Metformin in non-diabetic hyperglycaemia: the GLINT feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of people with diabetes with metformin can reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) and may reduce the risk of cancer. However, it is unknown whether or not metformin can reduce the risk of these outcomes in people with elevated blood glucose levels below the threshold for diabetes [i.e. non-diabetic hyperglycaemia (NDH)]. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of the Glucose Lowering In Non-diabetic hyperglycaemia Trial (GLINT) and to estimate the key parameters to inform the design of the full trial. These parameters include the recruitment strategy, randomisation, electronic data capture, postal drug distribution, retention, study medication adherence, safety monitoring and remote collection of outcome data. DESIGN: A multicentre, individually randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic, primary prevention trial. Participants were individually randomised on a 1 : 1 basis, blocked within each site. SETTING: General practices and clinical research facilities in Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Leicestershire. PARTICIPANTS: Males and females aged ≥ 40 years with NDH who had a high risk of CVD. INTERVENTIONS: Prolonged-release metformin (500 mg) (Glucophage® SR, Merck KGaA, Bedfont Cross, Middlesex, UK) or the matched placebo, up to three tablets per day, distributed by post. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment rates; adherence to study medication; laboratory results at baseline and 3 and 6 months; reliability and acceptability of study drug delivery; questionnaire return rates; and quality of life. RESULTS: We sent 5251 invitations, with 511 individuals consenting to participate. Of these, 249 were eligible and were randomised between March and November 2015 (125 to the metformin group and 124 to the placebo group). Participants were followed up for 0.99 years [standard deviation (SD) 0.30 years]. The use of electronic medical records to identify potentially eligible individuals in individual practices was resource intensive. Participants were generally elderly [mean age 70 years (SD 6.7 years)], overweight [mean body mass index 30.1 kg/m2 (SD 4.5 kg/m2)] and male (88%), and the mean modelled 10-year CVD risk was 28.8% (SD 8.5%). Randomisation, postal delivery of the study drug and outcome assessment using registers/medical records were feasible and acceptable to participants. Most participants were able to take three tablets per day, but premature discontinuation of the study drug was common (≈30% of participants by 6 months), although there were no differences between the groups. All randomised participants returned questionnaires at baseline and 67% of participants returned questionnaires by the end of the study. There was no between-group difference in Short Form questionnaire-8 items or EuroQol-5 Dimensions scores. Compared with placebo, metformin was associated with small improvements in the mean glycated haemoglobin level [-0.82 mmol/mol, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.39 to -0.24 mmol/mol], mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (2.31 ml/minute/1.73 m2, 95% CI -0.2 to 4.81 ml/minute/1.73 m2) and mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (-0.11 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.02 mmol/l) and a reduction in mean plasma vitamin B12 level (-16.4 ng/l, 95% CI -32.9 to -0.01 ng/l). There were 35 serious adverse events (13 in the placebo group, 22 in the metformin group), with none deemed to be treatment related. LIMITATIONS: Changes to sponsorship reduced the study duration, the limited availability of information in medical records reduced recruitment efficiency and discontinuation of study medication exceeded forecasts. CONCLUSIONS: A large, pragmatic trial comparing the effects of prolonged-release metformin and placebo on the risk of CVD events is potentially feasible. However, changes to the study design and conduct are recommended to enable an efficient scaling up of the trial. Recommendations include changing the inclusion criteria to recruit people with pre-existing CVD to increase the recruitment and event rates, using large primary/secondary care databases to increase recruitment rates, conducting follow-up remotely to improve efficiency and including a run-in period prior to randomisation to optimise trial adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34875079. FUNDING: The project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Merck KGaA provided metformin and matching placebo.

A randomised controlled trial of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care: the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial.

