The 'Switch' study protocol: a randomised-controlled trial of switching to an alternative tumour-necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitor drug or abatacept or rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed an initial TNF-inhibitor drug.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is one of the most common autoimmune diseases, affecting approximately 1% of the UK adult population. Patients suffer considerable pain, stiffness and swelling and can sustain various degrees of joint destruction, deformity, and significant functional decline. In addition, the economic burden due to hospitalisation and loss of employment is considerable, with over 50% of patients being work-disabled within 10 years of diagnosis. Despite several biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) now available, there is a lack of data to guide biologic sequencing. In the UK, second-line biologic treatment is restricted to a single option, rituximab. The aim of the SWITCH trial is to establish whether an alternative-mechanism-TNF-inhibitor (TNFi) or abatacept are as effective as rituximab in patients with RA who have failed an initial TNFi drug. METHODS/DESIGN: SWITCH is a pragmatic, phase IV, multi-centre, parallel-group design, open-label, randomised, controlled trial (RCT) comparing alternative-mechanism-TNFi and abatacept with rituximab in patients with RA who have failed an initial TNFi drug. Participants are randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive alternative mechanism TNFi, (monoclonal antibodies: infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab or golimumab or the receptor fusion protein, etanercept), abatacept or rituximab during the interventional phase (from randomisation up to week 48). Participants are subsequently followed up to a maximum of 96 weeks, which constitutes the observational phase. The primary objective is to establish whether an alternative-mechanism-TNFi or abatacept are non-inferior to rituximab in terms of disease response at 24 weeks post randomisation. The secondary objectives include the comparison of alternative-mechanism-TNFi and abatacept to rituximab in terms of disease response, quality of life, toxicity, safety and structural and bone density outcomes over a 12-month period (48 weeks) and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching patients to alternative active therapies compared to current practice. DISCUSSION: SWITCH is a well-designed trial in this therapeutic area that aims to develop a rational treatment algorithm to potentially inform personalised treatment regimens (as opposed to switching all patients to only one available (and possibly unsuccessful) therapy), which may lead to long-term improved patient outcomes and gains in population health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UKCRN Portfolio ID: 12343; ISRCTN89222125 ; NCT01295151.

IMPROVDENT: improving dentures for patient benefit. A crossover randomised clinical trial comparing impression materials for complete dentures.

BACKGROUND: According to the UK Adult Dental Health Survey (2009) 15% of adults aged 65-74, 30% aged 75-84 and 47% aged >85 years are edentulous and require complete dentures. Patients' quality of life and nutrition status are affected by poor dentures. The quality of the dental impression is the most important issue for improving the fit and comfort of new dentures. There is paucity of RCT evidence for which impression material is best for complete dentures construction. This study aims to compare two impression materials for effectiveness and cost effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: IMPROVDENT is a double-blind crossover trial comparing the use of alginate and silicone, two commonly used denture impression materials, in terms of patient preference and cost-effectiveness. Eighty five edentulous patients will be recruited and provided with two sets of dentures, similar in all aspects except for the impression material used (alginate or silicone). Patients will try both sets of dentures for a two-week period, unadjusted, to become accustomed to the feel of the new dentures (habituation period). Patients will then wear each set of dentures for a period of 8 weeks (in random order) during which time the dentures will be adjusted for optimum comfort. Finally, patients will be given both sets of dentures for a further two weeks to wear whichever denture they prefer (confirmation period).Patients will be asked about quality of life and to rate dentures on function and comfort at the end of each trial period and asked which set they prefer at the end of the habituation period (unadjusted denture preference) and confirmation period (adjusted denture preference). A health economic evaluation will estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of producing dentures from the two materials. A qualitative study will investigate the impact of dentures on behaviour and quality of life. FUNDING: IMPROVDENT is funded by NIHR RfPB (PB-PG-0408-16300). DISCUSSION: This trial aims to provide evidence on the costs and quality of dentures cast from two different commonly used impression materials; the intention is to significantly impact on the quality of denture production within NHS dentistry. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register: ISRCTN01528038 UKCRN Portfolio ID: 8305.

Home orthostatic training in vasovagal syncope modifies autonomic tone: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study.

AIMS: To detect possible autonomic changes due to home orthostatic training (HOT) and to assess the feasibility of a larger, placebo-controlled study of HOT in vasovagal syncope (VVS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two consecutive patients, aged 18-85, diagnosed with VVS following a positive head-up tilt-table test were randomized to 40 min of HOT (n = 12) or 10 min of sham training (n = 10) daily for 6 months. Baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) and heart rate variability (HRV) were measured at weeks 0, 1, 4, and 24. Symptom response was assessed by event diaries. Home orthostatic training resulted in increases in up and down slope BRS at week 4 (e(log difference) = 1.59, 95% CI = 0.84-3.03 and 1.79, 95% CI = 1.00-3.22) and week 24 (e(log difference) = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.01-3.06 and 1.53, 95% CI = 0.66-2.68) compared with placebo. Relative improvements in low- and high-frequency HRV were also observed in the HOT group compared with placebo at week 4 (e(log difference) = 3.22, 95% CI = 1.06-9.86 and 3.19, 95% CI = 1.03-10.59) and week 24 (e(log difference) = 2.11, 95% CI = 0.72-6.17 and 2.13, 95% CI = 0.52-8.79). Fifty percentage of HOT subjects and 20% of control subjects were syncope-free at 6 months. CONCLUSION: This was the first placebo-controlled study in orthostatic training which has demonstrated that such a study is indeed feasible. An enhancement in overall autonomic tone is observed with HOT in tandem with a non-significant trend in symptom improvement. A larger, adequately powered, randomized controlled trial of tilt-training is now needed.

