The Digital Platform and Its Emerging Role in Decentralized Clinical Trials.

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are becoming increasingly popular. Digital clinical trial platforms are software environments where users complete designated clinical trial tasks, providing investigators and trial participants with efficient tools to support trial activities and streamline trial processes. In particular, digital platforms with a modular architecture lend themselves to DCTs, where individual trial activities can correspond to specific platform modules. While design features can allow users to customize their platform experience, the real strengths of digital platforms for DCTs are enabling centralized data capture and remote monitoring of trial participants and in using digital technologies to streamline workflows and improve trial management. When selecting a platform for use in a DCT, sponsors and investigators must consider the specific trial requirements. All digital platforms are limited in their functionality and technical capabilities. Integrating additional functional modules into a central platform may solve these challenges, but few commercial platforms are open to integrating third-party components. The lack of common data standardization protocols for clinical trials will likely limit the development of one-size-fits-all digital platforms for DCTs. This viewpoint summarizes the current role of digital platforms in supporting decentralized trial activities, including a discussion of the potential benefits and challenges of digital platforms for investigators and participants. We will highlight the role of the digital platform in the development of DCTs and emphasize where existing technology is functionally limiting. Finally, we will discuss the concept of the ideal fully integrated and unified DCT and the obstacles developers must address before it can be realized.

Cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension with evening versus morning dosing of usual antihypertensives in the UK (TIME study): a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that evening dosing with antihypertensive therapy might have better outcomes than morning dosing. The Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aimed to investigate whether evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication improves major cardiovascular outcomes compared with morning dosing in patients with hypertension. METHODS: The TIME study is a prospective, pragmatic, decentralised, parallel-group study in the UK, that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with hypertension and taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), without restriction, stratification, or minimisation, to take all of their usual antihypertensive medications in either the morning (0600-1000 h) or in the evening (2000-0000 h). Participants were followed up for the composite primary endpoint of vascular death or hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Endpoints were identified by participant report or record linkage to National Health Service datasets and were adjudicated by a committee masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was assessed as the time to first occurrence of an event in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants who submitted at least one follow-up questionnaire. The study is registered with EudraCT (2011-001968-21) and ISRCTN (18157641), and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2011, and June 5, 2018, 24 610 individuals were screened and 21 104 were randomly assigned to evening (n=10 503) or morning (n=10 601) dosing groups. Mean age at study entry was 65·1 years (SD 9·3); 12 136 (57·5%) participants were men; 8968 (42·5%) were women; 19 101 (90·5%) were White; 98 (0·5%) were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British (ethnicity was not reported by 1637 [7·8%] participants); and 2725 (13·0%) had a previous cardiovascular disease. By the end of study follow-up (March 31, 2021), median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9-5·7), and 529 (5·0%) of 10 503 participants assigned to evening treatment and 318 (3·0%) of 10 601 assigned to morning treatment had withdrawn from all follow-up. A primary endpoint event occurred in 362 (3·4%) participants assigned to evening treatment (0·69 events [95% CI 0·62-0·76] per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3·7%) assigned to morning treatment (0·72 events [95% CI 0·65-0·79] per 100 patient-years; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·83-1·10]; p=0·53). No safety concerns were identified. INTERPRETATION: Evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication was not different from morning dosing in terms of major cardiovascular outcomes. Patients can be advised that they can take their regular antihypertensive medications at a convenient time that minimises any undesirable effects. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation.

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial.

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. METHODS: ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89-1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87-1·20], p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

When innovation outpaces regulations: The legal challenges for direct-to-patient supply of investigational medicinal products.