BACKGROUND: Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) has been developed as an efficient form of therapy delivery with the potential to enhance access to psychological care. Independent research is needed which examines both the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT over the short and longer term. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care against usual GP care alone, for a free-to-use cCBT program (MoodGYM; National Institute for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) and a commercial pay-to-use cCBT program (Beating the Blues(®); Ultrasis, London, UK) for adults with depression, and to determine the acceptability of cCBT and the experiences of users. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, three-armed, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with concurrent economic and qualitative evaluations. Simple randomisation was used. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. SETTING: Primary care in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with depression who scored ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). INTERVENTIONS: Participants who were randomised to either of the two intervention groups received cCBT (Beating the Blues or MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants who were randomised to the control group were offered usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was depression at 4 months (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes were depression at 12 and 24 months; measures of mental health and health-related quality of life at 4, 12 and 24 months; treatment preference; and the acceptability of cCBT and experiences of users. RESULTS: Clinical effectiveness: 210 patients were randomised to Beating the Blues, 242 patients were randomised to MoodGYM and 239 patients were randomised to usual GP care (total 691). There was no difference in the primary outcome (depression measured at 4 months) either between Beating the Blues and usual GP care [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.88] or between MoodGYM and usual GP care (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.56). There was no overall difference across all time points for either intervention compared with usual GP care in a mixed model (Beating the Blues versus usual GP care, p = 0.96; and MoodGYM versus usual GP care, p = 0.11). However, a small but statistically significant difference between MoodGYM and usual GP care at 12 months was found (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93). Free-to-use cCBT (MoodGYM) was not inferior to pay-to-use cCBT (Beating the Blues) (OR 0.91, 90% CI 0.62 to 1.34; p = 0.69). There were no consistent benefits of either intervention when secondary outcomes were examined. There were no serious adverse events thought likely to be related to the trial intervention. Despite the provision of regular technical telephone support, there was low uptake of the cCBT programs. Cost-effectiveness: cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that neither Beating the Blues nor MoodGYM appeared cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. Qualitative evaluation: participants were often demotivated to access the computer programs, by reason of depression. Some expressed the view that a greater level of therapeutic input would be needed to promote engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits that have previously been observed in developer-led trials were not found in this large pragmatic RCT. The benefits of cCBT when added to routine primary care were minimal, and uptake of this mode of therapy was relatively low. There remains a clinical and economic need for effective low-intensity psychological treatments for depression with improved patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN91947481. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as treatment for depression in primary care (REEACT trial): large scale pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: How effective is supported computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) as an adjunct to usual primary care for adults with depression? METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, three arm, parallel randomised controlled trial with simple randomisation. Treatment allocation was not blinded. Participants were adults with symptoms of depression (score ≥ 10 on nine item patient health questionnaire, PHQ-9) who were randomised to receive a commercially produced cCBT programme ("Beating the Blues") or a free to use cCBT programme (MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants were supported and encouraged to complete the programme via weekly telephone calls. Control participants were offered usual GP care, with no constraints on the range of treatments that could be accessed. The primary outcome was severity of depression assessed with the PHQ-9 at four months. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life (measured by SF-36) and psychological wellbeing (measured by CORE-OM) at four, 12, and 24 months and depression at 12 and 24 months. STUDY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS: Participants offered commercial or free to use cCBT experienced no additional improvement in depression compared with usual GP care at four months (odds ratio 1.19 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.88) for Beating the Blues v usual GP care; 0.98 (0.62 to 1.56) for MoodGYM v usual GP care). There was no evidence of an overall difference between either programme compared with usual GP care (0.99 (0.57 to 1.70) and 0.68 (0.42 to 1.10), respectively) at any time point. Commercially provided cCBT conferred no additional benefit over free to use cCBT or usual GP care at any follow-up point. Uptake and use of cCBT was low, despite regular telephone support. Nearly a quarter of participants (24%) had dropped out by four months. The study did not have enough power to detect small differences so these cannot be ruled out. Findings cannot be generalised to cCBT offered with a much higher level of guidance and support. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Supported cCBT does not substantially improve depression outcomes compared with usual GP care alone. In this study, neither a commercially available nor free to use computerised CBT intervention was superior to usual GP care. FUNDING, COMPETING INTERESTS, DATA SHARING: Commissioned and funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (project No 06/43/05). The authors have no competing interests. Requests for patient level data will be considered by the REEACT trial management groupTrial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91947481.

Psychological advocacy toward healing (PATH): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence and abuse (DVA), defined as threatening behavior or abuse by adults who are intimate partners or family members, is a key public health and clinical priority. The prevalence of DVA in the United Kingdom and worldwide is high, and its impact on physical and mental health is detrimental and persistent. There is currently little support within healthcare settings for women experiencing DVA. Psychological problems in particular may be difficult to manage outside specialist services, as conventional forms of therapy such as counseling that do not address the violence may be ineffective or even harmful. The aim of this study is to assess the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a novel psychological intervention tailored specifically for survivors of DVA and delivered by domestic violence advocates based in third-sector organizations. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: This study is an open, pragmatic, parallel group, individually randomized controlled trial. Women ages 16 years and older experiencing domestic violence are being enrolled and randomly allocated to receive usual DVA agency advocacy support (control) or usual DVA agency support plus psychological intervention (intervention). Those in the intervention group will receive eight specialist psychological advocacy (SPA) sessions weekly or fortnightly, with two follow-up sessions, 1 month and then 3 months later. This will be in addition to any advocacy support sessions each woman receives. Women in the control group will receive usual DVA agency support but no additional SPA sessions. The aim is to recruit 250 women to reach the target sample size. The primary outcomes are psychological well-being and depression severity at 1 yr from baseline, as measured by the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), respectively. Secondary outcome measures include anxiety, posttraumatic stress, severity and frequency of abuse, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Data from a subsample of women in both groups will contribute to a nested qualitative study with repeat interviews during the year of follow-up. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to the evidence base for management of the psychological needs of women experiencing DVA. The findings will have important implications for healthcare commissioners and providers, as well as third sector specialist DVA agencies providing services to this client group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN58561170.

The effect of patients' preference on outcome in the EVerT cryotherapy versus salicylic acid for the treatment of plantar warts (verruca) trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials are widely accepted as the gold standard method to evaluate medical interventions, but they are still open to bias. One such bias is the effect of patient's preference on outcome measures. The aims of this study were to examine whether patients' treatment preference affected clearance of plantar warts and explore whether there were any associations between patients' treatment preference and baseline variables in the EverT trial. METHODS: Two hundred and forty patients were recruited from University podiatry schools, NHS podiatry clinics and primary care. Patients were aged 12 years and over and had at least one plantar wart which was suitable for treatment with salicylic acid and cryotherapy. Patients were asked their treatment preference prior to randomisation. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to test the association between preference group and continuous baseline variables. The Fisher's exact test was performed to test the association between preference group and categorical baseline variables. A logistic regression analysis was undertaken with verruca clearance (yes or no) as the dependent variable and treatment, age, type of verruca, previous treatment, treatment preference as independent variables. Two analyses were undertaken, one using the health professional reported outcome and one using the patient's self reported outcomes. Data on whether the patient found it necessary to stop the treatment to which they had been allocated and whether they started another treatment were summarised by treatment group. RESULTS: Pre-randomisation preferences were: 10% for salicylic acid; 42% for cryotherapy and 48% no treatment preference. There was no evidence of an association between treatment preference group and either patient (p=0.95) or healthcare professional (p=0.46) reported verruca clearance rates. There was no evidence of an association between preference group and any of the baseline variables except gender, with more females expressing a preference for salicylic acid (p=0.004). There was no evidence that the number of times salicylic acid was applied was different between the preference groups at one week (p=0.89) or at three weeks (p=0.24). Similarly, for the number of clinic visits for cryotherapy (p=0.71) CONCLUSIONS: This secondary analysis showed no evidence to suggest that patients' baseline preferences affected verruca clearance rates or adherence with the treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18994246 and National Research Register N0484189151.

Using short information leaflets as recruitment tools did not improve recruitment: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if the type of patient information leaflet (PIL) received at an initial invitation to participate in a randomized trial influences the number of patients recruited. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized controlled trial was used to compare the effects of short or full PILs on recruitment in a primary care setting. Patients invited to take part in the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy study through a database mail out were randomly allocated to receive one of two types of PIL. RESULTS: The type of PIL received with the initial invitation did not influence recruitment. Of those receiving the short PIL, 5.4% were recruited compared with 5.1% in the full PIL group. The difference in proportions between the groups was not statistically significant (mean difference=0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]=-1.5%, 2.2%; P=0.75). Secondary analyses on the numbers of ineligible patients showed a statistically significant difference between the groups in favor of the full PIL group, which yielded fewer ineligible patients (P=0.04; mean difference=1.4%; CI=0.03%, 2.8%). CONCLUSION: Providing patients with shorter PILs when inviting them to participate in research does not affect the numbers who are subsequently recruited and yields more ineligible patients. Therefore, it is recommended to use the full PIL as a recruitment tool.

Bias in recruitment to cluster randomized trials: a review of recent publications.

OBJECTIVES: To assess recruitment bias and the techniques employed to counter this problem in a recent selection of published cluster randomized trials. DESIGN: Review of 24 cluster trials published in 2008 in four leading medical journals. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were assessed by four reviewers to identify if an alternative design could have been employed using individual randomization. Data were also extracted on the randomization procedure and the likelihood of this introducing bias to the selection of participants into the study. RESULTS: Of the 24 trials, eight could have used individual randomization as an alternative to cluster allocation. Seven studies could have recruited participants prior to cluster randomization but did not. In eight studies where recruitment bias was possible, more than half (five) demonstrated some evidence of differential recruitment rates. CONCLUSIONS: Many cluster trials published in leading medical journals are not clear in their justification for the design. We also found significant proportions of cluster trials used suboptimal designs that increase their risk of introducing selection bias. Better design of cluster trials is possible and should be adopted.