Odds Ratio

BACKGROUND:

Two large clinical trials have shown a reduced rate of breast cancer development in high-risk women in the initial 5 years of follow-up after use of aromatase inhibitors (MAP.3 and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II [IBIS-II]). Here, we report blinded long-term follow-up results for the IBIS-II trial, which compared anastrozole with placebo, with the objective of determining the efficacy of anastrozole for preventing breast cancer (both invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ) in the post-treatment period.

METHODS:

IBIS-II is an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Postmenopausal women at increased risk of developing breast cancer were recruited and were randomly assigned (1:1) to either anastrozole (1 mg per day, oral) or matching placebo daily for 5 years. After treatment completion, women were followed on a yearly basis to collect data on breast cancer incidence, death, other cancers, and major adverse events (cardiovascular events and fractures). The primary outcome was all breast cancer.

FINDINGS:

3864 women were recruited between Feb 2, 2003, and Jan 31, 2012. 1920 women were randomly assigned to 5 years anastrozole and 1944 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 131 months (IQR 105-156), a 49% reduction in breast cancer was observed for anastrozole (85 vs 165 cases, hazard ratio [HR] 0·51, 95% CI 0·39-0·66, p<0·0001). The reduction was larger in the first 5 years (35 vs 89, 0·39, 0·27-0·58, p<0·0001), but still significant after 5 years (50 vs 76 new cases, 0·64, 0·45-0·91, p=0·014), and not significantly different from the first 5 years (p=0·087). Invasive oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer was reduced by 54% (HR 0·46, 95% CI 0·33-0·65, p<0·0001), with a continued significant effect in the period after treatment. A 59% reduction in ductal carcinoma in situ was observed (0·41, 0·22-0·79, p=0·0081), especially in participants known to be oestrogen receptor-positive (0·22, 0·78-0·65, p<0·0001). No significant difference in deaths was observed overall (69 vs 70, HR 0·96, 95% CI 0·69-1·34, p=0·82) or for breast cancer (two anastrozole vs three placebo). A significant decrease in non-breast cancers was observed for anastrozole (147 vs 200, odds ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·91, p=0·0042), owing primarily to non-melanoma skin cancer. No excess of fractures or cardiovascular disease was observed.

INTERPRETATION:

This analysis has identified a significant continuing reduction in breast cancer with anastrozole in the post-treatment follow-up period, with no evidence of new late side-effects. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect on breast cancer mortality.

FUNDING:

Cancer Research UK, the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Sanofi Aventis, and AstraZeneca.

Abstract

Background

Mobile phone‐based smoking cessation support (mCessation) offers the opportunity to provide behavioural support to those who cannot or do not want face‐to‐face support. In addition, mCessation can be automated and therefore provided affordably even in resource‐poor settings. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012.

Objectives

To determine whether mobile phone‐based smoking cessation interventions increase smoking cessation rates in people who smoke.

Search methods

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, along with clinicaltrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the most recent searches was 29 October 2018.

Selection criteria

Participants were smokers of any age. Eligible interventions were those testing any type of predominantly mobile phone‐based programme (such as text messages (or smartphone app) for smoking cessation. We included randomised controlled trials with smoking cessation outcomes reported at at least six‐month follow‐up.

Data collection and analysis

We used standard methodological procedures described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We performed both study eligibility checks and data extraction in duplicate. We performed meta‐analyses of the most stringent measures of abstinence at six months' follow‐up or longer, using a Mantel‐Haenszel random‐effects method, pooling studies with similar interventions and similar comparators to calculate risk ratios (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted analyses including all randomised (with dropouts counted as still smoking) and complete cases only.

Main results

This review includes 26 studies (33,849 participants). Overall, we judged 13 studies to be at low risk of bias, three at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. Settings and recruitment procedures varied across studies, but most studies were conducted in high‐income countries. There was moderate‐certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that automated text messaging interventions were more effective than minimal smoking cessation support (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.00; I2 = 71%; 13 studies, 14,133 participants). There was also moderate‐certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that text messaging added to other smoking cessation interventions was more effective than the other smoking cessation interventions alone (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; I2 = 0%, 4 studies, 997 participants). Two studies comparing text messaging with other smoking cessation interventions, and three studies comparing high‐ and low‐intensity messaging, did not show significant differences between groups (RR 0.92 95% CI 0.61 to 1.40; I2 = 27%; 2 studies, 2238 participants; and RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; I2 = 0%, 3 studies, 12,985 participants, respectively) but confidence intervals were wide in the former comparison. Five studies compared a smoking cessation smartphone app with lower‐intensity smoking cessation support (either a lower‐intensity app or non‐app minimal support). We pooled the evidence and deemed it to be of very low certainty due to inconsistency and serious imprecision. It provided no evidence that smartphone apps improved the likelihood of smoking cessation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.52; I2 = 59%; 5 studies, 3079 participants). Other smartphone apps tested differed from the apps included in the analysis, as two used contingency management and one combined text messaging with an app, and so we did not pool them. Using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised did not substantially alter the findings.

Authors' conclusions

There is moderate‐certainty evidence that automated text message‐based smoking cessation interventions result in greater quit rates than minimal smoking cessation support. There is moderate‐certainty evidence of the benefit of text messaging interventions in addition to other smoking cessation support in comparison with that smoking cessation support alone. The evidence comparing smartphone apps with less intensive support was of very low certainty, and more randomised controlled trials are needed to test these interventions.

