Progress of the ALIFE2 study : a dynamic road towards more evidence

Investigator-initiated studies are invaluable, especially in fields that are not particularly of interest for the pharmaceutical industry because they are either less profitable or concern special patient groups such as pregnant women. However, designing, conducting, and completing an investigator-initiated randomised controlled trial is challenging. Patients and physicians' preferences, ethics requirements, (international) legislation and funding are all areas where such challenges are encountered. The Anticoagulants for LIving FEtuses (ALIFE)2 study (NTR3361) is an example of an investigator initiated international multicenter trial that progresses slowly, at least initially, as many challenges had to be overcome. Here, we discuss the challenges we faced during the course of the ALIFE2 study up till now and we explain how some of these challenges can be tackled or even avoided

ALIFE2 study : low-molecular-weight heparin for women with recurrent miscarriage and inherited thrombophilia : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background A large number of studies have shown an association between inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage. It has been hypothesized that anticoagulant therapy might reduce the number of miscarriages and stillbirth in these women. In the absence of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of anticoagulant therapy in women with inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage, a randomized trial with adequate power that addresses this question is needed. The objective of the ALIFE2 study is therefore to evaluate the efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in women with inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage, with live birth as the primary outcome. Methods/Design Randomized study of LMWH plus standard pregnancy surveillance versus standard pregnancy surveillance alone. Study population: pregnant women of less than 7 weeks’ gestation, and confirmed inherited thrombophilia with a history of 2 or more miscarriages or intra-uterine fetal deaths, or both. Setting: multi-center study in centers from the Dutch Consortium of Fertility studies; centers outside the Netherlands are currently preparing to participate. Intervention: LMWH enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously once daily started prior to 7 weeks gestational age plus standard pregnancy surveillance or standard pregnancy surveillance alone. Main study parameters/endpoints: the primary efficacy outcome is live birth. Secondary efficacy outcomes include adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, syndrome of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP syndrome), fetal growth restriction, placental abruption, premature delivery and congenital malformations. Safety outcomes include bleeding episodes, thrombocytopenia and skin reactions. Discussion After an initial period of slow recruitment, the recruitment rate for the study has increased. Improved awareness of the study and acknowledgement of the need for evidence are thought to be contributing to the improved recruitment rates. We aim to increase the number of recruiting centers in order to increase enrollment into the ALIFE2 study. The study website can be accessed via www.ALIFE2study.org. Trial registration The ALIFE2 study was registered on 19 March 2012 under registration number NTR336

Process evaluation of a participatory ergonomics programme to prevent low back pain and neck pain among workers

Background: Both low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are major occupational health problems. In the workplace, participatory ergonomics (PE) is frequently used on musculoskeletal disorders. However, evidence on the effectiveness of PE to prevent LBP and NP obtained from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is scarce. This study evaluates the process of the Stay@Work participatory ergonomics programme, including the perceived implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures.Methods: This cluster-RCT was conducted at the departments of four Dutch companies (a railway transportation company, an airline company, a steel company, and a university including its university medical hospital). Directly after the randomisation outcome, intervention departments formed a working group that followed the steps of PE during a six-hour working group meeting. Guided by an ergonomist, working groups identified and prioritised risk factors for LBP and NP, and composed and prioritised ergonomic measures. Within three months after the meeting, working groups had to implement the prioritised ergonomic measures at their department. Data on various process components (recruitment, reach, fidelity, satisfaction, and implementation components, i.e., dose delivered and dose received) were collected and analysed on two levels: department (i.e., working group members from intervention departments) and participant (i.e., workers from intervention departments).Results: A total of 19 intervention departments (n = 10 with mental workloads, n = 1 with a light physical workload, n = 4 departments with physical and mental workloads, and n = 4 with heavy physical workloads) were recruited for participation, and the reach among working group members who participated was high (87%). Fidelity and satisfaction towards the PE programme rated by the working group members was good (7.3 or higher). The same was found for the Stay@Work ergocoach training (7.5 or higher). In total, 66 ergonomic measures were prioritised by the working groups. Altogether, 34% of all prioritised ergonomic measures were perceived as implemented (dose delivered), while the workers at the intervention departments perceived 26% as implemented (dose received).Conclusions: PE can be a successful method to develop and to prioritise ergonomic measures to prevent LBP and NP. Despite the positive rating of the PE programme the implementation of the prioritised ergonomic measures was lower than expected. © 2010 Driessen et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Cost effectiveness of a multi-stage return to work program for workers on sick leave due to low back pain, design of a population based controlled trial [ISRCTN60233560]

BACKGROUND: To describe the design of a population based randomized controlled trial (RCT), including a cost-effectiveness analysis, comparing participative ergonomics interventions between 2–8 weeks of sick leave and Graded Activity after 8 weeks of sick leave with usual care, in occupational back pain management. METHODS: DESIGN: An RCT and cost-effectiveness evaluation in employees sick-listed for a period of 2 to 6 weeks due to low back pain. Interventions used are 1. Communication between general practitioner and occupational physician plus Participative Ergonomics protocol performed by an ergonomist. 2. Graded Activity based on cognitive behavioural principles by a physiotherapist. 3. Usual care, provided by an occupational physician according to the Dutch guidelines for the occupational health management of workers with low back pain. The primary outcome measure is return to work. Secondary outcome measures are pain intensity, functional status and general improvement. Intermediate variables are kinesiophobia and pain coping. The cost-effectiveness analysis includes the direct and indirect costs due to low back pain. The outcome measures are assessed before randomization (after 2–6 weeks on sick leave) and 12 weeks, 26 weeks and 52 weeks after first day of sick leave. DISCUSSION: The combination of these interventions has been subject of earlier research in Canada. The results of the current RCT will: 1. crossvalidate the Canadian findings in an different sociocultural environment; 2. add to the cost-effectiveness on treatment options for workers in the sub acute phase of low back pain. Results might lead to alterations of existing (inter)national guidelines

ALIFE2 study::low-molecular-weight heparin for women with recurrent miscarriage and inherited thrombophilia - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background A large number of studies have shown an association between inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage. It has been hypothesized that anticoagulant therapy might reduce the number of miscarriages and stillbirth in these women. In the absence of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of anticoagulant therapy in women with inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage, a randomized trial with adequate power that addresses this question is needed. The objective of the ALIFE2 study is therefore to evaluate the efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in women with inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage, with live birth as the primary outcome. Methods/Design Randomized study of LMWH plus standard pregnancy surveillance versus standard pregnancy surveillance alone. Study population: pregnant women of less than 7 weeks’ gestation, and confirmed inherited thrombophilia with a history of 2 or more miscarriages or intra-uterine fetal deaths, or both. Setting: multi-center study in centers from the Dutch Consortium of Fertility studies; centers outside the Netherlands are currently preparing to participate. Intervention: LMWH enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously once daily started prior to 7 weeks gestational age plus standard pregnancy surveillance or standard pregnancy surveillance alone. Main study parameters/endpoints: the primary efficacy outcome is live birth. Secondary efficacy outcomes include adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, syndrome of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP syndrome), fetal growth restriction, placental abruption, premature delivery and congenital malformations. Safety outcomes include bleeding episodes, thrombocytopenia and skin reactions. Discussion After an initial period of slow recruitment, the recruitment rate for the study has increased. Improved awareness of the study and acknowledgement of the need for evidence are thought to be contributing to the improved recruitment rates. We aim to increase the number of recruiting centers in order to increase enrollment into the ALIFE2 study. The study website can be accessed via www.ALIFE2study.org. Trial registration The ALIFE2 study was registered on 19 March 2012 under registration number NTR336

Testing for inherited thrombophilia in recurrent miscarriage

Approximately 1-5% of women trying to conceive experience recurrent miscarriage, and in 50% of these women, the cause of the preceding miscarriages is unknown. Inherited thrombophilias such as factor V Leiden mutation, prothrombin gene mutation (PT 20210A), and deficiencies of natural anticoagulants protein C, protein S, and antithrombin are associated with recurrent miscarriage. Knowledge of the association between inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage and of potential treatment options for improving chances of a live birth could tempt physicians to test for inherited thrombophilia in women with recurrent miscarriage. However, the strength of the association between inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage is not very strong, and more importantly, no evidence indicates that the use of anticoagulants improves the chance of live birth in these women. With the current state of evidence, testing for inherited thrombophilia should not lead to altered clinical management and therefore, should not be performed routinely in women with recurrent miscarriage but only in the context of scientific studie

