Cognitive, global, and functional benefits of donepezil in Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia:results from large-scale clinical trials

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) are both associated with deficits in cholinergic neurotransmission that are amenable to therapeutic intervention. The cholinesterase inhibitor, donepezil, is clinically effective in both AD and VaD. Results from a 10-study metaanalysis of donepezil (5 or 10 mg/day) in AD and a two-study combined analysis of donepezil (5 or 10 mg/day) in VaD are presented to compare patient characteristics and donepezil treatment outcomes. The analyzed studies were randomized, placebo-controlled, and of up to 24 weeks duration. In both AD and VaD, donepezil provided significant benefits compared with placebo on measures of cognition and global function. Placebo-treated AD patients showed a decline in cognition and global function, whereas placebo-treated VaD patients remained stable, suggesting treatment effects of donepezil in VaD were driven by improvement rather than stabilization or reduced decline. More VaD patients than AD patients received concomitant medications. Cardiovascular adverse events were more common in VaD than AD patients but were not increased by donepezil. In conclusion, although there are differences between AD and VaD patients in comorbid conditions and concomitant medications, donepezil is effective and well tolerated in both types of dementia.

Developing the specifications of an open angle glaucoma screening intervention in the United Kingdom: a Delphi approach.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Glaucoma is a leading cause of blindness. Early detection is advocated but there is insufficient evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to inform health policy on population screening. Primarily, there is no agreed screening intervention. For a screening programme, agreement is required on the screening tests to be used, either individually or in combination, the person to deliver the test and the location where testing should take place. This study aimed to use ophthalmologists (who were experienced glaucoma subspecialists), optometrists, ophthalmic nurses and patients to develop a reduced set of potential screening tests and testing arrangements that could then be explored in depth in a further study of their feasibility for evaluation in a glaucoma screening RCT.
METHODS:
A two-round Delphi survey involving 38 participants was conducted. Materials were developed from a prior evidence synthesis. For round one, after some initial priming questions in four domains, specialists were asked to nominate three screening interventions, the intervention being a combination of the four domains; target population, (age and higher risk groups), site, screening test and test operator (provider). More than 250 screening interventions were identified. For round two, responses were condensed into 72 interventions and each was rated by participants on a 0-10 scale in terms of feasibility.
RESULTS:
Using a cut-off of a median rating of feasibility of =5.5 as evidence of agreement of intervention feasibility, six interventions were identified from round 2. These were initiating screening at age 50, with a combination of two or three screening tests (varying combinations of tonometry/measures of visual function/optic nerve damage) organized in a community setting with an ophthalmic trained technical assistant delivering the tests. An alternative intervention was a 'glaucoma risk score' ascertained by questionnaire. The advisory panel recommended that further exploration of the feasibility of screening higher risk populations and detailed specification of the screening tests was required.
CONCLUSIONS:
With systematic use of expert opinions, a shortlist of potential screening interventions was identified. Views of users, service providers and cost-effectiveness modeling are now required to identify a feasible intervention to evaluate in a future glaucoma screening trial.

Addressing potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients: development and pilot study of an intervention in primary care (the OPTI-SCRIPT study)

Background: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older people is common in primary care and can result in increased morbidity, adverse drug events, hospitalizations and mortality. The prevalence of PIP in Ireland is estimated at 36% with an associated expenditure of over [euro sign]45 million in 2007. The aim of this paper is to describe the application of the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework to the development of an intervention to decrease PIP in Irish primary care.

Methods: The MRC framework for the design and evaluation of complex interventions guided the development of the study intervention. In the development stage, literature was reviewed and combined with information obtained from experts in the field using a consensus based methodology and patient cases to define the main components of the intervention. In the pilot stage, five GPs tested the proposed intervention. Qualitative interviews were conducted with the GPs to inform the development and implementation of the intervention for the main randomised controlled trial.

Results: The literature review identified PIP criteria for inclusion in the study and two initial intervention components - academic detailing and medicines review supported by therapeutic treatment algorithms. Through patient case studies and a focus group with a group of 8 GPs, these components were refined and a third component of the intervention identified - patient information leaflets. The intervention was tested in a pilot study. In total, eight medicine reviews were conducted across five GP practices. These reviews addressed ten instances of PIP, nine of which were addressed in the form of either a dose reduction or a discontinuation of a targeted medication. Qualitative interviews highlighted that GPs were receptive to the intervention but patient preference and time needed both to prepare for and conduct the medicines review, emerged as potential barriers. Findings from the pilot study allowed further refinement to produce the finalised intervention of academic detailing with a pharmacist, medicines review with web-based therapeutic treatment algorithms and tailored patient information leaflets.

Conclusions: The MRC framework was used in the development of the OPTI-SCRIPT intervention to decrease the level of PIP in primary care in Ireland. Its application ensured that the intervention was developed using the best available evidence, was acceptable to GPs and feasible to deliver in the clinical setting. The effectiveness of this intervention is currently being tested in a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

Trial registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN41694007.© 2013 Clyne et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Variation of clinical outcomes used in glaucoma randomised controlled trials:a systematic review

Purpose: In randomised clinical trials (RCTs) the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. The purpose of this review is to identify different clinical outcomes reported in glaucoma trials.

Methods We conducted a systematic review of glaucoma RCTs. A sample or selection of glaucoma trials were included bounded by a time frame (between 2006 and March 2012). Only studies in English language were considered. All clinical measured and reported outcomes were included. The possible variations of clinical outcomes were defined prior to data analysis. Information on reported clinical outcomes was tabulated and analysed using descriptive statistics. Other data recorded included type of intervention and glaucoma, duration of the study, defined primary outcomes, and outcomes used for sample size calculation, if nominated.

Results The search strategy identified 4323 potentially relevant abstracts. There were 315 publications retrieved, of which 233 RCTs were included. A total of 967 clinical measures were reported. There were large variations in the definitions used to describe different outcomes and their measures. Intraocular pressure was the most commonly reported outcome (used in 201 RCTs, 86%) with a total of 422 measures (44%). Safety outcomes were commonly reported in 145 RCTs (62%) whereas visual field outcomes were used in 38 RCTs (16%).

Conclusions There is a large variation in the reporting of clinical outcomes in glaucoma RCTs. This lack of standardisation may impair the ability to evaluate the evidence of glaucoma interventions.

Overview of clinical outcome measures used in glaucoma randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

Background: In clinical trials the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. Glaucoma is a chronic eye disease and the leading cause of irreversible blindness in the world. A variety of outcomes has been used and reported in glaucoma RCTs.

Objectives: The purpose of this review is to identify different clinical outcome measures used in glaucoma RCTs between January 2006 and March 2012.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted using standard methodology. We searched for RCTs in glaucoma published in English with no restrictions on the population type or size, or applied interventions. All clinical outcomes were included. Patient-reported, pharmacokinetic and economic outcomes were excluded.

Results: The search strategy identified 4288 potentially relevant abstracts. There were 315 publications retrieved, of which 233 RCTs were included. A total of 967 clinical measures were reported. There were large variations in the definitions used to describe different outcomes and their measures. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was the most commonly reported outcome (used in 201 RCTs, 86%) with a total of 422 measures (44%). Amongst the IOPrelated measures, the most commonly used was mean IOP (n=143, 15% of all measures). Safety outcomes were commonly reported, in 145 RCTs (62%) whereas visual field outcomes were utilized in 38 RCTs (16%).

Conclusions: There is a large variability in clinical outcomes used for glaucoma RCTs and in the way each outcome is reported. This lack of standardisation may impair the ability to evaluate the evidence of glaucoma interventions.

SWAT-1: The effectiveness of a 'site visit' intervention on recruitment rates in a multi-centre randomised trial

Background: Recruitment rates in multi-centre randomised trials often fall below target recruitment rates, causing problems for study outcomes. The Studies Within A Trial (SWAT) Programme, established by the All-Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research in collaboration with the Medical Research Council Network of Hubs in the United Kingdom and others, is developing methods for evaluating aspects of trial methodology through the conduct of research within research. A recently published design for a SWAT-1 provides a protocol for evaluating the effect of a site visit by the principal investigator on recruitment in multi-centre trials.

Methods: Using the SWAT-1 design, the effect of a site visit, with the sole purpose of discussing trial recruitment, on recruitment rates in a large multicentre trial in the Republic of Ireland was evaluated. A controlled before and after intervention comparison was used, where the date of the site visit provides the time point for the intervention, and for the comparison to control sites. Site A received the intervention. Site B and Site C acted as the controls. Z-scores for proportions were calculated to determine within site recruitment differences. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine between site recruitment differences.

Results: Recruitment rates were increased in Site A post-intervention (17% and 14% percentage point increases at 1 and 3 months, respectively). No differences in recruitment occurred in Site B or in Site C. Comparing between site differences, at 3 months post-intervention, a statistically significant difference was detected in favour of higher recruitment in Site A (34% versus 25%; odds ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 2.26).

Conclusions: This is the first reported example of a study in the SWAT programme.. It provides evidence that a site visit, combined with a scheduled meeting, increases recruitment in a clinical trial. Using this example, other researchers might be encouraged to consider conducting a similar study, allowing the findings of future SWAT-1s to be compared and combined, so that higher level evidence on the effect of a site visit by the principal investigator can be obtained.

Challenges to undertaking randomised trials with looked after children in social care settings

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed as the gold standard for assessing effectiveness in health research; however many researchers and practitioners believe that RCTs are inappropriate and un-doable in social care settings, particularly in relation to looked after children. The aim of this article is to describe the challenges faced in conducting a pilot study and phase II RCT of a peer mentoring intervention to reduce teenage pregnancy in looked after children in a social care setting.

Methods: Interviews were undertaken with social care professionals and looked after children, and a survey conducted with looked after children, to establish the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and research design.

Results: Barriers to recruitment and in managing the intervention were identified, including social workers acting as informal gatekeepers; social workers concerns and misconceptions about the recruitment criteria and the need for and purpose of randomisation; resource limitations, which made it difficult to prioritise research over other demands on their time and difficulties in engaging and retaining looked after children in the study.

Conclusions: The relative absence of a research infrastructure and culture in social care and the lack of research support funding available for social care agencies, compared to health organisations, has implications for increasing evidence-based practice in social care settings, particularly in this very vulnerable group of young people.

Developing the clinical components of a complex intervention for a glaucoma screening trial:a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is a leading cause of avoidable blindness worldwide. Open angle glaucoma is the most common type of glaucoma. No randomised controlled trials have been conducted evaluating the effectiveness of glaucoma screening for reducing sight loss. It is unclear what the most appropriate intervention to be evaluated in any glaucoma screening trial would be. The purpose of this study was to develop the clinical components of an intervention for evaluation in a glaucoma (open angle) screening trial that would be feasible and acceptable in a UK eye-care service.

METHODS: A mixed-methods study, based on the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions, integrating qualitative (semi-structured interviews with 46 UK eye-care providers, policy makers and health service commissioners), and quantitative (economic modelling) methods. Interview data were synthesised and used to revise the screening interventions compared within an existing economic model.

RESULTS: The qualitative data indicated broad based support for a glaucoma screening trial to take place in primary care, using ophthalmic trained technical assistants supported by optometry input. The precise location should be tailored to local circumstances. There was variability in opinion around the choice of screening test and target population. Integrating the interview findings with cost-effectiveness criteria reduced 189 potential components to a two test intervention including either optic nerve photography or screening mode perimetry (a measure of visual field sensitivity) with or without tonometry (a measure of intraocular pressure). It would be more cost-effective, and thus acceptable in a policy context, to target screening for open angle glaucoma to those at highest risk but for both practicality and equity arguments the optimal strategy was screening a general population cohort beginning at age forty.

CONCLUSIONS: Interventions for screening for open angle glaucoma that would be feasible from a service delivery perspective were identified. Integration within an economic modelling framework explicitly highlighted the trade-off between cost-effectiveness, feasibility and equity. This study exemplifies the MRC recommendation to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods in developing complex interventions. The next step in the development pathway should encompass the views of service users.

Is the raised volume rapid thoracic compression technique ready for use in clinical trials in infants with cystic fibrosis?

The European Cystic Fibrosis Society Clinical Trial Network (ECFS-CTN) has established a Standardization Committee to undertake a rigorous evaluation of promising outcome measures with regard to use in multicentre clinical trials in cystic fibrosis (CF). The aim of this article is to present a review of literature on clinimetric properties of the infant raised-volume rapid thoracic compression (RVRTC) technique in the context of CF, to summarise the consensus amongst the group on feasibility and answer key questions regarding the promotion of this technique to surrogate endpoint status.

METHODS: A literature search (from 1985 onwards) identified 20 papers that met inclusion criteria of RVRTC use in infants with CF. Data were extracted and tabulated regarding repeatability, validity, correlation with other outcome measures, responsiveness and reference values. A working group discussed the tables and answered 4 key questions.

RESULTS: Overall, RVRTC in particular forced expiratory volume in 0.5s, showed good clinimetric properties despite presence of individual variability. Few studies showed a relationship between RVRTC and inflammation and infection, and to date, data remains limited regarding the responsiveness of RVRTC after an intervention. Concerns were raised regarding feasibility in multi-centre studies and availability of reference values.

CONCLUSION: The ECFS-CTN Working Group considers that RVRTC cannot be used as a primary outcome in clinical trials in infants with CF before universal standardization of this measurement is achieved and implementation of inter-institutional networking is in place. We advise its use currently in phase I/II trials and as a secondary endpoint in phase III studies. We emphasise the need for (1) more short-term variability and longitudinal 'natural history' studies, and (2) robust reference values for commercially available devices.

Participating in a fruit and vegetable intervention trial improves longer term fruit and vegetable consumption and barriers to fruit and vegetable consumption: a follow-up of the ADIT study

BACKGROUND: Fruit and vegetable (FV) based intervention studies can be effective in increasing short term FV consumption. However, the longer term efficacy of such interventions is still unclear. The aim of the current study was to examine the maintenance of change in FV consumption 18-months after cessation of a FV intervention and to examine the effect of participating in a FV intervention on barriers to FV consumption.

METHODS: A follow-up of a randomised controlled FV trial in 83 older adults (habitually consuming ≤2 portions/day) was conducted. At baseline, participants were assigned to continue consuming ≤2 portions FV/day or consume ≥5 portions FV/day for 16-weeks. We assessed FV intake and barriers to FV consumption at baseline, end of intervention and 18-months post-intervention.

RESULTS: At 18-months, mean FV intakes in both groups were greater than baseline. The 5 portions/day group continued to show greater increases in FV consumption at 18-months than the 2 portions/day group (p < 0.01). At 18-months, both groups reported greater liking (p < 0.01) and ease in consuming FV (p = 0.001) while difficulties with consuming FV decreased (p < 0.001). The 2 portions/day group reported greater awareness of FV recommendations at 18-months (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Participating in a FV intervention can lead to longer-term positive changes in FV consumption regardless of original group allocation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT00858728 .

Methodological variations in estimating apparent progressive visual field loss in clinical trials of glaucoma treatment.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare methods to estimate the incidence of visual field progression used by 3 large randomized trials of glaucoma treatment by applying these methods to a common data set of annually obtained visual field measurements of patients with glaucoma followed up for an average of 6 years.

METHODS:

The methods used by the Advanced Glaucoma Intervention Study (AGIS), the Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study (CIGTS), and the Early Manifest Glaucoma Treatment study (EMGT) were applied to 67 eyes of 56 patients with glaucoma enrolled in a 10-year natural history study of glaucoma using Program 30-2 of the Humphrey Field Analyzer (Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, Calif). The incidence of apparent visual field progression was estimated for each method. Extent of agreement between the methods was calculated, and time to apparent progression was compared.

RESULTS:

The proportion of patients progressing was 11%, 22%, and 23% with AGIS, CIGTS, and EMGT methods, respectively. Clinical assessment identified 23% of patients who progressed, but only half of these were also identified by CIGTS or EMGT methods. The CIGTS and the EMGT had comparable incidence rates, but only half of those identified by 1 method were also identified by the other.

CONCLUSIONS:

The EMGT and CIGTS methods produced rates of apparent progression that were twice those of the AGIS method. Although EMGT, CIGTS, and clinical assessment rates were comparable, they did not identify the same patients as having had field progression.

Methodologic rigor of clinical trials on surgical management of eyes with coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the methodologic quality of published studies of the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

DESIGN:

Literature review and analysis.

METHOD:

We performed a systematic search of the literature to identify all English language articles pertaining to the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma in adults. Quality assessment was performed on all randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, and cohort studies. Overall quality scores and scores for individual methodologic domains were based on the evaluations of two experienced investigators who independently reviewed articles using an objective quality assessment form.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Quality in each of five domains (representativeness, bias and confounding, intervention description, outcomes and follow-up, and statistical quality and interpretation) measured as the percentage of methodologic criteria met by each study.

RESULTS:

Thirty-six randomized controlled trials and 45 other studies were evaluated. The mean quality score for the randomized, controlled clinical trials was 63% (range, 11%-88%), and for the other studies the score was 45% (range, 3%-83%). The mean domain scores were 65% for description of therapy (range, 0%-100%), 62% for statistical analysis (range, 0%-100%), 58% for representativeness (range, 0%-94%), 49% for outcomes assessment (range, 0%-83%), and 30% for bias and confounding (range, 0%-83%). Twenty-five of the studies (31%) received a score of 0% in the bias and confounding domain for not randomizing patients, not masking the observers to treatment group, and not having equivalent groups at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS:

Greater methodologic rigor and more detailed reporting of study results, particularly in the area of bias and confounding, could improve the quality of published clinical studies assessing the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

Allocating Participants to Groups In Educational Trials: What Does Random Mean?

What is meant by the term random? Do we understand how to identify which type of randomisation to use in our future research projects? We, as researchers, often explain randomisation to potential research participants as being a 50/50 chance of selection to either an intervention or control group, akin to drawing numbers out of a hat. Is this an accurate explanation? And are all methods of randomisation equal? This paper aims to guide the researcher through the different techniques used to randomise participants with examples of how they can be used in educational research.

The effectiveness of disaster risk communication: a systematic review of intervention studies

INTRODUCTION: A disaster is a serious disruption to the functioning of a community that exceeds its capacity to cope within its own resources. Risk communication in disasters aims to prevent and mitigate harm from disasters, prepare the population before a disaster, disseminate information during disasters and aid subsequent recovery. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, appraise and synthesise the findings of studies of the effects of risk communication interventions during four stages of the disaster cycle.

METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science and grey literature sources for randomised trials, cluster randomised trials, controlled and uncontrolled before and after studies, interrupted time series studies and qualitative studies of any method of disaster risk communication to at-risk populations. Outcome criteria were disaster-related knowledge and behaviour, and health outcomes.

RESULTS: Searches yielded 5,224 unique articles, of which 100 were judged to be potentially relevant. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, and two additional studies were identified from other searching. The studies evaluated interventions in all four stages of the disaster cycle, included a variety of man-made, natural and infectious disease disasters, and were conducted in many disparate settings. Only one randomised trial and one cluster randomised trial were identified, with less robust designs used in the other studies. Several studies reported improvements in disaster-related knowledge and behaviour.

DISCUSSION: We identified and appraised intervention studies of disaster risk communication and present an overview of the contemporary literature. Most studies used non-randomised designs that make interpretation challenging. We do not make specific recommendations for practice but highlight the need for high-quality randomised trials and appropriately-analysed cluster randomised trials in the field of disaster risk communication where these can be conducted within an appropriate research ethics framework.