Treatment Success in Cancer: Industry Compared to Publicly Sponsored Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To assess if commercially sponsored trials are associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials.

Study Design and Settings

We undertook a systematic review of all consecutive, published and unpublished phase III cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG). We included all phase III cancer RCTs assessing treatment superiority from 1980 to 2010. Three metrics were assessed to determine treatment successes: (1) the proportion of statistically significant trials favouring the experimental treatment, (2) the proportion of the trials in which new treatments were considered superior according to the investigators, and (3) quantitative synthesis of data for primary outcomes as defined in each trial.

Results

GSK conducted 40 cancer RCTs accruing 19,889 patients and CTG conducted 77 trials enrolling 33,260 patients. 42% (99%CI 24 to 60) of the results were statistically significant favouring experimental treatments in GSK compared to 25% (99%CI 13 to 37) in the CTG cohort (RR = 1.68; p = 0.04). Investigators concluded that new treatments were superior to standard treatments in 80% of GSK compared to 44% of CTG trials (RR = 1.81; p<0.001). Meta-analysis of the primary outcome indicated larger effects in GSK trials (odds ratio = 0.61 [99%CI 0.47–0.78] compared to 0.86 [0.74–1.00]; p = 0.003). However, testing for the effect of treatment over time indicated that treatment success has become comparable in the last decade.

Conclusions

While overall industry sponsorship is associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials, the difference seems to have disappeared over time.     

Are aromatase inhibitors superior to antiestrogens?

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have been in use to treat metastatic breast cancer for over 25 years. Recently potent and specific AIs have been introduced, which, because of their low toxicity profile, are being used in the adjuvant and neoadjuvant situation and also for the prevention of breast cancer. The two non-steroidal AIs, anastrozole and letrozole, and the steroidal AI, exemestane, have all shown superiority to tamoxifen as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer. Interestingly, the oestrogen receptor downregulator, fulvestrant, was shown to be equivalent to anastrozole when compared as second-line therapy after the failure of tamoxifen. The first adjuvant AI trial began in 1996 and recruited over 9000 patients (ATAC trial). Anastrozole was compared with tamoxifen and a combination of the two drugs. There were no significant differences between tamoxifen and the combination. However, anastrozole showed about a 20% improvement in disease-free survival in ER+ disease compared with the other treatments. An overall survival analysis will be reported later this year. Two trials have compared 5 years of tamoxifen with 2–3 years of tamoxifen, followed by 2–3 years of AI (one trial (ITA) used anastrozole and another (intergroup) exemestane). Both trials show a disease-free advantage for the switch to AI. In another study (MA17) 5 years of tamoxifen was followed by a randomisation to letrozole or placebo and showed a significant disease-free advantage to the AI. Both letrozole and anastrozole show superiority to tamoxifen when used as a neoadjuvant therapy. Anastrozole significantly reduced contralateral breast cancer compared with tamoxifen, and this has led to two prevention trials: one in women at risk comparing anastrozole with placebo and the other after excision of DCIS comparing anastrozole with tamoxifen (IBIS II). The NCI Canada has also just initiated a trial of exemestane for prevention. Nearly all data available indicate that AIs are superior to tamoxifen. The important question is whether survival is improved when they are used as adjuvant therapy?     

Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals

Objective To examine the prevalence of a risk of bias associated with the design and conduct of cluster randomised controlled trials among a sample of recently published studies.Design Retrospective review of cluster randomised trials published in the BMJ, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine from January 1997 to October 2002.Main outcome measures Prevalence of secure randomisation of clusters, identification of participants before randomisation (to avoid foreknowledge of allocation), differential recruitment between treatment arms, differential application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and differential attrition.Results Of the 36 trials identified, 24 were published in the BMJ,11 in the Lancet, and a single trial in the New England Journal of Medicine. At the cluster level, 15 (42%) trials provided evidence for secure allocation and 25 (69%) used stratified allocation. Few trials showed evidence of imbalance at the cluster level. However, some evidence of susceptibility to risk of bias at the individual level existed in 14 (39%) studies.Conclusions Some recently published cluster randomised trials may not have taken adequate precautions to guard against threats to the internal validity of their design.     

