk; and (3) only these women were more likely to not have received cholesterol-lowering drugs. These rationalisations appear spurious. Rather these findings are better explained as a direct consequence of postmenopausal women with features of insulin resistance (IR) eating a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet for 13 years. All the worst clinical features of IR, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in some, can be 'reversed' by the prescription of a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet. The Women's Health Study has recently reported that T2DM (10.71-fold increased risk) and other markers of IR including metabolic syndrome (6.09-fold increased risk) were the most powerful predictors of future CHD development in women; blood low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol concentration was a poor predictor (1.38-fold increased risk). These studies challenge the prescription of the low-fat high-carbohydrate heart-healthy diet, at least in postmenopausal women with IR, especially T2DM. According to the medical principle of 'first do no harm', this practice is now shown to be not evidence-based, making it scientifically unjustifiable, perhaps unethical.
-
2.
Analgesic Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Meperidine in Managing Postoperative or Labor Pain: A Narrative Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Ching Wong, SS, Cheung, CW
Pain physician. 2020;(2):175-201
Abstract
BACKGROUND Meperidine, a synthetic opioid, has a rapid onset and short duration of action. Mounting evidence has challenged meperidine's analgesic benefits, and concerns have been raised about its safety profile. Despite recommendations to restrict the prescription of meperidine, the drug remains frequently used. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of meperidine for acute postoperative and labor pain. STUDY DESIGN This was a narrative review of the analgesic efficacy and side effects of meperidine compared to other analgesic drugs for acute postoperative and labor pain in adults. SETTING Randomized controlled trials that compared the analgesic efficacy and side effect profile of meperidine versus another analgesic drug in adult patients were evaluated. METHODS A systemized search of randomized controlled trials studying meperidine for acute postoperative or labor pain in the adult patient population from PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE was performed. Included studies reported on different routes of meperidine administration including intramuscular, intravenous, and patient-controlled analgesia in various surgical procedures such as abdominal surgery, Cesarean section, gynecological surgery, orthopedic surgery, cardiothoracic surgery, as well as for labor analgesia. Meperidine's analgesic efficacy and safety profile were compared to other opioids (morphine, tramadol, fentanyl, buprenorphine, nalbuphine, and pentazocine), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ketorolac, diclofenac, and indomethacin), dipyrone, ketamine, and bupivacaine. RESULTS A total of 62 randomized controlled trials published between 1972 and 2018 were reviewed. Meperidine had a similar or inferior analgesic efficacy compared to other analgesics for acute postoperative or labor pain. Meperidine was associated with more sedation and respiratory depression. LIMITATIONS The sample sizes of many clinical studies were small, and therefore probably insufficiently powered to detect differences in uncommon side effects, such as central nervous system toxicity. In addition, some of the included clinical studies were old. CONCLUSION Considering the availability of other effective analgesics with potentially fewer side effects, the use of meperidine for acute postoperative or labor pain should not be recommended. KEY WORDS Acute postoperative pain, adverse effects, labor analgesia, meperidine, pethidine.
-
3.
Galantamine-Memantine combination in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and beyond.
Koola, MM
Psychiatry research. 2020;:113409
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent form of dementia in the elderly population worldwide. Despite the major unmet clinical need, no new medications for the treatment of AD have been approved since 2003. Galantamine is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor that is also a positive allosteric modulator at the α4β2 and α7nACh receptors. Memantine is an N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor modulator/agonist. Both galantamine and memantine are FDA-approved medications for the treatment of AD. The objective of this review is to highlight the potential of the galantamine-memantine combination to conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in AD. Several studies have shown the combination to be effective. Neurodegenerative diseases involve multiple pathologies; therefore, combination treatment appears to be a rational approach. Although underutilized, the galantamine-memantine combination is the standard of care in the treatment of AD. Positive RCTs with the combination with concurrent improvement in symptoms and biomarkers may lead to FDA approval, which may lead to greater utilization of this combination in clinical practice.
-
4.
CREDENCE: A silver lining in the dark cloud of diabetic nephropathy.
Hanai, K, Babazono, T
Journal of diabetes investigation. 2020;(3):527-529
-
5.
Two Tales: One Story: EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF.
Verma, S, McGuire, DK, Kosiborod, MN
Circulation. 2020;(23):2201-2204
-
6.
Stopping live vaccines after disease eradication may increase mortality.
Aaby, P, Benn, CS
Vaccine. 2020;(1):10-14
Abstract
Several live vaccines may have beneficial non-specific effects (NSEs) reducing mortality more than can be explained by the prevention of the target infection, a phenomenon which has been linked to innate immune training. Most randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of oral polio vaccine (OPV) and measles vaccine (MV) have shown a large reduction in mortality that must have been at least partly nonspecific because it was much larger than the reduction explained by prevention of the target disease. Hence, stopping a live vaccine after disease-eradication could have negative health effects if the potential beneficial NSEs are not considered. We reviewed one eradicated disease, smallpox, and two infections likely to be eradicated in coming decades, polio and measles. No study was made of unintended effects of stopping smallpox vaccination when it happened in 1980. We have subsequently documented in both Guinea-Bissau and Denmark that smallpox-vaccinated individuals continued to have a survival advantage long after smallpox had been eradicated. The few studies which have examined the effect of OPV on survival all suggest strong beneficial NSEs; in RCTs, OPV compared with inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) has been associated with non-specific reductions in morbidity. RCTs, natural experiments and observational studies have found strong beneficial NSEs for MV. Hence, the imminent eradication of polio and the planned stop of OPV in 2024 and the subsequent eradication of measles infection and the possible stop to live MV could have negative effects for child survival. Before live vaccines are phased out, potential unintended effects of stopping these vaccines should be thoroughly studied.
-
7.
An appraisal of the SDIR as an estimate of true individual differences in training responsiveness in parallel-arm exercise randomized controlled trials.
Bonafiglia, JT, Brennan, AM, Ross, R, Gurd, BJ
Physiological reports. 2019;(14):e14163
Abstract
Calculating the standard deviation of individual responses (SDIR ) is recommended for estimating the magnitude of individual differences in training responsiveness in parallel-arm exercise randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of this review article is to discuss potential limitations of parallel-arm exercise RCTs that may confound/complicate the interpretation of the SDIR . To provide context for this discussion, we define the sources of variation that contribute to variability in the observed responses to exercise training and review the assumptions that underlie the interpretation of SDIR as a reflection of true individual differences in training responsiveness. This review also contains two novel analyses: (1) we demonstrate differences in variability in changes in diet and physical activity habits across an intervention period in both exercise and control groups, and (2) we examined participant dropout data from six RCTs and found that significantly (P < 0.001) more participants in control groups (12.8%) dropped out due to dissatisfaction with group assignment compared to exercise groups (3.4%). These novel analyses raise the possibility that the magnitude of within-subject variability may not be equal between exercise and control groups. Overall, this review highlights that potential limitations of parallel-arm exercise RCTs can violate the underlying assumptions of the SDIR and suggests that these limitations should be considered when interpreting the SDIR as an estimate of true individual differences in training responsiveness.
-
8.
Ethical Issues in Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trials in Dialysis Facilities.
Goldstein, CE, Weijer, C, Taljaard, M, Al-Jaishi, AA, Basile, E, Brehaut, J, Cook, CL, Grimshaw, JM, Lacson, E, Lindsay, C, et al
American journal of kidney diseases : the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2019;(5):659-666
Abstract
A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial (CRT) is a research design that may be used to efficiently test promising interventions that directly inform dialysis care. While the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials provides general ethical guidance for CRTs, the dialysis setting raises additional considerations. In this article, we outline ethical issues raised by pragmatic CRTs in dialysis facilities. These issues may be divided into 7 key domains: justifying the use of cluster randomization, adopting randomly allocated individual-level interventions as a facility standard of care, conducting benefit-harm analyses, gatekeepers and their responsibilities, obtaining informed consent from research participants, patient notification, and including vulnerable participants. We describe existing guidelines relevant to each domain, illustrate how they were considered in the Time to Reduce Mortality in End-Stage Renal Disease (TiME) trial (a prototypical pragmatic hemodialysis CRT), and highlight remaining areas of uncertainty. The following is the first step in an interdisciplinary mixed-methods research project to guide the design and conduct of pragmatic CRTs in dialysis facilities. Subsequent work will expand on these concepts and when possible, argue for a preferred solution.
-
9.
Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Therapeutic Interventions.
Tchero, H, Herlin, C, Bekara, F, Fluieraru, S, Teot, L
Indian journal of dermatology, venereology and leprology. 2019;(3):248-257
Abstract
Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory condition that affects skin regions bearing apocrine glands. Although hidradenitis suppurativa is difficult to treat and cure, the currently available treatments are directed toward managing the lesions and associated symptoms. This review presents an evidence-based outline of the available treatment options. We searched four electronic databases and extracted data from retrieved studies for qualitative or quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted using the comprehensive meta-analysis software to generate pooled standardized mean differences or risk ratios. Numerous medical treatments are available for hidradenitis suppurativa such as antibiotics, retinoids, antiandrogens, immunosuppressive and anti-inflammatory agents and radiotherapy for early lesions. Adalimumab, an anti-tumor necrosis factor antibody, was superior to placebo in reducing Sartorius score (standardized mean difference = -0.32, confidence interval [-0.46, -0.18], P < 0.0001) and pain (risk ratio = 1.42, confidence interval [1.07, 1.9], P = 0.02), when given weekly (not every other week). Combination therapies (such as antibiotics and hyperbaric oxygen therapy) have been tested, which have shown promising results that are yet to be confirmed. Based on the quality of evidence, the most recommended treatments for hidradenitis suppurativa include adalimumab and laser therapy. Surgery (either by simple excision or complete local excision followed by skin graft) is the first choice for intractable disease presenting in the late stages. However, the evidence on most of these treatments is deficient and further randomized trials are needed to establish the most efficient therapies for hidradenitis suppurativa management.
-
10.
Trials and Tribulations of CETP Inhibitors.
Tall, AR, Rader, DJ
Circulation research. 2018;(1):106-112
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
The development of CETP (cholesteryl ester transfer protein) inhibitors has had a long and difficult course with 3 compounds failing in phase III clinical trials. Finally, the REVEAL (Randomized Evaluation of the Effects of Anacetrapib through Lipid modification) trial has shown that the CETP inhibitor anacetrapib decreased coronary heart disease when added to statin therapy. Although the result is different to earlier studies, this is likely related to the size and duration of the trial. The benefit of anacetrapib seems to be largely explained by lowering of non-HDL-C (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol), rather than increases in HDL-C. Although the magnitude of benefit for coronary heart disease appeared to be moderate, in part this may have reflected aspects of the trial design. Anacetrapib treatment was associated with a small increase in blood pressure, but was devoid of major side effects and was also associated with a small reduction in diabetes mellitus. Treatment with CETP inhibitors, either alone or in combination with statins, could provide another option for patients with coronary disease who require further reduction in LDL (low-density lipoprotein) and non-HDL-C.