Penicillin allergy status and its effect on antibiotic prescribing, patient outcomes and antimicrobial resistance (ALABAMA): protocol for a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England. Penicillin allergy records are associated with worse health outcome and antimicrobial resistance. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aims to determine if an intervention package, centred around a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is safe and effective in improving patient health outcomes and antibiotic prescribing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ALABAMA trial is a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial with a nested pilot study. Adults (≥18 years) with a penicillin allergy record and who have received antibiotics in the previous 24 months will be eligible for participation. Between 1592 and 2090 participants will be recruited from participating National Health Service general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to either usual care or intervention to undergo a pre-emptive PAAP using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of treatment response failures within 28 days of an index prescription. 2090 and 1592 participants are estimated to provide 90% and 80% power, respectively, to detect a clinically important absolute difference of 7.9% in primary outcome at 1 year between groups. The trial includes a mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by London Bridge Research Ethics Committee (ref: 19/LO/0176). It will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The primary trial results will be submitted for publication to an international, peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN20579216.

Mixed-methods evaluation of a behavioural intervention package to identify and amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in UK general practice.

OBJECTIVES: About 6% of the UK general practice population has a record of a penicillin allergy but fewer than 10% of these are likely to be truly allergic. In the ALABAMA (Allergy Antibiotics and Microbial resistance) feasibility trial, primary care patients with penicillin allergy were randomised to penicillin allergy assessment pathway or usual care to assess the effect on health outcomes. A behavioural intervention package was developed to aid delabelling. This study aimed to investigate patients' and clinicians' views of penicillin allergy testing (PAT). DESIGN: We conducted a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded within the ALABAMA trial, which included a clinician survey, a patient survey (at baseline and follow-up) and semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in primary care, as part of the feasibility stage of the ALABAMA trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and primary care clinicians. RESULTS: Clinicians (N=53; 52.2%) were positive about PAT and its potential value but did not have previous experience of referring patients for a PAT and were unsure whether patients would take penicillin after a negative allergy test. Patients (N=36; 46%) were unsure whether they were severely allergic to penicillin and did not fear a severe allergic reaction to penicillin. Clinician interviews showed that they were already aware of the benefit of PAT. Interviews with patients suggested the importance of safety as patients valued having numerous opportunities to address their concerns about safety of the test. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the positive effects of the ALABAMA behavioural intervention for both patients and clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04108637; ISRCTN20579216; Pre-results.

Developing a behavioural intervention package to identify and amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in UK general practice and subsequently change antibiotic use.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a behavioural intervention package to support clinicians and patients to amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in general practice. The intervention aimed to: (1) support clinicians to refer patients for penicillin allergy testing (PAT), (2) support patients to attend for PAT and (3) support clinicians and patients to prescribe or consume penicillin, when indicated, following a negative PAT result. METHODS: Theory-based, evidence-based and person-based approaches were used in the intervention development. We used evidence from a rapid review, two qualitative studies, and expert consultations with the clinical research team to identify the intervention 'guiding principles' and develop an intervention plan. Barriers and facilitators to the target behaviours were mapped to behaviour change theory in order to describe the proposed mechanisms of change. In the final stage, think-aloud interviews were conducted to optimise intervention materials. RESULTS: The collated evidence showed that the key barriers to referral of patients by clinicians were limited experience of referral and limited knowledge of referral criteria and PAT. Barriers for patients attending PAT were lack of knowledge of the benefits of testing and lack of motivation to get tested. The key barriers to the prescription and consumption of first-line penicillin following a negative test result were patient and clinician beliefs about the accuracy of PAT and whether taking penicillin was safe. Intervention materials were designed and developed to address these barriers. CONCLUSIONS: We present a novel behavioural intervention package designed to address the multiple barriers to uptake of PAT in general practice by clinicians and patients. The intervention development details how behaviour change techniques have been incorporated to hypothesise how the intervention is likely to work to help amend incorrect penicillin allergy records. The intervention will go on to be tested in a feasibility trial and randomised controlled trial in England.

