Impact of presentation of research results on likelihood of prescribing medications to patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Quality of randomised trials in COPD. Symptoms are an important outcome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease clinical trials: results of a 3-month comparative study using the Breathlessness, Cough and Sputum Scale (BCSS). The effects of additional care by a pulmonary nurse for asthma and COPD patients at a respiratory outpatient clinic: results from a double blind, randomized clinical trial.
This study was conducted to evaluate willingness to prescribe medication based on identical data presented in different outcome terms to health professionals of varied discipline, geographic location, and level of training. Cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire was performed in 400 health professionals (physicians, pharmacists, physicians-in-training, and pharmacy students) in the United States and Europe. Data reflecting a clinical trial were presented in 6 outcome terms: 3 terms describing identical mortality (relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, and number of patients needed to be treated to prevent 1 death); and 3 distractors (increased life expectancy, decreased hospitalization rate, and decreased cost). Willingness to prescribe and rank order of medication preference assuming willingness to prescribe were measured. The results of the study showed that willingness to prescribe and first choice preference were significantly greater when study results were presented as relative risk reduction than when identical mortality data were presented as absolute risk reduction or number of patients needed to be treated to avoid 1 death (p <0.001). Increase in life expectancy was the most influential distractor. In conclusion, this study, performed in the era of "evidence-based medicine," demonstrates that the method of reporting research trial results has significant influence on health professionals' willingness to prescribe. The high numerical value of relative risk reduction and the concrete and tangible quality of increased life expectancy exert greater influence on health professionals than other standard outcome terms. Randomised trials can provide high-level evidence to inform treatment decisions. Since their quality in respiratory medicine is largely unknown, we assessed the quality of a large set of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) trials. As a marker of trial quality, we assessed the procedure and concealment of random allocation, and the conduct of an intention-to-treat-analysis in 344 randomised trials published between 1957 and 2006. We used ordered logistic regression to assess the association between trial quality and type of intervention, type of journal, journal impact factor and year of publication. 257 (75%) trials assessed pharmacological and 87 (25%) assessed nonpharmacological interventions. The generation of appropriate randomisation was reported in 27.0% of the trials, concealment of random allocation in 11.6% and an intention-to-treat analysis in 21.8% of trials. Significantly higher quality was found in trials on nonpharmacological interventions (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.56-3.99), and in trials published in general medical journals (versus specialised journals; OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.30-3.90) and after 2000 (versus 1957-2000; OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.45-3.58). The association of quality with a high impact factor was of borderline significance (p = 0.06). The quality of many COPD trials is low but tends to become better since the adoption of the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement. The need to manage the key symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (breathlessness, cough and sputum) is an important treatment objective. Viozan (sibenadet HCl, AR-C68397AA) is a novel dual D2 dopamine receptor, beta2-adrenoceptor agonist, which combines conventional bronchodilatory activity with the sensory nerve modulation afforded by dopamine agonism. The efficacy of this agent in relieving patient symptoms has been determined in a series of large-scale clinical studies; the results of a 3-month, placebo-controlled multi-centre study are reported. Effect on patient symptoms was determined using a novel patient-reported assessment instrument, the Breathlessness, Cough and Sputum Scale (BCSS). Patients with smoking-related COPD were required to complete a 2-week baseline period before being randomized to one of three treatment groups; sibenadet (500 microg three times daily) plus placebo (twice daily); salmeterol (50 microg twice daily) plus placebo (three times daily); placebo (twice daily) plus a second placebo (three times daily). All treatments were delivered via pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) for 12 weeks. From enrolment, patients were required to complete daily diary cards to record symptoms of breathlessness, cough and sputum, medication use and adverse events. The primary outcome measure was the difference between the mean BCSS total score measured over the baseline period and the mean BCSS total score in the final 4 weeks of the treatment period. Secondary measures included assessment of lung function, rescue medication use, exacerbations, health-related quality of life, opinion of efficacy and safety. Although an initial reduction in BCSS total score (indicating symptom improvement) was seen with sibenadet therapy, this effect was not maintained for the study duration. Salmeterol therapy, however, resulted in a sustained reduction in BCSS total score. No notable benefit over placebo was seen in lung function, exacerbations or health-related quality of life with either active treatment. While the results of this study failed to demonstrate sustained efficacy with sibenadet therapy, they do indicate the value of symptom assessment in the clinical evaluation of new drugs for the treatment of COPD. To assess the effects of additional information based nursing care program in the treatment of asthma and COPD patients at a pulmonary outpatient clinic.
                In a double blind, randomized clinical trial, 191 patients were allocated to an additional care group or control group. Patients in the intervention group received a protocol-based education program on individual basis by a pulmonary nurse on individual basis (average duration 60 min per patient). All patients were masked for the trial objectives. Effectiveness was expressed in terms of knowledge, inhalation technique, self-management, exacerbation rate (primary outcomes), and health-related quality of life and satisfaction with care received (secondary outcomes). The time interval between the initial and final assessments was 6 months.
                Ninety-seven patients were randomized into the additional care group and 94 into the control group, of which 157 had a complete dataset. (Un)adjusted analyses did not show differences between treatment groups in terms of knowledge, inhalation technique, self-management, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with care. Multivariate logistic regression adjusting for baseline covariates showed a significant treatment effect with regard to exacerbation rate (odds ratio=0.35; 95% confidence limits: 0.13/0.94, p=0.04).
                With the exception of exacerbation rate, we could not demonstrate efficacy of additional nursing care in a broad range of outcome parameters.
                At present we do not recommend to implement our patient-tailored education program in daily practice.
Statistical imprecision in the effect estimates for exacerbations and serious adverse events do not enable us to conclude that either therapy is superior. The uncertainty around the effect estimates justify further trials to provide more definitive conclusions; the overall quality of evidence based on GRADE recommendations for the three primary outcomes and withdrawals due to serious adverse events was moderate. We rated the quality of evidence for mortality to be low. Results for lung function outcomes showed that the drugs were sufficiently similar that further research is unlikely to change the effects. No trials were identified in the under-12s and research in this population is a high priority. Evaluation of quality of life is a priority for future research.