Oscar Bortolami

Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme

Background Substantial amounts of public funds are invested in health research worldwide. Publicly funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often recruit participants at a slower than anticipated rate. Many trials fail to reach their planned sample size within the envisaged trial timescale and trial funding envelope. Objectives To review the consent, recruitment and retention rates for single and multicentre randomised control trials funded and published by the UKs National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme. Data sources and study selection HTA reports of individually randomised single or multicentre RCTs published from the start of 2004 to the end of April 2016 were reviewed. Data extraction Information was extracted, relating to the trial characteristics, sample size, recruitment and retention by two independent reviewers. Main outcome measures Target sample size and whether it was achieved; recruitment rates (number of participants recruited per centre per month) and retention rates (randomised participants retained and assessed with valid primary outcome data). Results This review identified 151 individually RCTs from 787 NIHR HTA reports. The final recruitment target sample size was achieved in 56% (85/151) of the RCTs and more than 80% of the final target sample size was achieved for 79% of the RCTs (119/151). The median recruitment rate (participants per centre per month) was found to be 0.92 (IQR 0.43–2.79) and the median retention rate (proportion of participants with valid primary outcome data at follow-up) was estimated at 89% (IQR 79–97%). Conclusions There is considerable variation in the consent, recruitment and retention rates in publicly funded RCTs. Investigators should bear this in mind at the planning stage of their study and not be overly optimistic about their recruitment projections.

Risk of acute and serious liver injury associated to nimesulide and other NSAIDs: data from drug‐induced liver injury case‐control study in Italy

Aim Drug‐induced liver injury is one of the most serious adverse drug reactions and the most frequent reason for restriction of indications or withdrawal of drugs. Some nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were withdrawn from the market because of serious hepatotoxicity. We estimated the risk of acute and serious liver injury associated with the use of nimesulide and other NSAIDs, with a prevalence of use greater than or equal to 5%. Methods This is a multicentre case–control study carried out in nine Italian hospitals from October 2010 to January 2014. Cases were adults, with a diagnosis of acute liver injury. Controls presented acute clinical disorders not related to chronic conditions, not involving the liver. Adjusted odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated initially with a bivariate and then multivariate analysis. Results We included 179 cases matched to 1770 controls. Adjusted OR for acute serious liver injury associated with all NSAIDs was 1.69, 95% CI 1.21–2.37. Thirty cases were exposed to nimesulide (adjusted OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.28–3.47); the risk increased according to the length of exposure (OR > 30 days: 12.55, 95% CI 1.73–90.88) and to higher doses (OR 10.69, 95% CI 4.02–28.44). Risk of hepatotoxicity was increased also for ibuprofen, used both at recommended dosages (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.13–3.26) and at higher doses (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.11–12.46) and for ketoprofen ≥ 150 mg (OR 4.65, 95% CI 1.33–10.00). Conclusion Among all NSAIDs, nimesulide is associated with the higher risk, ibuprofen and high doses of ketoprofen are also associated with a modestly increased risk of hepatotoxicity.

PLEASANT: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age children Associated with a New Term - a cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND Asthma episodes and deaths are known to be seasonal. A number of reports have shown peaks in asthma episodes in school-aged children associated with the return to school following the summer vacation. A fall in prescription collection in the month of August has been observed, and was associated with an increase in the number of unscheduled contacts after the return to school in September. OBJECTIVE The primary objective of the study was to assess whether or not a NHS-delivered public health intervention reduces the September peak in unscheduled medical contacts. DESIGN Cluster randomised trial, with the unit of randomisation being 142 NHS general practices, and trial-based economic evaluation. SETTING Primary care. INTERVENTION A letter sent (n = 70 practices) in July from their general practitioner (GP) to parents/carers of school-aged children with asthma to remind them of the importance of taking their medication, and to ensure that they have sufficient medication prior to the start of the new school year in September. The control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the proportion of children aged 5-16 years who had an unscheduled medical contact in September 2013. Supporting end points included the proportion of children who collected prescriptions in August 2013 and unscheduled contacts through the following 12 months. Economic end points were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and costs from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS There is no evidence of effect in terms of unscheduled contacts in September. Among children aged 5-16 years, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.25] against the intervention. The intervention did increase the proportion of children collecting a prescription in August (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.64) as well as scheduled contacts in the same month (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). For the wider time intervals (September-December 2013 and September-August 2014), there is weak evidence of the intervention reducing unscheduled contacts. The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children collecting prescriptions in August as well as having scheduled contacts in the same month. These unscheduled contacts in September could be a result of the intervention, as GPs may have wanted to see patients before issuing a prescription. The economic analysis estimated a high probability that the intervention was cost-saving, for baseline-adjusted costs, across both base-case and sensitivity analyses. There was no increase in QALYs. LIMITATION The use of routine data led to uncertainty in the coding of medical contacts. The uncertainty was mitigated by advice from a GP adjudication panel. CONCLUSIONS The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children both collecting prescriptions and having scheduled contacts in August. After September there is weak evidence in favour of the intervention. The intervention had a favourable impact on costs but did not demonstrate any impact on QALYs. The results of the trial indicate that further work is required on assessing and understanding adherence, both in terms of using routine data to make quantitative assessments, and through additional qualitative interviews with key stakeholders such as practice nurses, GPs and a wider group of children with asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03000938. FUNDING DETAILS This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 93. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: evaluation of decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Introduction While breast cancer outcomes are improving steadily in younger women due to advances in screening and improved therapies, there has been little change in outcomes among the older age group. It is inevitable that comorbidities/frailty rates are higher, which may increase the risks of some breast cancer treatments such as surgery and chemotherapy, many older women are healthy and may benefit from their use. Adjusting treatment regimens appropriately for age/comorbidity/frailty is variable and largely non-evidence based, specifically with regard to rates of surgery for operable oestrogen receptor-positive disease and rates of chemotherapy for high-risk disease. Methods and analysis This multicentre, parallel group, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) (2015-18) reported here is nested within a larger ongoing ‘Age Gap Cohort Study’ (2012-18RP-PG-1209-10071), aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention of decision support interventions to assist in the treatment decision making for early breast cancer in older women. The interventions include two patient decision aids (primary endocrine therapy vs surgery/antioestrogen therapy and chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy) and a clinical treatment outcomes algorithm for clinicians. Ethics and dissemination National and local ethics committee approval was obtained for all UK participating sites. Results from the trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. IRAS reference 115550. Trial registration number European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) number 2015-004220-61;Pre-results. Sponsors Protocol Code Number Sheffield Teaching Hospitals STH17086. ISRCTN 32447*.

Multicentre, double-blind, crossover trial to identify the Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus (OPTION-DM): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThe number of people with diabetes is growing rapidly. Diabetes can cause nerve damage leading to severe pain in the feet, legs and hands, which is known as diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin or gabapentin as initial treatment for DPNP. If this is not effective, adding one of the other drugs in combination with the first is recommended. NICE points out that these recommendations are not based on robust evidence. The OPTION-DM randomised controlled trial has been designed to address this evidence deficit, with the aims of determining the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for patients with DPNP.Methods/designA multicentre, double-blind, centre-stratified, multi-period crossover study with equal allocation to sequences (1:1:1:1:1:1) of treatment pathways. Three hundred and ninety-two participants will be recruited from secondary care DPNP centres in the UK. There are three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. All participants will receive all three pathways and randomisation will determine the order in which they are received. The primary outcome is the difference between 7-day average 24-h pain scores on an 11-point NRS scale measured during the final follow-up week of the treatment pathway. Secondary outcomes for efficacy, cost-effectiveness, safety, patient-perceived tolerability and subgroup analysis will be measured at week 6 and week 16 of each pathway.DiscussionThe study includes direct comparisons of the mainstay treatment for DPNP. This novel study is designed to examine treatment pathways and capture clinically relevant outcomes which will make the results generalisable to current clinical practice. The study will also provide information on health economic outcomes and will include a subgroup study to provide information on whether patient phenotypes predict response to treatment.Trial registrationISRCTN17545443. Registered on 12 September 2016.

The feasibility of early pulmonary rehabilitation and activity after COPD exacerbations: external pilot randomised controlled trial, qualitative case study and exploratory economic evaluation

BACKGROUND Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects > 3 million people in the UK. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are the second most common reason for emergency hospital admission in the UK. Pulmonary rehabilitation is usual care for stable COPD but there is little evidence for early pulmonary rehabilitation (EPR) following AECOPD, either in hospital or immediately post discharge. OBJECTIVE To assess the feasibility of recruiting patients, collecting data and delivering EPR to patients with AECOPD to evaluate EPR compared with usual care. DESIGN Parallel-group, pilot 2 × 2 factorial randomised trial with nested qualitative research and an economic analysis. SETTING Two acute hospital NHS trusts. Recruitment was carried out from September 2015 to April 2016 and follow-up was completed in July 2016. PARTICIPANTS Eligible patients were those aged ≥ 35 years who were admitted with AECOPD, who were non-acidotic and who maintained their blood oxygen saturation level (SpO2) within a prescribed range. Exclusions included the presence of comorbidities that affected the ability to undertake the interventions. INTERVENTIONS (1) Hospital EPR: muscle training delivered at the patients hospital bed using a cycle ergometer and (2) home EPR: a pulmonary rehabilitation programme delivered in the patients home. Both interventions were delivered by trained physiotherapists. Participants were allocated on a 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to (1) hospital EPR (n = 14), (2) home EPR (n = 15), (3) hospital EPR and home EPR (n = 14) and (4) control (n = 15). Outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation; it was not possible to blind patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Feasibility of recruiting 76 participants in 7 months at two centres; intervention delivery; views on intervention/research acceptability; clinical outcomes including the 6-minute walk distance (6WMD); and costs. Semistructured interviews with participants (n = 27) and research health professionals (n = 11), optimisation assessments and an economic analysis were also undertaken. RESULTS Over 7 months 449 patients were screened, of whom most were not eligible for the trial or felt too ill/declined entry. In total, 58 participants (76%) of the target 76 participants were recruited to the trial. The primary clinical outcome (6MWD) was difficult to collect (hospital EPR, n = 5; home EPR, n = 6; hospital EPR and home EPR, n = 5; control, n = 5). Hospital EPR was difficult to deliver over 5 days because of patient discharge/staff availability, with 34.1% of the scheduled sessions delivered compared with 78.3% of the home EPR sessions. Serious adverse events were experienced by 26 participants (45%), none of which was related to the interventions. Interviewed participants generally found both interventions to be acceptable. Home EPR had a higher rate of acceptability, mainly because patients felt too unwell when in hospital to undergo hospital EPR. Physiotherapists generally found the interventions to be acceptable and valued them but found delivery difficult because of staffing issues. The health economic analysis results suggest that there would be value in conducting a larger trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of the hospital EPR and hospital EPR plus home EPR trial arms and collect more information to inform the hospital cost and quality-adjusted life-year parameters, which were shown to be key drivers of the model. CONCLUSIONS A full-scale randomised controlled trial using this protocol would not be feasible. Recruitment and delivery of the hospital EPR intervention was difficult. The data obtained can be used to design a full-scale trial of home EPR. Because of the small sample and large confidence intervals, this study should not be used to inform clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18634494. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Impact of pelvic floor muscle training on sexual function of women with urinary incontinence and a comparison of electrical stimulation versus standard treatment (IPSU trial): a randomised controlled trial

AIMS To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of electric stimulation plus standard pelvic floor muscle training compared to standard pelvic floor muscle training alone in women with urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction. METHODS Single centre two arm parallel group randomised controlled trial conducted in a Teaching hospital in England. Participants were women presenting with urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction. The interventions compared were electric stimulation versus standard pelvic floor muscle training. OUTCOME MEASURES included Prolapse and Incontinence Sexual function Questionnaire (PISQ) physical function dimension at post-treatment (primary); other dimensions of PISQ, SF-36; EQ-5D, EPAQ, resource use, adverse events and cost-effectiveness (secondary outcomes). RESULTS 114 women were randomised (Intervention n=57; Control group n=57). 64/114 (56%). PARTICIPANTS had valid primary outcome data at follow-up (Intervention 30; Control 34). The mean PISQ-PF dimension scores at follow-up were 33.1 (SD 5.5) and 32.3 (SD 5.2) for the Intervention and Control groups respectively; with the Control group having a higher (better) score. After adjusting for baseline score, BMI, menopausal status, time from randomisation and baseline oxford scale score the mean difference was -1.0 (95% CI: -4.0 to 1.9; P=0.474). There was no differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes at follow-up. Within this study, the use of electrical stimulation was cost-effective with very small incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). CONCLUSIONS In women presenting with urinary incontinence in conjunction with sexual dysfunction, physiotherapy is beneficial to improve overall sexual function. However no specific form of physiotherapy is beneficial over another. Trial registration ISRCTN09586238.

Liver Injury due to Amoxicillin vs. Amoxicillin/Clavulanate: A Subgroup Analysis of a Drug-Induced Liver Injury Case-Control Study in Italy

Objective: Several studies showed that amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid (co-amoxiclav) is one of the most common agents associated to serious Drug Induced Liver Injury (DILI). We estimated the risk of acute serious DILI associated with amoxicillin alone compared with co-amoxiclav, through a multicenter case-control study carried out in nine Italian hospitals from October 2010 to January 2014. Methods: Cases were adults, with a diagnosis of acute liver injury. Controls presented acute clinical disorders, not related to chronic conditions and not involving the liver. Adjusted Odds Ratio (ORs) with 95% CI were calculated initially with a bivariate and then multivariate analysis. Results: We analysed 179 cases matched to 1770 controls. Seven cases were exposed to amoxicillin (adjusted OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.72-3.98) and 22 cases to co-amoxiclav (adjusted OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.76-5.40). Conclusions: Co-amoxiclav almost doubled the risk of serious acute liver injury compared to amoxicillin alone. The incidence of co-amoxiclav induced DILI is very low but the widespread use of this drug by the general population makes the risk clinically relevant. The often inappropriate prescription of antimicrobial agents, and in particular of co-amoxiclav, could expose a given patient to a life-threatening risk compared to a negligible clinical benefit.