Sirolimus-eluting stents vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: meta-analysis of randomized trials

Context  Placement of sirolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents has emerged as the predominant percutaneous treatment strategy in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Whether there are any differences in efficacy and safety between these 2 drug-eluting stents is unclear. Objective  To compare outcomes of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents on the basis of data generated by randomized head-to-head clinical trials. Data Sources  PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings from major cardiology meetings, and Internet-based sources of information on clinical trials in cardiology from January 2003 to April 2005. Study Selection  Randomized trials comparing the sirolimus-eluting stent with the paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with CAD reporting the outcomes of interest (target lesion revascularization, angiographic restenosis, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction [MI], death, and the composite of death or MI) during a follow-up of at least 6 months. Data Extraction  Two reviewers independently identified studies and abstracted data on sample size, baseline characteristics, and outcomes of interest. Data Synthesis  Six trials, including 3669 patients, met the selection criteria. No significant heterogeneity was found across trials. Target lesion revascularization, the primary outcome of interest, was less frequently performed in patients who were treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (5.1%) vs the paclitaxel-eluting stent (7.8%) (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.84; P = .001). Similarly, angiographic restenosis was less frequently observed among patients assigned to the sirolimus-eluting stent (9.3%) vs the paclitaxel-eluting stent (13.1%) (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.86; P = .001). Event rates for sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting stents were 0.9% and 1.1%, respectively, for stent thrombosis (P = .62); 1.4% and 1.6%, respectively, for death (P = .56); and 4.9% and 5.8%, respectively, for the composite of death or MI (P = .23). Conclusions  Patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents had a significantly lower risk of restenosis and target vessel revascularization compared with those receiving paclitaxel-eluting stents. Rates of death, death or MI, and stent thrombosis were similar.      

Comparison of a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent with a bare metal stent in patients with complex coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial

Context  Compared with bare metal stents, drug-eluting stents reduce restenosis in noncomplex lesions. The utility of drug-eluting stents has not been evaluated in more difficult stenoses. Objective  To investigate the safety and efficacy of the polymer-based, slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent in a patient population with more complex lesions than previously studied. Design, Setting, and Patients  Prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter randomized trial conducted from February 2003 to March 2004 at 66 academic and community-based institutions with 1156 patients who underwent stent implantation in a single coronary artery stenosis (vessel diameter, 2.25-4.0 mm; lesion length, 10-46 mm), including 664 patients (57.4%) with complex or previously unstudied lesions (requiring 2.25-mm, 4.0-mm, and/or multiple stents) and 9-month clinical and angiographic follow-up. Interventions  Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 or more bare metal stents (n = 579) or identical-appearing paclitaxel-eluting stents (n = 577). Main Outcome Measure  Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 9 months. Results  Baseline characteristics were well matched. Diabetes was present in 31% of patients. The mean (SD) reference vessel diameter was 2.69 (0.57) mm, the reference lesion length was 17.2 (9.2) mm, and 78% of lesions were type B₂/C. A mean (SD) of 1.38 (0.58) stents (total mean [SD] length, 28.4 [13.1] mm) were implanted per lesion; 33% of lesions required multiple stents. Stents that were 2.25 mm and 4.0 mm in diameter were used in 18% and 17% of lesions, respectively. Compared with bare metal stents, paclitaxel-eluting stents reduced the 9-month rate of target lesion revascularization from 15.7% to 8.6% (P<.001) and target vessel revascularization from 17.3% to 12.1% (P = .02). Similar rates were observed for cardiac death or myocardial infarction (5.5% for bare metal stent group vs 5.7% for paclitaxel-eluting stent group) and stent thrombosis (0.7% in both groups). Angiographic restenosis was reduced from 33.9% to 18.9% in the entire study cohort (P<.001), including among patients receiving 2.25-mm stents (49.4% vs 31.2%; P = .01), 4.0-mm stents (14.4% vs 3.5%; P = .02), and multiple stents (57.8% vs 27.2%; P<.001). Conclusion  Compared with a bare metal stent, implantation of the paclitaxel-eluting stent in a patient population with complex lesions effectively reduces clinical and angiographic restenosis.      

Sirolimus-eluting stent or paclitaxel-eluting stent vs balloon angioplasty for prevention of recurrences in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis: a randomized controlled trial

Context  In patients with de novo coronary lesions, drug-eluting stents have drastically reduced restenosis risk compared with bare metal stents and conventional balloon angioplasty. It is less clear whether drug-eluting stents are superior to conventional balloon angioplasty for the treatment of patients with in-stent restenosis. Objectives  To assess if drug-eluting stents are a more effective treatment of in-stent restenosis than conventional balloon angioplasty, and to assess the relative merits of 2 drug-eluting stents, a sirolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent. Design, Setting, and Participants  Randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial conducted among 300 patients with angiographically significant in-stent restenosis in 2 tertiary German centers from June 1, 2003, to October 20, 2003. Interventions  After pretreatment with 600 mg of clopidogrel for at least 2 hours before intervention, all patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: sirolimus stent, paclitaxel stent, or balloon angioplasty (100 patients in each group). Main Outcome Measures  Primary end point: angiographic restenosis (diameter stenosis 50%) at 6-month follow-up angiography based on "in-segment" analysis. Primary analysis was comparison between stent groups and balloon angioplasty groups; a secondary analysis compared sirolimus and paclitaxel stents. Results  Follow-up angiography was performed in 275 (92%) of 300 patients. The incidence of angiographic restenosis was 44.6% (41/92) in the balloon angioplasty group, 14.3% (13/91) in the sirolimus stent group (P<.001 vs balloon angioplasty), and 21.7% (20/92) in the paclitaxel stent group (P = .001 vs balloon angioplasty). When compared with balloon angioplasty, receiving a sirolimus stent had a relative risk (RR) of angiographic restenosis of 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-0.56); a paclitaxel stent had an RR of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.31-0.76). The incidence of target vessel revascularization was 33.0% (33/100) in the balloon angioplasty group, 8.0% (8/100) in the sirolimus stent group (P<.001 vs balloon angioplasty), and 19.0% (19/100) in the paclitaxel stent group (P = .02 vs balloon angioplasty). The secondary analysis showed a trend toward a lower rate of angiographic restenosis (P = .19) and a significantly lower rate of target vessel revascularization (P = .02) among sirolimus stent patients compared with paclitaxel stent patients. Conclusions  In patients with in-stent restenosis, a strategy based on sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents is superior to conventional balloon angioplasty for the prevention of recurrent restenosis. Sirolimus-eluting stents may be superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents for treatment of this disorder.      

Sirolimus-eluting vs uncoated stents for prevention of restenosis in small coronary arteries: a randomized trial

Context  Percutaneous coronary revascularization of small vessels is associated with a high restenosis rate. Sirolimus-eluting stents reduce restenosis in simple and previously untreated lesions of large coronary arteries, but their outcomes in small vessels have not been adequately investigated. Objective  To determine whether sirolimus-eluting stents are associated with a reduced 8-month rate of angiographic restenosis in comparison with an uncoated stent. Design, Setting, and Patients  This was a randomized, multicenter, single-blind, prospective trial performed with 257 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization for ischemic heart disease, and who had a previously untreated atherosclerotic lesion located in a small segment with a diameter of 2.75 mm or less, in 20 Italian centers between August 2002 and December 2003. Intervention  Patients were randomly assigned to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent (129 patients) or an uncoated stent having an identical architecture and radiographic appearance (128 patients). Main Outcome Measures  The primary end point was the 8-month binary in-segment restenosis rate; secondary end points included procedural success and the 8-month rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Results  The mean (SD) reference diameter of the treated segment was 2.2 (0.28) mm; the lesion length, 11.84 (6.15) mm. After 8 months, the binary in-segment restenosis rate was 53.1% (60/113) in the patients receiving an uncoated stent and 9.8% (12/123) in those receiving a sirolimus-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.32; P<.001). Fewer patients randomized to sirolimus-eluting stents experienced major adverse cardiac events (12/129 [9.3%] vs 40/128 [31.3%]; RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.15-0.55; P<.001) mainly because of a reduction in target lesion revascularization (9/129 [7%] vs 27/128 [21.1%]; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14-0.70; P = .002) and myocardial infarction (2/129 [1.6%] vs 10/129 [7.8%]; RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.01-0.93; P = .04). Conclusion  The use of sirolimus-eluting stents to treat atherosclerotic lesions in small coronary arteries reduces restenosis and may also reduce major adverse cardiac events.      

Comparison of an everolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized trial

Gregg W. Stone, MD; Mark Midei, MD; William Newman, MD; Mark Sanz, MD; James B. Hermiller, MD; Jerome Williams, MD; Naim Farhat, MD; Kenneth W. Mahaffey, MD; Donald E. Cutlip, MD; Peter J. Fitzgerald, MD, PhD; Poornima Sood, MD, MPhil; Xiaolu Su, MS; Alexandra J. Lansky, MD; for the SPIRIT III Investigators

JAMA. 2008;299(16):1903-1913.

Context  A thin, cobalt-chromium stent eluting the antiproliferative agent everolimus from a nonadhesive, durable fluoropolymer has shown promise in preliminary studies in improving clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease.

Objective  To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an everolimus-eluting stent compared with a widely used paclitaxel-eluting stent.

Design, Setting, and Patients  The SPIRIT III trial, a prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial enrolling patients at 65 academic and community-based US institutions between June 22, 2005, and March 15, 2006. Patients were 1002 men and women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in lesions 28 mm or less in length and with reference vessel diameter between 2.5 and 3.75 mm. Angiographic follow-up was prespecified at 8 months in 564 patients and completed in 436 patients. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1, 6, 9, and 12 months.

Interventions  Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive the everolimus-eluting stent (n = 669) or the paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 333).

Main Outcome Measures  The primary end point was noninferiority or superiority of angiographic in-segment late loss. The major secondary end point was noninferiority assessment of target vessel failure events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months. An additional secondary end point was evaluation of major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) at 9 and 12 months.

Results  Angiographic in-segment late loss was significantly less in the everolimus-eluting stent group compared with the paclitaxel group (mean, 0.14 [SD, 0.41] mm vs 0.28 [SD, 0.48] mm; difference, –0.14 [95% CI, –0.23 to –0.05]; P  .004). The everolimus stent was noninferior to the paclitaxel stent for target vessel failure at 9 months (7.2% vs 9.0%, respectively; difference, –1.9% [95% CI, –5.6% to 1.8%]; relative risk, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.51 to 1.23]; P < .001). The everolimus stent compared with the paclitaxel stent resulted in significant reductions in composite major adverse cardiac events both at 9 months (4.6% vs 8.1%; relative risk, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.94]; P = .03) and at 1 year (6.0% vs 10.3%; relative risk, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.90]; P = .02), due to fewer myocardial infarctions and target lesion revascularization procedures.

Conclusions  In this large-scale, prospective randomized trial, an everolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent resulted in reduced angiographic late loss, noninferior rates of target vessel failure, and fewer major adverse cardiac events during 1 year of follow-up.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00180479

     

Drug-eluting stents improve clinical outcomes in Chinese diabetic patients with de novo coronary artery disease

Diabetes mellitus （DM） has been regarded as an equivalent risk factor as coronary artery disease and is present in nearly 25% of patients who receive percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI）. DM is shown as an adverse predictor for major adverse cardiac events （MACE） after PCI in bare metal stent （BMS） era. Recently, clinical trials have demonstrated the favorable tendency of using drug-eluting stents （DES） in treating diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. This study compared the clinical outcomes between the diabetic patients receiving DES with those receiving BMS in China.     

Surgery vs orthosis vs watchful waiting for hallux valgus: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT: Hallux valgus is a common foot deformation in adults, but evidence for effectiveness of surgical and conservative treatments for this condition is limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of surgical and orthotic treatment with no treatment in patients with hallux valgus. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized controlled trial conducted in 4 general community hospitals in Finland in 1997-1998, with a follow-up period of 12 months. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred nine consecutive patients (mean age, 48 years; 93% women) with a painful bunion and a hallux valgus angle 35 degrees or less. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to surgery (distal chevron osteotomy; n = 71), orthosis (n = 69), or a 1-year waiting list (control group, n = 69). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity during walking on a visual analog scale (0-100), patient assessment of global improvement, number of painful days, cosmetic disturbance, footwear problems, functional status, and treatment satisfaction, compared among treatment groups. RESULTS: Follow-up rates at 6 and 12 months were 99% and 98%, respectively. At 6 months, pain intensity decreased more in the surgical group than in the control group (adjusted mean differences, -20 [95% confidence interval (CI), -28 to -12]) and more in orthosis than in the control groups (adjusted mean difference, -14 [95% CI, -22 to -6. At 1 year, pain intensity decreased more in the surgical than in the control groups (adjusted mean difference, -19 [95% CI, -28 to -10]) and more than in the surgical and orthosis groups (adjusted mean difference, -14 [95% CI, -22 to -5]). At 1 year, 83%, 46%, and 24% in the surgery, orthosis, and control groups, respectively, thought they had improved compared with baseline (number needed to treat), 1.7 between surgical and control groups). Number of painful days, cosmetic disturbance, and footwear problems were least and functional status and satisfaction with treatment were best in the surgical group. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical osteotomy is an effective treatment for painful hallux valgus. Orthoses provide short-term symptomatic relief.     

Sirolimus-eluting stents vs vascular brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis within bare-metal stents: the SISR randomized trial

Context  Although vascular brachytherapy is the only approved therapy for restenosis following bare-metal stent implantation, drug-eluting stents are now being used. Data on the relative merits of each are limited. Objective  To determine the safety and efficacy of the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of patients with restenosis within a bare-metal stent. Design, Setting, and Patients  Prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of 384 patients with in-stent restenosis who were enrolled between February 2003 and July 2004 at 26 academic and community medical centers. Data presented represent all follow-up as of June 30, 2005. Interventions  Vascular brachytherapy (n = 125) or the sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 259). Main Outcome Measure  Target vessel failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months postprocedure. Results  Baseline patient characteristics were well matched. Lesion length was similar between vascular brachytherapy and sirolimus-eluting stent patients (mean [SD], 16.76 [8.55] mm vs 17.22 [7.97] mm, respectively; P = .61). Procedural success was 99.2% (124/125) in the vascular brachytherapy group and 97.3% (250/257) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (P = .28). The rate of target vessel failure was 21.6% (27/125) with vascular brachytherapy and 12.4% (32/259) with the sirolimus-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-2.8; P = .02). Target lesion revascularization was required in 19.2% (24/125) of the vascular brachytherapy group and 8.5% (22/259) of the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.3-3.9]; P = .004). At follow-up angiography, the rate of binary angiographic restenosis for the analysis segment was 29.5% (31/105) for the vascular brachytherapy group and 19.8% (45/227) for the sirolimus-eluting stent group (RR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.2]; P = .07). Compared with the vascular brachytherapy group, minimal lumen diameter was larger in the sirolimus-eluting stent group at 6-month follow-up (mean [SD], 1.52 [0.63] mm vs 1.80 [0.63] mm; P<.001), reflecting greater net lumen gain in the analysis segment (0.68 [0.60] vs 1.0 [0.61] mm; P<.001) due to stenting and no edge restenosis. Conclusion  Sirolimus-eluting stents result in superior clinical and angiographic outcomes compared with vascular brachytherapy for the treatment of restenosis within a bare-metal stent. Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00231257      

Splinting vs surgery in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial

Context  Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) can be treated with nonsurgical or surgical options. However, there is no consensus on the most effective method of treatment. Objective  To compare the short-term and long-term efficacy of splinting and surgery for relieving the symptoms of CTS. Design, Setting, and Patients  A randomized controlled trial conducted from October 1998 to April 2000 at 13 neurological outpatient clinics in the Netherlands. A total of 176 patients with clinically and electrophysiologically confirmed idiopathic CTS were assigned to wrist splinting during the night for at least 6 weeks (89 patients) or open carpal tunnel release (87 patients); 147 patients (84%) completed the final follow-up assessment 18 months after randomization. Main Outcome Measures  General improvement, number of nights waking up due to symptoms, and severity of symptoms. Results  In the intention-to-treat analyses, surgery was more effective than splinting on all outcome measures. The success rates (based on general improvement) after 3 months were 80% for the surgery group (62/78 patients) vs 54% for the splinting group (46/86 patients), which is a difference of 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%-40%; P<.001). After 18 months, the success rates increased to 90% for the surgery group (61/68 patients) vs 75% for the splinting group (59/79 patients), which is a difference of 15% (95% CI, 3%-27%; P = .02). However, by that time 41% of patients (32/79) in the splint group had also received the surgery treatment. Conclusion  Treatment with open carpal tunnel release surgery resulted in better outcomes than treatment with wrist splinting for patients with CTS.      

Paclitaxel-eluting stents vs vascular brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis within bare-metal stents: the TAXUS V ISR randomized trial

Context  Restenosis within bare-metal stents is often treated with repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, although subsequent recurrence rates are high, with vascular brachytherapy (VBT) affording the best results. The effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in this setting has not been established. Objective  To investigate the safety and efficacy of the polymer-based, slow-release paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with restenotic lesions after prior stent implantation in native coronary arteries. Design, Setting, and Patients  Prospective, multicenter, randomized trial conducted between June 6, 2003, and July 16, 2004, at 37 North American academic and community-based institutions in 396 patients with in-stent restenosis of a previously implanted bare-metal coronary stent (vessel diameter, 2.5-3.75 mm; lesion length, 46 mm). Interventions  Patients were randomly assigned to undergo angioplasty followed by VBT with a source (n = 201) or paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation (n = 195). Clinical and angiographic follow-up at 9 months was scheduled in all patients. Main Outcome Measure  Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization at 9 months. Results  Diabetes mellitus was present in 139 patients (35.1%). Median reference vessel diameter was 2.65 mm and median lesion length was 15.3 mm. In the VBT group, new stents were implanted in 22 patients (10.9%) and in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group, multiple stents were required in 57 patients (29.2%), with median stent length of 24 mm. Follow-up at 9 months was complete in 194 patients in the VBT group and 191 patients in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group (96.5% and 97.9%, respectively). For VBT and paclitaxel-eluting stents, respectively, the number of events and 9-month rates for ischemic target lesion revascularization were 27 (13.9%) vs 12 (6.3%) (relative risk [RR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.86; P = .01); for ischemic target vessel revascularization, 34 (17.5%) vs 20 (10.5%) (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-1.00; P = .046); and for overall major adverse cardiac events, 39 (20.1%) vs 22 (11.5%) (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35-0.93; P = .02), with similar rates of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (10 [5.2%] vs 7 [3.7%]; RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.28-1.83; P = .48) and target vessel thrombosis (5 [2.6%] vs 3 [1.6%]; RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.15-2.50; P = .72). Angiographic restenosis at 9 months was 31.2% (53 of 170 patients) with VBT and 14.5% (25 of 172 patients) with paclitaxel-eluting stents (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30-0.71; P<.001). Conclusion  Treatment of bare-metal in-stent restenotic lesions with paclitaxel-eluting stents rather than angioplasty followed by VBT reduces clinical and angiographic restenosis at 9 months and improves event-free survival. Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00287573      

Feasibility of management of high-grade cervical lesions in a single visit: a randomized controlled trial

Context  The incidence of cervical cancer is higher among low-income and minority women who have never undergone a conventional Papanicolaou test or who do not follow up after testing. Screening has been shown to reduce cervical cancer incidence rates. Objectives  To determine the feasibility and acceptability of immediately treating women with severely abnormal Papanicolaou test results by using a single-visit cervical cancer screening and treatment program and to compare treatment rates and 12-month follow-up rates with those of women who received usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants  Randomized controlled trial conducted among 3521 women aged 18 years or older recruited between January 1999 and April 2002 at US community health centers located in predominantly Latino underserved areas. Interventions  Women randomized to usual care (n = 1805) were discharged immediately after examination. Women randomized to the single-visit group (n = 1716) remained at the clinic until the results of their conventional Papanicolaou test were available. Large loop electrosurgical excision procedure was performed in single-visit patients with either a diagnosis of a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HGSIL)/atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS) or suspicion of carcinoma. All other patients with abnormal Papanicolaou test results were referred to abnormal cytology clinics or elected to receive follow-up care outside the study’s medical system. Main Outcome Measures  Treatment rates for HGSIL/AGUS at 6 months, follow-up rates at 6 months for lower-grade lesions, and 1-year follow-up rates for all patients. Results  The rate of abnormal Papanicolaou test results was 4.1%. One percent of results showed high-grade lesions. In the single-visit group, the mean visit time was 2.8 hours and the mean time for delivery and processing of the Papanicolaou tests was 66 minutes. Six months after randomization, 14 (88%) of 16 single-visit and 10 (53%) of 19 usual care patients with HGSIL/AGUS had completed treatment. Fifty percent in the single-visit program and 53% of usual care with less abnormal Papanicolaou tests completed treatment within 6 months. Overall, 36% in each group presented for a follow-up Papanicolaou test 1 year later. Women in the single-visit group with high-grade lesions (10/16; 63%) were significantly more likely to attend follow-up for Papanicolaou tests 12 months later than women with similar lesions in the usual care group (4/19; 21%). Conclusions  For cervical cancer screening, the single-visit program was feasible and the degree of acceptability was high in this underserved population. Single visit programs provide an opportunity to increase the rate of immediate treatment and follow-up of women with severely abnormal Papanicolaou test results. This strategy did not improve follow-up rates for women with less-abnormal results. Trial Registration  http://ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier: NCT00237562      

Effect of ramipril vs amlodipine on renal outcomes in hypertensive nephrosclerosis: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT: Incidence of end-stage renal disease due to hypertension has increased in recent decades, but the optimal strategy for treatment of hypertension to prevent renal failure is unknown, especially among African Americans. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (ramipril), a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), and a beta-blocker (metoprolol) on hypertensive renal disease progression. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, 3 x 2 factorial trial conducted in 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) enrolled between February 1995 and September 1998. This report compares the ramipril and amlodipine groups following discontinuation of the amlodipine intervention in September 2000. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine, 5 to 10 mg/d (n = 217), ramipril, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n = 436), or metoprolol, 50 to 200 mg/d (n = 441), with other agents added to achieve 1 of 2 blood pressure goals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the rate of change in GFR; the main secondary outcome was a composite index of the clinical end points of reduction in GFR of more than 50% or 25 mL/min per 1.73 m(2), end-stage renal disease, or death. RESULTS: Among participants with a urinary protein to creatinine ratio of >0.22 (corresponding approximately to proteinuria of more than 300 mg/d), the ramipril group had a 36% (2.02 [SE, 0.74] mL/min per 1.73 m(2)/y) slower mean decline in GFR over 3 years (P =.006) and a 48% reduced risk of the clinical end points vs the amlodipine group (95% confidence interval [CI], 20%-66%). In the entire cohort, there was no significant difference in mean GFR decline from baseline to 3 years between treatment groups (P =.38). However, compared with the amlodipine group, after adjustment for baseline covariates the ramipril group had a 38% reduced risk of clinical end points (95% CI, 13%-56%), a 36% slower mean decline in GFR after 3 months (P =.002), and less proteinuria (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Ramipril, compared with amlodipine, retards renal disease progression in patients with hypertensive renal disease and proteinuria and may offer benefit to patients without proteinuria.     

A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial

Context  Despite evidence of efficacy of antihypertensive agents in treating hypertensive patients, safety and efficacy of antihypertensive agents for coronary artery disease (CAD) have been discerned only from subgroup analyses in large trials. Objective  To compare mortality and morbidity outcomes in patients with hypertension and CAD treated with a calcium antagonist strategy (CAS) or a non–calcium antagonist strategy (NCAS). Design, Setting, and Participants  Randomized, open label, blinded end point study of 22 576 hypertensive CAD patients aged 50 years or older, which was conducted September 1997 to February 2003 at 862 sites in 14 countries. Interventions  Patients were randomly assigned to either CAS (verapamil sustained release) or NCAS (atenolol). Strategies specified dose and additional drug regimens. Trandolapril and/or hydrochlorothiazide was administered to achieve blood pressure goals according to guidelines from the sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI) of less than 140 mm Hg (systolic) and less than 90 mm Hg (diastolic); and less than 130 mm Hg (systolic) and less than 85 mm Hg (diastolic) if diabetes or renal impairment was present. Trandolapril was also recommended for patients with heart failure, diabetes, or renal impairment. Main Outcome Measures  Primary: first occurrence of death (all cause), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; other: cardiovascular death, angina, adverse experiences, hospitalizations, and blood pressure control at 24 months. Results  At 24 months, in the CAS group, 6391 patients (81.5%) were taking verapamil sustained release; 4934 (62.9%) were taking trandolapril; and 3430 (43.7%) were taking hydrochlorothiazide. In the NCAS group, 6083 patients (77.5%) were taking atenolol; 4733 (60.3%) were taking hydrochlorothiazide; and 4113 (52.4%) were taking trandolapril. After a follow-up of 61 835 patient-years (mean, 2.7 years per patient), 2269 patients had a primary outcome event with no statistically significant difference between treatment strategies (9.93% in CAS and 10.17% in NCAS; relative risk [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.06). Two-year blood pressure control was similar between groups. The JNC VI blood pressure goals were achieved by 65.0% (systolic) and 88.5% (diastolic) of CAS and 64.0% (systolic) and 88.1% (diastolic) of NCAS patients. A total of 71.7% of CAS and 70.7% of NCAS patients achieved a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg. Conclusion  The verapamil-trandolapril–based strategy was as clinically effective as the atenolol-hydrochlorothiazide–based strategy in hypertensive CAD patients.      

Effect of magnetic vs sham-magnetic insoles on plantar heel pain: a randomized controlled trial

Context  Despite anecdotal reports, rigorous scientific evidence of the effectiveness of magnetic insoles for the pain of plantar fasciitis is lacking. Objective  To determine whether magnetic insoles provide greater subjective improvement for treatment of plantar heel pain compared with identical nonmagnetized insoles. Design, Setting, and Participants  Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from February 12, 2001, to November 9, 2001, of a volunteer sample of 101 adults with diagnoses of plantar heel pain for at least 30 days from a multispecialty group practice clinic in Rochester, Minn. Daily pain diaries were kept for 8 weeks. Interventions  Cushioned insoles, with either active bipolar magnets or sham magnets, which were worn daily by the participants for 8 weeks. Main Outcome Measures  Reported average daily foot pain (by metered visual analog scale [VAS] and by categorical response of change from baseline) at 4 and 8 weeks, and impact of insoles on employment performance and enjoyment. Results  No significant between-group differences were found on any outcome variables studied when comparing active vs sham magnets. Both the nonmagnetic and magnetic groups reported significant improvements in morning foot pain intensity, with mean (SD) VAS scores improving from 6.9 (2.3) and 6.7 (2.0), respectively, at baseline to 3.9 (2.6) for each group at 8 weeks (P = .94). At 8 weeks, 33% of the nonmagnetic group and 35% of the magnetic group reported being all or mostly better (P = .78). At baseline, foot pain interfered moderately with participants' employment enjoyment (mean VAS, 4.2) and improved in both groups by 8 weeks (1.3 and 1.5, respectively; P = .68). Conclusion  Static bipolar magnets embedded in cushioned shoe insoles do not provide additional benefit for subjective plantar heel pain reduction when compared with nonmagnetic insoles.      

Controlled delivery of high vs low humidity vs mist therapy for croup in emergency departments: a randomized controlled trial

Context  Children with croup are often treated with humidity even though this is not scientifically based, consumes time, and can be harmful. Although humidity using the traditional blow-by technique is similar to room air and no water droplets reach the nasopharynx, particles sized for laryngeal deposition (5-10 µm) could be beneficial. Objective  To determine whether a significant difference in the clinical Westley croup score exists in children with moderate to severe croup who were admitted to the emergency department and who received either 100% humidity or 40% humidity via nebulizer or blow-by humidity. Design and Setting  A randomized, single-blind, controlled trial conducted between 2001 and 2004 in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department. Participants  A convenience sample of 140 previously healthy children 3 months to 10 years of age with Westley croup score of more than 1 or 2 or higher (scoring system range, 0-17); 21 families refused participation. Intervention  Thirty-minute administration of humidity using traditional blow-by technique (commonly used placebo, n = 48), controlled delivery of 40% humidity (optimally delivered placebo, n = 46), or 100% humidity (n = 46) with water particles of mass median diameter 6.21 µm. Main Outcome Measure  A priori defined change in the Westley croup score from baseline to 30 and 60 minutes in the 3 groups. Results  Groups were comparable before treatment. At 30 minutes the difference in the improvement in the croup score between the blow-by and low-humidity groups was 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], –0.72 to 0.66), between low- and high-humidity groups, 0.16 (95% CI, –0.86 to 0.53), and between blow-by and high-humidity groups, 0.19 (95% CI, –0.87 to 0.49). Results were similar at 60 minutes. Differences between groups in pulse and respiratory rates and oxygen saturation changes were insignificant, as were proportions of excellent responders; proportions with croup score of 0 at study conclusion; and proportions receiving dexamethasone, epinephrine, or requiring additional medical care or hospitalization. Conclusions  One hundred percent humidity with particles specifically sized to deposit in the larynx failed to result in greater improvement than 40% humidity or humidity by blow-by technique. This study does not support the use of humidity for moderate croup for patients treated in the emergency department. Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00230841      

Effects of reconstituted high-density lipoprotein infusions on coronary atherosclerosis: a randomized controlled trial

Context  High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol is an inverse predictor of coronary atherosclerotic disease. Preliminary data have suggested that HDL infusions can induce atherosclerosis regression. Objective  To investigate the effects of reconstituted HDL on plaque burden as assessed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Design and Setting  A randomized placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 17 centers in Canada. Intravascular ultrasound was performed to assess coronary atheroma at baseline and 2 to 3 weeks after the last study infusion. Patients  Between July 2005 and October 2006, 183 patients had a baseline IVUS examination and of those, 145 had evaluable serial IVUS examinations after 6 weeks. Intervention  Sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive 4 weekly infusions of placebo (saline), 111 to receive 40 mg/kg of reconstituted HDL (CSL-111); and 12 to receive 80 mg/kg of CSL-111. Main Outcome Measures  The primary efficacy parameter was the percentage change in atheroma volume. Nominal changes in plaque volume and plaque characterization index on IVUS and coronary score on quantitative coronary angiography were also prespecified end points. Results  The higher-dosage CSL-111 treatment group was discontinued early because of liver function test abnormalities. The percentage change in atheroma volume was –3.4% with CSL-111 and –1.6% for placebo (P = .48 between groups, P<.001 vs baseline for CSL-111). The nominal change in plaque volume was –5.3 mm³ with CSL-111 and –2.3 mm³ with placebo (P = .39 between groups, P<.001 vs baseline for CSL-111). The mean changes in plaque characterization index on IVUS (–0.0097 for CSL-111 and 0.0128 with placebo) and mean changes in coronary score (–0.039 mm for CSL-111 and –0.071 mm with placebo) on quantitative coronary angiography were significantly different between groups (P = .01 and P =.03, respectively). Administration of CSL-111 40 mg/kg was associated with mild, self-limiting transaminase elevation but was clinically well tolerated. Conclusions  Short-term infusions of reconstituted HDL resulted in no significant reductions in percentage change in atheroma volume or nominal change in plaque volume compared with placebo but did result in statistically significant improvement in the plaque characterization index and coronary score on quantitative coronary angiography. Elevation of HDL remains a valid target in vascular disease and further studies of HDL infusions, including trials with clinical end points, appear warranted. Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00225719 Published online: March 26, 2007 (doi:10.1001/jama.297.15.jpc70004).      

Comparison of pioglitazone vs glimepiride on progression of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes: the PERISCOPE randomized controlled trial

Context  No antidiabetic regimen has demonstrated the ability to reduce progression of coronary atherosclerosis. Commonly used oral glucose-lowering agents include sulfonylureas, which are insulin secretagogues, and thiazolidinediones, which are insulin sensitizers. Objective  To compare the effects of an insulin sensitizer, pioglitazone, with an insulin secretagogue, glimepiride, on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants  Double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial at 97 academic and community hospitals in North and South America (enrollment August 2003-March 2006) in 543 patients with coronary disease and type 2 diabetes. Interventions  A total of 543 patients underwent coronary intravascular ultrasonography and were randomized to receive glimepiride, 1 to 4 mg, or pioglitazone, 15 to 45 mg, for 18 months with titration to maximum dosage, if tolerated. Atherosclerosis progression was measured by repeat intravascular ultrasonography examination in 360 patients at study completion. Main Outcome Measure  Change in percent atheroma volume (PAV) from baseline to study completion. Results  Least squares mean PAV increased 0.73% (95% CI, 0.33% to 1.12%) with glimepiride and decreased 0.16% (95% CI, –0.57% to 0.25%) with pioglitazone(P = .002). An alternative analysis imputing values for noncompleters based on baseline characteristics showed an increase in PAV of 0.64% (95% CI, 0.23% to 1.05%) for glimepiride and a decrease of 0.06% (–0.47% to 0.35%) for pioglitazone (between-group P = .02). Mean (SD) baseline HbA_1c levels were 7.4% (1.0%) in both groups and declined during treatment an average 0.55% (95% CI, –0.68% to –0.42%) with pioglitazone and 0.36% (95% CI, –0.48% to –0.24%) with glimepiride (between-group P = .03). In the pioglitazone group, compared with glimepiride, high-density lipoprotein levels increased 5.7 mg/dL (95% CI, 4.4 to 7.0 mg/dL; 16.0%) vs 0.9 mg/dL (95% CI, –0.3 to 2.1 mg/dL; 4.1%), and median triglyceride levels decreased 16.3 mg/dL (95% CI, –27.7 to –11.0 mg/dL; 15.3%) vs an increase of 3.3 mg/dL (95% CI, –10.7 to 11.7 mg/dL; 0.6%) (P < .001 for both comparisons). Median fasting insulin levels decreased with pioglitazone and increased with glimepiride (P < .001). Hypoglycemia was more common in the glimepiride group and edema, fractures, and decreased hemoglobin levels occurred more frequently in the pioglitazone group. Conclusion  In patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease, treatment with pioglitazone resulted in a significantly lower rate of progression of coronary atherosclerosis compared with glimepiride. Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00225277