Nicola McMeekin

Effect of Theophylline as Adjunct to Inhaled Corticosteroids on Exacerbations in Patients With COPD: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major global health issue and theophylline is used extensively. Preclinical investigations have demonstrated that low plasma concentrations (1-5 mg/L) of theophylline enhance antiinflammatory effects of corticosteroids in COPD. Objective To investigate the effectiveness of adding low-dose theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids in COPD. Design, Setting, and Participants The TWICS (theophylline with inhaled corticosteroids) trial was a pragmatic, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial that enrolled patients with COPD between February 6, 2014, and August 31, 2016. Final follow-up ended on August 31, 2017. Participants had a ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) of less than 0.7 with at least 2 exacerbations (treated with antibiotics, oral corticosteroids, or both) in the previous year and were using an inhaled corticosteroid. This study included 1578 participants in 121 UK primary and secondary care sites. Interventions Participants were randomized to receive low-dose theophylline (200 mg once or twice per day) to provide plasma concentrations of 1 to 5 mg/L (determined by ideal body weight and smoking status) (n = 791) or placebo (n = 787). Main Outcomes and Measures The number of participant-reported moderate or severe exacerbations treated with antibiotics, oral corticosteroids, or both over the 1-year treatment period. Results Of the 1567 participants analyzed, mean (SD) age was 68.4 (8.4) years and 54% (843) were men. Data for evaluation of the primary outcome were available for 1536 participants (98%) (772 in the theophylline group; 764 in the placebo group). In total, there were 3430 exacerbations: 1727 in the theophylline group (mean, 2.24 [95% CI, 2.10-2.38] exacerbations per year) vs 1703 in the placebo group (mean, 2.23 [95% CI, 2.09-2.37] exacerbations per year); unadjusted mean difference, 0.01 (95% CI, −0.19 to 0.21) and adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.91-1.08). Serious adverse events in the theophylline and placebo groups included cardiac, 2.4% vs 3.4%; gastrointestinal, 2.7% vs 1.3%; and adverse reactions such as nausea (10.9% vs 7.9%) and headaches (9.0% vs 7.9%). Conclusions and Relevance Among adults with COPD at high risk of exacerbation treated with inhaled corticosteroids, the addition of low-dose theophylline, compared with placebo, did not reduce the number COPD exacerbations over a 1-year period. The findings do not support the use of low-dose theophylline as adjunctive therapy to inhaled corticosteroids for the prevention of COPD exacerbations. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN27066620

Behavioural activation versus guided self-help for depression in adults with learning disabilities: the BeatIt RCT

BACKGROUND Depression is the most prevalent mental health problem among people with learning disabilities. OBJECTIVE The trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of behavioural activation for depression experienced by people with mild to moderate learning disabilities. The intervention was compared with a guided self-help intervention. DESIGN A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, with follow-up at 4, 8 and 12 months post randomisation. There was a nested qualitative study. SETTING Participants were recruited from community learning disability teams and services and from Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services in Scotland, England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS Participants were aged ≥ 18 years, with clinically significant depression, assessed using the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychiatric Disorders for use with Adults with Learning Disabilities. Participants had to be able to give informed consent and a supporter could accompany them to therapy. INTERVENTIONS BeatIt was a manualised behavioural activation intervention, adapted for people with learning disabilities and depression. StepUp was an adapted guided self-help intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD). Secondary outcomes included carer ratings of depressive symptoms and aggressiveness, self-reporting of anxiety symptoms, social support, activity and adaptive behaviour, relationships, quality of life (QoL) and life events, and resource and medication use. RESULTS There were 161 participants randomised (BeatIt, n = 84; StepUp, n = 77). Participant retention was strong, with 141 completing the trial. Most completed therapy (BeatIt: 86%; StepUp: 82%). At baseline, 63% of BeatIt participants and 66% of StepUp participants were prescribed antidepressants. There was no statistically significant difference in GDS-LD scores between the StepUp (12.94 points) and BeatIt (11.91 points) groups at the 12-month primary outcome point. However, both groups improved during the trial. Other psychological and QoL outcomes followed a similar pattern. There were no treatment group differences, but there was improvement in both groups. There was no economic evidence suggesting that BeatIt may be more cost-effective than StepUp. However, treatment costs for both groups were approximately only 4-6.5% of the total support costs. Results of the qualitative research with participants, supporters and therapists were in concert with the quantitative findings. Both treatments were perceived as active interventions and were valued in terms of their structure, content and perceived impact. LIMITATIONS A significant limitation was the absence of a treatment-as-usual (TAU) comparison. CONCLUSIONS Primary and secondary outcomes, economic data and qualitative results all clearly demonstrate that there was no evidence for BeatIt being more effective than StepUp. FUTURE WORK Comparisons against TAU are required to determine whether or not these interventions had any effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09753005. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.