Comparison of mastectomy with tamoxifen for treating elderly patients with operable breast cancer.

STUDY OBJECTIVE--Comparison of tamoxifen and mastectomy in treatment of breast cancer in elderly patients. DESIGN--Randomised trial of treatment of operable breast cancer by wedge mastectomy or tamoxifen, with median follow up 24 and 25 months respectively (range 1-63). SETTING--University hospital; most patients from primary catchment area. PATIENTS--135 consecutive patients with breast cancer aged over 70 with operable tumours (less than 5 cm maximum diameter); 68 were allocated to tamoxifen group and 67 to mastectomy group. Histological diagnosis by biopsy. Two incorrect randomisations in each group. Patient characteristics similar in the two groups and all under care of one surgical team. INTERVENTIONS--Mastectomy group received wedge mastectomy plus excision of symptomatic axillary lymph nodes. Tamoxifen group received continuous treatment with tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Patients in tamoxifen group received wedge mastectomy if there was sign of local progression. Those in mastectomy group received further excision or radiotherapy for locoregional recurrence and when local treatments had been exhausted or metastatic disease diagnosed they received tamoxifen. END POINT--Treatment efficacy was assessed by local control of disease and by survival. MAIN RESULTS--Mortality from metastatic cancer in tamoxifen group was 7 (10.6%) and in mastectomy group 10 (15.3%) (NS). There was no difference in survival between the two groups. In mastectomy group 70% remained alive and free of local recurrence at 24 months; in tamoxifen group only 47% remained alive and free of local progression. In mastectomy group locoregional recurrence occurred in 16 patients and metastatic disease in 13; in tamoxifen group locoregional progression occurred in 29 patients and metastatic disease in seven. CONCLUSIONS--As a high proportion of patients treated with tamoxifen eventually required surgery treatment of elderly patients with breast cancer should include mastectomy. Optimum treatment may include both mastectomy and tamoxifen.     

Evaluation of adjuvant psychological therapy in patients with testicular cancer: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of adjuvant psychological therapy in patients with testicular cancer and to compare the characteristics and psychosocial outcomes of men who agreed to participate with those who declined to participate in a randomised trial of psychological intervention. DESIGN: Newly diagnosed patients were asked to participate in a randomised trial of psychological support compared with standard medical care. Participants and non-participants completed self assessment questionnaires at baseline and at 2, 4 and 12 months. SETTING: Testicular Tumour Unit of the Royal Marsden Hospital. SUBJECTS: 73 of 184 (40%) eligible patients agreed to enter the randomised trial (participants) and 81 (44%) declined to participate but agreed to complete further assessments (non-participants). 30 patients wanted no further contact with the researchers. OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital anxiety and depression scale, psychosocial adjustment to illness scale, Rotterdam symptom checklist, mental adjustment to cancer scale. Only scores on the hospital anxiety and depression scale are reported for evaluating treatment efficacy. RESULTS: 111 of 184 (60%) eligible men declined to participate in the trial. Patients with stage I disease were most likely to refuse to participate. A patient was less likely to participate if he had low volume disease and was receiving no further treatment. Likelihood of participation was associated with stage of disease and with type of primary treatment (P < 0.001 for heterogeneity). Patients with early stage disease (P < 0.001) and fewer physical symptoms (P < 0.001) were less likely to participate. Psychosocial factors associated with participation included anxious preoccupation regarding disease (P = 0.01). There were no differences in outcome between participants and non-participants during follow up. Patients seemed to gain little benefit from adjuvant psychological therapy. At 2 months change from baseline favoured the treated group in the anxiety subscale (mean difference between groups -1.41 (95% confidence interval -2.86 to 0.03)). This was not sustained when adjusted for factors related to the disease. By 12 months change from baseline seemed to favour the control group (mean difference between groups 1.66 (-0.18 to 3.50)). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with testicular cancer seem to have considerable coping abilities. Those who declined to participate in the trial differed from those who participated. Those who agreed to participate may comprise the clinical group who perceive a need for psychological support. No evidence was found to indicate a need for routinely offering adjuvant psychological therapy.     

Analysis of covariance in randomized trials: More precision and valid confidence intervals,without model assumptions

“Covariate adjustment” in the randomized trial context refers to an estimator of the average treatment effect that adjusts for chance imbalances between study arms in baseline variables (called “covariates”). The baseline variables could include, for example, age, sex, disease severity, and biomarkers. According to two surveys of clinical trial reports, there is confusion about the statistical properties of covariate adjustment. We focus on the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) estimator, which involves fitting a linear model for the outcome given the treatment arm and baseline variables, and trials that use simple randomization with equal probability of assignment to treatment and control. We prove the following new (to the best of our knowledge) robustness property of ANCOVA to arbitrary model misspecification: Not only is the ANCOVA point estimate consistent (as proved by Yang and Tsiatis, 2001) but so is its standard error. This implies that confidence intervals and hypothesis tests conducted as if the linear model were correct are still asymptotically valid even when the linear model is arbitrarily misspecified, for example, when the baseline variables are nonlinearly related to the outcome or there is treatment effect heterogeneity. We also give a simple, robust formula for the variance reduction (equivalently, sample size reduction) from using ANCOVA. By reanalyzing completed randomized trials for mild cognitive impairment, schizophrenia, and depression, we demonstrate how ANCOVA can achieve variance reductions of 4 to 32%.     

Contrasting principal stratum and hypothetical strategy estimands in multi-period crossover trials with incomplete data

Complete case analyses of complete crossover designs provide an opportunity to make comparisons based on patients who can tolerate all treatments. It is argued that this provides a means of estimating a principal stratum strategy estimand, something which is difficult to do in parallel group trials. While some trial users will consider this a relevant aim, others may be interested in hypothetical strategy estimands, that is, the effect that would be found if all patients completed the trial. Whether these estimands differ importantly is a question of interest to the different users of the trial results. This paper derives the difference between principal stratum strategy and hypothetical strategy estimands, where the former is estimated by a complete-case analysis of the crossover design, and a model for the dropout process is assumed. Complete crossover designs, that is, those where all treatments appear in all sequences, and which compare t treatments over p periods with respect to a continuous outcome are considered. Numerical results are presented for Williams designs with four and six periods. Results from a trial of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea (TOMADO) are also used for illustration. The results demonstrate that the percentage difference between the estimands is modest, exceeding 5% only when the trial has been severely affected by dropouts or if the within-subject correlation is low.     

Discussing randomised clinical trials of cancer therapy: evaluation of a Cancer Research UK training programme

Objective To evaluate a training intervention aimed at improving healthcare professionals'' communication with cancer patients about randomised clinical trials.Design Before and after evaluation of training programme.Setting Members of the National Cancer Research Network, Scottish Trials Network, and the Welsh Cancer Trials NetworkParticipants 101 healthcare professionals (33 clinicians and 68 research nurses).Intervention Four modules delivered by a trained facilitator using videotapes and interactive exercises to cover general issues about discussing randomised clinical trials with patients, problems specific to adjuvant trials, trials with palliation as the goal, and trials where patients had a strong preference for one treatment arm.Main outcome measures Before and after the intervention, participants were videotaped discussing a trial with an actor portraying a patient. These consultations were assessed for presence of information required by good clinical practice guidelines. The actor patients gave an assessment after each interview. Participants reported their self confidence about key aspects of trial discussion.Results Analysis of the videotaped consultations showed that, after intervention, significantly more participants displayed key communication behaviours such as explaining randomisation (69 v 81, odds ratio 2.33, P = 0.033), checking patients'' understanding (11 v 31, odds ratio 3.22, P = 0.002), and discussing standard treatment (73 v 88, odds ratio 4.75, P = 0.005) and side effects (69 v 85, odds ratio 3.29, P = 0.006). Participants'' self confidence increased significantly (P < 0.001) across all areas. Actor patients'' ratings of participants'' communication showed significant improvements for 12/15 key items.Conclusion This intensive 8 hour intervention significantly improved participants'' confidence and competence when communicating about randomised clinical trials.     

Clinical and biomarker endpoint analysis in neoadjuvant endocrine therapy trials

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy trials for breast cancer are now a widely accepted investigational approach for oncology cooperative group and pharmaceutical company research programs. However, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the most suitable endpoints for these studies, in part, because short-term clinical, radiological or biomarker responses have not been fully validated as surrogate endpoints that closely relate to long-term breast cancer outcome. This shortcoming must be addressed before neoadjuvant endocrine treatment can be used as a triage strategy designed to identify patients with endocrine therapy “curable” disease. In this summary, information from published studies is used as a basis to critique clinical trial designs and to suggest experimental endpoints for future validation studies. Three aspects of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy designs are considered: the determination of response; the assessment of surgical outcomes; and biomarker endpoint analysis. Data from the letrozole 024 (LET 024) trial that compared letrozole and tamoxifen is used to illustrate a combined endpoint analysis that integrates both clinical and biomarker information. In addition, the concept of a “cell cycle response” is explored as a simple post-treatment endpoint based on Ki67 analysis that might have properties similar to the pathological complete response endpoint used in neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials.     

Evaluation of the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) for antenatal detection of small for gestational age: The DESiGN cluster randomised trial

BackgroundAntenatal detection and management of small for gestational age (SGA) is a strategy to reduce stillbirth. Large observational studies provide conflicting results on the effect of the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) in relation to detection of SGA and reduction of stillbirth; to the best of our knowledge, there are no reported randomised control trials. Our aim was to determine if GAP improves antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care.Methods and findingsThis was a pragmatic, superiority, 2-arm, parallel group, open, cluster randomised control trial. Maternity units in England were eligible to participate in the study, except if they had already implemented GAP. All women who gave birth in participating clusters (maternity units) during the year prior to randomisation and during the trial (November 2016 to February 2019) were included. Multiple pregnancies, fetal abnormalities or births before 24⁺¹ weeks were excluded. Clusters were randomised to immediate implementation of GAP, an antenatal care package aimed at improving detection of SGA as a means to reduce the rate of stillbirth, or to standard care. Randomisation by random permutation was stratified by time of study inclusion and cluster size. Data were obtained from hospital electronic records for 12 months prerandomisation, the washout period (interval between randomisation and data collection of outcomes), and the outcome period (last 6 months of the study). The primary outcome was ultrasound detection of SGA (estimated fetal weight <10th centile using customised centiles (intervention) or Hadlock centiles (standard care)) confirmed at birth (birthweight <10th centile by both customised and population centiles). Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal outcomes, including induction of labour, gestational age at delivery, mode of birth, neonatal morbidity, and stillbirth/perinatal mortality. A 2-stage cluster–summary statistical approach calculated the absolute difference (intervention minus standard care arm) adjusted using the prerandomisation estimate, maternal age, ethnicity, parity, and randomisation strata. Intervention arm clusters that made no attempt to implement GAP were excluded in modified intention to treat (mITT) analysis; full ITT was also reported. Process evaluation assessed implementation fidelity, reach, dose, acceptability, and feasibility. Seven clusters were randomised to GAP and 6 to standard care. Following exclusions, there were 11,096 births exposed to the intervention (5 clusters) and 13,810 exposed to standard care (6 clusters) during the outcome period (mITT analysis). Age, height, and weight were broadly similar between arms, but there were fewer women: of white ethnicity (56.2% versus 62.7%), and in the least deprived quintile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (7.5% versus 16.5%) in the intervention arm during the outcome period. Antenatal detection of SGA was 25.9% in the intervention and 27.7% in the standard care arm (adjusted difference 2.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) −6.4% to 10.7%; p = 0.62). Findings were consistent in full ITT analysis. Fidelity and dose of GAP implementation were variable, while a high proportion (88.7%) of women were reached. Use of routinely collected data is both a strength (cost-efficient) and a limitation (occurrence of missing data); the modest number of clusters limits our ability to study small effect sizes.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed no effect of GAP on antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care. Given variable implementation observed, future studies should incorporate standardised implementation outcomes such as those reported here to determine generalisability of our findings.Trial registrationThis trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN67698474.

Matias C Vieira and colleagues evaluate the Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) for antenatal detection of small for gestational age in the DESiGN cluster randomised trial.     

Predicting treatment effect from surrogate endpoints and historical trials: an extrapolation involving probabilities of a binary outcome or survival to a specific time

Using multiple historical trials with surrogate and true endpoints, we consider various models to predict the effect of treatment on a true endpoint in a target trial in which only a surrogate endpoint is observed. This predicted result is computed using (1) a prediction model (mixture, linear, or principal stratification) estimated from historical trials and the surrogate endpoint of the target trial and (2) a random extrapolation error estimated from successively leaving out each trial among the historical trials. The method applies to either binary outcomes or survival to a particular time that is computed from censored survival data. We compute a 95% confidence interval for the predicted result and validate its coverage using simulation. To summarize the additional uncertainty from using a predicted instead of true result for the estimated treatment effect, we compute its multiplier of standard error. Software is available for download.     

Psychological outcomes of different treatment policies in women with early breast cancer outside a clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES--To assess outside a clinical trial the psychological outcome of different treatment policies in women with early breast cancer who underwent either mastectomy or breast conservation surgery depending on the surgeon''s opinion or the patient''s choice. To determine whether the extent of psychiatric morbidity reported in women who underwent breast conservation surgery was associated with their participation in a randomised clinical trial. DESIGN--Prospective, multicentre study capitalising on individual and motivational differences among patients and the different management policies among surgeons for treating patients with early breast cancer. SETTING--12 District general hospitals, three London teaching hospitals, and four private hospitals. PATIENTS--269 Women under 75 with a probable diagnosis of stage I or II breast cancer who were referred to 22 different surgeons. INTERVENTIONS--Surgery and radiotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy, or both, depending on the individual surgeon''s stated preferences for managing early breast cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Anxiety and depression as assessed by standard methods two weeks, three months, and 12 months after surgery. RESULTS--Of the 269 women, 31 were treated by surgeons who favoured mastectomy, 120 by surgeons who favoured breast conservation, and 118 by surgeons who offered a choice of treatment. Sixty two of the women treated by surgeons who offered a choice were eligible to choose their surgery, and 43 of these chose breast conserving surgery. The incidences of anxiety, depression, and sexual dysfunction were high in all treatment groups. There were no significant differences in the incidences of anxiety and depression between women who underwent mastectomy and those who underwent lumpectomy. A significant effect of surgeon type on the incidence of depression was observed, with patients treated by surgeons who offered a choice showing less depression than those treated by other surgeons (p = 0.06). There was no significant difference in psychiatric morbidity between women treated by surgeons who offered a choice who were eligible to choose their treatment and those in the same group who were not able to choose. Most of the women (159/244) gave fear of cancer as their primary fear rather than fear of losing a breast. The overall incidences of psychiatric morbidity in women who underwent mastectomy and those who underwent lumpectomy were similar to those found in the Cancer Research Campaign breast conservation study. At 12 months 28% of women who underwent mastectomy in the present study were anxious compared with 26% in the earlier study, and 27% of women in the present study who underwent lumpectomy were anxious compared with 31% in the earlier study. In both the present and earlier study 21% of women who underwent mastectomy were depressed, and 19% of women who underwent lumpectomy in the present study were depressed compared with 27% in the earlier study.) CONCLUSIONS--There is still no evidence that women with early breast cancer who undergo breast conservation surgery have less psychiatric morbidity after treatment than those who undergo mastectomy. Women who surrender autonomy for decision making by agreeing to participate in randomised clinical trials do not experience any different psychological, sexual, or social problems from those women who are treated for breast cancer outside a clinical trial.     

Deliberate self harm: systematic review of efficacy of psychosocial and pharmacological treatments in preventing repetition

Objective: To identify and synthesise the findings from all randomised controlled trials that have examined the effectiveness of treatments of patients who have deliberately harmed themselves. Design: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials of psychosocial and physical treatments. Studies categorised according to type of treatment. When there was more than one investigation in a particular category a summary odds ratio was estimated with the Mantel-Haenszel method. Setting: Randomised trials available in electronic databases in 1996, in the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register in 1997, and from hand searching of journals to 1997. Subjects: Patients who had deliberately harmed themselves shortly before entry into the trials with information on repetition of behaviour. The included trials comprised 2452 randomised participants with outcome data. Main outcome measure: Repetition of self harm. Results: 20 trials reported repetition of self harm as an outcome variable, classified into 10 categories. Summary odds ratio (all for comparison with standard aftercare) indicated reduced repetition for problem solving therapy (0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.18) and for provision of an emergency contact card in addition to standard care (0.45; 0.19 to 1.07). The summary odds ratios were 0.83 (0.61 to 1.14) for trials of intensive aftercare plus outreach and 1.19 (0.53 to 2.67) for antidepressant treatment compared with placebo. Significantly reduced rates of further self harm were observed for depot flupenthixol versus placebo in multiple repeaters (0.09; 0.02 to 0.50) and for dialectical behaviour therapy versus standard aftercare (0.24; 0.06 to 0.93). Conclusion: There remains considerable uncertainty about which forms of psychosocial and physical treatments of patients who harm themselves are most effective. Further larger trials of treatments are needed.

Key messages

• A systematic review of the effectiveness of psychosocial and drug treatments of patients who deliberately harm themselves identified 20 randomised controlled trials in which repetition of self harm was reported as an outcome
• Promising results were found for problem solving therapy, provision of a card to allow patients to make emergency contact with services, depot flupenthixol for recurrent self harm, and long term psychological therapy for female patients with borderline personality disorder and recurrent self harm
• Assertive outreach can help to keep patients in treatment
• Nearly all the trials included too few patients to detect clinically significant differences in repetition of self harm, and even synthesis of results by meta-analysis did not have the power to detect such differences
• There is an urgent need for large trials of promising therapies for this substantial clinical population

     

A valid formulation of the analysis of noninferiority trials under random effects meta-analysis

A noninferiority (NI) trial is sometimes employed to show efficacy of a new treatment when it is unethical to randomize current patients to placebo because of the established efficacy of a standard treatment. Under this framework, if the NI trial determines that the treatment advantage of the standard to the new drug (i.e. S-N) is less than the historic advantage of the standard to placebo (S-P), then the efficacy of the new treatment (N-P) is established indirectly. We explicitly combine information from the NI trial with estimates from a random effects model, allowing study-to-study variability in k historic trials. Existing methods under random effects, such as the synthesis method, fail to account for the variability of the true standard versus placebo effect in the NI trial. Our method effectively uses a prediction interval for the missing standard versus placebo effect rather than a confidence interval of the mean. The consequences are to increase the variance of the synthesis method by incorporating a prediction variance term and to approximate the null distribution of the new statistic with a t with k-1 degrees of freedom instead of the standard normal. Thus, it is harder to conclude NI of the new to (predicted) placebo, compared with traditional methods, especially when k is small or when between study variability is large. When the between study variances are nonzero, we demonstrate substantial Type I error rate inflation with conventional approaches; simulations suggest that the new procedure has only modest inflation, and it is very conservative when between study variances are zero. An example is used to illustrate practical issues.     

The optimized acupuncture treatment for neck pain caused by cervical spondylosis: a study protocol of a multicentre randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Neck pain is one of the chief complains of patients with cervical spondylosis (CS). Both in China and worldwide, acupuncture is a well-accepted and widely used complementary therapy for the management of neck pain caused by CS. In this paper, we present a protocol designed for a multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial to evaluate the effects of optimised acupuncture treatment for CS neck pain. The study aims to evaluate the effects of the optimised acupuncture treatment in real practice compared with sham and shallow acupuncture therapy. Methods/design This trial uses a multicentre, three-group, randomised, sham acupuncture and shallow acupuncture, controlled single-blind design. Nine hospitals are involved as trial centres. The sample size is calculated based on the formula for a three-group parallel design with a 0.05 significance level and a power of 0.9. A total of 105 cases in a single centre, and a total of 315 cases per each arm are required across all 9 centres. Patients who meet inclusion criteria are randomly assigned to receive optimised acupuncture treatment, sham acupuncture or shallow acupuncture by a computerised central randomisation system. The interventions last for 4 weeks with 8 to 10 treatments. The group allocations and interventions are concealed to patients and statisticians. The Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) is used as the primary outcome measure, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and The Short Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36) are applied as secondary outcome measures. The evaluation is performed at baseline, at the end of the intervention, and at the end of the first month and the third month during follow-up. The statistical analyses will include baseline data comparison and repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) for primary and secondary outcomes of group and time differences. Adverse events (AEs) will be reported if they occur. DISCUSSION: This trial is a multicentre randomised control trial (RCT) on the efficacy of acupuncture for CS neck pain and has a large sample size and central randomisation in China. It will strictly follow the CONSORT statement and STRICTA extension guideline to report high-quality study results. By setting the control groups as sham and shallow acupuncture, this study attempts to reveal the effects of real acupuncture versus placebo or non-classic acupuncture therapy and evaluate whether classic Chinese medical acupuncture is effective on CS neck pain. This study will provide evidence for the effects of acupuncture on CS neck pain. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-TRC-00000184.     

