AFFINITY 2020.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods | Multicentre Study type: interventional (clinical trial) Allocation: randomised Intervention model: parallel assignment Masking: quadruple (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor) Primary purpose: treatment |
|
Participants | 1280 participants Country: Australia (n = 532), New Zealand (n = 42), and Vietnam (n = 706) Setting: inpatient At randomisation number allocated: N = 1280: fluoxetine (n = 642); placebo (n = 638) % male: fluoxetine (64%); placebo (62%) Age: mean age: fluoxetine = 63.5± 12.5; placebo = 64.6 ± 12.2 Subtype of stroke
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria:
|
|
Interventions | Fluoxetine 20 mg once daily or matching placebo capsules for 6 months | |
Outcomes | Primary outcome
Secondary outcomes at 180 and 365 days after randomisation
|
|
Funding source | The AFFINITY trial was funded by the Australian NHMRC Project Grant 1059094. The minimisation algorithm was provided by The Stroke Research Group, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK | |
Notes | ACTRN12611000774921Recruitment January 11, 2013, and June 30, 2019. GJH has received grants from the NHMRC of Australia, Vetenskapsrådet (The Swedish Research Council), and UK National Institute for Health Research Technology, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from the American Heart Association, outside of the submitted work. MLH, CE‐B, LB, and TL have received grants from the NHMRC of Australia during the conduct of the study. CSA has received grants from the NHMRC of Australia, and grants and personal fees from Takeda, outside of the submitted work. All other members of the writing group declare no competing interests. | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: " The patient’s clinician entered the patient’s baseline data into a secure, password‐protected, centralised, web‐based randomisation system that checked the data for completeness and consistency and generated a unique study identification number and treatment pack number corresponding to fluoxetine or placebo in a 1:1 ratio." |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: " All patients, carers, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to the allocated treatment by use of placebo capsules that were visually identical to the fluoxetine capsules even when broken open. Success of masking was not assessed." |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "All patients, carers, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to the allocated treatment by use of placebo capsules that were visually identical to the fluoxetine capsules even when broken open. Success of masking was not assessed." |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "All patients, carers, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to the allocated treatment by use of placebo capsules that were visually identical to the fluoxetine capsules even when broken open. Success of masking was not assessed." |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Less than 5% dropped out or died and there is no compelling evidence of a difference between the 2 groups |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All outcomes in protocol were reported |
Other bias | Low risk | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias |