Photobiomodulation in the management of oral mucositis for adult head and neck cancer patients receiving irradiation: the LiTEFORM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a debilitating and painful complication of head and neck cancer irradiation that is characterised by inflammation of the mucous membranes, erythema and ulceration. Oral mucositis affects 6000 head and neck cancer patients per year in England and Wales. Current treatments have not proven to be effective. International studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be an effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer irradiation. To identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing low-level laser therapy in routine care. DESIGN: Placebo-controlled, individually randomised, multicentre Phase III superiority trial, with an internal pilot and health economic and qualitative process evaluations. The participants, outcome assessors and therapists were blinded. SETTING: Nine NHS head and neck cancer sites in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 87 out of 380 participants were recruited who were aged ≥ 18 years and were undergoing head and neck cancer irradiation with ≥ 60 Gy. INTERVENTION: Random allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either low-level laser therapy or sham low-level laser therapy three times per week for the duration of irradiation. The diode laser had the following specifications: wavelength 660 nm, power output 75 mW, beam area 1.5 cm2, irradiance 50 mW/cm2, exposure time 60 seconds and fluence 3 J/cm2. There were 20-30 spots per session. Sham low-level laser therapy was delivered in an identical manner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks following the start of irradiation. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were screened and, of these, 87 were randomised (low-level laser therapy arm, n = 44; sham arm, n = 43). The mean age was 59.4 years (standard deviation 8.8 years) and 69 participants (79%) were male. The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks was 33.2 (standard deviation 10) in the low-level laser therapy arm and 27.4 (standard deviation 13.8) in the sham arm. LIMITATIONS: The trial lacked statistical power because it did not meet the recruitment target. Staff and patients willingly participated in the trial and worked hard to make the LiTEFORM trial succeed. However, the task of introducing, embedding and sustaining new low-level laser therapy services into a complex care pathway proved challenging. Sites could deliver low-level laser therapy to only a small number of patients at a time. The administration of low-level laser therapy was viewed as straightforward, but also time-consuming and sometimes uncomfortable for both patients and staff, particularly those staff who were not used to working in a patient's mouth. CONCLUSIONS: This trial had a robust design but lacked power to be definitive. Low-level laser therapy is relatively inexpensive. In contrast with previous trials, some patients found low-level laser therapy sessions to be difficult. The duration of low-level laser therapy sessions is, therefore, an important consideration. Clinicians experienced in oral cavity work most readily adapt to delivering low-level laser therapy, although other allied health professionals can be trained. Blinding the clinicians delivering low-level laser therapy is feasible. There are important human resource, real estate and logistical considerations for those setting up low-level laser therapy services. FUTURE WORK: Further well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating low-level laser therapy in head and neck cancer irradiation are needed, with similar powered recruitment targets but addressing the recruitment challenges and logistical findings from this research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14224600. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 9 out of 10 head and neck cancer patients undergoing treatment experience pain, swelling and sores in their mouth (oral mucositis). This can lead to weight loss, painful ulcers, difficulty talking, eating and drinking, and even hospitalisation. Current care includes helping patients to keep their mouth and teeth clean, encouraging them to have a healthy diet and prescribing mouthwashes, painkillers and mouth-coating gels. However, these treatments give limited help in preventing or treating this condition. The LiTEFORM trial looked at whether or not low-level laser therapy could be used to prevent and treat oral mucositis. Patients were allocated to one of two arms at random: active laser or fake (sham) laser. Neither the patients nor the hospital staff knew which laser was being used. Eighty-seven people joined the study during the time allowed (44 received low-level laser therapy and 43 received sham treatment); however, this was a smaller number than the planned target of 380 people. As a result, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the results about whether the therapy is beneficial or cost-effective. People receiving the low-level laser therapy reported slightly more soreness in their mouth than those receiving the sham laser, but this could be down to chance. The number of participants is too small to draw conclusions about whether or not the low-level laser is helpful. Some patients found the laser treatment sessions to be difficult. Setting up a new service delivering laser therapy at the same time as cancer treatments was more complicated than originally anticipated. Problems included the scheduling of appointments, finding suitable rooms and having enough trained staff with time to deliver laser therapy. However, this study has provided us with knowledge on how best to set up a laser therapy service in the NHS as part of the cancer treatment pathway and the costs involved. These findings could help future studies looking into low-level laser therapy for those with head and neck cancer.

Acipimox in Mitochondrial Myopathy (AIMM): study protocol for a randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, adaptive design trial of the efficacy of acipimox in adult patients with mitochondrial myopathy.

BACKGROUND: Mitochondrial disease is a heterogenous group of rare, complex neurometabolic disorders. Despite their individual rarity, collectively mitochondrial diseases represent the most common cause of inherited metabolic disorders in the UK; they affect 1 in every 4300 individuals, up to 15,000 adults (and a similar number of children) in the UK. Mitochondrial disease manifests multisystem and isolated organ involvement, commonly affecting those tissues with high energy demands, such as skeletal muscle. Myopathy manifesting as fatigue, muscle weakness and exercise intolerance is common and debilitating in patients with mitochondrial disease. Currently, there are no effective licensed treatments and consequently, there is an urgent clinical need to find an effective drug therapy. AIM: To investigate the efficacy of 12-week treatment with acipimox on the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) content of skeletal muscle in patients with mitochondrial disease and myopathy. METHODS: AIMM is a single-centre, double blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive designed trial, evaluating the efficacy of 12 weeks' administration of acipimox on skeletal muscle ATP content in patients with mitochondrial myopathy. Eligible patients will receive the trial investigational medicinal product (IMP), either acipimox or matched placebo. Participants will also be prescribed low dose aspirin as a non-investigational medical product (nIMP) in order to protect the blinding of the treatment assignment. Eighty to 120 participants will be recruited as required, with an interim analysis for sample size re-estimation and futility assessment being undertaken once the primary outcome for 50 participants has been obtained. Randomisation will be on a 1:1 basis, stratified by Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS) (dichotomised as < 40, ≥ 40). Participants will take part in the trial for up to 20 weeks, from screening visits through to follow-up at 16 weeks post randomisation. The primary outcome of change in ATP content in skeletal muscle and secondary outcomes relating to quality of life, perceived fatigue, disease burden, limb function, balance and walking, skeletal muscle analysis and symptom-limited cardiopulmonary fitness (optional) will be assessed between baseline and 12 weeks. DISCUSSION: The AIMM trial will investigate the effect of acipimox on modulating muscle ATP content and whether it can be repurposed as a new treatment for mitochondrial disease with myopathy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT2018-002721-29 . Registered on 24 December 2018, ISRCTN 12895613. Registered on 03 January 2019, https://www.isrctn.com/search?q=aimm.

Bronchiectasis Information and Education: a randomised, controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: There has been comparatively little patient information about bronchiectasis, a chronic lung disease with rising prevalence. Patients want more information, which could improve their understanding and self-management. A novel information resource meeting identified needs has been co-developed in prior work. We sought to establish the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine effect of the information resource on understanding, self-management and health outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: We conducted an unblinded, single-centre, randomised controlled feasibility trial with two parallel groups (1:1 ratio), comparing a novel patient information resource with usual care in adults with bronchiectasis. Integrated qualitative methods allowed further evaluation of the intervention and trial process. The setting was two teaching hospitals in North East England. Participants randomised to the intervention group received the information resource (website and booklet) and instructions on its use. Feasibility outcome measures included willingness to enter the trial, in addition to recruitment and retention rates. Secondary outcome measures (resource use and satisfaction, quality of life, unscheduled healthcare presentations, exacerbation frequency, bronchiectasis knowledge and lung function) were recorded at baseline, 2 weeks and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty-two participants were randomised (control group = 30; intervention group = 32). Thirty-eight (61%) were female, and the participants' median age was 65 years (range 15-81). Median forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted was 68% (range 10-120). Sixty-two of 124 (50%; 95% CI, 41-59%) of potentially eligible participants approached were recruited. Sixty (97%) of 62 participants completed the study (control group, 29 of 30 [97%]; 95% CI, 83-99%; 1 unrelated death; intervention group, 31 [97%] of 32; 95% CI, 84-99%; 1 withdrawal). In the intervention group, 27 (84%) of 32 reported using the information provided, and 25 (93%) of 27 of users found it useful, particularly the video content. Qualitative data analysis revealed acceptability of the trial and intervention. Web analytics recorded over 20,000 page views during the 16-month study period. CONCLUSION: The successful recruitment process, high retention rate and study form completion rates indicate that it appears feasible to conduct a full trial based on this study design. Worldwide demand for online access to the information resource was high. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84229105. Registered on 25 July 2014.

A feasibility study with embedded pilot randomised controlled trial and process evaluation of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation in patients with periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is a major risk factor for several oral diseases, including periodontitis, and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are increasingly being used for smoking cessation. This study aimed to assess the viability of delivering and evaluating an e-cigarette intervention for smoking cessation within the dental setting, prior to a definitive study. METHODS: A feasibility study, comprising a pilot randomised controlled trial and qualitative process evaluation, was conducted over 22 months in the Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Dental Clinical Research Facility, UK. The pilot trial comprised a two-armed, parallel group, individually randomised, controlled trial, with 1:1 allocation. Participant eligibility criteria included being a tobacco smoker, having periodontitis and not currently using an e-cigarette. All participants received standard non-surgical periodontal therapies and brief smoking cessation advice. The intervention group additionally received an e-cigarette starter kit with brief training. Proposed outcomes for a future definitive trial, in terms of smoking behaviour and periodontal/oral health, were collected over 6 months to assess data yield and quality and estimates of parameters. Analyses were descriptive, with 95% confidence intervals presented, where appropriate. RESULTS: Eighty participants were successfully recruited from a range of dental settings. Participant retention was 73% (n = 58; 95% CI 62-81%) at 6 months. The e-cigarette intervention was well received, with usage rates of 90% (n = 36; 95% CI 77-96%) at quit date. Twenty percent (n = 8; 95% CI 11-35%) of participants in the control group used an e-cigarette at some point during the study (against advice). The majority of the outcome measures were successfully collected, apart from a weekly smoking questionnaire (only 30% of participants achieved ≥ 80% completion). Reductions in expired air carbon monoxide over 6 months of 6 ppm (95% CI 1-10 ppm) and 12 ppm (95% CI 8-16 ppm) were observed in the control and intervention groups, respectively. Rates of abstinence (carbon monoxide-verified continuous abstinence for 6 months) for the two groups were 5% (n = 2; 95% CI 1-17%; control group) and 15% (n = 6; 95% CI 7-29%; intervention group). CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that a definitive trial is feasible and that the intervention may improve smoking quit rates. Insights were gained into how best to conduct the definitive trial and estimates of parameters to inform design were obtained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN17731903; registered 19 September 2016 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17731903.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial of omeprazole in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cough is a common, disabling symptom of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), which may be exacerbated by acid reflux. Inhibiting gastric acid secretion could potentially reduce cough. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of a larger, multicentre trial of omeprazole for cough in IPF, to assess safety and to quantify cough. METHODS: Single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled pilot trial of the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) omeprazole (20 mg twice daily for 3 months) in patients with IPF. Primary objectives were to assess feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures. The primary clinical outcome was cough frequency. RESULTS: Forty-five participants were randomised (23 to omeprazole, 22 to placebo), with 40 (20 in each group) having cough monitoring before and after treatment. 280 patients were screened to yield these numbers, with barriers to discontinuing antacids the single biggest reason for non-recruitment. Recruitment averaged 1.5 participants per month. Geometric mean cough frequency at the end of treatment, adjusted for baseline, was 39.1% lower (95% CI 66.0% lower to 9.3% higher) in the omeprazole group compared with placebo. Omeprazole was well tolerated and adverse event profiles were similar in both groups, although there was a small excess of lower respiratory tract infection and a small fall in forced expiratory volume and forced vital capacity associated with omeprazole. CONCLUSIONS: A large randomised controlled trial of PPIs for cough in IPF appears feasible and justified but should address barriers to randomisation and incorporate safety assessments in relation to respiratory infection and changes in lung function.