FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2807999857> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2807999857 endingPage "408" @default.
• W2807999857 startingPage "405" @default.
• W2807999857 abstract "The aim of this commentary is to document our experience and lessons learned of running a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in vulvar erosive lichen planus (ELPV), an uncommon and underresearched condition. Vulvar erosive lichen planus causes painful vulvovaginal erosions, which affect daily function and quality of life.1 Response to standard first-line therapy (superpotent topical corticosteroids) is often inadequate, and there are no RCTs to guide second-line treatment.2 The “hELP” (Systemic Therapy for Vulvar Erosive Lichen Planus) trial was a pilot study to assess feasibility of a definitive trial comparing systemic treatments for ELPV. Ethical approval (14/YH/0046), prospective trial registration (ISRCTN: 81883379), and protocol publication3 occurred. “hELP” was a multicenter, four-arm, assessor-blind, pilot RCT recruiting from 12 UK sites for 14 months. Eligible participants were randomized to a 6-month course of hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, or mycophenolate mofetil or a 4-week reducing regimen of prednisolone (comparator group); all received super-potent topical corticosteroids. Inclusion criteria were the following: women older than 18 with a clinical diagnosis of moderate to severe ELPV, despite 3-month treatment with clobetasol propionate 0.05%, plus documented vulvar biopsy that excluded malignant/premalignant disease. Participants must have agreed to clinical photographs. Exclusion criteria were the following: (1) lichen sclerosus/lichen planus overlap; (2) received any of the systemic trial drugs within the last month; (3) a previous or current diagnosis of malignant disease; (4) premalignant cervical or vulvar disease; (5) live vaccine administration in the last 2 weeks; (6) pregnancy or breastfeeding; (7) allergy to any of the trial medications; (8) history of clinically significant renal/liver impairment or concurrent medications that would interact with the trial drugs; and (9) any other reason that the trial medications would not be given in usual clinical practice. Feasibility outcomes were the proportion of eligible participants randomized; the proportion of patients adhering to treatment, quality and suitability of clinical images, suitability of trial design, and suitability of clinical outcomes. The primary clinical outcome was treatment “success” at 6 months. Because of the absence of validated outcome measures for ELPV, the definition of “success” was agreed after qualitative work with expert clinicians.4 Treatment was classed as successful if both the following outcomes were met: Patient global assessment of disease severity of “none” or “mild” (on a 4-point scale of none, mild, moderate, or severe disease). Any improvement from baseline judged by blinded assessment of clinical photographs. The trial was pragmatically designed; interventions were tested in an environment that was as close to real-life as possible in terms of setting, study population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes.5 Of 180 patients screened, only 44 (24%) were eligible. Ineligibility reasons are in Figure 1. Of those eligible, 22 (50%) of 44 were randomized; 20 did not consent to take a tablet treatment. The study was closed without reaching its recruitment target of 40. For those 22 patients who entered the trial, study medications were not started by four participants, four stopped trial treatment early and two were lost to follow-up (Figure 1).FIGURE 1: CONSORT diagram of participant flow in the hELP pilot trial.Only 14 of 22 participants had complete before and after images, and overall quality was poor despite being taken by medical photography. Treatment “success” only occurred in the hydroxychloroquine (2/6, 33%) and mycophenolate mofetil (2/5, 40%) groups. hELP was an ambitious trial because it was looking to recruit patients with an uncommon skin condition for second-line treatment. However, preliminary data had suggested that the recruitment target was achievable. The lessons learned are summarized in Table 1, and specific lessons learned for future ELPV trials are expanded upon hereinafter.TABLE 1: Lessons Learned From the hELP Study: The Lessons Learned Have Been Categorized and Potential Solutions Suggested to Inform Other Researchers' Trial DesignsDespite 180 patients being identified, many were not eligible. The main ineligibility reason was mild disease. In counseling potential participants for hELP, some were found to not be using topical steroids effectively; re-education on topical treatment, for some, led to better disease control and negated the need for systemic therapy. This suggests that over time, patients' technique of applying and understanding of the importance of topical treatments was lessening and not being regularly assessed by clinical care teams. Of those eligible, the main reason for nonparticipation was that people did not want to take a tablet treatment, despite clinically moderate/severe disease. People with ELPV are often of an older age group, likely to have comorbidities and be more anxious about combining medications or adverse effects. This should be borne in mind for future trials as reluctance for systemic therapy may always present a barrier to recruitment. Patient-reported symptoms are a guide for therapeutic decision-making4 and are arguably the most important outcome to measure. However, because this was an open-label trial, we wanted to ensure a blinded component to the clinical end point through using objective assessment of clinical photographs. Only four participants achieved our definition of “treatment success.” However, 10 of 16 showed improvement in patient global assessment and 6 of 16 continued treatment after 6 months. This suggests that the composite primary outcome was too stringent and a set of “core outcome measures”6 is essential to success of future ELPV trials. Despite clinical photography being usual practice in the management of vulval disease, the concept of taking images deterred 2 (4%) of 44 of eligible patients from consenting to the study. In addition, 6 (46%) of 13 contacted at 12 months stated that they found the photographs embarrassing or that they were not keen on having them taken. Photographs received were of varying quality, despite the provision of a standardized photographic protocol. Medical imaging provision varied widely between centers. Some had photographers present in the clinic who could take the images immediately. Others only operated at specific times, often in a different location within the hospital. The latter led to practical difficulty, especially if images needed to be retaken because of inadequate initial images. Important lessons applicable to developing and delivering future trials have been learned by conducting the hELP study. Running a pilot trial was an important step to assess feasibility and in this case stopped a full-scale RCT from proceeding. Valuable resources have therefore been saved, and we hope that the lessons learned will prevent future research waste in other areas." @default.
• W2807999857 created "2018-06-21" @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5011756366 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5011879096 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5012312946 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5013292293 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5020714761 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5021664196 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5028108934 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5029759709 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5030536801 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5050777273 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5056319565 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5059227210 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5059261043 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5064570164 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5079448850 @default.
• W2807999857 creator A5080121859 @default.
• W2807999857 date "2018-10-01" @default.
• W2807999857 modified "2023-09-29" @default.
• W2807999857 title "Help for Future Research: Lessons Learned in Trial Design, Recruitment, and Delivery From the “hELP” Study" @default.
• W2807999857 cites W1976294263 @default.
• W2807999857 cites W1987861386 @default.
• W2807999857 cites W2128659393 @default.
• W2807999857 cites W2217343323 @default.
• W2807999857 cites W2727970027 @default.
• W2807999857 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/lgt.0000000000000407" @default.
• W2807999857 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6161816" @default.
• W2807999857 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29975332" @default.
• W2807999857 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2807999857 type Work @default.
• W2807999857 sameAs 2807999857 @default.
• W2807999857 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2807999857 countsByYear W28079998572020 @default.
• W2807999857 countsByYear W28079998572021 @default.
• W2807999857 countsByYear W28079998572022 @default.
• W2807999857 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5011756366 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5011879096 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5012312946 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5013292293 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5020714761 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5021664196 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5028108934 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5029759709 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5030536801 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5050777273 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5056319565 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5059227210 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5059261043 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5064570164 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5079448850 @default.
• W2807999857 hasAuthorship W2807999857A5080121859 @default.
• W2807999857 hasBestOaLocation W28079998572 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConcept C2779318504 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConceptScore W2807999857C144024400 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConceptScore W2807999857C19527891 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConceptScore W2807999857C2779318504 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConceptScore W2807999857C36289849 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConceptScore W2807999857C509550671 @default.
• W2807999857 hasConceptScore W2807999857C71924100 @default.
• W2807999857 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2807999857 hasLocation W28079998571 @default.
• W2807999857 hasLocation W28079998572 @default.
• W2807999857 hasLocation W28079998573 @default.
• W2807999857 hasLocation W28079998574 @default.
• W2807999857 hasLocation W28079998575 @default.
• W2807999857 hasLocation W28079998576 @default.
• W2807999857 hasLocation W28079998577 @default.
• W2807999857 hasOpenAccess W2807999857 @default.
• W2807999857 hasPrimaryLocation W28079998571 @default.
• W2807999857 hasRelatedWork W1546813037 @default.
• W2807999857 hasRelatedWork W1990501554 @default.
• W2807999857 hasRelatedWork W2028561300 @default.
• W2807999857 hasRelatedWork W2044314736 @default.
• W2807999857 hasRelatedWork W2339046175 @default.
• W2807999857 hasRelatedWork W2525480361 @default.
• W2807999857 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2807999857 hasRelatedWork W3040344681 @default.
• W2807999857 hasRelatedWork W3096109785 @default.
• W2807999857 hasRelatedWork W1144395277 @default.
• W2807999857 hasVolume "22" @default.
• W2807999857 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2807999857 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2807999857 magId "2807999857" @default.
• W2807999857 workType "article" @default.