AIMS: We profile the lack of specific regulation for direct-to-patient postal supply (DTP) of clinical trial medications (investigational medicinal products, IMPs) calling for increased efficiency of patient-centred multi-country remote clinical trials. METHODS: Questionnaires emailed to 28 European Economic Area (EEA) Medical Product Licensing Authorities (MPLAs) and Swissmedic MPLA were analysed in 2019/2020. The questionnaire asked whether DTP of IMPs was legal, followed by comparative legal analysis profiling relevant national civil and criminal liability provisions in 30 European jurisdictions (including The Netherlands), finally summarising accessible COVID-19-related guidance in searches of 30 official MPLA websites in January 2021. RESULTS: Twenty MPLAs responded. Twelve consented to response publication in 2021. DTP was not widely authorised, though different phrases were used to explain this. Our legal review of national laws in 29 EEA jurisdictions and Switzerland did not identify any specific sanctions for DTP of IMPs; however, we identified potential national civil and criminal liability provisions. Switzerland provides legal clarity where DTP of IMPs is conditionally legal. MPLA webpage searches for COVID-19 guidance noted conditional acceptance by 19 MPLAs. CONCLUSIONS: Specific national legislation authorising DTP of IMPs, defining IMP categories, and conditions permitting the postage and delivery by courier in an EEA-wide clinical trial, would support innovative patient-centred research for multi-country remote clinical trials. Despite it appearing more acceptable to do this between EU Member States, provided each EU MPLA and ethics board authorises it, temporary Covid-19 restrictions in national Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidance discourages innovative research into the safety and effectiveness of clinical trial medications.

Learning from remote decentralised clinical trial experiences: A qualitative analysis of interviews with trial personnel, patient representatives and other stakeholders.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to identify actionable learning points from stakeholders in remote decentralised clinical trials (RDCTs) to inform their future design and conduct. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were carried out with a purposive sample of stakeholders, including senior managers, trial managers, technology experts, principal investigators, clinical investigators, research scientists, research nurses, vendors, patient representatives and project assistants. The interview data were coded using a thematic approach, identifying similarities, differences and clustering to generate descriptive themes. Further refinement of themes was guided by empirical phenomenology, grounding explanation in the meanings that interviewees gave to their experiences. RESULTS: Forty-eight stakeholders were interviewed. Actionable learning points were generated from the thematic analysis. Patient involvement and participant engagement were seen as critical to the success of RDCTs where in-person contact is minimal or nonexistent. Involving patients in identifying the research question, creating recruitment materials, apps and websites, and providing ongoing feedback to trial participants were regarded as facilitating recruitment and engagement. Building strong relationships early with trial partners was thought to support RDCT conduct. Multiple modes of capturing information, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and routinely collected data, were felt to contribute to data completeness. However, RDCTs may transfer trial activity burden onto participants and remote-working research staff, therefore additional support may be needed. CONCLUSION: RDCTs will continue to face challenges in implementing novel technologies. However, maximising patient and partner involvement, reducing participant and staff burden, and simplifying how participants and staff interact with the RDCT may facilitate their implementation.

A systematic review of methods used to conduct decentralised clinical trials.

AIMS: To evaluate, using quantitative and qualitative approaches, published data on the design and conduct of decentralised clinical trials (DCTs). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, ClinicalTrials.gov, OpenGrey and Google Scholar for publications reporting, discussing, or evaluating decentralised clinical research methods. Reports of randomised clinical trials using decentralised methods were included in a focused quantitative analysis with a primary outcome of number of randomised participants. All publications discussing or evaluating DCTs were included in a wider qualitative analysis to identify advantages, disadvantages, facilitators, barriers and stakeholder opinions of decentralised clinical trials. Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Initial searches identified 19 704 articles. After removal of duplicates, 18 553 were screened, resulting in 237 eligible for full-text assessment. Forty-five trials were included in the quantitative analysis; 117 documents were included in the qualitative analysis. Trials were widely heterogeneous in design and reporting, precluding meta-analysis of the effect of DCT methods on the primary recruitment outcome. Qualitative analysis formulated 4 broad themes: value, burden, safety and equity. Participant and stakeholder experiences of DCTs were incompletely represented. CONCLUSION: DCTs are developing rapidly. However, there is insufficient evidence to confirm which methods are most effective in trial recruitment, retention, or overall cost. The identified advantages, disadvantages, facilitators and barriers should inform the development of DCT methods. We recommend further research on how DCTs are experienced and perceived by participants and stakeholders to maximise potential benefits.

Analysis of the impact of sex and age on the variation in the prevalence of antinuclear autoantibodies in Polish population: a nationwide observational, cross-sectional study.

The detection of antinuclear autoantibody (ANA) is dependent on many factors and varies between the populations. The aim of the study was first to assess the prevalence of ANA in the Polish adult population depending on age, sex and the cutoff threshold used for the results obtained. Second, we estimated the occurrence of individual types of ANA-staining patterns. We tested 1731 patient samples using commercially available IIFA using two cutoff thresholds of 1:100 and 1:160. We found ANA in 260 participants (15.0%), but the percentage of positive results strongly depended on the cutoff level. For a cutoff threshold 1:100, the positive population was 19.5% and for the 1:160 cutoff threshold, it was 11.7%. The most prevalent ANA-staining pattern was AC-2 Dense Fine speckled (50%), followed by AC-21 Reticular/AMA (14.38%) ANA more common in women (72%); 64% of ANA-positive patients were over 50 years of age. ANA prevalence in the Polish population is at a level observed in other highly developed countries and is more prevalent in women and elderly individuals. To reduce the number of positive results released, we suggest that Polish laboratories should set 1:160 as the cutoff threshold.

Long-term cardiovascular safety of febuxostat compared with allopurinol in patients with gout (FAST): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Febuxostat and allopurinol are urate-lowering therapies used to treat patients with gout. Following concerns about the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat, the European Medicines Agency recommended a post-licensing study assessing the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat compared with allopurinol. METHODS: We did a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, non-inferiority trial of febuxostat versus allopurinol in patients with gout in the UK, Denmark, and Sweden. Eligible patients were 60 years or older, already receiving allopurinol, and had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Those who had myocardial infarction or stroke in the previous 6 months or who had severe congestive heart failure or severe renal impairment were excluded. After a lead-in phase in which allopurinol dose was optimised towards achieving a serum urate concentration of less than 0·357 mmol/L (<6 mg/dL), patients were randomly assigned (1:1, with stratification according to previous cardiovascular events) to continue allopurinol (at the optimised dose) or start febuxostat at 80 mg/day, increasing to 120 mg/day if necessary to achieve the target serum urate concentration. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or biomarker-positive acute coronary syndrome; non-fatal stroke; or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (HR) for febuxostat versus allopurinol in a Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted for the stratification variable and country) was assessed for non-inferiority (HR limit 1·3) in an on-treatment analysis. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2011-001883-23) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN72443728) and is now closed. FINDINGS: From Dec 20, 2011, to Jan 26, 2018, 6128 patients (mean age 71·0 years [SD 6·4], 5225 [85·3%] men, 903 [14·7%] women, 2046 [33·4%] with previous cardiovascular disease) were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive allopurinol (n=3065) or febuxostat (n=3063). By the study end date (Dec 31, 2019), 189 (6·2%) patients in the febuxostat group and 169 (5·5%) in the allopurinol group withdrew from all follow-up. Median follow-up time was 1467 days (IQR 1029-2052) and median on-treatment follow-up was 1324 days (IQR 870-1919). For incidence of the primary endpoint, on-treatment, febuxostat (172 patients [1·72 events per 100 patient-years]) was non-inferior to allopurinol (241 patients [2·05 events per 100 patient-years]; adjusted HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·70-1·03], p<0·0001). In the febuxostat group, 222 (7·2%) of 3063 patients died and 1720 (57·3%) of 3001 in the safety analysis set had at least one serious adverse event (with 23 events in 19 [0·6%] patients related to treatment). In the allopurinol group, 263 (8·6%) of 3065 patients died and 1812 (59·4%) of 3050 had one or more serious adverse events (with five events in five [0·2%] patients related to treatment). Randomised therapy was discontinued in 973 (32·4%) patients in the febuxostat group and 503 (16·5%) patients in the allopurinol group. INTERPRETATION: Febuxostat is non-inferior to allopurinol therapy with respect to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, and its long-term use is not associated with an increased risk of death or serious adverse events compared with allopurinol. FUNDING: Menarini, Ipsen, and Teijin Pharma Ltd.

Impact of multiple cardiovascular medications on mortality after an incidence of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

BACKGROUND: To manage the risk factors and to improve clinical outcomes, patients with stroke commonly receive multiple cardiovascular medications. However, there is a lack of evidence on the optimum combination of medication therapy in the primary care setting after ischemic stroke. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of multiple cardiovascular medications on long-term survival after an incident stroke event (ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA)). METHODS: This study consisted of 52,619 patients aged 45 and above with an incident stroke event between 2007 and 2016 in The Health Improvement Network database. We estimated the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with multiple cardiovascular medications versus monotherapy using a marginal structural model. RESULTS: During an average follow-up of 3.6 years, there were 9230 deaths (7635 in multiple cardiovascular medication groups and 1595 in the monotherapy group). Compared with patients prescribed monotherapy only, the HRs of mortality were 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.89) for two medications, 0.65 (0.59-0.70) for three medications, 0.61 (0.56-0.67) for four medications, 0.60 (0.54-0.66) for five medications and 0.66 (0.59-0.74) for ≥ six medications. Patients with any four classes of antiplatelet agents (APAs), lipid-regulating medications (LRMs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, diuretics and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) had the lowest risk of mortality (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.46-0.57) versus any one class. The combination containing APAs, LRMs, ACEIs/ARBs and CCBs was associated with a 61% (95% CI 53-68%) lower risk of mortality compared with APAs alone. CONCLUSION: Our results suggested that combination therapy of four or five cardiovascular medications may be optimal to improve long-term survival after incident ischemic stroke or TIA. APAs, LRMs, ACEIs/ARBs and CCBs were the optimal constituents of combination therapy in the present study.

Impact of EU regulatory label changes for diclofenac in people with cardiovascular disease in four countries: Interrupted time series regression analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Due to cardiovascular safety concerns, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended new contraindications and changes to product information for diclofenac across Europe in 2013. This study aims to measure their impact among targeted populations. METHOD: Quarterly interrupted time series regression (ITS) analyses of diclofenac initiation among cohorts with contraindications (congestive cardiac failure [CHF], ischaemic heart disease [IHD], peripheral arterial disease [PAD], cerebrovascular disease [CVD]) and cautions (hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes) from Denmark, the Netherlands, England and Scotland. RESULTS: The regulatory action was associated with significant immediate absolute reductions in diclofenac initiation in all countries for IHD (Denmark -0.08%, 95%CI -0.13, -0.03; England -0.09%, 95%CI -0.13 to -0.06%; the Netherlands -1.84%, 95%CI -2.51 to -1.17%; Scotland -0.34%, 95%CI -0.38 to -0.30%), PAD and hyperlipidaemia, the Netherlands, England and Scotland for hypertension and diabetes, and England and Scotland for CHF and CVD. Post-intervention there was a significant negative trend in diclofenac initiation in the Netherlands for IHD (-0.12%, 95%CI -0.19 to -0.04), PAD (-0.13%, 95%CI -0.22 to -0.05), hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes, and in Scotland for CHF (-0.01%, 95%CI -0.02 to -0.007%), IHD (-0.017, 95%CI -0.02, -0.01%), PAD and hypertension. In England, diclofenac initiation rates fell less steeply. In Denmark changes were more strongly associated with the earlier EMA 2012 regulatory action. CONCLUSION: Although significant reductions in diclofenac initiation occurred, patients with contraindications continued to be prescribed diclofenac, the extent of which varied by country and target condition. Understanding reasons for such variation may help to guide the design or dissemination of future safety warnings.

