Search

To determine whether early switch to oral antibiotic treatment in adults with neutropenic sepsis at low risk of complications is non-inferior to switching later. This non-inferiority, parallel-group, randomized, open-label clinical trial enrolled UK adults hospitalized with neutropenic sepsis. Participants were randomly assigned to either switch to oral ciprofloxacin plus co-amoxiclav within 12–24 hours or to continue intravenous treatment for at least 48 hours. The primary outcome was a composite measure of treatment failure, 14 days after randomization. The non-inferiority margin was 15%. There were 129 participants from 16 centres and 125 were assessed for the primary outcome. Of these, 113 patients completed protocolized treatment and comprised the per-protocol population. In total, 9 (14.1%) of 64 patients in the standard care arm met the primary end point, compared with 15 (24.6%) of 61 in the early switch arm, giving a risk difference of 10.5% (1-sided 95% CI, −∞% to 22%; p 0.14). In the per-protocol population, 8 (13.3%) of the 60 patients in the standard care arm met the primary end point, compared with 9 (17%) of 53 in the intervention arm giving a risk difference of 3.7% (one-sided 95% CI, −∞% to 14.8%; p 0.59). Duration of hospital stay was shorter in the intervention arm (median 2 [inter-quartile range (IQR) 2–3] vs. 3 days [IQR 2–4]; p 0.002). Although non-inferiority of early oral switch was found in the per-protocol population, the intervention was not non-inferior in the intent-to-treat population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK neurosurgical community has a track record of delivering high-quality, practice-changing clinical research studies, facilitated by a robust clinical research infrastructure and close collaborations between neurosurgical centers. More recently, these large-scale studies have been conceived, developed, and delivered by neurosurgical trainees, working under the umbrella of the British Neurosurgical Trainee Research Collaborative (BNTRC). In this paper, we outline the current landscape of large-scale neurosurgical studies in the UK, focusing on the role of trainees in facilitating this research. Importantly, we focus on our experience of trainee-led studies, including the development of the network, current challenges, and future directions. We believe that a similar model can be applied in different settings and countries, which will drive up the quality of neurosurgical research, ultimately benefiting future neurosurgical patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low participation in clinical trials is a major challenge to advancing clinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and care. Factors influencing recruitment to AD trials are not fully understood.Objective: To identify barriers to, and facilitators of, recruitment in a UK multi-center, secondary care AD trial (Reducing pathology in Alzheimer's Disease through Angiotensin TaRgeting (RADAR) trial) and implications for improving recruitment to AD trials.Methods: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with a purposive sample of 17 trial site staff explored the RADAR trial recruitment pathway and views and experiences of recruitment. Interviews were analyzed thematically.Results: Diagnostic and care pathways hindered identifying patients with mild-moderate AD, with a lack of up-to-date patient records and data access problems affecting screening. Research is not routinely embedded in AD care but facilitated recruitment when it was. Clinicians' and patients' favorable view of the trial purpose facilitated recruitment, although the complexity of participant information sheets and requirement for study companion created challenges.Conclusion: These findings have important implications for the design of future AD trials and for planning how to best interface with clinical commitments to ensure sufficient and timely recruitment. Challenges to AD trial recruitment can occur at care pathway, clinician, and patient and companion levels. Recruitment can be facilitated by: improving diagnostic processes and systems for recording and sharing patient information, embedding research into routine patient care, collaborating with a range of services to identify and approach eligible patients, training and engaging trial staff, and providing patients with clear and concise study information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility of a multicentre randomized controlled trial of ReaDySpeech, an online speech therapy programme for people with dysarthria. Design: Feasibility randomized controlled trial, 2:1 minimization procedure. Setting: Four UK NHS services across hospital and community. Participants: Forty participants with dysarthria at least one week post-stroke. Interventions/comparator: ReaDySpeech with usual care (n = 26) versus usual care only (n = 14). Main outcomes: Feasibility measures included the following: recruitment and retention rate, time taken to carry out assessments, success of outcome assessor blinding, fidelity and adherence. Participant baseline and outcome measures collected before and after 8-10 weeks of intervention were the Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment II, Therapy Outcome Measure, Communication Outcomes After Stroke Scale, EQ-5D-5L and Dysarthria Impact Profile. Results: Recruited 40 participants out of 74 eligible people, 1-13 weeks post stroke and mean age 69 years (37-99). Retention was very high (92%). Assessor blinding was not achieved with intervention allocation correctly guessed for 70% of participants (26/37). Time to carry out assessments was acceptable to participants. ReaDySpeech was delivered to 16 of 26 allocated participants, who completed 55% of prescribed activities, but both interventions were delivered at low intensity (mean 6.6 face-to-face sessions of 40-minute duration). Conclusion: Recruitment and retention in this randomized controlled trial of computerized therapy for dysarthria is feasible for acute stroke. However, further feasibility work is needed to evaluate whether it is possible to recruit chronic stroke; increase intervention delivery, intensity and adherence; achieve outcome assessor blinding by video-recording and to determine sample size for a larger trial of effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the feasibility of conducting a trial of a pre-surgical psychological intervention on pain, function, and mood in people with knee osteoarthritis listed for total knee arthroplasty. Design: Multi-centre, mixed-methods feasibility randomized controlled trial of intervention plus usual care versus usual care. Setting: Participants’ homes or hospital. Participants: Patients with knee osteoarthritis listed for total knee arthroplasty and score >7 on either subscales of Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Intervention: Up-to 10 sessions of psychological intervention (based on cognitive behavioural therapy). Main measures: Feasibility outcomes (recruitment and retention rates, acceptability of trial procedures and intervention, completion of outcome measures), and standardized questionnaires assessing pain, function, and mood at baseline, and four and six months post-randomisation. Results: Of 222 people screened, 81 did not meet inclusion criteria, 64 did not wish to participate, 26 were excluded for other reasons, and 51 were randomized. A total of 30 completed 4-month outcomes and 25 completed 6-month outcomes. Modal number of intervention sessions completed was three (range 2–8). At 6-month follow-up, mood, pain, and physical function scores were consistent with clinically important benefits from intervention, with effect sizes ranging from small (d = 0.005) to moderate (d = 0.74), and significant differences in physical function between intervention and usual care groups (d = 1.16). Feedback interviews suggested that participants understood the rationale for the study, found the information provided adequate, the measures comprehensive, and the intervention acceptable. Conclusion: A definitive trial is feasible, with a total sample size of 444 people. Pain is a suitable primary outcome, but best assessed 6 and 12 months post-surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]