'Front-loaded' head-up tilt table testing: validation of a rapid first line nitrate-provoked tilt protocol for the diagnosis of vasovagal syncope.

Head-up tilt testing is the investigation of choice in the diagnosis of vasovagal syncope. The test is time consuming and labour intensive, with conventional tilt testing taking up to 45 min. We compared a shortened 'front-loaded' 20-min glyceryl trinitrate-provoked head-up tilt (FLGTN-HUT) with the standard 40-min passive tilt (HUT) as first line investigations in patients with unexplained syncope and asymptomatic controls. In the study, 149 consecutive patients with unexplained syncope and 83 asymptomatic controls were enrolled. Subjects were randomly assigned to FLGTN-HUT (800 mcg, metred spray) or HUT, then the opposite tilt-test 1 week later. Seventeen (11.4%) patients had diagnostic haemodynamic changes and symptom reproduction during HUT and 54 (36.2%) during FLGTN-HUT. A total of 24.8% more patients had a positive test with FLGTN-HUT than with passive HUT (95% CI: 16.3%, 33.4%). Nine (10.8%) controls had significant haemodynamic changes during HUT and 23 (27.7%) during GTN provocation. Seven controls had haemodynamic changes on both HUT and FLGTN-HUT testing. The controls group had 16.8% more significant haemodynamic changes with FLGTN-HUT than with HUT (95% CI: 0.06, 27.4). The front-loaded GTN protocol provided a higher diagnostic rate than passive tilt testing, and provides a rapid alternative to conventional methods, though false positivity rates are higher.

Azathioprine dosed by thiopurine methyltransferase activity for moderate-to-severe atopic eczema: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atopic eczema affects 1-2% of adults, and can cause considerable morbidity. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of azathioprine as systemic monotherapy for moderate-to-severe atopic eczema, and the therapeutic importance of the thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) polymorphism (a key determinant of azathioprine-induced myelotoxicity) by using TPMT enzyme activity to establish azathioprine dose. METHODS: We did a parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in an outpatient setting. Minimisation was used to assign 63 patients with active disease despite optimum topical therapy to treatment with azathioprine (n=42) or placebo (n=21) for 12 weeks. As maintenance treatment, patients with heterozygous range TPMT activity received azathioprine 1.0 mg/kg daily, compared with 2.5 mg/kg daily in patients with normal TPMT activity. For the first 4 weeks, all participants received lower azathioprine doses (0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg daily, respectively) to reduce gastrointestinal side-effects. The primary measure of clinical response was disease activity assessed by the SASSAD (six area six sign atopic dermatitis) score. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN58943280. FINDINGS: 54 (86%) participants completed the study; two (3%) withdrew from the placebo group and seven (11%) from the azathioprine group. At week 12, there was a 37% (12.0 unit) improvement in mean disease activity with azathioprine compared with a 20% (6.6 unit) improvement with placebo (17% [5.4 unit] difference, 95% CI 4.3-29%). This finding was accompanied by significant improvements in patient-reported itch, area of involvement, global assessment, and quality of life. Between participants there was a wide variation in response to the drug. Generally, azathioprine was well tolerated, although two individuals developed drug hypersensitivity. Participants with heterozygous range TPMT activity responded to azathioprine in similar proportions to other participants, but none developed bone-marrow toxicity. TPMT-based dosing seemed to reduce predicted toxicity, and drug efficacy was maintained. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with azathioprine as systemic monotherapy produces clinically relevant improvement in moderate-to-severe atopic eczema that remains active despite optimum therapy with topical corticosteriods. We believe the study of azathioprine as systemic monotherapy for atopic eczema has major advantages, which should allow clarification of the relation between azathioprine effectiveness and metabolite profiles in other inflammatory diseases.

