Does offering an incentive payment improve recruitment to clinical trials and increase the proportion of socially deprived and elderly participants?

BACKGROUND: Patient recruitment into clinical trials is a major challenge, and the elderly, socially deprived and those with multiple comorbidities are often underrepresented. The idea of paying patients an incentive to participate in research is controversial, and evidence is needed to evaluate this as a recruitment strategy. METHOD: In this study, we sought to assess the impact on clinical trial recruitment of a £100 incentive payment and whether the offer of this payment attracted more elderly and socially deprived patients. A total of 1,015 potential patients for five clinical trials (SCOT, FAST and PATHWAY 1, 2 and 3) were randomised to receive either a standard trial invitation letter or a trial invitation letter containing an incentive offer of £100. To receive payment, patients had to attend a screening visit and consent to be screened (that is, sign a consent form). To maintain equality, eventually all patients who signed a consent form were paid £100. RESULTS: The £100 incentive offer increased positive response to the first invitation letter from 24.7% to 31.6%, an increase of 6.9% (P < 0.05). The incentive offer increased the number of patients signing a consent form by 5.1% (P < 0.05). The mean age of patients who responded positively to the invitation letter was 66.5 ± 8.7 years, whereas those who responded negatively were significantly older, with a mean age of 68.9 ± 9.0 years. The incentive offer did not influence the age of patients responding. The incentive offer did not improve response in the most socially deprived areas, and the response from patients in these areas was significantly lower overall. CONCLUSION: A £100 incentive payment offer led to small but significant improvements in both patient response to a clinical trial invitation letter and in the number of patients who consented to be screened. The incentive payment did not attract elderly or more socially deprived patients. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Standard care versus Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00447759). Febuxostat versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial (FAST) (EudraCT number: 2011-001883-23). Prevention and Treatment of Hypertension with Algorithm Guided Therapy (British Heart Foundation funded trials) (PATHWAY) 1: Monotherapy versus dual therapy for initiating treatment (EudraCT number: 2008-007749-29). PATHWAY 2: Optimal treatment of drug-resistant hypertension (EudraCT number: 2008-007149-30). PATHWAY 3: Comparison of single and combination diuretics in low-renin hypertension (EudraCT number: 2009-010068-41). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0582-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Renal artery stenosis-when to screen, what to stent?

Renal artery stensosis (RAS) continues to be a problem for clinicians, with no clear consensus on how to investigate and assess the clinical significance of stenotic lesions and manage the findings. RAS caused by fibromuscular dysplasia is probably commoner than previously appreciated, should be actively looked for in younger hypertensive patients and can be managed successfully with angioplasty. Atheromatous RAS is associated with increased incidence of cardiovascular events and increased cardiovascular mortality, and is likely to be seen with increasing frequency. Evidence from large clinical trials has led clinicians away from recommending interventional revascularisation towards aggressive medical management. There is now interest in looking more closely at patient selection for intervention, with focus on intervening only in patients with the highest-risk presentations such as flash pulmonary oedema, rapidly declining renal function and severe resistant hypertension. The potential benefits in terms of improving hard cardiovascular outcomes may outweigh the risks of intervention in this group, and further research is needed

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART) : a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial

Funding Information: ISM reports research grants from Menarini, EMA, Sanofi, Health Data Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, and Innovative Medicines Initiative; institutional consultancy income from AstraZeneca outside the submitted work; and personal income from AstraZeneca and Amgen outside the submitted work. TMM reports grants from Menarini/Ipsen/Teijin and Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the submitted work, and personal income for consultancy from Novartis and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work, and is a trustee of the Scottish Heart Arterial Risk Prevention Society. AGB reports personal income from Novartis, Mylan, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Boehringer, Pfizer, Galderma, Zambon, and Novo-Nordisk outside the submitted work. ADS and the University of Dundee hold a European patent for the use of xanthine oxidase inhibitors in treating chest pain in angina pectoris. AW declares personal income for consultancy from AbbVie, Akcea, Albireo, Alexion, Allergan, Amarin, Apsara, Arena, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Autolus, Bayer, Biocryst, Biogen, Biomarin, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calico, Celgene, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Diurnal, Elsai, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Galapagos, Gedeon Richter, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, GW Pharma, Idorsia, Incyte, Intercept, Ionis, Ipsen, Janssen, Jazz, Jcyte, Kite Gilead, LEK, Leo Pharma, Les Laboratoires Servier, Lundbeck, Merck (Merck Sharp & Dohme), Merck-Serono, Mitenyi, Mundibiopharma, Mustang Bio, Mylan, Myovant, Norgine, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orchard, Paion, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PTC, RegenXBio, Rhythm, Sanofi, Santen, Sarepta, SeaGen, Shionogi, Sigmatec, SOBI, Takeda, Tanaya, UCB, and Vertex outside the submitted work. JST declares research funding from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and NHS England outside the submitted work and membership of a UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline committee on management of atrial fibrillation. All other authors declare no competing interests. Funding Information: This study was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 11/36/41 to ISM, IF, CJH, LW, ADS, AGB, AJA, AW, JST, and TMM). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. The study was supported by the Scottish Primary Care Research Network, Support for Science Scotland (Grampian, Highlands, Tayside, Fife, Forth Valley, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Lothian, Ayrshire and Arran, Dumfries and Galloway, and Lanarkshire), and the NIHR Local Clinical Research Networks (East Midlands, West Midlands, Eastern, North Thames, Yorkshire and Humber, North East and North Cumbria, North West Coast, Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and South West Peninsula), which assisted with recruitment and other study activities. We thank Public Health Scotland and NHS Digital for providing data linkage. We thank all the participants, physicians, nurses, and other staff who participated in the ALL-HEART study. Funding Information: This study was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 11/36/41 to ISM, IF, CJH, LW, ADS, AGB, AJA, AW, JST, and TMM). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. The study was supported by the Scottish Primary Care Research Network, Support for Science Scotland (Grampian, Highlands, Tayside, Fife, Forth Valley, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Lothian, Ayrshire and Arran, Dumfries and Galloway, and Lanarkshire), and the NIHR Local Clinical Research Networks (East Midlands, West Midlands, Eastern, North Thames, Yorkshire and Humber, North East and North Cumbria, North West Coast, Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and South West Peninsula), which assisted with recruitment and other study activities. We thank Public Health Scotland and NHS Digital for providing data linkage. We thank all the participants, physicians, nurses, and other staff who participated in the ALL-HEART study. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licensePeer reviewedPublisher PD

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. METHODS: ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89–1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87–1·20], p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research

Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

Background: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. Methods: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. Results: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (fo

Effectiveness of newspaper advertising for patient recruitment into a clinical trial

AIMS: To measure the impact of newspaper advertising across Scotland on patient interest, and subsequent recruitment into the Standard Care vs. Celecoxib Outcome Trial (SCOT), a clinical trial investigating the cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Newspaper advertisements about the SCOT trial were placed sequentially in regional and national Scottish newspapers. The number of phone calls as a result of exposure to the advertisements and ongoing study recruitment rates were recorded before, during and after the advertising campaign. To enroll in SCOT individuals had to be registered with a participating GP practice. RESULTS: The total cost for the advertising campaign was £46 250 and 320 phone calls were received as a result of individuals responding to the newspaper advertisements. One hundred and seventy-two individuals were identified as possibly suitable to be included in the study. However only 36 were registered at participating GP practices, 17 completed a screening visit and 15 finally were randomized into the study. The average cost per respondent individual was £144 and the average cost per randomized patient was £3083. Analysis of recruitment rate trends showed that there was no impact of the newspaper advertising campaign on increasing recruitment into SCOT. CONCLUSIONS: Advertisements placed in local and national newspapers were not an effective recruitment strategy for the SCOT trial. The advertisements attracted relatively small numbers of respondents, many of whom did not meet study inclusion criteria or were not registered at a participating GP practice

Up-titration of allopurinol in patients with gout

No abstract available