Search

Abstract Background Randomised controlled trials are widely accepted as the gold standard method to evaluate medical interventions, but they are still open to bias. One such bias is the effect of patient’s preference on outcome measures. The aims of this study were to examine whether patients’ treatment preference affected clearance of plantar warts and explore whether there were any associations between patients’ treatment preference and baseline variables in the EverT trial. Methods Two hundred and forty patients were recruited from University podiatry schools, NHS podiatry clinics and primary care. Patients were aged 12 years and over and had at least one plantar wart which was suitable for treatment with salicylic acid and cryotherapy. Patients were asked their treatment preference prior to randomisation. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to test the association between preference group and continuous baseline variables. The Fisher’s exact test was performed to test the association between preference group and categorical baseline variables. A logistic regression analysis was undertaken with verruca clearance (yes or no) as the dependent variable and treatment, age, type of verruca, previous treatment, treatment preference as independent variables. Two analyses were undertaken, one using the health professional reported outcome and one using the patient’s self reported outcomes. Data on whether the patient found it necessary to stop the treatment to which they had been allocated and whether they started another treatment were summarised by treatment group. Results Pre-randomisation preferences were: 10% for salicylic acid; 42% for cryotherapy and 48% no treatment preference. There was no evidence of an association between treatment preference group and either patient (p=0.95) or healthcare professional (p=0.46) reported verruca clearance rates. There was no evidence of an association between preference group and any of the baseline variables except gender, with more females expressing a preference for salicylic acid (p=0.004). There was no evidence that the number of times salicylic acid was applied was different between the preference groups at one week (p=0.89) or at three weeks (p=0.24). Similarly, for the number of clinic visits for cryotherapy (p=0.71) Conclusions This secondary analysis showed no evidence to suggest that patients’ baseline preferences affected verruca clearance rates or adherence with the treatment. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18994246 and National Research Register N0484189151

Abstract Background Plantar warts (verrucae) are extremely common. Although many will spontaneously disappear without treatment, treatment may be sought for a variety of reasons such as discomfort. There are a number of different treatments for cutaneous warts, with salicylic acid and cryotherapy using liquid nitrogen being two of the most common forms of treatment. To date, no full economic evaluation of either salicylic acid or cryotherapy has been conducted based on the use of primary data in a pragmatic setting. This paper describes the cost-effectiveness analysis which was conducted alongside a pragmatic multicentre, randomised trial evaluating the clinical effectiveness of cryotherapy versus 50% salicylic acid of the treatment of plantar warts. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken alongside a pragmatic multicentre, randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness of 50% salicylic acid and cryotherapy using liquid nitrogen at 12 weeks after randomisation of patients. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were expressed as the additional cost required to completely cure the plantar warts of one additional patient. A NHS perspective was taken for the analysis. Results Cryotherapy costs on average £101.17 (bias corrected and accelerated (BCA) 95% CI: 85.09-117.26) more per participant over the 12 week time-frame, while there is no additional benefit, in terms of proportion of patients healed compared with salicylic acid. Conclusions Cryotherapy is more costly and no more effective than salicylic acid. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18994246 [controlled-trials.com] and National Research Register N0484189151.

Background: Trials using inadequate levels of blinding may report larger effect sizes than blinded studies. It has been suggested that blinded outcome assessment in open trials may in some cases be undertaken by assessments of photographs. The aim of this paper is to explore the effect of using different methods to assess the primary outcome in the EVerT (Effective Verruca Treatments) trial. It also aims to give an overview of the experiences of using digital photographs within the trial., Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis to explore the effect of using three different methods to assess the primary outcome in the EVerT trial: assessment of digital photographs by blinded healthcare professionals; blinded healthcare professional assessment at the recruiting site and patient self-report. The verruca clearance rates were calculated using the three different methods of assessment. A Cohen's kappa measure of inter-rater agreement was used to assess the agreement between the methods. We also investigated the experiences of healthcare professionals using digital photographs within the trial., Results: Digital photographs for 189 out of 240 (79 %) patients in the trial were received for outcome assessment. Of the 189 photographs, 30 (16 %) were uninterpretable. The overall verruca clearance rates were 21 % (43/202,) using the unblinded patient self-reported outcome, 6 % (9/159,) using blinded assessment of digital photographs and 14 % (30/210,) using blinded outcome assessment at the site., Conclusions: Despite differences in the clearance rates found using different methods of outcome assessment, this did not change the original conclusion of the trial, that there is no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between cryotherapy and salicylic acid. Future trials using digital photographs should consider individual training needs at sites and have a backup method of assessment agreed a priori., Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN18994246.