Search

Background Increasingly, pragmatic randomised controlled trials are being used to evaluate surgical interventions, although they present particular difficulties in regards to recruitment and retention. Methods Procedures and processes related to implementation of a multi-centre pragmatic surgical randomised controlled trial are discussed. In this surgical trial, forecasting of consent rates based on similar trials and micro-costing of study activities with research partners were undertaken and a video was produced targeting recruiting staff with the aim of aiding recruitment. The baseline assessments were reviewed to ensure the timing did not impact on the outcome. Attrition due to procedure waiting time was monitored and data were triangulated for the primary outcome to ensure adequate follow-up data. Results Forecasting and costing ensured that the recruitment window was of adequate length and adequate resource was available for study procedures at multiple clinics in each hospital. Recruiting staff found the recruitment video useful. The comparison of patient-reported data collected prior to randomisation and prior to treatment provided confidence in the baseline data. Knowledge of participant dropout due to delays in treatment meant we were able to increase the recruitment target in a timely fashion, and along with the triangulation of data sources, this ensured adequate follow-up of randomised participants. Conclusions This paper provides a range of evidence-based and experience-based approaches which, collectively, resulted in meeting our study objectives and from which lessons may be transferable. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN41394716. Registered on 10 May 2012. UKCRN Study ID: 12486.

Background At times, clinical case complexity and different types of uncertainty present challenges to less experienced clinicians or the naive application of clinical guidelines where this may not be appropriate. Cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods are used to elicit, document and transfer tacit knowledge about how experts make decisions. Methods We conducted a methodological review to describe the use of CTA methods in understanding expert clinical decision-making. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to 2019 for primary research studies which described the use of CTA methods to understand how qualified clinicians made clinical decisions in real-world clinical settings. Results We included 81 articles (80 unique studies) from 13 countries, published from 1993 to 2019, most commonly from surgical and critical care settings. The most common aims were to understand expert decision-making in particular clinical scenarios, using expert decision-making in the development of training programmes, understanding whether decision support tools were warranted and understanding procedural variability and error identification or reduction. Critical decision method (CDM) and CTA interviews were most frequently used, with hierarchical task analysis, task knowledge structures, think-aloud protocols and other methods less commonly used. Studies used interviews, observation, think-aloud exercises, surveys, focus groups and a range of more CTA-specific methodologies such as the systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. Researchers used CTA methods to investigate routine/typical (n = 64), challenging (n = 13) or more uncommon, rare events and anomalies (n = 3). Conclusions In conclusion, the elicitation of expert tacit knowledge using CTA has seen increasing use in clinical specialties working under challenging time pressures, complexity and uncertainty. CTA methods have great potential in the development, refinement, modification or adaptation of complex interventions, clinical protocols and practice guidelines. Registration PROSPERO ID CRD42019128418.

Background\ud \ud Intestinal inflammation in Crohn’s disease (CD) is caused by mucosal immune system reactivity to luminal antigen and results in debilitating symptoms, reduced quality of life, impaired work productivity and significant health care costs. Not all patients respond to conventional and biologic therapies, with chronic inflammation ensuing. Although surgical resection may be required, disease frequently returns and surgery may not be an option, or may be declined. Case reports suggest potential benefit after haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) for patients with refractory CD.\ud \ud \ud \ud The ASTIC trial asked whether HSCT could cure CD. Few patients achieved the primary endpoint of clinical remission for 3 months, off all medication with no evidence of active disease, and there were a high number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), including one patient death. However, beneficial effects were observed in some aspects of disease activity. The ASTIClite trial will investigate these potential benefits and safety using a lower intensity regimen than ASTIC.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud Ninety-nine participants will be recruited from secondary care IBD centres in the UK into a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT, ASTIClite) and an observational follow-up, and randomised to autologous HSCT versus standard care (ratio 2:1).\ud \ud \ud \ud The primary endpoint is treatment success at week 48, defined as mucosal healing without surgery or death. Secondary endpoints relating to efficacy, safety and mechanistic analyses will be evaluated at week 8, 14, 24, 32, 40 and 48.\ud \ud \ud \ud Long-term safety of the low intensity HSCT regimen forms the primary endpoint for the EBMT follow-up study and will be assessed annually for 4–7 years.\ud \ud \ud \ud Discussion\ud \ud ASTIClite will compare HSCTlite with standard care with respect to safety, efficacy and quality of life, and capture outcomes allowing findings to be generalised to current clinical practice in the UK. It will also provide significant mechanistic insights into the immunological consequences of HSCTlite and its impact on treatment outcomes. The observational follow-up will provide information, which is currently unavailable for this population.\ud \ud \ud \ud Trial registration\ud \ud The ASTIClite RCT was registered on 31st October 2017 (ISRCTN17160440) and the EBMT follow-up study on 19th January 2018 (ISRCTN31981313).

Background Good Clinical Practice guidelines issued in 2016 encourage risk-based approaches to monitoring clinical trials. This study compared current risk assessment and monitoring approaches in UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) with the published guidance and makes recommendations for risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials. Methods An online survey of UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered CTUs was administered via email invitation. Forty-nine units were invited, and 23 responded. Respondents were also invited to share copies of risk assessment templates. Results Most CTUs reported using remote combined with on-site monitoring. All reported undertaking a risk assessment for Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products (CTIMPs) and 21 units did so for non-CTIMPs. Most CTIMP risk assessments used MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) classifications, although some also employed staff judgement. Almost all units based their monitoring on perceived risk level; this number was higher for CTIMPs (n = 22) than for non-CTIMPs (n = 19). In most cases, monitoring plans were produced. More CTUs revisited risk assessments during trials in CTIMPs (n = 21) than in non-CTIMPs (n = 18). Small numbers of units reviewed the monitoring approach always (n = 4) or sometimes (n = 9) and few used the reflection to guide future monitoring. Conclusions A high proportion of UK CTUs are using risk-based monitoring in the UK, as recommended by guidelines, for both CTIMPs and non-CTIMPs. This has the potential to make trials more efficient and reduce costs. However, there appears to be a lack of reflection on the value of these revised approaches. There may be a benefit in CTUs collaborating nationally to improve processes for reflection and making changes during the life course of a trial.

Aims and methodThe STEPWISE trial (STructured lifestyle Education for People WIth SchizophrEnia, schizoaffective disorder and first episode psychosis) is currently evaluating a lifestyle education programme in addition to usual care. However, it is difficult to define what constitutes ‘usual care’. We aimed to define ‘usual care’ for lifestyle management in people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder and first-episode psychosis in STEPWISE study sites. Ten National Health Service (NHS) mental health trusts participated in a bespoke survey based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance.ResultsEight trusts reported offering lifestyle education programmes and nine offered smoking cessation support. Reported recording of biomedical measures varied.Clinical implicationsAlthough recommended by NICE, lifestyle education programmes are not consistently offered across UK NHS mental health trusts. This highlights missed opportunities to improve the physical health of people with psychotic illness. Our survey benchmarks ‘usual care’ for the STEPWISE study, against which changes can be measured. Furthermore, future studies will be able to identify whether any progress in clinical practice has been made towards achieving the NICE recommendations.

Background STEPWISE is a theory-informed self-management education programme that was co-produced with service users, healthcare professionals and interventionists to support weight loss for people with schizophrenia. We report the process evaluation to inform understanding about the intervention and its effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that evaluated its efficacy. Methods Following the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Guidelines for developing and evaluating complex interventions, we explored implementation quality. We considered causal mechanisms, unanticipated consequences and contextual factors associated with variation in actual and intended outcomes, and integrated treatment fidelity, using the programme theory and a pipeline logic model. We followed a modified version of Linnan and Steckler’s framework and single case design. Qualitative data from semi-structured telephone interviews with service-users (n = 24), healthcare professionals delivering the intervention (n = 20) and interventionists (n = 7) were triangulated with quantitative process and RCT outcome data and with observations by interventionists, to examine convergence within logic model components. Results Training and course materials were available although lacked co-ordination in some trusts. Healthcare professionals gained knowledge and some contemplated changing their practice to reflect the (facilitative) ‘style’ of delivery. They were often responsible for administrative activities increasing the burden of delivery. Healthcare professionals recognised the need to address antipsychotic-induced weight gain and reported potential value from the intervention (subject to the RCT results). However, some doubted senior management commitment and sustainability post-trial. Service-users found the intervention highly acceptable, especially being in a group of people with similar experiences. Service-users perceived weight loss and lifestyle benefits; however, session attendance varied with 23% (n = 47) attending all group-sessions and 17% (n = 36) attending none. Service-users who lost weight wanted closer monitoring and many healthcare professionals wanted to monitor outcomes (e.g. weight) but it was outside the intervention design. No clinical or cost benefit was demonstrated from the intermediate outcomes (RCT) and any changes in RCT outcomes were not due to the intervention. Conclusions This process evaluation provides a greater understanding of why STEPWISE was unsuccessful in promoting weight loss during the clinical trial. Further research is required to evaluate whether different levels of contact and objective monitoring can support people with schizophrenia to lose weight. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN19447796. Registered 20 March 2014.

