Reports to Independent Data Monitoring Committees: An Appeal for Clarity, Completeness, and Comprehensibility.

BACKGROUND: Organizations presenting reports to independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs) should present data in a way that facilitates the ability of the IDMC to make informed judgments about the trial. METHODS: This paper reviews reports to IDMCs and suggests approaches an independent statistical reporting group (ISRG) might take to prepare clear, complete, and comprehensible reports. RESULTS: Sensible reporting by an ISRG and informed decision making by an IDMC require a productive partnership between the quantitative and clinical disciplines involved in a clinical trial. IDMC reports differ in structure and purpose from clinical study reports that summarize data at the end of a trial. The ISRG must have intellectual independence, recognizing that although the sponsor may be paying the bills, the ISRG is responsible to the IDMC. Ideally, it should have access to all data from the trial and should be capable of responding to requests from the IDMC without the sponsor's specific permission. The ISRG and sponsor must understand the differences between clean data at the end of the trial and data collected during the trial. To perform its role most effectively, the ISRG must collaborate with sponsor and IDMC clinicians to become conversant with the disease area, the product's mechanism of action, and the clinical relevance of important outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: An IDMC is best served by an independent ISRG that will prepare clear, complete, and comprehensible reports. Given the complexities of interim data and IDMC requirements, the ISRG must be an active and informed participant in the monitoring process.

Prophylactic, endovascularly based, long-term normothermia in ICU patients with severe cerebrovascular disease: bicenter prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We sought to study the effectiveness and safety of endovascular cooling to maintain prophylactic normothermia in comparison with standardized, stepwise, escalating fever management to reduce fever burden in patients with severe cerebrovascular disease. METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial with a blinded neurologic outcome evaluation comparison between prophylactic, catheter-based normothermia (CoolGard; ie, body core temperature 36.5 degrees C) and conventional, stepwise fever management with anti-inflammatory drugs and surface cooling. Patients admitted to 1 of the 2 neurointensive care units were eligible for study inclusion when they had a (1) spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage with Hunt & Hess grade between 3 and 5, (2) spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage with a Glasgow Coma Scale score or=15. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients (56 female) were enrolled during a 3.5-year period. Fifty percent had a spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage, 40% had a spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, and 10% had a complicated cerebral infarction. Overall median total fever burden during the course of treatment was 0.0 degrees C hour and 4.3 degrees C hours in the catheter and conventional groups, respectively (P<0.0001). Prophylactic normothermia did not lead to an increase in the number of patients who experienced a major adverse event. No significant difference was found in mortality and neurologic long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term, catheter-based, prophylactic normothermia significantly reduces fever burden in neurointensive care unit patients with severe cerebrovascular disease and is not associated with increased major adverse events.

Efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccine in children: A meta-analysis of nine randomized clinical trials.

Nine randomized clinical trials, including approximately 25,000 children aged 6-71 months and 2000 children aged 6-17 years, have evaluated the efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) against culture-confirmed influenza as compared to placebo or trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV). We conducted meta-analyses, based on Mantel-Haenszel relative risks from fixed effect models, to provide an estimate of vaccine efficacy (VE). Relative to placebo, year 1 VE for two doses in vaccine-naïve young children was 77% (95% CI: 72%, 80%; P<0.001) against antigenically similar strains and 72% against strains regardless of antigenic similarity. Efficacy was 85%, 76%, and 73% against antigenically similar A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B, respectively. Year 1 VE of one dose against antigenically similar strains in vaccine-naive children was 60%; efficacy of one dose in previously vaccinated children in year 2 of the various studies was 87%. In head-to-head trials comparing two doses of TIV and LAIV, vaccine-naïve children who received two doses of LAIV experienced 46% fewer cases of influenza illness caused by antigenically similar strains. Similarly, for studies including older children who had been previously vaccinated, those receiving one LAIV dose experienced 35% fewer cases of influenza illness than those receiving one TIV dose. LAIV showed high VE versus placebo with no evidence of difference by age or by circulating subtype. In these studies, LAIV was more effective than TIV.