Post stroke intervention trial in fatigue (POSITIF):Randomised multicentre feasibility trial

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of a telephone delivered intervention, informed by cognitive behavioural principles, for post-stroke fatigue, and estimated its effect on fatigue and other outcomes. DESIGN: Randomised controlled parallel group trial. SETTING: Three Scottish stroke services. SUBJECTS: Stroke survivors with fatigue three months to two years post-stroke onset. INTERVENTIONS: Seven telephone calls (fortnightly then a ‘booster session’ at 16 weeks) of a manualised intervention, plus information about fatigue, versus information only. MAIN MEASURES: Feasibility of trial methods, and collected outcome measures (fatigue, mood, anxiety, social participation, quality of life, return to work) just before randomisation, at the end of treatment (four months after randomisation) and at six months after randomisation. RESULTS: Between October 2018 and January 2020, we invited 886 stroke survivors to participate in postal screening: 188/886 (21%) returned questionnaires and consented, of whom 76/188 (40%) were eligible and returned baseline forms; 64/76 (84%) returned six month follow-up questionnaires. Of the 39 allocated the intervention, 23 (59%) attended at least four sessions. At six months, there were no significant differences between the groups (adjusted mean differences in Fatigue Assessment Scale −0.619 (95% CI −4.9631, 3.694; p = 0.768), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 −0.178 (95% CI −3.823, 3.467, p = 0.92), and the Patient Health Questionnaire −0.247 (95% CI −2.935, 2.442, p = 0.851). There were no between-group differences in quality of life, social participation or return to work. CONCLUSION: Patients can be recruited to a trial of this design. These data will inform the design of further trials in post-stroke fatigue

Current recommendations/practices for anonymising data from clinical trials in order to make it available for sharing:A scoping review

BACKGROUND/AIMS: There are increasing pressures for anonymised datasets from clinical trials to be shared across the scientific community, and differing recommendations exist on how to perform anonymisation prior to sharing. We aimed to systematically identify, describe and synthesise existing recommendations for anonymising clinical trial datasets to prepare for data sharing. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE(®), EMBASE and Web of Science from inception to 8 February 2021. We also searched other resources to ensure the comprehensiveness of our search. Any publication reporting recommendations on anonymisation to enable data sharing from clinical trials was included. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full text for eligibility. One reviewer extracted data from included papers using thematic synthesis, which then was sense-checked by a second reviewer. Results were summarised by narrative analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-nine articles (from 43 studies) were eligible for inclusion. Three distinct themes are emerging: anonymisation, de-identification and pseudonymisation. The most commonly used anonymisation techniques are: removal of direct patient identifiers; and careful evaluation and modification of indirect identifiers to minimise the risk of identification. Anonymised datasets joined with controlled access was the preferred method for data sharing. CONCLUSIONS: There is no single standardised set of recommendations on how to anonymise clinical trial datasets for sharing. However, this systematic review shows a developing consensus on techniques used to achieve anonymisation. Researchers in clinical trials still consider that anonymisation techniques by themselves are insufficient to protect patient privacy, and they need to be paired with controlled access

Physiological deterioration in the Emergency Department: the SNAP40-ED study

Continuous novel ambulatory monitoring may detect deterioration in Emergency Department (ED) patients more rapidly, prompting treatment and preventing adverse events. Single-centre, open-label, prospective, observational cohort study recruiting high/medium acuity (Manchester triage category 2 and 3) participants, aged over 16 years, presenting to ED. Participants were fitted with a novel wearable monitoring device alongside standard clinical care (wired monitoring and/or manual clinical staff vital sign recording) and observed for up to 4 hours in the ED. Primary outcome was time to detection of deterioration. Two-hundred and fifty (250) patients were enrolled. In 82 patients (32.8%) with standard monitoring (wired monitoring and/or manual clinical staff vital sign recording), deterioration in at least one vital sign was noted during their four-hour ED stay. Overall, the novel device detected deterioration a median of 34 minutes earlier than wired monitoring (Q1, Q3 67,194; n=73, mean difference 39.48, p<0.0001). The novel device detected deterioration a median of 24 minutes (Q1, Q3 2,43; n=42) earlier than wired monitoring and 65 minutes (Q1, Q3 28,114; n=31) earlier than manual vital signs. Deterioration in physiology was common in ED patients. ED staff spent a significant amount of time performing observations and responding to alarms, with many not escalated. The novel device detected deterioration significantly earlier than standard care

GALA: an international multicentre randomised trial comparing general anaesthesia versus local anaesthesia for carotid surgery

