The FOCUS, AFFINITY and EFFECTS trials studying the effect(s) of fluoxetine in patients with a recent stroke: statistical and health economic analysis plan for the trials and for the individual patient data meta-analysis

Catriona Graham, Steff Lewis, John Forbes, Gillian Mead, Maree L Hackett, Graeme J Hankey, John Gommans, Huy Thang Nguyen, Erik Lundström, Eva Isaksson, Per Näsman, Ann-Sofie Rudberg, Martin Dennis, Catriona Graham, Steff Lewis, John Forbes, Gillian Mead, Maree L Hackett, Graeme J Hankey, John Gommans, Huy Thang Nguyen, Erik Lundström, Eva Isaksson, Per Näsman, Ann-Sofie Rudberg, Martin Dennis

Abstract

Background: Small trials have suggested that fluoxetine may improve neurological recovery from stroke. FOCUS, AFFINITY and EFFECTS are a family of investigator-led, multicentre, parallel group, randomised, placebo-controlled trials which aim to determine whether the routine administration of fluoxetine (20 mg daily) for six months after an acute stroke improves patients' functional outcome.

Methods/design: The core protocol for the three trials has been published (Mead et al., Trials 20:369, 2015). The trials include patients aged 18 years and older with a clinical diagnosis of stroke and persisting focal neurological deficits at randomisation 2-15 days after stroke onset. Patients are randomised centrally via each trials' web-based randomisation system using a common minimisation algorithm. Patients are allocated fluoxetine 20 mg once daily or matching placebo capsules for six months. The primary outcome measure is the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at six months. Secondary outcomes include: living circumstances; the Stroke Impact Scale; EuroQol (EQ5D-5 L); the vitality subscale of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF36); diagnosis of depression; adherence to medication; serious adverse events including death and recurrent stroke; and resource use at six and 12 months and the mRS at 12 months.

Discussion: Minor variations have been tailored to the national setting in the UK (FOCUS), Australia, New Zealand and Vietnam (AFFINITY) and Sweden (EFFECTS). Each trial is run and funded independently and will report its own results. A prospectively planned individual patient data meta-analysis of all three trials will provide the most precise estimate of the overall effect and establish whether any effects differ between trials or subgroups. This statistical analysis plan describes the core analyses for all three trials and that for the individual patient data meta-analysis. Recruitment and follow-up in the FOCUS trial is expected to be completed by the end of 2018. AFFINITY and EFFECTS are likely to complete follow-up in 2020.

Trial registration: FOCUS: ISRCTN , ISRCTN83290762 . Registered on 23 May 2012. EudraCT, 2011-005616-29. Registered on 3 February 2012.

Affinity: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000774921 . Registered on 22 July 2011.

Effects: ISRCTN , ISRCTN13020412 . Registered on 19 December 2014. Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02683213 . Registered on 2 February 2016. EudraCT, 2011-006130-16 . Registered on 8 August 2014.

