Randomised Controlled Trials in Medical Research: Do we need alternatives?

Identifying causal relationships between gastroesophageal reflux and extraesophageal diseases: A Mendelian randomization study

Traditional observational and in vivo studies have suggested an etiological link between gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and the development of extraesophageal diseases (EEDs), such as noncardiac chest pain. However, evidence demonstrating potential causal relationships is lacking. This study evaluated the potential causal relationship between GERD and EEDs, including throat and chest pain, asthma, bronchitis, chronic rhinitis, nasopharyngitis and pharyngitis, gingivitis and periodontal disease, cough, using multiple Mendelian randomization (MR) methods, and sensitivity analysis was performed. The Mendelian randomization Pleiotropy RESidual Sum and Outlier and PhenoScanner tools were used to further check for heterogeneous results and remove outliers. MR with inverse-variance weighted (IVW) showed a significant causal relationship between GERD and EEDs after Bonferroni correction. IVW results indicated that GERD increased the risk of chronic rhinitis, nasopharyngitis and pharyngitis (odds ratio [OR] = 1.482, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.267-1.734, P < .001], gingivitis and periodontal disease (OR = 1.166, 95% CI = 1.046-1.190, P = .001), throat and chest pain (OR = 1.585, 95% CI = 1.455-1.726, P < .001), asthma (OR = 1.539, 95% CI = 1.379-1.717, P < .001), and bronchitis (OR = 1.249, 95% CI = 1.168-1.335, P < .001). Sensitivity analysis did not detect pleiotropy. Leave-one-out analysis shows that MR results were not affected by individual single nucleotide polymorphisms. The funnel plot considers the genetic instrumental variables to be almost symmetrically distributed. This MR supports a causal relationship among GERD and EEDs. Precise moderation based on causality and active promotion of collaboration among multidisciplinary physicians ensure high-quality diagnostic and treatment recommendations and maximize patient benefit.

Decompressive Craniectomy for Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury in Low-and-Middle Income and High Income Countries

Traumatic brain injury is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity in children worldwide. In severe cases, high intracranial pressure is the most frequent cause of death. When first-line medical management fails, the neurosurgical procedure of decompressive craniectomy (DC) has been proposed for controlling intracranial pressure and improving the long-term outcomes for children with severe traumatic brain injury. However, the use of this procedure is controversial. The evidence from clinical trials shows some promise for the use of DC as an effective second-line treatment. However, it is limited by conflicting trial results, a lack of trials, and a high risk of bias. Furthermore, most research comes from retrospective observational studies and case series. This narrative review considers the strength of evidence for the use of DC in both a high income country and low-and-middle income country setting and examine how we can improve study design to better assess the efficacy of this procedure and increase the clinical translatability of results to centers worldwide. Specifically, we argue for a need for further studies with higher pediatric participant numbers, multicenter collaboration, and the use of a more consistent methodology to enable comparability of results among settings.

Efficacy and Safety of Afatinib in the Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with EGFR Mutations: A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Evidence

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of afatinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations based on real-world evidence.

Materials and Methods

Eligible real-world studies were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Cochrane guidelines were used to assess the quality of included studies. Cochran's Q test and I² statistics were used for the heterogeneity analysis.

Results

Twenty-five studies were included in this meta-analysis; nine studies were included in the qualitative descriptive analysis. The summarized disease control rate (DCR) was 87.6% (81.5%, 92.7%), and the overall response rate (ORR) was 58.9% (48.8%, 68.7%). The pooled median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.4 (10.3, 14.5) months, mean time to failure (TTF) was 15.4 (13.6, 17.2) months, and median overall survival (OS) was 31.6 (26.7, 36.5) months. The total incidences of adverse events (AEs) for skin rashes, diarrhea, paronychia, and mucositis were 71.4% (64.4%, 77.9%), 70.4% (60.1%, 79.8%), 52.1% (41.9, 62.3%), and 36.5% (29.5%, 43.8%), respectively. The incidences of severe adverse events (SAEs, Grade ≥3) for diarrhea, skin rashes, paronychia, and mucositis were 9.7% (6.8%, 13.1%), 5.8% (4.5%, 7.2%), 3.8% (2.0%, 6.2%), and 2.1% (1.0%, 3.6%), respectively. Differences in PFS and OS between the afatinib non-full-dose (<40 mg) and full-dose (>40 mg) groups were not significant (P > 0.05). However, the ORR in the full-dose group was 78.5% (66.7%, 88.4%), which was significantly higher than that in the non-full-dose group (67.8% [56.8%, 77.9%]).

Conclusion

The efficacy and safety of afatinib has been confirmed by real-world evidence in advanced NSCLC with EGFR mutation, consistent with randomized controlled trial results. In real-world setting, tolerability-guided dose adjustment might not affect the afatinib efficacy.