Effect of Probiotic Use on Antibiotic Administration Among Care Home Residents: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Probiotics are frequently used by residents in care homes (residential homes or nursing homes that provide residents with 24-hour support for personal care or nursing care), although the evidence on whether probiotics prevent infections and reduce antibiotic use in these settings is limited. Objective: To determine whether a daily oral probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 compared with placebo reduces antibiotic administration in care home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of 310 care home residents, aged 65 years and older, recruited from 23 care homes in the United Kingdom between December 2016 and May 2018, with last follow-up on October 31, 2018. Interventions: Study participants were randomized to receive a daily capsule containing a probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 (total cell count per capsule, 1.3 × 1010 to 1.6 × 1010) (n = 155), or daily matched placebo (n = 155), for up to 1 year. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cumulative antibiotic administration days for all-cause infections measured from randomization for up to 1 year. Results: Among 310 randomized care home residents (mean age, 85.3 years; 66.8% women), 195 (62.9%) remained alive and completed the trial. Participant diary data (daily data including study product use, antibiotic administration, and signs of infection) were available for 98.7% randomized to the probiotic group and 97.4% randomized to placebo. Care home residents randomized to the probiotic group had a mean of 12.9 cumulative systemic antibiotic administration days (95% CI, 0 to 18.05), and residents randomized to placebo had a mean of 12.0 days (95% CI, 0 to 16.95) (absolute difference, 0.9 days [95% CI, -3.25 to 5.05]; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.63]; P = .50). A total of 120 care home residents experienced 283 adverse events (150 adverse events in the probiotic group and 133 in the placebo group). Hospitalizations accounted for 94 of the events in probiotic group and 78 events in the placebo group, and deaths accounted for 33 of the events in the probiotic group and 32 of the events in the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among care home residents in the United Kingdom, a daily dose of a probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 did not significantly reduce antibiotic administration for all-cause infections. These findings do not support the use of probiotics in this setting. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier:16392920.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of a Self-Guided Internet Intervention for Social Anxiety Symptoms in a General Population Sample: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Many people are accessing digital self-help for mental health problems, often with little evidence of effectiveness. Social anxiety is one of the most common sources of mental distress in the population, and many people with symptoms do not seek help for what represents a significant public health problem. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a self-guided cognitive behavioral internet intervention for people with social anxiety symptoms in the general population. METHODS: We conducted a two-group randomized controlled trial in England between May 11, 2016, and June 27, 2018. Adults with social anxiety symptoms who were not receiving treatment for social anxiety were recruited using online advertisements. All participants had unrestricted access to usual care and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a Web-based unguided self-help intervention based on cognitive behavioral principles or a waiting list control group. All outcomes were collected through self-report online questionnaires. The primary outcome was the change in 17-item Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN-17) score from baseline to 6 weeks using a linear mixed-effect model that used data from all time points (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months). RESULTS: A total of 2122 participants were randomized, and 6 were excluded from analyses because they were ineligible. Of the 2116 eligible randomized participants (mean age 37 years; 80.24%, 1698/2116 women), 70.13% (1484/2116) had follow-up data available for analysis, and 56.95% (1205/2116) had data on the primary outcome, although attrition was higher in the intervention arm. At 6 weeks, the mean (95% CI) adjusted difference in change in SPIN-17 score in the intervention group compared with control was -1.94 (-3.13 to -0.75; P=.001), a standardized mean difference effect size of 0.2. The improvement was maintained at 12 months. Given the high dropout rate, sensitivity analyses explored missing data assumptions, with results that were consistent with those of the primary analysis. The economic evaluation demonstrated cost-effectiveness with a small health status benefit and a reduction in health service utilization. CONCLUSIONS: For people with social anxiety symptoms who are not receiving other forms of help, this study suggests that the use of an online self-help tool based on cognitive behavioral principles can provide a small improvement in social anxiety symptoms compared with no intervention, although dropout rates were high. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02451878; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02451878.