Early invasive versus conservative treatment in patients with failed fibrinolysis--no late survival benefit: the final analysis of the Middlesbrough Early Revascularisation to Limit Infarction (MERLIN) randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Early (30 days) and midterm (6 months) clinical outcomes in trials comparing rescue angioplasty (rescue percutaneous coronary intervention [rPCI]) with conservative treatment of failed fibrinolysis complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction have shown variable results. Whether early rPCI confers late (up to 3 years) clinical benefits is not known. METHODS: The MERLIN trial compared rPCI and a conservative strategy in patients with failed fibrinolysis complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Three hundred seven patients with electrocardiographic evidence of failure to reperfuse at 60 minutes were included. Patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded. Thirty-day and 1-year results have been reported. Results of 3 years of follow-up are presented. RESULTS: Three-year mortality in the conservative arm and rPCI, respectively, was 16.9% versus 17.6% (P = .9, relative difference [RD] -0.8, 95% CI [-9.3 to 7.8]). Death rates were similar (3.9% vs 3.2%) between 1- and 3-year follow-up, respectively. The incidence of the composite secondary end point of death, reinfarction, stroke, unplanned revascularization, or heart failure was significantly higher in the conservative arm (64.3% vs 49%, P = .01, RD 15.3, 95% CI [4.2-26]). There was no significant difference in the rate of reinfarction (0.7% vs 0.7%) or heart failure (1.3% vs 2.7%) between 1 and 3 years between the conservative and rPCI arms, respectively. The incidence of subsequent unplanned revascularization at 3 years was significantly higher in the conservative arm (33.8% vs 14.4%, P < .01, RD 19.4, 95% CI [10-28.7]), most of which occurred within 1 year; the rates between 1 and 3 years were 3.9% in the conservative arm versus 2% in the rPCI arm. There was a trend toward fewer strokes in the conservative arm at 3 years (conservative arm 2.6% vs rPCI 6.5%, P = .1, RD -3.9%, 95% CI [-9.4 to 0.8]), with similar stroke rates (1.3% vs 1.3%) between 1- and 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue angioplasty did not confer a late survival advantage at 3 years. The composite end point occurred less often in the rPCI arm mainly because of fewer unplanned revascularization procedures in the early phase of follow-up. The highest risk of clinical events in patients with failed reperfusion is in the first year, beyond which the rate of clinical events is low.

Foot orthoses in the treatment of symptomatic midfoot osteoarthritis using clinical and biomechanical outcomes: a randomised feasibility study.

This randomised feasibility study aimed to examine the clinical and biomechanical effects of functional foot orthoses (FFOs) in the treatment of midfoot osteoarthritis (OA) and the feasibility of conducting a full randomised controlled trial. Participants with painful, radiographically confirmed midfoot OA were recruited and randomised to receive either FFOs or a sham control orthosis. Feasibility measures included recruitment and attrition rates, practicality of blinding and adherence rates. Clinical outcome measures were: change from baseline to 12 weeks for severity of pain (numerical rating scale), foot function (Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index) and patient global impression of change scale. To investigate the biomechanical effect of foot orthoses, in-shoe foot kinematics and plantar pressures were evaluated at 12 weeks. Of the 119 participants screened, 37 were randomised and 33 completed the study (FFO = 18, sham = 15). Compliance with foot orthoses and blinding of the intervention was achieved in three quarters of the group. Both groups reported improvements in pain, function and global impression of change; the FFO group reporting greater improvements compared to the sham group. The biomechanical outcomes indicated the FFO group inverted the hindfoot and increased midfoot maximum plantar force compared to the sham group. The present findings suggest FFOs worn over 12 weeks may provide detectable clinical and biomechanical benefits compared to sham orthoses. This feasibility study provides useful clinical, biomechanical and statistical information for the design and implementation of a definitive randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of FFOs in treating painful midfoot OA.

A randomized trial of rescue angioplasty versus a conservative approach for failed fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the Middlesbrough Early Revascularization to Limit INfarction (MERLIN) trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare emergency coronary angiography with or without rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with conservative treatment in patients with failed fibrinolysis complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND: Most patients with STEMI receive fibrinolytic therapy and aspirin. The management of failed fibrinolysis is unclear. METHODS: A total of 307 patients with STEMI and failed fibrinolysis were randomized to emergency coronary angiography with or without rescue PCI or conservative treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-day all-cause mortality was similar in the rescue and conservative groups (9.8% vs. 11%, p = 0.7, risk difference [RD] 1.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.8 to 8.3). The composite secondary end point of death/re-infarction/stroke/subsequent revascularization/heart failure occurred less frequently in the rescue group (37.3% vs. 50%, p = 0.02, RD 12.7%, 95% CI 1.6 to 23.5), driven by less subsequent revascularization (6.5% vs. 20.1%, p < 0.01, RD 13.6%, 95% CI 6.2 to 21.4). Re-infarction and clinical heart failure were less common in the rescue group (7.2% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.3, RD 3.2%, 95% CI -3.3 to 9.9; and 24.2% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.3, RD 5.7%, 95% CI -4.3 to 15.6, respectively). Strokes and transfusions were more common in the rescue group (4.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.03, RD 3.9%, 95% CI 0.5 to 8.6; and 11.1% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001, RD 9.8%, 95% CI 4.9 to 19.9, respectively). Left ventricular function at 30 days was the same in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue angioplasty did not improve survival by 30 days, but improved event-free survival, almost completely due to a reduction in subsequent revascularization. Rescue angioplasty was associated with more strokes and more transfusions and did not result in preservation of left ventricular systolic function at 30 days.