Does offering an incentive payment improve recruitment to clinical trials and increase the proportion of socially deprived and elderly participants?

BACKGROUND: Patient recruitment into clinical trials is a major challenge, and the elderly, socially deprived and those with multiple comorbidities are often underrepresented. The idea of paying patients an incentive to participate in research is controversial, and evidence is needed to evaluate this as a recruitment strategy. METHOD: In this study, we sought to assess the impact on clinical trial recruitment of a £100 incentive payment and whether the offer of this payment attracted more elderly and socially deprived patients. A total of 1,015 potential patients for five clinical trials (SCOT, FAST and PATHWAY 1, 2 and 3) were randomised to receive either a standard trial invitation letter or a trial invitation letter containing an incentive offer of £100. To receive payment, patients had to attend a screening visit and consent to be screened (that is, sign a consent form). To maintain equality, eventually all patients who signed a consent form were paid £100. RESULTS: The £100 incentive offer increased positive response to the first invitation letter from 24.7% to 31.6%, an increase of 6.9% (P < 0.05). The incentive offer increased the number of patients signing a consent form by 5.1% (P < 0.05). The mean age of patients who responded positively to the invitation letter was 66.5 ± 8.7 years, whereas those who responded negatively were significantly older, with a mean age of 68.9 ± 9.0 years. The incentive offer did not influence the age of patients responding. The incentive offer did not improve response in the most socially deprived areas, and the response from patients in these areas was significantly lower overall. CONCLUSION: A £100 incentive payment offer led to small but significant improvements in both patient response to a clinical trial invitation letter and in the number of patients who consented to be screened. The incentive payment did not attract elderly or more socially deprived patients. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Standard care versus Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00447759 ). Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) (EudraCT number: 2011-001883-23 ). Prevention and Treatment of Hypertension with Algorithm Guided Therapy (British Heart Foundation funded trials) (PATHWAY) 1: Monotherapy versus dual therapy for initiating treatment (EudraCT number: 2008-007749-29 ). PATHWAY 2: Optimal treatment of drug-resistant hypertension (EudraCT number: 2008-007149-30 ). PATHWAY 3: Comparison of single and combination diuretics in low-renin hypertension (EudraCT number: 2009-010068-41 ).

Protocol of the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST): a large prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint study comparing the cardiovascular safety of allopurinol and febuxostat in the management of symptomatic hyperuricaemia.

INTRODUCTION: Gout affects 2.5% of the UK's adult population and is now the most common type of inflammatory arthritis. The long-term management of gout requires reduction of serum urate levels and this is most often achieved with use of xanthine oxidase inhibitors, such as allopurinol. Febuxostat is the first new xanthine oxidase inhibitor since allopurinol and was licensed for use in 2008. The European Medicines Agency requested a postlicensing cardiovascular safety study of febuxostat versus allopurinol, which has been named the Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined trial (FAST). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: FAST is a cardiovascular safety study using the prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint design. FAST is recruiting in the UK and Denmark. Recruited patients are aged over 60 years, prescribed allopurinol for symptomatic hyperuricaemia and have at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. After an allopurinol lead-in phase where the dose of allopurinol is optimised to achieve European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) urate targets (serum urate <357 µmol/L), patients are randomised to either continue optimal dose allopurinol or to use febuxostat. Patients are followed-up for an average of 3 years. The primary endpoint is first occurrence of the Anti-Platelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC) cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary endpoints are all cause mortality and hospitalisations for heart failure, unstable, new or worsening angina, coronary or cerebral revascularisation, transient ischaemic attack, non-fatal cardiac arrest, venous and peripheral arterial vascular thrombotic event and arrhythmia with no evidence of ischaemia. The primary analysis is a non-inferiority analysis with a non-inferiority upper limit for the HR for the primary outcome of 1.3. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: FAST (ISRCTN72443728) has ethical approval in the UK and Denmark, and results will be published in a peer reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: FAST is registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUDRACT No: 2011-001883-23) and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN No: ISRCTN72443728).

Renal artery stenosis-when to screen, what to stent?

Renal artery stensosis (RAS) continues to be a problem for clinicians, with no clear consensus on how to investigate and assess the clinical significance of stenotic lesions and manage the findings. RAS caused by fibromuscular dysplasia is probably commoner than previously appreciated, should be actively looked for in younger hypertensive patients and can be managed successfully with angioplasty. Atheromatous RAS is associated with increased incidence of cardiovascular events and increased cardiovascular mortality, and is likely to be seen with increasing frequency. Evidence from large clinical trials has led clinicians away from recommending interventional revascularisation towards aggressive medical management. There is now interest in looking more closely at patient selection for intervention, with focus on intervening only in patients with the highest-risk presentations such as flash pulmonary oedema, rapidly declining renal function and severe resistant hypertension. The potential benefits in terms of improving hard cardiovascular outcomes may outweigh the risks of intervention in this group, and further research is needed.

Up-titration of allopurinol in patients with gout.

OBJECTIVES: European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) gout management guidelines recommend achieving a target urate level <6.0 mg/dL (<357 µmol/L). Allopurinol is the most widely used urate-lowering therapy; however, many gout patients who are prescribed allopurinol do not have urate levels optimally controlled. The objective of this analysis was to review the efficacy and tolerability of allopurinol up-titration in achieving the EULAR target levels. METHOD: The Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) is an ongoing multi-centre study comparing the cardiovascular safety of febuxostat and allopurinol (target recruitment: 5706 patients). Recruited patients were already taking allopurinol and the protocol required up-titration of daily allopurinol dose, in 100 mg increments, to achieve the EULAR urate target level prior to randomisation. We reviewed pre-randomisation data from the first 400 recruited and subsequently randomised FAST patients. RESULTS: Of 400 patients, 144 (36%) had urate levels ≥357 µmol/L at screening and required allopurinol up-titration. Higher urate levels were significantly associated with lower allopurinol dose, male sex, increased BMI, increased alcohol intake and diuretic use. Mean fall in urate levels after a single 100-mg dose increase was 71 µmol/L. The number of up-titrations required ranged from one to five (median = 1) with 65% of patients controlled after one 100-mg up-titration. Overall, 97% of up-titrated patients achieved target urate levels with median final allopurinol dose of 300 mg daily. Side effects and complications of up-titration were minimal. CONCLUSION: Overall, 36% of FAST patients were not at target urate levels and required up-titration. Allopurinol up-titration was effective in achieving urate target levels and was generally well tolerated by patients.

Effectiveness of newspaper advertising for patient recruitment into a clinical trial.

AIMS: To measure the impact of newspaper advertising across Scotland on patient interest, and subsequent recruitment into the Standard Care vs. Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT), a clinical trial investigating the cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Newspaper advertisements about the SCOT trial were placed sequentially in regional and national Scottish newspapers. The number of phone calls as a result of exposure to the advertisements and ongoing study recruitment rates were recorded before, during and after the advertising campaign. To enroll in SCOT individuals had to be registered with a participating GP practice. RESULTS: The total cost for the advertising campaign was £46 250 and 320 phone calls were received as a result of individuals responding to the newspaper advertisements. One hundred and seventy-two individuals were identified as possibly suitable to be included in the study. However only 36 were registered at participating GP practices, 17 completed a screening visit and 15 finally were randomized into the study. The average cost per respondent individual was £144 and the average cost per randomized patient was £3083. Analysis of recruitment rate trends showed that there was no impact of the newspaper advertising campaign on increasing recruitment into SCOT. CONCLUSIONS: Advertisements placed in local and national newspapers were not an effective recruitment strategy for the SCOT trial. The advertisements attracted relatively small numbers of respondents, many of whom did not meet study inclusion criteria or were not registered at a participating GP practice.