Adaptive intervention design in mobile health: Intervention design and development in the Cell Phone Intervention for You trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The obesity epidemic has spread to young adults, and obesity is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The prominence and increasing functionality of mobile phones may provide an opportunity to deliver longitudinal and scalable weight management interventions in young adults. The aim of this article is to describe the design and development of the intervention tested in the Cell Phone Intervention for You study and to highlight the importance of adaptive intervention design that made it possible. The Cell Phone Intervention for You study was a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored, controlled, 24-month randomized clinical trial comparing two active interventions to a usual-care control group. Participants were 365 overweight or obese (body mass index≥25 kg/m2) young adults. METHODS: Both active interventions were designed based on social cognitive theory and incorporated techniques for behavioral self-management and motivational enhancement. Initial intervention development occurred during a 1-year formative phase utilizing focus groups and iterative, participatory design. During the intervention testing, adaptive intervention design, where an intervention is updated or extended throughout a trial while assuring the delivery of exactly the same intervention to each cohort, was employed. The adaptive intervention design strategy distributed technical work and allowed introduction of novel components in phases intended to help promote and sustain participant engagement. Adaptive intervention design was made possible by exploiting the mobile phone's remote data capabilities so that adoption of particular application components could be continuously monitored and components subsequently added or updated remotely. RESULTS: The cell phone intervention was delivered almost entirely via cell phone and was always-present, proactive, and interactive-providing passive and active reminders, frequent opportunities for knowledge dissemination, and multiple tools for self-tracking and receiving tailored feedback. The intervention changed over 2 years to promote and sustain engagement. The personal coaching intervention, alternatively, was primarily personal coaching with trained coaches based on a proven intervention, enhanced with a mobile application, but where all interactions with the technology were participant-initiated. CONCLUSION: The complexity and length of the technology-based randomized clinical trial created challenges in engagement and technology adaptation, which were generally discovered using novel remote monitoring technology and addressed using the adaptive intervention design. Investigators should plan to develop tools and procedures that explicitly support continuous remote monitoring of interventions to support adaptive intervention design in long-term, technology-based studies, as well as developing the interventions themselves.

Colchicine effectiveness in symptom and inflammation modification in knee osteoarthritis (COLKOA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence and global impact of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), current treatments are palliative. No disease modifying anti-osteoarthritic drug (DMOAD) has been approved. We recently demonstrated significant involvement of uric acid and activation of the innate immune response in osteoarthritis (OA) pathology and progression, suggesting that traditional gout therapy may be beneficial for OA. We therefore assess colchicine, an existing commercially available agent for gout, for a new therapeutic application in KOA. METHODS/DESIGN: COLKOA is a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial comparing a 16-week treatment with standard daily dose oral colchicine to placebo for KOA. A total of 120 participants with symptomatic KOA will be recruited from a single center in Singapore. The primary end point is 30% improvement in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score at week 16. Secondary end points include improvement in pain, physical function, and quality of life and change in serum, urine and synovial fluid biomarkers of cartilage metabolism and inflammation. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) substudy will be conducted in 20 participants to evaluate change in synovitis. Logistic regression will be used to compare changes between groups in an intention-to-treat analysis. DISCUSSION: The COLKOA trial is designed to evaluate whether commercially available colchicine is effective for improving signs and symptoms of KOA, and reducing synovial fluid, serum and urine inflammatory and biochemical joint degradation biomarkers. These biomarkers should provide insights into the underlying mechanism of therapeutic response. This trial will potentially provide data to support a new treatment option for KOA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02176460 . Date of registration: 26 June 2014.

Impact of Funding Source on Clinical Trial Results Including Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.

Previous authors have suggested a higher likelihood for industry-sponsored (IS) studies to have positive outcomes than non-IS studies, though the influence of publication bias was believed to be a likely confounder. We attempted to control for the latter using a prepublication database to compare the primary outcome of recent trials based on sponsorship. We used the "advanced search" feature in the clinicaltrials.gov website to identify recently completed phase III studies involving the implementation of a pharmaceutical agent or device for which primary data were available. Studies were categorized as either National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored or IS. Results were labeled "favorable" if the results favored the intervention under investigation or "unfavorable" if the intervention fared worse than standard medical treatment. We also performed an independent literature search to identify the cardiovascular trials as a case example and again categorized them into IS versus NIH sponsored. A total of 226 studies sponsored by NIH were found. When these were compared with the latest 226 IS studies, it was found that IS studies were almost 4 times more likely to report a positive outcome (odds ratio [OR] 3.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6087 to 5.9680, p <0.0001). As a case example of a specialty, we also identified 25 NIH-sponsored and 215 IS cardiovascular trials, with most focusing on hypertension therapy (31.6%) and anticoagulation (17.9%). IS studies were 7 times more likely to report favorable outcomes (OR 7.54, 95% CI 2.19 to 25.94, p = 0.0014). They were also considerably less likely to report unfavorable outcomes (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26, p <0.0001). In conclusion, the outcomes of large clinical studies especially cardiovascular differ considerably on the basis of their funding source, and publication bias appears to have limited influence on these findings.

Prevalence and incidence of liver enzyme elevations in a pooled oncology clinical trial cohort.

Few epidemiologic studies describe longitudinal liver chemistry (LC) elevations in cancer patients. A population-based retrospective cohort was identified from 31 Phase 2-3 oncology trials (excluding targeted therapies) conducted from 1985 to 2005 to evaluate background rates of LC elevations in patients (n = 3998) with or without liver metastases. Patients with baseline liver metastases (29% of patients) presented with a 3% prevalence of alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥ 3x upper limits normal (ULN) and 0.2% prevalence of bilirubin ≥ 3xULN. During follow-up, the incidence (per 1000 person-months) of new onset ALT elevations ≥3xULN was 6.1 (95% CI: 4.5, 8.0) and 2.2 (95% CI: 0.9, 4.5) in patients without and with liver metastases, respectively. No new incident cases of ALT and bilirubin elevations suggestive of severe liver injury occurred among those with liver metastases; a single case occurred among those without metastasis. Regardless of the presence of liver metastases, LC elevations were rare in cancer patients during oncology trials, which may be due to enrollment criteria. Our study validates uniform thresholds for detection of LC elevations in oncology studies and serves as an empirical referent point for comparing liver enzyme abnormalities in oncology trials of novel targeted therapies. These data support uniform LC stopping criteria in oncology trials.