Subcutaneous Injection of Adalimumab Trial compared with Control (SCIATiC):a randomised controlled trial of adalimumab injection compared with placebo for patients receiving physiotherapy treatment for sciatica

Background Biological treatments such as adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) are antibodies targeting tumour necrosis factor alpha, released from ruptured intervertebral discs, which might be useful in sciatica. Recent systematic reviews concluded that they might be effective, but that a definitive randomised controlled trial was needed. Usual care in the NHS typically includes a physiotherapy intervention. Objectives To test whether or not injections of adalimumab plus physiotherapy are more clinically effective and cost-effective than injections of saline plus physiotherapy for patients with sciatica. Design Pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded participants and clinicians, and an outcome assessment and statistical analysis with concurrent economic evaluation and internal pilot. Setting Participants were referred from primary care and musculoskeletal services to outpatient physiotherapy clinics. Participants Adults with persistent symptoms of sciatica of 1–6 months’ duration and with moderate to high levels of disability. Eligibility was assessed by research physiotherapists according to clinical criteria for diagnosing sciatica. Interventions After a second eligibility check, trial participants were randomised to receive two doses of adalimumab (80 mg and then 40 mg 2 weeks later) or saline injections. Both groups were referred for a course of physiotherapy. Main outcome measures Outcomes were measured at the start, and after 6 weeks’ and 6 months’ follow-up. The main outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Other outcomes: leg pain version of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, Sciatica Bothersomeness Index, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, 5-level version, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, resource use, risk of persistent disabling pain, pain trajectory based on a single question, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and adverse effects. Sample size To detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% power, a 5% significance level for a two-tailed t-test and 80% retention rate, 332 participants would have needed to be recruited. Analysis plan The primary effectiveness analysis would have been linear mixed models for repeated measures to measure the effects of time and group allocation. An internal pilot study would have involved the first 50 participants recruited across all centres. The primary economic analysis would have been a cost–utility analysis. Results The internal pilot study was discontinued as a result of low recruitment after eight participants were recruited from two out of six sites. One site withdrew from the study before recruitment started, one site did not complete contract negotiations and two sites signed contracts shortly before trial closure. In the two sites that did recruit participants, recruitment was slow. This was partly because of operational issues, but also because of a low rate of uptake from potential participants. Limitations Although large numbers of invitations were sent to potential participants, identified by retrospective searches of general practitioner (GP) records, there was a low rate of uptake. Two sites planned to recruit participants during GP consultations but opened too late to recruit any participants. Conclusion The main failure was attributable to problems with contracts. Because of this we were not able to complete the internal pilot or to test all of the different methods for primary care recruitment we had planned. A trial of biological therapy in patients with sciatica still needs to be done, but would require a clearer contracting process, qualitative research to ensure that patients would be willing to participate, and simpler recruitment methods

Sepsis: the LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE®, SepsiTest™ and IRIDICA BAC BSI assay for rapidly identifying bloodstream bacteria and fungi - a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND Sepsis can lead to multiple organ failure and death. Timely and appropriate treatment can reduce in-hospital mortality and morbidity. OBJECTIVES To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three tests [LightCycler SeptiFast Test MGRADE(®) (Roche Diagnostics, Risch-Rotkreuz, Switzerland); SepsiTest(TM) (Molzym Molecular Diagnostics, Bremen, Germany); and the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Lake Forest, IL, USA)] for the rapid identification of bloodstream bacteria and fungi in patients with suspected sepsis compared with standard practice (blood culture with or without matrix-absorbed laser desorption/ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrometry). DATA SOURCES Thirteen electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2006 to May 2015 and supplemented by hand-searching relevant articles. REVIEW METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. A decision tree was used to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each test; all other parameters were estimated from published sources. The model was populated with evidence from the systematic review or individual studies, if this was considered more appropriate (base case 1). In a secondary analysis, estimates (based on experience and opinion) from seven clinicians regarding the benefits of earlier test results were sought (base case 2). A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. RESULTS For the review of diagnostic test accuracy, 62 studies of varying methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis of 54 studies comparing SeptiFast with blood culture found that SeptiFast had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.84 to 0.89] and sensitivity of 0.65 (95% CrI 0.60 to 0.71). Four studies comparing SepsiTest with blood culture found that SepsiTest had an estimated summary specificity of 0.86 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.21 to 0.74), and four studies comparing IRIDICA with blood culture found that IRIDICA had an estimated summary specificity of 0.84 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.92) and sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90). Owing to the deficiencies in study quality for all interventions, diagnostic accuracy data should be treated with caution. No randomised clinical trial evidence was identified that indicated that any of the tests significantly improved key patient outcomes, such as mortality or duration in an intensive care unit or hospital. Base case 1 estimated that none of the three tests provided a benefit to patients compared with standard practice and thus all tests were dominated. In contrast, in base case 2 it was estimated that all cost per QALY-gained values were below £20,000; the IRIDICA BAC BSI assay had the highest estimated incremental net benefit, but results from base case 2 should be treated with caution as these are not evidence based. LIMITATIONS Robust data to accurately assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions are currently unavailable. CONCLUSIONS The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions cannot be reliably determined with the current evidence base. Appropriate studies, which allow information from the tests to be implemented in clinical practice, are required. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016724. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme