Dataset Information

Multicentre, randomised, single-blind, parallel group trial to compare the effectiveness of a Holter for Parkinson's symptoms against other clinical monitoring methods: study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In recent years, multiple studies have aimed to develop and validate portable technological devices capable of monitoring the motor complications of Parkinson's disease patients (Parkinson's Holter). The effectiveness of these monitoring devices for improving clinical control is not known.

Methods and analysis

This is a single-blind, cluster-randomised controlled clinical trial. Neurologists from Spanish health centres will be randomly assigned to one of three study arms (1:1:1): (a) therapeutic adjustment using information from a Parkinson's Holter that will be worn by their patients for 7 days, (b) therapeutic adjustment using information from a diary of motor fluctuations that will be completed by their patients for 7 days and (c) therapeutic adjustment using clinical information collected during consultation. It is expected that 162 consecutive patients will be included over a period of 6 months.The primary outcome is the efficiency of the Parkinson's Holter compared with traditional clinical practice in terms of Off time reduction with respect to the baseline (recorded through a diary of motor fluctuations, which will be completed by all patients). As secondary outcomes, changes in variables related to other motor complications (dyskinesia and freezing of gait), quality of life, autonomy in activities of daily living, adherence to the monitoring system and number of doctor-patient contacts will be analysed. The noninferiority of the Parkinson's Holter against the diary of motor fluctuations in terms of Off time reduction will be studied as the exploratory objective.Ethics and dissemination approval for this study has been obtained from the Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge Ethics Committee. The results of this study will inform the practical utility of the objective information provided by a Parkinson's Holter and, therefore, the convenience of adopting this technology in clinical practice and in future clinical trials. We expect public dissemination of the results in 2022.

Trial registration

NCT04176302; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT04176302.

SUBMITTER: Rodriguez-Molinero A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8291311 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Funding Sponsored by the University of Dundee and supported through an Investigator Initiated Research award from Insmed, Bridgewater, NJ; STOP-COVID19 trial.