Antithrombotic therapy for pregnancy loss

BACKGROUND Although an association between thrombophilia and pregnancy loss has been observed in many studies, little is known about the pathophysiological mechanisms behind this association. Considering the association between thrombophilia and pregnancy loss, the efficacy of antithrombotic therapy for women with pregnancy loss (with or without thrombophilia) has been studied for the past 30 years. METHODS We performed a comprehensive review of the literature on the strength of the association between thrombophilia and pregnancy loss, the pathophysiological mechanisms and the efficacy of antithrombotic therapy to increase the chance of live birth. RESULTS The association between pregnancy loss and thrombophilia varies according to the type of thrombophilia (e.g. antiphospholipid syndrome versus forms of inherited thrombophilia) and according to the type of pregnancy loss (single versus recurrent pregnancy loss and early versus late pregnancy loss). Thrombophilia may induce thrombosis in decidual vessels or impair placentation through hypercoagulability and inflammation, but these hypotheses need further verification. For women with antiphospholipid syndrome, evidence from small-sized trials suggests a beneficial effect of antithrombotic therapy but additional randomized controlled trials are essential to confirm this. Whether antithrombotic therapy increases the chance of live birth in women with inherited thrombophilia is unknown. Recent randomized controlled trials have consistently shown that antithrombotic therapy does not increase the chance of live birth in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage. CONCLUSIONS There are large gaps in knowledge and a lack of evidence for treatment of women with pregnancy loss with thrombophilia. To provide a solid base for clinical practice, further studies on the role of coagulation in reproduction, as well as international collaborations in randomized controlled trials of antithrombotic therapy in women with pregnancy loss, and antiphospholipid syndrome or inherited thrombophilia are urgently neede

Aspirin and/or heparin for women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage with or without inherited thrombophilia

Since hypercoagulability might result in recurrent miscarriage, anticoagulant agents could potentially increase the chance of live birth in subsequent pregnancies in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage, with or without inherited thrombophilia. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulant agents, such as aspirin and heparin, in women with a history of at least two unexplained miscarriages with or without inherited thrombophilia. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 October 2013) and scanned bibliographies of all located articles for any unidentified articles. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of anticoagulant treatment on live birth in women with a history of at least two unexplained miscarriages with or without inherited thrombophilia were eligible. Interventions included aspirin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for the prevention of miscarriage. One treatment could be compared with another or with no-treatment (or placebo). Two review authors (PJ and SK) assessed the studies for inclusion in the review and extracted the data. If necessary they contacted study authors for more information. We double checked the data. Nine studies, including data of 1228 women, were included in the review evaluating the effect of either LMWH (enoxaparin or nadroparin in varying doses) or aspirin or a combination of both, on the chance of live birth in women with recurrent miscarriage, with or without inherited thrombophilia. Studies were heterogeneous with regard to study design and treatment regimen and three studies were considered to be at high risk of bias. Two of these three studies at high risk of bias showed a benefit of one treatment over the other, but in sensitivity analyses (in which studies at high risk of bias were excluded) anticoagulants did not have a beneficial effect on live birth, regardless of which anticoagulant was evaluated (risk ratio (RR) for live birth in women who received aspirin compared to placebo 0.94, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.11, n = 256), in women who received LMWH compared to aspirin RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.26, n = 239), and in women who received LMWH and aspirin compared to no-treatment RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.16) n = 322).Obstetric complications such as preterm delivery, pre-eclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction and congenital malformations were not significantly affected by any treatment regimen. In included studies, aspirin did not increase the risk of bleeding, but treatment with LWMH and aspirin increased the risk of bleeding significantly in one study. Local skin reactions (pain, itching, swelling) to injection of LMWH were reported in almost 40% of patients in the same study. There is a limited number of studies on the efficacy and safety of aspirin and heparin in women with a history of at least two unexplained miscarriages with or without inherited thrombophilia. Of the nine reviewed studies quality varied, different treatments were studied and of the studies at low risk of bias only one was placebo-controlled. No beneficial effect of anticoagulants in studies at low risk of bias was found. Therefore, this review does not support the use of anticoagulants in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage. The effect of anticoagulants in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage and inherited thrombophilia needs to be assessed in further randomised controlled trials; at present there is no evidence of a beneficial effec

Which Investigations are Relevant?

Potential risk factors for a subsequent miscarriage can be identified in women with preceding recurrent miscarriage (RM). Presently, many diagnostic interventions for women or couples with RM are controversial because there is no information available with regard to prognosis and lack of evidence of potential treatment options in case of positive test results. This chapter deals with the diagnostic investigations testing for thrombophilia, chromosome abnormalities, uterine abnormalities, and thyroid autoimmunity in women with RM. Only testing for antiphospholipid antibodies is recommended in daily clinical practice since a beneficial effect of anticoagulant treatment has been described. Testing for inherited thrombophilia, uterus anomalies, and thyroid autoimmunity is recommended within the setting of clinical trials. RM is associated with carrier status in one of the partners, most frequently balanced chromosome translocations followed by chromosome inversions. One of the reasons to offer karyotyping is to identify an underlying reason for the miscarriages