Our objective was to summarise systematically all research evidence related to how patients value outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).We conducted a systematic review (systematic review registration number CRD42015015206) by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL, and included reports that assessed the relative importance of outcomes from COPD patients' perspective. Two authors independently determined the eligibility of studies, abstracted the eligible studies and assessed risk of bias. We narratively summarised eligible studies, meta-analysed utilities for individual outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach.We included 217 quantitative studies. Investigators most commonly used utility measurements of outcomes (n=136), discrete choice exercises (n=13), probability trade-off (n=4) and forced choice techniques (n=46). Patients rated adverse events as important but on average, less so than symptom relief. Exacerbation and hospitalisation due to exacerbation are the outcomes that COPD patients rate as most important. This systematic review provides a comprehensive registry of related studies.

BackgroundPediatric Phase I cancer trials are critical for establishing the safety and dosing of anti-cancer treatments in children. Their implementation, however, must contend with the rarity of many pediatric cancers and limits on allowable risk in minors. The aim of this study is to describe the risk and benefit for pediatric cancer Phase I trials.Methods and findingsOur protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015015961). We systematically searched Embase and PubMed for solid and hematological malignancy Phase I pediatric trials published between 1 January 2004 and 1 March 2015. We included pediatric cancer Phase I studies, defined as “small sample size, non‑randomized, dose escalation studies that defined the recommended dose for subsequent study of a new drug in each schedule tested.” We measured risk using grade 3, 4, and 5 (fatal) drug-related adverse events (AEs) and benefit using objective response rates. When possible, data were meta-analyzed. We identified 170 studies meeting our eligibility criteria, accounting for 4,604 patients. The pooled overall objective response rate was 10.29% (95% CI 8.33% to 12.25%), and was lower in solid tumors, 3.17% (95% CI 2.62% to 3.72%), compared with hematological malignancies, 27.90% (95% CI 20.53% to 35.27%); p < 0.001. The overall fatal (grade 5) AE rate was 2.09% (95% CI 1.45% to 2.72%). Across the 4,604 evaluated patients, there were 4,675 grade 3 and 4 drug-related AEs, with an average grade 3/4 AE rate per person equal to 1.32. Our study had the following limitations: trials included in our review were heterogeneous (to minimize heterogeneity, we separated types of therapy and cancer types), and we relied on published data only and encountered challenges with the quality of reporting.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that, on the whole, AE and response rates in pediatric Phase I trials are similar to those in adult Phase I trials. Our findings provide an empirical basis for the refinement and review of pediatric Phase I trials, and for communication about their risk and benefit.

No abstract

Observing someone experience pain relief or exacerbation after an intervention may induce placebo hypoalgesia or nocebo hyperalgesia. Understanding the factors that contribute to these effects could help in the development of strategies for optimizing treatment of chronic pain conditions. We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the literature on placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia induced by observational learning (OL). A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PsycARTICLES, Scopus, and Academic Search Ultimate. Twenty-one studies were included in the systematic review, 17 of which were suitable for meta-analysis (18 experiments; n = 764 healthy individuals). The primary end point was the standardized mean difference (SMD) for pain following placebo cues associated during OL with low vs high pain. Observational learning had a small-to-medium effect on pain ratings (SMD 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.68; P < 0.01) and a large effect on pain expectancy (SMD 1.11; 95% CI 0.49-2.04; P < 0.01). The type of observation (in-person vs videotaped) modulated the magnitude of placebo hypoalgesia/nocebo hyperalgesia (P < 0.01), whereas placebo type did not (P = 0.23). Finally, OL was more effective when observers' empathic concern (but no other empathy-related factors) was higher (r = 0.14; 95% CI 0.01-0.27; P = 0.03). Overall, the meta-analysis demonstrates that OL can shape placebo hypoalgesia and nocebo hyperalgesia. More research is needed to identify predictors of these effects and to study them in clinical populations. In the future, OL could be an important tool to help maximize placebo hypoalgesia in clinical settings.