| 1. |
- Dennis, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Fluoxetine to improve functional outcomes in patients after acute stroke : the FOCUS RCT
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). - : National Institute for Health Research. - 2046-4924 .- 1366-5278. ; 24:22, s. 1-
-
Rapport (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundOur Cochrane review of selective serotonin inhibitors for stroke recovery indicated that fluoxetine may improve functional recovery, but the trials were small and most were at high risk of bias.ObjectivesThe Fluoxetine Or Control Under Supervision (FOCUS) trial tested the hypothesis that fluoxetine improves recovery after stroke.DesignThe FOCUS trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial.SettingThis trial took place in 103 UK hospitals.ParticipantsPatients were eligible if they were aged ≥ 18 years, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, with focal neurological deficits, between 2 and 15 days after onset.InterventionsPatients were randomly allocated 20 mg of fluoxetine once per day or the matching placebo for 6 months via a web-based system using a minimisation algorithm.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Outcome was assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed by their treatment allocation as specified in a published statistical analysis plan.ResultsBetween 10 September 2012 and 31 March 2017, we recruited 3127 patients, 1564 of whom were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 of whom were allocated placebo. The modified Rankin Scale score at 6 months was available for 1553 out of 1564 (99.3%) of those allocated fluoxetine and 1553 out of 1563 (99.4%) of those allocated placebo. The distribution across modified Rankin Scale categories at 6 months was similar in the two groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0.951, 95% confidence interval 0.839 to 1.079; p = 0.439). Compared with placebo, patients who were allocated fluoxetine were less likely to develop a new episode of depression by 6 months [210 (13.0%) vs. 269 (16.9%), difference –3.78%, 95% confidence interval –1.26% to –6.30%; p = 0.003], but had more bone fractures [45 (2.9%) vs. 23 (1.5%), difference 1.41%, 95% confidence interval 0.38% to 2.43%; p = 0.007]. There were no statistically significant differences in any other recorded events at 6 or 12 months. Health economic analyses showed no differences between groups in health-related quality of life, hospital bed usage or health-care costs.LimitationsSome non-adherence to trial medication, lack of face-to-face assessment of neurological status at follow-up and lack of formal psychiatric diagnosis during follow-up.Conclusions20 mg of fluoxetine daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve patients’ functional outcome but decreased the occurrence of depression and increased the risk of fractures. These data inform decisions about using fluoxetine after stroke to improve functional outcome or to prevent or treat mood disorders. The Assessment oF FluoxetINe In sTroke recoverY (AFFINITY) (Australasia/Vietnam) and Efficacy oF Fluoxetine – a randomisEd Controlled Trial in Stroke (EFFECTS) (Sweden) trials recruited an additional 2780 patients and will report their results in 2020. These three trials have an almost identical protocol, which was collaboratively developed. Our planned individual patient data meta-analysis will provide more precise estimates of the effects of fluoxetine after stroke and indicate whether or not effects vary depending on patients’ characteristics and health-care setting.
|
|
| 2. |
- Beard, David J., et al.
(författare)
-
Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials : The aspire project including expert workshop
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Health Technology Assessment. - 1366-5278. ; 25:53
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. Objectives: To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. Design: To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. Setting: A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. Results: To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Conclusions: The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. Limitations: Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. Future work: Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.
|
|
| 3. |
- Hemingway, H, et al.
(författare)
-
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of biomarkers for the prioritisation of patients awaiting coronary revascularisation: a systematic review and decision model.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Health Technology Assessment. - : National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment. - 1366-5278 .- 2046-4924. ; 14:9, s. 1-178
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a range of strategies based on conventional clinical information and novel circulating biomarkers for prioritising patients with stable angina awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1966 until 30 November 2008.REVIEW METHODS: We carried out systematic reviews and meta-analyses of literature-based estimates of the prognostic effects of circulating biomarkers in stable coronary disease. We assessed five routinely measured biomarkers and the eight emerging (i.e. not currently routinely measured) biomarkers recommended by the European Society of Cardiology Angina guidelines. The cost-effectiveness of prioritising patients on the waiting list for CABG using circulating biomarkers was compared against a range of alternative formal approaches to prioritisation as well as no formal prioritisation. A decision-analytic model was developed to synthesise data on a range of effectiveness, resource use and value parameters necessary to determine cost-effectiveness. A total of seven strategies was evaluated in the final model.RESULTS: We included 390 reports of biomarker effects in our review. The quality of individual study reports was variable, with evidence of small study (publication) bias and incomplete adjustment for simple clinical information such as age, sex, smoking, diabetes and obesity. The risk of cardiovascular events while on the waiting list for CABG was 3 per 10,000 patients per day within the first 90 days (184 events in 9935 patients with a mean of 59 days at risk). Risk factors associated with an increased risk, and included in the basic risk equation, were age, diabetes, heart failure, previous myocardial infarction and involvement of the left main coronary artery or three-vessel disease. The optimal strategy in terms of cost-effectiveness considerations was a prioritisation strategy employing biomarker information. Evaluating shorter maximum waiting times did not alter the conclusion that a prioritisation strategy with a risk score using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was cost-effective. These results were robust to most alternative scenarios investigating other sources of uncertainty. However, the cost-effectiveness of the strategy using a risk score with both eGFR and C-reactive protein (CRP) was potentially sensitive to the cost of the CRP test itself (assumed to be 6 pounds in the base-case scenario).CONCLUSIONS: Formally employing more information in the prioritisation of patients awaiting CABG appears to be a cost-effective approach and may result in improved health outcomes. The most robust results relate to a strategy employing a risk score using conventional clinical information together with a single biomarker (eGFR). The additional prognostic information conferred by collecting the more costly novel circulating biomarker CRP, singly or in combination with other biomarkers, in terms of waiting list prioritisation is unlikely to be cost-effective.
|
|
| 4. |
- Hollis, Chris, et al.
(författare)
-
Online remote behavioural intervention for tics in 9- to 17-year-olds : the ORBIT RCT with embedded process and economic evaluation
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Health Technology Assessment. - 1366-5278. ; 27:18, s. 1-120
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Behavioural therapy for tics is difficult to access, and little is known about its effectiveness when delivered online.OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online-delivered, therapist- and parent-supported therapy for young people with tic disorders.DESIGN: Single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with 3-month (primary end point) and 6-month post-randomisation follow-up. Participants were individually randomised (1 : 1), using on online system, with block randomisations, stratified by site. Naturalistic follow-up was conducted at 12 and 18 months post-randomisation when participants were free to access non-trial interventions. A subset of participants participated in a process evaluation.SETTING: Two hospitals (London and Nottingham) in England also accepting referrals from patient identification centres and online self-referrals.PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 9-17 years (1) with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder, (2) with a Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-total tic severity score of 15 or more (or > 10 with only motor or vocal tics) and (3) having not received behavioural therapy for tics in the past 12 months or started/stopped medication for tics within the past 2 months.INTERVENTIONS: Either 10 weeks of online, remotely delivered, therapist-supported exposure and response prevention therapy (intervention group) or online psychoeducation (control).OUTCOME: Primary outcome: Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-total tic severity score 3 months post-randomisation; analysis done in all randomised patients for whom data were available. Secondary outcomes included low mood, anxiety, treatment satisfaction and health resource use. Quality-adjusted life-years are derived from parent-completed quality-of-life measures. All trial staff, statisticians and the chief investigator were masked to group allocation.RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-four participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 112) or control (n = 112) group. Participants were mostly male (n = 177; 79%), with a mean age of 12 years. At 3 months the estimated mean difference in Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-total tic severity score between the groups adjusted for baseline and site was -2.29 points (95% confidence interval -3.86 to -0.71) in favour of therapy (effect size -0.31, 95% confidence interval -0.52 to -0.10). This effect was sustained throughout to the final follow-up at 18 months (-2.01 points, 95% confidence interval -3.86 to -0.15; effect size -0.27, 95% confidence interval -0.52 to -0.02). At 18 months the mean incremental cost per participant of the intervention compared to the control was £662 (95% confidence interval -£59 to £1384), with a mean incremental quality-adjusted life-year of 0.040 (95% confidence interval -0.004 to 0.083) per participant. The mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was £16,708. The intervention was acceptable and delivered with high fidelity. Parental engagement predicted child engagement and more positive clinical outcomes.HARMS: Two serious, unrelated adverse events occurred in the control group.LIMITATIONS: We cannot separate the effects of digital online delivery and the therapy itself. The sample was predominately white and British, limiting generalisability. The design did not compare to face-to-face services.CONCLUSION: Online, therapist-supported behavioural therapy for young people with tic disorders is clinically and cost-effective in reducing tics, with durable benefits extending up to 18 months.FUTURE WORK: Future work should compare online to face-to-face therapy and explore how to embed the intervention in clinical practice.TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN70758207; ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03483493). The trial is now complete.FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Technology Assessment programme (project number 16/19/02) and will be published in full in Health and Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
|
|
| 5. |
- Ivesono, Timothy, et al.
(författare)
-
3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancer : 3-year follow-up of the SCOT non-inferiority RCT
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Health Technology Assessment. - : NIHR JOURNALS LIBRARY. - 1366-5278 .- 2046-4924. ; 23:64, s. 1-88
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy administered over 6 months is the standard adjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer. However, the regimen is associated with cumulative toxicity, characterised by chronic and often irreversible neuropathy.Objective: To assess the efficacy of 3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and to compare the toxicity, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the durations.Design: An international, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, Phase III, parallel-group trial.Setting: A total of 244 oncology clinics from six countries: UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand.Participants: Adults aged >= 18 years who had undergone curative resection for high-risk stage II or III adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum.Interventions: The adjuvant treatment regimen was either oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil or oxaliplatin and capecitabine, randomised to be administered over 3 or 6 months.Main outcomes measures: The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Overall survival, adverse events, neuropathy and health-related quality of life were also assessed. The main cost categories were chemotherapy treatment and hospitalisation. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost comparisons and quality-adjusted life-year gains between the options and was reported as net monetary benefit using a willingness-to-pay threshold of 30,000 pound per quality-adjusted life-year per patient.Result: Recruitment is closed. In total, 6088 patients were randomised (3044 per group) between 27 March 2008 and 29 November 2013, with 6065 included in the intention-to-treat analyses (3-month analysis, n = 3035; 6-month analysis, n = 3030). Follow-up for the primary analysis is complete. The 3-year disease-free survival rate in the 3-month treatment group was 76.7% (standard error 0.8%) and in the 6-month treatment group was 77.1% (standard error 0.8%), equating to a hazard ratio of 1.006 (95% confidence interval 0.909 to 1.114; p-value for non-inferiority = 0.012), confirming non-inferiority for 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy. Frequent adverse events (alopecia, anaemia, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, sensory neuropathy, neutropenia, pain, rash, altered taste, thrombocytopenia and watery eye) showed a significant increase in grade with 6-month duration; the greatest difference was for sensory neuropathy (grade >= 3 was 4% for 3-month vs.16% for 6-month duration), for which a higher rate of neuropathy was seen for the 6-month treatment group from month 4 to >= 5 years (p < 0.001). Quality-of-life scores were better in the 3-month treatment group over months 4-6. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed 3-month treatment to cost 4881 pound less over the 8-year analysis period, with an incremental net monetary benefit of 7246 pound per patient.Conclusions: The study achieved its primary end point, showing that 3-month oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to 6 months of the same regimen; 3-month treatment showed a better safety profile and cost less. For future work, further follow-up will refine long-term estimates of the duration effect on disease-free survival and overall survival. The health economic analysis will be updated to include long-term extrapolation for subgroups. We expect these analyses to be available in 2019-20. The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study translational samples may allow the identification of patients who would benefit from longer treatment based on the molecular characteristics of their disease.
|
|
| 6. |
- Rogozińska, Ewelina, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of antenatal diet and physical activity on maternal and fetal outcomes : Individual patient data meta-analysis and health economic evaluation
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Health Technology Assessment. - : National Institute for Health Research. - 1366-5278 .- 2046-4924. ; 21:41
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Diet- and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy have the potential to alter maternal and child outcomes. Objectives: To assess whether or not the effects of diet and lifestyle interventions vary in subgroups of women, based on maternal body mass index (BMI), age, parity, Caucasian ethnicity and underlying medical condition(s), by undertaking an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. We also evaluated the association of gestational weight gain (GWG) with adverse pregnancy outcomes and assessed the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment database were searched from October 2013 to March 2015 (to update a previous search). Review methods: Researchers from the International Weight Management in Pregnancy Collaborative Network shared the primary data. For each intervention type and outcome, we performed a two-step IPD random-effects meta-analysis, for all women (except underweight) combined and for each subgroup of interest, to obtain summary estimates of effects and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and synthesised the differences in effects between subgroups. In the first stage, we fitted a linear regression adjusted for baseline (for continuous outcomes) or a logistic regression model (for binary outcomes) in each study separately; estimates were combined across studies using random-effects meta-analysis models. We quantified the relationship between weight gain and complications, and undertook a decision-analytic model-based economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Results: Diet and lifestyle interventions reduced GWG by an average of 0.70 kg (95% CI-0.92 to-0.48 kg; 33 studies, 9320 women). The effects on composite maternal outcome [summary odds ratio (OR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 24 studies, 8852 women] and composite fetal/neonatal outcome (summary OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 18 studies, 7981 women) were not significant. The effect did not vary with baseline BMI, age, ethnicity, parity or underlying medical conditions for GWG, and composite maternal and fetal outcomes. Lifestyle interventions reduce Caesarean sections (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99), but not other individual maternal outcomes such as gestational diabetes mellitus (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10), pre-eclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16) and preterm birth (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13). There was no significant effect on fetal outcomes. The interventions were not cost-effective. GWG, including adherence to the Institute of Medicine-recommended targets, was not associated with a reduction in complications. Predictors of GWG were maternal age (summary estimate-0.10 kg, 95% CI-0.14 to-0.06 kg) and multiparity (summary estimate-0.73 kg, 95% CI-1.24 to-0.23 kg). Limitations: The findings were limited by the lack of standardisation in the components of intervention, residual heterogeneity in effects across studies for most analyses and the unavailability of IPD in some studies. Conclusion: Diet and lifestyle interventions in pregnancy are clinically effective in reducing GWG irrespective of risk factors, with no effects on composite maternal and fetal outcomes. Future work: The differential effects of lifestyle interventions on individual pregnancy outcomes need evaluation. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003804.
|
|