Impact of rice based oral rehydration solution on stool output and duration of diarrhoea: meta-analysis of 13 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE--To define the benefit of rice oral rehydration salts solution in relation to the glucose based World Health Organisation oral rehydration salts solution for treating and preventing dehydration in patients with severe dehydrating diarrhoea. DESIGN--Meta-analysis using data from 13 available randomised trials that compared these two formulations. SUBJECTS--The studies compared 1367 patients with cholera, severe cholera-like diarrhoea, or acute non-cholera diarrhoea. 668 received the standard WHO solution and 699 the rice based solution. INTERVENTION--Each trial report was reviewed to determine patient eligibility, the number of patients who were randomised and the number of these excluded from analysis, details of the randomisation procedure, and the precise timing of the outcome measurements. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Stool output during the first 24 hours; weighted estimates of the difference in mean stool output between treatments. RESULTS--The rice solution significantly reduced the rate of stool output during the first 24 hours by 36% (95% confidence interval 28 to 44%) in adults with cholera and by 32% (19 to 45%) in children with cholera. The rate of stool loss in infants and children with acute non-cholera diarrhoea was reduced by only 18% (6 to 30%). CONCLUSIONS--The benefit of rice oral rehydration salts solution for patients with cholera is sufficiently great to warrant its use in such patients. The benefit is considerably smaller for children with acute, noncholera diarrhoea and should be more precisely defined before its practical value can be judged.     

Treatment allocation for nonlinear models in clinical trials: the logistic model

Many clinical trials have a binary outcome variable. If covariate adjustment is necessary in the analysis, the logistic-regression model is frequently used. Optimal designs for allocating treatments for this model, or for any nonlinear or heteroscedastic model, are generally unbalanced with regard to overall treatment totals and totals within strata. However, all treatment-allocation methods that have been recommended for clinical trials in the literature are designed to balance treatments within strata, either directly or asymptotically. In this paper, the efficiencies of balanced sequential allocation schemes are measured relative to sequential Ds-optimal designs for the logistic model, using as examples completed trials conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and systematic simulations. The results demonstrate that stratified, balanced designs are quite efficient, in general. However, complete randomization is frequently inefficient, and will occasionally result in a trial that is very inefficient.     

Chemotherapy or Targeted Therapy as Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Gastric Cancer. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published Studies

Chemotherapy is a cornerstone in treatments of gastric cancer, but despite its benefit, less than 60% of patients receive salvage therapy in clinical practice. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis based on trial data on the role of second-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer. MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized phase III trials that compared active therapy to best supportive care in advanced gastric cancer. Data extraction was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. Summary HR for OS was calculated using a hierarchical Bayesian model and subgroup analysis was performed based on baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG) performance status (0 vs. 1 or more). A total of 1,407 patients were evaluable for efficacy, 908 were treated in the experimental arms, with chemotherapy (231 pts) or with targeted therapies (677 pts). The risk of death was decreased by 18% (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79–0.85; posterior probability HR≥1: <0.00001) with active therapies. Chemotherapy and ramucirumab were able to decrease this risk by 27% and 22%, respectively. No differences were found between chemotherapy and ramucirumab. In patients with ECOG = 0 a greater benefit was found for chemotherapy with a reduction of the risk of death by 43% and no benefits were found for ramucirumab or everolimus. In patients with ECOG = 1 or more a significant reduction of the risk of death by 32% was reported in patients treated with ramucirumab, even if no significant difference was reported between chemotherapy and ramucirumab. This analysis reports that active and available therapies are able to prolong survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer with a different outcome based on initial patient’s performance status. New trials based on a better patient stratification are awaited.