Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for rapidly designing, initiating, and delivering therapeutic clinical trials. PRINCIPLE (Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses) is the UK national platform investigating repurposed therapies for COVID-19 treatment of older people in the community at high risk of complications. Standard methods of patient recruitment were failing to meet the required pace and scale of enrolment. This paper describes the development and appraisal of a near real-time, data-driven, ethical approach for enhancing recruitment in community care by contacting people with a recent COVID-19 positive test result from the central NHS Test and Trace service within approximately 24-48 h of their test result.Methods: A multi-disciplinary team was formed to solve the technical, ethical, public perception, logistical and information governance issues required to provide a near-real time (approximately within 24-48 h of receiving a positive test) feed of potential trial participants from test result data to the research team. PRINCIPLE was also given unique access to the Summary Care Record (SCR) to ensure safe prescribing, and to enable the trial team to quickly and safely bring consented patients into the trial. A survey of the public was used to understand public perceptions of the use of test data for this proposed methodology.Results: Prior to establishing the data service, PRINCIPLE registered on average 87 participants per week. This increased by up to 87 additional people registered per week from the test data, contributing to an increase from 1013 recruits to PRINCIPLE at the start of October 2020 to 2802 recruits by 20 December 2020. Whilst procedural caveats were identified by the public consultation, out of 2639 people contacted by PRINCIPLE following a positive test result, no one raised a concern about being approached.Conclusions: This paper describes a novel approach to using near-real time NHS operational data to recruit community-based patients within a few days of presentation with acute illness. This approach increased recruitment and reduced time between positive test and randomisation, allowing more rapid evaluation of treatments and increased safety for participants. End-to-end public and patient involvement in the design of the approach provided evidence to inform information governance decisions.Trial Registration: PRINCIPLE is funded by UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research. EudraCT number: 2020-001209-22 . 26/03/2020 ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN86534580 . 20/03/2020 REC number: 20/SC/058 IRAS number: 281958. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is growing interest in conducting clinical and cluster randomized trials through electronic health records. This paper reports on the methodological issues identified during the implementation of two cluster randomized trials using the electronic health records of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Methods Two trials were completed in primary care: one aimed to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infection; the other aimed to increase physician adherence with secondary prevention interventions after first stroke. The paper draws on documentary records and trial datasets to report on the methodological experience with respect to research ethics and research governance approval, general practice recruitment and allocation, sample size calculation and power, intervention implementation, and trial analysis. Results We obtained research governance approvals from more than 150 primary care organizations in England, Wales, and Scotland. There were 104 CPRD general practices recruited to the antibiotic trial and 106 to the stroke trial, with the target number of practices being recruited within six months. Interventions were installed into practice information systems remotely over the internet. The mean number of participants per practice was 5,588 in the antibiotic trial and 110 in the stroke trial, with the coefficient of variation of practice sizes being 0.53 and 0.56 respectively. Outcome measures showed substantial correlations between the 12 months before, and after intervention, with coefficients ranging from 0.42 for diastolic blood pressure to 0.91 for proportion of consultations with antibiotics prescribed, defining practice and participant eligibility for analysis requires careful consideration. Conclusions Cluster randomized trials may be performed efficiently in large samples from UK general practices using the electronic health records of a primary care database. The geographical dispersal of trial sites presents a difficulty for research governance approval and intervention implementation. Pretrial data analyses should inform trial design and analysis plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Selection bias is a concern when designing cluster randomised controlled trials (c-RCT). Despite addressing potential issues at the design stage, bias cannot always be eradicated from a trial design. The application of bias analysis presents an important step forward in evaluating whether trial findings are credible. The aim of this paper is to give an example of the technique to quantify potential selection bias in c-RCTs.Methods: This analysis uses data from the Primary care Osteoarthritis Screening Trial (POST). The primary aim of this trial was to test whether screening for anxiety and depression, and providing appropriate care for patients consulting their GP with osteoarthritis would improve clinical outcomes. Quantitative bias analysis is a seldom-used technique that can quantify types of bias present in studies. Due to lack of information on the selection probability, probabilistic bias analysis with a range of triangular distributions was also used, applied at all three follow-up time points; 3, 6, and 12 months post consultation. A simple bias analysis was also applied to the study.Results: Worse pain outcomes were observed among intervention participants than control participants (crude odds ratio at 3, 6, and 12 months: 1.30 (95% CI 1.01, 1.67), 1.39 (1.07, 1.80), and 1.17 (95% CI 0.90, 1.53), respectively). Probabilistic bias analysis suggested that the observed effect became statistically non-significant if the selection probability ratio was between 1.2 and 1.4. Selection probability ratios of > 1.8 were needed to mask a statistically significant benefit of the intervention.Conclusions: The use of probabilistic bias analysis in this c-RCT suggested that worse outcomes observed in the intervention arm could plausibly be attributed to selection bias. A very large degree of selection of bias was needed to mask a beneficial effect of intervention making this interpretation less plausible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epidemiological studies conducted in various parts of the world have clearly demonstrated that metabolic syndrome (MetS) is an increasing global health problem, not only in Western societies but also in Asian populations. Web-based and mobile phone-based self-management applications have been proven to be effective in improving self-management behaviour of patients with MetS components (i.e., diabetes or hypertension). However, evidence is lacking in terms of their effectiveness specifically for patients with MetS. The aim of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility and potential effectiveness of the EMPOWER-SUSTAIN Self-Management e-Health Intervention in improving activation and self-management behaviours among patients with MetS. This paper presents the study protocol.Methods: A pilot randomised controlled trial will be conducted in a university primary care clinic. A total of 232 patients aged 18-60 years with MetS will be recruited; 116 will be randomised to receive the EMPOWER-SUSTAIN intervention for 6 months, and another 116 patients will continue with usual care. The EMPOWER-SUSTAIN intervention is a multifaceted chronic disease management strategy based on the Chronic Care Model and persuasive technology theory. It consists of training primary care physicians, nurses and patients to use the EMPOWER-SUSTAIN web-based self-management mobile app, strengthening the patient-physician relationship and reinforcing the use of relevant clinical practice guidelines to guide management and prescribing. The primary outcome is the mean change in patient activation score using the Patient Activation Measure short form Malay version (PAM-13-M) questionnaire. The secondary outcomes include the changes in waist circumference, body mass index, blood pressure, patient physical activity level, eating behaviour, perception of chronic illness care, satisfaction with patient-physician interaction, and perceived absolute 10-year cardiovascular disease risk. Feasibility of implementing the intervention will be evaluated. This includes acceptability of the intervention, estimating the likely rate of participant recruitment and retention, appropriateness of the outcome measures, calculation of sample size, and the intervention's potential effectiveness.Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study in Malaysia that aims to determine the feasibility of a multifaceted e-health intervention, as well as to indicate more useful aspects of this intervention for further exploration in a larger trial.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04120779. Registered on 9 October 2019, protocol version 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, treatment coverage for the condition is inadequate. Supply-side barriers (e.g. shortage of specialist mental health professionals) and demand-side barriers (e.g. lack of awareness about depression) lead to limited availability of evidence-based interventions, poor demand for care, and low levels of adherence to care. The aim of our study is to examine if the addition of a community intervention delivered by community volunteers enhances the population-level impact of an evidence based psychosocial intervention (Healthy Activity Program [HAP]) in routine primary care by increasing demand for HAP and improving HAP adherence and effectiveness. Methods: A hybrid type 2 effectiveness implementation cluster randomised controlled trial will be implemented in the state of Goa, India. Twenty-eight clusters of villages and their associated public sector health centres will be randomly allocated through restricted randomisation. Clusters will be randomly allocated to the 'Community Model' or 'Facility Model' arms. All clusters will offer the HAP and clusters in the 'Community Model' arm will additionally receive activities delivered by community volunteers ("Sangathis") to increase awareness about depression and support demand for and adherence to HAP. The primary outcomes are Contact Coverage (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9] score > 4 as a proportion of those screened) and Effectiveness Coverage (mean PHQ-9 score amongst those who score ≥ 15 at baseline, i.e. those who have moderately severe to severe depression) at 3 months post-recruitment. Additional outcomes at 3 and 6 months will assess sustained effectiveness, remission, response to treatment, depression awareness, social support, treatment completion, and activation levels. Economic and disability outcomes will be assessed to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Implementation will be evaluated through process data and qualitative data informed by the RE-AIM framework. A minimum of 79488 primary care attenders will be screened for the Contact Coverage outcome, and 588 individuals with PHQ-9 ≥ 15 will be recruited for the Effectiveness Coverage outcome. Discussion: If effective, our community intervention will have relevance to India's Ayushman Bharat universal healthcare programme which is scaling up care for depression in primary care, and also to other low- and middle- income countries. Trial registration: Registered on ClincalTrials.gov (NCT05890222.) on 12/05/2023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruitment of participants is particularly challenging in primary care, with less than a third of randomised controlled trials (RCT) achieving their target within the original time frame. Participant identification, consent, randomisation and data collection can all be time-consuming. Trials recruiting an incident, as opposed to a prevalent, population may be particularly affected. This paper describes the impact of a deferred recruitment model in a RCT of antibiotics for children with infected eczema in primary care, which required the recruitment of cases presenting acutely.Methods: Eligible children were identified by participating general practitioners (GPs) and referred to a study research nurse, who then visited them at home. This allowed the consent and recruitment processes to take place outside the general practice setting. Information was recorded about patients who were referred and recruited, or if not, the reasons for non-recruitment. Data on recruitment challenges were collected through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with a sample of participating GPs. Data were thematically analysed to identify key themes.Results: Of the children referred to the study 34% (58/171) were not recruited - 48% (28/58) because of difficulties arranging a baseline visit within the defined time frame, 31% (18/58) did not meet the study inclusion criteria at the time of nurse assessment, and 21% (12/58) declined participation. GPs had positive views about the recruitment process, reporting that parents valued and benefitted from additional contact with a nurse. GPs felt that the deferred recruitment model did not negatively impact on the study.Conclusions: GPs and parents recognised the benefits of deferred recruitment, but these did not translate into enhanced recruitment of participants. The model resulted in the loss of a third of children who were identified by the GP as eligible, but not subsequently recruited to the study. If the potential for improving outcomes in primary care through complex studies is to be realised, new approaches to recruitment into primary care trials need to be developed and evaluated.