Protocol for a double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in reducing antibiotics for infection in care home residents: the Probiotics to Reduce Infections iN CarE home reSidentS (PRINCESS) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Care home residents are at increased risk of infections and antibiotic prescription. Reduced antibiotic use from fewer infections would improve quality of life. The Probiotics to Reduce Infections iN CarE home reSidentS (PRINCESS) trial aims to determine the efficacy and investigate mechanisms of daily probiotics on antibiotic use and incidence of infections in care home residents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PRINCESS is a double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial that will assess the effect of a daily oral probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus, GG (LGG) and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis, BB-12 (BB-12) on cumulative antibiotic administration days (CAADs) (primary outcome) for infection in up to 330 care home residents aged ≥65 years over up to 12 months. Secondary outcomes include: Infection: Total number of days of antibiotic administration for each infection type (respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, gastrointestinal infection, unexplained fever and other); number, site, duration of infection; estimation of incidence and duration of diarrhoea and antibiotic-associated diarrhoea; Stool microbiology: Clostridium difficile infection; Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae and vancomycin-resistant enterococci; LGG and BB-12. Oral microbiology: Candida spp. Health and well-being: Self and/or proxy health-related quality of life EQ5D (5 L); self-and/or proxy-reported ICEpop CAPability measure for older people. Hospitalisations: number and duration of all-cause hospital stays. Mortality: deaths. Mechanistic immunology outcomes: influenza vaccine efficacy (haemagglutination inhibition assay and antibody titres); full blood count and immune cell phenotypes, plasma cytokines and chemokines; cytokine and chemokine response in whole blood stimulated ex vivo by toll-like receptor 2 and 4 agonists; monocyte and neutrophil phagocytosis of Escherichia coli; serum vitamin D. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 3. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences; results will be of interest to patient and policy stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16392920; Pre-results.

Randomised controlled trial and economic analysis of an internet-based weight management programme: POWeR+ (Positive Online Weight Reduction).

BACKGROUND: Behavioural counselling with intensive follow-up for obesity is effective, but in resource-constrained primary care settings briefer approaches are needed. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an internet-based behavioural intervention with regular face-to-face or remote support in primary care, compared with brief advice. DESIGN: Individually randomised three-arm parallel trial with health economic evaluation and nested qualitative interviews. SETTING: Primary care general practices in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m2 (or ≥ 28 kg/m2 with risk factors) identified from general practice records, recruited by postal invitation. INTERVENTIONS: Positive Online Weight Reduction (POWeR+) is a 24-session, web-based weight management intervention completed over 6 months. Following online registration, the website randomly allocated participants using computer-generated random numbers to (1) the control intervention (n = 279), which had previously been demonstrated to be clinically effective (brief web-based information that minimised pressure to cut down foods, instead encouraging swaps to healthier choices and increasing fruit and vegetables, plus 6-monthly nurse weighing); (2) POWeR+F (n = 269), POWeR+ supplemented by face-to-face nurse support (up to seven contacts); or (3) POWeR+R (n = 270), POWeR+ supplemented by remote nurse support (up to five e-mails or brief telephone calls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a modelled estimate of average weight reduction over 12 months, assessed blind to group where possible, using multiple imputation for missing data. The secondary outcome was the number of participants maintaining a 5% weight reduction at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 818 eligible individuals were randomised using computer-generated random numbers. Weight change, averaged over 12 months, was documented in 666 out of 818 participants (81%; control, n = 227; POWeR+F, n = 221; POWeR+R, n = 218). The control group maintained nearly 3 kg of weight loss per person (mean weight per person: baseline, 104.4 kg; 6 months, 101.9 kg; 12 months, 101.7 kg). Compared with the control group, the estimated additional weight reduction with POWeR+F was 1.5 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 to 2.4 kg; p = 0.001] and with POWeR+R was 1.3 kg (95% CI 0.34 to 2.2 kg; p = 0.007). By 12 months the mean weight loss was not statistically significantly different between groups, but 20.8% of control participants, 29.2% of POWeR+F participants (risk ratio 1.56, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.51; p = 0.070) and 32.4% of POWeR+R participants (risk ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.74; p = 0.004) maintained a clinically significant 5% weight reduction. The POWeR+R group had fewer individuals who reported doing another activity to help lose weight [control, 47.1% (64/136); POWeR+F, 37.2% (51/137); POWeR+R, 26.7% (40/150)]. The incremental cost to the health service per kilogram weight lost, compared with the control group, was £18 (95% CI -£129 to £195) for POWeR+F and -£25 (95% CI -£268 to £157) for POWeR+R. The probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £100 per kilogram was 88% and 98% for POWeR+F and POWeR+R, respectively. POWeR+R was dominant compared with the control group. No harms were reported and participants using POWeR+ felt more enabled in managing their weight. The qualitative studies documented that POWeR+ was viewed positively by patients and that health-care professionals generally enjoyed supporting patients using POWeR+. STUDY LIMITATIONS: Maintenance of weight loss after 1 year is unknown. FUTURE WORK: Identifying strategies for longer-term engagement, impact in community settings and increasing physical activity. CONCLUSION: Clinically valuable weight loss (> 5%) is maintained in 20% of individuals using novel written materials with brief follow-up. A web-based behavioural programme and brief support results in greater mean weight loss and 10% more participants maintain valuable weight loss; it achieves greater enablement and fewer participants undertaking other weight-loss activities; and it is likely to be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21244703. 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. 21, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a fully self-guided internet-based intervention for sub-clinical social anxiety symptoms: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

