Performance of the microINR Point-of-Care System: A Multicenter Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited publications about the microINR point-of-care (POC) system (iLine Microsystems). The current microINR POC system was compared with the ACL TOP 500 laboratory analyzer (Instrumentation Laboratory) and with the CoaguChek XS POC system (Roche Diagnostics). METHODS: This study was performed at three United States medical centers. Sixty-eight nonanticoagulated normal donors and 245 warfarin anticoagulated patients were included. Testing was performed in duplicate using capillary blood samples for the POC systems and venous blood samples for the laboratory testing. Accuracy and imprecision were assessed. RESULTS: Comparing microINR to ACL revealed a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.973, a slope of 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.03), and an intercept of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.04-0.15). When compared with the CoaguChek XS, r was 0.977 with a slope of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94) and an intercept of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.08-0.19). Predicted bias values at international normalized ratio (INR) 2.0, 3.5, and 4.5 were ≤ 5% against both references. Agreement with ACL was 97, 95, and 100% for the INR ranges of < 2.0 ± 0.40, 2.0 to 4.5 ± 20%, and ≥ 4.5 ± 25%, respectively. Agreement for the combined INR ranges was 96% against ACL and > 96% against the CoaguChek XS. The coefficient of variation of the microINR was 5.03% for INR < 2.0 and 4.68% for the therapeutic INR range 2.0 to 3.5. CONCLUSION: The microINR results demonstrate adequate imprecision and accuracy to both ACL and CoaguChek XS. This indicates that monitoring INR by this microINR POC system is reliable and acceptable for the management of warfarin therapy.

Randomized Trial of Medical versus Surgical Treatment for Refractory Heartburn.

BACKGROUND: Heartburn that persists despite proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment is a frequent clinical problem with multiple potential causes. Treatments for PPI-refractory heartburn are of unproven efficacy and focus on controlling gastroesophageal reflux with reflux-reducing medication (e.g., baclofen) or antireflux surgery or on dampening visceral hypersensitivity with neuromodulators (e.g., desipramine). METHODS: Patients who were referred to Veterans Affairs (VA) gastroenterology clinics for PPI-refractory heartburn received 20 mg of omeprazole twice daily for 2 weeks, and those with persistent heartburn underwent endoscopy, esophageal biopsy, esophageal manometry, and multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH monitoring. If patients were found to have reflux-related heartburn, we randomly assigned them to receive surgical treatment (laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication), active medical treatment (omeprazole plus baclofen, with desipramine added depending on symptoms), or control medical treatment (omeprazole plus placebo). The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as a decrease of 50% or more in the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)-Health Related Quality of Life score (range, 0 to 50, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms) at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients (mean age, 48.5 years; 280 men) were enrolled. Prerandomization procedures excluded 288 patients: 42 had relief of their heartburn during the 2-week omeprazole trial, 70 did not complete trial procedures, 54 were excluded for other reasons, 23 had non-GERD esophageal disorders, and 99 had functional heartburn (not due to GERD or other histopathologic, motility, or structural abnormality). The remaining 78 patients underwent randomization. The incidence of treatment success with surgery (18 of 27 patients, 67%) was significantly superior to that with active medical treatment (7 of 25 patients, 28%; P = 0.007) or control medical treatment (3 of 26 patients, 12%; P<0.001). The difference in the incidence of treatment success between the active medical group and the control medical group was 16 percentage points (95% confidence interval, -5 to 38; P = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients referred to VA gastroenterology clinics for PPI-refractory heartburn, systematic workup revealed truly PPI-refractory and reflux-related heartburn in a minority of patients. For that highly selected subgroup, surgery was superior to medical treatment. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01265550.).

Effect of Antidepressant Switching vs Augmentation on Remission Among Patients With Major Depressive Disorder Unresponsive to Antidepressant Treatment: The VAST-D Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Less than one-third of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) achieve remission with their first antidepressant. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of 3 common alternate treatments for MDD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From December 2012 to May 2015, 1522 patients at 35 US Veterans Health Administration medical centers who were diagnosed with nonpsychotic MDD, unresponsive to at least 1 antidepressant course meeting minimal standards for treatment dose and duration, participated in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 treatments and evaluated for up to 36 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Switch to a different antidepressant, bupropion (switch group, n = 511); augment current treatment with bupropion (augment-bupropion group, n = 506); or augment with an atypical antipsychotic, aripiprazole (augment-aripiprazole group, n = 505) for 12 weeks (acute treatment phase) and up to 36 weeks for longer-term follow-up (continuation phase). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was remission during the acute treatment phase (16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated [QIDS-C16] score ≤5 at 2 consecutive visits). Secondary outcomes included response (≥50% reduction in QIDS-C16 score or improvement on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale), relapse, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Among 1522 randomized patients (mean age, 54.4 years; men, 1296 [85.2%]), 1137 (74.7%) completed the acute treatment phase. Remission rates at 12 weeks were 22.3% (n = 114) for the switch group, 26.9% (n = 136)for the augment-bupropion group, and 28.9% (n = 146) for the augment-aripiprazole group. The augment-aripiprazole group exceeded the switch group in remission (relative risk [RR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.05-1.60]; P = .02), but other remission comparisons were not significant. Response was greater for the augment-aripiprazole group (74.3%) than for either the switch group (62.4%; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.09-1.29]) or the augment-bupropion group (65.6%; RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.04-1.23]). No significant treatment differences were observed for relapse. Anxiety was more frequent in the 2 bupropion groups (24.3% in the switch group [n = 124] vs 16.6% in the augment-aripiprazole group [n = 84]; and 22.5% in augment-bupropion group [n = 114]). Adverse effects more frequent in the augment-aripiprazole group included somnolence, akathisia, and weight gain. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among a predominantly male population with major depressive disorder unresponsive to antidepressant treatment, augmentation with aripiprazole resulted in a statistically significant but only modestly increased likelihood of remission during 12 weeks of treatment compared with switching to bupropion monotherapy. Given the small effect size and adverse effects associated with aripiprazole, further analysis including cost-effectiveness is needed to understand the net utility of this approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01421342.