The Preventiometer - reliability of a cardiovascular multi-device measurement platform and its measurement agreement with a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Multimedia multi-device measurement platforms may make the assessment of prevention-related medical variables with a focus on cardiovascular outcomes more attractive and time-efficient. The aim of the studies was to evaluate the reliability (Study 1) and the measurement agreement with a cohort study (Study 2) of selected measures of such a device, the Preventiometer.

METHODS

In Study 1 (N = 75), we conducted repeated measurements in two Preventiometers for four examinations (blood pressure measurement, pulse oximetry, body fat measurement, and spirometry) to analyze their agreement and derive (retest-)reliability estimates. In Study 2 (N = 150), we compared somatometry, blood pressure, pulse oximetry, body fat, and spirometry measurements in the Preventiometer with corresponding measurements used in the population-based Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP) to evaluate measurement agreement.

RESULTS

Intraclass correlations coefficients (ICCs) ranged from .84 to .99 for all examinations in Study 1. Whereas bias was not an issue for most examinations in Study 2, limits of agreement for most examinations were very large compared to results of similar method comparison studies.

CONCLUSION

We observed a high retest-reliability of the assessed clinical examinations in the Preventiometer. Some disagreements between Preventiometer and SHIP examinations can be attributed to procedural differences in the examinations. Methodological and technical improvements are recommended before using the Preventiometer in population-based research.

Vorinostat in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma who have progressed on previous chemotherapy (VANTAGE-014): a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Vorinostat is a histone deacetylase inhibitor that changes gene expression and protein activity. On the basis of the clinical benefit reported in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma treated in a phase 1 study of vorinostat, we designed this phase 3 trial to investigate whether vorinostat given as a second-line or third-line therapy improved patients' overall survival.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial was done in 90 international centres. Patients with measurable advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma and disease progression after one or two previous systemic regimens were eligible. After stratification for Karnofsky performance status, histology, and number of previous chemotherapy regimens, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive voice response system with a block size of four to either treatment with vorinostat or placebo. Patients received oral vorinostat 300 mg (or matching placebo) twice daily on days 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 of a 21-day cycle. The primary endpoints were overall survival and safety and tolerability of vorinostat. The primary efficacy comparison was done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety and tolerability was assessed in the treated population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00128102.

FINDINGS

From July 12, 2005, to Feb 14, 2011, 661 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either vorinostat (n=329) or placebo (n=332) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival for vorinostat was 30·7 weeks (95% CI 26·7-36·1) versus 27·1 weeks (23·1-31·9) for placebo (hazard ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·83-1·17, p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events for patients treated with vorinostat were fatigue or malaise (51 [16%] patients in the vorinostat group vs 25 [8%] in the placebo group]) and dyspnoea (35 [11%] vs 45 [14%]).

INTERPRETATION

In this randomised trial, vorinostat given as a second-line or third-line therapy did not improve overall survival and cannot be recommended as a therapy for patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma.

FUNDING

Merck & Co.