DESIGN AND OBJECTIVE: This paper describes the protocol for a large-scale pragmatic, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the self-directed E-Couch social anxiety module versus a waiting list control condition, for reducing sub-clinical social anxiety symptoms in the general population. STUDY POPULATION: Community-based adults (aged 18+) with social anxiety symptoms that do not meet the criteria for social anxiety disorder recruited via a direct-to-consumer advertisement on national websites. INTERVENTION AND CONTROL: Intervention is the self-guided E-Couch social anxiety module. Control group participants are placed on a waiting list to receive the intervention at the end of the trial. Both groups receive email and text message reminders. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome will be change in self-reported social anxiety score using the Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN). Secondary outcomes will be the changes in the following self-report measures: Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation scale (BFNE-S); depression (CES-D); mental wellbeing (SWEMWEBS); health status (SF36); use of health services; safety events; and adherence, retention, and attrition rates. All measures will be administered at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3, 6 and 12 months. ANALYSIS: A mixed effects model will be used to analyse the effect of the intervention on the primary and secondary outcomes (intention to treat analysis). Secondary analyses will explore moderators and mediators of effect. A prospective economic evaluation, conducted from a NHS and social care perspective, will provide estimates of cost utility and cost-effectiveness. An interview study will be conducted with 20 participants to explore issues including acceptability, adherence, retention and attrition. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02451878 and ISRCTN15819951.

Randomised feasibility study of a novel experience-based internet intervention to support self-management in chronic asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the effects of an experience-based website as a resource for the self-management of chronic asthma. DESIGN AND SETTING: Feasibility, single-blind RCT in 2 regions of England. Randomisation used computer-generated random number sequence in a 1:1 ratio, after baseline data collection, to website access for 2 weeks. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (age ≥18 years), with clinically diagnosed asthma as coded in their primary care electronic record, prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for at least 3 months in the previous year, were recruited from 9 general practices. INTERVENTION: The EXPERT asthma intervention is an interactive PC/laptop/tablet/smartphone compatible website designed with extensive input from adults with asthma. It provides experience-based information and aims to support subjective perception of self-efficacy, self-management and improve health status. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were consent/recruitment, website usage and completion of outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included Partners in Health (PIH) questionnaire, the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy Scale, the SF36 and the E-Health Impact Questionnaire. Participant blinding postrandomisation was not possible. The analysis was blind to allocation. RESULTS: Recruitment target exceeded. 148 participants randomised (73 intervention group). Age range 19-84 years; 59% female. 121 of 148 (84%; 62 intervention group) followed up. The median number of logins was 2 (IQR 2-3, range 1-48). Minimal differences of change from baseline between groups; both showed improvement in health state or management of their condition with no significant differences between arms. No adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment and retention confirmed feasibility. The trends towards improved outcomes suggest that further research on digital interventions based on exposure to others' personal experiences may be of value in the self-management of chronic asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN29549695; Results.

A novel experience-based internet intervention for smoking cessation: feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The internet is frequently used to share experiences of health and illness, but this phenomenon has not been harnessed as an intervention to achieve health behaviour change. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of a randomised trial assessing the effects of a novel, experience-based website as a smoking cessation intervention. The secondary aim was to measure the potential impact on smoking behaviour of both the intervention and a comparator website. METHODS: A feasibility randomised controlled single-blind trial assessed a novel, experience-based website containing personal accounts of quitting smoking as a cessation intervention, and a comparator website providing factual information. Feasibility measures including recruitment, and usage of the interventions were recorded, and the following participant-reported outcomes were also measured: Smoking Abstinence Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, the single-item Motivation to Stop Scale, self-reported abstinence, quit attempts and health status outcomes. Eligible smokers from two English regions were entered into the trial and given access to their allocated website for two weeks. RESULTS: Eighty-seven smokers were randomised, 65 completed follow-up (75 %). Median usage was 15 min for the intervention, and 5 min for the comparator (range 0.5-213 min). Median logins for both sites was 2 (range 1-20). All participant-reported outcomes were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: It was technically feasible to deliver a novel intervention harnessing the online sharing of personal experiences as a tool for smoking cessation, but recruitment was slow and actual use was relatively low, with attrition from the trial. Future work needs to maximize engagement and to understand how best to assess the value of such interventions in everyday use, rather than as an isolated 'dose of information'. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN29549695 DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN29549695 . Registered 17/05/2013.

An internet-based intervention with brief nurse support to manage obesity in primary care (POWeR+): a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The obesity epidemic has major public health consequences. Expert dietetic and behavioural counselling with intensive follow-up is effective, but resource requirements severely restrict widespread implementation in primary care, where most patients are managed. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an internet-based behavioural intervention (POWeR+) combined with brief practice nurse support in primary care. METHODS: We did this pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at 56 primary care practices in central and south England. Eligible adults aged 18 years or older with a BMI of 30 kg/m(2) or more (or ≥28 kg/m(2) with hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, or diabetes) registered online with POWeR+-a 24 session, web-based, weight management intervention lasting 6 months. After registration, the website automatically randomly assigned patients (1:1:1), via computer-generated random numbers, to receive evidence-based dietetic advice to swap foods for similar, but healthier, choices and increase fruit and vegetable intake, in addition to 6 monthly nurse follow-up (control group); web-based intervention and face-to-face nurse support (POWeR+Face-to-face [POWeR+F]; up to seven nurse contacts over 6 months); or web-based intervention and remote nurse support (POWeR+Remote [POWeR+R]; up to five emails or brief phone calls over 6 months). Participants and investigators were masked to group allocation at the point of randomisation; masking of participants was not possible after randomisation. The primary outcome was weight loss averaged over 12 months. We did a secondary analysis of weight to measure maintenance of 5% weight loss at months 6 and 12. We modelled the cost-effectiveness of each intervention. We did analysis by intention to treat, with multiple imputation for missing data. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN21244703. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2013, and March 20, 2014, 818 participants were randomly assigned to the control group (n=279), the POWeR+F group (n=269), or the POWeR+R group (n=270). Weight loss averaged over 12 months was recorded in 666 (81%) participants. The control group lost almost 3 kg over 12 months (crude mean weight: baseline 104·38 kg [SD 21·11; n=279], 6 months 101·91 kg [19·35; n=136], 12 months 101·74 kg [19·57; n=227]). The primary imputed analysis showed that compared with the control group, patients in the POWeR+F group achieved an additional weight reduction of 1·5 kg (95% CI 0·6-2·4; p=0·001) averaged over 12 months, and patients in the POWeR+R group achieved an additional 1·3 kg (0·34-2·2; p=0·007). 21% of patients in the control group had maintained a clinically important 5% weight reduction at month 12, compared with 29% of patients in the POWeR+F group (risk ratio 1·56, 0·96-2·51; p=0·070) and 32% of patients in the POWeR+R group (1·82, 1·31-2·74; p=0·004). The incremental overall cost to the health service per kg weight lost with the POWeR+ interventions versus the control strategy was £18 (95% CI -129 to 195) for POWeR+F and -£25 (-268 to 157) for POWeR+R; the probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £100 per kg lost was 88% and 98%, respectively. No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Weight loss can be maintained in some individuals by use of novel written material with occasional brief nurse follow-up. However, more people can maintain clinically important weight reductions with a web-based behavioural program and brief remote follow-up, with no increase in health service costs. Future research should assess the extent to which clinically important weight loss can be maintained beyond 1 year. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

Gefitinib for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy (COG): a phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is scarce for the effectiveness of therapies for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy, and no randomised trials have been reported. We aimed to compare gefitinib with placebo in previously treated advanced oesophageal cancer. METHODS: For this phase 3, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, eligible patients were adults with advanced oesophageal cancer or type I/II Siewert junctional tumours, histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, who had progressed after chemotherapy, with WHO performance status 0-2, and with measurable or evaluable disease on CT scan. Participants were recruited from 48 UK centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to gefitinib (500 mg) or matching placebo by simple randomisation with no stratification factors. Patients, clinicians, and trial office staff were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice. The primary outcome was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN29580179. FINDINGS: Between March 30, 2009, and Nov 18, 2011, 450 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (one patient withdrew consent; 224 patients allocated gefitinib and 225 allocated placebo included in analyses). Overall survival did not differ between groups (median 3·73 months, 95% CI 3·23-4·50, for gefitinib vs 3·67 months, 95% CI 2·97-4·37, for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74-1·09, p=0·29). Among the prespecified patient-reported outcomes (110 patients on gefitinib and 121 on placebo completed both baseline and 4 week questionnaires and were included in analyses), odynophagia was significantly better in the gefitinib group (adjusted mean difference -8·61, 95% CI -14·49 to -2·73; n=227; p=0·004), whereas the other outcomes were not significantly improved compared with placebo: global quality of life (2·69, 95% CI -2·33 to 7·72, n=231, p=0·293), dysphagia (-3·18, 95% CI -8·36 to 2·00, n=231, p=0·228), and eating (-4·11, 95% CI -9·96 to 1·75, n=229, p=0·168). Median progression-free survival was marginally longer with gefitinib than it was with placebo (1·57 months, 95% CI 1·23-1·90 in the gefitinib group vs 1·17 months, 95% CI 1·07-1·37 in the placebo group; HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66-0·96, p=0·020). The most common toxicities were diarrhoea (36 [16%] of 224 patients on gefitinib vs six [3%] of 225 on placebo) and skin toxicity (46 [21%] vs two [1%]), both mostly grade 2. The commonest grade 3-4 toxicities were fatigue (24 [11%] vs 13 [6%] patients) and diarrhoea (13 [6%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 109 (49%) of 224 patients assigned to gefitinib and 101 (45%) of 225 on placebo. 54 (24%) of patients in the gefitinib group achieved disease control at 8 weeks, as did 35 (16%) of patients on placebo (p=0·023). INTERPRETATION: The use of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in oesophageal cancer in unselected patients does not improve overall survival, but has palliative benefits in a subgroup of these difficult-to-treat patients with short life expectancy. Future research should focus on identification of predictive biomarkers to identify this subgroup of benefiting patients. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.