Impact of EMA regulatory label changes on hydroxyzine initiation, discontinuation and switching to other medicines in Denmark, Scotland, England and the Netherlands: An interrupted time series regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxyzine is indicated for the management of anxiety, skin and sleep disorders. In 2015, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) concluded that hydroxyzine was pro-arrhythmogenic and changes to the product information were implemented in Europe. This study aimed to evaluate their impact in Denmark, Scotland, England and the Netherlands. METHOD: Quarterly time series analyses measuring hydroxyzine initiation, discontinuation, and switching to other antihistamines, benzodiazepines and antidepressants in Denmark, England, Scotland and the Netherlands from 2009 to 2018. Data were analysed using interrupted time series regression. RESULTS: Hydroxyzine initiation in quarter one 2010 in Denmark, Scotland, England and the Netherlands per 100 000 was: 23.5, 91.5, 35.9 and 34.4 respectively. Regulatory action was associated with a significant: immediate fall in hydroxyzine initiation per 100 000 in England (-12.05, 95%CI -18.47 to -5.63) and Scotland (-19.01, 95%CI -26.99 to -11.02); change to a negative trend in hydroxyzine initiation per 100 000/quarter in England (-1.72, 95%CI -2.69 to -0.75) and Scotland (-2.38, 95%CI -3.32 to -1.44). Regulatory action was associated with a significant: immediate rise in hydroxyzine discontinuation per 100 000 in England (3850, 95%CI 440-7240). No consistent changes were observed in the Netherlands or Denmark. Regulatory action was associated with no switching to other antihistamines, benzodiazepines or antidepressants following hydroxyzine discontinuation in any country. CONCLUSION: The 2015 EMA regulatory action was associated with heterogeneous impact with reductions in hydroxyzine initiation varying by country. There was limited impact on discontinuation with no strong evidence suggesting unintended consequences of major switching to other antihistamines, benzodiazepines or antidepressants.

Impact of EMA regulatory label changes on systemic diclofenac initiation, discontinuation, and switching to other pain medicines in Scotland, England, Denmark, and The Netherlands.

PURPOSE: In June 2013 a European Medicines Agency referral procedure concluded that diclofenac was associated with an elevated risk of acute cardiovascular events and contraindications, warnings, and changes to the product information were implemented across the European Union. This study measured the impact of the regulatory action on the prescribing of systemic diclofenac in Denmark, The Netherlands, England, and Scotland. METHODS: Quarterly time series analyses measuring diclofenac prescription initiation, discontinuation and switching to other systemic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs, paracetamol, opioids, and other chronic pain medication in those who discontinued diclofenac. Absolute effects were estimated using interrupted time series regression. RESULTS: Overall, diclofenac prescription initiations fell during the observation periods of all countries. Compared with Denmark where there appeared to be a more limited effect, the regulatory action was associated with significant immediate reductions in diclofenac initiation in The Netherlands (-0.42%, 95% CI, -0.66% to -0.18%), England (-0.09%, 95% CI, -0.11% to -0.08%), and Scotland (-0.67%, 95% CI, -0.79% to -0.55%); and falling trends in diclofenac initiation in the Netherlands (-0.03%, 95% CI, -0.06% to -0.01% per quarter) and Scotland (-0.04%, 95% CI, -0.05% to -0.02% per quarter). There was no significant impact on diclofenac discontinuation in any country. The regulatory action was associated with modest differences in switching to other pain medicines following diclofenac discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: The regulatory action was associated with significant reductions in overall diclofenac initiation which varied by country and type of exposure. There was no impact on discontinuation and variable impact on switching.

The effect of indapamide vs. bendroflumethiazide for primary hypertension: a systematic review.

