The TRACTISS protocol: a randomised double blind placebo controlled clinical trial of anti-B-cell therapy in patients with primary Sjögren's Syndrome.

Background: Primary Sjögren's Syndrome (PSS) mainly affects women (9:1 female:male ratio) and is one of the commonest autoimmune diseases with a prevalence of 0.1 - 0.6% of adult women. For patients with PSS there is currently no effective therapy that can alter the progression of the disease. The aim of the TRACTISS study is to establish whether in patients with PSS, treatment with rituximab improves clinical outcomes. Methods/design: TRACTISS is a UK multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, parallel group trial of 110 patients with PSS. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive two courses of either rituximab or placebo infusion in addition to standard therapy, and will be followed up for up to 48 weeks. The primary objective is to assess the extent to which rituximab improves symptoms of fatigue and oral dryness. Secondary outcomes include ocular dryness, salivary flow rates, lacrimal flow, patient quality of life, measures of disease damage and disease activity, serological and peripheral blood biomarkers, and glandular histology and composition. Discussion: The TRACTISS trial will provide direct evidence as to whether rituximab in patients with PSS leads to an improvement in patient symptoms and a reduction in disease damage and activity. Trial registration: UKCRN Portfolio ID: 9809 ISRCTN65360827

The TICOPA protocol (TIght COntrol of Psoriatic Arthritis): a randomised controlled trial to compare intensive management versus standard care in early psoriatic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is estimated to occur in 10-15% of people with psoriasis and accounts for 13% of people attending early arthritis clinics. With an increasing awareness of the poor outcomes associated with PsA and the availability of new effective, but costly, treatments, there is an urgent need to research the optimal treatment for patients with PsA. The aim of the TICOPA study is to establish whether, in treatment naive early PsA patients, "tight control" intensive management with protocol driven therapies and pre-defined objective targets for treatment can improve clinical outcome compared to standard care alone. METHODS/DESIGN: TICOPA is a UK multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, parallel group trial of 206 patients with early PsA. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either standard care (12 weekly review) or intensive management (4 weekly review) for a period of 48 weeks. Patients assigned to the intensive management group will follow a strict treatment protocol whereby dose continuation/escalation is determined through the objective assessment of the minimal disease activity (MDA) criteria. Patients assigned to the standard care group will have treatment prescribed as felt appropriate by the treating clinician, with no set protocol. The primary objective of the trial is to compare intensive management with standard care in terms of the proportion of patients achieving an ACR 20 response at 48 weeks post-randomisation, in order to determine whether intensive management has superior clinical efficacy. Key secondary outcomes include ACR 50 and 70, PASI 75 and X-ray Van der Heijde score at 48 weeks post-randomisation along with cost-effectiveness at 12, 24 and 28 weeks. DISCUSSION: The TICOPA trial will provide direct evidence as to whether the use of early and intensive treatment in PsA in routine clinical care leads to an improvement in patients' disease activity and a reduction in radiological joint damage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN30147736, NCT01106079

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

A Randomised Controlled Trial of complete denture impression materials

Objectives There is continuing demand for non-implant prosthodontic treatment and yet there is a paucity of high quality Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence for best practice. The aim of this research was to provide evidence for best practice in prosthodontic impressions by comparing two impression materials in a double-blind, randomised, crossover, controlled, clinical trial. Methods Eighty-five patients were recruited, using published eligibility criteria, to the trial at Leeds Dental Institute, UK. Each patient received two sets of dentures; made using either alginate or silicone impressions. Randomisations determined the order of assessment and order of impressions. The primary outcome was patient blinded preference for unadjusted dentures. Secondary outcomes were patient preference for the adjusted dentures, rating of comfort, stability and chewing efficiency, experience of each impression, and an OHIP-EDENT questionnaire. Results Seventy-eight (91.8%) patients completed the primary assessment. 53(67.9%) patients preferred dentures made from silicone impressions while 14(17.9%) preferred alginate impressions. 4(5.1%) patients found both dentures equally satisfactory and 7 (9.0%) found both equally unsatisfactory. There was a 50% difference in preference rates (in favour of silicone) (95%CI 32.7-67.3%, p < 0.0001). Conclusion There is significant evidence that dentures made from silicone impressions were preferred by patients. Clinical significance Given the strength of the clinical findings within this paper, dentists should consider choosing silicone rather than alginate as their material of choice for secondary impressions for complete dentures. Trial Registration: ISRCTN 01528038. This article forms part of a project for which the author (TPH) won the Senior Clinical Unilever Hatton Award of the International Assocation for Dental Research, Capetown, South Africa, June 2014

Symptom-based stratification of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome: multi-dimensional characterisation of international observational cohorts and reanalyses of randomised clinical trials

Background Heterogeneity is a major obstacle to developing effective treatments for patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome. We aimed to develop a robust method for stratification, exploiting heterogeneity in patient-reported symptoms, and to relate these differences to pathobiology and therapeutic response. Methods We did hierarchical cluster analysis using five common symptoms associated with primary Sjögren's syndrome (pain, fatigue, dryness, anxiety, and depression), followed by multinomial logistic regression to identify subgroups in the UK Primary Sjögren's Syndrome Registry (UKPSSR). We assessed clinical and biological differences between these subgroups, including transcriptional differences in peripheral blood. Patients from two independent validation cohorts in Norway and France were used to confirm patient stratification. Data from two phase 3 clinical trials were similarly stratified to assess the differences between subgroups in treatment response to hydroxychloroquine and rituximab. Findings In the UKPSSR cohort (n=608), we identified four subgroups: Low symptom burden (LSB), high symptom burden (HSB), dryness dominant with fatigue (DDF), and pain dominant with fatigue (PDF). Significant differences in peripheral blood lymphocyte counts, anti-SSA and anti-SSB antibody positivity, as well as serum IgG, κ-free light chain, β2-microglobulin, and CXCL13 concentrations were observed between these subgroups, along with differentially expressed transcriptomic modules in peripheral blood. Similar findings were observed in the independent validation cohorts (n=396). Reanalysis of trial data stratifying patients into these subgroups suggested a treatment effect with hydroxychloroquine in the HSB subgroup and with rituximab in the DDF subgroup compared with placebo. Interpretation Stratification on the basis of patient-reported symptoms of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome revealed distinct pathobiological endotypes with distinct responses to immunomodulatory treatments. Our data have important implications for clinical management, trial design, and therapeutic development. Similar stratification approaches might be useful for patients with other chronic immune-mediated diseases. Funding UK Medical Research Council, British Sjogren's Syndrome Association, French Ministry of Health, Arthritis Research UK, Foundation for Research in Rheumatology