Keywords: Antidepressants; Depression; Fluoxetine; Haemorrhagic stroke; Ischaemic stroke; Recovery; SSRI.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Each trial has received approval for its protocol and trial materials from the relevant local ethics committees and regulatory authorities in their respective countries (FOCUS: Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (for UK) Ref 11/SS/0100 (21/12/2011), AFFINITY: Western Australia, Royal Perth Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee Ref 2011-131 (24/02/2012), St John of God Healthcare HREC for St John of God Hospital Midland, Western Australia Ref 894, (16/02/2016), New South Wales, Victoria & Queensland, Western Sydney Local Health District Ref HREC/13/WMEAD/165 (30/04/2013), South Adelaide Clinical HREC Ref 275.14 -HREC/14/SAC/284 (01/09/2014), The Alfred HREC for Caulfield Hospital Victoria Ref 248/16 (19/08/2016). Calvary Health Care Bruce HREC Ref 29-2014 (07/04/2015). New Zealand, Central Health and Disability Ethics Committee Ref 14/CEN/39 (17/04/2014)). EFFECTS: Stockholm Ethics Committee Ref 2013/1265-31/2 (30/09/2013). No centre can start recruitment until it has received relevant ethics and regulatory approvals. Informed consent is obtained before the patient is enrolled except where it has been waived. Consent procedures had to comply with national requirements, so that in FOCUS and AFFINITY approval was obtained for consent by either patient or proxy, AFFINITY also has approval for waiver of consent, while in EFFECTS patients have to be capable of consenting for themselves.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None of the authors declare any financial competing interests relating to this research other than the chief investigators of these three trials having received grant funding to support the trials (see below). None of the authors have any non-financial competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Mead G, Hackett ML, Lundström E, Murray V, Hankey GJ, Dennis M. The FOCUS, AFFINITY and EFFECTS trials studying the effect(s) of fluoxetine in patients with a recent stroke: a study protocol for three multicentre randomised controlled trials. Trials. 2015;20:369. doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0864-1.
    1. Van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJA, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19:604–607. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.19.5.604.
    1. Altman DG, Bland JM. Treatment allocation by minimisation. BMJ. 2005;330:843. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7495.843.
    1. Counsell C, Dennis M, McDowall M, Warlow C. Predicting outcome after acute stroke: development and validation of new models. Stroke. 2002;33:1041–1047. doi: 10.1161/hs0402.105909.
    1. Brott TG, Adams HP, Olinger CP, Marler JR, Barsan WG, Biller J, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke. 1989;20:864–870. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.20.7.864.
    1. Bruno A, Shah N, Lin C, Close B, Hess D, Davis K, et al. Improving modified Rankin scale assessment with a simplified questionnaire. Stroke. 2010;41:1048–1050. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.571562.
    1. Bruno A, Akinwuntan AE, Lin C, Close B, Davis K, Baute V, et al. Simplified modified Rankin Scale Questionnaire: reproducibility over the telephone and validation with quality of life. Stroke. 2011;42:2276–2279. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.613273.
    1. Dennis M, Mead G, Doubal F, Graham C. Determining the modified Rankin score after stroke by postal and telephone questionnaires. Stroke. 2012;43(3):851–853. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.639708.
    1. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, Johnson D, Embretson S, Laster LJ. The Stroke Impact Scale Version 2.0: evaluation of reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Stroke. 1999;30:2131–2140. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.30.10.2131.
    1. Duncan P, Reker D, Kwon S, Lai SM, Studenski S, Perera S, et al. Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Med Care. 2005;43:507–515. doi: 10.1097/.
    1. Kwon S, Duncan P, Studenski S, Perera S, Lai SM, Reker D. Measuring stroke impact with SIS: construct validity of SIS telephone administration. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:367–376. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-2292-2.
    1. Mead GE, Lynch J, Greig CA, Young A, Lewis SJ, Sharpe M. Evaluation of Fatigue scales in stroke. Stroke. 2007;38:2090–2095. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.478941.
    1. Mead GE, Graham C, Dorman P, Bruins SK, Lewis SC, Dennis MS, et al. Fatigue after Stroke: Baseline Predictors and Influence on Survival. Analysis of Data from UK Patients Recruited in the International Stroke Trial. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e16988. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016988.
    1. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewney JE. How to score version 2 of the SF36 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2000.
    1. de Jager CA, Budge MM, Clarke R. Utility of TICS-M for the assessment of cognitive function in older adults. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003;18:318–324. doi: 10.1002/gps.830.
    1. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:695–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x.
    1. Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, Ware JE, Jr, Barsky AJ, Weinstein MC. Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care. 1991;29:169–176. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199102000-00008.
    1. Williams LS, Brizendine EJ, Plue L, Bakas T, Tu W, Hendrie H, et al. Performance of the PHQ-9 as a screening tool for depression after stroke. Stroke. 2005;36:635–638. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000155688.18207.33.
    1. Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:382–389. doi: 10.1192/bjp.134.4.382.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen MF, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5 L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. Devlin N, Shah K, Feng Y, Brendan Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5 L value set for England. London: Office of Health Economics Research Paper; 2016.
    1. Altman DG. Comparability of randomised groups. Statistician. 1985;34:125–136. doi: 10.2307/2987510.
    1. The Optimising Analysis of Stroke Trials (OAST) Collaboration Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical reanalysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials. Stroke. 2007;38:1911–1915. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.474080.
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, editors. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.0.1 [updated March 2011]. 2008. ]. Accessed 16th Dec 2017. .
    1. Gabrio A, Mason A, Baio G. Handling missing data in within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis: a review with future guidelines. PharmacoEconomics Open. 2017;1:79–97. doi: 10.1007/s41669-017-0015-6.
    1. Baio G, Berardi A, Heath A. Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis with the R package BCEA. New York: Springer; 2016.
    1. Athey S, Imbens G. Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(27):7353–7360. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510489113.
    1. Bruins Slot K, Berge E, Dorman P, Lewis S, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Impact of functional status at six months on long term survival in patients with ischaemic stroke: prospective cohort studies. BMJ. 2008;336:376–379. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41:1284–1292. doi: 10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C.
    1. Mead GE, Hankey GJ, Kutlubaev MA, Lee R, Bailey M, Hackett ML. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;11:CD009286.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir