Dataset Information

TELEmedicine for EPIlepsy Care (TELE-EPIC): protocol of a randomised, open controlled non-inferiority clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Epilepsy is a chronic condition requiring consistent follow-up aimed at seizure control, and monitoring of anti-seizure medication (ASM) levels and side effects. Telemedicine (TM) offers invaluable support to patient follow-up, guaranteeing the prompt availability of a team of experts for persons with epilepsy (PWE) widely distributed across the country. Although many health institutions have endorsed the use of TM, robust data on effectiveness, safety and costs of TM applied to epilepsy are lacking. TELEmedicine for EPIlepsy Care (TELE-EPIC) will evaluate the effectiveness of video consultation (VC) via TM compared with usual care (UC) for the monitoring of PWE (TELE-EPIC_RCT). Moreover, TELE-EPIC will apply an innovative Volumetric Absorptive Microsampling (VAMS) device for quantitation of ASM through finger prick blood sampling as an alternative to venipuncture sampling (TELE-EPIC_VAMS).

Methods and analysis

TELE-EPIC_RCT is a multicentre, open, pragmatic two-arm randomised controlled trial prospectively including adult and paediatric outpatients with established diagnosis of epilepsy consecutively attending the Epilepsy Centres of Bologna and Rome, respectively. The primary outcome is the non-inferiority of VC on seizure control compared with UC after an 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are adherence to treatment, ASM-related adverse events, quality of life, mood disorders, patient and caregiver satisfaction, safety and costs. TELE-EPIC_VAMS is a cross-validation study for blood ASM quantitation through a novel, VAMS-based device, comparing (1) VAMS versus plasma samples (reference standard method); and (2) nurse-collected versus self-collected blood by VAMS device.

Ethics and dissemination

The study has been approved by the local ethics committee (349-2019-SPER-AUSLBO). Complete information about the state of project, relevant events and results will be regularly updated on the project's webpage on ClinicalTrials.gov. The project's results and data on the potential impact of TM in epilepsy will be disseminated on social media. A closeout meeting will be convened for the communication and dissemination of the project, highlighting its main achievements and impacts.

Trial registration number

NCT04496310.

SUBMITTER: Licchetta L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8646970 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is non-inferior to conventional open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation.DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial with non-inferiority design.SettingFour hospitals in the Netherlands.Participants613 patients aged 18-70 years with at least six weeks of radiating leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. The trial included a predetermined set of 125 patients receiving PTED who were the learning curve cases performed by surgeons who did not do PTED before the trial.InterventionsPTED (n=179) compared with open microdiscectomy (n=309).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was self-reported leg pain measured by a 0-100 visual analogue scale at 12 months, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5.0. Secondary outcomes included complications, reoperations, self-reported functional status as measured with the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery. Outcomes were measured until one year after surgery and were longitudinally analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients belonging to the PTED learning curve were omitted from the primary analyses.ResultsAt 12 months, patients who were randomised to PTED had a statistically significantly lower visual analogue scale score for leg pain (median 7.0, interquartile range 1.0-30.0) compared with patients randomised to open microdiscectomy (16.0, 2.0-53.5) (between group difference of 7.1, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 11.3). Blood loss was less, length of hospital admission was shorter, and timing of postoperative mobilisation was earlier in the PTED group than in the open microdiscectomy group. Secondary patient reported outcomes such as the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery, were similarly in favour of PTED. Within one year, nine (5%) in the PTED group compared with 14 (6%) in the open microdiscectomy group had repeated surgery. Per protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses including the patients of the learning curve resulted in similar outcomes to the primary analysis.ConclusionsPTED was non-inferior to open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain. PTED resulted in more favourable results for self-reported leg pain, back pain, functional status, quality of life, and recovery. These differences, however, were small and may not reach clinical relevance. PTED can be considered as an effective alternative to open microdiscectomy in treating sciatica.Trial registrationNCT02602093ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602093.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Some critically ill patients are confirmed by continuous electroencephalography (cEEG) monitoring that non-convulsive seizure (NCS) and/or non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) are causes of their depressed level of consciousness. Shortage of epilepsy specialists, especially in developing countries, is a major limiting factor in implementing cEEG in general practice. Delivery of care with tele-continous EEG (tele-cEEG) may be a potential solution as this allows specialists from a central facility to remotely assist local neurologists from distant areas in interpreting EEG findings and suggest proper treatment. No tele-cEEG programme has been implemented to help improve quality of care. Therefore, this study is conducted to assess the efficacy and cost utility of implementing tele-cEEG in critical care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Tele-cRCT study is a 3-year prospective, randomised, controlled, parallel, multicentre, superiority trial comparing delivery of care through 'Tele-cEEG' intervention with 'Tele-routine EEG (Tele-rEEG)' in patients with clinical suspicion of NCS/NCSE. A group of EEG specialists and a tele-EEG system were set up to remotely interpret EEG findings in six regional government hospitals across Thailand. The primary outcomes are functional neurological outcome (modified Rankin Scale, mRS), mortality rate and incidence of seizures. The secondary outcomes are cost utility, length of stay, emergency visit/readmission, impact on changing medical decisions and health professionals' perceptions about tele-cEEG implementation. Functional outcome (mRS) will be assessed at 3 and 7 days after recruitment, and again at time of hospital discharge, and at 90 days, 6 months, 9 months and 1?year. Costs and health-related quality of life will be assessed using the Thai version of the EuroQol-five dimensions-five levels (EQ-5D-5L) at hospital discharge, and at 90 days, 6 months, 9 months and 1?year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study has been approved by the ethics committees of the Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and of Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, and registered on Thai Clinical Trials Registry. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:TCTR20181022002; preresults.

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:BackgroundAppendectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Recently the need for surgery has been challenged in both adults and children. In children there is growing clinician, patient and parental interest in non-operative treatment of acute appendicitis with antibiotics as opposed to surgery. To date no multicentre randomised controlled trials that are appropriately powered to determine efficacy of non-operative treatment (antibiotics) for acute appendicitis in children compared with surgery (appendectomy) have been performed.MethodsMulticentre, international, randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Children (age 5-16 years) with a clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either laparoscopic appendectomy or treatment with intravenous (minimum 12 hours) followed by oral antibiotics (total course 10 days). Allocation to groups will be stratified by gender, duration of symptoms (> or <48 hours) and centre. Children in both treatment groups will follow a standardised treatment pathway. Primary outcome is treatment failure defined as additional intervention related to appendicitis requiring general anaesthesia within 1 year of randomisation (including recurrent appendicitis) or negative appendectomy. Important secondary outcomes will be reported and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be analysed on a non-inferiority basis using a 20% non-inferiority margin. Planned sample size is 978 children.DiscussionThe APPY trial will be the first multicentre randomised trial comparing non-operative treatment with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. The results of this trial have the potential to revolutionise the treatment of this common gastrointestinal emergency. The randomised design will limit the effect of bias on outcomes seen in other studies.Trial registration numberclinicaltrials.gov: NCT02687464. Registered on Jan 13th 2016.

Project description:IntroductionMedical treatment is a less invasive alternative to surgical management of missed miscarriage. Studies have shown that pretreatment with mifepristone can increase the complete abortion rate in management of first-trimester missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. Two studies have also shown that pretreatment with letrozole could increase the efficacy compared with misoprostol alone. So far, there is no trial comparing letrozole and mifepristone pretreatment for missed miscarriage. We designed this randomised controlled trial to test the hypothesis that for first-trimester missed miscarriage, letrozole pretreatment is non-inferior to mifepristone pretreatment followed by misoprostol in terms of complete abortion rate.Methods and analysisThis is a prospective open-label non-inferiority randomised controlled trial conducted in a single centre. In total, 294 women diagnosed with first-trimester missed miscarriage opting for medical treatment is recruited with informed consent. They are randomly assigned to receive mifepristone or letrozole pretreatment. In the mifepristone group, each woman takes 200 mg mifepristone orally followed 24-48 hours later by 800 µg misoprostol vaginally. In the letrozole group, each woman takes 10 mg letrozole orally per day for 3 days, followed by 800 µg misoprostol vaginally on the third day of letrozole administration. Follow-up is conducted on days 15 and 42 after misoprostol administration. The primary outcome is the overall complete abortion rate. Secondary outcomes include side effects and complications during the study period. Data will be analysed with both intention-to-treat and per protocol approaches. A p<0.05 will be considered as indicating statistical significance.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital with approval number: (2020)166. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and in national and/or international meetings to guide future practice.Trial registration numberChiCTR2000041480.

Project description:BackgroundDecentralised services using outreach clinics or modern technology are methods to reduce both patient transports and costs to the healthcare system. Telemedicine consultations via videoconference are one such modality. Before new technologies are implemented, it is important to investigate both the quality of care given and the economic impact from the use of this new technology. The aim of this clinical trial was to study the quality of planned remote orthopaedic consultations by help of videoconference.MethodWe performed a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with two parallel groups: video-assisted remote consultations at a regional medical centre (RMC) as an intervention versus standard consultation in the orthopaedic outpatient clinic at the University Hospital of North Norway (UNN) as a control. The participants were patients referred to or scheduled for a consultation at the orthopaedic outpatient clinic. The orthopaedic surgeons evaluated each consultation they performed by completing a questionnaire. The primary outcome measurement was the difference in the sum score calculated from this questionnaire, which was evaluated by the non-inferiority of the intervention group. The study design was based on the intention to treat principle. Ancillary analyses regarding complications, the number of consultations per patient, operations, patients who were referred again and the duration of consultations were performed.ResultsFour-hundred patients were web-based randomised. Of these, 199 (98 %) underwent remote consultation and 190 (95 %) underwent standard consultation. The primary outcome, the sum score of the specialist evaluation, was significantly lower (i.e. 'better') at UNN compared to RMC (1.72 versus 1.82, p = 0.0030). The 90 % confidence interval (CI) for the difference in score (0.05, 0.17) was within the non-inferiority margin. The orthopaedic surgeons involved evaluated 98 % of the video-assisted consultations as 'good' or 'very good'. In the ancillary analyses, there was no significant difference between the two groups.ConclusionsThis study supports the argument that it is safe to offer video-assisted consultations for selected orthopaedic patients. We did not find any serious events related to the mode of consultation. Further assessments of the economic aspects and patient satisfaction are needed before we can recommend its wider application.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00616837.

Project description:IntroductionIn women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM.MethodsThe SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNTR6134; Pre-results.

Project description:IntroductionEarly identification (EI) and brief interventions (BIs) for risky drinkers are effective tools in primary care. Lack of time in daily practice has been identified as one of the main barriers to implementation of BI. There is growing evidence that facilitated access by primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs) to a web-based BI can be a time-saving alternative to standard face-to-face BIs, but there is as yet no evidence about the effectiveness of this approach relative to conventional BI. The main aim of this study is to test non-inferiority of facilitation to a web-based BI for risky drinkers delivered by PHCP against face-to-face BI.Method and analysisA randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing both interventions will be performed in primary care health centres in Catalonia, Spain. Unselected adult patients attending participating centres will be given a leaflet inviting them to log on to a website to complete the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) alcohol screening questionnaire. Participants with positive results will be requested online to complete a trial module including consent, baseline assessment and randomisation to either face-to-face BI by the practitioner or BI via the alcohol reduction website. Follow-up assessment of risky drinking will be undertaken online at 3 months and 1 year using the full AUDIT and D5-EQD5 scale. Proportions of risky drinkers in each group will be calculated and non-inferiority assessed against a specified margin of 10%. Assuming reduction of 30% of risky drinkers receiving standard intervention, 1000 patients will be required to give 90% power to reject the null hypothesis.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by the Ethics Commmittee of IDIAP Jordi Gol i Gurina P14/028. The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov NCT02082990.