Concept: The Trial
Intranasal oxytocin treatment for social deficits and biomarkers of response in children with autism
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
- Published over 1 year ago
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterized by core social deficits. Prognosis is poor, in part, because existing medications target only associated ASD features. Emerging evidence suggests that the neuropeptide oxytocin (OXT) may be a blood-based biomarker of social functioning and a possible treatment for ASD. However, prior OXT treatment trials have produced equivocal results, perhaps because of variability in patients' underlying neuropeptide biology, but this hypothesis has not been tested. Using a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel design, we tested the efficacy and tolerability of 4-wk intranasal OXT treatment (24 International Units, twice daily) in 32 children with ASD, aged 6-12 y. When pretreatment neuropeptide measures were included in the statistical model, OXT compared with placebo treatment significantly enhanced social abilities in children with ASD [as measured by the trial’s primary outcome measure, the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS)]. Importantly, pretreatment blood OXT concentrations also predicted treatment response, such that individuals with the lowest pretreatment OXT concentrations showed the greatest social improvement. OXT was well tolerated, and its effects were specific to social functioning, with no observed decrease in repetitive behaviors or anxiety. Finally, as with many trials, some placebo-treated participants showed improvement on the SRS. This enhanced social functioning was mirrored by a posttreatment increase in their blood OXT concentrations, suggesting that increased endogenous OXT secretion may underlie this improvement. These findings indicate that OXT treatment enhances social abilities in children with ASD and that individuals with pretreatment OXT signaling deficits may stand to benefit the most from OXT treatment.
Background Mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an established treatment for patients with advanced heart failure. We compared a newer LVAD design (a small intrapericardial centrifugal-flow device) against existing technology (a commercially available axial-flow device) in patients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation. Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized trial involving 446 patients who were assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to the study (centrifugal-flow) device or the control (axial-flow) device. Adults who met contemporary criteria for LVAD implantation for permanent use were eligible to participate in the trial. The primary end point was survival at 2 years free from disabling stroke or device removal for malfunction or failure. The trial was powered to show noninferiority with a margin of 15 percentage points. Results The intention-to treat-population included 297 participants assigned to the study device and 148 participants assigned to the control device. The primary end point was achieved in 164 patients in the study group and 85 patients in the control group. The analysis of the primary end point showed noninferiority of the study device relative to the control device (estimated success rates, 55.4% and 59.1%, respectively, calculated by the Weibull model; absolute difference, 3.7 percentage points; 95% upper confidence limit, 12.56 percentage points; P=0.01 for noninferiority). More patients in the control group than in the study group had device malfunction or device failure requiring replacement (16.2% vs. 8.8%), and more patients in the study group had strokes (29.7% vs. 12.1%). Quality of life and functional capacity improved to a similar degree in the two groups. Conclusions In this trial involving patients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation, a small, intrapericardial, centrifugal-flow LVAD was found to be noninferior to an axial-flow LVAD with respect to survival free from disabling stroke or device removal for malfunction or failure. (Funded by HeartWare; ENDURANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01166347 .).
Analysis of trial documentation has revealed that some industry-funded trials may be done more for marketing purposes than scientific endeavour. We aimed to define characteristics of drug trials that appear to be influenced by marketing considerations and estimate their prevalence.
Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology.
In the past decade, a large body of research has demonstrated that internet-based interventions can have beneficial effects on depression. However, only a few clinical trials have compared internet-based depression therapy with an equivalent face-to-face treatment. The primary aim of this study was to compare treatment outcomes of an internet-based intervention with a face-to-face intervention for depression in a randomized non-inferiority trial.
Background The safest ranges of oxygen saturation in preterm infants have been the subject of debate. Methods In two trials, conducted in Australia and the United Kingdom, infants born before 28 weeks' gestation were randomly assigned to either a lower (85 to 89%) or a higher (91 to 95%) oxygen-saturation range. During enrollment, the oximeters were revised to correct a calibration-algorithm artifact. The primary outcome was death or disability at a corrected gestational age of 2 years; this outcome was evaluated among infants whose oxygen saturation was measured with any study oximeter in the Australian trial and those whose oxygen saturation was measured with a revised oximeter in the U.K. trial. Results After 1135 infants in Australia and 973 infants in the United Kingdom had been enrolled in the trial, an interim analysis showed increased mortality at a corrected gestational age of 36 weeks, and enrollment was stopped. Death or disability in the Australian trial (with all oximeters included) occurred in 247 of 549 infants (45.0%) in the lower-target group versus 217 of 545 infants (39.8%) in the higher-target group (adjusted relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.27; P=0.10); death or disability in the U.K. trial (with only revised oximeters included) occurred in 185 of 366 infants (50.5%) in the lower-target group versus 164 of 357 infants (45.9%) in the higher-target group (adjusted relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.24; P=0.15). In post hoc combined, unadjusted analyses that included all oximeters, death or disability occurred in 492 of 1022 infants (48.1%) in the lower-target group versus 437 of 1013 infants (43.1%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23; P=0.02), and death occurred in 222 of 1045 infants (21.2%) in the lower-target group versus 185 of 1045 infants (17.7%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.43; P=0.04). In the group in which revised oximeters were used, death or disability occurred in 287 of 580 infants (49.5%) in the lower-target group versus 248 of 563 infants (44.0%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.27; P=0.07), and death occurred in 144 of 587 infants (24.5%) versus 99 of 586 infants (16.9%) (relative risk, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.82; P=0.001). Conclusions Use of an oxygen-saturation target range of 85 to 89% versus 91 to 95% resulted in nonsignificantly higher rates of death or disability at 2 years in each trial but in significantly increased risks of this combined outcome and of death alone in post hoc combined analyses. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; BOOST-II Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN00842661 , and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12605000055606 .).
Research on data sharing from clinical trials has focused on elucidating perceptions, barriers, and attitudes among trialists and study participants with respect to sharing data. However, little information exists regarding utilization or associated publication of articles once clinical trial data have been widely shared.
When investigators enroll patients in a clinical study, they make an implicit contract with each participant. Through the data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) mechanism, they fulfill the first part of the contract - protecting the participant from avoidable harm that might result from participation in the trial. They fulfill the second part of the contract - the commitment to honor the time at risk that the participant spent in the trial - by deriving the clearest and most clinically directive information possible from the data gathered during the trial. This task takes tremendous time and energy. The SPRINT (Systolic . . .
The lack of benefit from randomised controlled trials has resulted in significant controversy regarding the role of nutrition during critical illness in terms of long-term recovery and outcome. Although methodological caveats with a failure to adequately appreciate biological mechanisms may explain these disappointing results, it must be acknowledged that nutritional support during early critical illness, when considered alone, may have limited long-term functional impact.This narrative review focuses specifically on recent clinical trials and evaluates the impact of nutrition during critical illness on long-term physical and functional recovery.Specific focus on the trial design and methodological limitations has been considered in detail. Limitations include delivery of caloric and protein targets, patient heterogeneity, short duration of intervention, inappropriate clinical outcomes and a disregard for baseline nutritional status and nutritional intake in the post-ICU period.With survivorship at the forefront of critical care research, it is imperative that nutrition studies carefully consider biological mechanisms and trial design because these factors can strongly influence outcomes, in particular long-term physical and functional outcome. Failure to do so may lead to inconclusive clinical trials and consequent rejection of the potentially beneficial effects of nutrition interventions during critical illness.
The Tongue Drive System (TDS) is a wireless and wearable assistive technology, designed to allow individuals with severe motor impairments such as tetraplegia to access their environment using voluntary tongue motion. Previous TDS trials used a magnetic tracer temporarily attached to the top surface of the tongue with tissue adhesive. We investigated TDS efficacy for controlling a computer and driving a powered wheelchair in two groups of able-bodied subjects and a group of volunteers with spinal cord injury (SCI) at C6 or above. All participants received a magnetic tongue barbell and used the TDS for five to six consecutive sessions. The performance of the group was compared for TDS versus keypad and TDS versus a sip-and-puff device (SnP) using accepted measures of speed and accuracy. All performance measures improved over the course of the trial. The gap between keypad and TDS performance narrowed for able-bodied subjects. Despite participants with SCI already having familiarity with the SnP, their performance measures were up to three times better with the TDS than with the SnP and continued to improve. TDS flexibility and the inherent characteristics of the human tongue enabled individuals with high-level motor impairments to access computers and drive wheelchairs at speeds that were faster than traditional assistive technologies but with comparable accuracy.