The aims of the current review were to compare the efficacy of monotherapy with bendroflumethiazide vs. indapamide on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, blood pressure, need for intensification of treatment and treatment withdrawal. Two authors independently screened the results of a literature search, assessed the risk of bias and extracted relevant data. Randomized clinical trials of hypertensive patients of at least a 1-year duration were included. When there was disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted. Risk ratio (RR) and mean differences were used as measures of effect. Two trials comparing bendroflumethiazide against placebo, one comparing indapamide with placebo and three of short duration directly comparing indapamide and Bendroflumethiazide, were included. No statistically significant difference was found between indapamide and bendroflumethiazide for all deaths [RR 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57, 1.18], cardiovascular deaths (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.55, 1.20), noncardiovascular deaths (0.81; 95% CI 0.54, 1.22), coronary events (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.30, 1.79) or all cardiovascular events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.67, 1.18). Indapamide performed worse for stroke (RR 2.21; 95% CI 1.19, 4.11), even though a reduction in RR compared with placebo was observed in both groups. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference between indapamide and bendroflumethiazide in blood pressure reduction (mean absolute difference <1 mmHg). The present review highlights a lack of studies to answer the review question but also a lack of evidence of superiority of one drug over the other. Therefore, there is a clear need for new studies directly comparing the effect of these drugs on the outcomes of interest.

Does the provision of a DVD-based audio-visual presentation improve recruitment in a clinical trial? A randomised trial of DVD trial invitations.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment to clinical trials can be challenging. Methods that improve the efficiency of trial recruitment are needed to increase successful study completions. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether sending an audio-visual presentation on a digital versatile disc (DVD), along with usual study invitation materials, would improve recruitment to the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST), a clinical trial in patients with established gout. METHODS: Potential participants for the FAST study who were identified by searches of GP records in Scottish primary care practices between August 2013 and July 2014 were included in this study. Individuals were randomly allocated to receive either a standard invitation (letter and information leaflet) or a standard invitation and a DVD containing an audio-visual presentation explaining the background and operation of FAST. Data on invitation response rates, screening attendances and randomisations were collected by research nurses. RESULTS: One thousand fifty potential participants were invited to take part in FAST during this period. 509 individuals were randomised to receive the DVD presentation and the standard invitation and 541 received a standard invitation only. DVD recipients were less likely to respond to the initial invitation (adjusted OR 0.76, CI 0.58-0.99) and marginally less likely to return a positive response (OR 0.75, CI 0.59-0.96). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in attendance for screening or randomisation. The DVD did not influence the age, gender, or socioeconomic deprivation scores of those responding positively to a letter of invitation. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of a DVD presentation with FAST study invitations did not make any practical difference to the rate of positive response to invitation. Further innovation and evaluation will be required to improve recruitment to clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials Register. EudraCT Number: 2011-001883-23 . ISRCTN registry.  ISRCTN72443278 .

The effect of changes to GOLD severity stage on long term morbidity and mortality in COPD.

BACKGROUND: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) severity stage classifies Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) into groups based on symptoms, exacerbations and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). This allows patients to change to less severe COPD stages, a novel aspect of assessment not previously evaluated. We aimed to investigate the association between temporal changes in GOLD severity stage and outcomes in COPD patients. METHODS: This was a record-linkage study using patients registered with a Scottish regional COPD network 2000-2015. Annual spirometry & symptoms were recorded and linked to healthcare records to identify exacerbations, hospitalisations and mortality. Spirometry, modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnoea scale and acute exacerbations over the previous year were used to assign GOLD severity at each visit. A time-dependent Cox model was used to model time to death. Secondary outcomes were respiratory specific mortality and hospitalisations. Effect sizes are expressed as Hazard Ratios HR (95%CI). RESULTS: Four thousand, eight hundred and eighty-five patients (mean age 67.3 years; 51.3% female) with 21,348 visits were included. During a median 6.6 years follow-up there were 1530 deaths. For the secondary outcomes there were 712 respiratory deaths and 1629 first hospitalisations. Across 16,463 visit-pairs, improvement in COPD severity was seen in 2308 (14%), no change in 11,010 (66.9%) and worsening in 3145 (19.1). Compared to patients staying in GOLD stage A, those worsening had a stepwise increased mortality and hospitalisations. CONCLUSIONS: Improving COPD severity classification was associated with reduced mortality and worsening COPD severity was associated with increased mortality and hospitalisations. Change in GOLD group has potential as monitoring tool and outcome measure in clinical trials.

Randomized trial of switching from prescribed non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prescribed celecoxib: the Standard care vs. Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT).

BACKGROUND: Selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and conventional non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) have been associated with adverse cardiovascular (CV) effects. We compared the CV safety of switching to celecoxib vs. continuing nsNSAID therapy in a European setting. METHOD: Patients aged 60 years and over with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, free from established CV disease and taking chronic prescribed nsNSAIDs, were randomized to switch to celecoxib or to continue their previous nsNSAID. The primary endpoint was hospitalization for non-fatal myocardial infarction or other biomarker positive acute coronary syndrome, non-fatal stroke or CV death analysed using a Cox model with a pre-specified non-inferiority limit of 1.4 for the hazard ratio (HR). RESULTS: In total, 7297 participants were randomized. During a median 3-year follow-up, fewer subjects than expected developed an on-treatment (OT) primary CV event and the rate was similar for celecoxib, 0.95 per 100 patient-years, and nsNSAIDs, 0.86 per 100 patient-years (HR = 1.12, 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.55; P = 0.50). Comparable intention-to-treat (ITT) rates were 1.14 per 100 patient-years with celecoxib and 1.10 per 100 patient-years with nsNSAIDs (HR = 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.33; P = 0.75). Pre-specified non-inferiority was achieved in the ITT analysis. The upper bound of the 95% confidence limit for the absolute increase in OT risk associated with celecoxib treatment was two primary events per 1000 patient-years exposure. There were only 15 adjudicated secondary upper gastrointestinal complication endpoints (0.078/100 patient-years on celecoxib vs. 0.053 on nsNSAIDs OT, 0.078 vs. 0.053 ITT). More gastrointestinal serious adverse reactions and haematological adverse reactions were reported on nsNSAIDs than celecoxib, but more patients withdrew from celecoxib than nsNSAIDs (50.9% patients vs. 30.2%; P < 0.0001). INTERPRETATION: In subjects 60 years and over, free from CV disease and taking prescribed chronic nsNSAIDs, CV events were infrequent and similar on celecoxib and nsNSAIDs. There was no advantage of a strategy of switching prescribed nsNSAIDs to prescribed celecoxib. This study excluded an increased risk of the primary endpoint of more than two events per 1000 patient-years associated with switching to prescribed celecoxib. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00447759; Unique identifier: NCT00447759.

Spironolactone use and risk of incident cancers: a retrospective, matched cohort study.

AIMS: Spironolactone is widely used to treat heart failure, hypertension and liver disease with increased usage in recent years. Spironolactone has endocrine effects that could influence cancer risks and historical reports suggest possible links with increased risk of certain types of cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of spironolactone exposure on cancer incidence. METHODS: A pharmacoepidemiological propensity score-matched cohort study was performed to assess the effect of spironolactone exposure on cancer incidence. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyse time to first diagnosis of each prespecified cancer and hazard ratios for spironolactone exposure are presented. The setting for the study was UK primary care using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The participants were 74 272 patients exposed to spironolactone between 1986 and 2013, matched 1:2 with unexposed controls. The prespecified primary outcomes were the first incidence of ovarian, endometrial, pancreatic, colorectal, prostate, renal cell, pharyngeal and thyroid cancers, and myelomonoblastic/-cytic leukaemias. Secondary outcomes were the remaining 27 types of cancer. RESULTS: There was no evidence of an increased risk of any cancer associated with spironolactone use. Spironolactone use was associated with a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer (hazard ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.60-0.80, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, spironolactone use was associated with a lower incidence of prostate cancer, the most common cancer in men in the UK. The possible mechanisms and clinical implications merit further investigation.