No abstract

BackgroundMobile phone technology is a novel way of delivering health care and improving health outcomes. This trial investigates the use of motivational mobile phone text messages (SMS) to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) over six months.Methodology/Principal FindingsCAMPS was a single-site randomized two-arm parallel design trial in Yaoundé, Cameroon. We enrolled and randomized HIV-positive adults on ART, aged 21 years and above to receive a weekly standardized motivational text message versus usual care alone. The primary outcome was adherence measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS), number of doses missed (in the week preceding the interview) and pharmacy refill data. Outcomes were measured at 3 and 6 months. Service providers and outcome assessors were blinded to allocation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Between November and December 2010, 200 participants were randomized, with 101 in the intervention group and 99 in the control group. At 6 months, overall retention was 81.5%. We found no significant effect on adherence by VAS>95% (risk ratio [RR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89, 1.29; p = 0.542; reported missed doses (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87, 1.16; p>0.999) or number of pharmacy refills (mean difference [MD] 0.1, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.43; p = 0.617. One participant in the intervention arm reported a possible disclosure of status.Conclusions/SignificanceStandardized motivational mobile phone text messages did not significantly improve adherence to ART in this study. Other types of messaging or longer term studies are recommended.Registration1. Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry; PACTR201011000261458 2. Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01247181

Background Master protocols, classified as basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials, are novel designs that investigate multiple hypotheses through concurrent sub-studies (e.g., multiple treatments or populations or that allow adding/removing arms during the trial), offering enhanced efficiency and a more ethical approach to trial evaluation. Despite the many advantages of these designs, they are infrequently used. Methods We conducted a landscape analysis of master protocols using a systematic literature search to determine what trials have been conducted and proposed for an overall goal of improving the literacy in this emerging concept. On July 8, 2019, English-language studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and hand searches of published reviews and registries. Results We identified 83 master protocols (49 basket, 18 umbrella, and 16 platform trials). The number of master protocols has increased rapidly over the last five years. Most have been conducted in the US (n = 44/83) and investigated experimental drugs (n = 82/83) in the field of oncology (n = 76/83). The majority of basket trials were exploratory (i.e., phase I/II; n = 47/49) and not randomized (n = 44/49), and more than half (n = 28/48) investigated only a single intervention. The median sample size of basket trials was 205 participants (interquartile range, Q3-Q1 [IQR]: 500–90 = 410), and the median study duration was 22.3 (IQR: 74.1–42.9 = 31.1) months. Similar to basket trials, most umbrella trials were exploratory (n = 16/18), but the use of randomization was more common (n = 8/18). The median sample size of umbrella trials was 346 participants (IQR: 565–252 = 313), and the median study duration was 60.9 (IQR: 81.3–46.9 = 34.4) months. The median number of interventions investigated in umbrella trials was 5 (IQR: 6–4 = 2). The majority of platform trials were randomized (n = 15/16), and phase III investigation (n = 7/15; one did not report information on phase) was more common in platform trials with four of them using seamless II/III design. The median sample size was 892 (IQR: 1835–255 = 1580), and the median study duration was 58.9 (IQR: 101.3–36.9 = 64.4) months. Conclusions We anticipate that the number of master protocols will continue to increase at a rapid pace over the upcoming decades. More efforts to improve awareness and training are needed to apply these innovative trial design methods to fields outside of oncology.

No abstract