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN96705420 . Registered on 27 June 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The demand for mental health services in Australia is substantial and has grown beyond the capacity of the current workforce. As a result, it is currently difficult for many to access secondary healthcare providers. Within the secondary healthcare sector, however, peer workers who have lived experience of managing mental health conditions have been increasingly employed to intentionally use their journey of recovery in supporting others living with mental health conditions and their communities. Currently, the presence of peer workers in primary care has been limited, despite the potential benefits of providing supports in conjunction with GPs and secondary healthcare providers. Methods: This stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to evaluate a lived experience peer support intervention for accessing mental health care in primary care (PS-PC). Four medical practices across Australia will be randomly allocated to switch from control to intervention, until all practices are delivering the PS-PC intervention. The study will enrol 66 patients at each practice (total sample size of 264). Over a period of 3–4 months, 12 h of practical and emotional support provided by lived experience peer workers will be available to participants. Scale-based questionnaires will inform intervention efficacy in terms of mental health outcomes (e.g., self-efficacy) and other health outcomes (e.g., healthcare-related costs) over four time points. Other perspectives will be explored through scales completed by approximately 150 family members or carers (carer burden) and 16 peer workers (self-efficacy) pre- and post-intervention, and 20 medical practice staff members (attitudes toward peer workers) at the end of each study site's involvement in the intervention. Interviews (n = 60) and six focus groups held toward the end of each study site's involvement will further explore the views of participants, family members or carers, peer workers, and practice staff to better understand the efficacy and acceptability of the intervention. Discussion: This mixed-methods, multi-centre, stepped-wedge controlled study will be the first to evaluate the implementation of peer workers in the primary care mental health care sector. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12623001189617. Registered on 17 November 2023, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=386715 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communities of practice are based on the idea that learning involves a group of people exchanging experiences and knowledge. The e-MPODERA project aims to assess the effectiveness of a virtual community of practice aimed at improving primary healthcare professional attitudes to the empowerment of patients with chronic diseases.Methods: This paper describes the protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. We will randomly assign 18 primary-care practices per participating region of Spain (Catalonia, Madrid and Canary Islands) to a virtual community of practice or to usual training. The primary-care practice will be the randomization unit and the primary healthcare professional will be the unit of analysis. We will need a sample of 270 primary healthcare professionals (general practitioners and nurses) and 1382 patients. We will perform randomization after professionals and patients are selected. We will ask the intervention group to participate for 12 months in a virtual community of practice based on a web 2.0 platform. We will measure the primary outcome using the Patient-Provider Orientation Scale questionnaire administered at baseline and after 12 months. Secondary outcomes will be the sociodemographic characteristics of health professionals, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the Patient Activation Measure questionnaire for patient activation and outcomes regarding use of the virtual community of practice. We will calculate a linear mixed-effects regression to estimate the effect of participating in the virtual community of practice.Discussion: This cluster randomized controlled trial will show whether a virtual intervention for primary healthcare professionals improves attitudes to the empowerment of patients with chronic diseases.Trial Registration: ClicalTrials.gov, NCT02757781 . Registered on 25 April 2016. Protocol Version. PI15.01 22 January 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depressive symptoms are usually managed within primary care and antidepressant medication constitutes the first-line treatment. It remains unclear at present which people are more likely to benefit from antidepressant medication. This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PANDA) to investigate the severity and duration of depressive symptoms that are associated with a clinically significant response to sertraline compared to placebo, in people presenting to primary care with depression.Methods/design: PANDA is a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial in which participants are individually randomised to sertraline or placebo. Eligible participants are those who are between the ages of 18 to 74; have presented to primary care with depression or low mood during the past 2 years; have not received antidepressant or anti-anxiety medication in the 8 weeks prior to enrolment in the trial and there is clinical equipoise about the benefits of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medication. Participants who consent to participate in the trial are randomised to receive either sertraline or matching placebo, starting at 50 mg daily for 1 week, increasing to 100 mg daily for up to 11 weeks (with the option of increasing to 150 mg if required). Participants, general practitioners (GPs) and the research team will be blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome will be depressive symptoms measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at 6 weeks post randomisation, measured as a continuous outcome. Secondary outcomes include depressive symptoms measured with the PHQ-9 at 2 and 12 weeks as a continuous outcome and at 2, 6 and 12 weeks as a binary outcome; follow-up scores on depressive symptoms measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II, anxiety symptoms measured by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and quality of life measured with the Euroqol-5D-5L and Short Form-12; emotional processing task scores measured at baseline, 2 and 6 weeks; and costs associated with healthcare use, time off work and personal costs.Discussion: The PANDA trial uses a simple self-administered measure to establish the severity and duration of depressive symptoms associated with a clinically significant response to sertraline. The evidence from the trial will inform primary care prescribing practice by identifying which patients are more likely to benefit from antidepressants.Trial Registration: Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84544741 . Registered on 20 March 2014. EudraCT Number: 2013-003440-22; Protocol Number: 13/0413 (version 6.1). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: According to the Global Diabetes Plan, a unified health system with preventive and educational strategies is essential to proper diabetes care and primary settings should be the main site of care. In Brazil, there is limited access to outpatient hospital diabetes services, while primary-care diabetes support is underutilized. Telemedicine can be a useful adjunct to support discharge of stable patients with type 2 diabetes to the primary care setting. In this paper, we present a randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocol designed to evaluate the effects of telehealth support for stable type 2 diabetes patients discharged from hospital outpatient diabetes clinics.Methods: We designed a RCT. Patients with stable type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin < 8%) considered eligible for discharge from specialized to primary care will be included. Those with uncontrolled ischemic heart disease, severe neuropathy, and stage IV/V nephropathy will be excluded. Enrolled patients will be randomized into two groups: follow-up supported by periodic phone calls by a nurse (intervention group) plus primary care or routine primary care only (control group). The intervention group will receive regular telephone calls (every three months for one year) and will have a toll-free number to call in case of questions about disease management. The main outcome measure is a comparison of glycemic control between groups (assessed by glycated hemoglobin) at one-year follow-up.Discussion: We plan to evaluate the effectiveness of a telephone-based intervention on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes followed by primary care teams. Telemedicine can be an important adjunct in type 2 diabetes management, improving patient education and knowledge about the disease. Furthermore, it can help the healthcare system by alleviating overload in specialized care settings and supporting the stewardship role of primary care.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials, NCT02768480 . Registered on 29 April 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To date, colchicine and prednisolone are two effective therapies for the treatment of acute gout but have never been compared directly in a randomized clinical trial. In addition, in previous trials of treating acute gout patients with concomitant comorbidities were often excluded due to contraindications to naproxen. Study design: This pragmatic, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized, non-inferiority trial compares prednisolone with colchicine in terms of non-inferiority in patients with acute gout. Patients presenting to their general practitioner with acute gout can be included if the gout attack has occurred within the last 2 days. A total of 60 practices in the vicinity of three university medical centers (Greifswald, Göttingen, and Würzburg) participate in the study. The intervention group receives 30 mg prednisolone for 5 days, while the group of standard care receives low-dose colchicine (day 1: 1.5 mg; days 2–5: 1 mg). The first dose of treatment is provided at day 0 when patients present to the general practitioner due to an acute gout attack. From day 0 to day 6, patients will be asked to complete a study diary on daily basis regarding pain quantification. For safety reasons, potential side effects and the course of systolic blood pressure are also assessed. Statistical analysis plan: N = 314 patients have to be recruited to compensate for 10% of dropout and to allow for showing non-inferiority of prednisolone compared to colchicine with a power of 90%. We use permuted block randomization with block sizes of 2, 4, and 6 to avoid imbalanced treatment arms in this multi-center study; patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio. The absolute level of pain on day 3 (in the last 24 h) is the primary outcome and measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS: 0–10). Using a multiple linear regression model adjusted for age, sex, and pain at baseline, prednisolone is considered non-inferior if the effect estimate including the confidence intervals is lower than a margin of 1 unit on the NRS. Average response to treatment, joint swelling and tenderness, physical function of the joint, and patients' global assessment of treatment success are secondary outcomes. Discussion: The trial will provide evidence from a direct comparison of colchicine and prednisolone regarding their efficacy of pain reduction in acute gout patients of primary care and to indicate possible safety signals. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05698680 first posted on January 26, 2023 (retrospectively registered). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure, often coexist and contribute to a significant burden on individuals and health systems. The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool, already in routine clinical use in the Netherlands, aims to comprehensively assess and visualize disease burden, stimulate self-management, and encourage shared decision-making. This study aims to validate the German and Italian versions of the ABCC tool and evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in the South Tyrolean Primary Care setting. Methods: This is a cluster-randomized study involving approximately 400 patients with COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure who received care from the South Tyrolean General Practices. Initially, the ABCC tool will be translated into German and Italian and validated. Subsequently, half of the participants will use the validated ABCC tool for patient-reported outcome measurement assessments, while the other half will receive usual care. The primary outcome measure is the change in the patients’ perception of the quality of care after 18 months. The secondary outcomes included changes in quality of life, self-management behavior, and healthcare utilization. The missing data will be managed using multiple imputations. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness analysis that considers the direct medical costs reimbursed by the National Health Service will be conducted. Discussion: This study provides insights into the application, validation, and efficacy of the ABCC tool in the South Tyrolean healthcare context. The tool’s potential to enhance person-centered care, improve the quality of life, and possibly reduce healthcare costs could greatly contribute to sustainable healthcare. The challenges of implementation, such as software integration and the use of an EU data platform, will provide lessons for future international patient care data management. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13531607. Registered on August 23, 2023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Process evaluation studies are recommended to improve our understanding of underlying mechanisms related to clinicians, patients, context and intervention delivery that may impact on trial or program results and on their potential transferability to practice. This paper aims to document the translation of a type-2 diabetes (T2D) prevention program into the routine context of several primary care centers, assessing process indicators related to clinician adoption, patient recruitment, exposure to the intervention components and baseline characteristics.Methods: An observational descriptive process evaluation study was conducted of the 2.5-year implementation of the Prevention of Diabetes in Euskadi cluster randomized trial in 14 primary care centers of the Basque Health Service (Osakidetza). The clinical intervention consisted of three components: (1) risk screening, (2) an educational intervention promoting healthy lifestyles, and (3) remote support (follow-up). A passive dissemination strategy of providing training and materials was used to translate the intervention into practice. All non-diabetic patients aged 45 to 70 years who were identified as being at high risk of developing T2D were eligible for study inclusion. The RE-AIM framework guided the process evaluation.Results: Overall, 31.4 % of family physicians and 57.6 % of nurses participated in the study, while 4170 out of 67,293 (6.2 %) targeted patients who attended the centers during the implementation period were reached through the screening. Around half of the screened patients were identified as being at high risk of developing T2D (FINDRISC score ≥14). The rate of refusal to participate and the proportion of women were higher in the intervention group. Finally, 634 and 454 non-diabetic 45- to 70-year-old patients who were at high risk of T2D were included in the control and intervention group centers (intervention reach = 48 %). Significant variability in most process indicators was observed at center level.Conclusion: The passive dissemination strategy has produced modest process indicators related to the adoption, reach and implementation of the intervention program, and reduced the possibility of its standardized application in heterogeneous contexts. The resulting different procedures and strategies used by the centers were associated with process outcomes. Context-specific variability and possible confounding will require rigorous procedures for analysis of the intervention effects.Trial Registration: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01365013 ). Registered on June 2011. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with depression are usually managed in primary care and antidepressants are often the first-line treatment, but only one third of patients respond fully to a single antidepressant. This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (MIR) to investigate the extent to which the addition of the antidepressant mirtazapine is effective in reducing the symptoms of depression compared with placebo in patients who are still depressed after they have been treated with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) for at least 6 weeks in primary care.Methods/design: MIR is a two-parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, placebo controlled, randomised trial with allocation at the level of the individual. Eligible participants are those who: are aged 18 years or older; are currently taking an SSRI/SNRI antidepressant (for at least 6 weeks at an adequate dose); score ≥ 14 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II); have adhered to their medication; and meet ICD-10 criteria for depression (assessed using the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised version). Participants who give written, informed consent, will be randomised to receive either oral mirtazapine or matched placebo, starting at 15 mg daily for 2 weeks and increasing to 30 mg daily thereafter, for up to 12 months (to be taken in addition to their usual antidepressant). Participants, their GPs, and the research team will all be blind to the allocation. The primary outcome will be depression symptoms at 12 weeks post randomisation, measured as a continuous variable using the BDI-II. Secondary outcomes (measured at 12, 24 and 52 weeks) include: response (reduction in depressive symptoms (BDI-II score) of at least 50% compared to baseline); remission of depression symptoms (BDI-II <10); change in anxiety symptoms; adverse effects; quality of life; adherence to antidepressant medication; health and social care use, time off work and cost-effectiveness. All outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. A qualitative study will explore patients' views and experiences of either taking two antidepressants, or an antidepressant and a placebo; and GPs' views on prescribing a second antidepressant in this patient group.Discussion: The MIR trial will provide evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine as an adjunct to SSRI/SNRI antidepressants for patients in primary care who have not responded to monotherapy.Trial Registration: EudraCT Number: 2012-000090-23 (Registered January 2012); ISRCTN06653773 (Registered September 2012). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Aside from blood pressure lowering, treatment options for intracerebral haemorrhage remain limited and a proportion of patients will undergo early haematoma expansion with resultant significant morbidity and mortality. Tranexamic acid (TXA), an anti-fibrinolytic drug, has been shown to significantly reduce mortality in patients, who are bleeding following trauma, when given rapidly. TICH-2 is testing whether TXA is effective at improving outcome in spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (SICH).Methods and Design: TICH-2 is a pragmatic, phase III, prospective, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Two thousand adult (aged ≥ 18 years) patients with an acute SICH, within 8 h of stroke onset, will be randomised to receive TXA or the placebo control. The primary outcome is ordinal shift of modified Rankin Scale score at day 90. Analyses will be performed using intention-to-treat.Results: This paper and its attached appendices describe the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the trial and were developed and published prior to database lock and unblinding to treatment allocation. The SAP includes details of analyses to be undertaken and unpopulated tables which will be reported in the primary and key secondary publications. The database will be locked in early 2018, ready for publication of the results later in the same year.Discussion: The SAP details the analyses that will be done to avoid bias arising from prior knowledge of the study findings. The trial will determine whether TXA can improve outcome after SICH, which currently has no definitive therapy.Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN93732214 . Registered on 17 January 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many people experience withdrawal symptoms when they attempt to stop antidepressants. Withdrawal symptoms are readily misconstrued for relapse or ongoing need for medication, contributing to long-term use (> 12 months). Long-term antidepressant use is increasing internationally yet is not recommended for most people. Long-term use is associated with adverse effects including weight gain, sexual dysfunction, lethargy, emotional numbing and increased risk of falls and fractures. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of two multi-strategy interventions (RELEASE and RELEASE+) in supporting the safe cessation of long-term antidepressants, estimate cost-effectiveness, and evaluate implementation strategies. Methods: Design: 3-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial effectiveness-implementation hybrid type-1. Setting: primary care general practices in southeast Queensland, Australia. Population: adults 18 years or older taking antidepressants for longer than 1 year. Practices will be randomised on a 1.5:1:1 ratio of Usual care:RELEASE:RELEASE+. Intervention: RELEASE for patients includes evidence-based information and resources and an invitation to medication review; RELEASE for GPs includes education, training and printable resources via practice management software. RELEASE+ includes additional internet support for patients and prescribing support including audit and feedback for GPs. Outcome measures: the primary outcome is antidepressant use at 12 months self-reported by patients. Cessation is defined as 0 mg antidepressant maintained for at least 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes: at 6 and 12 months are health-related quality of life, antidepressant side effects, well-being, withdrawal symptoms, emotional numbing, beliefs about antidepressants, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms; and at 12 months 75% reduction in antidepressant dose; aggregated practice level antidepressant prescribing, and health service utilisation for costs. Sample size: 653 patients from 28 practices. A concurrent evaluation of implementation will be through mixed methods including interviews with up to 40 patients and primary care general practitioners, brief e-surveys, and study administrative data to assess implementation outcomes (adoption and fidelity). Discussion: The RELEASE study will develop new knowledge applicable internationally on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation of two multi-strategy interventions in supporting the safe cessation of long-term antidepressants to improve primary health care and outcomes for patients. Trial registration: ANZCTR, ACTRN12622001379707p. Registered on 27 October 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data sharing from clinical trials is one way of promoting fair and transparent conduct of clinical trials. It would maximise the use of data and permit the exploration of additional hypotheses. On the other hand, the quality of secondary analyses cannot always be ascertained, and it may be unfair to investigators who have expended resources to collect data to bear the additional burden of sharing. As the discussion on the best modalities of sharing data evolves, some of the practical issues that may arise need to be addressed. In this paper, we discuss issues which impede the use of data even when sharing should be possible: (1) multicentre studies requiring consent from all the investigators in each centre; (2) remote access platforms with software limitations and Internet requirements; (3) on-site data analysis when data cannot be moved; (4) governing bodies for data generated in one jurisdiction and analysed in another; (5) using programmatic data collected as part of routine care; (6) data collected in multiple languages; (7) poor data quality. We believe these issues apply to all primary data and cause undue difficulties in conducting analysis even when there is some willingness to share. They can be avoided by anticipating the possibility of sharing any clinical data and pre-emptively removing or addressing restrictions that limit complete sharing. These issues should be part of the data sharing discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Much of the existing literature on physical activity (PA) interventions involves physically inactive individuals recruited from community settings rather than clinical practice settings. Recruitment of patients into interventions in clinical practice settings is difficult due to limited time available in the clinic, identification of appropriate personnel to efficiently conduct the process, and time-consuming methods of recruitment. The purpose of this report is to describe the approach used to identify and recruit veterans from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Pittsburgh Healthcare System Primary Care Clinic into a randomized controlled PA study. Methods A sampling frame of veterans was developed using the VA electronic medical record. During regularly scheduled clinic appointments, primary care providers (PCPs) screened identified patients for safety to engage in moderate-intensity PA and willingness to discuss the study with research staff members. Research staff determined eligibility with a subsequent telephone screening call and scheduled a research study appointment, at which time signed informed consent and baseline measurements were obtained. Results Of the 3,482 veterans in the sampling frame who were scheduled for a primary care appointment during the study period, 1,990 (57.2%) were seen in the clinic and screened by the PCP; moderate-intensity PA was deemed safe for 1,293 (37.1%), 871 (25.0%) agreed to be contacted for further screening, 334 (9.6%) were eligible for the study, and 232 (6.7%) enrolled. Conclusions Using a semiautomated screening approach that combined an electronically-derived sampling frame with paper and pencil prescreening by PCPs and research staff, VA-STRIDE was able to recruit 1 in 15 veterans in the sampling frame. Using this approach, a high proportion of potentially eligible veterans were screened by their PCPs. Trial Registration Clinical trials.gov identifier: NCT00731094. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Trials of complex interventions are criticized for being 'black box', so the UK Medical Research Council recommends carrying out a process evaluation to explain the trial findings. We believe it is good practice to pre-specify and publish process evaluation protocols to set standards and minimize bias. Unlike protocols for trials, little guidance or standards exist for the reporting of process evaluations. This paper presents the mixed-method process evaluation protocol of a cluster randomized trial, drawing on a framework designed by the authors. Methods/design: This mixed-method evaluation is based on four research questions and maps data collection to a logic model of how the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention is expected to work. Data collection will be predominately by qualitative case studies in eight to ten of the trial practices, focus groups with patients affected by the intervention and quantitative analysis of routine practice data, trial outcome and questionnaire data and data from the DQIP intervention. Discussion: We believe that pre-specifying the intentions of a process evaluation can help to minimize bias arising from potentially misleading post-hoc analysis. We recognize it is also important to retain flexibility to examine the unexpected and the unintended. From that perspective, a mixed-methods evaluation allows the combination of exploratory and flexible qualitative work, and more pre-specified quantitative analysis, with each method contributing to the design, implementation and interpretation of the other.As well as strengthening the study the authors hope to stimulate discussion among their academic colleagues about publishing protocols for evaluations of randomized trials of complex interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dementia syndromes are under-diagnosed and under-treated in primary care. Earlier recognition of and response to dementia syndrome is likely to enhance the quality of life of people with dementia, but general practitioners consistently report limited skills and confidence in diagnosis and management of this condition. Changing clinical practice is difficult, and the challenge for those seeking change it is to find ways of working with the grain of professional knowledge and practice. Assessment of educational needs in a practice has the potential to accommodate variations in individual understanding and competence, learning preferences and skill mix. Educational prescriptions identify questions that need to be answered in order to address a clinical problem. This paper reports the development of an educational needs assessment tool to guide tailored educational interventions designed to enhance early diagnosis and management of dementia in primary care, in the Evidence Based Interventions in Dementia in the Community - Early Diagnosis trial. Methods: A multidisciplinary team, including a lay researcher, used an iterative technology development approach to create an educational needs assessment tool, from which educational prescriptions could be written. Workplace learning was tailored to each practice using the educational prescription, and the method was field-tested in five pilot practices. Results: The educational prescriptions appeared acceptable and useful in volunteer practices. The time commitment (no more than four hours, spread out at the practice's discretion) appeared manageable. The pilot group of practices prioritised diagnosis, assessment of carers' needs, quality markers for dementia care in general practice, and the implications of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) for their clinical practice. The content of the educational needs assessment tool seemed to be comprehensive, in that no new topics were identified by practices in the field trial. Conclusions: The educational needs assessment tool took into account practitioners' knowledge of the local health and social care systems, reflected the complexity of the diagnostic and care processes for people with dementia, and acknowledged the complexity of the disease process itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is one of the most common reasons for consulting a General Practitioner (GP) within the UK. Whilst antidepressants have been shown to be clinically effective, many patients and healthcare professionals would like to access other forms of treatment as an alternative or adjunct to drug therapy for depression. A recent systematic review presented some evidence that physical activity could offer one such option, although further investigation is needed to test its effectiveness within the context of the National Health Service. The aim of this paper is to describe the protocol for a randomised, controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate an intervention developed to increase physical activity as a treatment for depression within primary care. Methods/design: The TREAD study is a pragmatic, multi-centre, two-arm RCT which targets patients presenting with a new episode of depression. Patients were approached if they were aged 18-69, had recently consulted their GP for depression and, where appropriate, had been taking antidepressants for less than one month. Only those patients with a confirmed diagnosis of a depressive episode as assessed by the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R), a Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score of at least 14 and informed written consent were included in the study. Eligible patients were individually randomised to one of two treatment groups; usual GP care or usual GP care plus facilitated physical activity. The primary outcome of the trial is clinical symptoms of depression assessed using the BDI four months after randomisation. A number of secondary outcomes are also measured at the 4-, 8- and 12-month follow-up points including quality of life, attitude to and involvement in physical activity and antidepressant use/adherence. Outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis and will use linear and logistic regression models to compare treatments. Discussion: The results of the trial will provide information about the effectiveness of physical activity as a treatment for depression. Given the current prevalence of depression and its associated economic burden, it is hoped that TREAD will provide a timely contribution to the evidence on treatment options for patients, clinicians and policy-makers. Trial registration: ISRCTN 16900744 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hypertension affects 29% of the adult U.S. population and is a leading cause of heart disease, stroke, and kidney failure. Despite numerous effective treatments, only 53% of people with hypertension are at goal blood pressure. The chronic care model suggests that blood pressure control can be achieved by improving how patients and physicians address patient self-care. Methods and design: This paper describes the protocol of a nested 2 × 2 randomized controlled trial to test the separate and combined effects on systolic blood pressure of a behavioral intervention for patients and a quality improvement-type intervention for physicians. Primary care practices were randomly assigned to the physician intervention or to the physician control condition. Physician randomization occurred at the clinic level. The physician intervention included training and performance monitoring. The training comprised 2 internet-based modules detailing both the JNC-7 hypertension guidelines and lifestyle modifications for hypertension. Performance data were collected for 18 months, and feedback was provided to physicians every 3 months. Patient participants in both intervention and control clinics were individually randomized to the patient intervention or to usual care. The patient intervention consisted of a 6-month behavioral intervention conducted by trained interventionists in 20 group sessions, followed by 12 monthly phone contacts by community health advisors. Follow-up measurements were performed at 6 and 18 months. The primary outcome was the mean change in systolic blood pressure at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were diastolic blood pressure and the proportion of patients with adequate blood pressure control at 6 and 18 months. Discussion: Overall, 8 practices (4 per treatment group), 32 physicians (4 per practice; 16 per treatment group), and 574 patients (289 control and 285 intervention) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics of patients and providers and the challenges faced during study implementation are presented. The HIP interventions may improve blood pressure control and lower cardiovascular disease risk in a primary care practice setting by addressing key components of the chronic care model. The study design allows an assessment of the effectiveness and cost of physician and patient interventions separately, so that health care organizations can make informed decisions about implementation of 1 or both interventions in the context of local resources. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00201136 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gout is the most common form of rheumatic disease in which monosodium urate crystals are deposited in the joints followed by acute inflammatory reactions. There are various approved drugs that can be prescribed for pain relief during an acute gout attack. However, to date, no direct comparison of efficacy of colchicine and prednisolone for the treatment of acute gout attacks has been investigated. Furthermore, the majority of previous research studies were not only conducted in tertiary centres but also excluded patients with common comorbidities due to contraindications to naproxen. Methods: This pragmatic, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized, non-inferiority trial investigates whether prednisolone (intervention) is non-inferior to treatment with colchicine (active control) in patients with acute gout. Adult patients presenting with acute gout to their general practitioners in 60 practices across 3 university sites (Greifswald, Göttingen, and Würzburg) are eligible to participate in the study. Participants in the intervention group receive 30 mg prednisolone for 5 days. Those in the control group receive low-dose colchicine (day 1: 1.5 mg; days 2–5: 1 mg). The primary outcome is the absolute level of the most severe pain on day 3 (in the last 24 h) measured with an 11-item numerical rating scale. Day 0 is the day patients take their study medication for the first time. They are then asked to fill out a study diary the same time each day for pain quantification. Pain scores are used for comparison between the two medications. Secondary outcomes are average response to treatment, swelling, tenderness and physical function of the joint, patients' global assessment of treatment success, use of additional pain medication and non-pharmacological pain therapies. For safety reasons, potential side effects and course of systolic blood pressure are assessed. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of pain reduction and side effects of colchicine and prednisolone in acute gout in primary care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05698680 first posted on January 26, 2023 (retrospectively registered). URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05698680 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. Self-directed online CBT interventions have made CBT more accessible at a lower cost. However, adherence is often poor and, in the absence of therapist support, effects are modest and short-term. Delivering CBT online using instant messaging is clinically and cost-effective; however, most existing platforms are limited to instant messaging sessions, without the support of between-session "homework" activities. The INTERACT intervention integrates online CBT materials and 'high-intensity' therapist-led CBT, delivered remotely in real-time. The INTERACT trial will evaluate this novel integration in terms of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and acceptability to therapists and clients. Methods: Pragmatic, two parallel-group multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, with 434 patients recruited from primary care practices in Bristol, London and York. Participants with depression will be identified via General Practitioner record searches and direct referrals. Inclusion criteria: aged ≥ 18 years; score ≥ 14 on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II); meeting International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) criteria for depression. Exclusion criteria: alcohol or substance dependency in the past year; bipolar disorder; schizophrenia; psychosis; dementia; currently under psychiatric care for depression (including those referred but not yet seen); cannot complete questionnaires unaided or requires an interpreter; currently receiving CBT/other psychotherapy; received high-intensity CBT in the past four years; participating in another intervention trial; unwilling/unable to receive CBT via computer/laptop/smartphone. Eligible participants will be randomised to integrated CBT or usual care. Integrated CBT utilises the standard Beckian intervention for depression and comprises nine live therapist-led sessions, with (up to) a further three if clinically appropriate. The first session is 60–90 min via videocall, with subsequent 50-min sessions delivered online, using instant messaging. Participants allocated integrated CBT can access integrated online CBT resources (worksheets/information sheets/videos) within and between sessions. Outcome assessments at 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month post-randomisation. The primary outcome is the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 6 months (as a continuous variable). A nested qualitative study and health economic evaluation will be conducted. Discussion: If clinically and cost-effective, this model of integrated CBT could be introduced into existing psychological services, increasing access to, and equity of, CBT provision. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN13112900. Registered on 11/11/2020. Currently recruiting participants. Trial registration data are presented in Table 1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The evidence for the clinical utility of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing is growing, and guidelines exist for the use of PGx testing to inform prescribing of 13 antidepressants. Although previous randomised controlled trials of PGx testing for antidepressant prescribing have shown an association with remission of depression in clinical psychiatric settings, few trials have focused on the primary care setting, where most antidepressant prescribing occurs. Methods: The PRESIDE Trial is a stratified double-blinded randomised controlled superiority trial that aims to evaluate the impact of a PGx-informed antidepressant prescribing report (compared with standard prescribing using the Australian Therapeutic Guidelines) on depressive symptoms after 12 weeks, when delivered in primary care. Six hundred seventy-two patients aged 18–65 years of general practitioners (GPs) in Victoria with moderate to severe depressive symptoms, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), will be randomly allocated 1:1 to each arm using a computer-generated sequence. Participants and GPs will be blinded to the study arm. The primary outcome is a difference between arms in the change of depressive symptoms, measured using the PHQ-9 after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include a difference between the arms in change in PHQ-9 score at 4, 8 and 26 weeks, proportion in remission at 12 weeks, a change in side effect profile of antidepressant medications, adherence to antidepressant medications, change in quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence as to whether PGx-informed antidepressant prescribing is clinically efficacious and cost-effective. It will inform national and international policy and guidelines about the use of PGx to select antidepressants for people with moderate to severe depressive symptoms presenting in primary care. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000181808. Registered on 22 February 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The growing burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the rising cost of healthcare worldwide make it imperative to identify interventions that can promote sustained self-management behaviour in T2DM populations while minimising costs for healthcare systems. The present FEEDBACK study (Fukushima study for Engaging people with type 2 Diabetes in Behaviour Associated Change) aims to evaluate the effects of a novel behaviour change intervention designed to be easily implemented and scaled across a wide range of primary care settings. Methods: A cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) with a 6-month follow-up will be conducted to evaluate the effects of the FEEDBACK intervention. FEEDBACK is a personalised, multi-component intervention intended to be delivered by general practitioners during a routine diabetes consultation. It consists of five steps aimed at enhancing doctor-patient partnership to motivate self-management behaviour: (1) communication of cardiovascular risks using a 'heart age' tool, (2) goal setting, (3) action planning, (4) behavioural contracting, and (5) feedback on behaviour. We aim to recruit 264 adults with T2DM and suboptimal glycaemic control from 20 primary care practices in Japan (cluster units) that will be randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group. The primary outcome measure will be the change in HbA1c levels at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcome measures include the change in cardiovascular risk score, the probability to achieve the recommended glycaemic target (HbA1c <7.0% [53mmol/mol]) at 6-month follow-up, and a range of behavioural and psychosocial variables. The planned primary analyses will be carried out at the individual level, according to the intention-to-treat principle. Between-group comparisons for the primary outcome will be analysed using mixed-effects models. This study protocol received ethical approval from the research ethics committee of Kashima Hospital, Fukushima, Japan (reference number: 2022002). Discussion: This article describes the design of a cluster RCT that will evaluate the effects of FEEDBACK, a personalised, multicomponent intervention aimed at enhancing doctor-patient partnership to engage adults with T2DM more effectively in self-management behaviour. Trial registration: The study protocol was prospectively registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR ID UMIN000049643 assigned on 29/11/2022). On submission of this manuscript, recruitment of participants is ongoing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]