Simple Estimation of Patient-Oriented Effects From Randomized Trials: An Open and Shut CACE

Randomized feasibility trial of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network hand exercise program (SPIN-HAND)

Purpose

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) online hand exercise program (SPIN-HAND), is an online self-help program of hand exercises designed to improve hand function for people with scleroderma. The objective of this feasibility trial was to evaluate aspects of feasibility for conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial of the SPIN-HAND program.

Materials and Methods

The feasibility trial was embedded in the SPIN cohort and utilized the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) design. In the cmRCT design, at the time of cohort enrollment, cohort participants consent to be assessed for trial eligibility and randomized prior to being informed about trials conducted using the cohort. When trials were conducted in the cohort, participants randomized to the intervention were informed and consented to access the intervention. Participants randomized to control were not informed that they have not received an intervention. All participants eligible and randomized to participate in the trial were included in analyses on an intent-to-treat basis. Cohort participants with a Cochin Hand Function Scale score ≥ 3/90 and an interest in using an online hand-exercise intervention were randomized (1:1 ratio) to be offered as usual care plus the SPIN-HAND Program or usual care for 3 months. User satisfaction was assessed with semi-structured interviews.

Results

Of the 40 randomized participants, 24 were allocated to SPIN-HAND and 16 to usual care. Of 24 participants randomized to be offered SPIN-HAND, 15 (63%) consented to use the program. Usage of SPIN-HAND content among the 15 participants who consented to use the program was low; only five (33%) logged in more than twice. Participants found the content relevant and easy to understand (satisfaction rating 8.5/10, N = 6). Automated eligibility and randomization procedures via the SPIN Cohort platform functioned properly. The required technical support was minimal.

Conclusions

Trial methodology functioned as designed, and the SPIN-HAND Program was feasibly delivered; however, the acceptance of the offer and use of program content among accepters were low. Adjustments to information provided to potential participants will be implemented in the full-scale SPIN-HAND trial to attempt to increase offer acceptance.

Assessing complier average causal effects from longitudinal trials with multiple endpoints and treatment noncompliance: An application to a study of Arthritis Health Journal

Treatment noncompliance often occurs in longitudinal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on human subjects, and can greatly complicate treatment effect assessment. The complier average causal effect (CACE) informs the intervention efficacy for the subpopulation who would comply regardless of assigned treatment and has been considered as patient-oriented treatment effects of interest in the presence of noncompliance. Real-world RCTs evaluating multifaceted interventions often employ multiple study endpoints to measure treatment success. In such trials, limited sample sizes, low compliance rates, and small to moderate effect sizes on individual endpoints can significantly reduce the power to detect CACE when these correlated endpoints are analyzed separately. To overcome the challenge, we develop a multivariate longitudinal potential outcome model with stratification on latent compliance types to efficiently assess multivariate CACEs (MCACE) by combining information across multiple endpoints and visits. Evaluation using simulation data shows a significant increase in the estimation efficiency with the MCACE model, including up to 50% reduction in standard errors (SEs) of CACE estimates and 1-fold increase in the power to detect CACE. Finally, we apply the proposed MCACE model to an RCT on Arthritis Health Journal online tool. Results show that the MCACE analysis detects significant and beneficial intervention effects on two of the six endpoints while estimating CACEs for these endpoints separately fail to detect treatment effect on any endpoint.

Estimating the Complier Average Causal Effect in a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials With Binary Outcomes Accounting for Noncompliance: A Generalized Linear Latent and Mixed Model Approach

Noncompliance, a common problem in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), can bias estimation of the effect of treatment receipt using a standard intention-to-treat analysis. The complier average causal effect (CACE) measures the effect of an intervention in the latent subpopulation that would comply with their assigned treatment. Although several methods have been developed to estimate the CACE in analyzing a single RCT, methods for estimating the CACE in a meta-analysis of RCTs with noncompliance await further development. This article reviews the assumptions needed to estimate the CACE in a single RCT and proposes a frequentist alternative for estimating the CACE in a meta-analysis, using a generalized linear latent and mixed model with SAS software (SAS Institute, Inc.). The method accounts for between-study heterogeneity using random effects. We implement the methods and describe an illustrative example of a meta-analysis of 10 RCTs evaluating the effect of receiving epidural analgesia in labor on cesarean delivery, where noncompliance varies dramatically between studies. Simulation studies are used to evaluate the performance of the proposed method.

Person-centred experiential therapy versus cognitive behavioural therapy delivered in the English Improving Access to Psychological Therapies service for the treatment of moderate or severe depression (PRaCTICED): a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

The UK Government's implementation in 2008 of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) initiative in England has hugely increased the availability of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for the treatment of depression and anxiety in primary care. Counselling for depression-a form of person-centred experiential therapy (PCET)-has since been included as an IAPT-approved therapy, but there is no evidence of its efficacy from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as required for recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Therefore, we aimed to examine whether PCET is cost effective and non-inferior to CBT in the treatment of moderate and severe depression within the IAPT service.

METHODS

This pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial was done in the Sheffield IAPT service in England and recruited participants aged 18 years or older with moderate or severe depression on the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised. We excluded participants presenting with an organic condition, a previous diagnosis of personality disorder, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia, drug or alcohol dependency, an elevated clinical risk of suicide, or a long-term physical condition. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), independently of the research team, and stratified by site with permuted block sizes of two, four, or six, to receive either PCET or CBT by use of a remote, web-based system that revealed therapy after patient details were entered. Those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. Participants were seen by appropriately trained PCET counsellors and CBT therapists in accordance with the IAPT service delivery model. Depression severity and symptomatology measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at 6 months post-randomisation was the primary outcome, with the PHQ-9 score at 12 months post-randomisation being a key secondary outcome. These outcomes were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which comprised all randomly assigned patients with complete data, and the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who did not switch from their randomised treatment and received between four and 20 sessions. Safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients. The non-inferiority margin was set a priori at 2 PHQ-9 points. Patient safety was monitored throughout the course of therapy, adhering to service risk procedures for monitoring serious adverse events. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN06461651, and is complete.

FINDINGS

From Nov 11, 2014, to Aug 3, 2018, 9898 patients were referred to step three treatments in the Sheffield IAPT service for common mental health problems, of whom 761 (7·7%) were referred to the trial. Of these, we recruited and randomly assigned 510 participants to receive either PCET (n=254) or CBT (n=256). In the PCET group, 138 (54%) participants were female and 116 (46%) were male, and 225 (89%) were White, 16 (6%) were non-White, and 13 (5%) had missing ethnicity data. In the CBT group, 155 (61%) participants were female and 101 (39%) were male, and 226 (88%) were White, 17 (7%) were non-White, and 13 (5%) had missing ethnicity data. The 6-month modified intention-to-treat analysis comprised 401 (79%) of the enrolled participants (201 in the PCET group; 200 in the CBT group) and the 12-month modified intention-to-treat analysis comprised 319 participants (167 in the PCET group; 152 in the CBT group). The 6-month per-protocol analysis comprised 298 participants (154 in the PCET group; 144 in the CBT group). At 6 months post-randomisation, PCET was non-inferior to CBT in the intention-to-treat population (mean PHQ-9 score 12·74 [SD 6·54] in the PCET group and 13·25 [6·35] in the CBT group; adjusted mean difference -0·35 [95% CI -1·53 to 0·84]) and in the per-protocol population (12·73 [SD 6·57] in the PCET group and 12·71 [6·33] in the CBT group; 0·27 [95% CI -1·08 to 1·62]). At 12 months post-randomisation, there was a significant adjusted between-group difference in mean PHQ-9 score in favour of CBT (1·73 [95% CI 0·26-3·19]), with a 95% CI exceeding the 2-point non-inferiority margin. There were two deaths, one death by suicide in the PCET group and one due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the CBT group. Both were assessed by the responsible clinician to be unrelated to the trial. In terms of using emergency departments for depression-related events, four people (three in the PCET group; one in the CBT group) made more than a single use and six people (three in the PCET group; three in the CBT group) made a single use. One patient in the PCET group had inpatient treatment for a depression-related event.

INTERPRETATION

This trial is the first to examine the two most frequently administered psychological therapies in the IAPT service. The finding of non-inferiority of PCET to CBT at 6 months supports the results from large, routine, non-randomised datasets from the IAPT programme. Given the high demand for psychological therapies and the need for patient choice, our findings suggest the need for continued investment in the training and delivery of PCET for improving short-term outcomes, but suggest that PCET might be inferior to CBT at 12 months.

FUNDING

British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy Research Foundation.

Protocol for a partially nested randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the scleroderma patient-centered intervention network COVID-19 home-isolation activities together (SPIN-CHAT) program to reduce anxiety among at-risk scleroderma patients

OBJECTIVE

Contagious disease outbreaks and related restrictions can lead to negative psychological outcomes, particularly in vulnerable populations at risk due to pre-existing medical conditions. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have tested interventions to reduce mental health consequences of contagious disease outbreaks. The primary objective of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Home-isolation Activities Together (SPIN-CHAT) Trial is to evaluate the effect of a videoconference-based program on symptoms of anxiety. Secondary objectives include evaluating effects on symptoms of depression, stress, loneliness, boredom, physical activity, and social interaction.

METHODS

The SPIN-CHAT Trial is a pragmatic RCT that will be conducted using the SPIN-COVID-19 Cohort, a sub-cohort of the SPIN Cohort. Eligible participants will be SPIN-COVID-19 Cohort participants without a positive COVID-19 test, with at least mild anxiety (PROMIS Anxiety 4a v1.0 T-score ≥ 55), not working from home, and not receiving current counselling or psychotherapy. We will randomly assign 162 participants to intervention groups of 7 to 10 participants each or waitlist control. We will use a partially nested RCT design to reflect dependence between individuals in training groups but not in the waitlist control. The SPIN-CHAT Program includes activity engagement, education on strategies to support mental health, and mutual participant support. Intervention participants will receive the 4-week (3 sessions per week) SPIN-CHAT Program via videoconference. The primary outcome is PROMIS Anxiety 4a score immediately post-intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The SPIN-CHAT Trial will test whether a brief videoconference-based intervention will improve mental health outcomes among at-risk individuals during contagious disease outbreak.

Beyond intention-to-treat: The effect of brief counseling for tobacco cessation in secondary analyses of a cluster randomized controlled trial in Swedish dental clinics

In experimental studies the assigned intervention measures the received intervention if full protocol adherence is achieved, but this is rarely the case in public health. The objective of this study was to estimate the effect of a brief counseling intervention delivered in Swedish dental clinics on tobacco use cessation, taking non-adherence into account. We conducted three secondary analyses. In a per-protocol analysis the experimental counseling delivered as intended was contrasted to usual care (control). In an as-treated analysis individuals were compared according to the counseling components actually received, disregarding randomization. In an instrumental variable analysis the effect of the intervention among those who would always be treated as assigned was estimated. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between tobacco cessation outcomes (seven-day abstinence, three-month abstinence, half-reduction, quit attempts) and the defined exposure to the intervention. Protocol adherence in the intervention group was 73.4%. The per-protocol analysis closely replicated the results of the intention-to-treat analysis, showing a statistically significant effect of the brief counseling on the reduction in tobacco consumption OR = 1.81, 95% CI [1.06, 3.07], but no significant effect for other outcomes. In the as-treated analysis, receiving more counseling components compared with no tobacco counseling increased the likelihood of half-reduction. The instrumental variable yielded biased results. We conclude that despite application problems, conducting per-protocol, as-treated and instrumental variable analyses in randomized trials where experimental conditions are not strictly standardized strengthens and puts in context the inference based on intention-to-treat analysis.