Meaning-centered group psychotherapy in Portuguese cancer patients: A pilot exploratory trial

Objective To describe the feasibility of a meaning-centered group psychotherapy (MCGP) adaptation in a sample of Portuguese cancer patients. Method The study was carried out according to four steps: 1st — Transcultural adaptation and validation (focus groups); 2nd — Preliminary study with MCGP original version (to test its feasibility); 3rd — Adaptation of MCGP original version to a 4-session version (and internal pilot study); and 4th — Pilot exploratory trial (MCGP-4 session version), implemented between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Inclusion criteria were >18 years, psychological complaints, and difficulty to adapt to cancer. Allocation was according to participants’ preference: MCGP vs. care as usual (CAU). Primary outcomes were: MCGP adapted version improved quality of life (QoL) and spiritual well-being; secondary outcomes were improvement of depression, anxiety, and distress. Assessments were done at baseline (T1) and 1 month after (T2), with self-report socio-demographic and clinical questionnaires, Distress Thermometer (DT), McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy — Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp-12), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and its subscales (HADS — HADS-D, HADS-A). Results In the 1st step, and through focus groups, the manual was reformulated and tested. The preliminary study (2nd step) with MCGP original version showed a high number of dropouts which could jeopardize the study and, after reframing the sessions content, MCGP was adapted to a 4-session version, and its feasibility was tested by an internal pilot study (3rd step). The pilot exploratory trial (4th step) had 91 participants. Most socio-demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups (51: MCGP; 40: CAU) had no statistically significant differences. A comparison between the two groups at T2 showed that the MCGP group scored significantly higher in the general (U = 552.00, P < 0.001), and existential (U = 727.50, P = 0.018) domains and total score (U = 717.50, P = 0.015) of QoL, and CAU presented statistical higher levels in DT (U = 608.50, P = 0.001). Comparing the groups between T1 and T2, the MCGP group had a statistically significant improvement in the general (Z = −3.67, P < 0.001) and psychosocial (Z = −2.89, P = 0.004) domains and total score (Z = −2.71, P = 0.007) of QoL, and a statistically significant decrease in DT (Z = −2.40, P = 0.016). In terms of group effects, the MCGP group presented increased general (b = 1.42, P < 0.001, η2p = 0.179), and support (b = 0.80, P = 0.045, η2p = 0.048) domains and total score (b = 0.81, P = 0.013, η2p = 0.073) of QoL (small to elevated dimensions), and decreased levels of depression (b = −1.14, P = 0.044, η2p = 0.048), and distress (b = −1.38, P = 0.001, η2p = 0.127) (small to medium dimensions), compared with CAU. At T2, participants who attended ≥3 sessions (n = 38) had a statistically significant higher score in the general domain (U = 130.50, P = 0.009) of QoL, comparing with those who attended 1 or 2 sessions (n = 13). Significance of results This study supports the benefits of an MCGP adapted version in improving QoL and psychologic well-being. More studies are necessary to address the limitations of this pilot exploratory trial, as its small sample size.

Sample size re-estimation in a superiority clinical trial using a hybrid classical and Bayesian procedure

When designing studies involving a continuous endpoint, the hypothesized difference in means ([Formula: see text]) and the assumed variability of the endpoint ([Formula: see text]) play an important role in sample size and power calculations. Traditional methods of sample size re-estimation often update one or both of these parameters using statistics observed from an internal pilot study. However, the uncertainty in these estimates is rarely addressed. We propose a hybrid classical and Bayesian method to formally integrate prior beliefs about the study parameters and the results observed from an internal pilot study into the sample size re-estimation of a two-stage study design. The proposed method is based on a measure of power called conditional expected power (CEP), which averages the traditional power curve using the prior distributions of θ and [Formula: see text] as the averaging weight, conditional on the presence of a positive treatment effect. The proposed sample size re-estimation procedure finds the second stage per-group sample size necessary to achieve the desired level of conditional expected interim power, an updated CEP calculation that conditions on the observed first-stage results. The CEP re-estimation method retains the assumption that the parameters are not known with certainty at an interim point in the trial. Notional scenarios are evaluated to compare the behavior of the proposed method of sample size re-estimation to three traditional methods.

Subcutaneous Injection of Adalimumab Trial compared with Control (SCIATiC): a randomised controlled trial of adalimumab injection compared with placebo for patients receiving physiotherapy treatment for sciatica

BackgroundBiological treatments such as adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) are antibodies targeting tumour necrosis factor alpha, released from ruptured intervertebral discs, which might be useful in sciatica. Recent systematic reviews concluded that they might be effective, but that a definitive randomised controlled trial was needed. Usual care in the NHS typically includes a physiotherapy intervention.ObjectivesTo test whether or not injections of adalimumab plus physiotherapy are more clinically effective and cost-effective than injections of saline plus physiotherapy for patients with sciatica.DesignPragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded participants and clinicians, and an outcome assessment and statistical analysis with concurrent economic evaluation and internal pilot.SettingParticipants were referred from primary care and musculoskeletal services to outpatient physiotherapy clinics.ParticipantsAdults with persistent symptoms of sciatica of 1–6 months’ duration and with moderate to high levels of disability. Eligibility was assessed by research physiotherapists according to clinical criteria for diagnosing sciatica.InterventionsAfter a second eligibility check, trial participants were randomised to receive two doses of adalimumab (80 mg and then 40 mg 2 weeks later) or saline injections. Both groups were referred for a course of physiotherapy.Main outcome measuresOutcomes were measured at the start, and after 6 weeks’ and 6 months’ follow-up. The main outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Other outcomes: leg pain version of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, Sciatica Bothersomeness Index, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, 5-level version, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, resource use, risk of persistent disabling pain, pain trajectory based on a single question, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and adverse effects.Sample sizeTo detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% power, a 5% significance level for a two-tailedt-test and 80% retention rate, 332 participants would have needed to be recruited.Analysis planThe primary effectiveness analysis would have been linear mixed models for repeated measures to measure the effects of time and group allocation. An internal pilot study would have involved the first 50 participants recruited across all centres. The primary economic analysis would have been a cost–utility analysis.ResultsThe internal pilot study was discontinued as a result of low recruitment after eight participants were recruited from two out of six sites. One site withdrew from the study before recruitment started, one site did not complete contract negotiations and two sites signed contracts shortly before trial closure. In the two sites that did recruit participants, recruitment was slow. This was partly because of operational issues, but also because of a low rate of uptake from potential participants.LimitationsAlthough large numbers of invitations were sent to potential participants, identified by retrospective searches of general practitioner (GP) records, there was a low rate of uptake. Two sites planned to recruit participants during GP consultations but opened too late to recruit any participants.ConclusionThe main failure was attributable to problems with contracts. Because of this we were not able to complete the internal pilot or to test all of the different methods for primary care recruitment we had planned. A trial of biological therapy in patients with sciatica still needs to be done, but would require a clearer contracting process, qualitative research to ensure that patients would be willing to participate, and simpler recruitment methods.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN14569274.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 60. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Acceptability and Feasibility of a Trial Testing Allocation to Sunscreen and a Smartphone App for Sun Protection: Discontinued Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)

BACKGROUND Recreational sun exposure has been associated with melanoma prevalence, and tourism settings are of particular interest for skin cancer prevention. Effective, affordable, and geographically flexible interventions to promote sun protection are needed. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to describe the protocol for a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating a smartphone mobile intervention (mISkin app) promoting sun protection in holidaymakers and to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the mISkin app and associated trial procedures in an internal pilot study. METHODS Participants were recruited from the general community. Holidaymakers traveling abroad and owning a smartphone were enrolled in the internal pilot of a 2 (mISkin vs control) x 2 (sun protection factor [SPF] 15 vs SPF 30) RCT with a postholiday follow-up. The smartphone app is fully automated and entails a behavioral intervention to promote sun protection. It consisted of five components: skin assessment, educational videos, ultraviolet (UV) photos, gamification, and prompts for sun protection. Participants were also randomly allocated to receive sunscreen SPF 15 or SPF 30. Primary outcomes for the internal pilot study were acceptability and feasibility of trial procedures and intervention features. Secondary outcomes were collected at baseline and after holidays through face-to-face-assessments and included skin sun damage, sunscreen use (residual weight and application events), and sun protection practices (Web-based questionnaire). RESULTS From 142 registers of interest, 42 participants were randomized (76% [32/42] female; mean age 35.5 years). Outcome assessments were completed by all participants. Random allocation to SPF 15 versus SPF 30 was found not to be feasible in a definitive trial protocol. Of the 21 people allocated to the mISkin intervention, 19 (91%) installed the mISkin on their phones, and 18 (86%) used it at least once. Participants were satisfied with the mISkin app and made suggestions for further improvements. Due to difficulties with the random allocation to SPF and slow uptake, the trial was discontinued. CONCLUSIONS The internal pilot study concluded that randomization to SPF was not feasible and that recruitment rate was slower than expected because of difficulties with gatekeeper engagement. Possible solutions to the problems identified are discussed. Further refinements to the mISkin app are needed before a definitive trial. CLINICALTRIAL International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN63943558; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN63943558 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xOLvbab8)

Clinical trials with nested subgroups: Analysis, sample size determination and internal pilot studies

The importance of subgroup analyses has been increasing due to a growing interest in personalized medicine and targeted therapies. Considering designs with multiple nested subgroups and a continuous endpoint, we develop methods for the analysis and sample size determination. First, we consider the joint distribution of standardized test statistics that correspond to each (sub)population. We derive multivariate exact distributions where possible, providing approximations otherwise. Based on these results, we present sample size calculation procedures. Uncertainties about nuisance parameters which are needed for sample size calculations make the study prone to misspecifications. We discuss how a sample size review can be performed in order to make the study more robust. To this end, we implement an internal pilot study design where the variances and prevalences of the subgroups are reestimated in a blinded fashion and the sample size is recalculated accordingly. Simulations show that the procedures presented here do not inflate the type I error significantly and maintain the prespecified power as long as the sample size of the smallest subgroup is not too small. We pay special attention to the case of small sample sizes and attain a lower boundary for the size of the internal pilot study.