Abstract TP33: Statewide Trends in Utilization of Endovascular Treatment and Outcomes: Analysis of Minnesota Hospital Association Data (2014 and 2015)

Stroke ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haitham M Hussein ◽  
Muhammad A Saleem ◽  
Adnan I Qureshi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Endovascular Procedures ◽  
Healthcare Quality ◽  
The State ◽  
Utilization Rate ◽  
Association Data ◽  
Clinical Trial Results ◽  
Minnesota Hospital

Background: There is emphasis on understanding the implementation of clinical trial results for clinical practice. The aim of this study is to examine the changes in endovascular procedures utilization after the publication of the recent clinical trials showing benefit of such procedures in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods: Minnesota Hospital Association (MHA) database was used to calculate the state wide utilization rates for two periods: prior to (January 1st-December 31st, 2014) and after (January 1 st -December 31 st , 2015) publication of randomized clinical trials. MHA collects data from 137 member hospitals for monitoring and reporting healthcare quality and cost across the state. Patients with admitting diagnosis of AIS and those who received endovascular treatment were identified using ICD9 or ICD10 codes. Utilization rates for endovascular treatment were calculated monthly, quarterly, and annually. Discharge to home was considered as the measure of none to minimal disability. Results: Of the 13,043 patients admitted with the diagnosis of AIS, 434 patients (mean age 68.5± 25.5 years; 51.2% women) received endovascular treatment. The number of procedures increased from 194 in 2014 to 240 in 2015. Utilization rate was 3.4% in the first quarter of 2014, gradually declined to reach its lowest value (2.6%) in the last quarter of 2014, then steadily increased to reach its peak (4%) in the last quarter of 2015. Procedures performed at comprehensive stroke centers increased from 52% of total procedures in 2014 to 57.5% in 2015 while those performed at primary stroke centers decreased from 22.6% in 2014 to 19.5% in 2015. In 2015, fewer patients had hypertension (50.4% vs. 60.3%; p=0.039) and more patients had chronic kidney disease (28.3% vs. 15.5%; p=0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage and mortality rates were not significantly different between the two years. There was a trend towards higher rate of minimal or no disability at discharge among patients treated in 2015 compared with those treated in 2014 (22.5% versus 18.1%, p=0.25). Conclusion: We observed a state wide increase in rate of utilization of endovascular treatment of AIS patients coinciding with the publication of the results of new clinical trials.

Abstract P476: Safety and Efficacy of Balloon Mounted Drug-Eluting Stent in the Treatment of Symptomatic Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease Multicenter International Experience

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Mohammaden ◽  
Raul G Nogueira ◽  
WONDWOSSEN TEKLE ◽  
farhan siddiq ◽  
Diogo C Haussen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Medical Management ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Atherosclerotic Disease ◽  
Drug Eluting Stent ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Intracranial Atherosclerotic Disease ◽  
Drug Eluting

Introduction: Intracranial atherosclerotic disease (ICAD) is a common cause of refractory stroke. Randomized clinical trials failed to prove the safety and efficacy of the endovascular treatment options of symptomatic ICAD (sICAD). However, there are many concerns regarding inclusion criteria in these trials which made them less effective than standard medical management. Herein, we aim to study the safety and efficacy of drug-eluting balloon mounted stents (DES) in the treatment of sICAD. Methods: A retrospective review of endovascular database from 10 comprehensive stroke centers inside and outside the USA from January 2017 to January 2020 was reviewed. Patients were included if they had symptomatic intracranial stenosis ≥70% in the target vessel, failed best medical management, and underwent intracranial stenting with DES. The primary outcome was the occurrence of ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, or mortality within 72 hours of the procedure. Secondary outcomes included rates of symptomatic and angiographic recurrence within 6 months of the procedure. Results: There was a total of 129 patients, the median age was 65 [58-72] years, 40 (31%) were females. The intracranial stenotic lesions were located in anterior circulation in 74 (57.4%) of cases [24 (18.6%) supraclinoid ICA, 5 (3.9%) cavernous ICA, 17 (13.2%) petrous ICA, 5 (19.4%) MCA-M1, and 3 (2.3%) M2] and in posterior circulation in 55 (42.6%) of cases [36 (27.9) vertebral artery V4 segment, 18 (14%) basilar and 1 (0.7%) PCA]. Recurrent stroke was the qualifying event in 101 (78.3%) while transient ischemic attacks (TIA) were identified in 28 (21.7%) of cases. The median time from the qualifying event to stenting was 6 [2-24] days. Strokes were reported within 72 hours of the procedure; 2 (1.6%) ischemic, 2 (1.6%) hemorrhagic strokes and 2 (1.6%) patients suffered inpatient mortality. The median follow-up time was 6 [3-6.75] months. Among 99 patients who had clinical follow up 2 (2%) had TIA and 6 (6.1%) had strokes. Fifty-one patients had follow-up imaging of whom symptomatic ISR was reported in 8 (15.7%). Conclusion: Our study has shown that in appropriately selected patients with sICAD, endovascular treatment using DES is safe and effective. Prospective randomized clinical trials are warranted.