BackgroundOptimal surgical intervention for low-grade haemorrhoids is unknown. Rubber band ligation (RBL) is probably the most common intervention. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) is a novel alternative that may be more efficacious.ObjectiveThe comparison of HAL with RBL for the treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids.DesignA multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial.PerspectiveUK NHS and Personal Social Services.Setting17 NHS Trusts.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 18 years presenting with grade II/III (second- and third-degree) haemorrhoids, including those who have undergone previous RBL.InterventionsHAL with Doppler probe compared with RBL.OutcomesPrimary outcome – recurrence at 1 year post procedure; secondary outcomes – recurrence at 6 weeks; haemorrhoid severity score; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, 5-level version (EQ-5D-5L); Vaizey incontinence score; pain assessment; complications; and cost-effectiveness.ResultsA total of 370 participants entered the trial. At 1 year post procedure, 30% of the HAL group had evidence of recurrence compared with 49% after RBL [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.51;p = 0.0005]. The main reason for the difference was the number of extra procedures required to achieve improvement/cure. If a single HAL is compared with multiple RBLs then only 37.5% recurred in the RBL arm (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15;p = 0.20). Persistence of significant symptoms at 6 weeks was lower in both arms than at 1 year (9% HAL and 29% RBL), suggesting significant deterioration in both groups over the year. Symptom score, EQ-5D-5L and Vaizey score improved in both groups compared with baseline, but there was no difference between interventions. Pain was less severe and of shorter duration in the RBL group; most of the HAL group who had pain had mild to moderate pain, resolving by 3 weeks. Complications were low frequency and not significantly different between groups. It appeared that HAL was not cost-effective compared with RBL. In the base-case analysis, the difference in mean total costs was £1027 higher for HAL. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for HAL; however, the difference was very small (0.01) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £104,427 per additional QALY.ConclusionsAt 1 year, although HAL resulted in fewer recurrences, recurrence was similar to repeat RBL. Symptom scores, complications, EQ-5D-5L and continence score were no different, and patients had more pain in the early postoperative period after HAL. HAL is more expensive and unlikely to be cost-effective in terms of incremental cost per QALY.LimitationsBlinding of participants and site staff was not possible.Future workThe incidence of recurrence may continue to increase with time. Further follow-up would add to the evidence regarding long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The polysymptomatic nature of haemorrhoidal disease requires a validated scoring system, and the data from this trial will allow further assessment of validity of such a system. These data add to the literature regarding treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids. The results dovetail with results from the eTHoS study [Watson AJM, Hudson J, Wood J, Kilonzo M, Brown SR, McDonald A,et al.Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.Lancet2016, in press.] comparing stapled haemorrhoidectomy with excisional haemorrhoidectomy. Combined results will allow expansion of analysis, allowing surgeons to tailor their treatment options to individual patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN41394716.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Obesity is twice as common in people with schizophrenia as in the general population. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends that people with psychosis or schizophrenia, especially those taking antipsychotics, be offered a healthy eating and physical activity programme by their mental health care provider. There is insufficient evidence to inform how these lifestyle services should be commissioned. Objectives To develop a lifestyle intervention for people with first episode psychosis or schizophrenia and to evaluate its clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, delivery and acceptability. Design A two-arm, analyst-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, using web-based randomisation; a mixed-methods process evaluation, including qualitative case study methods and logic modelling; and a cost–utility analysis. Setting Ten community mental health trusts in England. Participants People with first episode psychosis, schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Interventions Intervention group: (1) four 2.5-hour group-based structured lifestyle self-management education sessions, 1 week apart; (2) multimodal fortnightly support contacts; (3) three 2.5-hour group booster sessions at 3-monthly intervals, post core sessions. Control group: usual care assessed through a longitudinal survey. All participants received standard written lifestyle information. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was change in weight (kg) at 12 months post randomisation. The key secondary outcomes measured at 3 and 12 months included self-reported nutrition (measured with the Dietary Instrument for Nutrition Education questionnaire), objectively measured physical activity measured by accelerometry [GENEActiv (Activinsights, Kimbolton, UK)], biomedical measures, adverse events, patient-reported outcome measures and a health economic assessment. Results The trial recruited 414 participants (intervention arm: 208 participants; usual care: 206 participants) between 10 March 2015 and 31 March 2016. A total of 341 participants (81.6%) completed the trial. A total of 412 participants were analysed. After 12 months, weight change did not differ between the groups (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% confidence interval –1.59 to 1.67 kg; p = 0.964); physical activity, dietary intake and biochemical measures were unchanged. Glycated haemoglobin, fasting glucose and lipid profile were unchanged by the intervention. Quality of life, psychiatric symptoms and illness perception did not change during the trial. There were three deaths, but none was related to the intervention. Most adverse events were expected and related to the psychiatric illness. The process evaluation showed that the intervention was acceptable, with participants valuing the opportunity to interact with others facing similar challenges. Session feedback indicated that 87.2% of participants agreed that the sessions had met their needs. Some indicated the desire for more ongoing support. Professionals felt that the intervention was under-resourced and questioned the long-term sustainability within current NHS settings. Professionals would have preferred greater access to participants’ behaviour data to tailor the intervention better. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from the health-care perspective is £246,921 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from the societal perspective is £367,543 per QALY gained. Conclusions Despite the challenges of undertaking clinical research in this population, the trial successfully recruited and retained participants, indicating a high level of interest in weight management interventions; however, the STEPWISE intervention was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Further research will be required to define how overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia should be managed. The trial results suggest that lifestyle programmes for people with schizophrenia may need greater resourcing than for other populations, and interventions that have been shown to be effective in other populations, such as people with diabetes mellitus, are not necessarily effective in people with schizophrenia. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19447796. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background People with schizophrenia are two to three times more likely to be overweight than the general population. The UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends an annual physical health review with signposting to, or provision of, a lifestyle programme to address weight concerns and obesity. The purpose of this randomised controlled trial is to assess whether a group-based structured education programme can help people with schizophrenia to lose weight. Methods Design: a randomised controlled trial of a group-based structured education programme. Setting: 10 UK community mental health trusts. Participants: 396 adults with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or first-episode psychosis who are prescribed antipsychotic medication will be recruited. Participants will be overweight, obese or be concerned about their weight. Intervention: participants will be randomised to either the intervention or treatment as usual (TAU). The intervention arm will receive TAU plus four 2.5-h weekly sessions of theory-based lifestyle structured group education, with maintenance contact every 2 weeks and ‘booster’ sessions every 3 months. All participants will receive standardised written information about healthy eating, physical activity, alcohol and smoking. Outcomes: the primary outcome is weight (kg) change at 1 year post randomisation. Secondary outcomes, which will be assessed at 3 and 12 months, include: the proportion of participants who maintained or reduced their weight; waist circumference; body mass index; objectively measured physical activity (wrist accelerometer); self-reported diet; blood pressure; fasting plasma glucose, lipid profile and HbA1c (baseline and 1 year only); health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and RAND SF-36); (adapted) brief illness perception questionnaire; the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; the Client Service Receipt Inventory; medication use; smoking status; adverse events; depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9); use of weight-loss programmes; and session feedback (intervention only). Outcome assessors will be blind to trial group allocation. Qualitative interviews with a subsample of facilitators and invention-arm participants will provide data on intervention feasibility and acceptability. Assessment of intervention fidelity will also be performed. Discussion The STEPWISE trial will provide evidence for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention, which, if successful, could be implemented rapidly in the NHS. Trial registration ISRCTN19447796, registered on 20 March 2014. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1572-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.