Dataset Information

A transdisciplinary model to inform randomized clinical trial methods for electronic cigarette evaluation.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This study is a systematic evaluation of a novel tobacco product, electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) using a two-site, four-arm, 6-month, parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a follow-up to 9 months. Virginia Commonwealth University is the primary site and Penn State University is the secondary site. This RCT design is important because it is informed by analytical work, clinical laboratory results, and qualitative/quantitative findings regarding the specific ECIG products used. METHODS:Participants (N?=?520) will be randomized across sites and must be healthy smokers of >9 cigarettes for at least one year, who have not had a quit attempt in the prior month, are not planning to quit in the next 6 months, and are interested in reducing cigarette intake. Participants will be randomized into one of four 24-week conditions: a cigarette substitute that does not produce an inhalable aerosol; or one of three ECIG conditions that differ by nicotine concentration 0, 8, or 36 mg/ml. Blocked randomization will be accomplished with a 1:1:1:1 ratio of condition assignments at each site. Specific aims are to: characterize ECIG influence on toxicants, biomarkers, health indicators, and disease risk; determine tobacco abstinence symptom and adverse event profile associated with real-world ECIG use; and examine the influence of ECIG use on conventional tobacco product use. Liquid nicotine concentration-related differences on these study outcomes are predicted. Participants and research staff in contact with participants will be blinded to the nicotine concentration in the ECIG conditions. DISCUSSION:Results from this study will inform knowledge concerning ECIG use as well as demonstrate a model that may be applied to other novel tobacco products. The model of using prior empirical testing of ECIG devices should be considered in other RCT evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION:TRN: NCT02342795 , registered December 16, 2014.

SUBMITTER: Lopez AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4778292 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A transdisciplinary model to inform randomized clinical trial methods for electronic cigarette evaluation.

Lopez Alexa A AA Cobb Caroline O CO Yingst Jessica M JM Veldheer Susan S Hrabovsky Shari S Yen Miao-Shan MS Foulds Jonathan J Eissenberg Thomas T

BMC public health 20160303

<h4>Background</h4>This study is a systematic evaluation of a novel tobacco product, electronic cigarettes (ECIGs) using a two-site, four-arm, 6-month, parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a follow-up to 9 months. Virginia Commonwealth University is the primary site and Penn State University is the secondary site. This RCT design is important because it is informed by analytical work, clinical laboratory results, and qualitative/quantitative findings regarding the specific ECIG ...[more]

PMID: 26941050

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Tear film breakup time assessment is an integral component of dry eye evaluation. To our knowledge, the comparative discriminative ability of the noninvasive Keratograph (Oculus) vs conventional fluorescein method in detecting dry eye is unknown. Objective:To compare tear film stability measurements obtained with an automated noninvasive corneal topographer vs conventional fluorescein methods and evaluate their respective discriminative ability in detecting dry eye. Design, Setting, and Participants:This investigator-masked randomized crossover trial was conducted at a single-center university clinic between May 26, 2016, and October 3, 2016, and included 74 participants 18 years or older. Participants were recruited into 2 equally sized age, sex, and race/ethnicity-matched groups, with and without symptomatic dry eye (Ocular Surface Disease Index ?13). Interventions:Participants were assigned to receive a noninvasive keratograph evaluation and topical fluorescein instillation in a randomized order. Main Outcomes and Measures:Noninvasive keratograph breakup time (NIKBUT) and fluorescein breakup time (TBUT). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, Youden-optimal diagnostic cutoff sensitivity, and specificity of NIKBUT and TBUT in detecting dry eye. Results:Seventy-four participants (74 eyes; 43 women [58.1%]) with a mean (SD) age of 24 (4) years were randomized. Noninvasive keratograph breakup time was significantly longer than TBUT in participants with dry eye (median, 6.3 seconds vs 4.3 seconds [difference, 2.0 seconds]; 95% CI, 1.1-3.4 seconds; P?=?.003), and healthy participants (median, 11.9 seconds vs 5.0 seconds [difference, 6.9 seconds]; 95% CI, 4.7-7.6 seconds; P?<?.001). Fluorescein breakup time measurements were more narrowly distributed in both the dry eye (variance, 188 seconds2 vs 27.9 seconds2; P?<?.001) and control groups (variance, 113 seconds2 vs 13.4 seconds2; P?<?.001). The discriminative ability of NIKBUT in detecting dry eye (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.81; P?=?.007) was greater than that of TBUT (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.70; P?=?.31). The optimal diagnostic cutoff for NIKBUT was 9 seconds or less with a sensitivity of 68% (95% CI, 50%-82%), specificity of 70% (95% CI, 53%-84%), positive likelihood ratio of 2.27 (95% CI, 1.32-3.91), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.28-0.77). The optimal threshold for TBUT was 5 seconds or less with a sensitivity of 54% (95% CI, 37%-71%), specificity of 68% (95% CI, 50%-82%), positive likelihood ratio of 1.67 (95% CI, 0.96-2.89), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.45-1.03). Conclusions and Relevance:Conventional fluorescein tear film breakup time measurements were significantly shorter with narrower distributions, while automated noninvasive keratograph readings displayed superior discriminative ability in detecting dry eye. Trial Registration:anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12617001428358.

