Using routinely recorded data in the UK to assess outcomes in a randomised controlled trial: The Trials of Access

BACKGROUND

In the UK, routinely recorded data may benefit prospective studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In an on-going study, we aim to assess the feasibility of access and agreement of routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data compared to data collected during a RCT using standard prospective methods. This paper will summarise available UK routinely recorded data sources and discuss our experience with the feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data for participants of a RCT before finally proposing recommendations for improving the access and implementation of routinely recorded data in RCTs.

METHODS

Setting: the case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK, multicentre, phase IV RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatments for newly diagnosed epilepsy.

PARTICIPANTS

98 participants have provided written consent to permit the request of routinely recorded data. Study procedures: routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data were identified and data requested through formal applications from available data holders for the duration that participants have been recruited into SANAD II. The feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data during a RCT is assessed and recommendations for improving access proposed.

RESULTS

Secondary-care clinical and socioeconomic data is recorded on a national basis and can be accessed, although there are limitations in the application process. Primary-care data are recorded by a number of organisations on a de-identified basis but access for specific individuals has not been feasible. Access to data recorded by non-clinical sources, including The Department for Work and Pensions and The Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency, was not successful.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations discussed include further research to assess the attributes of routinely recorded data, an assessment of public perceptions and the development of strategies to collaboratively improve access to routinely recorded data for research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN30294119 . Registered on 3 July 2012. EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64. Registered on 9 May 2012.

'Seizure First Aid Training' for people with epilepsy who attend emergency departments, and their family and friends: study protocol for intervention development and a pilot randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

People with chronic epilepsy (PWE) often make costly but clinically unnecessary emergency department (ED) visits. Offering them and their carers a self-management intervention that improves confidence and ability to manage seizures may lead to fewer visits. As no such intervention currently exists, we describe a project to develop and pilot one.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

To develop the intervention, an existing group-based seizure management course that has been offered by the Epilepsy Society within the voluntary sector to a broader audience will be adapted. Feedback from PWE, carers and representatives from the main groups caring for PWE will help refine the course so that it addresses the needs of ED attendees. Its behaviour change potential will also be optimised. A pilot randomised controlled trial will then be completed. 80 PWE aged ≥16 who have visited the ED in the prior 12 months on ≥2 occasions, along with one of their family members or friends, will be recruited from three NHS EDs. Dyads will be randomised to receive the intervention or treatment as usual alone. The proposed primary outcome is ED use in the 12 months following randomisation. For the pilot, this will be measured using routine hospital data. Secondary outcomes will be measured by patients and carers completing questionnaires 3, 6 and 12 months postrandomisation. Rates of recruitment, retention and unblinding will be calculated, along with the ED event rate in the control group and an estimate of the intervention's effect on the outcome measures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval: NRES Committee North West-Liverpool East (Reference number 15/NW/0225). The project's findings will provide robust evidence on the acceptability of seizure management training and on the optimal design of a future definitive trial. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13 871 327.

Will smaller plates lead to smaller waists? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect that experimental manipulation of dishware size has on energy consumption

It has been suggested that providing consumers with smaller dishware may prove an effective way of helping people eat less and preventing weight gain, but experimental evidence supporting this has been mixed. The objective of the present work was to examine the current evidence base for whether experimentally manipulated differences in dishware size influence food consumption. We systematically reviewed studies that experimentally manipulated the dishware size participants served themselves at a meal with and measured subsequent food intake. We used inverse variance meta-analysis, calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) in food intake between smaller and larger dishware size conditions. Nine experiments from eight publications were eligible for inclusion. The majority of experiments found no significance difference in food intake when participants ate from smaller vs. larger dishware. With all available data included, analysis indicated a marginal effect of dishware size on food intake, with larger dishware size associated with greater intake. However, this effect was small and there was a large amount of heterogeneity across studies (SMD: -0.18, 95% confidence interval: -0.35, 0.00, I(2) = 77%). Evidence to date does not show that dishware size has a consistent effect on food intake, so recommendations surrounding the use of smaller plates/dishware to improve public health may be premature.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has issued multiple guidance for the first-line management of patients with lung cancer and recommends different combinations of chemotherapy treatments. This review provides a synthesis of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence supporting current guidance.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy currently licensed in Europe and recommended by NICE, for adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

DATA SOURCES

Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched from 2001 to August 2010.

REVIEW METHODS

Trials that compared first-line chemotherapy currently licensed in Europe and recommended by NICE in chemotherapy-naive adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were included. Data on key outcomes including, but not limited to, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs) were extracted. For the assessment of cost-effectiveness, outcomes included incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Analyses were performed for three NSCLC subpopulations: patients with predominantly squamous disease, patients with predominantly non-squamous disease and patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive (M+) status. Meta-analysis and mixed-treatment comparison methodology were conducted where appropriate.