Background: Patients who have severe narrowing at or near the origin of the internal carotid artery as a result of atherosclerosis have a high risk of ischaemic stroke ipsilateral to the arterial lesion. Previous trials have shown that carotid endarterectomy improves long-term outcomes, particularly when performed soon after a prior transient ischaemic attack or mild ischaemic stroke. However, complications may occur during or soon after surgery, the most serious of which is stroke, which can be fatal. It has been suggested that performing the operation under local anaesthesia, rather than general anaesthesia, may be safer. Therefore, a prospective, randomised trial of local versus general anaesthesia for carotid endarterectomy was proposed to determine whether type of anaesthesia influences peri-operative morbidity and mortality, quality of life and longer term outcome in terms of stroke-free survival. Methods/design: A two-arm, parallel group, multicentre randomised controlled trial with a recruitment target of 5000 patients. For entry into the study, in the opinion of the responsible clinician, the patient requiring an endarterectomy must be suitable for either local or general anaesthesia, and have no clear indication for either type. All patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic internal carotid stenosis for whom open surgery is advised are eligible. There is no upper age limit. Exclusion criteria are: no informed consent; definite preference for local or general anaesthetic by the clinician or patient; patient unlikely to be able to co-operate with awake testing during local anaesthesia; patient requiring simultaneous bilateral carotid endarterectomy; carotid endarterectomy combined with another operation such as coronary bypass surgery; and, the patient has been randomised into the trial previously. Patients are randomised to local or general anaesthesia by the central trial office. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients alive, stroke free ( including retinal infarction) and without myocardial infarction 30 days post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of patients alive and stroke free at one year; health related quality of life at 30 days; surgical adverse events, re-operation and re-admission rates; the relative cost of the two methods of anaesthesia; length of stay and intensive and high dependency bed occupancy

Data sharing in clinical trials - practical guidance on anonymising trial datasets

Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR

Early computed tomography coronary angiography in adults presenting with suspected acute coronary syndrome:the RAPID-CTCA RCT

Abstract Background Acute coronary syndrome is a common medical emergency. The optimal strategy to investigate patients who are at intermediate risk of acute coronary syndrome has not been fully determined. Objective To investigate the role of early computed tomography coronary angiography in the investigation and treatment of adults presenting with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Design A prospective, multicentre, open, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with blinded end-point adjudication. Setting Thirty-seven hospitals in the UK. Participants Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) presenting to the emergency department, acute medicine services or cardiology department with suspected or provisionally diagnosed acute coronary syndrome and at least one of the following: (1) a prior history of coronary artery disease, (2) a cardiac troponin level > 99th centile and (3) an abnormal 12-lead electrocardiogram. Interventions Early computed tomography coronary angiography in addition to standard care was compared with standard care alone. Participants were followed up for 1 year. Main outcome measure One-year all-cause death or subsequent type 1 (spontaneous) or type 4b (stent thrombosis) myocardial infarction, measured as the time to such event adjudicated by two cardiologists blinded to the computerised tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) arm. Cost-effectiveness was estimated as the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results Between 23 March 2015 and 27 June 2019, 1748 participants [mean age 62 years (standard deviation 13 years), 64% male, mean Global Registry Of Acute Coronary Events score 115 (standard deviation 35)] were randomised to receive early computed tomography coronary angiography (n = 877) or standard care alone (n = 871). The primary end point occurred in 51 (5.8%) participants randomised to receive computed tomography coronary angiography and 53 (6.1%) participants randomised to receive standard care (adjusted hazard ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.35; p = 0.65). Computed tomography coronary angiography was associated with a reduced use of invasive coronary angiography (adjusted hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.92; p = 0.001) but no change in coronary revascularisation (adjusted hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.21; p = 0.76), acute coronary syndrome therapies (adjusted odds ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.32; p = 0.63) or preventative therapies on discharge (adjusted odds ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.32; p = 0.52). Early computed tomography coronary angiography was associated with longer hospitalisations (median increase 0.21 days, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.40 days) and higher mean total health-care costs over 1 year (£561 more per patient) than standard care. Limitations The principal limitation of the trial was the slower than anticipated recruitment, leading to a revised sample size, and the requirement to compromise and accept a larger relative effect size estimate for the trial intervention. Future work The potential role of computed tomography coronary angiography in selected patients with a low probability of obstructive coronary artery disease (intermediate or mildly elevated level of troponin) or who have limited access to invasive cardiac catheterisation facilities needs further prospective evaluation. Conclusions In patients with suspected or provisionally diagnosed acute coronary syndrome, computed tomography coronary angiography did not alter overall coronary therapeutic interventions or 1-year clinical outcomes, but it did increase the length of hospital stay and health-care costs. These findings do not support the routine use of early computed tomography coronary angiography in intermediate-risk patients with acute chest pain

Gabapentin for the Management of Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women (GaPP1): A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) affects 2.1–24% of women. Frequently, no underlying pathology is identified, and the pain is difficult to manage. Gabapentin is prescribed for CPP despite no robust evidence of efficacy. We performed a pilot trial in two UK centres to inform the planning of a future multicentre RCT to evaluate gabapentin in CPP management. Our primary objective was to determine levels of participant recruitment and retention. Secondary objectives included estimating potential effectiveness, acceptability to participants of trial methodology, and cost-effectiveness of gabapentin. Women with CPP and no obvious pelvic pathology were assigned to an increasing regimen of gabapentin (300-2700mg daily) or placebo. We calculated the proportion of eligible women randomised, and of randomised participants who were followed up to six months. The analyses by treatment group were by intention-to-treat. Interviews were conducted to evaluate women’s experiences of the trial. A probabilistic decision analytical model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Between September 2012–2013, 47 women (34% of those eligible) were randomised (22 to gabapentin, 25 to placebo), and 25 (53%) completed six-month follow-up. Participants on gabapentin had less pain (BPI difference 1.72 points, 95% CI:0.07–3.36), and an improvement in mood (HADS difference 4.35 points, 95% CI:1.97–6.73) at six months than those allocated placebo. The majority of participants described their trial experience favorably. At the UK threshold for willingness-to-pay, the probabilities of gabapentin or no treatment being cost-effective are similar. A pilot trial assessing gabapentin for CPP was feasible, but uncertainty remains, highlighting the need for a large definitive trial