Response to the editorial by Dr Geraghty.

This article is written in response to the linked editorial by Dr Geraghty about the adaptive Pacing, graded Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy; a randomised Evaluation (PACE) trial, which we led, implemented and published. The PACE trial compared four treatments for people diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. All participants in the trial received specialist medical care. The trial found that adding cognitive behaviour therapy or graded exercise therapy to specialist medical care was as safe as, and more effective than, adding adaptive pacing therapy or specialist medical care alone. Dr Geraghty has challenged these findings. In this article, we suggest that Dr Geraghty's views are based on misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the PACE trial; these are corrected.

Prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone for treatment of severe pain in patients with Parkinson's disease (PANDA): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common non-motor symptom of Parkinson's disease. We investigated the analgesic efficacy of prolonged-release oxycodone-naloxone (OXN PR) in patients with Parkinson's disease and chronic, severe pain. METHODS: We did this phase 2 study in 47 secondary care centres in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain, and the UK. We enrolled patients with Hoehn and Yahr Stage II-IV Parkinson's disease, at least one type of severe pain, and an average 24-h pain score of at least 6 (assessed on an 11-point rating scale from 0=no pain to 10=pain as bad as you can imagine). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) with a validated automated system (block size four) to either oral OXN PR or placebo for 16 weeks (starting dose oxycodone 5 mg, naloxone 2·5 mg, twice daily). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was average 24-h pain score at 16 weeks in the full analysis population. This study is registered with EudraCT (2011-002901-31) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01439100). FINDINGS: We enrolled 202 patients; 93 were assigned to OXN PR and 109 to placebo; the full analysis population consisted of 88 patients versus 106 patients. Least squares mean average 24-h pain score at 16 weeks in the full analysis population was 5·0 (95% CI 4·5 to 5·5) in the OXN PR group versus 5·6 (5·1 to 6·0) in the placebo group (difference -0·6, 95% CI -1·3 to 0·0; p=0·058). Similar proportions of patients in each group had adverse events (60/92 [65%] vs 76/109 [70%]), treatment-related adverse events (52/92 [57%] vs 62/109 [57%]), and serious adverse events (5/92 [5%] vs 7/109 [6%]). Treatment-related nausea was more common in the OXN PR group than in the placebo group (16/92 [17%] vs 10/109 [9%]), as was treatment-related constipation (16/92 [17%] vs 6/109 [6%]). INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint, based on the full analysis population at week 16, was not significant. Nonetheless, the results of this study highlight the potential efficacy of OXN PR for patients with Parkinson's disease-related pain and might warrant further research on OXN PR in this setting. FUNDING: Mundipharma Research.

A randomised trial of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The publication of protocols by medical journals is increasingly becoming an accepted means for promoting good quality research and maximising transparency. Recently, Finfer and Bellomo have suggested the publication of statistical analysis plans (SAPs).The aim of this paper is to make public and to report in detail the planned analyses that were approved by the Trial Steering Committee in May 2010 for the principal papers of the PACE (Pacing, graded Activity, and Cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised Evaluation) trial, a treatment trial for chronic fatigue syndrome. It illustrates planned analyses of a complex intervention trial that allows for the impact of clustering by care providers, where multiple care-providers are present for each patient in some but not all arms of the trial. RESULTS: The trial design, objectives and data collection are reported. Considerations relating to blinding, samples, adherence to the protocol, stratification, centre and other clustering effects, missing data, multiplicity and compliance are described. Descriptive, interim and final analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes are then outlined. CONCLUSIONS: This SAP maximises transparency, providing a record of all planned analyses, and it may be a resource for those who are developing SAPs, acting as an illustrative example for teaching and methodological research. It is not the sum of the statistical analysis sections of the principal papers, being completed well before individual papers were drafted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN54285094 assigned 22 May 2003; First participant was randomised on 18 March 2005.

Donepezil for the treatment of agitation in Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Agitation is a common and distressing symptom in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Cholinesterase inhibitors improve cognitive outcomes in such patients, but the benefits of these drugs for behavioral disturbances are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 272 patients with Alzheimer's disease who had clinically significant agitation and no response to a brief psychosocial treatment program to receive 10 mg of donepezil per day (128 patients) or placebo (131 patients) for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in the score on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) (on a scale of 29 to 203, with higher scores indicating more agitation) at 12 weeks. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the effects of donepezil and those of placebo on the basis of the change in CMAI scores from baseline to 12 weeks (estimated mean difference in change [the value for donepezil minus that for placebo], -0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.35 to 4.22). Twenty-two of 108 patients (20.4%) in the placebo group and 22 of 113 (19.5%) in the donepezil group had a reduction of 30% or greater in the CMAI score (the value for donepezil minus that for placebo, -0.9 percentage point; 95% CI, -11.4 to 9.6). There were also no significant differences between the placebo and donepezil groups in scores for the Neuropsychiatric Inventory, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Caregiver Distress Scale, or the Clinician's Global Impression of Change. CONCLUSIONS: In this 12-week trial, donepezil was not more effective than placebo in treating agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00142324 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Protocol for the PACE trial: a randomised controlled trial of adaptive pacing, cognitive behaviour therapy, and graded exercise, as supplements to standardised specialist medical care versus standardised specialist medical care alone for patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis or encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS, also called myalgic encephalomyelitis /encephalopathy or ME) is a debilitating condition with no known cause or cure. Improvement may occur with medical care and additional therapies of pacing, cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy. The latter two therapies have been found to be efficacious in small trials, but patient organisations surveys have reported adverse effects. Although pacing has been advocated by patient organisations, it lacks empirical support. Specialist medical care is commonly provided but its efficacy when given alone is not established. This trial compares the efficacy of the additional therapies when added to specialist medical care against specialist medical care alone. METHODS: 600 patients, who meet operationalised diagnostic criteria for CFS, will be recruited from secondary care into a randomised trial of four treatments, stratified by current co morbid depressive episode and different CFS/ME criteria. The four treatments are standardised specialist medical care either given alone, or with adaptive pacing therapy or cognitive behaviour therapy or graded exercise therapy. Supplementary therapies will involve fourteen sessions over 23 weeks and a booster session at 36 weeks. Outcome will be assessed at 12, 24, and 52 weeks after randomisation. Two primary outcomes of self-rated fatigue and physical function will assess differential effects of each treatment on these measures. Secondary outcomes include adverse events and reactions, subjective measures of symptoms, mood, sleep and function and objective measures of physical activity, fitness, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. The primary analysis will be based on intention to treat and will use logistic regression models to compare treatments. Secondary outcomes will be analysed by repeated measures analysis of variance with a linear mixed model. All analyses will allow for stratification factors. Mediators and moderators will be explored using multiple linear and logistic regression techniques with interactive terms, with the sample split into two to allow validation of the initial models. Economic analyses will incorporate sensitivity measures. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will provide information about the benefits and adverse effects of these treatments, their cost-effectiveness and cost-utility, the process of clinical improvement and the predictors of efficacy.