scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "Trials in 2012"


Journal ArticleDOI
06 Aug 2012-Trials
TL;DR: The need for general guidance on the development of core outcome sets, which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area, is identified.
Abstract: The selection of appropriate outcomes or domains is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare directly the effects of different interventions in ways that minimize bias. If the findings are to influence policy and practice then the chosen outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. There is a growing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the outcomes measured in clinical trials. These issues could be addressed through the development and use of an agreed standardized collection of outcomes, known as a core outcome set, which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for general guidance on the development of core outcome sets. Key issues to consider in the development of a core outcome set include its scope, the stakeholder groups to involve, choice of consensus method and the achievement of a consensus.

1,215 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
28 Jun 2012-Trials
TL;DR: Significant empirical evidence is presented to indicate that four key elements of context are crucial to understanding how a complex intervention works and to enable both assessments of internal validity and likely generalisability to other settings.
Abstract: Background: A number of single case reports have suggested that the context within which intervention studies take place may challenge the assumptions that underpin randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, the diverse ways in which context may challenge the central tenets of the RCT, and the degree to which this information is known to researchers or subsequently reported, has received much less attention. In this paper, we explore these issues by focusing on seven RCTs of interventions varying in type and degree of complexity, and across diverse contexts. Methods: This in-depth multiple case study using interviews, focus groups and documentary analysis was conducted in two phases. In phase one, a RCT of a nurse-led intervention provided a single exploratory case and informed the design, sampling and data collection within the main study. Phase two consisted of a multiple explanatory case study covering a spectrum of trials of different types of complex intervention. A total of eightyfour data sources across the seven trials were accessed. Results: We present consistent empirical evidence across all trials to indicate that four key elements of context (personal, organisational, trial and problem context) are crucial to understanding how a complex intervention works and to enable both assessments of internal validity and likely generalisability to other settings. The ways in which context challenged trial operation was often complex, idiosyncratic, and subtle; often falling outside of current trial reporting formats. However, information on such issues appeared to be available via first hand ‘insider accounts’ of each trial suggesting that improved reporting on the role of context is possible. Conclusions: Sufficient detail about context needs to be understood and reported in RCTs of complex interventions, in order for the transferability of complex interventions to be assessed. Improved reporting formats that require and encourage the clarification of both general and project-specific threats to the likely internal and external validity need to be developed. In addition, a cultural change is required in which the open and honest reporting of such issues is seen as an indicator of study strength and researcher integrity, rather than a symbol of a poor quality study or investigator ability.

220 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
23 Aug 2012-Trials
TL;DR: This work focuses on the design principles and research issues that lead to particular designs being appealing or unappealing in particular applications, and describes a number of current barriers and suggestions for overcoming them in order to promote wider use of appropriate adaptive designs.
Abstract: Adaptive designs allow planned modifications based on data accumulating within a study. The promise of greater flexibility and efficiency stimulates increasing interest in adaptive designs from clinical, academic, and regulatory parties. When adaptive designs are used properly, efficiencies can include a smaller sample size, a more efficient treatment development process, and an increased chance of correctly answering the clinical question of interest. However, improper adaptations can lead to biased studies. A broad definition of adaptive designs allows for countless variations, which creates confusion as to the statistical validity and practical feasibility of many designs. Determining properties of a particular adaptive design requires careful consideration of the scientific context and statistical assumptions. We first review several adaptive designs that garner the most current interest. We focus on the design principles and research issues that lead to particular designs being appealing or unappealing in particular applications. We separately discuss exploratory and confirmatory stage designs in order to account for the differences in regulatory concerns. We include adaptive seamless designs, which combine stages in a unified approach. We also highlight a number of applied areas, such as comparative effectiveness research, that would benefit from the use of adaptive designs. Finally, we describe a number of current barriers and provide initial suggestions for overcoming them in order to promote wider use of appropriate adaptive designs. Given the breadth of the coverage all mathematical and most implementation details are omitted for the sake of brevity. However, the interested reader will find that we provide current references to focused reviews and original theoretical sources which lead to details of the current state of the art in theory and practice.

208 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
03 Jan 2012-Trials
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that after acute MI (treated with thrombolysis or without reperfusion therapy) patients with viability in the infarct-area benefit from a strategy of early in-hospital stenting of the infARct-related coronary artery.
Abstract: Background: Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) not treated with primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at risk for recurrent ischemia, especially when viability in the infarctarea is present. Therefore, an invasive strategy with PCI of the infarct-related coronary artery in patients with viability would reduce the occurrence of a composite end point of death, reinfarction, or unstable angina (UA). Methods: Patients admitted with an (sub)acute myocardial infarction, who were not treated by primary or rescue PCI, and who were stable during the first 48 hours after the acute event, were screened for the study. Eventually, we randomly assigned 216 patients with viability (demonstrated with low-dose dobutamine echocardiography) to an invasive or a conservative strategy. In the invasive strategy stenting of the infarct-related coronary artery was intended with abciximab as adjunct treatment. Seventy-five (75) patients without viability served as registry group. The primary endpoint was the composite of death from any cause, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) and unstable angina at one year. As secondary endpoint the need for (repeat) revascularization procedures and anginal status were recorded. Results: The primary combined endpoint of death, recurrent MI and unstable angina was 7.5% (8/106) in the invasive group and 17.3% (19/110) in the conservative group (Hazard ratio 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.180.96; p = 0.032). During follow up revascularization-procedures were performed in 6.6% (7/106) in the invasive group and 31.8% (35/110) in the conservative group (Hazard ratio 0.18; 95% CI 0.13-0.43; p < 0.0001). A low rate of recurrent ischemia was found in the non-viable group (5.4%) in comparison to the viable-conservative group (14.5%). (Hazard-ratio 0.35; 95% CI 0.17-1.00; p = 0.051). Conclusion: We demonstrated that after acute MI (treated with thrombolysis or without reperfusion therapy) patients with viability in the infarct-area benefit from a strategy of early in-hospital stenting of the infarct-related coronary artery. This treatment results in a long-term uneventful clinical course. The study confirmed the low risk of recurrent ischemia in patients without viability.

198 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
30 Nov 2012-Trials
TL;DR: If the hypothesis is proven correct, RATE will result in a lower percentage of postoperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but with at least similar oncologic outcomes and better postoperative quality of life compared with open transthoracic esophagectomy.
Abstract: Background For esophageal cancer patients, radical esophagolymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of multimodality treatment with curative intent. Transthoracic esophagectomy is the preferred surgical approach worldwide allowing for en-bloc resection of the tumor with the surrounding lymph nodes. However, the percentage of cardiopulmonary complications associated with the transthoracic approach is high (50 to 70%). Recent studies have shown that robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy (RATE) is at least equivalent to the open transthoracic approach for esophageal cancer in terms of short-term oncological outcomes. RATE was accompanied with reduced blood loss, shorter ICU stay and improved lymph node retrieval compared with open esophagectomy, and the pulmonary complication rate, hospital stay and perioperative mortality were comparable. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy, risks, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of RATE as an alternative to open transthoracic esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal cancer.

167 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
01 Aug 2012-Trials
TL;DR: The advantages and limitations of different allocation techniques, including stratification, matching, minimization, and covariate-constrained randomization are reviewed as they pertain to C-RCTs to provide investigators with guidance for choosing the best allocation technique for their trial.
Abstract: Reviews have repeatedly noted important methodological issues in the conduct and reporting of cluster randomized controlled trials (C-RCTs). These reviews usually focus on whether the intracluster correlation was explicitly considered in the design and analysis of the C-RCT. However, another important aspect requiring special attention in C-RCTs is the risk for imbalance of covariates at baseline. Imbalance of important covariates at baseline decreases statistical power and precision of the results. Imbalance also reduces face validity and credibility of the trial results. The risk of imbalance is elevated in C-RCTs compared to trials randomizing individuals because of the difficulties in recruiting clusters and the nested nature of correlated patient-level data. A variety of restricted randomization methods have been proposed as way to minimize risk of imbalance. However, there is little guidance regarding how to best restrict randomization for any given C-RCT. The advantages and limitations of different allocation techniques, including stratification, matching, minimization, and covariate-constrained randomization are reviewed as they pertain to C-RCTs to provide investigators with guidance for choosing the best allocation technique for their trial.

162 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
21 Jun 2012-Trials
TL;DR: The CRASH-3 trial is an international, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to quantify the effects of the early administration of TXA on death and disability in patients with traumatic brain injury.
Abstract: Worldwide, over 10 million people are killed or hospitalized because of traumatic brain injury each year. About 90% of deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. The condition mostly affects young adults, and many experience long lasting or permanent disability. The social and economic burden is considerable. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is commonly given to surgical patients to reduce bleeding and the need for blood transfusion. It has been shown to reduce the number of patients receiving a blood transfusion by about a third, reduces the volume of blood transfused by about one unit, and halves the need for further surgery to control bleeding in elective surgical patients. The CRASH-3 trial is an international, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to quantify the effects of the early administration of TXA on death and disability in patients with traumatic brain injury. Ten thousand adult patients who fulfil the eligibility criteria will be randomized to receive TXA or placebo. Adults with traumatic brain injury, who are within 8 h of injury and have any intracranial bleeding on computerized tomography (CT scan) or Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) of 12 or less can be included if the responsible doctor is substantially uncertain as to whether or not to use TXA in this patient. Patients with significant extracranial bleeding will be excluded since there is evidence that TXA improves outcome in these patients. Treatment will entail a 1 g loading dose followed by a 1 g maintenance dose over 8 h. The main analyses will be on an ‘intention-to-treat’ basis, irrespective of whether the allocated treatment was received. Results will be presented as appropriate effect estimates with a measure of precision (95% confidence intervals). Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome will be based on time from injury to randomization, the severity of the injury, location of the bleeding, and baseline risk. Interaction tests will be used to test whether the effect of treatment differs across these subgroups. A study with 10,000 patients will have approximately 90% power to detect a 15% relative reduction from 20% to 17% in all-cause mortality. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15088122; Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01402882

157 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
20 Aug 2012-Trials
TL;DR: The principal methodological challenges in the reporting, analysis and interpretation of safety data in clinical trials are summarized using recent examples from systematic reviews and potential solutions are discussed.
Abstract: Randomized controlled trials are the principal means of establishing the efficacy of drugs. However pre-marketing trials are limited in size and duration and exclude high-risk populations. They have limited statistical power to detect rare but potentially serious adverse events in real-world patients. We summarize the principal methodological challenges in the reporting, analysis and interpretation of safety data in clinical trials using recent examples from systematic reviews. These challenges include the lack of an evidentiary gold standard, the limited statistical power of randomized controlled trials and resulting type 2 error, the lack of adequate ascertainment of adverse events and limited generalizability of trials that exclude high risk patients. We discuss potential solutions to these challenges. Evaluation of drug safety requires careful examination of data from heterogeneous sources. Meta-analyses of drug safety should include appropriate statistical methods and assess the optimal information size to avoid type 2 errors. They should evaluate outcome reporting biases and missing data to ensure reliable and accurate interpretation of findings. Regulatory and academic partnerships should be fostered to provide an independent and transparent evaluation of drug safety.

145 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
02 Jul 2012-Trials
TL;DR: Daytime and nocturnal symptoms, exacerbations, QoL, and mortality are particularly important outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of regular therapies for children with asthma.
Abstract: Background In clinical trials in childhood asthma, outcomes reflecting short-term disease activity are frequently measured, whilst functional status, quality of life (QoL), and long-term treatment effects are rarely assessed. There is also non-uniformity across studies in the selection and measurement of outcomes within these domains. The development of a core outcome set has the potential to reduce heterogeneity between trials, lead to research that is more likely to have measured relevant outcomes, and enhance the value of evidence synthesis by reducing the risk of outcome reporting bias and ensuring that all trials contribute usable information.

144 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
15 Sep 2012-Trials
TL;DR: The STAMPEDE experience shows that recruitment to a MAMS trial and mid-flow changes its design are achievable with good planning, and benefits patients and the scientific community as research treatments are evaluated in a more efficient and cost-effective manner.
Abstract: Background: Systemic Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Prostate cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy (STAMPEDE) is a randomized controlled trial that follows a novel multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) design. We describe methodological and practical issues arising with (1) stopping recruitment to research arms following a pre-planned intermediate analysis and (2) adding a new research arm during the trial. Methods: STAMPEDE recruits men who have locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer who are starting standard long-term hormone therapy. Originally there were five research and one control arms, each undergoing a pilot stage (focus: safety, feasibility), three intermediate ‘activity’ stages (focus: failure-free survival), and a final ‘efficacy’ stage (focus: overall survival). Lack-of-sufficient-activity guidelines support the pairwise interim comparisons of each research arm against the control arm; these pre-defined activity cut-off becomes increasingly stringent over the stages. Accrual of further patients continues to the control arm and to those research arms showing activity and an acceptable safety profile. The design facilitates adding new research arms should sufficiently interesting agents emerge. These new arms are compared only to contemporaneously recruited control arm patients using the same intermediate guidelines in a time-delayed manner. The addition of new research arms is subject to adequate recruitment rates to support the overall trial aims. Results: (1) Stopping Existing Therapy: After the second intermediate activity analysis, recruitment was discontinued to two research arms for lack-of-sufficient activity. Detailed preparations meant that changes were implemented swiftly at 100 international centers and recruitment continued seamlessly into Activity Stage III with 3 remaining research arms and the control arm. Further regulatory and ethical approvals were not required because this was already included in the initial trial design. (2) Adding New Therapy: An application to add a new research arm was approved by the funder, (who also organized peer review), industrial partner and regulatory and ethical bodies. This was all done in advance of any decision to stop current therapies.

127 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
07 Jun 2012-Trials
TL;DR: Improvements in the quality of RCT reports can be expected by adhering to existing standards and guidelines as expressed by the CONSORT group, especially in the methodological quality domains.
Abstract: The extended Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for Abstracts was developed to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on the abstract. To date, few data exist regarding whether it has achieved this goal. We evaluated the extent of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract statement for quality of reports on RCT abstracts by four high-impact general medical journals. A descriptive analysis of published RCT abstracts in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in the year 2010 was conducted by two reviewers, independently extracting data from a MEDLINE/PubMed search. We identified 271 potential RCT abstracts meeting our inclusion criteria. More than half of the abstracts identified the study as randomized in the title (58.7%; 159/271), reported the specific objective/hypothesis (72.7%; 197/271), described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection (60.9%; 165/271), detailed the interventions for both groups (90.8%; 246/271), and clearly defined the primary outcome (94.8%; 257/271). However, the methodological quality domains were inadequately reported: allocation concealment (11.8%; 32/271) and details of blinding (21.0%; 57/271). Reporting the primary outcome results for each group was done in 84.1% (228/271). Almost all of the abstracts reported trial registration (99.3%; 269/271), whereas reports of funding and of harm or side effects from the interventions were found in only 47.6% (129/271) and 42.8% (116/271) of the abstracts, respectively. These findings show inconsistencies and non-adherence to the CONSORT for abstract guidelines, especially in the methodological quality domains. Improvements in the quality of RCT reports can be expected by adhering to existing standards and guidelines as expressed by the CONSORT group.

Journal ArticleDOI
12 Jan 2012-Trials
TL;DR: The CHOCOLATE trial is designed to provide the surgical community with an evidence based guideline in the treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients.
Abstract: Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous cholecystostomy may be an alternative treatment option but the current literature does not provide the surgical community with evidence based advice.

Journal ArticleDOI
29 Jun 2012-Trials
TL;DR: This is one of few cluster randomised trials globally to assess the impact of a gender-focused community mobilisation intervention and the multi-disciplinary research approach will enable to address questions of intervention impact and mechanisms of action, as well as its feasibility, acceptability and transferability to other contexts.
Abstract: Gender based violence, including violence by an intimate partner, is a major global human rights and public health problem, with important connections with HIV risk. Indeed, the elimination of sexual and gender based violence is a core pillar of HIV prevention for UNAIDS. Integrated strategies to address the gender norms, relations and inequities that underlie both violence against women and HIV/AIDS are needed. However there is limited evidence about the potential impact of different intervention models. This protocol describes the SASA! Study: an evaluation of a community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV/AIDS risk in Kampala, Uganda. The SASA! Study is a pair-matched cluster randomised controlled trial being conducted in eight communities in Kampala. It is designed to assess the community-level impact of the SASA! intervention on the following six primary outcomes: attitudes towards the acceptability of violence against women and the acceptability of a woman refusing sex (among male and female community members); past year experience of physical intimate partner violence and sexual intimate partner violence (among females); community responses to women experiencing violence (among women reporting past year physical/sexual partner violence); and past year concurrency of sexual partners (among males). 1583 women and men (aged 18–49 years) were surveyed in intervention and control communities prior to intervention implementation in 2007/8. A follow-up cross-sectional survey of community members will take place in 2012. The primary analysis will be an adjusted cluster-level intention to treat analysis, comparing outcomes in intervention and control communities at follow-up. Complementary monitoring and evaluation and qualitative research will be used to explore and describe the process of intervention implementation and the pathways through which change is achieved. This is one of few cluster randomised trials globally to assess the impact of a gender-focused community mobilisation intervention. The multi-disciplinary research approach will enable us to address questions of intervention impact and mechanisms of action, as well as its feasibility, acceptability and transferability to other contexts. The results will be of importance to researchers, policy makers and those working on the front line to prevent violence against women and HIV. ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT00790959

Journal ArticleDOI
21 Apr 2012-Trials
TL;DR: Issues such as needling sensation, psychological factors, acupoint specificity, acupuncture manipulation, and needle duration also have relevant influences on the therapeutic effects of acupuncture.
Abstract: Acupuncture treatment has been widely used for many conditions, while results of the increasing numbers of randomized trials and systematic reviews remain controversial. Acupuncture is a complex intervention of both specific and non-specific factors associated with therapeutic benefit. Apart from needle insertion, issues such as needling sensation, psychological factors, acupoint specificity, acupuncture manipulation, and needle duration also have relevant influences on the therapeutic effects of acupuncture. Taking these factors into consideration would have considerable implications for the design and interpretation of clinical trials.

Journal ArticleDOI
09 Jul 2012-Trials
TL;DR: The PReDICT study’s evaluation of biological, psychological, and clinical factors that may differentially impact treatment outcomes represents a sizeable step toward developing personalized treatments for MDD.
Abstract: Background: Limited controlled data exist to guide treatment choices for clinicians caring for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Although many putative predictors of treatment response have been reported, most were identified through retrospective analyses of existing datasets and very few have been replicated in a manner that can impact clinical practice. One major confound in previous studies examining predictors of treatment response is the patient’s treatment history, which may affect both the predictor of interest and treatment outcomes. Moreover, prior treatment history provides an important source of selection bias, thereby limiting generalizability. Consequently, we initiated a randomized clinical trial designed to identify factors that moderate response to three treatments for MDD among patients never treated previously for the condition. Methods/design: Treatment-naive adults aged 18 to 65 years with moderate-to-severe, non-psychotic MDD are randomized equally to one of three 12-week treatment arms: (1) cognitive behavior therapy (CBT, 16 sessions); (2) duloxetine (30–60 mg/d); or (3) escitalopram (10–20 mg/d). Prior to randomization, patients undergo multiple assessments, including resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), immune markers, DNA and gene expression products, and dexamethasone-corticotropin-releasing hormone (Dex/CRH) testing. Prior to or shortly after randomization, patients also complete a comprehensive personality assessment. Repeat assessment of the biological measures (fMRI, immune markers, and gene expression products) occurs at an early time-point in treatment, and upon completion of 12-week treatment, when a second Dex/CRH test is also conducted. Patients remitting by the end of this acute treatment phase are then eligible to enter a 21-month follow-up phase, with quarterly visits to monitor for recurrence. Non-remitters are offered augmentation treatment for a second 12-week course of treatment, during which they receive a combination of CBT and antidepressant medication. Predictors of the primary outcome, remission, will be identified for overall and treatment-specific effects, and a statistical model incorporating multiple predictors will be developed to predict outcomes. Discussion: The PReDICT study’s evaluation of biological, psychological, and clinical factors that may differentially impact treatment outcomes represents a sizeable step toward developing personalized treatments for MDD. Identified predictors should help guide the selection of initial treatments, and identify those patients most vulnerable to recurrence, who thus warrant maintenance or combination treatments to achieve and maintain wellness.

Journal ArticleDOI
10 May 2012-Trials
TL;DR: This population-based intervention trial in the primary care setting is to test the efficacy and efficiency of implementing a subsidiary support system on a population level for persons with dementia who live at home and will show effective ways to meet those needs.
Abstract: The provision of appropriate medical and nursing care for people with dementia is a major challenge for the healthcare system in Germany. New models of healthcare provision need to be developed, tested and implemented on the population level. Trials in which collaborative care for dementia in the primary care setting were studied have demonstrated its effectiveness. These studies have been conducted in different healthcare systems, however, so it is unclear whether these results extend to the specific context of the German healthcare system. The objective of this population-based intervention trial in the primary care setting is to test the efficacy and efficiency of implementing a subsidiary support system on a population level for persons with dementia who live at home. The study was designed to assemble a general physician-based epidemiological cohort of people above the age of 70 who live at home (DelpHi cohort). These people are screened for eligibility to participate in a trial of dementia care management (DelpHi trial). The trial is a cluster-randomised, controlled intervention trial with two arms (intervention and control) designed to test the efficacy and efficiency of implementing a subsidiary support system for persons with dementia who live at home. This subsidiary support system is initiated and coordinated by a dementia care manager: a nurse with dementia-specific qualifications who delivers the intervention according to a systematic, detailed protocol. The primary outcome is quality of life and healthcare for patients with dementia and their caregivers. This is a multidimensional outcome with a focus on four dimensions: (1) quality of life, (2) caregiver burden, (3) behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia and (4) pharmacotherapy with an antidementia drug and prevention or suspension of potentially inappropriate medication. Secondary outcomes include the assessment of dementia syndromes, activities of daily living, social support health status, utilisation of health care resources and medication. The results will provide evidence for specific needs in ambulatory care for persons with dementia and will show effective ways to meet those needs. Qualification requirements will be evaluated, and the results will help to modify existing guidelines and treatment paths. NCT01401582

Journal ArticleDOI
08 Feb 2012-Trials
TL;DR: The protocol of an interventional clinical phase II study is presented to test the hypothesis, that high-dose vitamin D supplementation of multiple sclerosis patients is safe and superior to low-dose supplementation with respect to beneficial therapeutic effects, and the EVIDIMS trial will substantially contribute to the evaluation of the efficacy of high- dose vitamin D supplements in MS patients.
Abstract: Background Multiple sclerosis is the most common chronic inflammatory disease of the central nervous system in young adults. Despite the fact that numerous lines of evidence link both the risk of disease development and the disease course to the serum level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D it still remains elusive whether multiple sclerosis patients benefit from boosting the serum level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, mainly because interventional clinical trials that directly address the therapeutic effects of vitamin D in multiple sclerosis are sparse. We here present the protocol of an interventional clinical phase II study to test the hypothesis, that high-dose vitamin D supplementation of multiple sclerosis patients is safe and superior to low-dose supplementation with respect to beneficial therapeutic effects.

Journal ArticleDOI
07 Feb 2012-Trials
TL;DR: This randomised trial is one of the first ever tests of the early life origins hypothesis in human participants and has the potential to inform public health policy regarding vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy.
Abstract: MAVIDOS is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (ISRCTN82927713, registered 2008 Apr 11), funded by Arthritis Research UK, MRC, Bupa Foundation and NIHR. Osteoporosis is a major public health problem as a result of associated fragility fractures. Skeletal strength increases from birth to a peak in early adulthood. This peak predicts osteoporosis risk in later life. Vitamin D insufficiency in pregnancy is common (31% in a recent Southampton cohort) and predicts reduced bone mass in the offspring. In this study we aim to test whether offspring of mothers supplemented with vitamin D in pregnancy have higher bone mass at birth than those whose mothers were not supplemented. Women have their vitamin D status assessed after ultrasound scanning in the twelfth week of pregnancy at 3 trial centres (Southampton, Sheffield, Oxford). Women with circulating 25(OH)-vitamin D levels 25-100 nmol/l are randomised in a double-blind design to either oral vitamin D supplement (1000 IU cholecalciferol/day, n = 477) or placebo at 14 weeks (n = 477). Questionnaire data include parity, sunlight exposure, dietary information, and cigarette and alcohol consumption. At 19 and 34 weeks maternal anthropometry is assessed and blood samples taken to measure 25(OH)-vitamin D, PTH and biochemistry. At delivery venous umbilical cord blood is collected, together with umbilical cord and placental tissue. The babies undergo DXA assessment of bone mass within the first 14 days after birth, with the primary outcome being whole body bone mineral content adjusted for gestational age and age. Children are then followed up with yearly assessment of health, diet, physical activity and anthropometric measures, with repeat assessment of bone mass by DXA at age 4 years. As far as we are aware, this randomised trial is one of the first ever tests of the early life origins hypothesis in human participants and has the potential to inform public health policy regarding vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy. It will also provide a valuable resource in which to study the influence of maternal vitamin D status on other childhood outcomes such as glucose tolerance, blood pressure, cardiovascular function, IQ and immunology.

Journal ArticleDOI
18 Jun 2012-Trials
TL;DR: There is a need for increased awareness of more appropriate causal methods to adjust for departures from treatment protocol, as well as guidance on the appropriate analysis population to use for harms outcomes in the presence of such nonadherence.
Abstract: This review aimed to ascertain the extent to which nonadherence to treatment protocol is reported and addressed in a cohort of published analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). One hundred publications of RCTs, randomly selected from those published in BMJ, New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet during 2008, were reviewed to determine the extent and nature of reported nonadherence to treatment protocol, and whether statistical methods were used to examine the effect of such nonadherence on both benefit and harms analyses. We also assessed the quality of trial reporting of treatment protocol nonadherence and the quality of reporting of the statistical analysis methods used to investigate such nonadherence. Nonadherence to treatment protocol was reported in 98 of the 100 trials, but reporting on such nonadherence was often vague or incomplete. Forty-two publications did not state how many participants started their randomised treatment. Reporting of treatment initiation and completeness was judged to be inadequate in 64% of trials with short-term interventions and 89% of trials with long-term interventions. More than half (51) of the 98 trials with treatment protocol nonadherence implemented some statistical method to address this issue, most commonly based on per protocol analysis (46) but often labelled as intention to treat (ITT) or modified ITT (23 analyses in 22 trials). The composition of analysis sets for their benefit outcomes were not explained in 57% of trials, and 62% of trials that presented harms analyses did not define harms analysis populations. The majority of defined harms analysis populations (18 out of 26 trials, 69%) were based on actual treatment received, while the majority of trials with undefined harms analysis populations (31 out of 43 trials, 72%) appeared to analyse harms using the ITT approach. Adherence to randomised intervention is poorly considered in the reporting and analysis of published RCTs. The majority of trials are subject to various forms of nonadherence to treatment protocol, and though trialists deal with this nonadherence using a variety of statistical methods and analysis populations, they rarely consider the potential for bias introduced. There is a need for increased awareness of more appropriate causal methods to adjust for departures from treatment protocol, as well as guidance on the appropriate analysis population to use for harms outcomes in the presence of such nonadherence.

Journal ArticleDOI
06 May 2012-Trials
TL;DR: The ORANGE II trial is a multicenter randomised controlled trial that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing LLS within an enhanced recovery ERAS programme.
Abstract: The use of lLaparoscopic liver resection in terms of time to functional recovery, length of hospital stay (LOS), long-term abdominal wall hernias, costs and quality of life (QOL) has never been studied in a randomised controlled trial. Therefore, this is the subject of the international multicentre randomised controlled ORANGE II trial. Patients eligible for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) of the liver will be recruited and randomised at the outpatient clinic. All randomised patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an ERAS programme. The experimental design produces two randomised arms (open and laparoscopic LLS) and a prospective registry. The prospective registry will be based on patients that cannot be randomised because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon, or because of ineligibility (not meeting the in- and exclusion criteria) for randomisation in this trial. Therefore, all non-randomised patients undergoing LLS will be approached to participate in the prospective registry, thereby allowing acquisition of an uninterrupted prospective series of patients. The primary endpoint of the ORANGE II trial is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints are postoperative LOS, percentage readmission, (liver-specific) morbidity, QOL, body image and cosmetic result, hospital and societal costs over 1 year, and long-term incidence of incisional hernias. It will be assumed that in patients undergoing laparoscopic LLS, length of hospital stay can be reduced by two days. A sample size of 55 patients in each randomisation arm has been calculated to detect a 2-day reduction in LOS (90% power and α = 0.05 (two-tailed)). The ORANGE II trial is a multicenter randomised controlled trial that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing LLS within an enhanced recovery ERAS programme. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00874224.

Journal ArticleDOI
20 Jul 2012-Trials
TL;DR: Attrition and adherence to study requirements present challenges to trials requiring longer-term dietary change, and a run-in period to further assess the motivation, commitment and availability of participants is recommended.
Abstract: There are many challenges involved in running randomised controlled dietary intervention trials that investigate health outcomes. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the recruitment process, retention of participants and challenges faced in our dairy intervention trial, and to provide strategies to combat the difficulties of running long-term dietary intervention trials. A 12-month, randomised, two-way crossover study was conducted in overweight adults with habitually low dairy food consumption to assess the effects of a high dairy intake (4 servings of reduced-fat dairy per day) compared with a low dairy intake (1 serving of reduced-fat dairy per day) on measures of cardiometabolic and cognitive health. On completion of the high dairy intake phase, each participant was interviewed about their experience in the trial and responses were used to evaluate the key issues for study participants. Although the recruitment target was achieved, high rates of attrition (49.3%) and difficulties maintaining participant compliance (reported by 37.8% of participants) were major threats to the viability of the study. Factors that contributed to the high attrition included inability to comply with the dietary requirements of the study protocol (27.0%), health problems or medication changes (24.3%) and time commitment (10.8%). Attrition and adherence to study requirements present challenges to trials requiring longer-term dietary change. Including a run-in period to further assess the motivation, commitment and availability of participants, maintaining regular contact with participants during control phases, minimising time commitment, providing flexibility with dietary requirements, facilitating positive experiences, and stringent monitoring of diet are some key recommendations for future dietary intervention trials. Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12608000538347)

Journal ArticleDOI
16 Aug 2012-Trials
TL;DR: In this commentary, the advantages of the diagnostic randomized controlled trial are provided and a greater awareness and uptake in their conduct is suggested to better ensure that patients are offered diagnostic procedures that will make a clinical difference.
Abstract: Clinicians, patients, governments, third-party payers, and the public take for granted that diagnostic tests are accurate, safe and effective. However, we may be seriously misled if we are relying on robust study design to ensure accurate, safe, and effective diagnostic tests. Properly conducted, randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness and safety of interventions, yet are rarely conducted in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Instead, diagnostic cohort studies are commonly performed to assess the characteristics of a diagnostic test including sensitivity and specificity. While diagnostic cohort studies can inform us about the relative accuracy of an experimental diagnostic intervention compared to a reference standard, they do not inform us about whether the differences in accuracy are clinically important, or the degree of clinical importance (in other words, the impact on patient outcomes). In this commentary we provide the advantages of the diagnostic randomized controlled trial and suggest a greater awareness and uptake in their conduct. Doing so will better ensure that patients are offered diagnostic procedures that will make a clinical difference.

Journal ArticleDOI
17 May 2012-Trials
TL;DR: Although the efficacy rate of m eglumine antimoniate was greater than that of thermotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis, the side effects were also greater, and factors, added to the increased costs, the treatment adherence problems and the progressive lack of therapeutic response, make us consider ther motherapy as a first line treatment for cutaneous Leishmania.
Abstract: Pentavalent antimonials (Sb5) and miltefosine are the first-line drugs for treating cutaneous leishmaniasis in Colombia; however, toxicity and treatment duration negatively impact compliance and cost, justifying an active search for better therapeutic options. We compared the efficacy and safety of thermotherapy and m eglumine antimoniate for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Colombia. An open randomized Phase III clinical trial was performed in five military health centres. located in northwestern, central and southern Colombia. Volunteers with parasitological positive diagnosis (Giemsa-stained smears) of cutaneous leishmaniasis were included. A single thermotherapy session involving the application of 50°C at the center and active edge of each lesion. Meglumine antimoniate was administered intramuscularly at a dose of 20 mg Sb5/kg weight/day for 20 days. Both groups were comparable. The efficacy of thermotherapy was 64% (86/134 patients) by protocol and 58% (86/149) by intention-to-treat. For the m eglumine antimoniate group, efficacy by protocol was 85% (103/121 patients) and 72% (103/143) by intention-to-treat, The efficacy between the treatments was statistically significant (p 0.01 and <0.001) for analysis by intention to treat and by protocol, respectively. There was no difference between the therapeutic response with either treatment regardless of the Leishmania species responsible for infection. The side effects of m eglumine antimoniate included myalgia, arthralgia, headache and fever. Regarding thermotherapy, the only side effect was pain at the lesion area four days after the initiation of treatment. Although the efficacy rate of m eglumine antimoniate was greater than that of thermotherapy for the treatment of cutaneous leishmaniasis, the side effects were also greater. Those factors, added to the increased costs, the treatment adherence problems and the progressive lack of therapeutic response, make us consider thermotherapy as a first line treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis. Registered ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00471705

Journal ArticleDOI
13 Jan 2012-Trials
TL;DR: Level of consumer involvement in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses and other studies carried out by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit across the range of research programs, predominantly in cancer and HIV is established.
Abstract: We aimed to establish levels of consumer involvement in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses and other studies carried out by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Clinical Trials Unit across the range of research programs, predominantly in cancer and HIV. Staff responsible for studies that were included in a Unit Progress Report (MRC CTU, April 2009) were asked to complete a semi-structured questionnaire survey regarding consumer involvement. This was defined as active involvement of consumers as partners in the research process and not as subjects of that research. The electronic questionnaires combined open and closed questions, intended to capture quantitative and qualitative information on whether studies had involved consumers; types of activities undertaken; recruitment and support; advantages and disadvantages of involvement and its perceived impact on aspects of the research. Between October 2009 and April 2010, 138 completed questionnaires (86%) were returned. Studies had been conducted over a 20 year period from 1989, and around half were in cancer; 30% in HIV and 20% were in other disease areas including arthritis, tuberculosis and blood transfusion medicine. Forty-three studies (31%) had some consumer involvement, most commonly as members of trial management groups (TMG) [88%]. A number of positive impacts on both the research and the researcher were identified. Researchers generally felt involvement was worthwhile and some felt that consumer involvement had improved the credibility of the research. Benefits in design and quality, trial recruitment, dissemination and decision making were also perceived. Researchers felt they learned from consumer involvement, albeit that there were some barriers. Whilst most researchers identified benefits of involving consumers, most of studies included in the survey had no involvement. Information from this survey will inform the development of a unit policy on consumer involvement, to guide future research conducted within the MRC Clinical Trials Unit and beyond.

Journal ArticleDOI
18 May 2012-Trials
TL;DR: It is believed that smartphones can be integrated even further into society and therefore may serve an important role in health care and the use of a smartphone application could serve as the therapist’s prolonged arm into the daily life of the patient.
Abstract: Background: The need for cost-effective interventions for people suffering from major depressive disorders is essential. Behavioral activation is an intervention that can largely benefit from the use of new mobile technologies (for example smartphones). Therefore, developing smartphone-based behavioral activation interventions might be a way to develop cost-effective treatments for people suffering from major depressive disorders. The aim of this study will be to test the effects of a smartphone-delivered behavioral activation treatment. Methods: The study will be a randomized controlled trial with a sample size of 120 participants, with 60 patients in each group. The treatment group includes an 8-week smartphone-based behavioral activation intervention, with minimal therapist contact. The smartphone-based intervention consists of a web-based psychoeducation, and a smartphone application. There is also a back-end system where the therapist can see reports from the patients or activities being reported. In the attention control group, we will include brief online education and then recommend use of a smartphone application that is not directly aimed at depression (for example, ‘Effective meditation’). The duration of the control condition will also be 8 weeks. For ethical reasons we will give the participants in the control group access to the behavioral activation treatment following the 8-week treatment period. Discussions: We believe that this trial has at least three important implications. First, we believe that smartphones can be integrated even further into society and therefore may serve an important role in health care. Second, while behavioral activation is a psychological treatment approach for which there is empirical support, the use of a smartphone application could serve as the therapist’s prolonged arm into the daily life of the patient. Third, as we have been doing trials on guided Internet treatment for more than 10 years it is now time to move to the next generation of information technology - smartphones - which are not only relevant for Swedish conditions but also for developing countries in the world which are increasingly empowered by mobile phones with Internet connection. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01463020

Journal ArticleDOI
31 May 2012-Trials
TL;DR: This novel trial will provide information on whether SMILE has comparable, if not superior, refractive outcomes compared to the established LASIK for myopia, thus providing evidence for translation into clinical practice.
Abstract: Small incision lenticule extraction or SMILE is a novel form of ‘flapless’ corneal refractive surgery that was adapted from refractive lenticule extraction (ReLEx). SMILE uses only one femtosecond laser to complete the refractive surgery, potentially reducing surgical time, side effects, and cost. If successful, SMILE could potentially replace the current, widely practiced laser in-situ keratomileusis or LASIK. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether SMILE is non-inferior to LASIK in terms of refractive outcomes at 3 months post-operatively. Single tertiary center, parallel group, single-masked, paired-eye design, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial. Participants who are eligible for LASIK will be enrolled for study after informed consent. Each participant will be randomized to receive SMILE and LASIK in each eye. Our primary hypothesis (stated as null) in this non-inferiority trial would be that SMILE differs from LASIK in adults (>21 years old) with myopia (> −3.00 diopter (D)) at a tertiary eye center in terms of refractive predictability at 3 months post-operatively. Our secondary hypothesis (stated as null) in this non-inferiority trial would be that SMILE differs from LASIK in adults (>21 years old) with myopia (> −3.00 D) at a tertiary eye center in terms of other refractive outcomes (efficacy, safety, higher-order aberrations) at 3 months post-operatively. Our primary outcome is refractive predictability, which is one of several standard refractive outcomes, defined as the proportion of eyes achieving a postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) within ±0.50 D of the intended target. Randomization will be performed using random allocation sequence generated by a computer with no blocks or restrictions, and implemented by concealing the number-coded surgery within sealed envelopes until just before the procedure. In this single-masked trial, subjects and their caregivers will be masked to the assigned treatment in each eye. This novel trial will provide information on whether SMILE has comparable, if not superior, refractive outcomes compared to the established LASIK for myopia, thus providing evidence for translation into clinical practice. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01216475.

Journal ArticleDOI
24 Sep 2012-Trials
TL;DR: This Delphi process achieved consensus from a large panel of experts from diverse stakeholder groups on essential content for RCT protocols, helping guide the development of a guideline for protocol content.
Abstract: Background: Recent evidence has highlighted deficiencies in clinical trial protocols, having implications for many groups. Existing guidelines for randomized clinical trial (RCT) protocol content vary substantially and most do not describe systematic methodology for their development. As one of three prespecified steps for the systematic development of a guideline for trial protocol content, the objective of this study was to conduct a three-round Delphi consensus survey to develop and refine minimum content for RCT protocols. Methods: Panellists were identified using a multistep iterative approach, met prespecified minimum criteria and represented key stakeholders who develop or use clinical trial protocols. They were asked to rate concepts for importance in a minimum set of items for RCT protocols. The main outcome measures were degree of importance (scale of 1 to 10; higher scores indicating higher importance) and level of consensus for items. Results were presented as medians, interquartile ranges, counts and percentages. Results: Ninety-six expert panellists participated in the Delphi consensus survey including trial investigators, methodologists, research ethics board members, funders, industry, regulators and journal editors. Response rates were between 88 and 93% per round. Overall, panellists rated 63 of 88 concepts of high importance (of which 50 had a 25 th percentile rating of 8 or greater), 13 of moderate importance (median 6 or 7) and 12 of low importance (median less than or equal to 5) for minimum trial protocol content. General and item-specific comments and subgroup results provided valuable insight for further discussions. Conclusions: This Delphi process achieved consensus from a large panel of experts from diverse stakeholder groups on essential content for RCT protocols. It also highlights areas of divergence. These results, complemented by other empirical research and consensus meetings, are helping guide the development of a guideline for protocol content.

Journal ArticleDOI
12 Apr 2012-Trials
TL;DR: It is found that postoperative complication like decreased malar height and vertical dystopia was more common in those patients who were treated by two point fixation than those who were treating with three point fixation.
Abstract: The zygoma plays an important role in the facial contour for both cosmetic and functional reasons; therefore zygomatic bone injuries should be properly diagnosed and adequately treated. Comparison of various surgical approaches and their complications can only be done objectively using outcome measurements which in turn require protocol management and long-term follow up. The preference for open reduction and internal fixation of zygomatic fractures at three points has continued to grow in response to observations of inadequate results from two point and one point fixation techniques. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy of zygomatic bone after treatment with ORIF using 2 point fixation and ORIF using 3 point fixation and compare the outcome of two procedures. 100 patients were randomly divided equally into two groups. In group A, 50 patients were treated by ORIF using two point fixation by miniplates and in group B, 50 patients were treated by ORIF using three point fixation by miniplates. They were evaluated for their complications during and after surgery with their advantages and disadvantages and the difference between the two groups was observed. A total of 100 fractures were sustained. We found that postoperative complication like decreased malar height and vertical dystopia was more common in those patients who were treated by two point fixation than those who were treated with three point fixation. Based on this study open reduction and internal fixation using three point fixation by miniplates is the best available method for the treatment zygomatic bone fractures.

Journal ArticleDOI
21 Nov 2012-Trials
TL;DR: This survey was designed to establish the recruitment experience of clinical teams with regard to the perceived facilitators and barriers to recruitment, to identify strategies applied to overcome these problems, and to obtain suggestions for change in the organization of future trials.
Abstract: Recruitment to randomized controlled trials is known to be challenging. It is important to understand and identify predictors of good or poor accrual to a clinical trial so that appropriate strategies can be put in place to overcome these problems and facilitate successful trial completion. We have developed a survey tool to establish the recruitment experience of clinical teams regarding facilitators and barriers to recruitment in a clinical trial and describe herein the method of developing the questionnaire. A literature search was conducted to identify studies that have explored facilitators and barriers to recruitment, and a list of potential factors affecting recruitment to a clinical trial was generated. These factors were categorized in terms relating to the (i) trial, (ii) site, (iii) patient, (iv) clinical team, (v) information and consent and (vi) study team. A list was provided for responders to grade these factors as weak, intermediate or strong facilitators or barriers to recruitment. A web-based survey questionnaire was developed. This survey was designed to establish the recruitment experience of clinical teams with regard to the perceived facilitators and barriers to recruitment, to identify strategies applied to overcome these problems, and to obtain suggestions for change in the organization of future trials. The survey tool can be used to assess the recruitment experience of clinical teams in a single/multicenter trial in any clinical setting or speciality involving adults or children either in an ongoing trial or at trial completion. The questionnaire is short, easy to administer and to complete, with an estimated completion time of 11 minutes. We have presented a robust methodology for developing this survey tool that provides an evidence-based list of potential factors that can affect recruitment to a clinical trial. We recommend that all clinical trialists should consider using this tool with appropriate trial-specific adaptations to monitor and improve recruitment performance in an ongoing trial or conduct the survey at trial completion to gather information on facilitators and barriers to recruitment that can form the basis of interventions and strategies to improve recruitment to future clinical trials.

Journal ArticleDOI
David E. Newby1, Michelle C. Williams1, Andrew D. Flapan, John F. Forbes1, Allister Hargreaves2, Stephen J Leslie3, Steff Lewis4, Graham McKillop, Scott McLean5, John H. Reid6, James C Sprat2, Neal G. Uren, Edwin J R van Beek1, Nicholas A. Boon1, Liz Clark, Peter Craig7, Marcus Flather, Chiara Mccormack4, Giles Roditi8, Giles Roditi9, Adam Timmis10, Ashma Krishan4, Gillian Donaldson6, Marlene Fotheringham6, Fiona Hall6, Paul Neary6, Louisa Cram2, Sarah Perkins2, Fiona Taylor2, Hany Eteiba9, Alan P. Rae9, Kate Robb9, Dawn Barrie11, Kim Bissett11, Adelle Dawson11, Scot Dundas11, Yvonne Fogarty11, Prasad Guntur Ramkumar11, Graeme Houston11, Deborah Letham11, Linda O’Neill11, Stuart D. Pringle11, Valerie Ritchie11, Thiru Sudarshan11, Jonathan R. Weir-McCall11, Alistair Cormack12, Iain N Findlay12, Stuart Hood12, Clare Murphy12, Eileen Peat12, Barbara Allen1, Andrew Baird1, Danielle Bertram1, David Brian1, Amy Cowan1, Nicholas L. Cruden, Marc R. Dweck1, Laura Flint, Samantha Fyfe1, Collette Keanie, Tom MacGillivray1, David Maclachlan1, Margaret MacLeod, Saeed Mirsadraee1, Avril Morrison4, Nicholas L. Mills1, Fiona C Minns, Alyson Phillips, Laura J Queripel1, Nicholas W Weir1, Fiona Bett13, Frances Divers13, Katie Fairley13, Ashok Jacob13, Edith Keegan13, Tricia White13, John Gemmill14, Margo Henry14, James Mcgowan14, Lorraine Dinnel, C Mark Francis, Dennis Sandeman, Ajay Yerramasu, Colin Berry8, Heather Boylan8, Ammani Brown8, Karen Duffy8, Alison Frood8, Janet Johnstone8, Kirsten Lanaghan8, Ross MacDuff8, Martin MacLeod8, Deborah McGlynn8, Nigel McMillan8, Laura Murdoch8, Colin Noble8, Victoria Paterson8, Tracey Steedman8, Nikolaos Tzemos8 
04 Oct 2012-Trials
TL;DR: This is the first study to look at the implementation of computed tomography in the patient care pathway that is outcome focused and will have major implications for the management of patients with cardiovascular disease.
Abstract: Background: Rapid access chest pain clinics have facilitated the early diagnosis and treatment of patients with coronary heart disease and angina. Despite this important service provision, coronary heart disease continues to be under-diagnosed and many patients are left untreated and at risk. Recent advances in imaging technology have now led to the widespread use of noninvasive computed tomography, which can be used to measure coronary artery calcium scores and perform coronary angiography in one examination. However, this technology has not been robustly evaluated in its application to the clinic. (Continued on next page)