Cost consequence analysis of Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET 2).

BACKGROUND: This paper used data from the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (NCT02346201) to conduct a planned cost consequence analysis to investigate whether treatment of apathy with methylphenidate is economically attractive. METHODS: A total of 167 patients with clinically significant apathy randomized to either methylphenidate or placebo were included. The Resource Utilization in Dementia Lite instrument assessed resource utilization for the past 30 days and the EuroQol five dimension five level questionnaire assessed health utility at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Resources were converted to costs using standard sources and reported in 2021 USD. A repeated measures analysis of variance compared change in costs and utility over time between the treatment and placebo groups. A binary logistic regression was used to assess cost predictors. RESULTS: Costs were not significantly different between groups whether the cost of methylphenidate was excluded (F(2,330) = 0.626, ηp2 = 0.004, p = 0.535) or included (F(2,330) = 0.629, ηp2 = 0.004, p = 0.534). Utility improved with methylphenidate treatment as there was a group by time interaction (F(2,330) = 7.525, ηp2 = 0.044, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Results from this study indicated that there was no evidence for a difference in resource utilization costs between methylphenidate and placebo treatment. However, utility improved significantly over the 6-month follow-up period. These results can aid in decision-making to improve quality of life in patients with Alzheimer's disease while considering the burden on the healthcare system.

Rationale and design of the Study To Understand Fall Reduction and Vitamin D in You (STURDY): A randomized clinical trial of Vitamin D supplement doses for the prevention of falls in older adults.

Prior evidence suggests that vitamin D supplementation may reduce fall risk, but existing data are inconsistent and insufficient to guide policy. We designed a two-stage Bayesian response-adaptive dose-finding and seamless confirmatory randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent falls. Up to 1200 community-dwelling persons, aged ≥70 years, of predominantly white and African-American race, with serum 25(OH)D concentrations of 10-29 ng/mL and at elevated fall risk, will be randomized to one of four vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) supplement doses: 200 (control), 1000, 2000, or 4000 IU/day and treated for up to 2 years. Stage 1 is designed to identify the best of the non-control doses for fall prevention. If a best dose is selected, Stage 2 will start seamlessly, with enrollees assigned to control or the best dose in Stage 1 continuing on that dose unchanged, enrollees assigned to the two non-control, non-best doses in Stage 1 switched to the best dose, and new enrollees randomly assigned 1:1 to control or the best dose. In Stage 2, we will compare the control dose group to the best dose group to potentially confirm the efficacy of that dose for fall prevention. The primary outcome measure in both stages is time to first fall or death, whichever comes first. Falls are ascertained from calendars, scheduled interviews, or interim self-reports. Secondary outcome measures include time to each component of the composite primary outcome and gait speed. Additional outcomes include the Short Physical Performance Battery score, physical activity level (assessed by accelerometry), and frailty score. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02166333.

The Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial (TRTT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Subjective tinnitus is the perception of sound in the absence of a corresponding external sound for which there is no known medical etiology. For a minority of individuals with tinnitus, the condition impacts their ability to lead a normal lifestyle and is severely debilitating. There is no known cure for tinnitus, so current therapy focuses on reducing the effect of tinnitus on the patient's quality of life. Tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT) uses nonpsychiatric tinnitus-specific educational counseling and sound therapy in a habituation-based protocol to reduce the patient's tinnitus-evoked negative reaction to, and awareness of, the tinnitus, with the ultimate goal of reducing the tinnitus impact on the patient's quality of life. Some studies support the efficacy of TRT, but no trial to date has compared TRT with the current standard of care or evaluated the separate contributions of TRT counseling and sound therapy. The Tinnitus Retraining Therapy Trial (TRTT) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial for individuals with intolerable tinnitus. METHODS/DESIGN: The TRTT is enrolling active-duty and retired military personnel and their dependents with functionally adequate hearing sensitivity and severe tinnitus at US Air Force, Navy, and Army medical centers. Eligible study participants are randomized to TRT, partial TRT, or standard care to determine the efficacy of TRT and its components (TRT counseling and sound therapy). The primary outcome is change in score on the Tinnitus Questionnaire assessed longitudinally between baseline and follow-up (3, 6, 12, and 18 months following treatment). Secondary outcomes include subscale score changes in the Tinnitus Questionnaire, overall and subscale score changes in the Tinnitus Functional Index and Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, and change in the visual analog scale of the TRT Interview Form. Audiological outcomes include tinnitus pitch and loudness match and measures of loudness discomfort levels. The incidence of depression as a safety measure is assessed at each visit using the Beck Depression Inventory Fast Screen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01177137.

Variability of methacholine bronchoprovocation and the effect of inhaled corticosteroids in mild asthma.

BACKGROUND: The methacholine challenge test quantifies airway hyper-responsiveness, which is measured by the provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% decrease in forced expiration volume in 1 second (PC20). The dose-response effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on PC20 has been inconsistent and within-patient variability of PC20 is not well established. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of high- vs low-dose ICS on PC20 and within-patient variability in those with repeated measurements of PC20. METHODS: A randomized, double-masked, crossover trial was conducted in patients with asthma on controller medications with PC20 of 8 mg/mL or lower (n = 64) to evaluate the effect of high-dose (1,000 µg/d) vs low-dose (250 µg/d) fluticasone for 4 weeks on PC20. In addition, the variability of PC20 was assessed in participants who underwent 2 or 3 PC20 measurements on the same dose of ICS (n = 27) over a 4-week interval. RESULTS: Because there was a significant period effect, dose comparison of the change in PC20 was assessed in the first treatment period. There was no significant difference in the change in PC20 for high- vs low-dose ICS (39% vs 30% increase, respectively; P = .87). The within- and between-participant variances for log PC20 were 0.84 and 0.96, respectively, with an intra-class correlation of 0.53, and 37% of participants had more than 2 doubling dose changes in PC20 in those with repeated measurements. CONCLUSION: The effect of ICS on PC20 is not dose dependent at fluticasone levels of 250 and 1,000 µg/d. Interpersonal variability for PC20 is large. A lack of precise measurements should be taken into account when interpreting any change in PC20.

Methacholine challenge test: diagnostic characteristics in asthmatic patients receiving controller medications.

BACKGROUND: The methacholine challenge test (MCT) is commonly used to assess airway hyperresponsiveness, but the diagnostic characteristics have not been well studied in asthmatic patients receiving controller medications after the use of high-potency inhaled corticosteroids became common. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the ability of the MCT to differentiate participants with a physician's diagnosis of asthma from nonasthmatic participants. METHODS: We conducted a cohort-control study in asthmatic participants (n= 126) who were receiving regular controller medications and nonasthmatic control participants (n= 93) to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the MCT. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity was 77% and the specificity was 96% with a threshold PC(20) (the provocative concentration of methacholine that results in a 20% drop in FEV(1)) of 8 mg/mL. The sensitivity was significantly lower in white than in African American participants (69% vs 95%, P= .015) and higher in atopic compared with nonatopic (82% vs 52%, P= .005). Increasing the PC(20) threshold from 8 to 16 mg/mL did not noticeably improve the performance characteristics of the test. African American race, presence of atopy, and lower percent predicted FEV(1) were associated with a positive test result. CONCLUSIONS: The utility of the MCT to rule out a diagnosis of asthma depends on racial and atopic characteristics. Clinicians should take into account the reduced sensitivity of the MCT in white and nonatopic asthmatic patients when using this test for the diagnosis of asthma.