Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of insulin delivery by continuous subcutaneous infusion compared to multiple daily injections

BACKGROUND: Intensive insulin therapy with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) devices or multiple daily injections (MDI) reduces the risk of long-term vascular complications of type I diabetes (TID). Both treatments are used routinely, but there is little evidence to demonstrate superiority of either treatment. If CSII treatment reduces the risk of long-term complications or is associated with an improved quality of life (QoL), the additional cost of this therapy may be compensated for by a reduction in long-term health expenditure. If there is no demonstrable difference between treatments, health-care resources may be better invested elsewhere. This study aims to address this gap in knowledge. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Fifteen centres, selected to represent a population with a broad demographic, will recruit 316 patients, newly diagnosed with TID, aged between 7 months and 15 years. Exclusion criteria include additional pathologies or treatments likely to affect glycaemic control and a first-degree relative with TID. Randomisation to CSII or MDI is stratified for age, gender and recruiting centre. The randomised treatment starts within 15 days of diagnosis. Patients will be trained to adjust their insulin dose according to carbohydrate intake and blood glucose level. Study visits coincide with routine clinic appointments at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months when data relating to routine clinical assessments, adverse events and concomitant medications are collected. Health utilities questionnaires are completed at each visit and a diabetes-specific QoL questionnaire (PedsQL) at diagnosis, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is glycaemic control (HbA1c) at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures include QoL, insulin use, growth and weight gain, adverse events and a health economics appraisal. DISCUSSION: This is the first adequately powered RCT comparing CSII and MDI in a non-selected population, treated according to standard practice guidelines. It will produce data that are meaningful to individual patients and local and national policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with the European Clinical Trials Database on 4 November 2010, reference 2010-023792-25

Visual Function Questionnaire as an outcome measure for homonymous hemianopia: subscales and supplementary questions, analysis from the VISION trial

Background: We conduct supplementary analyses of the NEI VFQ-25 data to evaluate where changes occurred within subscales of the NEI VFQ-25 leading to change in the composite scores between the three treatment arms, and evaluate the NEI VFQ-25 with and without the Neuro 10 supplement. Methods: A prospective, multicentre, parallel, single-blind, three-arm RCT of fourteen UK acute stroke units was conducted. Stroke survivors with homonymous hemianopia were recruited. Interventions included: Fresnel prisms for minimum 2 h, 5 days/week over 6-weeks (Arm a), Visual search training for minimum 30 min, 5 days/week over 6-weeks (Arm b) and standard care-information only (Arm c). Primary and secondary outcomes (including NEI VFQ-25 data) were measured at baseline, 6, 12 and 26 weeks after randomisation. Results: Eighty seven patients were recruited (69% male; mean age (SD) equal to 69 (12) years). At 26 weeks, outcomes for 24, 24 and 22 patients, respectively, were compared to baseline. NEI VFQ-25 (with and without Neuro 10) responses improved from baseline to 26 weeks with visual search training compared to Fresnel prisms and standard care. In subscale analysis, the most impacted across all treatment arms was ‘driving’ whilst the least impacted were ‘colour vision’ and ‘ocular pain’. Conclusions: Composite scores differed systematically for the NEI VFQ-25 (Neuro 10) versus NEI VFQ-25 at all time points. For subscale scores, descriptive statistics suggest clinically relevant improvement in distance activities and vision-specific dependency subscales for NEI VFQ-25 scores in the visual search treatment arm. Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05956042

Involving service users in trials: developing a standard operating procedure

<p>BACKGROUND: Many funding bodies require researchers to actively involve service users in research to improve relevance, accountability and quality. Current guidance to researchers mainly discusses general principles. Formal guidance about how to involve service users operationally in the conduct of trials is lacking. We aimed to develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) to support researchers to involve service users in trials and rigorous studies.</p> <p>METHODS: Researchers with experience of involving service users and service users who were contributing to trials collaborated with the West Wales Organisation for Rigorous Trials in Health, a registered clinical trials unit, to develop the SOP. Drafts were prepared in a Task and Finish Group, reviewed by all co-authors and amendments made.</p> <p>RESULTS: We articulated core principles, which defined equality of service users with all other research team members and collaborative processes underpinning the SOP, plus guidance on how to achieve these. We developed a framework for involving service users in research that defined minimum levels of collaboration plus additional consultation and decision-making opportunities. We recommended service users be involved throughout the life of a trial, including planning and development, data collection, analysis and dissemination, and listed tasks for collaboration. We listed people responsible for involving service users in studies and promoting an inclusive culture. We advocate actively involving service users as early as possible in the research process, with a minimum of two on all formal trial groups and committees. We propose that researchers protect at least 1% of their total research budget as a minimum resource to involve service users and allow enough time to facilitate active involvement.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: This SOP provides guidance to researchers to involve service users successfully in developing and conducting clinical trials and creating a culture of actively involving service users in research at all stages. The UK Clinical Research Collaboration should encourage clinical trials units actively to involve service users and research funders should provide sufficient funds and time for this in research grants.</p&gt

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injection regimens in children and young people at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy, safety, and cost utility of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with multiple daily injection (MDI) regimens during the first year following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children and young people.DesignPragmatic, multicentre, open label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.Setting15 paediatric National Health Service (NHS) diabetes services in England and Wales. The study opened to recruitment in May 2011 and closed in January 2017.ParticipantsPatients aged between 7 months and 15 years, with a new diagnosis of type 1 diabetes were eligible to participate. Patients who had a sibling with the disease, and those who took drug treatments or had additional diagnoses that could have affected glycaemic control were ineligible.InterventionsParticipants were randomised, stratified by age and treating centre, to start treatment with CSII or MDI within 14 days of diagnosis. Starting doses of aspart (CSII and MDI) and glargine or detemir (MDI) were calculated according to weight and age, and titrated according to blood glucose measurements and according to local clinical practice.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was glycaemic control (as measured by glycated haemoglobin; HbA1c) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were percentage of patients in each treatment arm with HbA1c within the national target range, incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, change in height and body mass index (as measured by standard deviation scores), insulin requirements (units/kg/day), partial remission rate (insulin dose adjusted HbA1c Results294 participants were randomised and 293 included in intention to treat analyses (CSI, n=144; MDI, n=149). At 12 months, mean HbA1c was comparable with clinically unimportant differences between CSII and MDI participants (60.9 mmol/mol v 58.5 mmol/mol, mean difference 2.4 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval -0.4 to 5.3), P=0.09). Achievement of HbA1c lower than 58 mmol/mol was low among the two groups (66/143 (46%) CSII participants v 78/142 (55%) MDI participants; relative risk 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.06)). Incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were low in both groups. Fifty four non-serious and 14 serious adverse events were reported during CSII treatment, and 17 non-serious and eight serious adverse events during MDI treatment. Parents (but not children) reported superior PedsQL scores for those patients treated with CSII compared to those treated with MDI. CSII was more expensive than MDI by £1863 (€2179; $2474; 95% confidence interval £1620 to £2137) per patient, with no additional QALY gains (difference -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.018)).ConclusionDuring the first year following type 1 diabetes diagnosis, no clinical benefit of CSII over MDI was identified in children and young people in the UK setting, and treatment with either regimen was suboptimal in achieving HbA1c thresholds. CSII was not cost effective.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN29255275; European Clinical Trials Database 2010-023792-25

Correction: Folate Augmentation of Treatment – Evaluation for Depression (FolATED): protocol of a randomised controlled trial

This correction reports changes in our protocol since its publication. These include changes to authorship and acknowledgements, together with improvements to study design and procedures, and correction of an internal inconsistency. The improvements relate to the exclusion criteria, assessments carried out at screening, and mode of data collection

Microdiscectomy compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for persistent radicular pain caused by prolapsed intervertebral disc: the NERVES RCT

Background Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect > 3% of the UK population at any time and is most often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Currently, there is no uniformly adopted treatment strategy. Invasive treatments, such as surgery (i.e. microdiscectomy) and transforaminal epidural steroid injection, are often reserved for failed conservative treatment. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the management of radicular pain secondary to lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc for non-emergency presentation of sciatica of < 12 months’ duration. Interventions Patients were randomised to either (1) microdiscectomy or (2) transforaminal epidural steroid injection. Design A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised prospective trial comparing microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for sciatica due to prolapsed intervertebral disc with < 1 year symptom duration. Setting NHS services providing secondary spinal surgical care within the UK. Participants A total of 163 participants (aged 16–65 years) were recruited from 11 UK NHS outpatient clinics. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was participant-completed Oswestry Disability Questionnaire score at 18 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain; modified Roland–Morris score (for sciatica), Core Outcome Measures Index score and participant satisfaction at 12-weekly intervals. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life were assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Hospital Episode Statistics data; medication usage; and self-reported cost data at 12-weekly intervals. Adverse event data were collected. The economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS in England. Results Eighty-three participants were allocated to transforaminal epidural steroid injection and 80 participants were allocated to microdiscectomy, using an online randomisation system. At week 18, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores had decreased, relative to baseline, by 26.7 points in the microdiscectomy group and by 24.5 points in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection. The difference between the treatments was not statistically significant (estimated treatment effect –4.25 points, 95% confidence interval –11.09 to 2.59 points). Nor were there significant differences between treatments in any of the secondary outcomes: Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores, visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain, modified Roland–Morris score and Core Outcome Measures Index score up to 54 weeks. There were four (3.8%) serious adverse events in the microdiscectomy group, including one nerve palsy (foot drop), and none in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group. Compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection, microdiscectomy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38,737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations Primary outcome data was invalid or incomplete for 24% of participants. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness to assumptions made regarding missing data. Eighteen per cent of participants in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group subsequently received microdiscectomy prior to their primary outcome assessment. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, the NErve Root Block VErsus Surgery trial is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection. No statistically significant difference was found between the two treatments for the primary outcome. It is unlikely that microdiscectomy is cost-effective compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for sciatica secondary to prolapsed intervertebral disc

Nerve root block versus surgery (NERVES) for the treatment of radicular pain secondary to a prolapsed intervertebral disc herniation: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial

Abstract Background Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect over 3% of the UK population at any time and is often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc (PID). Although the duration and severity of symptoms can vary, pain persisting beyond 6 weeks is unlikely to recover spontaneously and may require investigation and treatment. Currently, there is no specific care pathway for sciatica in the National Health Service (NHS), and no direct comparison exists between surgical microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). The NERVES (NErve Root block VErsus Surgery) trial aims to address this by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical microdiscectomy and TFESI to treat sciatica secondary to a PID. Methods/design A total of 163 patients were recruited from NHS out-patient clinics across the UK and randomised to either microdiscectomy or TFESI. Adult patients (aged 16–65 years) with sciatic pain endured for between 6 weeks and 12 months are eligible if their symptoms have not been improved by at least one form of conservative (non-operative) treatment and they are willing to provide consent. Patients will be excluded if they present with neurological deficit or have had previous surgery at the same level. The primary outcome is patient-reported disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks post randomisation and secondary outcomes include disability and pain scales using numerical pain ratings, modified Roland-Morris and Core Outcome Measures Index at 12-weekly intervals, and patient satisfaction at 54 weeks. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life (QOL) will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5 L and self-report cost data at 12-weekly intervals and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Adverse event data will be collected. Analysis will follow the principle of intention-to-treat. Discussion NERVES is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy to local anaesthetic and steroid administered via TFESI. The results of this research may facilitate the development of an evidence-based treatment strategy for patients with sciatica. Trial registration ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN04820368. Registered on 5 June 2014. EudraCT EudraCT2014–002751-25. Registered on 8 October 2014