RESULTS

Twenty-three trials involving > 11,000 patients in total met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the trials was poor. In the case of patients with squamous disease, there were no statistically significant differences in OS between treatment regimes. The mixed-treatment comparison demonstrated that, in patients with non-squamous disease, pemetrexed (Alimta®, Eli Lilly and Company; PEM) + platinum (PLAT) increases OS statistically significantly compared with gemcitabine (Gemzar®, Eli Lilly and Company; GEM) + PLAT [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.98] and that paclitaxel (Abraxane®, Celgene Corporation; PAX) + PLAT increases OS statistically significantly compared with docetaxel (Taxotere®, Sanofi-aventis; DOC) + PLAT (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93). None of the comparisons found any statistically significant differences in OS among patients with EGFR M+ status. Direct meta-analysis showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS with gefitinib (Iressa®, AstraZeneca; GEF) compared with DOC + PLAT and PAX + PLAT (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.73; and HR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.60, respectively). No papers related to UK decision-making were identified. A de novo economic model was developed. Using list prices (British National Formulary), cisplatin (CIS) doublets are preferable to carboplatin doublets, but this is reversed if electronic market information tool prices are used, in which case drug administration costs then become more important than drug acquisition costs. For patients with both squamous and non-squamous disease, moving from low to moderate willingness-to-pay thresholds, the preferred drugs are PAX → GEM → DOC. However, in patients with non-squamous disease, PEM + CIS resulted in increased OS and would be considered cost-effective up to £35,000 per QALY gained. For patients with EGFR M+, use of GEF compared with PAX or DOC yields very high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Vinorelbine (Navelbine®, Pierre Fabre Pharmaceutical Inc.) was not shown to be cost-effective in any comparison.

LIMITATIONS

Poor trial quality and a lack of evidence for all drug comparisons complicated and limited the data analysis. Outcomes and adverse effects are not consistently combined across the trials. Few trials reported quality-of-life data despite their relevance to patients and clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this comprehensive review are unique to NSCLC and will assist clinicians to make decisions regarding the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. The design of future lung cancer trials needs to reflect the influence of factors such as histology, genetics and the new prognostic biomarkers that are currently being identified. In addition, trials will need to be adequately powered so as to be able to test for statistically significant clinical effectiveness differences within patient populations. New initiatives are in place to record detailed information on the precise chemotherapy (and targeted chemotherapy) regimens being used, together with data on age, cell type, stage of disease and performance status, allowing for very detailed observational audits of management and outcomes at a population level. It would be useful if these initiatives could be expanded to include the collection of health economics data.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Meta-analysis of immunohistochemical prognostic markers in resected pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

The potential prognostic value of several commonly investigated immunohistochemical markers in resected pancreatic cancer is variably reported. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of literature evaluating p53, p16, smad4, bcl-2, bax, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression as prognostic factors in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma and to conduct a subsequent meta-analysis to quantify the overall prognostic effect.

METHODS

Relevant literature was identified using Medline, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science. The primary end point was overall survival assessed on univariate analysis. Only studies analysing resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma were eligible for inclusion and the summary log(e) hazard ratio (logHR) and variance were pooled using an inverse variance approach. Evidence of heterogeneity was evaluated using the χ(2) test for heterogeneity and its impact on the meta-analysis was assessed by the I(2) statisic. Hazard ratios greater than one reflect adverse survival associated with positive immunostaining.

RESULTS

Vascular endothelial growth factor emerged as the most potentially informative prognostic marker (11 eligible studies, n=767, HR=1.51 (95% confidence interval, CI=1.18-1.92)) with no evidence of any significant publication bias (Egger's test, P=0.269). Bcl-2 (5 eligible studies, n=314, HR=0.51 (95% CI=0.38-0.68)), bax (5 studies, n=274, HR=0.63 (95% CI=0.48-0.83)) and p16 (3 studies, n=229, HR=0.63 (95% CI=0.43-0.92)) also returned significant overall survival differences, but in smaller patient series due to a lack of evaluable literature. Neither p53 (17 studies, n=925, HR=1.22 (95% CI=0.96-1.56)), smad4 (5 studies, n=540, HR=0.88 (95% CI=0.61-1.27)) nor EGFR (4 studies, n=250, HR=1.35 (95% CI=0.80-2.27)) was found to represent significant prognostic factors when analysing the pooled patient data. There was evidence of significant heterogeneity in four of the seven study groups.

CONCLUSION

These results support the case for immunohistochemical expression of VEGF representing a significant and reproducible marker of adverse prognosis in resected pancreatic cancer.

Risk of recurrence after a first seizure and implications for driving: further analysis of the Multicentre study of early Epilepsy and Single Seizures

OBJECTIVE

To determine for how long after a first unprovoked seizure a driver must be seizure-free before the risk of recurrence in the next 12 months falls below 20%, enabling them to regain their driving licence.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial: Multicentre study of early Epilepsy and Single Seizures (MESS).

SETTING

UK hospital outpatient clinics from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2000.

PARTICIPANTS

People entered MESS if they had had one or more unprovoked seizures and both the participant and the clinician were uncertain about the need to start antiepileptic drug treatment. The subset of people used for this analysis comprised participants aged at least 16 years with a single unprovoked seizure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Risk of seizure recurrence in the 12 months after a seizure-free period of 6, 12, 18, or 24 months from the date of the first (index) seizure. Regression modelling was used to investigate how antiepileptic treatment and several clinical factors influence the risk of seizure recurrence.

RESULTS

At six months after the index seizure the risk of recurrence in the next 12 months for those who start antiepileptic drugs was significantly below 20% (unadjusted risk 14%, 95% confidence interval 10% to 18%). For patients who did not start treatment the risk estimate was less than 20% but the upper limit of the confidence interval was greater than 20% (18%, 13% to 23%). Multivariable analyses identified subgroups with a significantly greater than 20% risk of seizure recurrence in the 12 months after a six month seizure-free period, such as those with a remote symptomatic seizure with abnormal electroencephalogram results.

CONCLUSION

After a single unprovoked seizure this reanalysis of MESS provides estimates of seizure recurrence risks that will inform policy and guidance about regaining an ordinary driving licence. Further guidance is needed as to how such data should be utilised; in particular, whether a population approach should be taken with a focus on the unadjusted results or whether attempts should be made to individualise risk. Guidance is also required as to whether the focus should be on risk estimates only or on the confidence interval as well. If the focus is on the estimate only our unadjusted estimates suggest that treated and untreated patients are eligible to drive after being seizure-free for six months. If the focus is also on confidence intervals, direction is needed as to whether a conservative or liberal approach should be taken.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98767960.

A randomised controlled trial examining the longer-term outcomes of standard versus new antiepileptic drugs. The SANAD trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinicians' choice of one of the standard epilepsy drug treatments (carbamazepine or valproate) versus appropriate comparator new drugs.

DESIGN

A clinical trial comprising two arms, one comparing new drugs in carbamazepine and the other with valproate.

SETTING

A multicentre study recruiting patients with epilepsy from hospital outpatient clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with an adequately documented history of two or more clinically definite unprovoked epileptic seizures within the last year for whom treatment with a single antiepileptic drug represented the best therapeutic option.

INTERVENTIONS

Arm A was carbamazepine (CBZ) versus gabapentin (GBP) versus lamotrigine (LTG) versus oxcarbazepine (OXC) versus topiramate (TPM). Arm B valproate (VPS) versus LTG versus TPM.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Time to treatment failure (withdrawal of the randomised drug for reasons of unacceptable adverse events or inadequate seizure control or a combination of the two) and time to achieve a 12-month remission of seizures. Time from randomisation to first seizure, 24-month remission of seizures, incidence of clinically important adverse events, quality of life (QoL) outcomes and health economic outcomes were also considered.

RESULTS

Arm A recruited 1721 patients (88% with symptomatic or cryptogenic partial epilepsy and 10% with unclassified epilepsy). Arm B recruited 716 patients (63% with idiopathic generalised epilepsy and 25% with unclassified epilepsy). In Arm A LTG had the lowest incidence of treatment failure and was statistically superior to all drugs for this outcome with the exception of OXC. Some 12% and 8% fewer patients experienced treatment failure on LTG than CBZ, the standard drug, at 1 and 2 years after randomisation, respectively. The superiority of LTG over CBZ was due to its better tolerability but there is satisfactory evidence indicating that LTG is not clinically inferior to CBZ for measures of its efficacy. No consistent differences in QoL outcomes were found between treatment groups. Health economic analysis supported LTG being preferred to CBZ for both cost per seizure avoided and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. In Arm B for time to treatment failure, VPS, the standard drug, was preferred to both TPM and LTG, as it was the drug least likely to be associated with treatment failure for inadequate seizure control and was the preferred drug for time to achieving a 12-month remission. QoL assessments did not show any between-treatment differences. The health economic assessment supported the conclusion that VPS should remain the drug of first choice for idiopathic generalised or unclassified epilepsy, although there is a suggestion that TPM is a cost-effective alternative to VPS.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that LTG may be a clinical and cost-effective alternative to the existing standard drug treatment, CBZ, for patients diagnosed as having partial seizures. For patients with idiopathic generalised epilepsy or difficult to classify epilepsy, VPS remains the clinically most effective drug, although TPM may be a cost-effective alternative for some patients. Three new antiepileptic drugs have recently been licensed in the UK for the treatment of epilepsy (levetiracetam, zonisamide and pregabalin), therefore these drugs should be compared in a similarly designed trial.