Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Transparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency. Methods Two researchers independently identified all studies on new medicines, biosimilars and orphan medicines given approval by the European Commission between January 2017 and December 2019, categorised as ‘main studies’ in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Sixty-two of these studies were randomly sampled. One researcher retrieved the individual patient data (IPD) for these studies and prepared a dossier for each study, containing the IPD, the protocol and information on the conduct of the study. A second researcher who had no access to study reports used the dossier to run an independent re-analysis of each trial. All results of these re-analyses were reported in terms of each study’s conclusions, p -values, effect sizes and changes from the initial protocol. A team of two researchers not involved in the re-analysis compared results of the re-analyses with published results of the trial. Results Two hundred ninety-two main studies in 173 EPARs were identified. Among the 62 studies randomly sampled, we received IPD for 10 trials. The median number of days between data request and data receipt was 253 [interquartile range 182–469]. For these ten trials, we identified 23 distinct primary outcomes for which the conclusions were reproduced in all re-analyses. Therefore, 10/62 trials (16% [95% confidence interval 8% to 28%]) were reproduced, as the 52 studies without available data were considered non-reproducible. There was no change from the original study protocol regarding the primary outcome in any of these ten studies. Spin was observed in the report of one study. Conclusions Despite their results supporting decisions that affect millions of people’s health across the European Union, most main studies used in EPARs lack transparency and their results are not reproducible for external researchers. Re-analyses of the few trials with available data showed very good inferential reproducibility. Trial registration https://osf.io/mcw3t/

International guidelines for management of septic shock recommend that dopamine or norepinephrine are preferable to epinephrine. However, no large comparative trial has yet been done. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of norepinephrine plus dobutamine (whenever needed) with those of epinephrine alone in septic shock. This prospective, multicentre, randomised, double-blind study was done in 330 patients with septic shock admitted to one of 19 participating intensive care units in France. Participants were assigned to receive epinephrine (n=161) or norepinephrine plus dobutamine (n=169), which were titrated to maintain mean blood pressure at 70 mm Hg or more. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148278. There were no patients lost to follow-up; one patient withdrew consent after 3 days. At day 28, there were 64 (40%) deaths in the epinephrine group and 58 (34%) deaths in the norepinephrine plus dobutamine group (p=0·31; relative risk 0·86, 95% CI 0·65–1·14). There was no significant difference between the two groups in mortality rates at discharge from intensive care (75 [47%] deaths vs 75 [44%] deaths, p=0·69), at hospital discharge (84 [52%] vs 82 [49%], p=0·51), and by day 90 (84 [52%] vs 85 [50%], p=0·73), time to haemodynamic success (log-rank p=0·67), time to vasopressor withdrawal (log-rank p=0·09), and time course of SOFA score. Rates of serious adverse events were also similar. There is no evidence for a difference in efficacy and safety between epinephrine alone and norepinephrine plus dobutamine for the management of septic shock.

Failure to achieve sustained virological response (SVR) with hepatitis C virus (HCV) direct-acting antiviral (DAA)-based regimens is commonly associated with emergence of resistance-associated substitutions (RASs). Retreatment of patients who failed prior DAAs remains challenging. The aim of this prospective and randomized study was to evaluate the efficacy (primary endpoint: SVR 12 weeks after end of treatment [SVR12]) and safety of sofosbuvir + grazoprevir/elbasvir + ribavirin for 16 or 24 weeks in patients who had failed to achieve SVR on previous NS5A- or NS3-based therapy and with evidence of RASs at failure. Patients were chronically infected with HCV genotype 1 or 4. Most of them had advanced fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis (liver stiffness 5.8-48.8 kPa). All patients achieved HCV RNA below the lower limit of quantification (either target detected [unquantifiable] or target not detected) during treatment. SVR12 was achieved by 25 of 26 patients. The only patient who did not reach SVR was a patient who died, but HCV RNA was negative at this time (5 weeks after stopping treatment). No patient discontinued treatment because of adverse events or virological failure. Globally, treatment was well tolerated. Our findings support the concept of retreating with sofosbuvir + grazoprevir/elbasvir + ribavirin, for 16 weeks, genotype 1 or 4 DAA-experienced patients with proven NS5A or NS3 RASs. NCT02647632.

Abstract Rationale A decade after drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DAA) was released on the market worldwide, its benefit-to-risk ratio remains a matter of debate. Objectives The current investigator-led trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DAA, in combination with low-dose steroids, in adults with persistent septic shock. Methods This was a multicenter (24 intensive care units), placebo-controlled, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial design trial in which adults with persistent septic shock and no contraindication to DAA were randomly assigned to DAA alone (24 μg/kg/h for 96 h), hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone alone, their respective combinations, or their respective placebos. Primary outcome was mortality rate on Day 90. Measurements and Main Results On October 25, 2011, the trial was suspended after the withdrawal from the market of DAA. The Scientific Committee decided to continue the trial according to a two parallel group design comparing low-dose steroids with their placebos and to analyze the effects of DAA on patients included before trial suspension. At the time trial was suspended, 411 patients had been recruited, 208 had received DAA, and 203 had received its placebo. There was no significant interaction between DAA and low-dose steroids (P = 0.47). On Day 90, there were 99 deaths (47.6%) among the 208 patients receiving DAA and 94 deaths (46.3%) among the 203 patients receiving placebo (P = 0.79). There was no evidence of a difference between DAA and its placebo for any secondary outcomes or serious adverse events. Conclusions In adults with established and severe septic shock, DAA showed no evidence of benefit or harm. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00625209).

To the Editor: The investigators in the ADRENAL (Adjunctive Corticosteroid Treatment in Critically Ill Patients with Septic Shock) trial 1 and the APROCCHSS (Activated Protein C and Corticosteroids for Human Septic Shock) trial 2 (March 1 issue) report the results of the use of hydrocortisone or hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone, respectively, in patients with septic shock. Hydrocortisone was administered at a dose of 200 mg daily in the ADRENAL trial, and hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone was administered at doses of 200 mg daily and 50 μg daily, respectively, in the APROCCHSS trial. The hydrocortisone-alone trial did not show a benefit, whereas the combination of . . .

Objective: Our aim was to assess the usefulness of cranberry extract in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients suffering from urinary disorders. Methods: In total, 171 adult MS outpatients with urinary disorders presenting at eight centers were randomized (stratification according to center and use of clean intermittent self-catheterization) to cranberry versus placebo in a 1-year, prospective, double-blind study that was analyzed using a sequential method on an intent-to-treat basis. An independent monitoring board analyzed the results of the analyses each time 40 patients were assessed on the main endpoint. Cranberry extract (36 mg proanthocyanidins per day) or a matching placebo was taken by participants twice daily for 1 year. The primary endpoint was the time to first symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI), subject to validation by a validation committee. Results: The second sequential analyses allowed us to accept the null hypothesis (no difference between cranberry and placebo). There was no difference in time to first symptomatic UTI distribution across 1 year, with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.99, 95% CI [0.61, 1.60] (p = 0.97). Secondary endpoints and tolerance did not differ between groups. Conclusion: Taking cranberry extract versus placebo twice a day did not prevent UTI occurrence in MS patients with urinary disorders. Trial Registration NCT00280592.

Rationale: A decade after drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DAA) was released on the market worldwide, its benefit-to-risk ratio remains a matter of debate. Objectives: The current investigator-led trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DAA, in combination with low-dose steroids, in adults with persistent septic shock. Methods: This was a multicenter (24 intensive care units), placebo-controlled, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial design trial in which adults with persistent septic shock and no contraindication to DAA were randomly assigned to DAA alone (24 μg/kg/h for 96 h), hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone alone, their respective combinations, or their respective placebos. Primary outcome was mortality rate on Day 90. Measurements and Main Results: On October 25, 2011, the trial was suspended after the withdrawal from the market of DAA. The Scientific Committee decided to continue the trial according to a two parallel group design comparing low-dose steroids with their placebos and to analyze the effects of DAA on patients included before trial suspension. At the time trial was suspended, 411 patients had been recruited, 208 had received DAA, and 203 had received its placebo. There was no significant interaction between DAA and low-dose steroids (P = 0.47). On Day 90, there were 99 deaths (47.6%) among the 208 patients receiving DAA and 94 deaths (46.3%) among the 203 patients receiving placebo (P = 0.79). There was no evidence of a difference between DAA and its placebo for any secondary outcomes or serious adverse events. Conclusions: In adults with established and severe septic shock, DAA showed no evidence of benefit or harm. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00625209).

International guidelines for management of septic shock recommend that dopamine or norepinephrine are preferable to epinephrine. However, no large comparative trial has yet been done. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of norepinephrine plus dobutamine (whenever needed) with those of epinephrine alone in septic shock. This prospective, multicentre, randomised, double-blind study was done in 330 patients with septic shock admitted to one of 19 participating intensive care units in France. Participants were assigned to receive epinephrine (n=161) or norepinephrine plus dobutamine (n=169), which were titrated to maintain mean blood pressure at 70 mm Hg or more. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148278. There were no patients lost to follow-up; one patient withdrew consent after 3 days. At day 28, there were 64 (40%) deaths in the epinephrine group and 58 (34%) deaths in the norepinephrine plus dobutamine group (p=0·31; relative risk 0·86, 95% CI 0·65-1·14). There was no significant difference between the two groups in mortality rates at discharge from intensive care (75 [47%] deaths vs 75 [44%] deaths, p=0·69), at hospital discharge (84 [52%] vs 82 [49%], p=0·51), and by day 90 (84 [52%] vs 85 [50%], p=0·73), time to haemodynamic success (log-rank p=0·67), time to vasopressor withdrawal (log-rank p=0·09), and time course of SOFA score. Rates of serious adverse events were also similar. There is no evidence for a difference in efficacy and safety between epinephrine alone and norepinephrine plus dobutamine for the management of septic shock.