Survival among metastatic colorectal patients in clinical trials compared to the real world.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 673-673
Author(s):  
Ziwei Wang ◽  
Lindsay Hwang ◽  
James Don Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
The Real ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

673 Background: Randomized clinical trials play a central role in clinical research though only a small fraction of patients partake in clinical studies. Questions thus arise regarding the generalizability of clinical trial results to the remainder of the population. This study evaluated whether patient survival from randomized clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer reflects real world outcomes. Methods: A Pubmed search was used to identify randomized phase III clinical trials of first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer published between 2005 and 2010. We excluded secondary or pooled analyses, second-line treatments, non-metastatic patients, non-English language, and non-randomized studies. Thirty-one clinical trials met these criteria, comprised of 79 distinct clinical trial arms. Overall survival among clinical trial patients was compared to metastatic colorectal cancer patients within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Within SEER, we restricted the analysis time-period and age of patients to match the enrollment period and age of patients within each individual clinical trial. Results: The clinical trials enrolled a total of 16,614 patients. Among all clinical trial arms the median survival ranged from 6.7-62 months, 1-year survival ranged from 30-97%, and 2-year survival ranged from 6-88%. Compared to SEER, the median survival was higher in 95% of the individual clinical trial arms by an average of 5.4 months (p<0.0001). The 1-year survival was higher in 94% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 16.7% (p<0.0001). The 2-year survival was higher in 71% of the clinical trial arms by an average of 7.2% (p<0.0001). Conclusions: This study found substantially improved survival among clinical trial participants compared to patients in the SEER database suggesting that survival estimates from clinical trials may not generalize to the “real world.” Potential patient factors such as differences in underlying comorbidity, performance status, disease burden, as well as variation in treatment could not be addressed in this study, though these factors likely explain some of the observed survival differences.

scholarly journals Are clinical trial results transferable in the real life?

2016 ◽  
Vol 84 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrico Natale ◽  
Alfiera Marsocci
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Recurrent Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Recurrent Event ◽  
The Real ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Clinical Trial Results

<p>Generally in the clinical practice patients are more complex in comparison with those included in the clinical trials. In this article, we discuss three relevant items, which may implement the transferability of the clinical trial results in the real world. The observational studies have fewer restrictions on the number of patients included, due to more relaxed inclusion and exlusion criteria than in randomized clinical trials. The absence of randomization however may lead to potential for bias. The recurrent event analysis may extend the positive results of clinical trials regarding the reductions of the first primary endpoint event to total events, including those beyond the first event. This analysis is of great interest in the clinical practice, where recurrent events are common. Finally the reliability of subgroup analysis is discussed. Pre-specified subgroup analyses are more credible and valuable than <em>post-hoc</em> analyses.</p><p><strong>Riassunto</strong></p><p>Nella pratica clinica i pazienti sono generalmente più complessi rispetto alle popolazioni studiate nei trial clinici. Si rendono necessari pertanto strumenti di analisi che integrino i trial clinici. In questo articolo vengono esaminati alcuni punti di rilevante importanza nella definizione di una corretta applicabilità dei risultati dei trial clinici al mondo reale. Il primo punto riguarda il ruolo e i limiti degli studi osservazionali. Il secondo tratta delle analisi degli eventi ricorrenti, una modalità di analisi dei trial clinici che rende i risultati più aderenti alla vita reale, nella consapevolezza che limitare i dati di outcome al primo evento sia riduttivo rispetto alla necessità di stabilire che l’intervento studiato nel trial confermi la sua efficacia anche sugli eventi successivi al primo. Il terzo punto riguarda la controversa questione delle analisi per sottogruppi, uno strumento utile per generare ipotesi, ma discutibile quando impiegato per rimediare a trial con risultati negativi o estendere i risultati di trial positivi a sottopopolazioni particolari di pazienti. </p>

scholarly journals Proposing Minimum Requirements for Announcing Clinical Trial Results During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J Siedner ◽  
Rajesh T Gandhi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Sufficient Data ◽  
Press Releases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Unique Nature ◽  
Minimum Requirements ◽  
Clinical Trial Results ◽  
Important Purpose

Abstract Recently, results from at least six major randomized clinical trials studying management of COVID-19 have been announced via press release. Given the unique nature of the pandemic, results of such trials often have immediate and worldwide relevance. Yet, while press releases serve the important purpose of disseminating top-level results quickly, they are inherently limited in scope, and rarely include sufficient data to inform practice. Herein, we propose a minimum set of trial characteristics and results to be released simultaneously with clinical trial announcements. This practice will ensure data related to the management of COVID-19 can be used to appropriately impact care, while responding to the needs of diverse stakeholders in the scientific and publishing communities, as well as the public at large.

L-arginine effect on inflammatory mediators: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seyed Reza Mirhafez ◽  
Mitra Hariri
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Inflammatory Mediators ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Human Adults ◽  
Factor Α

Abstract. L-arginine is an important factor in several physiological and biochemical processes. Recently, scientists studied L-arginine effect on inflammatory mediators such as C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). We conducted a systematic review on randomized controlled trials assessing L-arginine effect on inflammatory mediators. We searched data bases including Google scholar, ISI web of science, SCOPUS, and PubMed/Medline up to April 2019. Randomized clinical trials assessing the effect of L-arginine on inflammatory mediators in human adults were included. Our search retrieved eleven articles with 387 participants. Five articles were on patients with cancer and 6 articles were on adults without cancer. L-arginine was applied in enteral form in 5 articles and in oral form in 6 articles. Eight articles were on both genders, two articles were on women, and one article was on men. L-arginine could not reduce inflammatory mediators among patients with and without cancer except one article which indicated that taking L-arginine for 6 months decreased IL-6 among cardiopathic nondiabetic patients. Our results indicated that L-arginine might not be able to reduce selected inflammatory mediators, but for making a firm decision more studies are needed to be conducted with longer intervention duration, separately on male and female and with different doses of L-arginine.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document