Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Identifying and categorizing adverse events in trials of digital mental health interventions: Narrative scoping review of trials in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number RegistryBACKGROUND: To contextualize the benefits of an intervention, it is important that adverse events (AEs) are reported. This is potentially difficult in trials of digital mental health interventions, where delivery may be remote and the mechanisms of actions less understood. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the reporting of AEs in randomized controlled trials of digital mental health interventions. METHODS: The International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number database was searched for trials registered before May 2022. Using advanced search filters, we identified 2546 trials in the category of mental and behavioral disorders. These trials were independently reviewed by 2 researchers against the eligibility criteria. Trials were included where digital mental health interventions for participants with a mental health disorder were evaluated through a completed randomized controlled trial (protocol and primary results publication published). Published protocols and primary results publications were then retrieved. Data were extracted independently by 3 researchers, with discussion to reach consensus when required. RESULTS: Twenty-three trials met the eligibility criteria, of which 16 (69%) included a statement on AEs within a publication, but only 6 (26%) reported AEs within their primary results publication. Seriousness was referred to by 6 trials, relatedness by 4, and expectedness by 2. More interventions delivered with human support (9/11, 82%) than those with only remote or no support (6/12, 50%) included a statement on AEs, but they did not report more AEs. Several reasons for participant dropout were identified by trials that did not report AEs, of which some were identifiable or related to AEs, including serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the reporting of AEs in trials of digital mental health interventions. This variation may reflect limited reporting processes and difficulty recognizing AEs related to digital mental health interventions. There is a need to develop guidelines specifically for these trials to improve future reporting.
-
The Clots in Legs Or sTockings after Stroke (CLOTS) 3 trial: a randomised controlled trial to determine whether or not intermittent pneumatic compression reduces the risk of post-stroke deep vein thrombosis and to estimate its cost-effectiveness.Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of death and morbidity in stroke patients. There are few data concerning the effectiveness of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) in treating patients with stroke. Objectives: To establish whether or not the application of IPC to the legs of immobile stroke patients reduced their risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Design: Clots in Legs Or sTockings after Stroke (CLOTS) 3 was a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial which allocated patients via a central randomisation system to IPC or no IPC. A technician blinded to treatment allocation performed compression duplex ultrasound (CDU) of both legs at 7-10 days and 25-30 days after enrolment. We followed up patients for 6 months to determine survival and later symptomatic VTE. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. Setting: We enrolled 2876 patients in 94 UK hospitals between 8 December 2008 and 6 September 2012. Inclusion Criteria: patients admitted to hospital within 3 days of acute stroke and who were immobile on the day of admission (day 0) to day 3. Exclusion Criteria: age < 16 years; subarachnoid haemorrhage; and contra-indications to IPC including dermatitis, leg ulcers, severe oedema, severe peripheral vascular disease and congestive cardiac failure. Interventions: Participants were allocated to routine care or routine care plus IPC for 30 days, or until earlier discharge or walking independently. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was DVT in popliteal or femoral veins, detected on a screening CDU, or any symptomatic DVT in the proximal veins, confirmed by imaging, within 30 days of randomisation. The secondary outcomes included death, any DVTs, symptomatic DVTs, pulmonary emboli, skin breaks on the legs, falls with injury or fractures and duration of IPC use occurring within 30 days of randomisation and survival, symptomatic VTE, disability (as measured by the Oxford Handicap Scale), quality of life (as measured by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions 3 Level questionnaire) and length of initial hospital stay measured 6 months after randomisation. Results: We allocated 1438 patients to IPC and 1438 to no IPC. The primary outcome occurred in 122 (8.5%) of 1438 patients allocated to IPC and 174 (12.1%) of 1438 patients allocated to no IPC, giving an absolute reduction in risk of 3.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4% to 5.8%] and a relative risk reduction of 0.69 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.86). After excluding 323 patients who died prior to any primary outcome and 41 who had no screening CDU, the primary outcome occurred in 122 of 1267 IPC participants compared with 174 of 1245 no-IPC participants, giving an adjusted odds ratio of 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.84; p = 0.001). Secondary outcomes in IPC compared with no-IPC participants were death in the treatment period in 156 (10.8%) versus 189 (13.1%) (p = 0.058); skin breaks in 44 (3.1%) versus 20 (1.4%) (p = 0.002); and falls with injury in 33 (2.3%) versus 24 (1.7%) (p = 0.221). Among patients treated with IPC, there was a statistically significant improvement in survival to 6 months (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.99; p = 0.042), but no improvement in disability. The direct cost of preventing a DVT was £1282 per event (95% CI £785 to £3077). Conclusions: IPC is an effective and inexpensive method of reducing the risk of DVT and improving survival in immobile stroke patients. Future Research: Further research should test whether or not IPC improves survival in other groups of high-risk hospitalised medical patients. In addition, research into methods to improve adherence to IPC might increase the benefits of IPC in stroke patients.
-
Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial.BACKGROUND: The optimal management of patients found to have multivessel disease while undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: CvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI trial) is a U.K. open-label randomized study comparing complete revascularization at index admission with treatment of the infarct-related artery (IRA) only. METHODS: After they provided verbal assent and underwent coronary angiography, 296 patients in 7 U.K. centers were randomized through an interactive voice-response program to either in-hospital complete revascularization (n = 150) or IRA-only revascularization (n = 146). Complete revascularization was performed either at the time of P-PCI or before hospital discharge. Randomization was stratified by infarct location (anterior/nonanterior) and symptom onset (≤ 3 h or >3 h). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization within 12 months. RESULTS: Patient groups were well matched for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.0% of the complete revascularization group versus 21.2% in the IRA-only revascularization group (hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.24 to 0.84; p = 0.009). A trend toward benefit was seen early after complete revascularization (p = 0.055 at 30 days). Although there was no significant reduction in death or MI, a nonsignificant reduction in all primary endpoint components was seen. There was no reduction in ischemic burden on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy or in the safety endpoints of major bleeding, contrast-induced nephropathy, or stroke between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting for P-PCI with multivessel disease, index admission complete revascularization significantly lowered the rate of the composite primary endpoint at 12 months compared with treating only the IRA. In such patients, inpatient total revascularization may be considered, but larger clinical trials are required to confirm this result and specifically address whether this strategy is associated with improved survival.
