Search

Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) procedures prevent cardioembolic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation who have contraindications to oral anticoagulant medications. However, these procedures carry certain risks of peri-procedural complications. One such complication is silent brain infarcts (SBI), which can lead to cognitive impairment and mood disturbances. The implementation of mechanical neuroprotection systems during LAAC procedures may reduce the risk of SBI and associated cognitive and mood disorders. Methods: The LAAC-SBI trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, and double-blind interventional study. The study aims to enroll a total of 240 patients, with 120 patients allocated to each group. The study group will evaluate the use of the Sentinel CPS during LAAC, while the control group will undergo LAAC procedures without the Sentinel CPS. The primary endpoint of the study is the number of new SBIs or stroke foci detected by diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW MRI). Secondary endpoints include deterioration of cognitive function, development of dementia syndrome, and occurrence of depressive disorders. These endpoints will be assessed using questionnaire tools such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Trail Making Test (TMT), Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The observational period for patients in the study is 2 years. Discussion: If the study demonstrates a favorable outcome with reduced incidence of SBI and improved cognitive and mood outcomes in patients receiving cerebral protection devices during LAAC, it will have significant implications for clinical management standards. This would support the use of neuroprotection devices not only for LAAC but also in procedures such as atrial fibrillation ablation or transcatheter mitral valve interventions, where the risk of embolic events and subsequent brain injury may also be present. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05369195. Registration on 11.05.2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trial design contributes to ensuring the research objectives and outcome measures are relevant to patients. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the primary outcome influences trial design and feasibility and should be predicated on PPI. We aimed to determine current practice of reporting PPI and the MCID in phase III/IV randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Following a search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, we included primary publications of phase III/IV RCTs, in English, inclusive of any medical specialty or type of intervention, that reported a health-related outcome. We excluded protocols and secondary publications of RCTs. We extracted RCT characteristics, the use of PPI, and use of the MCID. Results: Between 1 July 2019 and 13 January 2020, 123 phase III/IV RCTs matched our eligibility criteria. Ninety percent evaluated a medical rather than surgical intervention. Oncology accounted for 21% of all included RCTs. Only 2.4% (n = 3) and 1.6% (n = 2) RCTs described PPI and the MCID respectively. Conclusions: PPI and the MCID are poorly reported, so it is uncertain how these contributed to trial design. Improvement in the reporting of these items would increase confidence that results are relevant and clinically significant to patients, contributing to improving the overall trial design. Trial registration: Not registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cancer clinical trials can be considered evidence-based interventions with substantial benefits, but suffer from poor implementation leading to low enrollment and frequent failure. Applying implementation science approaches such as outcomes frameworks to the trial context could aid in contextualizing and evaluating trial improvement strategies. However, the acceptability and appropriateness of these adapted outcomes to trial stakeholders are unclear. For these reasons, we interviewed cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders to explore how they perceive and address clinical trial implementation outcomes. Methods: We purposively selected 15 cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders from our institution representing different specialties, trial roles, and trial sponsor types. We performed semi-structured interviews to explore a previous adaptation of Proctor's Implementation Outcomes Framework to the clinical trial context. Emergent themes from each outcome were developed. Results: The implementation outcomes were well understood and applicable (i.e., appropriate and acceptable) to clinical trial stakeholders. We describe cancer clinical trial physician stakeholder understanding of these outcomes and current application of these concepts. Trial feasibility and implementation cost were felt to be most critical to trial design and implementation. Trial penetration was most difficult to measure, primarily due to eligible patient identification. In general, we found that formal methods for trial improvement and trial implementation evaluation were poorly developed. Cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders referred to some design and implementation techniques used to improve trials, but these were infrequently formally evaluated or theory-based. Conclusion: Implementation outcomes adapted to the trial context were acceptable and appropriate to cancer clinical trial physician stakeholders. Use of these outcomes could facilitate the evaluation and design of clinical trial improvement interventions. Additionally, these outcomes highlight potential areas for the development of new tools, for example informatics solutions, to improve the evaluation and implementation of clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background : Long-term gout treatment is based on reducing serum urate levels using urate-lowering therapy (ULT). Most guidelines recommend using a lifelong continuation treat-to-target (T2T) strategy, in which ULT is dosed or combined until a serum urate target has been reached and maintained. However, a frequently used alternative strategy in clinical practice is a treat-to-avoid-symptoms (T2S) ULT discontinuation strategy, with the possibility of restarting the medication. This latter strategy aims at an acceptable symptom state, regardless of serum urate levels. High-quality evidence to support either strategy for patients in prolonged remission while using ULT is lacking. Methods: We developed an investigator-driven pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, randomized, superiority treatment strategy trial (GO TEST Finale). At least 278 gout patients using ULT who are in remission (>12 months, preliminary gout remission criteria) will be randomized 1:1 to a continued T2T strategy (treatment target serum urate < 0.36 mmol/l) or switched to a T2S discontinuation strategy in which ULT is tapered to stop and restarted in case of (persistent or recurrent) flaring. The primary outcome is the between-group difference in the proportion of patients not in remission during the last 6 months of 24 months follow-up and will be analyzed using a two proportion z test. Secondary outcomes are group differences in gout flare incidence, reintroduction or adaptation of ULT, use of anti-inflammatory drugs, serum urate changes, occurrence of adverse events (with a special interest in cardiovascular and renal events), and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: This study will be the first clinical trial comparing two ULT treatment strategies in patients with gout in remission. It will contribute to more specific and unambiguous guideline recommendations and improved cost-effectiveness of long-term gout treatment. It also paves the way (exploratory) to individualized long-term ULT treatment. In this article, we elaborate on some of our trial design choices and their clinical and methodological consequences. Trial registration: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) NL9245. Registered on 2 February 2021 (METC Oost-Nederland NL74350.091.20); EudraCT EUCTR2020-005730-15-NL. Registered on 11 January 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are many reasons why the majority of clinical trials fail or have limited applicability to patient care. These include restrictive entry criteria, short duration studies, unrecognized adverse drug effects, and reporting of therapy assignment preferential to actual use. Frequently, experimental animal models are used sparingly and do not accurately simulate human disease. We suggest two approaches to improve the conduct, increase the success, and applicability of clinical trials. Studies can apply dosing of the investigational therapeutics and outcomes, determined from animal models that more closely simulate human disease. More extensive identification of known and potential risk factors and confounding issues, gleaned from recently organized "big data," should be utilized to create models for trials. The risk factors in each model are then accounted for and managed during each study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A resurgence of research into phase II trial design in the mid-2000s led to the use of futility designs in a wide variety of disease areas. Phase II futility studies differ from efficacy studies in that their null hypothesis is that treatment, relative to control, does not meet or exceed the level of benefit required to justify additional study. A rejection of the null hypothesis indicates that the treatment should not proceed to a larger confirmatory trial.Methods: Bayesian approaches to the design of phase II futility clinical trials are presented and allow for the quantification of key probabilities, such as the predictive probability of current trial success or even the predictive probability of a future trial's success.Results: We provide an illustration of the design and interpretation of a phase II futility study constructed in a Bayesian framework. We focus on the operating characteristics of our motivating trial based on a simulation study, as well as the general interpretation of trial outcomes, type I, and type II errors in this framework.Conclusions: Phase II futility clinical trials, when designed under in a Bayesian framework, offer an alternative approach to the design of mid-phase studies which provide unique benefits relative to trials designed in a frequentist framework and designs which focus on treatment efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Retention remains a major challenge for many clinical trials. The SPIRIT guidelines state the following information on retention should be included in the trial protocol "Plans to promote participant retention and complete follow-up, including list of any outcome data to be collected for participants who discontinue or deviate from intervention protocols". This guidance shows the importance of planning retention methods and handling missing data as this can impact how the results of the trial are interpreted. The most recent Cochrane review of strategies to improve retention in clinical trials highlighted that some trials implemented multiple retention strategies and we questioned whether the use of multiple strategies was planned at the design stage and included in the protocol or are strategies implemented when retention becomes an issue within the trial. The purpose of our scoping review is to establish if and how trial teams prepare for retention at the design phase of clinical trials.Methods and Analysis: We will follow the methodological framework and guidelines for scoping reviews outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science. A comprehensive search strategy for PubMed was developed in collaboration with an experienced research librarian. We will include protocols for phase 2, 3, and 4 RCTs as well as pilot and feasibility studies. The screening process will involve two reviewers. EM will independently screen all titles and abstracts. FS will screen 10% of the overall search output, and where necessary full protocol texts will be screened to determine eligibility. We will randomly sample eligible protocols to ensure the protocols represent a variety of trial and intervention types. Data will be extracted from each protocol and the results will be synthesised. The analysis will be qualitative using a narrative summary and descriptive statistics where appropriate.Discussion: The scoping review will help trial methodologists better understand if retention strategies are planned for during the design stage of the trial contributing to the PRioRiTy II unanswered question "How should people who run trials plan for retention during their funding application and creation of the trial (protocol development)?". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: External randomised pilot trials aim to assess whether a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is feasible. Pre-specified progression criteria help guide the interpretation of pilot trial findings to decide whether, and how, a definitive trial should be conducted. We aimed to examine how researchers report and plan to assess progression criteria in external pilot trial funding applications submitted to the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of progression criteria inclusion in Stage 1 (outline) and corresponding Stage 2 (full) funding applications for external randomised external pilot trials submitted to NIHR RfPB between July 2017 and July 2019.Results: Of the 100 Stage 1 outline applications assessed, 95 were eligible for inclusion (of these, 52 were invited to Stage 2 full application; 43 were rejected) and 49/52 were eligible for inclusion at Stage 2 full application (of these, 35 were awarded funding; 14 were rejected). Over half of applications assessed at Stage 1 (48/95, 51%), and 73% of those assessed at Stage 2 (36/49) included progression criteria in their research plans. Progression criteria were most often reported in a stop-go format, often with additional specified factors that should be considered when determining feasibility (Stage 1 33/48, 69%; Stage 2 21/36, 58%). Recruitment and retention were the most frequent indicators of feasibility to inform progression criteria. One-third of applications provided some justification or rationale for their targets (Stage 1 16/48, 33%; Stage 2 12/36, 33%). Funding committee feedback mentioned progression criteria in over 20% of applications (Stage 1 22/95, 23%; Stage 2 11/49, 22%) to either request the addition of progression criteria or provide justification for the criteria stipulated.Conclusions: Our findings indicate that researchers do not always include progression criteria in external randomised pilot trial applications submitted to research funders. This can result in a lack of transparency in the assessment of randomised pilot trial feasibility.Trial Registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/89ap7, registered 29th June 2021. [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: Cardiac evaluation using transthoracic echocardiography before noncardiac surgery is common in real-world practice. However, evidence supporting preoperative echocardiography is lacking. This study aims to evaluate the additional benefit of preoperative echocardiography in predicting postoperative cardiovascular events (CVE) in noncardiac surgery.Methods: This study is designed as a multicenter, prospective study to assess the utility of preoperative echocardiography in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery. This trial comprises two studies: (1) a randomized controlled trial (RCT) for patients undergoing intermediate-risk surgery with fewer than three clinical risk factors from the revised cardiac risk index (intermediate-risk group) and (2) a prospective cohort study for patients undergoing intermediate-risk surgery with three or more clinical risk factors, or who undergo high-risk surgery regardless of the number of clinical risk factors (high-risk group). We hypothesize that the use of preoperative echocardiography will reduce postoperative CVEs in patients undergoing intermediate- to high-risk surgery through discovery of and further intervention for unexpected cardiac abnormalities before elective surgery. A total of 2330 and 2184 patients will be enrolled in the two studies. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause death; aborted sudden cardiac arrest; type I acute myocardial infarction; clinically diagnosed unstable angina; stress-induced cardiomyopathy; lethal arrhythmia, such as sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation; and/or newly diagnosed or acutely decompensated heart failure within 30 days after surgery.Discussion: This study will be the first large-scale prospective study examining the benefit of preoperative echocardiography in predicting postoperative CVE. The PREOP-ECHO trial will help doctors identify patients at risk of postoperative CVE using echocardiography and thereby reduce postoperative CVEs.Trial Registration: The Clinical Research Information Service KCT0006279 for RCT and KCT0006280 for prospective cohort study. Registered on June 21, 2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stopping trials early because of a favourable interim analysis can exaggerate benefit. This study simulated trials typical of those stopping early for benefit in the real world and estimated the degree to which early stopping likely overestimates benefit.Methods: From 1 million simulated trials, we selected those trials that exceeded interim stopping criteria, and compared apparent benefit when stopped with the true benefit used to generate the data. Each simulation randomly assigned period of observation, number of subjects, and control event rate using normal distributions centred on the same parameters in a template trial typical of real-world "truncated" (i.e. stopped for benefit) trials. The intervention's true relative risk reduction (RRR) was also randomized, and assumed 1% of drugs have a warfarin-like effect (60% RRR), 5% a statin-like effect (35% RRR), 39% an ASA-like effect (15% RRR), 50% no effect (0% RRR), and that 5% would cause harm (modelled as a 20% relative risk increase). Trials had a single interim analysis and a z-value for stopping of 2.782 (O'Brien-Fleming threshold). We also modelled (1) a large truncated trial based on the SPRINT blood pressure trial (using SPRINT's parameters and stopping criteria) and (2) the same typical truncated trials if they instead went to completion as planned with no interim analysis.Results: For typical truncated trials, the true RRR was roughly 2/3 the observed RRR at the time of stopping. RRR was overestimated by an absolute 14.9% (median, IQR 6.4-24.6) in typical truncated trials, by 5.3% (IQR -0.1 to 11.4) in the same trials if instead carried to completion, and by 2.3% (IQR 0.98-1.09) in large SPRINT-like trials. For all models, to keep the absolute RRR overestimate below 5%, 250 events were required.Conclusion: Simulated trials typical of those stopping early for benefit overestimate the true relative risk reduction by roughly 50% (i.e. the true RRR was 2/3 of the observed value). Overestimation was much smaller, and likely unimportant, when simulating large SPRINT-like trials stopping early. Whether trials were large or small, stopped early or not, a minimum 250 events were needed to avoid overestimating relative risk reduction by an absolute 5% or more. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It has long been advised to account for baseline covariates in the analysis of confirmatory randomised trials, with the main statistical justifications being that this increases power and, when a randomisation scheme balanced covariates, permits a valid estimate of experimental error. There are various methods available to account for covariates but it is not clear how to choose among them.Methods: Taking the perspective of writing a statistical analysis plan, we consider how to choose between the three most promising broad approaches: direct adjustment, standardisation and inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting.Results: The three approaches are similar in being asymptotically efficient, in losing efficiency with mis-specified covariate functions and in handling designed balance. If a marginal estimand is targeted (for example, a risk difference or survival difference), then direct adjustment should be avoided because it involves fitting non-standard models that are subject to convergence issues. Convergence is most likely with IPTW. Robust standard errors used by IPTW are anti-conservative at small sample sizes. All approaches can use similar methods to handle missing covariate data. With missing outcome data, each method has its own way to estimate a treatment effect in the all-randomised population. We illustrate some issues in a reanalysis of GetTested, a randomised trial designed to assess the effectiveness of an electonic sexually transmitted infection testing and results service.Conclusions: No single approach is always best: the choice will depend on the trial context. We encourage trialists to consider all three methods more routinely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Women pregnant with a breech-presenting foetus at term are at increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The most common intervention used to improve neonatal outcomes is planned delivery by caesarean section. But this is not always possible, and some women prefer to plan a vaginal birth. A number of providers have proposed alternative interventions, such as delivery protocols or specialist teams, but heterogeneity in reported outcomes and their measurements prevents meaningful comparisons. The aim of this paper is to present a protocol for a study to develop a Breech Core Outcome Set (Breech-COS) for studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes associated with term breech birth.Methods: The development of a Breech-COS includes three phases. First, a systematic literature review will be conducted to identify outcomes previously used in effectiveness studies of breech birth at term. A focus group discussion will be conducted with the study's pre-established Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group, to enable service user perspectives on the results of the literature review to influence the design of the Delphi survey instrument. Second, an international Delphi survey will be conducted to prioritise outcomes for inclusion in the Breech-COS from the point of view of key stakeholders, including perinatal care providers and families who have experienced a term breech pregnancy. Finally, a consensus meeting will be held with stakeholders to ratify the Breech-COS and disseminate findings for application in future effectiveness studies.Discussion: The expectation is that the Breech-COS will always be collected in all clinical trials, audits of practice and other forms of observation research that concern breech birth at term, along with other outcomes of interest. This will facilitate comparing, contrasting and combining studies with the ultimate goal of improved maternal and neonatal outcomes.Trial Registration: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) #1749. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comatose patients admitted after resuscitation from cardiac arrest have a significant risk of poor outcome due to hypoxic brain injury. While numerous studies have investigated and challenged the target temperature as the efficacious part of the guideline endorsed Targeted Temperature Management (TTM) protocols, our knowledge and how the remaining parts of the TTM are optimized remain sparse. The present randomized trial investigated two aspects of the TTM protocol: target blood pressure during the ICU stay and oxygenation during mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, the efficacy of device-based post-TTM fever management is addressed.Methods: Investigator-initiated, dual-center, randomized clinical trial in comatose OHCA patients admitted to an intensive cardiac care unit. Patients are eligible for inclusion if unconscious, older than 18 years of age, and have return of spontaneous circulation for more than 20 min.Intervention: allocation 1:1:1:1 into a group defined by (a) blood pressure targets in double-blind intervention targeting a mean arterial blood pressure of 63 or 77 mmHg and (b) restrictive (9-10 kPa) or liberal (13-14 kPa) of arterial oxygen concentration during mechanical ventilation. As a subordinate intervention, device-based active fever management is discontinued after 36 h or 72. Patients will otherwise receive protocolized standard of care according to international guidelines, including targeted temperature management at 36 °C for 24 h, sedation with fentanyl and propofol, and multimodal neuro-prognostication. Primary endpoint: Discharge from hospital in poor neurological status (Cerebral Performance category 3 or 4) or death, whichever comes first.Secondary Outcomes: Time to initiation of renal replacement therapy or death, neuron-specific enolase (NSE) level at 48 h, MOCA score at day 90, Modified Ranking Scale (mRS) and CPC at 3 months, NT-pro-BNP at 90 days, eGFR and LVEF at 90 days, daily cumulated vasopressor requirement during ICU stay, and need for a combination of vasopressors and inotropic agents or mechanical circulatory support.Discussion: We hypothesize that low or high target blood pressure and restrictive and liberal oxygen administration will have an impact on mortality by reducing the risk and degree of hypoxic brain injury. This will be assessment neurological outcome and biochemical and neuropsychological testing after 90 days.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03141099. Registered on May 2017 (retrospectively registered). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is increasingly recognized that involving patients and the public in the design of clinical trials can lead to better recruitment, retention, and satisfaction. A recent scoping review determined that between 1985 and 2018, just 23 articles meeting quality criteria obtained feedback from clinical trial participants after a trial had been completed. In a timespan that presumably included thousands of trials across hundreds of indications, the paucity of the literature seems surprising, if not outright disappointing. By contrast, practitioners in the life sciences industry are increasingly incorporating patient research into their trial design process before, during, and after trial completion. Examples of approaches used include recruitment of "look alike" participant samples through online communities, surveys, and the use of smartphone apps to directly record participants' spoken reactions to trial materials like recruitment materials, site visit schedules, or informed consent materials. However, commercial organizations tend not to publish their findings, leading to a potential two-tier experience for trial participants depending on whether the trial they participate in will be industry-funded or government-funded. This seems problematic on a number of levels. Increasing regulatory, funder, and publisher interest in improving the inclusivity of clinical trial participants may act as a timely lever to spur patient-centered coproduction of trials. Until continuous feedback processes are the mandated, funded, and published norm, participating in a clinical trial will be more arduous than it needs to be. [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: 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: 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]

The efficient community spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in the current pandemic of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), which in severe and critical cases results in progressive pulmonary infection, complicated by respiratory failure, with a high prevalence of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Of all age groups, older adults have the greatest risk of severe COVID-19 and the associated complications. Globally, there are many reports of the rapid spread of COVID-19 among residents of skilled nursing facilities, with high associated rates of morbidity and mortality. With over 1.3 million residents in nursing home care in the USA, there is an urgent need for therapeutic strategies to prevent COVID-19 in these populations.Lilly, in collaboration with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, conducted the BLAZE-2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the monoclonal antibody bamlanivimab (LY3819253) in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19, defined as symptomatic infection, in skilled nursing and assisted living facilities. It is a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, where participants were randomized to bamlanivimab (4200 mg) or placebo and then followed up for 24 weeks. Conducting a trial in the midst of a pandemic in these facilities poses several challenges, including a vulnerable elderly population, travel restrictions, supply chain interruptions, and defining the target population. The operational challenges were addressed by the innovative use of mobile research units which are customized, equipped, and staffed to support BLAZE-2 randomization and participant dosing within the skilled nursing and assisted living facilities. Herein, we describe the design of the study, the analytics behind facility selection, and an innovative operational model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Some parallel-group cluster-randomized trials use covariate-constrained rather than simple randomization. This is done to increase the chance of balancing the groups on cluster- and patient-level baseline characteristics. This study assessed how well two covariate-constrained randomization methods balanced baseline characteristics compared with simple randomization.Methods: We conducted a mock 3-year cluster-randomized trial, with no active intervention, that started April 1, 2014, and ended March 31, 2017. We included a total of 11,832 patients from 72 hemodialysis centers (clusters) in Ontario, Canada. We randomly allocated the 72 clusters into two groups in a 1:1 ratio on a single date using individual- and cluster-level data available until April 1, 2013. Initially, we generated 1000 allocation schemes using simple randomization. Then, as an alternative, we performed covariate-constrained randomization based on historical data from these centers. In one analysis, we restricted on a set of 11 individual-level prognostic variables; in the other, we restricted on principal components generated using 29 baseline historical variables. We created 300,000 different allocations for the covariate-constrained randomizations, and we restricted our analysis to the 30,000 best allocations based on the smallest sum of the penalized standardized differences. We then randomly sampled 1000 schemes from the 30,000 best allocations. We summarized our results with each randomization approach as the median (25th and 75th percentile) number of balanced baseline characteristics. There were 156 baseline characteristics, and a variable was balanced when the between-group standardized difference was ≤ 10%.Results: The three randomization techniques had at least 125 of 156 balanced baseline characteristics in 90% of sampled allocations. The median number of balanced baseline characteristics using simple randomization was 147 (142, 150). The corresponding value for covariate-constrained randomization using 11 prognostic characteristics was 149 (146, 151), while for principal components, the value was 150 (147, 151).Conclusion: In this setting with 72 clusters, constraining the randomization using historical information achieved better balance on baseline characteristics compared with simple randomization; however, the magnitude of benefit was modest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a lack of high-quality evidence underpinning many contemporary clinical practice guidelines embedded in the healthcare systems, leading to treatment uncertainty and practice variation in most medical disciplines. Comparative effectiveness trials (CETs) represent a diverse range of research that focuses on optimising health outcomes by comparing currently approved interventions to generate high-quality evidence to inform decision makers. Yet, despite their ability to produce real-world evidence that addresses the key priorities of patients and health systems, many implementation challenges exist within the healthcare environment.This manuscript aims to highlight common barriers to conducting CETs and describes potential solutions to normalise their conduct as part of a learning healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Due to the inherent characteristics of immersion, imagination, and interactivity in virtual reality (VR), it might be suitable for non-drug behavior management of children in dental clinics. The purpose of this trial was to measure the role of VR distraction on behavior management in short-term dental procedures in children.Methods: A randomized clinical trial design was carried out on 120 children aged between 4 and 8 years to identify the comparative efficacy of VR and tell-show-do (TSD) to improve behavioral management during dental procedures. The primary outcomes were evaluated anxiety, pain, and compliance scores in perioperative children. The levels of operative anxiety and pain were assessed using the Children's Fear Survey Schedule-Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) and Wong Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (WBFS), respectively. The Frankl Behavior Rating Scale (FBRS) was tested before and during dental procedures. The length of the dental procedure was compared between both groups after treatment.Results: The average anxiety and behavioral scores of the VR group significantly reduced compared with the control. The decreased anxiety score for the VR group and control group were 8 (7, 11) and 5 (5, 7), p < 0.05. The compliance scores of the control group during treatment were 3 (2, 3), and the same in the VR intervention were 3 (3, 4), p = 0.02. A significant reduction in pain was observed when using VR distraction (p < 0.05). Comparing the length of the dental procedure, the VR group (19.0 2 ± 5.32 min) had a shorter treatment time than the control group (27.80 ± 10.40 min).Conclusion: The use of VR significantly reduced the anxiety and pain of children and the length of the dental procedure and improved the compliance of children that underwent short-term dental procedures without an adverse reaction.Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000029802 . Registered on February 14, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 1979, Marvin Zelen proposed a new design for randomized clinical trials intended to facilitate clinicians' and patients' participation. The defining innovation of Zelen's proposal was random assignment of treatment prior to patient or participant consent. Following randomization, a participant would receive information and asked to consent to the assigned treatment.Methods: This narrative review examined recent examples of Zelen design trials evaluating clinical and public health interventions.Results: Zelen designs have often been applied to questions regarding real-world treatment or intervention effects under conditions of incomplete adherence. Examples include evaluating outreach or engagement interventions (especially for stigmatized conditions), evaluating treatments for which benefit may vary according to participant motivation, and situations when assignment to a control or usual care condition might prompt a disappointment effect. Specific practical considerations determine whether a Zelen design is scientifically appropriate or practicable. Zelen design trials usually depend on identifying participants automatically from existing records rather than by advertising, referral, or active recruitment. Assessments of baseline or prognostic characteristics usually depend on available records data rather than research-specific assessments. Because investigators must consider how exposure to treatments or interventions might bias ascertainment of outcomes, assessment of outcomes from routinely created records is often necessary. A Zelen design requires a waiver of the usual requirement for informed consent prior to random assignment of treatment. The Revised Common Rule includes specific criteria for such a waiver, and those criteria are most often met for evaluation of a low-risk and potentially beneficial intervention added to usual care. Investigators and Institutional Review Boards must also consider whether the scientific or public health benefit of a Zelen design trial outweighs the autonomy interests of potential participants. Analysis of Zelen trials compares outcomes according to original assignment, regardless of any refusal to accept or participate in the assigned treatment.Conclusions: A Zelen design trial assesses the real-world consequences of a specific strategy to prompt or promote uptake of a specific treatment. While such trials are poorly suited to address explanatory or efficacy questions, they are often preferred for addressing pragmatic or policy questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Human infection studies (HIS) that involve deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with a pathogen raise important ethical issues, including the need to ensure that benefits and burdens are understood and appropriately accounted for. Building on earlier work, we embedded social science research within an ongoing malaria human infection study in coastal Kenya to understand the study benefits and burdens experienced by study stakeholders in this low-resource setting and assess the wider implications for future research planning and policy.Methods: Data were collected using qualitative research methods, including in-depth interviews (44), focus group discussions (10) and non-participation observation. Study participants were purposively selected (key informant or maximal diversity sampling), including volunteers in the human infection study, study staff, community representatives and local administrative authorities. Data were collected during and up to 18 months following study residency, from sites in Coastal and Western Kenya. Voice recordings of interviews and discussions were transcribed, translated, and analysed using framework analysis, combining data- and theory-driven perspectives.Findings: Physical, psychological, economic and social forms of benefits and burdens were experienced across study stages. Important benefits for volunteers included the study compensation, access to health checks, good residential living conditions, new learning opportunities, developing friendships and satisfaction at contributing towards a new malaria vaccine. Burdens primarily affected study volunteers, including experiences of discomfort and ill health; fear and anxiety around aspects of the trial process, particularly deliberate infection and the implications of prolonged residency; anxieties about early residency exit; and interpersonal conflict. These issues had important implications for volunteers' families, study staff and the research institution's reputation more widely.Conclusion: Developing ethically and scientifically strong HIS relies on grounded accounts of volunteers, study staff and the wider community, understood in the socioeconomic, political and cultural context where studies are implemented. Recognition of the diverse, and sometimes perverse, nature of potential benefits and burdens in a given context, and who this might implicate, is critical to this process. Prior and ongoing stakeholder engagement is core to developing these insights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ankle fracture is a common injury with a strong evidence base focused on effectiveness of treatments. However, there are no reporting guidelines on distal tibia and ankle fractures. This has led to heterogeneity in outcome reporting and consequently, restricted the contribution of evidence syntheses. Over the past decade, core outcome sets have been developed to address this issue and are available for several common fractures, including those of the hip, distal radius, and open tibial fractures. This protocol describes the process to co-produce-with patient partners and other key stakeholders-a multi-stakeholder derived Core Outcome Set for distal Tibia and Ankle fractures (COSTA). The scope of COSTA will be for clinical trials.Methods: The study will have five-stages which will include the following: (i) systematic reviews of existing qualitative studies and outcome reporting in randomised controlled trial studies to inform a developing list of potential outcome domains; (ii) qualitative interviews (including secondary data) and focus groups with patients and healthcare professionals to explore the impact of ankle fracture and the outcomes that really matter; (iii) generation of meaningful outcome statements with the study team, international advisory group and patient partners; (iv) a multi-round, international e-Delphi study to achieve consensus on the core domain set; and (v) an evidence-based consensus on a core measurement set will be achieved through a structured group consensus meeting, recommending best assessment approaches for each of the domains in the core domain set.Discussion: Development of COSTA will provide internationally endorsed outcome assessment guidance for clinical trials for distal tibia and ankle fractures. This will enhance comparative reviews of interventions, potentially reducing reporting bias and research waste. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adaptive model-based dose-finding designs have demonstrated advantages over traditional rule-based designs but have increased statistical complexity but uptake has been slow especially outside of cancer trials. TRAFIC is a multi-centre, early phase trial in rheumatoid arthritis incorporating a model-based design.Methods: A Bayesian adaptive dose-finding phase I trial rolling into a single-arm, single-stage phase II trial. Model parameters for phase I were chosen via Monte Carlo simulation evaluating objective performance measures under clinically relevant scenarios and incorporated stopping rules for early termination. Potential designs were further calibrated utilising dose transition pathways.Discussion: TRAFIC is an MRC-funded trial of a re-purposed treatment demonstrating that it is possible to design, fund and implement a model-based phase I trial in a non-cancer population within conventional research funding tracks and regulatory constraints. The phase I design allows borrowing of information from previous trials, all accumulated data to be utilised in decision-making, verification of operating characteristics through simulation, improved understanding for management and oversight teams through dose transition pathways. The rolling phase II design brings efficiencies in trial conduct including site and monitoring activities and cost. TRAFIC is the first funded model-based dose-finding trial in inflammatory disease demonstrating that small phase I/II trials can have an underlying statistical basis for decision-making and interpretation.Trial Registration: Trials Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN36667085 . Registered on September 26, 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Multi-arm non-inferiority (MANI) trials, here defined as non-inferiority trials with multiple experimental treatment arms, can be useful in situations where several viable treatments exist for a disease area or for testing different dose schedules. To maintain the statistical integrity of such trials, issues regarding both design and analysis must be considered, from both the multi-arm and the non-inferiority perspectives. Little guidance currently exists on exactly how these aspects should be addressed and it is the aim of this paper to provide recommendations to aid the design of future MANI trials.Methods: A comprehensive literature review covering four databases was conducted to identify publications associated with MANI trials. Literature was split into methodological and trial publications in order to investigate the required design and analysis considerations for MANI trials and whether they were being addressed in practice.Results: A number of issues were identified that if not properly addressed, could lead to issues with the FWER, power or bias. These ranged from the structuring of trial hypotheses at the design stage to the consideration of potential heterogeneous treatment variances at the analysis stage. One key issue of interest was adjustment for multiple testing at the analysis stage. There was little consensus concerning whether more powerful p value adjustment methods were preferred to approximate adjusted CIs when presenting and interpreting the results of MANI trials. We found 65 examples of previous MANI trials, of which 31 adjusted for multiple testing out of the 39 that were adjudged to require it. Trials generally preferred to utilise simple, well-known methods for study design and analysis and while some awareness was shown concerning FWER inflation and choice of power, many trials seemed not to consider the issues and did not provide sufficient definition of their chosen design and analysis approaches.Conclusions: While MANI trials to date have shown some awareness of the issues raised within this paper, very few have satisfied the criteria of the outlined recommendations. Going forward, trials should consider the recommendations in this paper and ensure they clearly define and reason their choices of trial design and analysis techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients and their families often have preferences for medical care that relate to wider considerations beyond the clinical effectiveness of the proposed interventions. Traditionally, these preferences have not been adequately considered in research. Research questions where patients and families have strong preferences may not be appropriate for traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to threats to internal and external validity, as there may be high levels of drop-out and non-adherence or recruitment of a sample that is not representative of the treatment population. Several preference-informed designs have been developed to address problems with traditional RCTs, but these designs have their own limitations and may not be suitable for many research questions where strong preferences and opinions are present.Methods: In this paper, we propose a novel and innovative preference-informed complementary trial (PICT) design which addresses key weaknesses with both traditional RCTs and available preference-informed designs. In the PICT design, complementary trials would be operated within a single study, and patients and/or families would be given the opportunity to choose between a trial with all treatment options available and a trial with treatment options that exclude the option which is subject to strong preferences. This approach would allow those with strong preferences to take part in research and would improve external validity through recruiting more representative populations and internal validity. Here we discuss the strengths and limitations of the PICT design and considerations for analysis and present a motivating example for the design based on the use of opioids for pain management for children with musculoskeletal injuries.Conclusions: PICTs provide a novel and innovative design for clinical trials with more than two arms, which can address problems with existing preference-informed trial designs and enhance the ability of researchers to reflect shared decision-making in research as well as improving the validity of trials of topics with strong preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This systematic review aimed to identify, compare and contrast outcome domains and outcome instruments reported in studies investigating interventions that seek to restore bilateral (two-sided) and/or binaural (both ears) hearing in adults with single-sided deafness (SSD). Findings can inform the development of evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials.Methods: Records were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP and the NIHR UK clinical trials gateway. The search included records published from 1946 to March 2020. Included studies were those as follows: (a) recruiting adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with SSD of average threshold severity worse than 70 dB HL in the worse-hearing ear and normal (or near-normal) hearing in the better-hearing ear, (b) evaluating interventions to restore bilateral and/or binaural hearing and (c) enrolling those adults in a controlled trial, before-and-after study or cross-over study. Studies that fell just short of the participant eligibility criteria were included in a separate sensitivity analysis.Results: Ninety-six studies were included (72 full inclusion, 24 sensitivity analysis). For fully included studies, 37 exclusively evaluated interventions to re-establish bilateral hearing and 29 exclusively evaluated interventions to restore binaural hearing. Overall, 520 outcome domains were identified (350 primary and 170 secondary). Speech-related outcome domains were the most common (74% of studies), followed by spatial-related domains (60% of studies). A total of 344 unique outcome instruments were reported. Speech-related outcome domains were measured by 73 different instruments and spatial-related domains by 43 different instruments. There was considerable variability in duration of follow-up, ranging from acute (baseline) testing to 10 years after the intervention. The sensitivity analysis identified no additional outcome domains.Conclusions: This review identified large variability in the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in studies evaluating the therapeutic benefits and harms of SSD interventions. Reports frequently omitted information on what domains the study intended to assess, and on what instruments were used to measure which domains.Trial Registration: The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): Registration Number CRD42018084274 . Registered on 13 March 2018, last revised on 7th of May 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients and their families often have preferences for medical care that relate to wider considerations beyond the clinical effectiveness of the proposed interventions. Traditionally, these preferences have not been adequately considered in research. Research questions where patients and families have strong preferences may not be appropriate for traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to threats to internal and external validity, as there may be high levels of drop-out and non-adherence or recruitment of a sample that is not representative of the treatment population. Several preference-informed designs have been developed to address problems with traditional RCTs, but these designs have their own limitations and may not be suitable for many research questions where strong preferences and opinions are present. Methods: In this paper, we propose a novel and innovative preference-informed complementary trial (PICT) design which addresses key weaknesses with both traditional RCTs and available preference-informed designs. In the PICT design, complementary trials would be operated within a single study, and patients and/or families would be given the opportunity to choose between a trial with all treatment options available and a trial with treatment options that exclude the option which is subject to strong preferences. This approach would allow those with strong preferences to take part in research and would improve external validity through recruiting more representative populations and internal validity. Here we discuss the strengths and limitations of the PICT design and considerations for analysis and present a motivating example for the design based on the use of opioids for pain management for children with musculoskeletal injuries. Conclusions: PICTs provide a novel and innovative design for clinical trials with more than two arms, which can address problems with existing preference-informed trial designs and enhance the ability of researchers to reflect shared decision-making in research as well as improving the validity of trials of topics with strong preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pragmatic trials often consist of cluster-randomized controlled trials (C-RCTs), where staff of existing clinics or sites deliver interventions and randomization occurs at the site level. Covariate-constrained randomization (CCR) methods are often recommended to minimize imbalance on important site characteristics across intervention and control arms because sizable imbalances can occur by chance in simple randomizations when the number of units to be randomized is relatively small. CCR methods involve multiple random assignments initially, an assessment of balance achieved on site-level covariates from each randomization, and the final selection of an allocation that produces acceptable balance. However, no clear consensus exists on how to assess imbalance or identify allocations with sufficient balance. In this article, we describe an overall imbalance index (I) that is based on the mean of the absolute value of the standardized differences in means on the site characteristics.Methods: We derive the theoretical distribution of I, then conduct simulation studies to examine its empirical properties under the varying covariate distributions and inter-correlations.Results: I has an expected value of 0.798 and, assuming independent site characteristics, a variance of 0.363/k, where k is the number of site characteristics being balanced. Simulations indicated that the properties of I are robust under varying covariate circumstances as long as k is greater than 3 and the covariates are not too highly inter-correlated.Conclusions: We recommend that values of I below the 10th percentile indicate sufficient overall site balance in CCRs. Definitions of acceptable randomizations might also include individual covariate criteria specified in advance, in addition to overall balance criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, the popularity of multi-arm multi-stage, seamless adaptive, and platform trials has increased. However, many design-related questions and questions regarding which operating characteristics should be evaluated to determine the potential performance of a specific trial design remain and are often further complicated by the complexity of such trial designs.Methods: A systematic search was conducted to review existing software for the design of platform trials, whereby multi-arm multi-stage trials were also included. The results of this search are reported both on the literature level and the software level, highlighting the software judged to be particularly useful.Results: In recent years, many highly specialized software packages targeting single design elements on platform studies have been released. Only a few of the developed software packages provide extensive design flexibility, at the cost of limited access due to being commercial or not being usable as out-of-the-box solutions.Conclusions: We believe that both an open-source modular software similar to OCTOPUS and a collaborative effort will be necessary to create software that takes advantage of and investigates the impact of all the flexibility that platform trials potentially provide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A lack of consensus on the optimal outcome measures to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) has hampered the pooling of research data for evidence synthesis and clinical guidelines. A core outcome set (COS) is a minimum set of outcome measures that are recommended for all studies of a particular condition. The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) Core Outcome Set for OUD (COS-OUD) is a development study to identify core constructs, meaningful outcomes, and their optimal measurement for all efficacy and effectiveness studies of OUD treatment and service delivery.Methods/design: Overseen by an expert workgroup, a modified, stepwise, e-Delphi methodology will be used to gain consensus among a panel of clinical practitioners and researchers involved in the treatment of OUD, who are members of the CTN. Sequential rounds of anonymous, online questionnaires will be used to identify, rate the importance of, and refine a core outcome set. A consensus threshold will be achieved if at least 70% of the panel rate the measure as critical for inclusion in the COS-OUD. Where consensus is not reached or there are suggestions for new measures, these will be brought forward to a further round of review prior to a consensus meeting. Products from this study will be communicated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences.Discussion: This initiative will develop a COS for OUD intervention trials, treatment studies, and service delivery and will support the pooling of research and clinical practice data and efforts to develop measurement-based care within the OUD treatment cascade.Trial Registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1579. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is an area of immense interest. The high profile of 'AI in health' means that there are unusually strong drivers to accelerate the introduction and implementation of innovative AI interventions, which may not be supported by the available evidence, and for which the usual systems of appraisal may not yet be sufficient.Main Text: We are beginning to see the emergence of randomised clinical trials evaluating AI interventions in real-world settings. It is imperative that these studies are conducted and reported to the highest standards to enable effective evaluation because they will potentially be a key part of the evidence that is used when deciding whether an AI intervention is sufficiently safe and effective to be approved and commissioned. Minimum reporting guidelines for clinical trial protocols and reports have been instrumental in improving the quality of clinical trials and promoting completeness and transparency of reporting for the evaluation of new health interventions. The current guidelines-SPIRIT and CONSORT-are suited to traditional health interventions but research has revealed that they do not adequately address potential sources of bias specific to AI systems. Examples of elements that require specific reporting include algorithm version and the procedure for acquiring input data. In response, the SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI guidelines were developed by a multidisciplinary group of international experts using a consensus building methodological process. The extensions include a number of new items that should be reported in addition to the core items. Each item, where possible, was informed by challenges identified in existing studies of AI systems in health settings.Conclusion: The SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI guidelines provide the first international standards for clinical trials of AI systems. The guidelines are designed to ensure complete and transparent reporting of clinical trial protocols and reports involving AI interventions and have the potential to improve the quality of these clinical trials through improvements in their design and delivery. Their use will help to efficiently identify the safest and most effective AI interventions and commission them with confidence for the benefit of patients and the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the presence of heterogeneous treatment effects, it is desirable to divide patients into subgroups based on their expected response to treatment. This is formalised via a personalised treatment recommendation: an algorithm that uses biomarker measurements to select treatments. It could be that multiple, rather than single, biomarkers better predict these subgroups. However, finding the optimal combination of multiple biomarkers can be a difficult prediction problem.Methods: We described three parametric methods for finding the optimal combination of biomarkers in a personalised treatment recommendation, using randomised trial data: a regression approach that models outcome using treatment by biomarker interactions; an approach proposed by Kraemer that forms a combined measure from individual biomarker weights, calculated on all treated and control pairs; and a novel modification of Kraemer's approach that utilises a prognostic score to sample matched treated and control subjects. Using Monte Carlo simulations under multiple data-generating models, we compare these approaches and draw conclusions based on a measure of improvement under a personalised treatment recommendation compared to a standard treatment. The three methods are applied to data from a randomised trial of home-delivered pragmatic rehabilitation versus treatment as usual for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (the FINE trial). Prior analysis of this data indicated some treatment effect heterogeneity from multiple, correlated biomarkers.Results: The regression approach outperformed Kraemer's approach across all data-generating scenarios. The modification of Kraemer's approach leads to improved treatment recommendations, except in the case where there was a strong unobserved prognostic biomarker. In the FINE example, the regression method indicated a weak improvement under its personalised treatment recommendation algorithm.Conclusions: The method proposed by Kraemer does not perform better than a regression approach for combining multiple biomarkers. All methods are sensitive to misspecification of the parametric models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The conventional clinical trial design in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related disorders (ADRDs) is the parallel-group randomized controlled trial. However, in heterogeneous disorders like AD/ADRDs, this design requires large sample sizes to detect meaningful effects in an "average" patient. They are very costly and, despite many attempts, have not yielded new treatments for many years. An alternative, the multi-crossover, randomized control trial (MCRCT) is a design in which each patient serves as their own control across successive, randomized blocks of active treatment and placebo. This design overcomes many limitations of parallel-group trials, yielding an unbiased assessment of treatment effect at the individual level ("N-of-1") regardless of unique patient characteristics. The goal of the present study is to pilot a MCRCT of a potential symptomatic treatment, methylphenidate, for mild-stage AD/ADRDs, testing feasibility and compliance of participants in this design and efficacy of the drug using both standard and novel outcome measures suited for this design.Methods: Ten participants with mild cognitive impairment or mild-stage dementia due to AD/ADRDs will undergo a 4-week lead-in period followed by three, month-long treatment blocks (2 weeks of treatment with methylphenidate, 2 weeks placebo in random order). This trial will be conducted entirely virtually with an optional in-person screening visit. The primary outcome of interest is feasibility as measured by compliance and retention, with secondary and exploratory outcomes including cognition as measured by neuropsychological assessment at the end of each treatment period and daily brain games played throughout the study, actigraphy, and neuropsychiatric and functional assessments.Discussion: This pilot study will gauge the feasibility of conducting a virtual MCRCT for symptomatic treatment in early AD/ADRD. It will also compare home-based daily brain games with standard neuropsychological measures within a clinical trial for AD/ADRD. Particular attention will be paid to compliance, tolerability of drug and participation, learning effects, trends and stability of daily measures across blocks, medication carryover effects, and correlations between standard and brief daily assessments. These data will provide guidance for more efficient trial design and the use of potentially more robust, ecological outcome measures in AD/ADRD research.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03811847 . Registered on 21 January 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A core outcome set (COS) represents the agreed minimum set of domains and measurement instruments that should be measured and reported in any clinical trial for a given condition. In BMS randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the outcomes identified in the existing literature regarding the efficacy of therapeutic interventions are numerous and diverse. Although the standardized IMMPACT core outcome domains has been developed for measurement of outcomes in chronic pain RCTs, no BMS-specific COS have been adopted and validated. With the evolving landscape of BMS management end points and the development of new therapies, a consensus on a COS for use in future BMS trials is paramount to reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus for adopting the standardized Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) outcome domains, and their tools of assessment, for burning mouth syndrome (BMS) clinical trials and clinical practice.Methods: A BMS-specific COS will be developed using the method recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effective Trials (COMET) initiative (Registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1357 ). Selection of questionnaire outcome measures was informed by the IMMPACT consensus and previous systematic review of RCTs in BMS conducted by the consortium. An international group of clinicians and researchers will be invited to participate in several rounds of a Delphi survey. A consensus meeting will be held with the objective of ratifying the outcomes for inclusion in the COS. A finalized COS explanatory document will be drafted, including all outcomes and measurements as determined by the Delphi rounds and consensus meeting.Discussion: A COS for the management of BMS will improve the quality of future RCTs, reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity, and facilitate more vigorous data synthesis of management interventions for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. This would ensure enhanced quality evidence for clinical management of the condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In randomized trials, the term "double-blind" (and its derivatives, single- and triple-blind, fully blind, and partially blind or masked) has no standard or widely accepted definition. Agreement about which groups are blinded is poor, and authors using these terms often do not identify which groups were blinded, despite specific reporting guidelines to the contrary. Nevertheless, many readers assume-incorrectly-that they know which groups are blinded. Thus, the term is ambiguous at best, misleading at worst, and, in either case, interferes with the accurate reporting, interpretation, and evaluation of randomized trials. The problems with the terms have been thoroughly documented in the literature, and many authors have recommended that they be abandoned.Proposal: We and our co-signers suggest eliminating the use of adjectives that modify "blinding" in randomized trials; a trial would be described as either blinded or unblinded. We also propose that authors report in a standard table which groups or individuals were blinded, what they were blinded to, how blinding was implemented, and whether blinding was maintained. Individuals with dual responsibilities, such as caregiving and data collecting, would also be identified. If blinding was compromised, authors should describe the potential implications of the loss of blinding on interpreting the results.Conclusion: "Double blind" and its derivatives are terms with little to recommend their continued use. Eliminating the use of adjectives that impart a false specificity to the term would reduce misinterpretations, and recommending that authors report who was blinded to what and how in a standard table would require them to be specific about which groups and individuals were blinded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most common trauma worldwide and is a leading cause of injury-related death and disability. Inflammation is initiated as a result of the TBI, which is in association with severity of illness and mortality in brain trauma patients, especially in subdural hemorrhage and epidural hemorrhage cases. A high percentage of adults admitted to the intensive care unit with TBI are diagnosed with vitamin D deficiency; this deficiency may induce impaired immune responses and increase the risk of infections. Vitamin D intervention has been shown to modulate pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines in non-critically ill patients, but to date, there is no substantial data on the effectiveness of vitamin D for the improvement of immune function in traumatic brain injury patients.Methods/design: A randomized clinical trial (RCT) will be performed on 74 Iranian adults 18-65 years old with brain trauma and will be treated daily with vitamin D supplements (100,000 IU oral drop) or a similar placebo (1000 IU) for 5 days.Discussion: If this randomized clinical trial demonstrates reductions in inflammatory cytokines, it would provide evidence for a multicenter clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in neurocritically ill patients. Since vitamin D supplements are inexpensive and safe, this clinical trial could have the potential to improve clinical outcomes in traumatic brain injury patients through reduction of inflammation and infection-associated morbidity and mortality rates.Trial Registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, IRCT20180619040151N3 . Registered on 10 August 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An estimand defines the target of estimation for a clinical trial through specification of the treatment, target population, variable, population-level summary and of the strategies for intercurrent events. A carefully defined estimand aligns the clinical trial design and analysis with the scientific question of interest and adequately accounts for so-called intercurrent events. The ICH E9(R1) addendum suggests five estimand strategies. We evaluated to what extent current practice in drug development and regulatory assessment fits in the estimand framework.Methods: We systematically evaluated what estimands, especially what strategies for intercurrent events are advised in European Medicines Agency disease guidelines, used in sponsors' trials and additionally requested by the European Medicines Agency in assessment dossiers. We selected four therapeutic areas: nervous system, oncology, cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases. For each, we evaluated all disease guidelines with approved drugs, the dossiers of the most recently approved drugs matching the guidelines and corresponding regulatory questions.Results: Strategies for intercurrent events were present in 18 (53%) of 34 guidelines, in all 34 sponsor documentations and in 15 (44%) of 34 sets of regulatory questions. Treatment policy was advised in 13 (38%) guidelines and was applied in 9 corresponding sponsor documentations. Of these 9, it was the sole strategy in 4 cases and accompanied by another strategy in 5 cases. Hypothetical strategy was not advised in guidelines. However, it was the leading strategy applied in 25 (74%) sponsor documentations. Composite strategy was advised in 3 (9%) guidelines and applied accompanied by another strategy in 2 corresponding sponsor documentations. While on treatment strategy was not advised in guidelines, but was applied in 2 sponsor documentations. Principal stratum strategy was advised in 2 guidelines but not applied in corresponding sponsor documentations. Of the regulatory questions, treatment policy was present in 2 cases (6%), hypothetical in 6 cases (18%), composite in 6 cases (18%) and while on treatment in 1 case (3%).Conclusions: Estimand attributes are present in guidelines, sponsor documentations and regulatory questions, but not described as estimands. Treatment policy was most often advised in guidelines, but hypothetical was the leading strategy applied in sponsor documentations. Thus, results indicate not a full concordance between the regulatory target of estimation and what is actually estimated. The lack of concordance was mostly due to limitations in collection of intercurrent events data to enable a treatment policy strategy. There is, therefore, a need to better define estimands at the design stage and throughout the applications dossiers and assessment reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To inform the design of a clinical trial of a targeted screening programme for relatives of individuals affected by thoracic aortic disease, we performed a consensus exercise as to the acceptability of screening, the optimal sequence and choice of tests, long-term patient management, and choice of trial design.Methods: Working with the Aortic Dissection Awareness UK & Ireland patient association, we performed a Delphi exercise with clinical experts, patients, and carers, consisting of three rounds of consultation followed by a final multi-stakeholder face-to-face workshop.Results: Thirty-five experts and 84 members of the public took part in the surveys, with 164 patients and clinicians attending the final workshop. There was substantial agreement on the need for a targeted screening pathway that would employ a combined approach (imaging + genetic testing). The target population would include the first- and second-degree adult (> 15 years) relatives, with no upper age limit of affected patients. Disagreement persisted about the screening process, sequence, personnel, the imaging method to adopt, computed tomography (CT) scan vs magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the specifics of a potential trial, including willingness to undergo randomisation, and measures of effectiveness and acceptability.Conclusion: A Delphi process, initiated by patients, identified areas of uncertainty with respect to behaviour, process, and the design of a targeted screening programme for thoracic aortic disease that requires further research prior to any future trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinicians, patients, and policy-makers rely on published evidence from clinical trials to help inform decision-making. A lack of complete and transparent reporting of the investigated trial outcomes limits reproducibility of results and knowledge synthesis efforts, and contributes to outcome switching and other reporting biases. Outcome-specific extensions for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT-Outcomes) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-Outcomes) reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate harmonized reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and reports. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize existing guidance for trial outcome reporting to inform extension development.Methods: We searched for documents published in the last 10 years that provided guidance on trial outcome reporting using: an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register); a grey literature search; and solicitation of colleagues using a snowballing approach. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting after training. Extracted trial outcome reporting guidance was compared with candidate reporting items to support, refute, or refine the items and to assess the need for the development of additional items.Results: In total, 1758 trial outcome reporting recommendations were identified within 244 eligible documents. The majority of documents were published by academic journals (72%). Comparison of each recommendation with the initial list of 70 candidate items led to the development of an additional 62 items, producing 132 candidate items. The items encompassed outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of modifications between trial documents. The total number of documents supporting each candidate item ranged widely (median 5, range 0-84 documents per item), illustrating heterogeneity in the recommendations currently available for outcome reporting across a large and diverse sample of sources.Conclusions: Outcome reporting guidance for clinical trial protocols and reports lacks consistency and is spread across a large number of sources that may be challenging to access and implement in practice. Evidence and consensus-based guidance, currently in development (SPIRIT-Outcomes and CONSORT-Outcomes), may help authors adequately describe trial outcomes in protocols and reports transparently and completely to help reduce avoidable research waste. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In a randomized crossover trial, each participant is randomized to a sequence of treatments and treatment effect is estimated based on within-individual difference because each participant serves as his/her own control. This feature makes the design and reporting of randomized crossover trials different from that of parallel trials. Our objective was to characterize phase 3 crossover trials with results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov and identify issues and best practices for reporting.Methods: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase 3 randomized crossover trials that provided results, registered at least one primary outcome, and included at least one link to a results publication in the record by August 6, 2019. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and extracted information from each record into an electronic form developed and maintained in the Systematic Review Data Repository.Results: Of the 124 crossover trials analyzed, two thirds were a simple "Intervention A then B" or "Intervention B then A" (AB|BA) design. Most trials (78%, 97/124) provided enough information to understand the participant flow throughout the trial. Baseline characteristics were most often reported for all participants as a single group (52%, 65/124). Primary outcomes and adverse events were most commonly reported "per intervention" (85%, 105/124, and 80%, 99/124, respectively).Conclusions: The registration and reporting of randomized crossover trials must account for the paired nature of the design. Our observations and recommendations informed the development of guidelines for good reporting practices in the registration and reporting of randomized crossover trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a genetic disorder which causes dysfunctional red blood cells (RBC) and is thought to increase requirements for folate, an essential B vitamin, due to increased RBC production and turnover in the disease. High-dose supplementation with 1-5 mg/d folic acid, synthetic folate, has been the standard recommendation for children with SCD. There is concern about whether children with SCD need such high doses of folic acid, following mandatory folic acid fortification of enriched grains in Canada, and advancements in medical therapies which extend the average lifespan of RBCs. In animal and human studies, high folic acid intakes (1 mg/d) have been associated with accelerated growth of some cancers, and the biological effects of circulating unmetabolized folic acid (UMFA), which can occur with doses of folic acid ≥ 0.2 mg/d, are not fully understood. The objective of this study is to determine efficacy of, and alterations in folate metabolism from high-dose folic acid in children with SCD during periods of folic acid supplementation versus no supplementation.Methods: In this double-blind randomized controlled cross-over trial, children with SCD (n = 36, aged 2-19 years) will be randomized to either receive 1 mg/d folic acid, the current standard of care, or a placebo for 12 weeks. After a 12-week washout period, treatments will be reversed. Total folate concentrations (serum and RBC), different folate forms (including UMFA), folate-related metabolites, and clinical outcomes will be measured at baseline and after treatment periods. The sum of the values measured in the two periods will be calculated for each subject and compared across the two sequence groups by means of a test for independent samples for the primary (RBC folate concentrations) and secondary (UMFA) outcomes. Dietary intake will be measured at the beginning of each study period.Discussion: As the first rigorously designed clinical trial in children with SCD, this trial will inform and assess current clinical practice, with the ultimate goal of improving nutritional status of children with SCD.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04011345 . Registered on July 8, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is increasingly accepted that insufficient attention has been given to the patient health outcomes that are important to measure in comparative effectiveness research that will inform decision-making. The relationship between outcomes chosen for comparative effectiveness research, outcomes used in decision-making in routine care, and outcome data recorded in electronic health records (EHR) is also poorly understood. The COMET Initiative (http://www.comet-initiative.org/. Accessed 3 Apr 2020) supports and encourages the development and use of 'core outcome sets' (COS), which represent the minimum set of patient health outcomes that should be measured and reported for a specific condition. There is growing interest in identifying how COS might fit into the different stages of the healthcare research and delivery ecosystem, and whether inclusion in the EHR might facilitate this.Methods: We sought to determine the degree of overlap between outcomes within COS for research and routine care, EMA, FDA and NICE guidelines, NICE quality statements/indicators, EHR and a point-of-care randomised clinical trial, using type 2 diabetes (T2D) as a case study.Results: There is substantial agreement about important patient outcomes for T2D for research and healthcare, with associated coverage within the UK general practice EHR.Conclusions: This case study has demonstrated the potential for efficient research and value-based healthcare when the EHR can include COS for both research and care, where the COS comprises outcomes of importance to all relevant stakeholders. However, this concordance may not hold more generally, as the focus on patient-centred outcomes may well be greater in T2D than in other conditions. Work is ongoing to examine other clinical areas, in order to highlight any current inefficiencies when health outcomes in research and healthcare do not agree with core outcomes identified by patients, clinicians and other key stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prospective research in the field of cochlear implants is hampered by methodological issues and small sample sizes. The ELEPHANT study presents an alternative clinical trial design with a daily randomized approach evaluating individualized tonotopical fitting of a cochlear implant (CI).Methods: A single-blinded, daily-randomized clinical trial will be implemented to evaluate a new imaging-based CI mapping strategy. A minimum of 20 participants will be included from the start of the rehabilitation process with a 1-year follow-up period. Based on a post-operative cone beam CT scan (CBCT), mapping of electrical input will be aligned to natural place-pitch arrangement in the individual cochlea. The CI's frequency allocation table will be adjusted to match the electrical stimulation of frequencies as closely as possible to corresponding acoustic locations in the cochlea. A randomization scheme will be implemented whereby the participant, blinded to the intervention allocation, crosses over between the experimental and standard fitting program on a daily basis, and thus effectively acts as his own control, followed by a period of free choice between both maps to incorporate patient preference. With this new approach the occurrence of a first-order carryover effect and a limited sample size is addressed.Discussion: The experimental fitting strategy is thought to give rise to a steeper learning curve, result in better performance in challenging listening situations, improve sound quality, better complement residual acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear and be preferred by recipients of a CI. Concurrently, the suitability of the novel trial design will be considered in investigating these hypotheses.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03892941. Registered 27 March 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For most chronic medical conditions, multiple medications are available and prescribers often have limited evidence about which therapy is likely to be the most effective and safe for an individual patient. As many patients are exposed every day to medicines that may be less effective than available alternatives, this is of public health importance. Cluster randomised trials of prescribing policy offer an opportunity to rapidly obtain evidence of comparative effectiveness and safety. These trials can pose a low risk to patients and cause minimal disruption to usual care. Despite the potential scientific value of this approach, there remain valid concerns about consent, medication switching and the use of routinely collected data in research. We discuss these concerns with reference to an ongoing pilot study (Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE) - a cluster randomised evaluation of hypertension prescribing policy, ISRCTN 46635087, registered 11 August 2017). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Functional food ingredients and natural health products have been demonstrated to reduce disease risk and thereby help to lower health care costs across populations at risk for chronic or degenerative diseases. However, typically a wide range of interindividual variability exists in response across individuals to nutritional and natural health product bioactives, such as plant sterols (PS). This study aims to determine and utilize information on the associations between genosets and the degree of responsiveness to dietary PS intervention, with a long-term objective of developing genetic tests to predict responses to PS.Methods: This clinical trial is designed as a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized two-period crossover study. Sixty-four eligible participants with the specific a priori-determined single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with a responsiveness to PS will consume PS or a placebo treatment for two 4-week periods. The PS treatment consists of two daily single portions of margarine, each providing 1 g PS during the PS period (2.0 g/day of PS in total). The placebo will be an identical margarine containing no added PS. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) responsiveness to the controlled administration of PS will be investigated as the primary outcome, and the associations between interindividual genoset variabilities and response to PS consumption will be determined.Discussion: This research will provide further insight into whether the associations between previously identified SNPs and the response of LDL-C to PS consumption can be used in a predictive manner. It will also provide insight into the complexities of undertaking a nutrigenetic trial with prospective recruitment based on genotype.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier: NCT02765516. Registered on 6 May 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As an irreversible, intractable disease with vision loss, glaucoma leads to permanent and progressive damage of visual function. Lowering high intraocular pressure (HIOP) is the first choice for treating glaucoma; however, the control of HIOP is not enough to prevent progressive vison loss. Currently, the therapies to treat glaucoma with controlled IOP (GPCI) are unsatisfactory. Chinese medicine is effective for improving visual function in patients with GPCI. Bujing Yishi tablets (BJYSP) have been the standard preparation for treating GPCI in our hospital for decades. However, no rigorous randomized controlled clinical studies have investigated its effects and safety.Methods: This study will be a 6-month, multicenter, stratified trial following a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) protocol. A total of 216 eligible GPCI patients aged 18-75 years will be stratified according to the early, moderate, and advanced stages of glaucoma. After stratifying, the participants will be randomly assigned to the BJYSP group or control group at a ratio of 1:1. Following randomization, participants in the BJYSP group and control group will receive BJYSP and mecobalamin tablets, respectively, for the same 6-month period. The primary outcomes will include the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), visual field assessment, visual evoked potential (VEP) test, and Heidelberg retina tomography II (HRT II); the secondary outcomes will include intraocular pressure (IOP) and Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinical symptom scales. The primary and secondary outcomes will be measured at baseline and 8, 16, and 24 weeks thereafter. Safety assessments will also be evaluated at baseline and 12 and 24 weeks thereafter.Discussion: This study will be a standardized, scientific, clinical trial designed to evaluate the therapeutic effects and safety of BJYSP as a novel therapeutic strategy for improving visual function in patients with GPCI.Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1800016431. Registered on 1 June 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment with beta-blockers is currently recommended after myocardial infarction (MI). The evidence relies on trials conducted decades ago before implementation of revascularization and contemporary medical therapy or in trials enrolling patients with heart failure or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%). Accordingly, the impact of beta-blockers on mortality and morbidity following acute MI in patients without reduced LVEF or heart failure is unclear.Methods/design: The Danish trial of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction without reduced ejection fraction (DANBLOCK) is a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, non-blinded endpoint clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of beta-blocker treatment in post-MI patients in the absence of reduced LVEF or heart failure. We will randomize 3570 patients will be randomized within 14 days of index MI to beta-blocker or control for a minimum of 2 years. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, acute decompensated heart failure, unstable angina pectoris, or stroke. The primary composite endpoint will be assessed through locally reported and adjudicated endpoints supplemented by linkage to the Danish national registers. A number of secondary endpoints will be investigated including patient reported outcomes and cardiovascular mortality. Data from similar ongoing trials in Norway and Sweden will be pooled to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis.Discussion: DANBLOCK is a randomized clinical trial investigating the effect of long-term beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure and reduced LVEF. Results from the trial will add important scientific evidence to inform future clinical guidelines.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03778554. Registered on 19 December 2018. European Clinical Trials Database, 2018-002699-42, registered on 28 September 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]