Project description:IntroductionElectronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have the potential to significantly reduce exposure to harmful constituents associated with cigarette smoking when smokers completely substitute cigarettes with e-cigarettes. This study examined patterns of e-cigarette and cigarette use, and extent of toxicant exposure, if smokers were instructed and incentivized to completely switch to e-cigarettes compared to instructions to use the product ad libitum.Aims and methodsUS adult daily smokers (n = 264; 49.2% female; Mage = 47.0), uninterested in quitting smoking immediately, were recruited from Minneapolis, MN, Columbus, OH, and Buffalo, NY. Participants were randomized to 8 weeks of instructions for (1) ad libitum use of e-cigarettes (AD-E), (2) complete substitution of cigarettes with e-cigarettes (CS-E), (3) complete substitution of cigarettes with nicotine gum or lozenge (CS-NRT), or (4) continue smoking of usual brand cigarettes (UB). Participants were incentivized for protocol compliance, including complete switching in the CS-E and CS-NRT groups. Outcome variables were cigarette smoking rate and tobacco-related biomarkers of exposure.ResultsSmokers in the CS-E and CS-NRT groups showed lower rates of smoking and lower exposure to carbon monoxide, tobacco carcinogens, and other toxicants than smokers in the AD-E group. In general, no significant differences were observed between CS-E versus CS-NRT or between AD-E versus UB for most biomarkers. Significantly higher 7-day point prevalence smoke-free rates were observed for CS-E versus CS-NRT.ConclusionsSmokers instructed and incentivized to completely switch to e-cigarettes resulted in lower smoking rates and greater reductions in exposures to harmful chemicals than smokers instructed to use the product ad libitum.ImplicationsSmokers instructed to completely substitute e-cigarettes for cigarettes displayed significantly lower levels of smoking and biomarkers of exposure to carcinogens and toxicants, compared to smokers instructed to use e-cigarettes ad libitum and similar levels as smokers instructed to completely substitute with nicotine replacement therapies. Furthermore, a higher rate of complete switching was achieved with e-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapies. Approaches to maximize complete substitution with e-cigarettes are an important area for future research.

Project description:PURPOSE:The CONSORT extension for patient reported outcomes (PROs) aims to improve reporting, but guidance on the optimal integration with clinical data is lacking. This study examines in detail the reporting of PROs and clinical data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in gastro-intestinal cancer to inform design and reporting of combined PRO and clinical data from trials to improve the 'take home' message for clinicians to use in practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The case study was undertaken in gastro-intestinal cancer trials. Well-conducted RCTs reporting PROs with validated instruments were identified and categorized into those combining PRO and clinical data in a single paper, or those separating data into linked primary and supplemental papers. Qualitative methods were developed to examine reporting of the critical interpretation of the trial results (trial exegesis) in the papers in relation of the PRO and clinical outcomes and applied to each publication category. Results were used to inform recommendations for practice. RESULTS:From 1917 screened abstracts, 49 high quality RCTs were identified reported in 36 combined and 15 linked primary and supplemental papers. In-depth analysis of manuscript text identified three categories for understanding trial exegesis: where authors reported a "detailed", "general", or absent PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of clinical and PRO results. A total of 11 (30%) and 6 (16%) combined papers reported "detailed" PRO rationale and integrated interpretation of results although only 2 (14%) and 1 (7%) primary papers achieved the same standard respectively. Supplemental papers provide better information with 11 (73%) and 3 (20%) achieving "detailed" rationale and integrated interpretation of results. Supplemental papers, however, were published a median of 20 months after the primary RCT data in lower impact factor journals (median 16.8 versus 5.2). CONCLUSION:It is recommended that single papers, with detailed PRO rationale and integrated PRO and clinical data are published to optimize trial exegesis. Further work to examine whether this improves the use of PRO data to inform practice is needed.

Dataset Information

A transdisciplinary model to inform randomized clinical trial methods for electronic cigarette evaluation.

Publications

A transdisciplinary model to inform randomized clinical trial methods for electronic cigarette evaluation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets