From Unpleasant to Unbearable - Why And How to Implement an Upper Limit to Pain And Other Forms of Suffering in Research with Animals

The focus of this paper is the requirement that the use of live animals in experiments and in vivo assays should never be allowed if those uses involve severe suffering. This requirement was first implemented in Danish legislation, was later adopted by the European Union, and has had limited uptake in North America. Animal suffering can arise from exposure to a wide range of different external and internal events that threaten biological or social functions, while the severity of suffering may be influenced by the animals’ perceptions of their own situation and the degree of control they are able to exert. Severe suffering is more than an incremental increase in negative state(s) but involves a qualitative shift whereby the normal mechanisms to contain or keep negative states at arm’s length no longer function. The result of severe suffering will be a loss of the ability of cope. The idea of putting a cap on severe suffering may be justified from multiple ethical perspectives. In most, if not all, cases it is possible to avoid imposing severe suffering on animals during experiments without giving up the potential benefits of finding new ways to cure, prevent, or alleviate serious human diseases and generate other important knowledge. From this it follows that there is a strong ethical case to favor a regulatory ban on animal experiments involving severe suffering

An Analysis of Clostridium difficile Environmental Contamination During and After Treatment for C difficile Infection.

Background: Lower Clostridium difficile spore counts in feces from C difficile infection (CDI) patients treated with fidaxomicin versus vancomycin have been observed. We aimed to determine whether environmental contamination is lower in patients treated with fidaxomicin compared with those treated with vancomycin/metronidazole. Methods: The CDI cases were recruited at 4 UK hospitals (Leeds, Bradford, and London [2 centers]). Environmental samples (5 room sites) were taken pretreatment and at 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, and 9-12 days of treatment, end of treatment (EOT), and post-EOT. Fecal samples were collected at diagnosis and as often as produced thereafter. Swabs/feces were cultured for C difficile; percentage of C difficile-positive samples and C difficile bioburden were compared between different treatment arms at each time point. Results: Pre-EOT (n = 244), there was a significant reduction in environmental contamination (≥1 site positive) around fidaxomicin versus vancomycin/metronidazole recipients at days 4-5 (30% vs 50% recipients, P = .04) and at days 9-12 (22% vs 49%, P = .005). This trend was consistently seen at all other timepoints, but it was not statistically significant. No differences were seen between treatment groups post-EOT (n = 76). Fidaxomicin-associated fecal positivity rates and colony counts were consistently lower than those for vancomycin/metronidazole from days 4 to 5 of treatment (including post-EOT); however, the only significant difference was in positivity rate at days 9-12 (15% vs 55%, P = .03). Conclusions: There were significant reductions in C difficile recovery from both feces and the environment around fidaxomicin versus vancomycin/metronidazole recipients. Therefore, fidaxomicin treatment may lower the C difficile transmission risk by reducing excretion and environmental contamination

The use of interim data and Data Monitoring Committee recommendations in randomized controlled trial reports: frequency, implications and potential sources of bias

Background: Interim analysis of accumulating trial data is important to protect participant safety during randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) often undertake such analyses, but their widening role may lead to extended use of interim analysis or recommendations that could potentially bias trial results.Methods: Systematic search of eight major publications: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, CID, JAMA, JCO, Lancet and NEJM, including all randomised controlled trials ( RCTs) between June 2000 and May 2005 to identify RCTs that reported use of interim analysis, with or without DMC involvement. Recommendations made by the DMC or based on interim analysis were identified and potential sources of bias assessed. Independent double data extraction was performed on all included trials.Results: We identified 1772 RCTs, of which 470 (27%; 470/1772) reported the use of a DMC and a further 116 (7%; 116/1772) trials reported some form of interim analysis without explicit mention of a DMC. There were 28 trials ( 24 with a formal DMC), randomizing a total of 79396 participants, identified as recommending changes to the trial that may have lead to biased results. In most of these, some form of sample size re-estimation was recommended with four trials also reporting changes to trial endpoints. The review relied on information reported in the primary publications and methods papers relating to the trials, higher rates of use may have occurred but not been reported.Conclusion: The reported use of interim analysis and DMCs in clinical trials has been increasing in recent years. It is reassuring that in most cases recommendations were made in the interest of participant safety. However, in practice, recommendations that may lead to potentially biased trial results are being made

Cross-Sector Review of Drivers and Available 3Rs Approaches for Acute Systemic Toxicity Testing

Acute systemic toxicity studies are carried out in many sectors in which synthetic chemicals are manufactured or used and are among the most criticized of all toxicology tests on both scientific and ethical grounds. A review of the drivers for acute toxicity testing within the pharmaceutical industry led to a paradigm shift whereby in vivo acute toxicity data are no longer routinely required in advance of human clinical trials. Based on this experience, the following review was undertaken to identify (1) regulatory and scientific drivers for acute toxicity testing in other industrial sectors, (2) activities aimed at replacing, reducing, or refining the use of animals, and (3) recommendations for future work in this area

Certolizumab pegol and secukinumab for treating active psoriatic arthritis following inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs : a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND: Several biologic therapies are approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients who have had an inadequate response to two or more synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). NICE does not specifically recommend switching from one biologic to another, and only ustekinumab (UST; STELARA(®), Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Horsham, PA, USA) is recommended after anti-tumour necrosis factor failure. Secukinumab (SEC; COSENTYX(®), Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and certolizumab pegol (CZP; CIMZIA(®), UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) have not previously been appraised by NICE. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CZP and SEC for treating active PsA in adults in whom DMARDs have been inadequately effective. DESIGN: Systematic review and economic model. DATA SOURCES: Fourteen databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched for relevant studies from inception to April 2016 for CZP and SEC studies; update searches were run to identify new comparator studies. REVIEW METHODS: Clinical effectiveness data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were synthesised using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) methods to investigate the relative efficacy of SEC and CZP compared with comparator therapies. A de novo model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of SEC and CZP compared with the other relevant comparators. The model was specified for three subpopulations, in accordance with the NICE scope (patients who have taken one prior DMARD, patients who have taken two or more prior DMARDs and biologic-experienced patients). The models were further classified according to the level of concomitant psoriasis. RESULTS: Nineteen eligible RCTs were included in the systematic review of short-term efficacy. Most studies were well conducted and were rated as being at low risk of bias. Trials of SEC and CZP demonstrated clinically important efficacy in all key clinical outcomes. At 3 months, patients taking 150 mg of SEC [relative risk (RR) 6.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.55 to 15.43] or CZP (RR 3.29, 95% CI 1.94 to 5.56) were more likely to be responders than patients taking placebo. The NMA results for the biologic-naive subpopulations indicated that the effectiveness of SEC and CZP relative to other biologics and each other was uncertain. Limited data were available for the biologic-experienced subpopulation. Longer-term evidence suggested that these newer biologics reduced disease progression, with the benefits being similar to those seen for older biologics. The de novo model generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for three subpopulations and three psoriasis subgroups. In subpopulation 1 (biologic-naive patients who had taken one prior DMARD), CZP was the optimal treatment in the moderate-severe psoriasis subgroup and 150 mg of SEC was optimal in the subgroups of patients with mild-moderate psoriasis or no concomitant psoriasis. In subpopulation 2 (biologic-naive patients who had taken two or more prior DMARDs), etanercept (ETN; ENBREL(®), Pfizer Inc., New York City, NY, USA) is likely to be the optimal treatment in all subgroups. The ICERs for SEC and CZP versus best supportive care are in the region of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In subpopulation 3 (biologic-experienced patients or patients in whom biologics are contraindicated), UST is likely to be the optimal treatment (ICERs are in the region of £21,000-27,000 per QALY). The optimal treatment in subpopulation 2 was sensitive to the choice of evidence synthesis model. In subpopulations 2 and 3, results were sensitive to the algorithm for Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index costs. The optimal treatment is not sensitive to the use of biosimilar prices for ETN and infliximab (REMICADE(®), Merck Sharp & Dohme, Kenilworth, NJ, USA). CONCLUSIONS: SEC and CZP may be an effective use of NHS resources, depending on the subpopulation and subgroup of psoriasis severity. There are a number of limitations to this assessment, driven mainly by data availability. FUTURE WORK: Trials are needed to inform effectiveness of biologics in biologic-experienced populations. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033357. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Facet-joint injections for non-specific low back pain: a feasibility RCT

Background: Pain of lumbar facet-joint origin is a common cause of low back pain in adults and may lead to chronic pain and disability, with associated health and socioeconomic implications. The socioeconomic burden includes an inability to return to work resulting in loss of productivity in addition to direct and indirect health-care utilisation costs. Lumbar facet-joints are paired synovial joints between the superior and inferior articular processes of consecutive lumbar vertebrae and between the fifth lumbar vertebra and the sacrum. Facet-joint pain is defined as pain that arises from any structure that is part of the facet-joints, including the fibrous capsule, synovial membrane, hyaline cartilage and bone. This pain may be treated by intra-articular injections with local anaesthetic and steroid, although this treatment is not standardised. At present, there is no definitive research to support the use of targeted lumbar facet-joint injections to manage this pain. Because of the lack of high-quality, robust clinical evidence, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on the management of chronic low back pain [NICE. Low Back Pain in Adults: Early Management. Clinical guideline (CG88). London: NICE; 2009] did not recommend the use of spinal injections despite their perceived potential to reduce pain intensity and improve rehabilitation, with NICE calling for further research to be undertaken. The updated guidelines [NICE. Low Back Pain and Sciatica in Over 16s: Assessment and Management. NICE guideline (NG59). London: NICE; 2016] again do not recommend the use of spinal injections. Objectives: To assess the feasibility of carrying out a definitive study to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lumbar facet-joint injections compared with a sham procedure in patients with non-specific low back pain of > 3 months’ duration. Design: Blinded parallel two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial. Setting: Initially planned as a multicentre study involving three NHS trusts in the UK, recruitment took place in the pain and spinal orthopaedic clinics at Barts Health NHS Trust only. Participants: Adult patients referred by their GP to the specialist clinics with non-specific low back pain of at least 3 months’ duration despite NICE-recommended best non-invasive care (education and one of a physical exercise programme, acupuncture or manual therapy). Patients who had already received lumbar facet-joint injections or who had had previous back surgery were excluded. Interventions: Participants who had a positive result following a diagnostic test (single medial branch nerve blocks) were randomised and blinded to receive either intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections with steroids (intervention group) or a sham procedure (control group). All participants were invited to attend a group-based combined physical and psychological (CPP) programme. Main outcome measures: In addition to the primary outcome of feasibility, questionnaires were used to assess a range of pain-related (including the Brief Pain Inventory and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire version 2) and disability-related (including the EuroQol-5 Dimensions five-level version and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire) issues. Health-care utilisation and cost data were also assessed. The questionnaire visits took place at baseline and at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post randomisation. The outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation groups. Results: Of 628 participants screened for eligibility, nine were randomised to receive the study intervention (intervention group, n = 5; sham group, n = 4), six completed the CPP programme and eight completed the study. Limitations: Failure to achieve our expected recruitment targets led to early closure of the study by the funder. Conclusions: Because of the small number of participants recruited to the study, we were unable to draw any conclusions about the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections in the management of non-specific low back pain. Although we did not achieve the target recruitment rate from the pain clinics, we demonstrated our ability to develop a robust study protocol and deliver the intended interventions safely to all nine randomised participants, thus addressing many of the feasibility objectives. Future work: Stronger collaborations with primary care may improve the recruitment of patients earlier in their pain trajectory who are suitable for inclusion in a future trial. Trial registration: EudraCT 2014-003187-20 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12191542. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating plaque psoriasis in children and young people: systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that predominantly affects the skin. Adalimumab (HUMIRA®, AbbVie, Maidenhead, UK), etanercept (Enbrel®, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) and ustekinumab (STELARA®, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Titusville, NJ, USA) are the three biological treatments currently licensed for psoriasis in children. Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab within their respective licensed indications for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children and young people. Data sources: Searches of the literature and regulatory sources, contact with European psoriasis registries, company submissions and clinical study reports from manufacturers, and previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal documentation. Review methods: Included studies were summarised and subjected to detailed critical appraisal. A network meta-analysis incorporating adult data was developed to connect the effectiveness data in children and young people and populate a de novo decision-analytic model. The model estimated the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab compared with each other and with either methotrexate or best supportive care (BSC), depending on the position of the intervention in the management pathway. Results: Of the 2386 non-duplicate records identified, nine studies (one randomised controlled trial for each drug plus six observational studies) were included in the review of clinical effectiveness and safety. Etanercept and ustekinumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than placebo at 12 weeks’ follow-up. The magnitude and persistence of the effects beyond 12 weeks is less certain. Adalimumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than methotrexate for some but not all measures at 16 weeks. Quality-of-life benefits were inconsistent across different measures. There was limited evidence of excess short-term adverse events; however, the possibility of rare events cannot be excluded. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the use of biologics in children and young people exceeded NICE’s usual threshold for cost-effectiveness and were reduced significantly only when combined assumptions that align with those made in the management of psoriasis in adults were adopted. Limitations: The clinical evidence base for short- and long-term outcomes was limited in terms of total participant numbers, length of follow-up and the absence of young children. Conclusions: The paucity of clinical and economic evidence to inform the cost-effectiveness of biological treatments in children and young people imposed a number of strong assumptions and uncertainties. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) gains associated with treatment and the number of hospitalisations in children and young people are areas of considerable uncertainty. The findings suggest that biological treatments may not be cost-effective for the management of psoriasis in children and young people at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, unless a number of strong assumptions about HRQoL and the costs of BSC are combined. Registry data on biological treatments would help determine safety, patterns of treatment switching, impact on comorbidities and long-term withdrawal rates. Further research is also needed into the resource use and costs associated with BSC. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials (including comparisons against placebo) could substantially reduce the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of biological treatments in biologic-experienced populations of children and young people, particularly in younger children. Such trials should establish the impact of biological therapies on HRQoL in this population, ideally by collecting direct estimates of EuroQol-5 Dimensions for Youth (EQ-5D-Y) utilities. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039494. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy compared with maintenance antidepressant treatment in the prevention of depressive relapse/recurrence: results of a randomised controlled trial (the PREVENT study)

Background: Individuals with a history of recurrent depression have a high risk of repeated depressive relapse/recurrence. Maintenance antidepressant medication (m-ADM) for at least 2 years is the current recommended treatment, but many individuals are interested in alternatives to m-ADM. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) has been shown to reduce the risk of relapse/recurrence compared with usual care but has not yet been compared with m-ADM in a definitive trial. Objectives: To establish whether MBCT with support to taper and/or discontinue antidepressant medication (MBCT-TS) is superior to and more cost-effective than an approach of m-ADM in a primary care setting for patients with a history of recurrent depression followed up over a 2-year period in terms of preventing depressive relapse/recurrence. Secondary aims examined MBCT’s acceptability and mechanism of action. Design: Single-blind, parallel, individual randomised controlled trial. Setting: UK general practices. Participants: Adult patients with a diagnosis of recurrent depression and who were taking m-ADM. Interventions: Participants were randomised to MBCT-TS or m-ADM with stratification by centre and symptomatic status. Outcome data were collected blind to treatment allocation and the primary analysis was based on the principle of intention to treat. Process studies using quantitative and qualitative methods examined MBCT’s acceptability and mechanism of action. Main outcomes measures: The primary outcome measure was time to relapse/recurrence of depression. At each follow-up the following secondary outcomes were recorded: number of depression-free days, residual depressive symptoms, quality of life, health-related quality of life and psychiatric and medical comorbidities. Results: In total, 212 patients were randomised to MBCT-TS and 212 to m-ADM. The primary analysis did not find any evidence that MBCT-TS was superior to m-ADM in terms of the primary outcome of time to depressive relapse/recurrence over 24 months [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.18] or for any of the secondary outcomes. Cost-effectiveness analysis did not support the hypothesis that MBCT-TS is more cost-effective than m-ADM in terms of either relapse/recurrence or quality-adjusted life-years. In planned subgroup analyses, a significant interaction was found between treatment group and reported childhood abuse (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.38), with delayed time to relapse/recurrence for MBCT-TS participants with a more abusive childhood compared with those with a less abusive history. Although changes in mindfulness were specific to MBCT (and not m-ADM), they did not predict outcome in terms of relapse/recurrence at 24 months. In terms of acceptability, the qualitative analyses suggest that many people have views about (dis)/continuing their ADM, which can serve as a facilitator or a barrier to taking part in a trial that requires either continuation for 2 years or discontinuation. Conclusions: There is no support for the hypothesis that MBCT-TS is superior to m-ADM in preventing depressive relapse/recurrence among individuals at risk for depressive relapse/recurrence. Both treatments appear to confer protection against relapse/recurrence. There is an indication that MBCT may be most indicated for individuals at greatest risk of relapse/recurrence. It is important to characterise those most at risk and carefully establish if and why MBCT may be most indicated for this group. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN26666654. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Seal or Varnish? A randomised controlled trial to determine the relative cost and effectiveness of pit and fissure sealant and fluoride varnish in preventing dental decay

Background Fissure sealant (FS) and fluoride varnish (FV) have been shown to be effective in preventing dental caries when tested against a no-treatment control. However, the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these interventions is unknown. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FS and FV in preventing dental caries in first permanent molars (FPMs) in 6- and 7-year-olds and to determine their acceptability. Design A randomised controlled allocation-blinded clinical trial with two parallel arms. Setting A targeted population programme using mobile dental clinics (MDCs) in schools located in areas of high social and economic deprivation in South Wales. Participants In total, 1016 children were randomised, but one parent subsequently withdrew permission and so the analysis was based on 1015 children. The randomisation of participants was stratified by school and balanced for sex and primary dentition baseline caries levels using minimisation in a 1 : 1 ratio for treatments. A random component was added to the minimisation algorithm, such that it was not completely deterministic. Of the participants, 514 were randomised to receive FS and 502 were randomised to receive FV. Interventions Resin-based FS was applied to caries-free FPMs and maintained at 6-monthly intervals. FV was applied at baseline and at 6-month intervals over the course of 3 years. Main outcome measures The proportion of children developing caries into dentine (decayed, missing, filled teeth in permanent dentition, i.e. D4–6MFT) on any one of up to four treated FPMs after 36 months. The assessors were blinded to treatment allocation; however, the presence or absence of FS at assessment would obviously indicate the probable treatment received. Economic measures established the costs and budget impact of FS and FV and the relative cost-effectiveness of these technologies. Qualitative interviews determined the acceptability of the interventions. Results At 36 months, 835 (82%) children remained in the trial: 417 in the FS arm and 418 in the FV arm. The proportion of children who developed caries into dentine on a least one FPM was lower in the FV arm (73; 17.5%) than in the FS arm (82, 19.6%) [odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.21; p = 0.35] but the difference was not statistically significant. The results were similar when the numbers of newly decayed teeth (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.22) and tooth surfaces (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.21) were examined. Trial fidelity was high: 95% of participants received five or six of the six scheduled treatments. Between 74% and 93% of sealants (upper and lower teeth) were intact at 36 months. The costs of the two technologies showed a small but statistically significant difference; the mean cost to the NHS (including intervention costs) per child was £500 for FS, compared with £432 for FV, a difference of £68.13 (95% CI £5.63 to £130.63; p = 0.033) in favour of FV. The budget impact analysis suggests that there is a cost saving of £68.13 (95% CI £5.63 to £130.63; p = 0.033) per child treated if using FV compared with the application of FS over this time period. An acceptability score completed by the children immediately after treatment and subsequent interviews demonstrated that both interventions were acceptable to the children. No adverse effects were reported. Limitations There are no important limitations to this study. Conclusions In a community oral health programme utilising MDCs and targeted at children with high caries risk, the twice-yearly application of FV resulted in caries prevention that is not significantly different from that obtained by applying and maintaining FSs after 36 months. FV proved less expensive. Future work The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FS and FV following the cessation of active intervention merits investigation