Search

Objectives: To establish if Black adults and adult ethnic minorities, defined as any group except White British, were represented in UK-based COVID-19 vaccination randomised controlled trials (RCTs) when compared to corresponding UK population proportions, based on 2011 census data. Design: Systematic review of COVID-19 Randomised Controlled Vaccine Trials Setting: United Kingdom Participants: Randomised Controlled Trials of COVID-19 vaccines conducted in the UK were systematically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines. MeSH terms included "Covid-19 vaccine", "Ad26COVS1", and "BNT162 Vaccine" with keywords such as [covishield OR coronavac OR Vaxzevria OR NVX-CoV2373] also used. Studies that provided (A) participant demographics and (B) full eligibility criteria were included. The following key data was extracted for analysis: number of participants analysed, number of Black adults and number of adult minority ethnicity participants. Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome is the mean percentage of Black adults randomised to COVID-19 vaccine trials deemed eligible within this review. The secondary outcome is the mean percentage of adult ethnic minorities randomised. Results: The final review included 7 papers and a total of 87 sets of data collated from trial sites across the UK. The standard mean percentage of Black adults included in the trials (0.59%, 95% CI: 0.13% - 1.05%) was significantly lower compared to the recorded Black adult population (2.67%) indicating that they were under-served in UK based COVID-19 vaccine RCTs (p < 0.001). Adult ethnic minority presence (8.94%, 95% CI: 2.07% - 15.80%) was also lower than census data (16.30%), indicating they were also under-served (p = 0.039). Conclusion: The findings show that COVID-19 vaccine trials failed to adequately randomise proportionate numbers of Black adults and adult minority ethnicities. More inclusive practices must be developed and implemented in the recruitment of underserved groups to understand the true impact of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In early 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK called for research on the safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Co-administration of these vaccines would facilitate uptake and reduce the number of healthcare visits required. The ComFluCOV trial was designed to deliver the necessary evidence in time to inform the autumn (September–November) 2021 vaccination policy. This paper presents the statistical methodology applied to help successfully deliver the trial results in 6 months. Methods: ComFluCOV was a parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial managed by the Bristol Trials Centre. Two study statisticians, supported by a senior statistician, worked together on all statistical tasks. Tools were developed to aid the pre-screening process. Automated data monitoring reports of clinic data and electronic diaries were produced daily and reviewed by the trial team and feedback provided to sites. Analyses were performed independently in parallel, and derivations and results of all outcomes were compared. Results: Set-up was achieved in less than a month, and 679 participants were recruited over 8 weeks. A total of 537 [at least] daily reports outlining recruitment, protocol adherence, and data quality, and 695 daily reports of participant electronic diaries identifying any missed diary entries and adverse events were produced over a period of 16 weeks. A preliminary primary outcome analysis of validated data was reported to the Department of Health and Social Care in May 2021. The database was locked 6 weeks after the final participant follow-up and final analyses completed 3 weeks later. A pre-print publication was submitted within 14 days of the results being made available. The results were reported 6 months after first discussions about the trial. Conclusion: The statistical methodologies implemented in ComFluCOV helped to deliver the study in the timescale set. Working in a new clinical area to tight timescales was challenging. Having two statisticians working together on the study provided a quality assurance process that enabled analyses to be completed efficiently and ensured data were interpreted correctly. Processes developed could be applied to other studies to maximise quality, reduce the risk of errors, and overall provide enhanced validation methods. Trial registration: ISRCTN14391248, registered on 30 March 2021 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are commonly prescribed to manage anxiety in adults with an autism diagnosis. However, their effectiveness and adverse effect profile in the autistic population are not well known. This trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SSRI sertraline in reducing symptoms of anxiety and improving quality of life in adults with a diagnosis of autism compared with placebo and to quantify any adverse effects. Methods: STRATA is a two-parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial with allocation at the level of the individual. It will be delivered through recruiting sites with autism services in 4 regional centres in the United Kingdom (UK) and 1 in Australia. Adults with an autism diagnosis and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) score ≥ 10 at screening will be randomised 1:1 to either 25 mg sertraline or placebo, with subsequent flexible dose titration up to 200 mg. The primary outcome is GAD-7 scores at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, proportionate change in GAD-7 scores including 50% reduction, social anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, panic attacks, repetitive behaviours, meltdowns, depressive symptoms, composite depression and anxiety, functioning and disability and quality of life. Carer burden will be assessed in a linked carer sub-study. Outcome data will be collected using online/paper methods via video call, face-to-face or telephone according to participant preference at 16, 24 and 52 weeks post-randomisation, with brief safety checks and data collection at 1–2, 4, 8, 12 and 36 weeks. An economic evaluation to study the cost-effectiveness of sertraline vs placebo and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment and informed consent are embedded within the trial. Qualitative interviews at various times during the study will explore experiences of participating and taking the trial medication. Discussion: Results from this study should help autistic adults and their clinicians make evidence-based decisions on the use of sertraline for managing anxiety in this population. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15984604. Registered on 08 February 2021. EudraCT 2019-004312-66. ANZCTR ACTRN12621000801819. Registered on 07 April 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected how clinical trials are managed, both within existing portfolios and for the rapidly developed COVID-19 trials. Sponsors or delegated organisations responsible for monitoring trials have needed to consider and implement alternative ways of working due to the national infection risk necessitating restricted movement of staff and public, reduced clinical staff resource as research staff moved to clinical areas, and amended working arrangements for sponsor and sponsor delegates as staff moved to working from home.Organisations have often worked in isolation to fast track mitigations required for the conduct of clinical trials during the pandemic; this paper describes many of the learnings from a group of monitoring leads based in United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Unit (CTUs) within the UK.The UKCRC Monitoring Task and Finish Group, comprising monitoring leads from 9 CTUs, met repeatedly to identify how COVID-19 had affected clinical trial monitoring. Informed consent is included as a specific issue within this paper, as review of completed consent documentation is often required within trial monitoring plans (TMPs). Monitoring is defined as involving on-site monitoring, central monitoring or/and remote monitoring.Monitoring, required to protect the safety of the patients and the integrity of the trial and ensure the protocol is followed, is often best done by a combination of central, remote and on-site monitoring. However, if on-site monitoring is not possible, workable solutions can be found using only central or central and remote monitoring. eConsent, consent by a third person, or via remote means is plausible. Minimising datasets to the critical data reduces workload for sites and CTU staff. Home working caused by COVID-19 has made electronic trial master files (TMFs) more inviting. Allowing sites to book and attend protocol training at a time convenient to them has been successful and worth pursuing for trials with many sites in the future.The arrival of COVID-19 in the UK has forced consideration of and changes to how clinical trials are conducted in relation to monitoring. Some developed practices will be useful in other pandemics and others should be incorporated into regular use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Influenza (flu) vaccination rates in UK care home staff are extremely low. Less than 40% of staff in care homes are vaccinated for influenza (flu), presenting risks to the health of frail residents and potential staff absence from cross-infection. Staff often do not perceive a need for vaccination and are unaware they are entitled to free flu vaccination. The FluCare study, a cluster randomised control trial (RCT), uses behavioural interventions to address barriers. Videos, posters, and leaflets are intended to raise awareness of flu vaccination benefits and debunk myths. On-site staff vaccination clinics increase accessibility. Financial incentives to care homes for improved vaccination rates and regular monitoring influence the environment. This paper outlines the planned process evaluation which will describe the intervention's mechanisms of action, explain any changes in outcomes, identify local adaptations, and inform design of the implementation phase. Methods/design: A mixed method process evaluation to inform the interpretation of trial findings. Objectives: • Describe the intervention as delivered in terms of dose and fidelity, including adaptations and variations across care homes. • Explore the effects of individual intervention components on primary outcomes. • Investigate the mechanisms of impact. • Describe the perceived effectiveness of relevant intervention components (including videos, leaflets, posters, and flu clinics) from participant perspectives (care home manager, care home staff, flu clinic providers). • Describe the characteristics of care homes and participants to assess reach. A purposive sample of twenty care homes (ten in the intervention arm, ten in the control arm) for inclusion in the process evaluation. Data will include (1) study records including care home site profiles, (2) responses to a mechanism of action questionnaire, and (3) semi-structured interviews with care home staff and clinic providers. Quantitative data will be descriptively reported. Interview data will be thematically analysed and then categories mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Discussion: Adopting this systematic and comprehensive process evaluation approach will help ensure data is captured on all aspects of the trial, enabling a full understanding of the intervention implementation and RCT findings. Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN22729870. Registered on 24 August 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for rapidly designing, initiating, and delivering therapeutic clinical trials. PRINCIPLE (Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses) is the UK national platform investigating repurposed therapies for COVID-19 treatment of older people in the community at high risk of complications. Standard methods of patient recruitment were failing to meet the required pace and scale of enrolment. This paper describes the development and appraisal of a near real-time, data-driven, ethical approach for enhancing recruitment in community care by contacting people with a recent COVID-19 positive test result from the central NHS Test and Trace service within approximately 24-48 h of their test result.Methods: A multi-disciplinary team was formed to solve the technical, ethical, public perception, logistical and information governance issues required to provide a near-real time (approximately within 24-48 h of receiving a positive test) feed of potential trial participants from test result data to the research team. PRINCIPLE was also given unique access to the Summary Care Record (SCR) to ensure safe prescribing, and to enable the trial team to quickly and safely bring consented patients into the trial. A survey of the public was used to understand public perceptions of the use of test data for this proposed methodology.Results: Prior to establishing the data service, PRINCIPLE registered on average 87 participants per week. This increased by up to 87 additional people registered per week from the test data, contributing to an increase from 1013 recruits to PRINCIPLE at the start of October 2020 to 2802 recruits by 20 December 2020. Whilst procedural caveats were identified by the public consultation, out of 2639 people contacted by PRINCIPLE following a positive test result, no one raised a concern about being approached.Conclusions: This paper describes a novel approach to using near-real time NHS operational data to recruit community-based patients within a few days of presentation with acute illness. This approach increased recruitment and reduced time between positive test and randomisation, allowing more rapid evaluation of treatments and increased safety for participants. End-to-end public and patient involvement in the design of the approach provided evidence to inform information governance decisions.Trial Registration: PRINCIPLE is funded by UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research. EudraCT number: 2020-001209-22 . 26/03/2020 ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN86534580 . 20/03/2020 REC number: 20/SC/058 IRAS number: 281958. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dysarthria after stroke is when speech intelligibility is impaired, and this occurs in half of all stroke survivors. Dysarthria often leads to social isolation, poor psychological well-being and can prevent return to work and social lives. Currently, a variety of outcome measures are used in clinical research and practice when monitoring recovery for people who have dysarthria. When research studies use different measures, it is impossible to compare results from trials and delays our understanding of effective clinical treatments. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) to agree what aspects of speech recovery should be measured for dysarthria after stroke (COS-Speech) in research and clinical practice. Methods: The COS-Speech study will include five steps: (1) development of a long list of possible outcome domains of speech that should be measured to guide the survey; (2) recruitment to the COS-Speech study of three key stakeholder groups in the UK and Australia: stroke survivors, communication researchers and speech and language therapists/pathologists; (3) two rounds of the Delphi survey process; (4) a consensus meeting to agree the speech outcomes to be measured and a follow-up consensus meeting to match existing instruments/measures (from parallel systematic review) to the agreed COS-Speech; (5) dissemination of COS-Speech. Discussion: There is currently no COS for dysarthria after stroke for research trials or clinical practice. The findings from this research study will be a minimum COS, for use in all dysarthria research studies and clinical practice looking at post-stroke recovery of speech. These findings will be widely disseminated using professional and patient networks, research and clinical forums as well as using a variety of academic papers, videos, accessible writing such as blogs and links on social media. Trial registration: COS-Speech is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, October 2021 https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1959. In addition, "A systematic review of the psychometric properties and clinical utility of instruments measuring dysarthria after stroke" will inform the consensus meeting to match measures to COS-Speech. The protocol for the systematic reviews registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022302998. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person healthcare visits were reduced. Consequently, trial teams needed to consider implementing remote methods for conducting clinical trials, including e-Consent. Although some clinical trials may have implemented e-Consent prior to the pandemic, anecdotes of uptake for this method increased within academic-led trials. When the increased use of this process emerged, representatives from several large academic clinical trial groups within the UK collaborated to discuss ways in which trialists can learn from one another when implementing e-Consent. Methods: A survey of UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken in April–June 2021 to understand the implementation of and their views on the use of e-Consent and experiences from the perspectives of systems programmers and quality assurance staff on the use of e-Consent. CTUs not using e-Consent were asked to provide any reasons/barriers (including no suitable trials) and any plans for implementing it in the future. Two events for trialists and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives were then held to disseminate findings, foster discussion, share experiences and aid in the identification of areas that the academic CTU community felt required more research. Results: Thirty-four (64%) of 53 CTUs responded to the survey, with good geographical representation across the UK. Twenty-one (62%) of the responding CTUs had implemented e-Consent in at least one of their trials, across different types of trials, including CTIMPs (Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Product), ATIMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) and non-CTIMPs. One hundred ninety-seven participants attended the two workshops for wide-ranging discussions. Conclusion: e-Consent is increasingly used in academic-led trials, yet uncertainties remain amongst trialists, patients and members of the public. Uncertainties include a lack of formal, practical guidance and a lack of evidence to demonstrate optimal or appropriate methods to use. We strongly encourage trialists to continue to share their own experiences of the implementation of e-Consent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to enhance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by facilitating recruitment and follow-up. Despite this, current EHR use is minimal in UK RCTs, in part due to ongoing concerns about the utility (reliability, completeness, accuracy) and accessibility of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to document the process, timelines and challenges of the application process to help improve the service both for the applicants and data holders.Methods: This is a qualitative paper providing a descriptive narrative from one UK clinical trials unit (MRC CTU at UCL) on the experience of two trial teams' application process to access data from three large English national datasets: National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) and NHS Digital to establish themes for discussion. The underpinning reason for applying for the data was to compare EHRs with data collected through case report forms in two RCTs, Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN 74358648) and PATCH (ISRCTN 70406718).Results: The Add-Aspirin trial, which had a pre-planned embedded sub-study to assess EHR, received data from NCRAS 13 months after the first application. In the PATCH trial, the decision to request data was made whilst the trial was recruiting. The study received data after 8 months from NICOR and 15 months for NHS Digital following final application submission. This concluded in May 2020. Prior to application submission, significant time and effort was needed particularly in relation to the PATCH trial where negotiations over consent and data linkage took many years.Conclusions: Our experience demonstrates that data access can be a prolonged and complex process. This is compounded if multiple data sources are required for the same project. This needs to be factored in when planning to use EHR within RCTs and is best considered prior to conception of the trial. Data holders and researchers are endeavouring to simplify and streamline the application process so that the potential of EHR can be realised for clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, around 13% of children experience dental anxiety (DA). This group of patients frequently miss dental appointments, have greater reliance on treatment under general anaesthesia (GA) and have poorer oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) than their non-dentally anxious peers. Recently, a low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based, self-help approach has been recommended for management of childhood anxiety disorders. A feasibility study conducted in secondary care found this guided self-help CBT resource reduced DA and a randomised controlled trial was recommended. The present study aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a guided self-help CBT intervention to reduce DA in children attending primary dental care sites compared to usual care. Methods: This 4-year randomised controlled trial will involve 600 children (aged 9–16 years) and their parent/carers in 30 UK primary dental care sites. At least two dental professionals will participate in each site. They will be assigned, using random allocation, to receive the CBT training and deliver the intervention or to deliver usual care. Children with DA attending these sites, in need of treatment, will be randomly allocated to be treated either by the intervention (CBT) or control (usual care) dental professional. Children will complete questionnaires relating to DA, OHRQoL and HRQoL before treatment, immediately after treatment completion and 12 months post-randomisation. Attendance, need for sedation/GA and costs of the two different approaches will be compared. The primary outcome, DA, will be measured using the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale. Scores will be compared between groups using a linear mixed model. Discussion: Treating dentally anxious patients can be challenging and costly. Consequently, these children are frequently referred to specialist services for pharmacological interventions. Longer waiting times and greater travel distances may then compound existing healthcare inequalities. This research will investigate whether the intervention has the potential to reduce DA and improve oral health outcomes in children over their life-course, as well as upskilling primary dental healthcare professionals to better manage this patient group. Trial registration: This clinical trial has been registered with an international registry and has been allocated an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN27579420). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are high levels of work disability, absenteeism (sick leave) and presenteeism (reduced productivity) amongst people with inflammatory arthritis. WORKWELL is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of job retention vocational rehabilitation for employed people with inflammatory arthritis. The trial tested the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the WORKWELL programme compared to the receipt of written self-help information only. Both arms continued to receive usual care. In March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the WORKWELL trial paused to recruitment and intervention delivery. To successfully re-start, protocol amendments were rapidly submitted and changes to existing trial procedures were made. The WORKWELL protocol was adapted in response to both the practical issues likely faced by many clinical research studies active across NHS sites during the pandemic and additional trial-specific challenges. A key eligibility criterion for the trial required participants to be in paid work for at least 15 h per week. However, UK national lockdowns led to a substantial proportion of the workforce suddenly being furloughed or unable to work, and many people with arthritis taking immunosuppressive medications were asked to shield themselves. Thus, the number of eligible participants was reduced. Those continuing to work were harder to identify, as hospital clinics moved to remote delivery, and also to then screen, consent and treat, as the hospital research staff and clinical therapists were re-deployed. New recruitment and consent strategies were applied, and where sites had reduced capacity, responsibilities were absorbed by the trial management team. Remote intervention delivery and electronic data capture were also implemented. By rapidly adapting the WORKWELL protocol and procedures, the trial successfully reopened to recruitment in July 2020, only 4 months after the trial pause. We were able to achieve recruitment figures above the pre-COVID target and maintain a high retention rate. In addition, we found many of the protocol changes beneficial, as these streamlined trial procedures, thus improving efficiency. It is likely that many strategies implemented in response to the pandemic may become standard practice in future research within trials of a similar design and methodology. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03942783. Retrospectively registered on 08 May 2019. ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN61762297. Retrospectively registered on 13 May 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two million people in the UK are living with or beyond cancer and a third of them report poor quality of life (QoL) due to problems such as fatigue, fear of cancer recurrence, and concerns about returning to work. We aimed to develop and evaluate an intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), suited to address the concerns of cancer survivors and in improving their QoL. We also recognise the importance of exercise and vocational activity on QoL and therefore will integrate options for physical activity and return to work/vocational support, thus ACT Plus (+). Methods: We will conduct a multi-centre, pragmatic, theory driven, randomised controlled trial. We will assess whether ACT+ including usual aftercare (intervention) is more effective and cost-effective than usual aftercare alone (control). The primary outcome is QoL of participants living with or beyond cancer measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General scale (FACT-G) at 52 weeks. We will recruit 344 participants identified from secondary care sites who have completed hospital-based treatment for cancer with curative intent, with low QoL (determined by the FACT-G) and randomise with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to the intervention or control. The intervention (ACT+) will be delivered by NHS Talking Therapies, specialist services, and cancer charities. The intervention consists of up to eight sessions at weekly or fortnightly intervals using different modalities of delivery to suit individual needs, i.e. face-to-face sessions, over the phone or skype. Discussion: To date, there have been no robust trials reporting both clinical and cost-effectiveness of an ACT based intervention for people with low QoL after curative cancer treatment in the UK. We will provide high quality evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding ACT+ to usual aftercare provided by the NHS. If shown to be effective and cost-effective then commissioners, providers and cancer charities will know how to improve QoL in cancer survivors and their families. Trial registration: ISRCTN: ISRCTN67900293. Registered on 09 December 2019. All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set for this protocol can be found in Additional file 2 Table S1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Explainer animations are a means to communicate aspects of clinical trials to participants in a more engaging and accessible way. Delivered well these have the potential to enhance recruitment and retention. The range of media technology used to deliver this material is expanding rapidly but is highly fragmented. Usage of explainer animations across the UK is unknown, the aim of this research was to determine current usage across the 52 registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) to understand the current landscape and any barriers that could be preventing wider uptake of this functionality. Methods: A survey link was emailed to all UKCRC CTU Directors and Trial Management Leads to ascertain current usage of explainer animations within their CTU. The survey ran between 01 February 2023 and 07 March 2023. Results: Responses were received from 35 CTUs—representing a response rate of 67%. 24 CTUs (69%) reported that they had created/used at least one explainer animation within their unit, although the usage, cost, length and production activities varied among the units. Conclusions: The survey showed that a high proportion of the UKCRC CTUs have used explainer animations to provide information to participants about clinical studies. For those not using the technology yet, the most common reasons cited were a lack of expertise, lack of resources and costs to produce them. One of the desired outcomes of this project is the creation of a free-to-use library of animations to encourage wider uptake and avoid duplication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Populations around the world are rapidly ageing and more people are living with multiple long-term conditions. There is an urgent need for evidence about high quality, cost-effective, and integrated systems of health and social care. Health research funders are now also prioritising research in adult social care and wider local authority settings, e.g. housing services. Developing the evidence base for adult social care should include implementing randomised controlled trials, where appropriate. Within the UK, the clinical trial is the established road map for evaluating interventions in the National Health Service (NHS). However, adult social care and local authorities are relatively uncharted territory for trials. BATH-OUT-2 is one of the first clinical trials currently underway within adult social care and housing adaptations services in six English local authorities. It provides an opportunity to explore how the clinical trial road map fares in these settings. Whilst setting up BATH-OUT-2, we encountered challenges with securing funding for the trial, lack of non-NHS intervention costs, using research and support costs as intended, gaining approvals, identifying additional trial sites, and including people who lack the mental capacity to provide informed consent. Overall, our experience has been like navigating uncharted territory with a borrowed map. In the UK, the clinical trial road map was developed for medical settings. Its key features are integrated within the NHS landscape but have been largely absent, unfamiliar, inaccessible, or irrelevant in social care and wider local authority terrain. Navigating the set-up of a clinical trial outside the NHS has been a complicated and disorientating journey. BATH-OUT-2 highlights how local authorities generally and adult social care specifically are a relatively new and certainly different type of setting for trials. Whilst this poses a challenge for conducting trials, it also presents an opportunity to question longstanding assumptions within trials practices, reimagine the conventional clinical trial road map, and take it in new directions. As the UK research landscape moves forward and becomes better primed for randomised evaluations in local authorities, we propose several suggestions for building on recent progress and advancing trials within adult social care and across health and care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Without surgical repair, flexor tendon injuries do not heal and patients' ability to bend fingers and grip objects is impaired. However, flexor tendon repair surgery also requires optimal rehabilitation. There are currently three custom-made splints used in the rehabilitation of zone I/II flexor tendon repairs, each with different assumed harm/benefit profiles: the dorsal forearm and hand-based splint (long), the Manchester short splint (short), and the relative motion flexion splint (mini). There is, however, no robust evidence as to which splint, if any, is most clinical or cost effective. The Flexor Injury Rehabilitation Splint Trial (FIRST) was designed to address this evidence gap. Methods: FIRST is a parallel group, superiority, analyst-blind, multi-centre, individual participant-randomised controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1:1 to receive either the long, short, or mini splint. We aim to recruit 429 participants undergoing rehabilitation following zone I/II flexor tendon repair surgery. Potential participants will initially be identified prior to surgery, in NHS hand clinics across the UK, and consented and randomised at their splint fitting appointment post-surgery. The primary outcome will be the mean post-randomisation score on the patient-reported wrist and hand evaluation measure (PRWHE), assessed at 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures include blinded grip strength and active range of movement (AROM) assessments, adverse events, adherence to the splinting protocol (measured via temperature sensors inserted into the splints), quality of life assessment, and further patient-reported outcomes. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of each splint, and a qualitative sub-study will evaluate participants' preferences for, and experiences of wearing, the splints. Furthermore, a mediation analysis will determine the relationship between patient preferences, splint adherence, and splint effectiveness. Discussion: FIRST will compare the three splints with respect to clinical efficacy, complications, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. FIRST is a pragmatic trial which will recruit from 26 NHS sites to allow findings to be generalisable to current clinical practice in the UK. It will also provide significant insights into patient experiences of splint wear and how adherence to splinting may impact outcomes. Trial registration: ISRCTN: 10236011 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Statisticians are fundamental in ensuring clinical research, including clinical trials, are conducted with quality, transparency, reproducibility and integrity. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is an international quality standard for the conduct of clinical trials research. Statisticians are required to undertake training on GCP but existing training is generic and, crucially, does not cover statistical activities. This results in statisticians undertaking training mostly unrelated to their role and variation in awareness and implementation of relevant regulatory requirements with regards to statistical conduct. The need for role-relevant training is recognised by the UK NHS Health Research Authority and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Methods: The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project was instigated by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Registered Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) Statisticians Operational Group and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), to develop materials to enable role-specific GCP training tailored to statisticians. Review of current GCP training was undertaken by survey. Development of training materials were based on MHRA GCP. Critical review and piloting was conducted with UKCRC CTU and NIHR researchers with comment from MHRA. Final review was conducted through the UKCRC CTU Statistics group. Results: The survey confirmed the need and desire for the development of dedicated GCP training for statisticians. An accessible, comprehensive, piloted training package was developed tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. The training materials cover legislation and guidance for best practice across all clinical trial processes with statistical involvement, including exercises and real-life scenarios to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Comprehensive feedback was incorporated. The training materials are freely available for national and international adoption. Conclusion: All research staff should have training in GCP yet the training undertaken by most academic statisticians does not cover activities related to their role. The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project has developed and extensively piloted new, role-specific, comprehensive, accessible GCP training tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. This role-specific training will encourage best practice, leading to transparent and reproducible statistical activity, as required by regulatory authorities and funders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The NIHR's Associate Principal Investigator (API) Scheme in the United Kingdom was expanded nationally in 2020 with the aim of training clinicians to become Principal Investigators for clinical research in the future. The HEAL-COVID adaptive platform trial is an urgent public health study registered with the API Scheme. Within eighteen months of opening, the trial had recruited almost 1200 patients with over 100 active sites. Here we describe our experiences of APIs working on the trial with two broad objectives. Firstly, we aim to explore through qualitative methods the impact that the scheme has had on the APIs' professional development. Secondly, we aim to quantify the impact that the APIs have had on the recruitment of patients into the trial. Methods: The professional backgrounds of the APIs are described from data from their application forms to the scheme. The HEAL-COVID API Network is described from records of the monthly meetings. The APIs' experiences are reviewed from data from the NIHR exit surveys at 6 months and from a reflective practice exercise at the final network meeting. Data of patient recruitment to HEAL-COVID was analysed for centres with and without APIs via a multivariate analysis. Results: Forty-two APIs were registered with the HEAL-COVID trial with a diversity of backgrounds in terms of gender, country, profession, grade and specialty. Eleven monthly network meetings took place with the dual objectives of facilitating trial activity and providing educational content. Fourteen APIs completed the NIHR survey with all reporting Good Clinical Practice completion, local promotional activity of the trial, patient recruitment and support from their respective PI. Sites with at least one API recruited over 3.5 times more patients than sites without an API (medians 4 vs 14.5, p < 0.05), independent of factors including type of hospital or number of inpatient beds. Discussion: This study adds to the growing literature that the NIHR's API Scheme is effective in meeting its objectives in providing research training to clinicians, thus building a workforce of future clinical researchers. Moreover, data from the HEAL-COVID trial shows that sites with an API are associated with higher recruitment. Overall, registering a trial with the API Scheme not only trains future clinical researchers, but it is also likely to increase the number of patients recruited (amongst other benefits), increasing the efficiency of trials and improving access for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In February 2021, the UK Department of Health and Social Care sought evidence on the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccine co-administration to inform the 2021/2022 influenza vaccine policy. Co-administration could support vaccine uptake and reduce healthcare appointments. ComFluCOV was a randomised controlled trial designed to provide this evidence. This report outlines the methods used to deliver the trial in 6 months to answer an urgent public health question as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. Methods: ComFluCOV was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care and was managed by the Bristol Trials Centre, a UK-registered clinical trials unit. It was classed as an Urgent Public Health trial which facilitated fast-track regulatory approvals. Trial materials and databases were developed using in-house templates and those used in other COVID-19 vaccine trials. Participants were recruited by advertising, and via a trial website. Electronic trial systems enabled daily review of participant data. Weekly virtual meetings were held with stakeholders and trial sites. Results: ComFluCOV was delivered within 6 months from inception to reporting, and trial milestones to inform the Department of Health and Social Care policy were met. Set-up was achieved within 1 month. Regulators provided expedited reviews, with feedback ahead of submission. Recruitment took place at 12 sites. Over 380 site staff were trained. Overall, 679 participants were recruited in two months. The final report to the Department of Health and Social Care was submitted in September 2021, following a preliminary safety report in May 2021. Trial results have been published. Conclusion: The rapid delivery of ComFluCOV was resource intensive. It was made possible in part due to a unique set of circumstances created by the pandemic situation including measures put in place to support urgent public health research and public support for COVID-19 vaccine research. Elements of the trial could be adopted to increase efficiency in 'non-pandemic' situations including working with a clinical trials unit to enable immediate mobilisation of a team of experienced researchers, greater sharing of resources between clinical trials units, use of electronic trial systems and virtual meetings. Trial registration: ISRCTN14391248, submitted on 17/03/2021. Registered on 30/03/2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Active Connected Engaged [ACE] study is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial [RCT] with an internal pilot phase. The ACE study incorporates a multi-level mixed methods process evaluation including a systems mapping approach and an economic evaluation. ACE aims to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a peer-volunteer led active ageing intervention designed to support older adults at risk of mobility disability to become more physically and socially active within their communities and to reduce or reverse, the progression of functional limitations associated with ageing. Methods/design: Community-dwelling, older adults aged 65 years and older (n = 515), at risk of mobility disability due to reduced lower limb physical functioning (Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score of 4–9 inclusive) will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to receive either a minimal control intervention or ACE, a 6-month programme underpinned by behaviour change theory, whereby peer volunteers are paired with participants and offer them individually tailored support to engage them in local physical and social activities to improve lower limb mobility and increase their physical activity. Outcome data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. The primary outcome analysis (difference in SPPB score at 18 months) will be undertaken blinded to group allocation. Primary comparative analyses will be on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis with due emphasis placed on confidence intervals. Discussion: ACE is the largest, pragmatic, community-based randomised controlled trial in the UK to target this high-risk segment of the older population by mobilising community resources (peer volunteers). A programme that can successfully engage this population in sufficient activity to improve strength, coordination, balance and social connections would have a major impact on sustaining health and independence. ACE is also the first study of its kind to conduct a full economic and comprehensive process evaluation of this type of community-based intervention. If effective and cost-effective, the ACE intervention has strong potential to be implemented widely in the UK and elsewhere. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN17660493. Registered on 30 September 2021. Trial Sponsor: University of Birmingham, Contact: Dr Birgit Whitman, Head of Research Governance and Integrity; Email: researchgovernance@contacts.bham.ac.uk. Protocol Version 5 22/07/22. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency consulted on proposals "to improve and strengthen the UK clinical trials legislation to help us make the UK the best place to research and develop safe and innovative medicines". The purpose of the consultation was to help finalise the proposals and contribute to the drafting of secondary legislation. We discussed these proposals as members of the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, which is jointly funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Two topics arose frequently in the discussion: the emphasis on legislation, and the absence of questions on data sharing. It is our opinion that the proposals rely heavily on legislation to change practice. However, clinical trials are heterogeneous, and as a result some trials will struggle to comply with all of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, adaptive design clinical trials are even more heterogeneous than their non-adaptive counterparts, and face more challenges. Consequently, it is possible that increased legislation could have a greater negative impact on adaptive designs than non-adaptive designs. Overall, we are sceptical that the introduction of legislation will achieve the desired outcomes, with some exceptions. Meanwhile the topic of data sharing — making anonymised individual-level clinical trial data available to other investigators for further use — is entirely absent from the proposals and the consultation in general. However, as an aspect of the wider concept of open science and reproducible research, data sharing is an increasingly important aspect of clinical trials. The benefits of data sharing include faster innovation, improved surveillance of drug safety and effectiveness and decreasing participant exposure to unnecessary risk. There are already a number of UK-focused documents that discuss and encourage data sharing, for example, the Concordat on Open Research Data and the Medical Research Council's Data Sharing Policy. We strongly suggest that data sharing should be the norm rather than the exception, and hope that the forthcoming proposals on clinical trials invite discussion on this important topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In-centre nocturnal haemodialysis (INHD) offers extended-hours haemodialysis, 6 to 8 h thrice-weekly overnight, with the support of dialysis specialist nurses. There is increasing observational data demonstrating potential benefits of INHD on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is a lack of randomised controlled trial (RCT) data to confirm these benefits and assess safety. Methods: The NightLife study is a pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre RCT comparing the impact of 6 months INHD to conventional haemodialysis (thrice-weekly daytime in-centre haemodialysis, 3.5–5 h per session). The primary outcome is the total score from the Kidney Disease Quality of Life tool at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include sleep and cognitive function, measures of safety, adherence to dialysis and impact on clinical parameters. There is an embedded Process Evaluation to assess implementation, health economic modelling and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention to understand factors that influence recruitment and retention. Adults (≥ 18 years old) who have been established on haemodialysis for > 3 months are eligible to participate. Discussion: There are 68,000 adults in the UK that need kidney replacement therapy (KRT), with in-centre haemodialysis the treatment modality for over a third of cases. HRQoL is an independent predictor of hospitalisation and mortality in individuals on maintenance dialysis. Haemodialysis is associated with poor HRQoL in comparison to the general population. INHD has the potential to improve HRQoL. Vigorous RCT evidence of effectiveness is lacking. The NightLife study is an essential step in the understanding of dialysis therapies and will guide patient-centred decisions regarding KRT in the future. Trial registration: Trial registration number: ISRCTN87042063. Registered: 14/07/2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cervical traumatic spinal cord injury is a devastating condition. Current management (bony decompression) may be inadequate as after acute severe TSCI, the swollen spinal cord may become compressed against the surrounding tough membrane, the dura. DISCUS will test the hypothesis that, after acute, severe traumatic cervical spinal cord injury, the addition of dural decompression to bony decompression improves muscle strength in the limbs at 6 months, compared with bony decompression alone. Methods: This is a prospective, phase III, multicenter, randomized controlled superiority trial. We aim to recruit 222 adults with acute, severe, traumatic cervical spinal cord injury with an American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade A, B, or C who will be randomized 1:1 to undergo bony decompression alone or bony decompression with duroplasty. Patients and outcome assessors are blinded to study arm. The primary outcome is change in the motor score at 6 months vs. admission; secondary outcomes assess function (grasp, walking, urinary + anal sphincters), quality of life, complications, need for further surgery, and mortality, at 6 months and 12 months from randomization. A subgroup of at least 50 patients (25/arm) also has observational monitoring from the injury site using a pressure probe (intraspinal pressure, spinal cord perfusion pressure) and/or microdialysis catheter (cord metabolism: tissue glucose, lactate, pyruvate, lactate to pyruvate ratio, glutamate, glycerol; cord inflammation: tissue chemokines/cytokines). Patients are recruited from the UK and internationally, with UK recruitment supported by an integrated QuinteT recruitment intervention to optimize recruitment and informed consent processes. Estimated study duration is 72 months (6 months set-up, 48 months recruitment, 12 months to complete follow-up, 6 months data analysis and reporting results). Discussion: We anticipate that the addition of duroplasty to standard of care will improve muscle strength; this has benefits for patients and carers, as well as substantial gains for health services and society including economic implications. If the addition of duroplasty to standard treatment is beneficial, it is anticipated that duroplasty will become standard of care. Trial registration: IRAS: 292031 (England, Wales, Northern Ireland) - Registration date: 24 May 2021, 296518 (Scotland), ISRCTN: 25573423 (Registration date: 2 June 2021); ClinicalTrials.gov number : NCT04936620 (Registration date: 21 June 2021); NIHR CRN 48627 (Registration date: 24 May 2021). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Online studies offer an efficient method of recruiting participants and collecting data. Whilst delivering an online randomised trial, we detected unusual recruitment activity. We describe our approach to detecting and managing suspected fraud and share lessons for researchers. Methods: Our trial investigated the single and combined effects of different ways of presenting clinical audit and feedback. Clinicians and managers who received feedback from one of five United Kingdom national clinical audit programmes were emailed invitations that contained a link to the trial website. After providing consent and selecting their relevant audit, participants were randomised automatically to different feedback versions. Immediately after viewing their assigned feedback, participants completed a questionnaire and could request a financial voucher by entering an email address. Email addresses were not linked to trial data to preserve participant anonymity. We actively monitored participant numbers, questionnaire completions, and voucher claims. Results: Following a rapid increase in trial participation, we identified 268 new voucher claims from three email addresses that we had reason to believe were linked. Further scrutiny revealed duplicate trial completions and voucher requests from 24 email addresses. We immediately suspended the trial, improved security measures, and went on to successfully complete the study. We found a peak in questionnaires completed in less than 20 seconds during a likely contamination period. Given that study and personal data were not linked, we could not directly identify the trial data from the 268 duplicate entries within the 603 randomisations occurring during the same period. We therefore excluded all 603 randomisations from the primary analysis, which was consequently based on 638 randomisations. A sensitivity analysis, including all 961 randomisations over the entire study except for questionnaire completions of less than 20 seconds, found only minor differences from the primary analysis. Conclusion: Online studies offering incentives for participation are at risk of attempted fraud. Systematic monitoring and analysis can help detect such activity. Measures to protect study integrity include linking participant identifiers to study data, balancing study security and ease of participation, and safeguarding the allocation of participant incentives. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN41584028. Registration date is August 17, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endometriosis affects 190 million women and those assigned female at birth worldwide. For some, it is associated with debilitating chronic pelvic pain. Diagnosis of endometriosis is often achieved through diagnostic laparoscopy. However, when isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), the most common endometriosis subtype, is identified during laparoscopy, limited evidence exists to support the common decision to surgically remove it via excision or ablation. Improved understanding of the impact of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women is required. Here, we describe our protocol for a multi-centre trial to determine the effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of endometriosis-associated pain. Methods: We plan to undertake a multi-centre participant-blind parallel-group randomised controlled clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot. We plan to randomise 400 participants from up to 70 National Health Service Hospitals in the UK. Participants with chronic pelvic pain awaiting diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis will be consented by the clinical research team. If isolated SPE is identified at laparoscopy, and deep or ovarian endometriosis is not seen, participants will be randomised intraoperatively (1:1) to surgical removal (by excision or ablation or both, according to surgeons' preference) versus diagnostic laparoscopy alone. Randomisation with block-stratification will be used. Participants will be given a diagnosis but will not be informed of the procedure they received until 12 months post-randomisation, unless required. Post-operative medical treatment will be according to participants' preference. Participants will be asked to complete validated pain and quality of life questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Our primary outcome is the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30), via a between randomised group comparison of adjusted means at 12 months. Assuming a standard deviation of 22 points around the pain score, 90% power, 5% significance and 20% missing data, 400 participants are required to be randomised to detect an 8-point pain score difference. Discussion: This trial aims to provide high quality evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN27244948. Registered 6 April 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Proximal humerus fractures (PHF) are common and painful injuries, with the majority resulting from falls from a standing height. As with other fragility fractures, its age-specific incidence is increasing. Surgical treatment with hemiarthroplasty (HA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been increasingly used for displaced 3- and 4-part fractures despite a lack of good quality evidence as to whether one type of arthroplasty is superior to the other, and whether surgery is better than non-surgical management. The PROFHER-2 trial has been designed as a pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of RSA vs HA vs Non-Surgical (NS) treatment in patients with 3- and 4-part PHF. Methods: Adults over 65 years of age presenting with acute radiographically confirmed 3- or 4-part fractures, with or without associated glenohumeral joint dislocation, who consent for trial participation will be recruited from around 40 National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals in the UK. Patients with polytrauma, open fractures, presence of axillary nerve palsy, pathological (other than osteoporotic) fractures, and those who are unable to adhere to trial procedures will be excluded. We will aim to recruit 380 participants (152 RSA, 152 HA, 76 NS) using 2:2:1 (HA:RSA:NS) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fractures without joint dislocation, and 1:1 (HA:RSA) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fracture dislocations. The primary outcome is the Oxford Shoulder Score at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), pain, range of shoulder motion, fracture healing and implant position on X-rays, further procedures, and complications. Independent Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee will oversee the trial conduct, including the reporting of adverse events and harms. Discussion: The PROFHER-2 trial is designed to provide a robust answer to guide the treatment of patients aged 65 years or over who sustain 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures. The pragmatic design and recruitment from around 40 UK NHS hospitals will ensure immediate applicability and generalisability of the trial findings. The full trial results will be made available in a relevant open-access peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration: ISRCTN76296703. Prospectively registered on 5th April 2018 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing interest in the use of electronic health records (EHRs) to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of clinical trials, including the capture of outcome measures. Main text: We describe our experience of using EHRs to capture the primary outcome measure — HIV infection or the diagnosis of HIV infection — in two randomised HIV prevention trials conducted in the UK. PROUD was a clinic-based trial evaluating pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and SELPHI was an internet-based trial evaluating HIV self-testing kits. The EHR was the national database of HIV diagnoses in the UK, curated by the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). In PROUD, linkage to the UKHSA database was performed at the end of the trial and identified five primary outcomes in addition to the 30 outcomes diagnosed by the participating clinics. Linkage also produced an additional 345 person-years follow-up, an increase of 27% over clinic-based follow-up. In SELPHI, new HIV diagnoses were primarily identified via UKHSA linkage, complemented by participant self-report through internet surveys. Rates of survey completion were low, and only 14 of the 33 new diagnoses recorded in the UKHSA database were also self-reported. Thus UKHSA linkage was essential for capturing HIV diagnoses and the successful conduct of the trial. Conclusions: Our experience of using the UKHSA database of HIV diagnoses as a source of primary outcomes in two randomised trials in the field of HIV prevention was highly favourable and encourages the use of a similar approach in future trials in this disease area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Researchers are increasingly seeking to use routinely collected data to support clinical trials. This approach has the potential to transform the way clinical trials are conducted in the future. The availability of routinely collected data for research, whether healthcare or administrative, has increased, and infrastructure funding has enabled much of this. However, challenges remain at all stages of a trial life cycle. This study, COMORANT-UK, aimed to systematically identify, with key stakeholders across the UK, the ongoing challenges related to trials that seek to use routinely collected data. Methods: This three-step Delphi method consisted of two rounds of anonymous web-based surveys and a virtual consensus meeting. Stakeholders included trialists, data infrastructures, funders of trials, regulators, data providers and the public. Stakeholders identified research questions or challenges that they considered were of particular importance and then selected their top 10 in the second survey. The ranked questions were taken forward to the consensus meeting for discussion with representatives invited from the stakeholder groups. Results: In the first survey, 66 respondents yielded over 260 questions or challenges. These were thematically grouped and merged into a list of 40 unique questions. Eighty-eight stakeholders then ranked their top ten from the 40 questions in the second survey. The most common 14 questions were brought to the virtual consensus meeting in which stakeholders agreed a top list of seven questions. We report these seven questions which are within the following domains: trial design, Patient and Public Involvement, trial set-up, trial open and trial data. These questions address both evidence gaps (requiring further methodological research) and implementation gaps (requiring training and/or service re-organisation). Conclusion: This prioritised list of seven questions should inform the direction of future research in this area and should direct efforts to ensure that the benefits in major infrastructure for routinely collected data are achieved and translated. Without this and future work to address these questions, the potential societal benefits of using routinely collected data to help answer important clinical questions will not be realised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sequential B cell-targeted immunotherapy with BAFF antagonism (belimumab) and B cell depletion (rituximab) may enhance B cell targeting in ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) through several mechanisms. Methods: Study design: COMBIVAS is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to assess the mechanistic effects of sequential therapy of belimumab and rituximab in patients with active PR3 AAV. The recruitment target is 30 patients who meet the criteria for inclusion in the per-protocol analysis. Thirty-six participants have been randomised to one of the two treatment groups in a 1:1 ratio: either rituximab plus belimumab or rituximab plus placebo (both groups with the same tapering corticosteroid regimen), and recruitment is now closed (final patient enrolled April 2021). For each patient, the trial will last for 2 years comprising a 12-month treatment period followed by a 12-month follow-up period. Participants: Participants have been recruited from five of seven UK trial sites. Eligibility criteria were age ≥ 18 years and a diagnosis of AAV with active disease (newly diagnosed or relapsing disease), along with a concurrent positive test for PR3 ANCA by ELISA. Interventions: Rituximab 1000 mg was administered by intravenous infusions on day 8 and day 22. Weekly subcutaneous injections of 200 mg belimumab or placebo were initiated a week before rituximab on day 1 and then weekly through to week 51. All participants received a relatively low prednisolone (20 mg/day) starting dose from day 1 followed by a protocol-specified corticosteroid taper aiming for complete cessation by 3 months. Outcomes: The primary endpoint of this study is time to PR3 ANCA negativity. Key secondary outcomes include change from baseline in naïve, transitional, memory, plasmablast B cell subsets (by flow cytometry) in the blood at months 3, 12, 18 and 24; time to clinical remission; time to relapse; and incidence of serious adverse events. Exploratory biomarker assessments include assessment of B cell receptor clonality, B cell and T cell functional assays, whole blood transcriptomic analysis and urinary lymphocyte and proteomic analysis. Inguinal lymph node and nasal mucosal biopsies have been performed on a subgroup of patients at baseline and month 3. Discussion: This experimental medicine study provides a unique opportunity to gain detailed insights into the immunological mechanisms of belimumab-rituximab sequential therapy across multiple body compartments in the setting of AAV. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03967925. Registered on May 30, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A common challenge for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is recruiting enough participants to be adequately powered to answer the research question. Recruitment has been set as a priority research area in trials to improve recruitment and thereby reduce wasted resources in conducted trials that fail to recruit sufficiently. Methods: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review to identify the factors associated with recruitment to RCTs in general practice. On September 8, 2020, English language studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL databases for published studies. NTIS and OpenGrey were searched for grey literature, and BMC Trials was hand searched. A narrative synthesis was conducted for qualitative studies and a thematic synthesis for qualitative studies. Results: Thirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. These were of different study types (10 cross-sectional, 5 non-randomised studies of interventions, 2 RCTs, 10 qualitative and 10 mixed methods). The highest proportion was conducted in the UK (48%). The study quality was generally poor with 24 (65%) studies having major concerns. A complex combination of patient, practitioner or practice factors, and patient, practitioner or practice recruitment were assessed to determine the possible associations. There were more studies of patients than of practices or practitioners. Conclusions: For practitioners and patients alike, a trial that is clinically relevant is critical in influencing participation. Competing demands are given as an important reason for declining participation. There are concerns about randomisation relating to its impact on shared decision-making and not knowing which treatment will be assigned. Patients make decisions about whether they are a candidate for the trial even when they objectively fulfil the eligibility criteria. General practice processes, such as difficulties arranging appointments, can hinder recruitment, and a strong pre-existing doctor-patient relationship can improve recruitment. For clinicians, the wish to contribute to the research enterprise itself is seldom an important reason for participating, though clinicians reported being motivated to participate when the research could improve their clinical practice. One of the few experimental findings was that opportunistic recruitment resulted in significantly faster recruitment compared to systematic recruitment. These factors have clear implications for trial design. Methodologically, recruitment research of practices and practitioners should have increased priority. Higher quality studies of recruitment are required to find out what actually works rather than what might work. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42018100695. Registered on 03 July 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the context of COVID-19, NHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and other children's mental health services have faced major challenges in providing psychological treatments that (i) work when delivered remotely and (ii) can be delivered efficiently to manage increases in referrals as social distancing measures have been relaxed. Anxiety problems are a common reason for referral to CAMHS, children with pre-existing anxiety problems are particularly vulnerable in the context of COVID-19, and there were concerns about increases in childhood anxiety as schools reopened. The proposed research will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a brief online parent-led cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) delivered by the OSI (Online Support and Intervention for child anxiety) platform with remote support from a CAMHS therapist compared to 'COVID-19 treatment as usual' (C-TAU) in CAMHS and other children's mental health services throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: We will conduct a two-arm, multi-site, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of OSI with therapist support compared to CAMHS and other child mental health services 'COVID-19 treatment as usual' (C-TAU) during the COVID-19 outbreak and to explore parent and therapists' experiences.Discussion: If non-inferiority is shown, the research will provide (1) a solution for efficient psychological treatment for child anxiety disorders while social distancing (for the COVID-19 context and future pandemics); (2) an efficient means of treatment delivery as 'normal service' resumes to enable CAMHS to cope with the anticipated increase in referrals; and (3) a demonstration of rapid, high-quality evaluation and application of online interventions within NHS CAMHS to drive forward much-needed further digital innovation and evaluation in CAMHS settings. The primary beneficiaries will be children with anxiety disorders and their families, NHS CAMHS teams, and commissioners who will access a potentially effective, cost-effective, and efficient treatment for child anxiety problems.Trial Registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN12890382 . Registered prospectively on 23 October 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The complexities associated with delivering randomised surgical trials, such as clustering effects, by centre or surgeon, and surgical learning, are well known. Despite this, approaches used to manage these complexities, and opinions on these, vary. Guidance documents have been developed to support clinical trial design and reporting. This work aimed to identify and examine existing guidance and consider its relevance to clustering effects and learning curves within surgical trials.Methods: A review of existing guidelines, developed to inform the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials, is undertaken. Guidelines were identified using an electronic search, within the Equator Network, and by a targeted search of those endorsed by leading UK funding bodies, regulators, and medical journals. Eligible documents were compared against pre-specified key criteria to identify gaps or inconsistencies in recommendations.Results: Twenty-eight documents were eligible (12 Equator Network; 16 targeted search). Twice the number of guidance documents targeted design (n/N=20/28, 71%) than analysis (n/N=10/28, 36%). Managing clustering by centre through design was well documented. Clustering by surgeon had less coverage and contained some inconsistencies. Managing the surgical learning curve, or changes in delivery over time, through design was contained within several documents (n/N=8/28, 29%), of which one provided guidance on reporting this and restricted to early phase studies only. Methods to analyse clustering effects and learning were provided in five and four documents respectively (N=28).Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first review as to the extent to which existing guidance for designing and analysing randomised surgical trials covers the management of clustering, by centre or surgeon, and the surgical learning curve. Twice the number of identified documents targeted design aspects than analysis. Most notably, no single document exists for use when designing these studies, which may lead to inconsistencies in practice. The development of a single document, with agreed principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios, is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mitochondrial disease is a heterogenous group of rare, complex neurometabolic disorders. Despite their individual rarity, collectively mitochondrial diseases represent the most common cause of inherited metabolic disorders in the UK; they affect 1 in every 4300 individuals, up to 15,000 adults (and a similar number of children) in the UK. Mitochondrial disease manifests multisystem and isolated organ involvement, commonly affecting those tissues with high energy demands, such as skeletal muscle. Myopathy manifesting as fatigue, muscle weakness and exercise intolerance is common and debilitating in patients with mitochondrial disease. Currently, there are no effective licensed treatments and consequently, there is an urgent clinical need to find an effective drug therapy.Aim: To investigate the efficacy of 12-week treatment with acipimox on the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) content of skeletal muscle in patients with mitochondrial disease and myopathy.Methods: AIMM is a single-centre, double blind, placebo-controlled, adaptive designed trial, evaluating the efficacy of 12 weeks' administration of acipimox on skeletal muscle ATP content in patients with mitochondrial myopathy. Eligible patients will receive the trial investigational medicinal product (IMP), either acipimox or matched placebo. Participants will also be prescribed low dose aspirin as a non-investigational medical product (nIMP) in order to protect the blinding of the treatment assignment. Eighty to 120 participants will be recruited as required, with an interim analysis for sample size re-estimation and futility assessment being undertaken once the primary outcome for 50 participants has been obtained. Randomisation will be on a 1:1 basis, stratified by Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS) (dichotomised as < 40, ≥ 40). Participants will take part in the trial for up to 20 weeks, from screening visits through to follow-up at 16 weeks post randomisation. The primary outcome of change in ATP content in skeletal muscle and secondary outcomes relating to quality of life, perceived fatigue, disease burden, limb function, balance and walking, skeletal muscle analysis and symptom-limited cardiopulmonary fitness (optional) will be assessed between baseline and 12 weeks.Discussion: The AIMM trial will investigate the effect of acipimox on modulating muscle ATP content and whether it can be repurposed as a new treatment for mitochondrial disease with myopathy.Trial Registration: EudraCT2018-002721-29 . Registered on 24 December 2018, ISRCTN 12895613. Registered on 03 January 2019, https://www.isrctn.com/search?q=aimm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medication non-adherence is a prevalent health problem in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Interventions have previously been developed to improve medication adherence, but inconsistent outcomes have been reported. A potential explanation for this inconsistency is a 'one size fits all' approach, with interventions not tailored to the needs and preferences of individuals. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a personalised intervention programme aimed at improving adherence to oral antidiabetic and/or antihypertensive medication in people with T2DM.Methods: A parallel-group randomised controlled trial will be conducted in 40-50 community pharmacies in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (UK). A total of 300 participants will be included and followed up for a period of 6 months. Participants will be people with T2DM identified as non-adherent to oral antidiabetic and/or antihypertensive medication, aged 35-75 years and mobile phone users. The intervention group will receive a personalised intervention programme that is based on one or more of the participants' pre-defined non-adherence profile(s), namely (I) Knowledge and perceptions, (II) Practical problems, (III) Side effects and (IV) Negative mood and beliefs. The intervention comprises of one or more supporting modules, namely (I) Brief messaging, (II) Clinical medication review, (III) Medication schedule, (IV) Reminding messaging, (V) Medication dispensing systems, (VI) Smart messaging, (VII) Referral to general practitioner and (VIII) Unguided web-based Self Help Application for low mood. The control group will receive usual care including access to a publicly available informative diabetes website. The primary study outcome is medication adherence measured with a telephone pill count. Secondary outcomes are systolic blood pressure, HbA1c level, self-reported medication adherence, attitude and beliefs toward medication, satisfaction with diabetes treatment, health status and medical consumption and productivity cost. In addition, a process evaluation will be undertaken to establish the fidelity, reach and the extent to which intervention delivery is normalised in the daily practice of community pharmacy teams.Discussion: The study can lead to a personalised intervention programme that improves medication adherence in people with T2DM that are non-adherent to oral antidiabetic and/or antihypertensive medication.Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register, Trial NL8747 , registered 02 July, 2020; ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN36009809 , registered 05 February, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adolescent depression can place a young person at high risk of recurrence and a range of psychosocial and vocational impairments in adult life, highlighting the importance of early recognition and prevention. Parents/carers are well placed to notice changes in their child's emotional wellbeing which may indicate risk, and there is increasing evidence that modifiable factors exist within the family system that may help reduce the risk of depression and anxiety in an adolescent. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the online personalised 'Partners in Parenting' programme developed in Australia, focused on improving parenting skills, knowledge and awareness, showed that it helped reduce depressive symptoms in adolescents who had elevated symptom levels at baseline. We have adapted this programme and will conduct an RCT in a UK setting.Methods: In total, 433 family dyads (parents/carers and children aged 11-15) will be recruited through schools, social media and parenting/family groups in the UK. Following completion of screening measures of their adolescent's depressive symptoms, parents/carers of those with elevated scores will be randomised to receive either the online personalised parenting programme or a series of online factsheets about adolescent development and wellbeing. The primary objective will be to test whether the personalised parenting intervention reduces depressive symptoms in adolescents deemed at high risk, using the parent-reported Short Mood & Feelings Questionnaire. Follow-up assessments will be undertaken at 6 and 15 months and a process evaluation will examine context, implementation and impact of the intervention. An economic evaluation will also be incorporated with cost-effectiveness of the parenting intervention expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained.Discussion: Half of mental health problems emerge before mid-adolescence and approximately three-quarters by mid-20s, highlighting the need for effective preventative strategies. However, few early interventions are family focused and delivered online. We aim to conduct a National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) funded RCT of the online personalised 'Partners in Parenting' programme, proven effective in Australia, targeting adolescents at risk of depression to evaluate its effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and usability in a UK setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION {2A}: ISRCTN63358736 . Registered 18 September 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tranexamic acid reduces head injury deaths in patients with CT scan evidence of intracranial bleeding after mild traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the cost-effectiveness of tranexamic acid for people with mild TBI in the pre-hospital setting, prior to CT scanning, is uncertain. A large randomised controlled trial (CRASH-4) is planned to address this issue, but the economic justification for it has not been established. The aim of the analysis was to estimate the likelihood of tranexamic acid being cost-effective given current evidence, the treatment effects required for cost-effectiveness, and the expected value of performing further research.Methods: An early economic decision model compared usual care for mild TBI with and without tranexamic acid, for adults aged 70 and above. The evaluation was performed from a UK healthcare perspective over a lifetime time horizon, with costs reported in 2020 pounds (GBP) and outcomes reported as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). All analyses used a £20,000 per QALY cost-effectiveness threshold.Results: In the base case analysis, tranexamic acid was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £4885 per QALY gained, but the likelihood of it being cost-effective was highly dependent on the all-cause mortality treatment effect. The value of perfect information was £22.4 million, and the value of perfect information for parameters that could be collected in a trial was £21.9 million. The all-cause mortality risk ratio for tranexamic acid and the functional outcomes following TBI had the most impact on cost-effectiveness.Conclusions: There is a high degree of uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness of tranexamic acid for older adults experiencing mild TBI, meaning there is a high value of performing future research in the UK. The value in a global context is likely to be far higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Beta blockers are well-established drugs widely used to treat cardiovascular conditions. Observational studies consistently report that beta blocker use in people with COPD is associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. The bisoprolol in COPD study (BICS) investigates whether adding bisoprolol to routine COPD treatment has clinical and cost-effective benefits. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure to investigate whether any beneficial effect of bisoprolol is restricted to those with unrecognised heart disease.Methods: BICS is a pragmatic randomised parallel group double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in UK primary and secondary care sites. The major inclusion criteria are an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator FEV1 < 80% predicted, FEV1/FVC < 0.7), a self-reported history of ≥ 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in a 12-month period since March 2019, age ≥ 40 years and a smoking history ≥ 10 pack years. A computerised randomisation system will allocate 1574 participants with equal probability to intervention or control groups, stratified by centre and recruitment in primary/secondary care. The intervention is bisoprolol (1.25 mg tablets) or identical placebo. The dose of bisoprolol/placebo is titrated up to a maximum of 4 tablets a day (5 mg bisoprolol) over 4-7 weeks depending on tolerance to up-dosing of bisoprolol/placebo-these titration assessments are completed by telephone or video call. Participants complete the remainder of the 52-week treatment period on the final titrated dose (1, 2, 3, 4 tablets) and during that time are followed up at 26 and 52 weeks by telephone or video call. The primary outcome is the total number of participant reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and/or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure by echocardiography and measurement of blood biomarkers.Discussion: The demonstration that bisoprolol reduces the incidence of exacerbations would be relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, in the UK and globally.Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN10497306 . Registered on 16 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The standard initial treatment for ovarian cancer is surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy and potentially maintenance therapy with avastin or inhibitors of poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP). While a proportion of women are cured by this approach, the vast majority will relapse and become resistant to platinum chemotherapy either initially or on subsequent treatment. There is an unmet need to improve response to treatment and quality of life in these women. TAK228 is a novel therapy that can be added to standard treatment in the participant population and the aim of the DICE trial is to assess its effectiveness. Laboratory and clinical research has shown that these ovarian cancers may respond to the molecular target of a drug such as TAK228, and there have been studies using it in other advanced solid tumours including endometrial cancer.Methods: One hundred twenty-four eligible women will be recruited from participating research sites in the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany. Randomised participants will receive either weekly paclitaxel alone (standard treatment, n = 62) or TAK228 plus weekly paclitaxel (n = 62) until the cancer significantly worsens; there are significant adverse events or any other protocol-defined stopping criteria. Participants will be monitored for response to treatment (using radiological imaging), adverse events and quality of life during both randomised treatment and subsequent follow-up.Discussion: The primary objective/endpoint of the study is to compare the two treatments in terms of progression-free survival, or the length of time that each participant is alive without the cancer significantly worsening according to defined assessment criteria. If the addition of TAK228 to weekly paclitaxel chemotherapy is shown to significantly improve this statistically, and adverse events and quality of life are not significantly worse than standard treatment, then TAK228 plus weekly paclitaxel could potentially be taken forward within the context of a larger phase III trial.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03648489 . Registered on 27 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive disease that leads to lung scarring. Cough is reported by 85% of patients with IPF and can be a distressing symptom with a significant impact on patients' quality of life. There are no proven effective therapies for IPF-related cough. Whilst morphine is frequently used as a palliative agent for breathlessness in IPF, its effects on cough have never been tested. PAciFy Cough is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of morphine sulphate for the treatment of cough in IPF.Methods: We will recruit 44 subjects with IPF prospectively from three interstitial lung disease units in the UK, namely the Royal Brompton Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT) and Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Patients will be randomised (1:1) to either placebo twice daily or morphine sulphate 5 mg twice daily for 14 days. They will then crossover after a 7-day washout period. The primary endpoint is the percent change in daytime cough frequency (coughs per hour) from baseline as assessed by objective cough monitoring at day 14 of treatment.Discussion: This multicentre, randomised trial will assess the effect of opioids on cough counts and cough associated quality of life in IPF subjects. If proven to be an effective intervention, it represents a readily available treatment for patients.Trial Registration: The study was approved by the UK Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (Ref: CTA 21268/0224/001-0001 - EUDRACT 2019-003571-19 - Protocol Number RBH2019/001) on 08 April 2020, in compliance with the European Clinical Trials Directive and the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 and its subsequent amendments. The study was provided with ethical approval by the London Brent Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 20/LO/0368) on 21 May 2020 and is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04429516) on 12 June 2020, available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04429516. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Helicobacter Eradication Aspirin Trial (HEAT) is a multicentre, double blind, randomised controlled trial investigating whether Helicobacter (H.) pylori eradication reduces hospitalisation for peptic ulcer bleeding. Recruited participants were aged 60 and over and taking aspirin (≤325 mg daily) for at least four months prior to consent. Based on results of a pilot study, a sample size calculation predicted 6600 H. pylori-positive randomised participants would be required, from 33,000 volunteers, recruited from 170,000 invited patients. Methodology was therefore designed for recruitment of large numbers of patients from primary care using a novel electronic search tool, automated mail-out and electronic follow-up. Recruitment started in 2012 and completed in 2017.Methods: All participants were recruited from GP practices, with assistance from the UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN). H. pylori-positive participants were randomised to one week of eradication treatment or placebo. Recruitment was managed using a bespoke web-based database that communicated directly with a programmed search tool downloaded at participating practices. The primary endpoint is hospitalisation due to peptic ulcer bleeding. The trial will end when 87 adjudicated events have occurred, identified from searches of GP databases, review of secondary care admission data and mortality data, and reported events from randomised participants and GPs.Results: HEAT has recruited participants from 1208 GP practices across the UK. Of the 188,875 invitation letters sent, 38,771 returned expressions of interest. Of these, 30,166 patients were consented to the trial, of whom 5355 H. pylori-positive participants (17.8% of those consented) were randomised. Mean age at consent was 73.1 ± 6.9 (SD) years and 72.2% of participants were male. Of the randomised (H. pylori-positive) participants, 531 have died (as of 17 Sep 2020); none of the deaths was due to trial treatment.Conclusion: The HEAT trial methodology has demonstrated that recruitment of large numbers of patients from primary care is attainable, with the assistance of the UKCRN, and could be applied to other clinical outcomes studies.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ; registration number NCT01506986 . Registered on 10 Jan 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), groups of individuals (rather than individuals) are randomised to minimise the risk of contamination and/or efficiently use limited resources or solve logistic and administrative problems. A major concern in the primary analysis of cRCT is the use of appropriate statistical methods to account for correlation among outcomes from a particular group/cluster. This review aimed to investigate the statistical methods used in practice for analysing the primary outcomes in publicly funded cluster randomised controlled trials, adherence to the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines for cRCTs and the recruitment abilities of the cluster trials design.Methods: We manually searched the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) online Journals Library, from 1 January 1997 to 15 July 2021 chronologically for reports of cRCTs. Information on the statistical methods used in the primary analyses was extracted. One reviewer conducted the search and extraction while the two other independent reviewers supervised and validated 25% of the total trials reviewed.Results: A total of 1942 reports, published online in the NIHR Journals Library were screened for eligibility, 118 reports of cRCTs met the initial inclusion criteria, of these 79 reports containing the results of 86 trials with 100 primary outcomes analysed were finally included. Two primary outcomes were analysed at the cluster-level using a generalized linear model. At the individual-level, the generalized linear mixed model was the most used statistical method (80%, 80/100), followed by regression with robust standard errors (7%) then generalized estimating equations (6%). Ninety-five percent (95/100) of the primary outcomes in the trials were analysed with appropriate statistical methods that accounted for clustering while 5% were not. The mean observed intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.06 (SD, 0.12; range, - 0.02 to 0.63), and the median value was 0.02 (IQR, 0.001-0.060), although 42% of the observed ICCs for the analysed primary outcomes were not reported.Conclusions: In practice, most of the publicly funded cluster trials adjusted for clustering using appropriate statistical method(s), with most of the primary analyses done at the individual level using generalized linear mixed models. However, the inadequate analysis and poor reporting of cluster trials published in the UK is still happening in recent times, despite the availability of the CONSORT reporting guidelines for cluster trials published over a decade ago. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the UK, approximately 8% of live births are preterm (before 37 weeks gestation), more than 90% of whom are born between 30 and 36 weeks, forming the largest proportion of a neonatal units' workload. Neonatologists are cautious in initiating full milk feeds for preterm infants due to fears of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). There is now evidence to dispute this fear. Small studies have shown that feeding preterm infants full milk feeds enterally from birth could result in a shorter length of hospital stay, which is important to parents, clinicians and NHS services without increasing the risk of NEC. This trial aims to investigate whether full milk feeds initiated in the first 24 h after birth reduces the length of hospital stay in comparison to introduction of gradual milk feeding with IV fluids or parenteral nutrition.Methods: FEED1 is a multi-centre, open, parallel group, randomised, controlled superiority trial of full milk feeds initiated on the day of birth versus gradual milk feeds for infants born at 30+0 to 32+6 (inclusive) weeks gestation. Recruitment will take place in around 40 UK neonatal units. Mothers will be randomised 1:1 to full milk feeds, starting at 60 ml/kg day, or gradual feeds, as per usual local practice. Mother's expressed breast milk will always be the first choice of milk, though will likely be supplemented with formula or donor breast milk in the first few days. Feeding data will be collected until full milk feeds are achieved (≥ 140 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days). The primary outcome is length of infant hospital stay. Additional data will be collected 6 weeks post-discharge. Follow-up at 2 years (corrected gestational age) is planned. The sample size is 2088 infants to detect a between group difference in length of stay of 2 days. Accounting for multiple births, this requires 1700 women to be recruited. Primary analysis will compare the length of hospital stay between groups, adjusting for minimisation variables and accounting for multiple births.Discussion: This trial will provide high-quality evidence on feeding practices for preterm infants. Full milk feeds from day of birth could result in infants being discharged sooner.Trial Registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN89654042 . Prospectively registered on 23 September 2019: ISRCTN is a primary registry of the WHO ICTRP network, and all items from the WHO Trial Registration dataset are included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence-based establishment and implementation of best principles, laws and ordinances that regulate clinical research depend on the consultation and involvement of trial participants. Yet, guidance on methodological approaches to obtain trial participants' perspectives is currently missing. This scoping review therefore aimed at identifying, describing and evaluating research approaches to obtain trial participants' feedback on their views and experiences.Methods: We searched the electronic databases Medline and PsycInfo via Ovid and the Web of Science Core Collection. Clinical trials were included that involved adult participants that were conducted in selected high-income countries and that were published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 2018. In addition, 29 expert interviews were conducted between March and May 2019.Results: Out of 5994 identified records, 23 articles were included in this review. Twelve studies used a qualitative approach, 10 were quantitative and one study used a mixed-method design. More than 75% of all work was conducted in the USA and the UK. The scoping review and the expert interviews highlighted that recruitment of participants was generally done through direct contact by principal investigators and/or study nurses or through searches in de-identified patient databases. Authors used surveys, interviews or focus group discussions. The tools used were either based on existing validated ones or developed and verified de novo with the support of experts and/or patient representatives.Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first methodological literature review of approaches to researching experiences of clinical trial participants where findings were triangulated with expert interviews. Covering a range of indications, trial phases and study settings, it demonstrates that clinical trial participant perspectives and experience is heavily under-researched. This casts doubt on the overall robustness of available insight into trial participants' views and experiences. Our results demonstrate that the methodology for studying participant opinion, perception and experience should be adapted to the measure of interest and conform to the study population. Using valid patient experience data is the basis to evaluate existing legal and regulatory human subject research frameworks for their appropriateness from a patient perspective. Such an evaluation will be critical to empower research participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Eligibility criteria are a fundamental element of clinical trial design, defining who can and who should not participate in a trial. Problems with the design or application of criteria are known to occur and pose risks to participants' safety and trial integrity, sometimes also negatively impacting on trial recruitment and generalisability. We conducted a short, exploratory survey to gather evidence on UK recruiters' experiences interpreting and applying eligibility criteria and their views on how criteria are communicated and developed. Methods: Our survey included topics informed by a wider programme of work at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, on assuring eligibility criteria quality. Respondents were asked to answer based on all their trial experience, not only on experiences with our trials. The survey was disseminated to recruiters collaborating on trials run at our trials unit, and via other mailing lists and social media. The quantitative responses were descriptively analysed, with inductive analysis of free-text responses to identify themes. Results: A total of 823 eligible respondents participated. In total, 79% of respondents reported finding problems with eligibility criteria in some trials, and 9% in most trials. The main themes in the types of problems experienced were criteria clarity (67% of comments), feasibility (34%), and suitability (14%). In total, 27% of those reporting some level of problem said these problems had led to patients being incorrectly included in trials; 40% said they had led to incorrect exclusions. Most respondents (56%) reported accessing eligibility criteria mainly in the trial protocol. Most respondents (74%) supported the idea of recruiter review of eligibility criteria earlier in the protocol development process. Conclusions: Our survey corroborates other evidence about the existence of suboptimal trial eligibility criteria. Problems with clarity were the most often reported, but the number of comments on feasibility and suitability suggest some recruiters feel eligibility criteria and associated assessments can hinder recruitment to trials. Our proposal for more recruiter involvement in protocol development has strong support and some potential benefits, but questions remain about how best to implement this. We invite other trialists to consider our other suggestions for how to assure quality in trial eligibility criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The majority of older people (> 65 years) in hospital have frailty and are at increased risk of readmission or death following discharge home. In the UK, following acute hospitalisation, around one third of older people with frailty are referred on for rehabilitation, termed 'intermediate care' services. Although this rehabilitation can reduce early readmission to hospital (< 30 days), recipients often do not feel ready to leave the service on discharge, suggesting possible incomplete recovery. Limited evidence suggests extended rehabilitation is of benefit in several conditions and there is preliminary evidence that progressive physical exercise can improve mobility and function for older people with frailty, and slow progression to disability. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home-based Older People's Exercise (HOPE) programme as extended rehabilitation for older people with frailty discharged home from hospital or intermediate care services after acute illness or injury.Methods: A multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the HOPE programme. This individualised, graded and progressive 24-week exercise programme is delivered by NHS physiotherapy teams to people aged 65 and older with frailty, identified using the Clinical Frailty Scale, following discharge from acute hospitalisation and linked intermediate care rehabilitation pathways. The primary outcome is physical health-related quality of life, measured using the physical component summary score of the modified Short Form 36- item health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include self-reported physical and mental health, functional independence, death, hospitalisations, care home admissions. Plans include health economic analyses and an embedded process evaluation.Discussion: This trial seeks to determine if extended rehabilitation, via the HOPE programme, can improve physical health-related quality of life for older people with frailty following acute hospitalisation. Results will improve awareness of the rehabilitation needs of older people with frailty, and provide evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the targeted exercise intervention. There is potential for considerable benefit for health and social care services through widespread implementation of trial findings if clinical and cost-effectiveness is demonstrated.Trial Registration: ISRCTN 13927531 . Registered on April 19, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence from previous studies is often used relatively informally in the design of clinical trials: for example, a systematic review to indicate whether a gap in the current evidence base justifies a new trial. External evidence can be used more formally in both trial design and analysis, by explicitly incorporating a synthesis of it in a Bayesian framework. However, it is unclear how common this is in practice or the extent to which it is considered controversial. In this qualitative study, we explored attitudes towards, and experiences of, trialists in incorporating synthesised external evidence through the Bayesian design or analysis of a trial.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 trialists: 13 statisticians and three clinicians. Participants were recruited across several universities and trials units in the United Kingdom using snowball and purposeful sampling. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and techniques of constant comparison.Results: Trialists used existing evidence in many ways in trial design, for example, to justify a gap in the evidence base and inform parameters in sample size calculations. However, no one in our sample reported using such evidence in a Bayesian framework. Participants tended to equate Bayesian analysis with the incorporation of prior information on the intervention effect and were less aware of the potential to incorporate data on other parameters. When introduced to the concepts, many trialists felt they could be making more use of existing data to inform the design and analysis of a trial in particular scenarios. For example, some felt existing data could be used more formally to inform background adverse event rates, rather than relying on clinical opinion as to whether there are potential safety concerns. However, several barriers to implementing these methods in practice were identified, including concerns about the relevance of external data, acceptability of Bayesian methods, lack of confidence in Bayesian methods and software, and practical issues, such as difficulties accessing relevant data.Conclusions: Despite trialists recognising that more formal use of external evidence could be advantageous over current approaches in some areas and useful as sensitivity analyses, there are still barriers to such use in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor and variable implementation of childhood obesity prevention programmes reduces their population impact and sustainability. We drew upon ethnographic work to develop a multi-level, theory-based implementation optimisation intervention. This intervention aimed to promote parental enrolment and attendance at HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young), a UK community obesity prevention programme, by changing behaviours of children's centre and local authority stakeholders.Methods: We evaluated the effectiveness of the implementation optimisation intervention on HENRY programme enrolment and attendance over a 12-month implementation period in a cluster randomised controlled trial. We randomised 20 local government authorities (with 126 children's centres) to HENRY plus the implementation optimisation intervention or to HENRY alone. Primary outcomes were (1) the proportion of centres enrolling at least eight parents per programme and (2) the proportion of centres with a minimum of 75% of parents attending at least five of eight sessions per programme. Trial analyses adjusted for stratification factors (pre-randomisation implementation of HENRY, local authority size, deprivation) and allowed for cluster design. A parallel mixed-methods process evaluation used qualitative interviews and routine monitoring to explain trial results.Results: Neither primary outcome differed significantly between groups; 17.8% of intervention centres and 18.0% of control centres achieved the parent enrolment target (adjusted difference - 1.2%; 95% CI - 19.5%, 17.1%); 17.1% of intervention centres and 13.9% of control centres achieved the attendance target (adjusted difference 1.2%; 95% CI - 15.7%, 18.1%). Unexpectedly, the trial coincided with substantial national service restructuring, including centre closures and reduced funds. Some commissioning and management teams stopped or reduced delivery of both HENRY and the implementation optimisation intervention due to competing demands. Thus, at follow-up, HENRY programmes were delivered to approximately half the number of parents compared to baseline (n = 433 vs. 881).Conclusions: During a period in which services were reduced by external policies, this first definitive trial found no evidence of effectiveness for an implementation optimisation intervention promoting parent enrolment to and attendance at an obesity prevention programme.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02675699 . Registered on 4 February 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome is a symptom complex affecting 12-14% of the UK adult female population. Symptoms include urinary urgency, with or without urgency incontinence, increased daytime urinary frequency and nocturia. OAB has a negative impact on women's social, physical, and psychological wellbeing. Initial treatment includes lifestyle modifications, bladder retraining, pelvic floor exercises and pharmacological therapy. However, these measures are unsuccessful in 25-40% of women (refractory OAB). Before considering invasive treatments, such as Botulinum toxin injection or sacral neuromodulation, most guidelines recommend urodynamics to confirm diagnosis of detrusor overactivity (DO). However, urodynamics may fail to show evidence of DO in up to 45% of cases, hence the need to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. FUTURE (Female Urgency, Trial of Urodynamics as Routine Evaluation) aims to test the hypothesis that, in women with refractory OAB, urodynamics and comprehensive clinical assessment is associated with superior patient-reported outcomes following treatment and is more cost-effective, compared to comprehensive clinical assessment only.Methods: FUTURE is a pragmatic, multi-centre, superiority randomised controlled trial. Women aged ≥ 18 years with refractory OAB or urgency predominant mixed urinary incontinence, and who have failed/not tolerated conservative and medical treatment, are considered for trial entry. We aim to recruit 1096 women from approximately 60 secondary/tertiary care hospitals across the UK. All consenting women will complete questionnaires at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 15 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome is participant-reported success at 15 months post-randomisation measured using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The primary economic outcome is incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained at 15 months. The secondary outcomes include adverse events, impact on other urinary symptoms and health-related quality of life. Qualitative interviews with participants and clinicians and a health economic evaluation will also be conducted. The statistical analysis of the primary outcome will be by intention-to-treat. Results will be presented as estimates and 95% CIs.Discussion: The FUTURE study will inform patients, clinicians and policy makers whether routine urodynamics improves treatment outcomes in women with refractory OAB and whether it is cost-effective.Trial Registration: ISRCTN63268739 . Registered on 14 September 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dupuytren's contracture is a fibro-proliferative disease of the hands affecting over 2 million UK adults, particularly the white, male population. Surgery is the traditional treatment; however, recent studies have indicated that an alternative to surgery-collagenase clostridium histolyticum (collagenase)-is better than a placebo in the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture. There is however no robust randomised controlled trial that provides a definitive answer on the clinical effectiveness of collagenase compared with limited fasciectomy surgery. Dupuytren's intervention surgery vs collagenase trial (DISC) trial was therefore designed to fill this evidence gap.Methods/design: The DISC trial is a multi-centre pragmatic two-arm parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1 to receive either collagenase injection or surgery (limited fasciectomy). We aim to recruit 710 adult participants with Dupuytren's contracture. Potential participants will be identified in primary and secondary care, screened by a delegated clinician and if eligible and consenting, baseline data will be collected and randomisation completed. The primary outcome will be the self-reported patient evaluation measure assessed 1 year after treatment. Secondary outcome measures include the Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main Scale, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L, resource use, further procedures, complications, recurrence, total active movement and extension deficit, and time to return to function. Given the limited evidence comparing recurrence rates following collagenase injection and limited fasciectomy, and the importance of a return to function as soon as possible for patients, the associated measures for each will be prioritised to allow treatment effectiveness in the context of these key elements to be assessed. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments, and a qualitative sub-study will assess participants' experiences and preferences of the treatments.Discussion: The DISC trial is the first randomised controlled trial, to our knowledge, to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of collagenase compared to limited fasciectomy surgery for patients with Dupuytren's contracture.Trial Registration: Clinical.Trials.gov ISRCTN18254597 . Registered on April 11, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hypermobility is a poorly recognised and understood musculoskeletal disorder thought to affect around 20% of the population. Hypermobility is associated with reduced physiological and psychological functioning and quality of life and is a known risk factor for the development of an anxiety disorder. To date, no evidence-based, targeted treatment for anxiety in the context of hypermobility exists. The present intervention (ADAPT-Altering Dynamics of Autonomic Processing Therapy) is a novel therapy combining bio-behavioural training with cognitive approaches from clinical health psychology targeting the catastrophisation of internal sensations, with aim to improve autonomic trait prediction error.Method: Eighty individuals with diagnosed hypermobility will be recruited and the efficacy of ADAPT to treat anxiety will be compared to an Emotion-Focused Supportive Therapy (EFST) comparator therapy in a randomised controlled trial. The primary treatment target will be post therapy score on the Beck Anxiety Inventory, and secondary outcomes will also be considered in relation to interoception, depression, alexithymia, social and work adjustment, panic symptoms and dissociation. Due to COVID restrictions, the intervention will be moved to online delivery and qualitative assessment of treatment tolerance to online therapy will also be assessed.Discussion: Online delivery of an intervention targeting anxiety would improve the quality of life for those experiencing anxiety disorder and help to reduce the £11.7 billion that anxiety disorders cost the UK economy annually.Trial Registration: World Health Organization ISRCTN17018615 . Registered on 20th February 2019; trial protocol version 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recruitment to surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be challenging. The Sunflower study is a large-scale multi-centre RCT that seeks to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-operative imaging versus expectant management in patients with symptomatic gallstones undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones. Trials such as Sunflower, with a large recruitment target, rely on teamworking. Recruitment can be optimised by embedding a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Additionally, engaging surgical trainees can contribute to successful recruitment, and the NIHR Associate Principal Investigator (API) scheme provides a framework to acknowledge their contributions.Methods: This was a mixed-methods study that formed a component part of an embedded QRI for the Sunflower RCT. The aim of this study was to understand factors that supported and hindered the participation of surgical trainees in a large-scale RCT and their participation in the API scheme. It comprised semi-structured telephone interviews with consultant surgeons and surgical trainees involved in screening and recruitment of patients, and descriptive analysis of screening and recruitment data. Interviews were analysed thematically to explore the perspectives of-and roles undertaken by-surgical trainees.Results: Interviews were undertaken with 34 clinicians (17 consultant surgeons, 17 surgical trainees) from 22 UK hospital trusts. Surgical trainees contributed to patient screening, approaches and randomisation, with a major contribution to the randomisation of patients from acute admissions. They were often encouraged to participate in the study by their centre principal investigator, and career development was a typical motivating factor for their participation in the study. The study was registered with the API scheme, and a majority of the trainees interviewed (n = 14) were participating in the scheme.Conclusion: Surgical trainees can contribute substantial activity to a large-scale multi-centre RCT. Benefits of trainee engagement were identified for trainees themselves, for local sites and for the study as a whole. The API scheme provided a formal framework to acknowledge engagement. Ensuring that training and support for trainees are provided by the trial team is key to optimise success for all stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]