Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a common, chronic expensive debilitating neurodegenerative disease with no current treatments to prevent the physical deterioration of the brain and the consequent cognitive deficits. The current pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease is the accumulation of neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) of hyperphosphorylated tau protein and amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques. Antibody therapy of Tau and Amyloid beta, vaccines and other methods to decrease Tau and or Amyloid have not been successful after considerable pharmaceutical and biotech efforts. For example, Eli Lilly announced a major change to its closely watched clinical trial for the Alzheimer’s drug solanezumab which failed to reach statistical significance. Recently, a report on animal models using photomodulation with near infrared light to treat AD pathology in K369I tau transgenic model (K3) l engineered to develop neurofibrillary tangles, and the APPs/PSEN1dE9 transgenic model (APP/PS1) to develop amyloid plaques. Mice were treated with NIR 20 times over a four-week period and NIR treatment (600–1000 nm) was associated with a reduction in the size and number of amyloid-β plaques in the neocortex and hippocampus. We now report a small pilot double blind, placebo-controlled trial (n=11) 6 active, 3 controls and 2 dropouts assessing the effect of 28 consecutive, sixminute transcranial sessions of near infrared (NIR) stimulation using 1060–1080 nm light emitting diodes. Subjects were independently diagnosed with dementia conducted in an outpatient behavioral healthcare clinic. IRB approval was obtained through the Quietmind Foundation’s institutional review Board (IRB). Results showed changes in executive functioning; clock drawing, immediate recall, praxis memory, visual attention and task switching (Trails A&B) as well as a trend of improved EEG amplitude and connectivity measures. Neuroplasticity has also been reported with NIR light stimulation and mitochondrial enhancement.

BackgroundSevere limb ischaemia is defined by ischaemic rest/night pain, tissue loss, or both, secondary to arterial insufficiency and is increasingly caused by infra-popliteal (below the knee) disease, mainly as a result of the increasing worldwide prevalence of diabetes. Currently, it is unknown whether vein bypass surgery or the best endovascular treatment (angioplasty or stenting) represents the optimal revascularisation strategy in terms of amputation-free survival, overall survival, relief of symptoms, quality of life and cost-effective use of health care resources.Methods/DesignThe Bypass vs. Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg - 2 Trial is a UK National Institute of Health Research, Health Technology Assessment funded, multi-centre randomised controlled trial that compares, at the point of clinical equipoise, the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a ‘vein bypass first’ and a ‘best endovascular treatment first’ revascularisation strategy for severe limb ischaemia due to infra-popliteal disease. The primary clinical outcome is amputation-free survival defined as the time to major (above the ankle) amputation of the trial limb or death from any cause. The primary outcome for the cost-effectiveness analysis is cost per quality-adjusted life year. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, quality of life, in-hospital mortality and morbidity, repeat and crossover interventions, healing of tissue loss and haemodynamic changes following revascularisation. Sample size is estimated at 600 patients. An economic evaluation will be conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service and comprise a ‘within-study’ analysis, based on prospectively collected trial data and a ‘model-based’ analysis, which will extrapolate and compare costs and effects beyond the study follow-up period.DiscussionThe BASIL-2 trial is designed to be pragmatic and represent current practice within the United Kingdom. Patients with severe limb ischaemia can only be randomised into the trial where clinical equipose exists. The advent of hybrid operating procedures should not be a barrier to randomisation, should a patient require inflow correction prior to tibial revascularisation.Trial registrationISRCTN:27728689 Date of registration: 12 May 2014.

No abstract

BackgroundSevere limb ischaemia (SLI) is defined as the presence of rest pain and/or tissue loss secondary to lower extremity atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease. The superficial femoral and popliteal arteries are the most commonly diseased vessels in such patients and are being increasingly treated using endovascular revascularisation techniques. However, it is currently unknown whether drug-eluting stents and drug-coated balloons confer additional clinical benefits over more established techniques using plain balloons and bare metal stents, or whether they represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources.MethodsThe BASIL-3 trial is a UK National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme-funded, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of plain balloon angioplasty with or without bail-out bare metal stenting, drug-coated balloon angioplasty with or without bail-out bare metal stenting, and primary stenting with drug-eluting stents for SLI secondary to femoro-popliteal disease. Patients with ‘multilevel’ disease may receive aorto-iliac and/or infrapopliteal treatments concurrently with their randomised femoro-popliteal intervention. The primary clinical outcome is amputation-free survival defined as the time to major (above the ankle) amputation of the index limb or death from any cause. The primary outcome for the economic analysis is cost per quality-adjusted life year. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, major adverse limb events, major adverse cardiac events, relief of ischaemic pain, healing of tissue loss, and quality of life. The required sample size has been calculated at 861 participants (287 on each arm). These patients will be recruited over 3 years and followed-up for between 2 and 5 years.DiscussionBASIL-3 is a pragmatic RCT designed to reflect current UK clinical practice. The results will inform decision-making regarding the appropriateness of funding the use of drug-coated balloons and drug-eluting stents, by the NHS, for the management of SLI due to femoro-popliteal disease.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, identifier: ISRCTN14469736. Registered on 22 October 2015.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1968-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPlatinum-based combination chemotherapy is standard treatment for the majority of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The trial investigates the importance of the choice of platinum agent and dose of cisplatin in relation to patient outcomes.MethodsThe three-arm randomised phase III trial assigned patients with chemo-naïve stage IIIB/IV NSCLC in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle with cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (GC80) or cisplatin 50 mg/m2 (GC50) or carboplatin AUC6 (GCb6) for a maximum of four cycles. Primary outcome measure was survival time, aiming to test for a difference between treatment arms and also assess non-inferiority with pre-defined margin selected as hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2. Secondary outcome measures included response rate, adverse events and quality of life (QoL).FindingsThe trial recruited 1363 patients. Survival time differed significantly across the three treatment arms (p = 0.046) with GC50 worst with median 8.2 months compared to 9.5 for GC80 and 10.0 for GCb6. HRs (adjusted) for GC50 compared to GC80 was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99–1.29) and for GC50 compared to GCb6 was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.08–1.41). GCb6 was significantly non-inferior to GC80 (HR = 0.93, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1.04). Adjusting for QoL did not change the findings. Best objective response rates were 29% (GC80), 20% (GC50) and 27% (GCb6), p < 0.007. There were more dose reductions and treatment delays in the GCb6 arm and more adverse events (60% with at least one grade 3–4 compared to 43% GC80 and 30% GC50).InterpretationIn combination with gemcitabine, carboplatin at AUC6 is not inferior to cisplatin at 80 mg/m2 in terms of survival. Carboplatin was associated with more adverse events and not with better quality of life. Cisplatin at the lower dose of 50 mg/m2 has worse survival which is not compensated by better quality of life.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT00112710.EudraCT Number2004-003868-30.Cancer Research UK trial identifierCRUK/04/009.