Dataset Information

Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation trial (HYCARET): protocol of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial in South America.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes are well established, and their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are proven. In spite of this, CR remains underused, especially in lower-resource settings such as Latin America. There is an urgent need to create more accessible CR delivery models to reach all patients in need. This trial aims to evaluate if the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events is not inferior in a hybrid CR programme compared with a standard programme. METHOD AND ANALYSIS:A non-inferiority, pragmatic, multicentre, parallel (1:1), prospective, randomised and open with blinded endpoint assessment clinical trial will be conducted. 308 patients with coronary artery disease will be recruited consecutively. Participants will be randomised to hybrid or standard rehabilitation programme. The hybrid CR programme includes 10 supervised exercise sessions and individualised lifestyle counselling by a physiotherapist, with a transition after 4-6 weeks to unsupervised delivery via text messages and phone calls. The standard CR consists of 18-22 supervised exercise sessions, as well as group education sessions about lifestyle. Intervention in both groups is between 8 and 12 weeks. The primary outcome is a composite of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisations due to cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, muscle strength, heart-healthy behaviour, return-to-work, cardiovascular risk factor, adherence, and exercise-related adverse events. The outcomes will be measured at the end of intervention, at 6 months and at 12?months follow-up from recruitment. The primary outcome will be tracked through the end of the trial. Per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis will be undertaken.Cox regression model will be used to compare primary outcome among study groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics committees at the sponsor institution and each centre where participants will be recruited approved the study protocol and the Informed Consent. Research findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals; additionally, results will be disseminated among region stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03881150; Pre-results. DATE AND VERSION:01 October 2019.

SUBMITTER: Seron P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6830628 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation trial (HYCARET): protocol of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial in South America.

Serón Pamela P Oliveros Maria J MJ Marzuca-Nassr Gabriel N GN Lanas Fernando F Morales Gladys G Román Claudia C Muñoz Sergio R SR Saavedra Nicolás N Grace Sherry L SL

BMJ open 20191028 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes are well established, and their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are proven. In spite of this, CR remains underused, especially in lower-resource settings such as Latin America. There is an urgent need to create more accessible CR delivery models to reach all patients in need. This trial aims to evaluate if the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events is not inferior in a hybrid CR programme compared with a standard programme.< ...[more]

PMID: 31662385

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) is an available treatment for knee osteoarthritis (KOA), which is the most common cause of pain and disability. Nonetheless, whether the clinical effects are like that of most used drugs is unclear. Thus, this study aims to determine the effect of PEMF on pain relief by comparing them with the positive drug (celecoxib). Furthermore, this clinical trial aims to evaluate the effect of PEMF on function and quality of life with a long-term follow-up.Methods and analysisThis two-armed, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial will be conducted in the outpatient physiatry/physiotherapy clinic or inpatient ward of 17 hospitals in China. A total of 428 individuals will be included who are more than 40 years of age with diagnosed KOA. The participants will be randomly allocated to the PEMF group: receiving a 6-week PEMF (15 Hz, 30 mT) at a frequency of 40 min per day, 5 days per week plus sham drug (n=214), or drug group: receiving a 6-week celecoxib 200 mg combined with sham PEMF (n=214). Clinical outcomes will be measured at baseline (T0), mid-term of intervention (T1), post-intervention (T2), 10, 18 and 30 weeks (T3-5) of follow-up after randomisation. The primary outcome will be the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) pain index. The secondary outcomes will be WOMAC function and stiffness, pain measured by numerical rating score, quality of life, 6-minute walk test, pain catastrophising scale and responder index.Ethics and disseminationThe trial is performed following the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol and consent form have been approved by the Ethics Committee on Biomedical Research of West China Hospital of Sichuan University (#2021-220). All patients will give informed consent before participation and the trial is initiated after approval. Results of this trial will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberChiCTR2100052131.

Project description:IntroductionIt is important to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of alternative services to traditional cardiac rehabilitation while the economic credentials of the Smartphone Cardiac Rehabilitation, Assisted self-Management (SCRAM) programme among people with coronary heart disease (CHD) are unknown. This economic protocol outlines the methods for undertaking a trial-based economic evaluation of SCRAM in the real-world setting in Australia.Methods and analysisThe within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to determine the effectiveness of SCRAM in comparison with the usual care cardiac rehabilitation (UC) alone in people with CHD. Pathway analysis will be performed to identify all the costs related to the delivery of SCRAM and UC. Both a healthcare system and a limited societal perspective will be adopted to gauge all costs associated with health resource utilisation and productivity loss. Healthcare resource use over the 6-month participation period will be extracted from administrative databases (ie, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medical Benefits Schedule). Productivity loss will be measured by absenteeism from work (valued by human capital approach). The primary outcomes for the economic evaluation are maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max, mL/kg/min, primary RCT outcome) and quality-adjusted life years estimated from health-related quality of life as assessed by the Assessment of Quality of Life-8D instrument. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be calculated using the differences in costs and benefits (ie, primary and secondary outcomes) between the two randomised groups from both perspectives with no discounting. All costs will be valued in Australian dollars for year 2020.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved under Australia's National Mutual Acceptance agreement by the Melbourne Health Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/MH/119). It is anticipated that SCRAM is a cost-effective cardiac telerehabilitation programme for people with CHD from both a healthcare and a limited societal perspective in Australia. The evaluation will provide evidence to underpin national scale-up of the programme to a wider population. The results of the economic analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001458224).

Project description:IntroductionPulmonary rehabilitation (PR), an exercise and education programme for people with chronic lung disease, aims to improve exercise capacity, breathlessness and quality of life. Most evidence to support PR is from trials that use specialist exercise equipment, for example, treadmills (PR-gym). However, a significant proportion of programmes do not have access to specialist equipment with training completed with minimal exercise equipment (PR-min). There is a paucity of robust literature examining the efficacy of supervised, centre-based PR-min. We aim to determine whether an 8-week supervised, centre-based PR-min programme is non-inferior to a standard 8-week supervised, centre-based PR-gym programme in terms of exercise capacity and health outcomes for patients with chronic lung disease.Methods and analysisParallel, two-group, assessor-blinded and statistician-blinded, non-inferiority randomised trial. 436 participants will be randomised using minimisation at the individual level with a 1:1 allocation to PR-min (intervention) or PR-gym (control). Assessment will take place pre-PR (visit 1), post-PR (visit 2) and 12 months following visit 1 (visit 3). Exercise capacity (incremental shuttle walk test), dyspnoea (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ)-Dyspnoea), health-related quality of life (CRQ), frailty (Short Physical Performance Battery), muscle strength (isometric quadriceps maximum voluntary contraction), patient satisfaction (Global Rating of Change Questionnaire), health economic as well as safety and trial process data will be measured. The primary outcome is change in exercise capacity between visit 1 and visit 2. Two sample t-tests on an intention to treat basis will be used to estimate the difference in mean primary and secondary outcomes between patients randomised to PR-gym and PR-min.Ethics and disseminationLondon-Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority have approved the study (18/LO/0315). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, presented at international conferences, disseminated through social media, patient and public routes and directly shared with stakeholders.Trial registration numberISRCTN16196765.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of oral antibiotic treatment alone with treatment started parenterally and completed orally in children with a first episode of acute pyelonephritis.DesignMulticentre, randomised controlled, open labelled, parallel group, non-inferiority trial.Setting28 paediatric units in north east Italy.Participants502 children aged 1 month to <7 years with clinical pyelonephritis.InterventionOral co-amoxiclav (50 mg/kg/day in three doses for 10 days) or parenteral ceftriaxone (50 mg/kg/day in a single parenteral dose) for three days, followed by oral co-amoxiclav (50 mg/kg/day in three divided doses for seven days). Main outcomes measures Primary outcome was the rate of renal scarring. Secondary measures of efficacy were time to defervescence (<37 degrees C), reduction in inflammatory indices, and percentage with sterile urine after 72 hours. An exploratory subgroup analysis was conducted in the children in whom pyelonephritis was confirmed by dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scintigraphy within 10 days after study entry.ResultsIntention to treat analysis showed no significant differences between oral (n=244) and parenteral (n=258) treatment, both in the primary outcome (scarring scintigraphy at 12 months 27/197 (13.7%) v 36/203 (17.7%), difference in risk -4%, 95% confidence interval -11.1% to 3.1%) and secondary outcomes (time to defervescence 36.9 hours (SD 19.7) v 34.3 hours (SD 20), mean difference 2.6 (-0.9 to 6.0); white cell count 9.8x10(9)/l (SD 3.5) v 9.5x10(9)/l (SD 3.1), mean difference 0.3 (-0.3 to 0.9); percentage with sterile urine 185/186 v 203/204, risk difference -0.05% (-1.5% to 1.4%)). Similar results were found in the subgroup of 278 children with confirmed acute pyelonephritis on scintigraphy at study entry.ConclusionsTreatment with oral antibiotics is as effective as parenteral then oral treatment in the management of the first episode of clinical pyelonephritis in children.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT00161330 [ClinicalTrials.gov].

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pregnant women faced with complications of pregnancy often require long-term hospital admission for maternal and/or fetal monitoring. Antenatal admissions cause a burden to patients as well as hospital resources and costs. A telemonitoring platform connected to wireless cardiotocography (CTG) and automated blood pressure (BP) devices can be used for telemonitoring in pregnancy. Home telemonitoring might improve autonomy and reduce admissions and thus costs. The aim of this study is to compare the effects on patient safety, satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of hospital care versus telemonitoring (HOTEL) as an obstetric care strategy in high-risk pregnancies requiring daily monitoring. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The HOTEL trial is an ongoing multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial with a non-inferiority design. Eligible pregnant women are >26+0 weeks of singleton gestation requiring monitoring because of pre-eclampsia (hypertension with proteinuria), fetal growth restriction, preterm rupture of membranes without contractions, recurrent reduced fetal movements or an intrauterine fetal death in a previous pregnancy.Randomisation takes place between traditional hospitalisation (planned n=208) versus telemonitoring (planned n=208) until delivery. Telemonitoring at home is facilitated with Sense4Baby CTG devices, Microlife BP monitor and daily telephone calls with an obstetric healthcare professional as well as weekly hospital visits.Primary outcome is a composite of adverse perinatal outcome, defined as perinatal mortality, 5 min Apgar <7?or arterial cord blood pH <7.05, maternal morbidity (eclampsia, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, thromboembolic event), neonatal intensive care admission and caesarean section rate. Patient satisfaction and preference of care will be assessed using validated questionnaires. We will perform an economic analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention to treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Center and the boards of all six participating centres. Trial results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NTR6076.

Project description:IntroductionHaemorrhoidal disease (HD) is a common condition with significant epidemiologic and economic implications. While it is possible to treat symptomatic grade 1-2 haemorrhoids with rubber band ligation (RBL) or sclerotherapy (SCL), the effectiveness of these treatments compatible with current standards has not yet been investigated with a randomised controlled trial. The hypothesis is that SCL is not inferior to RBL in terms of symptom reduction (patient-related outcome measures (PROMs)), patient experience, complications or recurrence rate.Methods and analysisThis protocol describes the methodology of a non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing rubber band ligation and sclerotherapy for symptomatic grade 1-2 haemorrhoids in adults (> 18 years). Patients are preferably randomised between the two treatment arms. However, patients with a strong preference for one of the treatments and refuse randomisation are eligible for the registration arm. Patients either receive 4 cc Aethoxysklerol 3% SCL or 3 × RBL. The primary outcome measures are symptom reduction by means of PROMs, recurrence and complication rates. Secondary outcome measures are patient experience, number of treatments and days of sick leave from work. Data are collected at 4 different time points.DiscussionThe THROS trial is the first large multicentre randomised trial to study the difference in effectivity between RBL and SCL for the treatment of grade 1-2 HD. It will provide information as to which treatment method (RBL or SCL) is the most effective, gives fewer complications and is experienced by the patient as the best option.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location AMC (nr. 2020_053). The gathered data and results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and spread to coloproctological associations and guidelines.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register NL8377 . Registered on 12-02-2020.

Project description:Infective endocarditis (IE) is among the most serious infectious diseases in the western world. Treatment requires lengthy hospitalisation, high-dosage antibiotic therapy and possible valve replacement surgery. Despite advances in treatment, the 1-year mortality remains at 20-40%. Studies indicate that patients experience persisting physical symptoms, diminished quality of life and difficulties returning to work up to a year postdischarge. No studies investigating the effects of rehabilitation have been published. We present the rationale and design of the CopenHeart(IE) trial, which investigates the effect of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care for patients treated for IE.We will conduct a randomised clinical trial to investigate the effects of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care on the physical and psychosocial functioning of patients treated for IE. The trial is a multicentre, parallel design trial with 1 : 1 individual randomisation to either the intervention or control group. The intervention consists of five psychoeducational consultations provided by specialised nurses and a 12-week exercise training programme. The primary outcome is mental health (MH) measured by the standardised Short Form 36 (SF-36). The secondary outcome is peak oxygen uptake measured by the bicycle ergospirometry test. Furthermore, a number of exploratory analyses will be performed. Based on sample size calculation, 150 patients treated for left-sided (native or prosthetic valve) or cardiac device endocarditis will be included in the trial. A qualitative and a survey-based complementary study will be undertaken, to investigate postdischarge experiences of the patients. A qualitative postintervention study will explore rehabilitation participation experiences.The study complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the regional research ethics committee (no H-1-2011-129) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (no 2007-58-0015). Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01512615.

Project description:IntroductionUp to 40% of orthopaedic injuries in children require a closed reduction, almost always necessitating procedural sedation. Intravenous ketamine is the most commonly used sedative agent. However, intravenous insertion is painful and can be technically difficult in children. We hypothesise that a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine plus intranasal ketamine (Ketodex) will be non-inferior to intravenous ketamine for effective sedation in children undergoing a closed reduction.Methods and analysisThis is a six-centre, four-arm, adaptive, randomised, blinded, controlled, non-inferiority trial. We will include children 4-17 years with a simple upper limb fracture or dislocation that requires sedation for a closed reduction. Participants will be randomised to receive either intranasal Ketodex (one of three dexmedetomidine and ketamine combinations) or intravenous ketamine. The primary outcome is adequate sedation as measured using the Paediatric Sedation State Scale. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, time to wakening and adverse effects. The results of both per protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be reported for the primary outcome. All inferential analyses will be undertaken using a response-adaptive Bayesian design. Logistic regression will be used to model the dose-response relationship for the combinations of intranasal Ketodex. Using the Average Length Criterion for Bayesian sample size estimation, a survey-informed non-inferiority margin of 17.8% and priors from historical data, a sample size of 410 participants will be required. Simulations estimate a type II error rate of 0.08 and a type I error rate of 0.047.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from Clinical Trials Ontario for London Health Sciences Centre and McMaster Research Ethics Board. Other sites have yet to receive approval from their institutions. Informed consent will be obtained from guardians of all participants in addition to assent from participants. Study data will be submitted for publication regardless of results.Trial registration numberNCT0419525.

Dataset Information

Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation trial (HYCARET): protocol of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial in South America.

Publications

Hybrid cardiac rehabilitation trial (HYCARET): protocol of a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial in South America.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets