Pain Reduction With Oral Methotrexate in Knee Osteoarthritis : A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) are limited. Previous small studies suggest that the antirheumatic drug methotrexate may be a potential treatment for OA pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess symptomatic benefits of methotrexate in knee OA (KOA). DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done between 13 June 2014 and 13 October 2017. (ISRCTN77854383; EudraCT: 2013-001689-41). SETTING: 15 secondary care musculoskeletal clinics in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 207 participants with symptomatic, radiographic KOA and knee pain (severity ≥4 out of 10) on most days in the past 3 months with inadequate response to current medication were approached for inclusion. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation 10 to 25 mg) or matched placebo over 12 months and continued usual analgesia. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was average knee pain (numerical rating scale [NRS] 0 to 10) at 6 months, with 12-month follow-up to assess longer-term response. Secondary end points included knee stiffness and function outcomes and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 155 participants (64% women; mean age, 60.9 years; 50% Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 to 4) were randomly assigned to methotrexate (n = 77) or placebo (n = 78). Follow-up was 86% (n = 134; methotrexate: 66, placebo: 68) at 6 months. Mean knee pain decreased from 6.4 (SD, 1.80) at baseline to 5.1 (SD, 2.32) at 6 months in the methotrexate group and from 6.8 (SD, 1.62) to 6.2 (SD, 2.30) in the placebo group. The primary intention-to-treat analysis showed a statistically significant pain reduction of 0.79 NRS points in favor of methotrexate (95% CI, 0.08 to 1.51; P = 0.030). There were also statistically significant treatment group differences in favor of methotrexate at 6 months for Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index stiffness (0.60 points [CI, 0.01 to 1.18]; P = 0.045) and function (5.01 points [CI, 1.29 to 8.74]; P = 0.008). Treatment adherence analysis supported a dose-response effect. Four unrelated serious AEs were reported (methotrexate: 2, placebo: 2). LIMITATION: Not permitting oral methotrexate to be changed to subcutaneous delivery for intolerance. CONCLUSION: Oral methotrexate added to usual medications demonstrated statistically significant reduction in KOA pain, stiffness, and function at 6 months. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Versus Arthritis.

The performance of a Bayesian value-based sequential clinical trial design in the presence of an equivocal cost-effectiveness signal: evidence from the HERO trial.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the capacity of adaptive designs to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. However, relatively little work has investigated how economic considerations - including the costs of the trial - might inform the design and conduct of adaptive clinical trials. METHODS: We apply a recently published Bayesian model of a value-based sequential clinical trial to data from the 'Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness in Reducing symptoms of hand Osteoarthritis' (HERO) trial. Using parameters estimated from the trial data, including the cost of running the trial, and using multiple imputation to estimate the accumulating cost-effectiveness signal in the presence of missing data, we assess when the trial would have stopped had the value-based model been used. We used re-sampling methods to compare the design's operating characteristics with those of a conventional fixed length design. RESULTS: In contrast to the findings of the only other published retrospective application of this model, the equivocal nature of the cost-effectiveness signal from the HERO trial means that the design would have stopped the trial close to, or at, its maximum planned sample size, with limited additional value delivered via savings in research expenditure. CONCLUSION: Evidence from the two retrospective applications of this design suggests that, when the cost-effectiveness signal in a clinical trial is unambiguous, the Bayesian value-adaptive design can stop the trial before it reaches its maximum sample size, potentially saving research costs when compared with the alternative fixed sample size design. However, when the cost-effectiveness signal is equivocal, the design is expected to run to, or close to, the maximum sample size and deliver limited savings in research costs.

Participation in community-based lung cancer screening: the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality; however, the most effective strategy for optimising participation is unknown. Here we present data from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, including response to invitation, screening eligibility and uptake of community-based LDCT screening. METHODS: Individuals aged 55-80 years, identified from primary care records as having ever smoked, were randomised prior to consent to invitation to telephone lung cancer risk assessment or usual care. The invitation strategy included general practitioner endorsement, pre-invitation and two reminder invitations. After telephone triage, those at higher risk were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC) with immediate access to a mobile CT scanner. RESULTS: Of 44 943 individuals invited, 50.8% (n=22 815) responded and underwent telephone-based risk assessment (16.7% and 7.3% following first and second reminders, respectively). A lower response rate was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.42-0.46) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.54-0.62 for the most versus the least deprived quintile). Of those responding, 34.4% (n=7853) were potentially eligible for screening and offered a LHC, of whom 86.8% (n=6819) attended. Lower uptake was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98). In total, 6650 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan, representing 99.7% of eligible LHC attendees. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone risk assessment followed by a community-based LHC is an effective strategy for lung cancer screening implementation. However, lower participation associated with current smoking status and socioeconomic deprivation underlines the importance of research to ensure equitable access to screening.

Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness in Reducing Symptoms of Hand Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial.

Background: Synovitis is believed to play a role in producing symptoms in persons with hand osteoarthritis, but data on slow-acting anti-inflammatory treatments are sparse. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo as an analgesic treatment of hand osteoarthritis. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with 12-month follow-up. (ISRCTN registry number: ISRCTN91859104). Setting: 13 primary and secondary care centers in England. Participants: Of 316 patients screened, 248 participants (82% women; mean age, 62.7 years) with symptomatic (pain ≥4 on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale) and radiographic hand osteoarthritis were randomly assigned and 210 (84.7%) completed the 6-month primary end point. Intervention: Hydroxychloroquine (200 to 400 mg) or placebo (1:1) for 12 months with ongoing usual care. Measurements: The primary end point was average hand pain during the previous 2 weeks (on a 0- to 10-point numerical rating scale [NRS]) at 6 months. Secondary end points included self-reported pain and function, grip strength, quality of life, radiographic structural change, and adverse events. Baseline ultrasonography was done. Results: At 6 months, mean hand pain was 5.49 points in the placebo group and 5.66 points in the hydroxychloroquine group, with a treatment difference of -0.16 point (95% CI, -0.73 to 0.40 point) (P = 0.57). Results were robust to adjustments for adherence, missing data, and use of rescue medication. No significant treatment differences existed at 3, 6, or 12 months for any secondary outcomes. The percentage of participants with at least 1 joint with synovitis was 94% (134 of 143) on grayscale ultrasonography and 59% on power Doppler. Baseline structural damage or synovitis did not affect treatment response. Fifteen serious adverse events were reported (7 in the hydroxychloroquine group [3 defined as possibly related] and 8 in the placebo group). Limitation: Hydroxychloroquine dosage restrictions may have reduced efficacy. Conclusion: Hydroxychloroquine was no more effective than placebo for pain relief in patients with moderate to severe hand pain and radiographic osteoarthritis. Primary Funding Source: Arthritis Research UK.

Biomarker Driven Antifungal Stewardship (BioDriveAFS) in acute leukaemia-a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to assess clinical and cost effectiveness: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute leukaemias (AL) are life-threatening blood cancers that can be potentially cured with treatment involving myelosuppressive, multiagent, intensive chemotherapy (IC). However, such treatment is associated with a risk of serious infection, in particular invasive fungal infection (IFI) associated with prolonged neutropenia. Current practice guidelines recommend primary antifungal (AF) prophylaxis to be administered to high-risk patients to reduce IFI incidence. AFs are also used empirically to manage prolonged neutropenic fever. Current strategies lead to substantial overuse of AFs. Galactomannan (GM) and ß-D-glucan (BG) biomarkers are also used to diagnose IFI. Combining both biomarkers may enhance the predictability of IFI compared to administering each test alone. Currently, no large-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) has directly compared a biomarker-based diagnostic screening strategy without AF prophylaxis to AF prophylaxis (without systematic biomarker testing). METHODS: BioDriveAFS is a multicentre, parallel, two-arm RCT of 404 participants from UK NHS Haematology departments. Participants will be allocated on a 1:1 basis to receive either a biomarker-based antifungal stewardship (AFS) strategy, or a prophylactic AF strategy, which includes existing standard of care (SoC). The co-primary outcomes will be AF exposure in the 12-month post randomisation and the patient-reported EQ-5D-5L measured at 12-month post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include total AF exposure, probable/proven IFI, survival (all-cause mortality and IFI mortality), IFI treatment outcome, AF-associated adverse effects/events/complications, resource use, episodes of neutropenic fever requiring hospital admission or outpatient management, AF resistance in fungi (non-invasive and invasive) and a Desirability of Outcome Ranking. The trial will have an internal pilot phase during the first 9 months. A mixed methods process evaluation will be integrated in parallel to the internal pilot phase and full trial, aiming to robustly assess how the intervention is delivered. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed. DISCUSSION: The BioDriveAFS trial aims to further the knowledge of strategies that will safely optimise AF use through comparison of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a biomarker-led diagnostic strategy versus prophylactic AF to prevent and manage IFI within acute leukaemia. The evidence generated from the study will help inform global clinical practice and approaches within antifungal stewardship. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11633399. Registered 24/06/2022.

Can learnings from the COVID-19 pandemic improve trial conduct post-pandemic? A case study of strategies used by the DISC trial.

Background: RCTs often face issues such as slow recruitment, poor intervention adherence and high attrition, however the 2020/2021 COVID-19 pandemic intensified these challenges. Strategies employed by the DISC trial to overcome pandemic-related barriers to recruitment, treatment delivery and retention may be useful to help overcome routine problems. Methods: A structured survey and teleconference with sites was undertaken. Key performance indicators in relation to recruitment, treatment delivery and retention were compared descriptively before and after the pandemic started. This was situated also in relation to qualitative opinions of research staff. Results: Prior to the pandemic, retention was 93.6%. Increased support from the central trial management team and remote data collection methods kept retention rates high at 81.2% in the first 6 months of the pandemic, rising to 89.8% in the subsequent 6 months. Advertising the study to patients resulted in 12.8 patients/month enquiring about participation, however only six were referred to recruiting sites. Sites reported increased support from junior doctors resolved research nurse capacity issues. One site avoided long delays by using theatre space in a private hospital. Conclusions: Recruitment post-pandemic could be improved by identification of barriers, increased support from junior doctors through the NIHR associate PI scheme and advertising. Remote back-up options for data collection can keep retention high while reducing patient and site burden. To future proof studies against similar disruptions and provide more flexibility for participants, we recommend that RCTs have a back-up option of remote recruitment, a back-up location for surgeries and flexible approaches to collecting data.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty versus non-surgical treatment for older adults with acute 3- or 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PROFHER-2: PROximal Fracture of Humerus Evaluation by Randomisation - Trial Number 2).

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fractures (PHF) are common and painful injuries, with the majority resulting from falls from a standing height. As with other fragility fractures, its age-specific incidence is increasing. Surgical treatment with hemiarthroplasty (HA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been increasingly used for displaced 3- and 4-part fractures despite a lack of good quality evidence as to whether one type of arthroplasty is superior to the other, and whether surgery is better than non-surgical management. The PROFHER-2 trial has been designed as a pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of RSA vs HA vs Non-Surgical (NS) treatment in patients with 3- and 4-part PHF. METHODS: Adults over 65 years of age presenting with acute radiographically confirmed 3- or 4-part fractures, with or without associated glenohumeral joint dislocation, who consent for trial participation will be recruited from around 40 National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals in the UK. Patients with polytrauma, open fractures, presence of axillary nerve palsy, pathological (other than osteoporotic) fractures, and those who are unable to adhere to trial procedures will be excluded. We will aim to recruit 380 participants (152 RSA, 152 HA, 76 NS) using 2:2:1 (HA:RSA:NS) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fractures without joint dislocation, and 1:1 (HA:RSA) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fracture dislocations. The primary outcome is the Oxford Shoulder Score at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), pain, range of shoulder motion, fracture healing and implant position on X-rays, further procedures, and complications. Independent Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee will oversee the trial conduct, including the reporting of adverse events and harms. DISCUSSION: The PROFHER-2 trial is designed to provide a robust answer to guide the treatment of patients aged 65 years or over who sustain 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures. The pragmatic design and recruitment from around 40 UK NHS hospitals will ensure immediate applicability and generalisability of the trial findings. The full trial results will be made available in a relevant open-access peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN76296703. Prospectively registered on 5th April 2018.

Systematic review and mixed treatment comparison of randomized evidence for empirical, pre-emptive and directed treatment strategies for invasive mould disease.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable estimates of the effects of treatments. However, not all treatments are compared in available RCTs, making comparison of treatments problematic. Mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) can provide estimates of the comparative effects of treatments across a range of available therapeutic options. MTCs use networks of available direct comparisons to estimate differences in treatments that have not been estimated in trials via a common comparator. We conducted a systematic review and MTCs of comparative RCTs in haematological patients of anti-mould active agents used for the empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia (Analysis 1), and pre-emptive therapy (Analysis 2) of invasive mould diseases. In addition, we summarized the evidence available associated with the use of directed treatment strategies (Analysis 3). For empirical therapy, caspofungin proved superior to amphotericin B, liposomal amphotericin B, amphotericin B lipid complex and voriconazole in the outcome of survival, but no agents showed superiority for treatment response. There was no evidence of a difference between pre-emptive and empirical strategies on mortality outcomes. For directed therapy, voriconazole was superior to amphotericin B for overall survival, and both voriconazole and liposomal amphotericin B were superior to amphotericin B and amphotericin B colloidal dispersion on the outcome of response. While limited to some degree by the availability of RCTs, the MTCs reported here provide the best available evidence of relative therapeutic success for different available treatment strategies.

Cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for hand osteoarthritis: economic evaluation of the HERO trial.

Background: An economic evaluation alongside the Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness in Reducing symptoms of hand Osteoarthritis (HERO) trial was undertaken to assess the cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo for symptomatic treatment of hand osteoarthritis for patients with at least moderate hand pain and inadequate response to current therapies. Methods: A trial-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 12-month time horizon, using evidence from 248 participants included in the HERO trial, conducted in England. Patient-level data were collected prospectively over a 12-month period, using participant-completed questionnaires and investigator forms, to collect healthcare utilisation, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D-5L. The base-case analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis and used multiple imputation methods to deal with missing data. Results were presented in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (incremental cost per QALY) and net health benefit, with uncertainty surrounding the findings explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: The base-case analysis estimated slightly lower costs on average (-£11.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -£15.60 to -£8.00) and marginally fewer QALYs (-0.0052; 95% CI -0.0057 to -0.0047) for participants in the hydroxychloroquine group versus placebo group at 12 months. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,267 per QALY lost indicated that although costs were saved, health-related quality of life was lost. Even assuming symmetrical preferences regarding losses and gains for health benefits, the findings do not fall within the cost-effective region. Similar findings arose for analyses conducted from the societal perspective and using complete cases only. Conclusions: This economic evaluation indicates that hydroxychloroquine is unlikely to provide a cost-effective pain relief option for improving health-related quality of life in adult patients with moderate-to-severe hand osteoarthritis.

Dupuytren's interventions surgery versus collagenase (DISC) trial: study protocol for a pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dupuytren's contracture is a fibro-proliferative disease of the hands affecting over 2 million UK adults, particularly the white, male population. Surgery is the traditional treatment; however, recent studies have indicated that an alternative to surgery-collagenase clostridium histolyticum (collagenase)-is better than a placebo in the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture. There is however no robust randomised controlled trial that provides a definitive answer on the clinical effectiveness of collagenase compared with limited fasciectomy surgery. Dupuytren's intervention surgery vs collagenase trial (DISC) trial was therefore designed to fill this evidence gap. METHODS/DESIGN: The DISC trial is a multi-centre pragmatic two-arm parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1 to receive either collagenase injection or surgery (limited fasciectomy). We aim to recruit 710 adult participants with Dupuytren's contracture. Potential participants will be identified in primary and secondary care, screened by a delegated clinician and if eligible and consenting, baseline data will be collected and randomisation completed. The primary outcome will be the self-reported patient evaluation measure assessed 1 year after treatment. Secondary outcome measures include the Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main Scale, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L, resource use, further procedures, complications, recurrence, total active movement and extension deficit, and time to return to function. Given the limited evidence comparing recurrence rates following collagenase injection and limited fasciectomy, and the importance of a return to function as soon as possible for patients, the associated measures for each will be prioritised to allow treatment effectiveness in the context of these key elements to be assessed. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments, and a qualitative sub-study will assess participants' experiences and preferences of the treatments. DISCUSSION: The DISC trial is the first randomised controlled trial, to our knowledge, to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of collagenase compared to limited fasciectomy surgery for patients with Dupuytren's contracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical.Trials.gov ISRCTN18254597 . Registered on April 11, 2017.

The current role and perceived benefits and barriers of secondary care pharmacists facilitating patient participation in Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products (CTIMPs) conducted within the NHS: A cross-sectional survey.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Secondary care pharmacists are well positioned within the healthcare system to communicate with patients and provide guidance and advice regarding drug treatments. They are able to broaden the opportunities to raise the profile of Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products (CTIMPs) and positively influence research. This research aimed to investigate the perceived benefits and barriers of secondary care pharmacists being involved in CTIMPs, their current role, and the perceived benefits and barriers of developing their role in facilitating patient participation for CTIMPs (eg, by identifying or recruiting potential participants). METHODS: A cross-sectional quantitative online survey circulated to pharmacy professionals within the UK. RESULTS: Involvement in CTIMPs and the facilitation of patient participation offered several benefits including improved communication and relationships with other healthcare professionals, developing the profession, developing training and knowledge, and exploring a personal interest. The main barriers to involvement included a lack of opportunities or awareness of opportunities, time, and funding or resources. Those employed at sites with a larger number of CTIMPs agreed more with the disadvantages; however, they also showed greater agreeance towards the benefits of pharmacy being involved in facilitating patient participation. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents do not currently have a role in identifying or recruiting potential participants. Despite this, being involved in CTIMPs and the facilitation of patient participation was suggested to offer several benefits. Given many participants agreed there are barriers to their involvement, future research should focus on exploring organizational and individual challenges with the aim of enabling pharmacists to support recruitment activities.

The effect of venlafaxine compared with other antidepressants and placebo in the treatment of major depression: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis of all available trials of Venlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorders, including treatment resistant depression and long-term relapse prevention. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis comparing venlafaxine and tricyclics, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), in major depression. We also included trials comparing venlafaxine and alternative antidepressants in subjects with treatment resistant depression, or compared with placebo in long-term relapse prevention. Trials were identified through searches of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and through accessing unpublished trials held by the manufacturer. Results based on intention to treat analyses where available, were pooled using theoretically exact conditional maximum likelihood methods for fixed effects (primary analyses), and numerical simulation using a Gibbs sampler for full random effects. RESULTS: Compared to all SSRIs for the treatment of major depression (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram and fluvoxamine), venlafaxine was associated with a greater response [odds ratio 1.15 (95% CI 1.02-1.29)] and remission [odds ratio 1.19 (95% CI 1.06-1.34)]. Overall drop out rates appeared similar for SSRIs and venlafaxine. Compared to tricyclics, response to venlafaxine was estimated to be greater by exact method, odds ratio 1.21 (95% CI 1.03-1.43), but not statistically significantly different, using a full random effects method odds ratio 1.22 (95% CI 0.96-1.54). We observed no difference in remission rates (odds ratio 1.06 (95% CI 0.74-1.63)). Tricyclics were less well tolerated with higher overall drop out rates. Compared to alternative antidepressants in treatment resistant depression (trials included comparison with sertraline, bupropion, fluoxetine, citalopram, and one with a range of agents-mostly SSRIs), the odds ratio for response was 1.35 (95% CI 1.19-1.54). The odds ratio for remission was 1.35 (95% CI 1.20-1.52). Compared to placebo the odds ratio for relapse prevention with venlafaxine was 0.37 (95% CI 0.27-0.51). CONCLUSION: This meta analysis provides evidence of the clinical efficacy of venlafaxine in achieving therapeutic response and remission in patients with major depression. Venlafaxine appears more effective than SSRIs, and at least as effective as tricyclic antidepressants, in the treatment of major depressive episode. Venlafaxine appeared more effective than comparators in treatment resistant depression. In addition, venlafaxine effective in reducing relapse when given long term after major depressive episode.

The use of interim data and Data Monitoring Committee recommendations in randomized controlled trial reports: frequency, implications and potential sources of bias.

BACKGROUND: Interim analysis of accumulating trial data is important to protect participant safety during randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) often undertake such analyses, but their widening role may lead to extended use of interim analysis or recommendations that could potentially bias trial results. METHODS: Systematic search of eight major publications: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, CID, JAMA, JCO, Lancet and NEJM, including all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) between June 2000 and May 2005 to identify RCTs that reported use of interim analysis, with or without DMC involvement. Recommendations made by the DMC or based on interim analysis were identified and potential sources of bias assessed. Independent double data extraction was performed on all included trials. RESULTS: We identified 1772 RCTs, of which 470 (27%; 470/1772) reported the use of a DMC and a further 116 (7%; 116/1772) trials reported some form of interim analysis without explicit mention of a DMC. There were 28 trials (24 with a formal DMC), randomizing a total of 79396 participants, identified as recommending changes to the trial that may have lead to biased results. In most of these, some form of sample size re-estimation was recommended with four trials also reporting changes to trial endpoints. The review relied on information reported in the primary publications and methods papers relating to the trials, higher rates of use may have occurred but not been reported. CONCLUSION: The reported use of interim analysis and DMCs in clinical trials has been increasing in recent years. It is reassuring that in most cases recommendations were made in the interest of participant safety. However, in practice, recommendations that may lead to potentially biased trial results are being made.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of nebivolol compared with standard care in elderly patients with heart failure: an individual patient-based simulation model.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The SENIORS trial demonstrated that nebivolol is effective in the treatment of heart failure in elderly patients (e.g. > or = 70 years). This analysis evaluates the cost effectiveness of nebivolol compared with standard treatment. METHODS: An individual patient-simulation model based on a Markov modelling framework was developed to compare costs and outcomes for nebivolol and standard care in patients with heart failure starting treatment at the age of 70 years. Health states were defined by New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and death. At a given NYHA class and a given cycle, patients could die, be hospitalized for cardiovascular disease or remain stable. Risks for these events were derived from individual patient data from the SENIORS trial. The risk of each event in a given cycle was based on the subject's baseline characteristics and time in the current health state. The economic analysis was conducted from the UK NHS perspective with a lifetime horizon. The costs (euro; year 2006 values) considered were drug costs for nebivolol and other cardiac drugs, costs of GP visits, outpatient specialist visits and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, the total cost per patient was euro6740 and euro9288, and QALYs were 5.194 and 5.843 for patients aged 70 years at the start of treatment for the standard treatment and nebivolol groups, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis provided an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro3926 (95% CI 3731, 4159) per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates that nebivolol appears to be a cost-effective treatment for elderly patients with heart failure compared with standard care.

Use and reporting of restricted randomization: a review.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Restricted randomization, such as blocking or minimization, allows for the creation of balanced groups and even distribution of covariates, but it increases the risk of selection bias and technical error. Various methods are available to reduce these risks but there is limited evidence about their current usage, and there are also indications that reporting of these methods may not be adequate. This review aims to identify how frequently different methods of restriction are being used and to assess the reporting of these methods against established reporting standards. METHODS: 82 reports of randomized controlled trial were reviewed. For each trial, the reported method of randomization was recorded and the reporting of randomization was assessed. Where the method of randomization was not clear from the main paper, protocols and other published materials were also reviewed, and authors were contacted for further information. RESULTS: For 11% of trials the method of randomization was not reported in either the paper or a published protocol, and in a further 39% of cases the report omitted key details so that the predictability of the method could not be evaluated. In total, 88% of trials appear to have used some form of restricted randomization, and all of those that report the exact methods used either blocking or minimization. 15% of trials reported using blocks of six or less and 4% used minimization with no random element reported, both of which are highly predictable. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the majority of trials use some form of restriction, with many using relatively predictable methods that put them at greater risk of selection bias and technical error. Reporting of randomization methods often falls short of the minimum requirements set out by the CONSORT statement, leaving the reader unable to make an informed judgement about the risk of bias.

Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: How effective is supported computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as an adjunct to usual primary care for adults with depression? METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, three arm, parallel randomised controlled trial with simple randomisation. Treatment allocation was not blinded. Participants were adults with symptoms of depression (score ≥ 10 on nine item patient health questionnaire, PHQ-9) who were randomised to receive a commercially produced cCBT programme ("Beating the Blues") or a free to use cCBT programme (MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants were supported and encouraged to complete the programme via weekly telephone calls. Control participants were offered usual GP care, with no constraints on the range of treatments that could be accessed. The primary outcome was severity of depression assessed with the PHQ-9 at four months. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life (measured by SF-36) and psychological wellbeing (measured by CORE-OM) at four, 12, and 24 months and depression at 12 and 24 months. STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS: Participants offered commercial or free to use cCBT experienced no additional improvement in depression compared with usual GP care at four months (odds ratio 1.19 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.88) for Beating the Blues v usual GP care; 0.98 (0.62 to 1.56) for MoodGYM v usual GP care). There was no evidence of an overall difference between either programme compared with usual GP care (0.99 (0.57 to 1.70) and 0.68 (0.42 to 1.10), respectively) at any time point. Commercially provided cCBT conferred no additional benefit over free to use cCBT or usual GP care at any follow-up point. Uptake and use of cCBT was low, despite regular telephone support. Nearly a quarter of participants (24%) had dropped out by four months. The study did not have enough power to detect small differences so these cannot be ruled out. Findings cannot be generalised to cCBT offered with a much higher level of guidance and support. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Supported cCBT does not substantially improve depression outcomes compared with usual GP care alone. In this study, neither a commercially available nor free to use computerised CBT intervention was superior to usual GP care. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING: Commissioned and funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (project No 06/43/05). The authors have no competing interests. Requests for patient level data will be considered by the REEACT trial management groupTrial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91947481.

A randomised controlled trial of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care: the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial.

BACKGROUND: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) has been developed as an efficient form of therapy delivery with the potential to enhance access to psychological care. Independent research is needed which examines both the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT over the short and longer term. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care against usual GP care alone, for a free-to-use cCBT program (MoodGYM; National Institute for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) and a commercial pay-to-use cCBT program (Beating the Blues(®); Ultrasis, London, UK) for adults with depression, and to determine the acceptability of cCBT and the experiences of users. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, three-armed, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with concurrent economic and qualitative evaluations. Simple randomisation was used. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. SETTING: Primary care in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with depression who scored ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). INTERVENTIONS: Participants who were randomised to either of the two intervention groups received cCBT (Beating the Blues or MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants who were randomised to the control group were offered usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was depression at 4 months (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes were depression at 12 and 24 months; measures of mental health and health-related quality of life at 4, 12 and 24 months; treatment preference; and the acceptability of cCBT and experiences of users. RESULTS: Clinical effectiveness: 210 patients were randomised to Beating the Blues, 242 patients were randomised to MoodGYM and 239 patients were randomised to usual GP care (total 691). There was no difference in the primary outcome (depression measured at 4 months) either between Beating the Blues and usual GP care [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.88] or between MoodGYM and usual GP care (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.56). There was no overall difference across all time points for either intervention compared with usual GP care in a mixed model (Beating the Blues versus usual GP care, p = 0.96; and MoodGYM versus usual GP care, p = 0.11). However, a small but statistically significant difference between MoodGYM and usual GP care at 12 months was found (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93). Free-to-use cCBT (MoodGYM) was not inferior to pay-to-use cCBT (Beating the Blues) (OR 0.91, 90% CI 0.62 to 1.34; p = 0.69). There were no consistent benefits of either intervention when secondary outcomes were examined. There were no serious adverse events thought likely to be related to the trial intervention. Despite the provision of regular technical telephone support, there was low uptake of the cCBT programs. Cost-effectiveness: cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that neither Beating the Blues nor MoodGYM appeared cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. Qualitative evaluation: participants were often demotivated to access the computer programs, by reason of depression. Some expressed the view that a greater level of therapeutic input would be needed to promote engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits that have previously been observed in developer-led trials were not found in this large pragmatic RCT. The benefits of cCBT when added to routine primary care were minimal, and uptake of this mode of therapy was relatively low. There remains a clinical and economic need for effective low-intensity psychological treatments for depression with improved patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN91947481. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pain reduction with oral methotrexate in knee osteoarthritis, a pragmatic phase iii trial of treatment effectiveness (PROMOTE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the fastest growing cause of disability worldwide. Current treatments for OA are severely limited and a large proportion of people with OA live in constant, debilitating pain. There is therefore an urgent need for novel treatments to reduce pain. Synovitis is highly prevalent in OA and is associated with pain. In inflammatory arthritides such as rheumatoid arthritis, methotrexate (MTX) is the gold standard treatment for synovitis and has a well-known, acceptable toxicity profile. We propose that using MTX to treat patients with symptomatic knee OA will be a practical and safe treatment to reduce synovitis and, consequently, pain. METHODS/DESIGN: Pain Reduction with Oral Methotrexate in knee Osteoarthritis, a pragmatic phase III trial of Treatment Effectiveness (PROMOTE) is an investigator-initiated, multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, pragmatic placebo-controlled trial. A total of 160 participants with symptomatic knee OA will be recruited across primary and secondary care sites in the United Kingdom and randomized on a 1:1 basis to active treatment or placebo, in addition to usual care, for 12 months. As is usual practice for MTX, dosing will be escalated over six weeks to 25 mg (or maximum tolerated dose) weekly for the remainder of the study. The primary endpoint is change in average knee pain during the past week (measured on an 11-point numerical rating scale) between baseline and six months. Secondary endpoints include other self-reported pain, function and quality-of-life measures. A health economics analysis will also be performed. A magnetic resonance imaging substudy will be conducted to provide an explanatory mechanism for associated symptom change by examining whether MTX reduces synovitis and whether this is related to symptom change. Linear and logistic regression will be used to compare changes between groups using univariable and multivariable modelling analyses. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: The PROMOTE trial is designed to examine whether MTX is an effective analgesic treatment for OA. The MRI substudy will address the relationship between synovitis and symptom change. This will potentially provide a much needed new treatment for knee OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials identifier: ISRCTN77854383 (registered: 25 October 2013).

Poor reporting quality of key Randomization and Allocation Concealment details is still prevalent among published RCTs in 2011: a review.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are powerful tools; it is essential that these trials are not only conducted rigorously, but reported accurately. The aim of this paper was to describe the reporting quality among a set of RCTs published in 2011 on methodological details essential to judging the adequacy of allocation concealment methods employed. METHODS: Medline was searched using the Ovid platform to identify all those RCTs published in January 2011 in core clinical journals. Methodological details in relation to allocation concealment were extracted from the identified RCTs to allow the reporting quality to be assessed. If the information was not available in the paper the corresponding author was contacted. RESULTS: Eighty-five papers were identified, 74% (n = 63) endorsed the CONSORT statement. 73% (n = 62) required the author to be contacted for further information. Sequence generation methods were ascertained in 74% of trials, allocation concealment method in 41%, details of who recruited participants and who generated the randomization sequence in 38%. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that in 2011 key methodological information relating to allocation concealment is still not reported well in RCTs. Authors and journal editors need to ensure explicit and clear methods are reported in RCTs published.

Allocation concealment: a methodological review.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The accurate reporting of the trial methodology and results is essential for accurate judgement on the quality of the research. This review aims to assess the impact of the adequacy of allocation concealment on treatment effect estimates. METHODS: A search was performed in MEDLINE (via the Ovid platform) to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indexed in January 2011 within its set of 'core clinical journals'. Meta-regression was undertaken on a subset of two arm trials to quantify the association between adequacy of allocation concealment and effect size. RESULTS: Adequate allocation concealment methods were used in 27% (n = 23) of included trials. There was insufficient information given in 68% (n = 58) of trials to make a judgement on allocation concealment. Meta-regression showed that there was a trend, not statistically significant, towards a smaller effect size between adequacy of allocation concealment and effect sizes. CONCLUSION: This review highlighted that research needs to be reported to a higher standard and there are many trials reporting poor methods of allocation concealment within the small sample of trials included in this review.