Project description:A systematic assessment of potential disease-modifying compounds for Parkinson's disease concluded that pioglitazone could hold promise for the treatment of patients with this disease. We assessed the effect of pioglitazone on the progression of Parkinson's disease in a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, futility clinical trial.Participants with the diagnosis of early Parkinson's disease on a stable regimen of 1 mg/day rasagiline or 10 mg/day selegiline were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 15 mg/day pioglitazone, 45 mg/day pioglitazone, or placebo. Investigators were masked to the treatment assignment. Only the statistical centre and the central pharmacy knew the treatment name associated with the randomisation number. The primary outcome was the change in the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score between the baseline and 44 weeks, analysed by intention to treat. The primary null hypothesis for each dose group was that the mean change in UPDRS was 3 points less than the mean change in the placebo group. The alternative hypothesis (of futility) was that pioglitazone is not meaningfully different from placebo. We rejected the null if there was significant evidence of futility at the one-sided alpha level of 0·10. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01280123.210 patients from 35 sites in the USA were enrolled between May 10, 2011, and July 31, 2013. The primary analysis included 72 patients in the 15 mg group, 67 in the 45 mg group, and 71 in the placebo group. The mean total UPDRS change at 44 weeks was 4·42 (95% CI 2·55-6·28) for 15 mg pioglitazone, 5·13 (95% CI 3·17-7·08) for 45 mg pioglitazone, and 6·25 (95% CI 4·35-8·15) for placebo (higher change scores are worse). The mean difference between the 15 mg and placebo groups was -1·83 (80% CI -3·56 to -0·10) and the null hypothesis could not be rejected (p=0·19). The mean difference between the 45 mg and placebo groups was -1·12 (80% CI -2·93 to 0·69) and the null hypothesis was rejected in favour of futility (p=0·09). Planned sensitivity analyses of the primary outcome, using last value carried forward (LVCF) to handle missing data and using the completers' only sample, suggested that the 15 mg dose is also futile (p=0·09 for LVCF, p=0·09 for completers) but failed to reject the null hypothesis for the 45 mg dose (p=0·12 for LVCF, p=0·19 for completers). Six serious adverse events occurred in the 15 mg group, nine in the 45 mg group, and three in the placebo group; none were thought to be definitely or probably related to the study interventions.These findings suggest that pioglitazone at the doses studied here is unlikely to modify progression in early Parkinson's disease. Further study of pioglitazone in a larger trial in patients with Parkinson's disease is not recommended.National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Project description:IntroductionPatellofemoral (PF) osteoarthritis (OA) is a common and burdensome subgroup of knee OA, with very little evidence for effective treatments. Prefabricated foot orthoses are an affordable and accessible intervention that have been shown to reduce PF pain in younger adults. Similarities between PF pain and PFOA, as well as our pilot work, suggest that foot orthoses may also be an effective intervention for PFOA. The primary objective of this study is to compare the 3?month efficacy of prefabricated foot orthoses and flat shoe inserts in people with PFOA, on knee pain severity.Methods and analysisThe FOOTPATH Study (FOot OrThoses for PAtellofemoral osteoarTHritis) is a multicentre, randomised, participant- and assessor-blinded superiority trial with two parallel groups, a 3?month observation period (pre-randomisation) and 12?month follow-up. 160 participants with a clinical diagnosis of PFOA will be recruited from three sites in Australia, and randomised to one of two groups (prefabricated foot orthoses or flat shoe inserts). The primary outcome is worst knee pain severity during a self-nominated aggravating activity in the previous week (100?mm visual analogue scale) at 3?months, with a secondary endpoint at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include global rating of change, symptoms, function, health-related quality of life, kinesiophobia, self-efficacy and use of co-interventions for knee pain. Blinded, intention-to-treat analyses of primary and secondary patient-reported outcomes will be performed, as well as economic analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by La Trobe University's Human Ethics Committee and The University of Queensland's Medical Research Ethics Committee. Study outcomes will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations targeting a range of healthcare disciplines and an open access website with clinician resources.Trial registration numberANZCTRN12617000385347; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundExposure and Response Prevention (ERP) is a form of behavioural therapy for tics; however, its effectiveness remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of internet-delivered, therapist-supported, and parent-assisted ERP for treatment of tics in children and young people with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder.MethodsThis multicentre, parallel group, single-blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted across two study sites in England. Participants were recruited via 16 patient identification centres, two study sites in England (Nottingham and London), or online self-referral. Eligible participants were aged 9-17 years, had Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder, had not received behavioural therapy for tics in the past 12 months or were about to start, and had a Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) Total Tic Severity Score (TTSS) of more than 15 or more than 10 if they had only motor or vocal tics. Patients were excluded if they had started or stopped medication for tics within the past 2 months; had current alcohol or substance dependence, psychosis, suicidality, anorexia nervosa, or suspected moderate to severe intellectual disability; or presented an immediate risk to self or others; or the parent or carer was unable to speak, read, or write in English. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by masked outcome assessors to receive 10 weeks of online, remotely delivered, therapist-supported ERP or psychoeducation (active control). Outcome assessors, statisticians, health economists, the trial manager, and the chief investigator were masked to group allocation. Patients were not directly informed of their allocation, but this could be established from the content once treatment commenced and the patients were not, therefore, considered masked to treatment. The primary outcome was YGTSS-TTSS 3 months after randomisation, and analysis was done in all randomised patients for whom data were available for each timepoint and outcome. Safety analysis was by intention to treat. Longer term follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN70758207) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03483493).FindingsBetween May 8, 2018, and Sept 30, 2019, we assessed 445 candidates for inclusion in the study. 221 potential participants were excluded (90 did not meet inclusion criteria, 84 declined to participate, and 47 unable to contact family). 224 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to ERP (n=112) or psychoeducation (n=112). The enrolled patients were mostly male (n=177; 79%) and of White ethnicity (n=195; 87%). 11 patients were lost to follow-up 3 months after randomisation in the ERP group, compared with 12 patients in the psychoeducation group. Mean YGTSS-TTSS at 3 months after randomisation was 23·9 (SD 8·2) in the ERP group and 26·8 (7·3) in the psychoeducation group. The mean total decrease in YGTSS-TTSS at 3 months was 4·5 (16%, SD 1·1) in the ERP group versus 1·6 (6%, 1·0) in the psychoeducation group. The estimated mean difference in YGTSS-TTSS change between the groups adjusted for baseline and site was -2·29 points (95% CI -3·86 to -0·71) in favour of ERP, with an effect size of -0·31 (95% CI -0·52 to -0·10). Two serious adverse events occurred (one collapse and one tic attack), both in the psychoeducation group, neither of which were related to study treatment.InterpretationERP is an effective behavioural therapy for tics. Remotely delivered, online ERP with minimal therapist contact time represents an efficient public mental health approach to improve access to behavioural therapy for tics in children and adolescents.FundingNational Institute for Health Research and Health and Technology Assessment.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is limited by concerns about its cognitive adverse effects. Preliminary evidence suggests that administering the glutamate antagonist ketamine with ECT might alleviate cognitive adverse effects and accelerate symptomatic improvement; we tested this in a randomised trial of low-dose ketamine.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group study in 11 ECT suites serving inpatient and outpatient care settings in seven National Health Service trusts in the North of England, we recruited severely depressed patients, who were diagnosed as having unipolar or bipolar depressive episodes defined as moderate or severe by DSM-IV criteria, aged at least 18 years, and were able and willing to provide written consent to participate in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to ketamine (0·5 mg/kg intravenous bolus) or saline adjunctive to the anaesthetic for the duration of their ECT course. Patients and assessment and ECT treatment teams were masked to treatment allocation, although anaesthetists administering the study medication were not. We analysed the primary outcome, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised delayed verbal recall (HVLT-R-DR) after four ECT treatments, using a Gaussian repeated measures model in all patients receiving the first ECT treatment. In the same population, safety was assessed by adverse effect monitoring. This trial was registered with International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, number ISRCTN14689382.FindingsBetween early December, 2012, and mid-June, 2015, 628 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 79 were randomly assigned to treatment (40 in the ketamine group vs 39 in the saline group). Ketamine (mean 5·17, SD 2·92), when compared with saline (5·54, 3·42), had no benefit on the primary outcome (HVLT-R-DR; difference in means -0·43 [95% CI -1·73 to 0·87]). 15 (45%) of 33 ketamine-treated patients compared with 10 (27%) of 37 patients receiving saline experienced at least one adverse event which included two (6%) of 33 patients who had ketamine-attributable transient psychological effects. Psychiatric adverse events were the most common in both groups (six [27%] of 22 adverse events in the ketamine group vs seven [54%] of 13 in the saline group).InterpretationNo evidence of benefit for ketamine was found although the sample size used was small; however, the results excluded greater than a small to moderate benefit with 95% confidence. The results do not support the use of adjunctive low-dose ketamine in routine ECT treatment.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership.