Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Update

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

Authors: 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

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

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, ACTRN12611000774​921. 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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJA, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19:604–7.CrossRefPubMed Van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJA, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19:604–7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Counsell C, Dennis M, McDowall M, Warlow C. Predicting outcome after acute stroke: development and validation of new models. Stroke. 2002;33:1041–7.CrossRefPubMed Counsell C, Dennis M, McDowall M, Warlow C. Predicting outcome after acute stroke: development and validation of new models. Stroke. 2002;33:1041–7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference 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;20:864–70.CrossRefPubMed 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;20:864–70.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference 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;41:1048–50.CrossRefPubMed 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;41:1048–50.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference 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;42:2276–9.CrossRefPubMed 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;42:2276–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Dennis M, Mead G, Doubal F, Graham C. Determining the modified Rankin score after stroke by postal and telephone questionnaires. Stroke. 2012;43(3):851–3.CrossRefPubMed Dennis M, Mead G, Doubal F, Graham C. Determining the modified Rankin score after stroke by postal and telephone questionnaires. Stroke. 2012;43(3):851–3.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference 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;30:2131–40.CrossRefPubMed 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;30:2131–40.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference 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;43:507–15.CrossRefPubMed 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;43:507–15.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference 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;15:367–76.CrossRefPubMed 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;15:367–76.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Mead GE, Lynch J, Greig CA, Young A, Lewis SJ, Sharpe M. Evaluation of Fatigue scales in stroke. Stroke. 2007;38:2090–5.CrossRefPubMed Mead GE, Lynch J, Greig CA, Young A, Lewis SJ, Sharpe M. Evaluation of Fatigue scales in stroke. Stroke. 2007;38:2090–5.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewney JE. How to score version 2 of the SF36 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2000. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewney JE. How to score version 2 of the SF36 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2000.
15.
go back to reference 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;18:318–24.CrossRefPubMed 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;18:318–24.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference 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;53:695–9.CrossRefPubMed 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;53:695–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, Ware Jr JE, Barsky AJ, Weinstein MC. Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care. 1991;29:169–76.CrossRefPubMed Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, Ware Jr JE, Barsky AJ, Weinstein MC. Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care. 1991;29:169–76.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference 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;36:635–8.CrossRefPubMed 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;36:635–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:382–9.CrossRefPubMed Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:382–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference 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;20:1727–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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;20:1727–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference 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. 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.
22.
go back to reference Altman DG. Comparability of randomised groups. Statistician. 1985;34:125–36.CrossRef Altman DG. Comparability of randomised groups. Statistician. 1985;34:125–36.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference 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;38:1911–5.CrossRef 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;38:1911–5.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Baio G, Berardi A, Heath A. Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis with the R package BCEA. New York: Springer; 2016. Baio G, Berardi A, Heath A. Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis with the R package BCEA. New York: Springer; 2016.
28.
go back to reference 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;336:376–9.CrossRef 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;336:376–9.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41:1284–92.CrossRefPubMed Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41:1284–92.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference 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. 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.
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
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
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2385-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Trials 1/2017 Go to the issue