Re: MS vein-opening trial announced for B.C. and Quebec
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2012 4:32 am
Double fantastic! They are prepared for others to further their little baby.drsclafani wrote:"Fantastic"
Welcome to This is MS, the leading forum for Multiple Sclerosis research and support. Join our friendly community of patients, caregivers, and researchers celebrating over 20 years of delivering hope through knowledge.
https://www.thisisms.com/forum/
Double fantastic! They are prepared for others to further their little baby.drsclafani wrote:"Fantastic"
There are two locations for this trial as announced. Dr. Sclafani cannot himself be in both at once. I expect the other doctors who had made this offer with him would be world-class as well, though he is undoubtedly the best they could ask for. If they do not contact him or the group, it is an egregious error, which shows that due diligence and reasonable prudence cannot be among their concerns. If I were a patient involved in this trial, and became aware of this fact, I would have grave concerns about the care of these researchers, and would have a hard time giving my informed consent.drsclafani wrote:I spent a week with Dr Zamboni too. I asked Dr Galleoti how many cases it took for him to be comfortable and he said fifty.Cece wrote:http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/30/fina ... issed-off/I don't consider conversations about a procedure to be a substitute for experience performing the procedure.But he also raises a big concern: that doctors performing CCSVI treatment in the Canadian clinical trial won’t have prior hands-on experience. Interventional radiologists say it takes upwards of 60 procedures to achieve proficiency; Salvatore Scalfani, a veteran interventional radiologist in Brooklyn NY, has reported it took him 200 procedures to feel comfortable. Traloubsee told Maclean’s the technologist and radiologist involved in the trial spent a week with Zamboni and his team in Italy. The vascular team has had “extensive conversations with many international colleagues who’ve performed the procedure,” he says, including Dr. Gary Siskin who’s running the Albany trials.
With the stakes as high as they are, I would want this to be research done by experienced providers.
I then showed Galleoti and Zamboni a case study and they both got it wrong and missed the stenosis.
I can tell you that a trial done by inexperienced physicians will lead to the following results:
1.It is dangerous. many patients thrombose their jugular veins
2. many patients will have benefits that last a couple of weeks to a couple of months
A group of us offered our help and advice. No one ever contacted me.
it is a situation that makes me angry
It makes me feel sad and powerless.drsclafani wrote:I can tell you that a trial done by inexperienced physicians will lead to the following results:
1.It is dangerous. many patients thrombose their jugular veins
2. many patients will have benefits that last a couple of weeks to a couple of months
A group of us offered our help and advice. No one ever contacted me.
it is a situation that makes me angry
There will be 100 patients in the trial so it would take some time to schedule and treat all patients initially. Could that take six months to a year? After the last patient to be treated gets their final two year assessment, it could be another 6 months to a year to process the data and prepare for publication. We should get some preliminary results before that point.happydance wrote:This was under the Q & A section:
Q: How long will the study last?
A: Each patient will be followed for two years. However, the trial itself will last up to 4 years.
http://www.vchri.ca/s/MS-CCSVI-PII.aspThe research team will enroll 100 subjects. Patients will be randomized to receive venoplasty (interventional radiology treatment using a balloon, not stent) treatment or a sham treatment and cross over to the other treatment at year one, so all patients will receive the venoplasty at some point.
The researchers will know if restenosis (or underdilatation or thrombosis) occurs in the initially treated group. The IR will be doing a sham venography a year after the first one. I would hope that, when doing the data analysis, they'd separate out the restenosed patients from those in whom the veins were successfully opened. I would also hope that restenosis would be treated when found, but I don't know if that's the case."It's going to be a randomized-control study where patients who have the presence of CCSVI will be randomly selected to either have the venoplasty, which is dilation of the vein, or a sham treatment, which is not an actual dilation, just a pretend dilation," Traboulsee said from Vancouver.
"And after a year, the groups will switch so that everybody eventually gets the dilation of the vein."
A venoplasty to widen veins is the same technique as an angioplasty used to expand coronary arteries; a tiny balloon is fed into the blood vessel, then expanded.
None of the participants will know which treatment they received or during which half of the study, Traboulsee said.
"The patients won't know when they're getting the dilation, the first time or the second time, so it doesn't bias their interpretation of benefit," he said. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Pat ... z28B0VIJhf
Will they treat numerous restenoses that are likely to occur before one year?Cece wrote:The researchers will know if restenosis (or underdilatation or thrombosis) occurs in the initially treated group. The IR will be doing a sham venography a year after the first one. I would hope that, when doing the data analysis, they'd separate out the restenosed patients from those in whom the veins were successfully opened. I would also hope that restenosis would be treated when found, but I don't know if that's the case."It's going to be a randomized-control study where patients who have the presence of CCSVI will be randomly selected to either have the venoplasty, which is dilation of the vein, or a sham treatment, which is not an actual dilation, just a pretend dilation," Traboulsee said from Vancouver.
"And after a year, the groups will switch so that everybody eventually gets the dilation of the vein."
A venoplasty to widen veins is the same technique as an angioplasty used to expand coronary arteries; a tiny balloon is fed into the blood vessel, then expanded.
None of the participants will know which treatment they received or during which half of the study, Traboulsee said.
"The patients won't know when they're getting the dilation, the first time or the second time, so it doesn't bias their interpretation of benefit," he said. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Pat ... z28B0VIJhf
I don't think stents are used in 11 to 12% of patients these days. More like 2%. So how could all those complications be related to stents?"We've been surveying patients who have gone out of the country for the treatment and we found a complication rate of 11 to 12 per cent. That's what patients are reporting," he said.
"My impression is it's mostly related to stents, and we're not going to be using stents in our study. We don't think the stents are the best idea at this point."
drsclafani wrote:I can tell you that a trial done by inexperienced physicians will lead to the following results:
1.It is dangerous. many patients thrombose their jugular veins
2. many patients will have benefits that last a couple of weeks to a couple of months
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/09/28 ... 22718.htmlAglukkaq, in Halifax for a meeting with provincial and territorial health ministers, said about 100 MS patients will be enrolled in the Phase I and II trial to assess the safety of the procedure to unblock narrowed neck veins and its efficacy in improving MS symptoms.
My own negative opinion of neuros being the ones running this study was created by a UBC neuro at our local MS Clinic, who told me during my Dx when I asked about treatment for CCSVI that venous angioplasty was nothing more than a "cash grab" and that I shouldn't waste anymore time thinking about it. Now I'm supposed to think the neuros have the best interests of this study in mind after that statement?CureIous wrote:This is the neuros way of owning ccsvi as their own and cutting IR's out of the loop. Since neuros will be doing the evaluating as to efficacy, they will have the final say so. This has been their goal from the get go and was patently obvious more than two years ago.
1. Obfuscate and delay, use media or whatever means necessary to buy time to formulate gameplan for dealing with this audacious frontal assault on their territory.
2. Once sufficient time has elapsed they now have the ideal way of putting this to bed once and for all, a study which THEY run, THEY evaluate as to efficacy, and THEY do the writeups on.
Not too sophisticated, fairly transparent, but highly effective. Thereafter no one can complain "no studies were done". We've already seen what happens just with simple imaging studies they run, wholeheartedly negative, why expect much else from this "collaborative effort"?
I have little confidence in government run studies with neuros at the helm coming back anything but negative. Dr. S has already laid out the scenarios we can expect to see by cutting the most experienced physicians out of the loop.
Once Canada has laid the track, the US pharma/neuro express will just chug right down the road....
Which is why I insist we are truly as patients all alone in this save for a few courageous souls willing to work outside the halls of academia proper....
(and as it has been said, "it's not a conspiracy THEORY if they really are out to get you lol).