Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: pragmatic randomised Trial and economic evaluation (CONSTRUCT).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating severe ulcerative colitis (UC) is proven, but there has been no comparative evaluation of effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of infliximab and ciclosporin in treating steroid-resistant acute severe UC. METHOD: Between May 2010 and February 2013 we recruited 270 participants from 52 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales to an open-label parallel-group, pragmatic randomised trial. Consented patients admitted with severe colitis completed baseline quality-of-life questionnaires before receiving intravenous hydrocortisone. If they failed to respond within about 5 days, and met other inclusion criteria, we invited them to participate and used a web-based adaptive randomisation algorithm to allocate them in equal proportions between 5 mg/kg of intravenous infliximab at 0, 2 and 6 weeks or 2 mg/kg/day of intravenous ciclosporin for 7 days followed by 5.5 mg/kg/day of oral ciclosporin until 12 weeks from randomisation. Further treatment was at the discretion of physicians responsible for clinical management. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival (QAS): the area under the curve (AUC) of scores derived from Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaires completed by participants at 3 and 6 months, and then 6-monthly over 1-3 years, more frequently after surgery. Secondary outcomes collected simultaneously included European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) scores and NHS resource use to estimate cost-effectiveness. Blinding was possible only for data analysts. We interviewed 20 trial participants and 23 participating professionals. Funded data collection finished in March 2014. Most participants consented to complete annual questionnaires and for us to analyse their routinely collected health data over 10 years. RESULTS: The 135 participants in each group were well matched at baseline. In 121 participants analysed in each group, we found no significant difference between infliximab and ciclosporin in QAS [mean difference in AUC/day 0.0297 favouring ciclosporin, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0088 to 0.0682; p = 0.129]; EQ-5D scores (quality-adjusted life-year mean difference 0.021 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI -0.032 to 0.096; p = 0.350); Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions scores (mean difference 0.0051 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI -0.0250 to 0.0353; p = 0.737). There was no statistically significant difference in colectomy rates [odds ratio (OR) 1.350 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.832 to 2.188; p = 0.223]; numbers of serious adverse reactions (event ratio = 0.938 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.590 to 1.493; p = 0.788); participants with serious adverse reactions (OR 0.660 favouring ciclosporin, 95% CI 0.282 to 1.546; p = 0.338); numbers of serious adverse events (event ratio 1.075 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.603 to 1.917; p = 0.807); participants with serious adverse events (OR 0.999 favouring infliximab, 95% CI 0.473 to 2.114; p = 0.998); deaths (all three who died received infliximab; p = 0.247) or concomitant use of immunosuppressants. The lower cost of ciclosporin led to lower total NHS costs (mean difference -£5632, 95% CI -£8305 to -£2773; p < 0.001). Interviews highlighted the debilitating effect of UC; participants were more positive about infliximab than ciclosporin. Professionals reported advantages and disadvantages with both drugs, but nurses disliked the intravenous ciclosporin. CONCLUSIONS: Total cost to the NHS was considerably higher for infliximab than ciclosporin. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between the two drugs in clinical effectiveness, colectomy rates, incidence of SAEs or reactions, or mortality, when measured 1-3 years post treatment. To assess long-term outcome participants will be followed up for 10 years post randomisation, using questionnaires and routinely collected data. Further studies will be needed to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of new anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs and formulations of ciclosporin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22663589. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Randomised controlled trial. Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: Trial design and protocol (CONSTRUCT).

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) present with acute exacerbations needing hospital admission. Treatment includes intravenous steroids but up to 40% of patients do not respond and require emergency colectomy. Mortality following emergency colectomy has fallen, but 10% of patients still die within 3 months of surgery. Infliximab and ciclosporin, both immunosuppressive drugs, offer hope for treating steroid-resistant UC as there is evidence of their short-term effectiveness. As there is little long-term evidence, this pragmatic randomised trial, known as Comparison Of iNfliximab and ciclosporin in STeroid Resistant Ulcerative Colitis: a Trial (CONSTRUCT), aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of infliximab and ciclosporin for steroid-resistant UC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Between May 2010 and February 2013, 52 UK centres recruited 270 patients admitted with acute severe UC who failed to respond to intravenous steroids but did not need surgery. We allocated them at random in equal proportions between infliximab and ciclosporin.The primary clinical outcome measure is quality-adjusted survival, that is survival weighted by Crohn's and Colitis Questionnaire (CCQ) participants' scores, analysed by Cox regression. Secondary outcome measures include: the CCQ-an extension of the validated but community-focused UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) to include patients with acute severe colitis and stoma; two general quality of life measures-EQ-5D and SF-12; mortality; survival weighted by EQ-5D; emergency and planned colectomies; readmissions; incidence of adverse events including malignancies, serious infections and renal disorders; disease activity; National Health Service (NHS) costs and patient-borne costs. Interviews investigate participants' views on therapies for acute severe UC and healthcare professionals' views on the two drugs and their administration. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Research Ethics Committee for Wales has given ethical approval (Ref. 08/MRE09/42); each participating Trust or Health Board has given NHS Reseach & Development approval. We plan to present trial findings at international and national conferences and publish in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN: 22663589; EudraCT number: 2008-001968-36.

The health informatics cohort enhancement project (HICE): using routinely collected primary care data to identify people with a lifetime diagnosis of psychotic disorder.

BACKGROUND: We have previously demonstrated that routinely collected primary care data can be used to identify potential participants for trials in depression [1]. Here we demonstrate how patients with psychotic disorders can be identified from primary care records for potential inclusion in a cohort study. We discuss the strengths and limitations of this approach; assess its potential value and report challenges encountered. METHODS: We designed an algorithm with which we searched for patients with a lifetime diagnosis of psychotic disorders within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) database of routinely collected health data. The algorithm was validated against the "gold standard" of a well established operational criteria checklist for psychotic and affective illness (OPCRIT). Case notes of 100 patients from a community mental health team (CMHT) in Swansea were studied of whom 80 had matched GP records. RESULTS: The algorithm had favourable test characteristics, with a very good ability to detect patients with psychotic disorders (sensitivity > 0.7) and an excellent ability not to falsely identify patients with psychotic disorders (specificity > 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: With certain limitations our algorithm can be used to search the general practice data and reliably identify patients with psychotic disorders. This may be useful in identifying candidates for potential inclusion in cohort studies.