Plain Language Summary

Can programmes delivered by mobile phones help people to stop smoking?

Background

Tobacco smoking is a leading cause of preventable death. Mobile phones can be used to support people who want to quit smoking. In this review, we have focused on programmes that use text messages or smartphone apps to do so.

Search date

We searched for published and unpublished studies in October 2018.

Study characteristics

We included 26 randomised controlled studies (involving over 33,000 people) that compared smoking quit rates in people who received text messages or smartphone apps to help them quit, with people who did not receive these programmes. We were interested in studies that measured smoking for six months or longer.

Key results

We found that text messaging programmes may be effective in supporting people to quit, increasing quit rates by 50% to 60%. This was the case when they were compared to minimal support or were tested as an addition to other forms of stop‐smoking support. There was not enough evidence to determine the effect of smartphone apps.

Quality and completeness of the evidence

Most of the studies were of high quality, although three studies had high drop out rates. We are moderately confident in the results of the text messaging interventions, but there were some issues with unexplained differences between study findings and for some comparisons there was not much data. We have low confidence in the results concerning smartphone apps, and more studies are needed in this field.

BACKGROUND:

The potential role of new oral anticoagulants in antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine whether rivaroxaban is noninferior to dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for thrombotic APS.

DESIGN:

3-year, open-label, randomized noninferiority trial. (EU Clinical Trials Register: EUDRA [European Union Drug Regulatory Authorities] code 2010-019764-36).

SETTING:

6 university hospitals in Spain.

PARTICIPANTS:

190 adults (aged 18 to 75 years) with thrombotic APS.

INTERVENTION:

Rivaroxaban (20 mg/d or 15 mg/d, according to renal function) versus dose-adjusted VKAs (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0, or 3.1 to 4.0 in patients with a history of recurrent thrombosis).

MEASUREMENTS:

The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients with new thrombotic events; the primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The prespecified noninferiority margin for risk ratio (RR) was 1.40. Secondary outcomes included time to thrombosis, type of thrombosis, changes in biomarker levels, cardiovascular death, and nonmajor bleeding.

RESULTS:

After 3 years of follow-up, recurrent thrombosis occurred in 11 patients (11.6%) in the rivaroxaban group and 6 (6.3%) in the VKA group (RR in the rivaroxaban group, 1.83 [95% CI, 0.71 to 4.76]). Stroke occurred more commonly in patients receiving rivaroxaban (9 events) than in those receiving VKAs (0 events) (corrected RR, 19.00 [CI, 1.12 to 321.9]). Major bleeding occurred in 6 patients (6.3%) in the rivaroxaban group and 7 (7.4%) in the VKA group (RR, 0.86 [CI, 0.30 to 2.46]). Post hoc analysis suggested an increased risk for recurrent thrombosis in rivaroxaban-treated patients with previous arterial thrombosis, livedo racemosa, or APS-related cardiac valvular disease.

LIMITATION:

Anticoagulation intensity was not measured in the rivaroxaban group.

CONCLUSION:

Rivaroxaban did not show noninferiority to dose-adjusted VKAs for thrombotic APS and, in fact, showed a non-statistically significant near doubling of the risk for recurrent thrombosis.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:

Bayer Hispania.

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care testing of C-reactive protein (CRP) may be a way to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics without harming patients who have acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with a diagnosis of COPD in their primary care clinical record who consulted a clinician at 1 of 86 general medical practices in England and Wales for an acute exacerbation of COPD. The patients were assigned to receive usual care guided by CRP point-of-care testing (CRP-guided group) or usual care alone (usual-care group). The primary outcomes were patient-reported use of antibiotics for acute exacerbations of COPD within 4 weeks after randomization (to show superiority) and COPD-related health status at 2 weeks after randomization, as measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, a 10-item scale with scores ranging from 0 (very good COPD health status) to 6 (extremely poor COPD health status) (to show noninferiority).

RESULTS

A total of 653 patients underwent randomization. Fewer patients in the CRP-guided group reported antibiotic use than in the usual-care group (57.0% vs. 77.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.47). The adjusted mean difference in the total score on the Clinical COPD Questionnaire at 2 weeks was −0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI, −0.33 to −0.05) in favor of the CRP-guided group. The antibiotic prescribing decisions made by clinicians at the initial consultation were ascertained for all but 1 patient, and antibiotic prescriptions issued over the first 4 weeks of follow-up were ascertained for 96.9% of the patients. A lower percentage of patients in the CRP-guided group than in the usual-care group received an antibiotic prescription at the initial consultation (47.7% vs. 69.7%, for a difference of 22.0 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.45) and during the first 4 weeks of follow-up (59.1% vs. 79.7%, for a difference of 20.6 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.46). Two patients in the usual-care group died within 4 weeks after randomization from causes considered by the investigators to be unrelated to trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

CRP-guided prescribing of antibiotics for exacerbations of COPD in primary care clinics resulted in a lower percentage of patients who reported antibiotic use and who received antibiotic prescriptions from clinicians, with no evidence of harm. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; PACE Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN24346473.)