Effectiveness of a hand-held fan for breathlessness: a randomised phase II trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breathlessness is common and distressing in advanced disease. This phase II study aimed to determine the use and acceptance of a hand-held fan (HHF) to relieve breathlessness, to test the effectiveness of the HHF and to evaluate the recruitment into the study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>RCT embedded within a longitudinal study testing a HHF over time compared to a wristband. Patients were included in the longitudinal study when suffering from breathlessness due to advanced cancer or COPD III/IV and could opt in the RCT. Primary outcome was use of the HHF and the wristband after two months. Secondary outcomes were recruitment into the trial and change of breathlessness severity after two months, measured on the modified Borg scale. Baseline data were collected in a personal interview and follow-up data by monthly postal questionnaires.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>109 patients were recruited in the longitudinal study of which 70 patients (64%) participated in the RCT. Non-participants had statistically significant less breathlessness (Borg mean 2.6 (SD 1.48) versus 3.7 (SD 1.83); p = 0.003) and a better functional status (Karnofsky status mean 61.9 (SD 11.2) versus 66.7 (SD 11.0); p = 0.03). Attrition due to drop out or death was high in both groups. After two months, about half of the patients used the HHF but only 20% the wristband without a statistical difference (Fisher's exact test p = 0.2). 9/16 patients judged the HHF as helpful after two months and 4/5 patients the wristband. There was no difference in mean breathlessness change scores between the HHF (Borg change score: mean 0.6 (SD 2.10)) and the wristband (mean 0.8 (SD 2.67)) after two months (p = 0.90).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Symptom burden and low functional status did not restrain patients from participation in the study. Finding a control for a visible intervention is challenging and needs careful consideration to what is acceptable to patients. The preliminary evidence of effectiveness of the HHF could not be proved. Patients often stopped using the HHF but a small group seemed to benefit which was not necessarily related to a relief in breathlessness. Therefore, more work is necessary on selecting and identifying those who might benefit from the HHF.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01123902</p

Interaction between drug and placebo effects: a cross-over balanced placebo design trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The total effect of a medication is the sum of its drug effect, placebo effect (meaning response), and their possible interaction. Current interpretation of clinical trials' results assumes no interaction. Demonstrating such an interaction has been difficult due to lack of an appropriate study design.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>180 adults were randomized to caffeine (300 mg) or placebo groups. Each group received the assigned intervention described by the investigators as caffeine or placebo, in a randomized crossover design. 4-hour-area-under-the-curve of energy, sleepiness, nausea (on 100 mm visual analog scales), and systolic blood pressure levels as well as caffeine pharmacokinetics (in 22 volunteers nested in the caffeine group) were determined. Caffeine drug, placebo, placebo-plus-interaction, and total effects were estimated by comparing outcomes after, receiving caffeine described as placebo to receiving placebo described as placebo, receiving placebo described as caffeine or placebo, receiving caffeine described as caffeine or placebo, and receiving caffeine described as caffeine to receiving placebo described as placebo, respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The placebo effect on area-under-the-curve of energy (mean difference) and sleepiness (geometric mean ratio) was larger than placebo-plus-interaction effect (16.6 [95% CI, 4.1 to 29.0] vs. 8.4 [-4.2 to 21.0] mm*hr and 0.58 [0.39 to 0.86] vs. 0.69 [0.49 to 0.97], respectively), similar in size to drug effect (20.8 [3.8 to 37.8] mm*hr and 0.49 [0.30 to 0.91], respectively), and its combination with the later was larger than total caffeine effect (29.5 [11.9 to 47.1] mm*hr and 0.37 [0.22 to 0.64]). Placebo-plus-interaction effect increased caffeine terminal half-life by 0.40 [0.12 to 0.68] hr (P = 0.007).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Drug and placebo effects of a medication may be less than additive, which influences the interpretation of clinical trials. The placebo effect may increase active drug terminal half-life, a novel mechanism of placebo action.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov identification number - NCT00426010.</p

Individualized chiropractic and integrative care for low back pain: the design of a randomized clinical trial using a mixed-methods approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and costly condition in the United States. Evidence suggests there is no one treatment which is best for all patients, but instead several viable treatment options. Additionally, multidisciplinary management of LBP may be more effective than monodisciplinary care. An integrative model that includes both complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and conventional therapies, while also incorporating patient choice, has yet to be tested for chronic LBP.</p> <p>The primary aim of this study is to determine the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) monodisciplinary chiropractic care and 2) multidisciplinary integrative care in 200 adults with non-acute LBP, in both the short-term (after 12 weeks) and long-term (after 52 weeks). The primary outcome measure is patient-rated back pain. Secondary aims compare the treatment approaches in terms of frequency of symptoms, low back disability, fear avoidance, self-efficacy, general health status, improvement, satisfaction, work loss, medication use, lumbar dynamic motion, and torso muscle endurance. Patients' and providers' perceptions of treatment will be described using qualitative methods, and cost-effectiveness and cost utility will be assessed.</p> <p>Methods and Design</p> <p>This paper describes the design of a randomized clinical trial (RCT), with cost-effectiveness and qualitative studies conducted alongside the RCT. Two hundred participants ages 18 and older are being recruited and randomized to one of two 12-week treatment interventions. Patient-rated outcome measures are collected via self-report questionnaires at baseline, and at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post-randomization. Objective outcome measures are assessed at baseline and 12 weeks by examiners blinded to treatment assignment. Health care cost data is collected by self-report questionnaires and treatment records during the intervention phase and by monthly phone interviews thereafter. Qualitative interviews, using a semi-structured format, are conducted with patients at the end of the 12-week treatment period and also with providers at the end of the trial.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This mixed-methods randomized clinical trial assesses clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and patients' and providers' perceptions of care, in treating non-acute LBP through evidence-based individualized care delivered by monodisciplinary or multidisciplinary care teams.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00567333</p

Hope and despair: a qualitative exploration of the expereinces and impact of trial processes in a rehabilitation trial

Background Unanticipated responses by research participants can influence randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple ways, many of which are poorly understood. This study used qualitative interviews as part of an embedded process evaluation to explore the impact participants may have on the study, but also unintended impacts the study may have on them. Aim The aim of the study was to explore participants’ experiences and the impact of trial involvement in a pilot RCT in order to inform the designing and delivery of a definitive RCT. Methods In-depth interviews with 20 participants (10 in the intervention and 10 in the control group) enrolled in a stroke rehabilitation pilot trial. A modified framework approach was used to analyse transcripts. Results Participation in the study was motivated partly by a desperation to receive further rehabilitation after discharge. Responses to allocation to the control group included an increased commitment to self-treatment, and negative psychological consequences were also described. Accounts of participants in both control and intervention groups challenge the presumption that they were neutral, or in equipoise, regarding group allocation prior to consenting to randomisation. Conclusions Considering and exploring participant and participation effects, particularly in the control group, highlights numerous issues in the interpretation of trial studies, as well as the in ethics of RCTs more generally. While suggestions for a definitive trial design are given, further research is required to investigate the significant implications these findings may have for trial design, monitoring and funding. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02429180. Registered on 29 April/2015.The Stroke Associatio

How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol

Background Clinical practice guidelines are largely conceived as tools that will inform health professionals' decisions rather than foster patient involvement in decision making. The time now seems right to adapt clinical practice guidelines in such a way that both the professional's perspective as care provider and the patients' preferences and characteristics are being weighed equally in the decision-making process. We hypothesise that clinical practice guidelines can be adapted to facilitate the integration of individual patients' preferences in clinical decision making. This research protocol asks two questions: How should clinical practice guidelines be adapted to elicit patient preferences and to support shared decision making? What type of clinical decisions are perceived as most requiring consideration of individual patients' preferences rather than promoting a single best choice? Methods Stakeholders' opinions and ideas will be explored through an 18-month qualitative study. Data will be collected from in-depth individual interviews. A purposive sample of 20 to 25 key-informants will be selected among three groups of stakeholders: health professionals using guidelines (e.g., physicians, nurses); experts at the macro- and meso-level, including guideline and decision aids developers, policy makers, and researchers; and patient representatives. Ideas and recommendations expressed by stakeholders will be prioritized by nominal group technique in expert meetings. Discussion One-for-all guidelines do not account for differences in patients' characteristics and for their preferences for medical interventions and health outcomes, suggesting a need for flexible guidelines that facilitate patient involvement in clinical decision making. The question is how this can be achieved. This study is not about patient participation in guideline development, a closely related and important issue that does not however substitute for, or guarantee individual patient involvement in clinical decisions. The study results will provide the needed background for recommendations about potential effective and feasible strategies to ensure greater responsiveness of clinical practice guidelines to individual patient's preferences in clinical decision-making