Search

Abstract Background Liver disease is within the top five causes of premature death in adults. Deaths caused by complications of cirrhosis continue to rise, whilst deaths related to other non-liver disease areas are declining. Portal hypertension is the primary sequelae of cirrhosis and is associated with the development of variceal haemorrhage, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and infection, collectively termed hepatic decompensation, which leads to hospitalisation and mortality. It remains uncertain whether administering a non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB), specifically carvedilol, at an earlier stage, i.e. when oesophageal varices are small, can prevent VH and reduce all-cause decompensation (ACD). Methods/design The BOPPP trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients aged 18 years or older with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices that have never bled will be recruited, subject to exclusion criteria. The trial aims to enrol 740 patients across 55 hospitals in the UK. Patients are allocated randomly on a 1:1 ratio to receive either carvedilol 6.25 mg (a NSBB) or a matched placebo, once or twice daily, for 36 months, to attain adequate power to determine the effectiveness of carvedilol in preventing or reducing ACD. The primary outcome is the time to first decompensating event. It is a composite primary outcome made up of variceal haemorrhage (VH, new or worsening ascites, new or worsening hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatorenal syndrome, an increase in Child–Pugh grade by 1 grade or MELD score by 5 points, and liver-related mortality. Secondary outcomes include progression to medium or large oesophageal varices, development of gastric, duodenal, or ectopic varices, participant quality of life, healthcare costs and transplant-free survival. Discussion The BOPPP trial aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of carvedilol in patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices to determine whether this non-selective beta-blocker can prevent or reduce hepatic decompensation. There is clinical equipoise on whether intervening in cirrhosis, at an earlier stage of portal hypertension, with NSBB therapy is beneficial. Should the trial yield a positive result, we anticipate that the administration and use of carvedilol will become widespread with pathways developed to standardise the administration of the medication in primary care. Ethics and dissemination The trial has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number: 19/YH/0015). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Participants will be informed of the results via the BOPPP website ( www.boppp-trial.org ) and partners in the British Liver Trust (BLT) organisation. Trial registration EUDRACT reference number: 2018–002509-78. ISRCTN reference number: ISRCTN10324656. Registered on April 24 2019.

Abstract Background Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysmal disease is established due to perceived advantages in patient survival, reduced postoperative complications, and shorter hospital lengths of stay. High spatial and contrast resolution 3D CT angiography images are used to plan the procedures and inform device selection and manufacture, but in standard care, the surgery is performed using image-guidance from 2D X-ray fluoroscopy with injection of nephrotoxic contrast material to visualise the blood vessels. This study aims to assess the benefit to patients, practitioners, and the health service of a novel image fusion medical device (Cydar EV), which allows this high-resolution 3D information to be available to operators at the time of surgery. Methods The trial is a multi-centre, open label, two-armed randomised controlled clinical trial of 340 patient, randomised 1:1 to either standard treatment in endovascular aneurysm repair or treatment using Cydar EV, a CE-marked medical device comprising of cloud computing, augmented intelligence, and computer vision. The primary outcome is procedural time, with secondary outcomes of procedural efficiency, technical effectiveness, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of AAA or TAAA suitable for endovascular repair and able to provide written informed consent will be invited to participate. Discussion This trial is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating advanced image fusion technology in endovascular aortic surgery and is well placed to evaluate the effect of this technology on patient outcomes and cost to the NHS. Trial registration ISRCTN13832085. Dec. 3, 2021

Summary: Background: Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective—but there has been no superiority evaluation. Methods: This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60–120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8–24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8–168 (i.e., weeks 2–24; range: 0–161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed. Findings: Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0–161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24–161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively—most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild–moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group—none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] −1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00–0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment. Interpretation: Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term. Funding: Indivior.

Abstract Background Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness — monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated. Methods This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2–24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. Discussion This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere. Trial registration EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63.

Summary: Background: 3% of kidney transplant recipients return to dialysis annually upon allograft failure. Development of antibodies (Ab) against human leukocyte antigens (HLA) is a validated prognostic biomarker of allograft failure. We tested whether screening for HLA Ab, combined with an intervention to improve adherence and optimization of immunosuppression could prevent allograft failure. Methods: Prospective, open-labelled randomised biomarker-based strategy (hybrid) trial in 13 UK transplant centres [EudraCT (2012-004308-36) and ISRCTN (46157828)]. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to unblinded or double-blinded arms and screened every 8 months. Unblinded HLA Ab+ patients were interviewed to encourage medication adherence and had tailored optimisation of Tacrolimus, Mycophenolate mofetil and Prednisolone. The primary outcome was time to graft failure in an intention to treat analysis. The trial had 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.49 in donor specific antibody (DSA)+ patients. Findings: From 11/9/13 to 27/10/16, 5519 were screened for eligibility and 2037 randomised (1028 to unblinded care and 1009 to double blinded care). We identified 198 with DSA and 818 with non-DSA. Development of DSA, but not non-DSA was predictive of graft failure. HRs for graft failure in unblinded DSA+ and non-DSA+ groups were 1.54 (95% CI: 0.72 to 3.30) and 0.97 (0.54–1.74) respectively, providing no evidence of an intervention effect. Non-inferiority for the overall unblinded versus blinded comparison was not demonstrated as the upper confidence limit of the HR for graft failure exceeded 1.4 (1.02, 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.44). The only secondary endpoint reduced in the unblinded arm was biopsy-proven rejection. Interpretation: Intervention to improve adherence and optimize immunosuppression does not delay failure of renal transplants after development of DSA. Whilst DSA predicts increased risk of allograft failure, novel interventions are needed before screening can be used to direct therapy. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme grant (ref 11/100/34).

Background: Standalone thoracoscopic surgical ablation may be more effective than catheter ablation in patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Objectives: To determine whether or not surgical ablation is clinically superior to catheter ablation as the first-line treatment strategy in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Design: This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised control trial. Setting: Four NHS tertiary centres in England. Participants: Adults with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, who had European Heart Rhythm Association symptom scores > 2 and who were naive to previous catheter ablation or thoracic/cardiac surgery. Interventions: Minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgical ablation and conventional catheter ablation (control intervention). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was freedom from atrial fibrillation/tachycardia ≥ 30 seconds after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs (class 1C/3) at 1 year, excluding a 3-month blanking period. The secondary outcomes include the intervention-related major complication rate; clinical success (≥ 75% reduction in arrhythmia burden); and changes in symptoms, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Methods: Patients (n = 120) were randomised to surgical ablation (n = 60) or catheter ablation (n = 60). An implanted loop recorder provided continuous cardiac monitoring following ablation. Follow-up visits were at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Loop recorder data were reviewed monthly by a physiologist who was blinded to the randomisation outcome. Results: The study treatment was received by 55 patients in the surgical ablation arm and 60 patients in the catheter ablation arm; five patients withdrew from surgical ablation before treatment. Data from randomised and treated patients were analysed as per intention to treat. Patients had a mean age of 62.3 (standard deviation 9.6) years, were predominantly male (74%), had a mean left atrial diameter of 44.6 mm (standard deviation 6 mm) and were in continuous atrial fibrillation for 22 months (range 16–31 months). At 12 months, 26% of patients in the surgical ablation arm (14/54) and 28% of patients in the catheter ablation arm (17/60) were free from atrial arrhythmias after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 2.83; p = 0.84). An arrhythmia burden reduction of ≥ 75% was seen in 36 out of 54 (67%) patients in the surgical ablation arm, compared with 46 out of 60 (77%) patients in the catheter ablation arm (odds ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 4.08; p = 0.3). Procedure-related serious complications within 30 days of the intervention occurred in 15% (8/55) of patients in the surgical ablation arm (including one death) compared with 10% (6/60) of patients in the catheter ablation arm (p = 0.46). Surgical ablation was associated with significantly higher costs (£23,221 vs. £18,186; p = 0.02) and fewer quality-adjusted life-years than catheter ablation (0.76 vs. 0.83; p = 0.02). Limitations: This study was conducted in four highly specialised cardiology centres that have substantial experience in both treatment modalities; therefore, the results may not be widely generalisable. The study was not powered to detect small differences in efficacy. Conclusions: We found no evidence to suggest that standalone thoracoscopic surgical ablation outcomes were superior to catheter ablation outcomes in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs. Moreover, surgical ablation is associated with a longer hospital stay, smaller improvements in quality of life and higher health-care costs than catheter ablation (standard care therapy). Future work: Evaluation of the impact of ablation treatments on sinus rhythm maintenance and quality of life with extended follow-up to 3 years. Model-based economic analysis to estimate long-term benefits, harms and costs of surgical and catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation patients. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02755688. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This study was supported by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration-registered King’s Clinical Trials Unit at King’s Health Partners, which is part funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London and the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 8, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Licensed ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and unlicensed bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) are used to treat macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion, but their relative clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact on the UK NHS and Personal Social Services have never been directly compared over the typical disease treatment period. Objective: The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for the management of macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. Design: This was a three-arm, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Setting: The trial was set in 44 UK NHS ophthalmology departments, between 2014 and 2018. Participants: A total of 463 patients with visual impairment due to macula oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included in the trial. Interventions: The participants were treated with repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (n = 155), aflibercept (n = 154) or bevacizumab (n = 154). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was an increase in the best corrected visual acuity letter score from baseline to 100 weeks in the trial eye. The null hypothesis that aflibercept and bevacizumab are each inferior to ranibizumab was tested with a non-inferiority margin of –5 visual acuity letters over 100 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional visual acuity, and imaging outcomes, Visual Function Questionnaire-25, EuroQol-5 Dimensions with and without a vision bolt-on, and drug side effects. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index to measure quality-adjusted life-years. Results: The adjusted mean changes at 100 weeks in the best corrected visual acuity letter scores were as follows – ranibizumab, 12.5 letters (standard deviation 21.1 letters); aflibercept, 15.1 letters (standard deviation 18.7 letters); and bevacizumab, 9.8 letters (standard deviation 21.4 letters). Aflibercept was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference 2.23 letters, 95% confidence interval –2.17 to 6.63 letters; p = 0.0006), but not superior. The study was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference –1.73 letters, 95% confidence interval –6.12 to 2.67 letters; p = 0.071). A post hoc analysis was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference was –3.96 letters, 95% confidence interval –8.34 to 0.42 letters; p = 0.32). All per-protocol population results were the same. Fewer injections were required with aflibercept (10.0) than with ranibizumab (11.8) (difference in means –1.8, 95% confidence interval –2.9 to –0.8). A post hoc analysis showed that more bevacizumab than aflibercept injections were required (difference in means 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 2.7). There were no new safety concerns. The model- and trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses estimated that bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment at a threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations: The comparison of aflibercept and bevacizumab was a post hoc analysis. Conclusion: The study showed aflibercept to be non-inferior to ranibizumab. However, the possibility that bevacizumab is worse than ranibizumab and aflibercept by 5 visual acuity letters cannot be ruled out. Bevacizumab is an economically attractive treatment alternative and would lead to substantial cost savings to the NHS and other health-care systems. However, uncertainty about its relative effectiveness should be discussed comprehensively with patients, their representatives and funders before treatment is considered. Future work: To obtain extensive patient feedback and discuss with all stakeholders future bevacizumab NHS use. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13623634. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Abstract Background Chronic rejection is the single biggest cause of premature kidney graft failure. HLA antibodies (Ab) are an established prognostic biomarker for premature graft failure so there is a need to test whether treatment decisions based on the presence of the biomarker can alter prognosis. The Optimised TacrolimuS and MMF for HLA Antibodies after Renal Transplantation (OuTSMART) trial combines two elements. Firstly, testing whether a routine screening programme for HLA Ab in all kidney transplant recipients is useful by comparing blinding versus unblinding of HLA Ab status. Secondly, for those found to be HLA Ab+, testing whether the introduction of a standard optimisation treatment protocol can reduce graft failure rates. Methods OuTSMART is a prospective, open-labelled, randomised biomarker-based strategy (hybrid) trial, with two arms stratified by biomarker (HLA Ab) status. The primary outcome was amended from graft failure rates at 3 years to time to graft failure to increase power and require fewer participants to be recruited. Length of follow-up subsequently is variable, with all participants followed up for at least 43 months up to a maximum of 89 months. The primary outcome will be analysed using Cox regression adjusting for stratification factors. Analyses will be according to the intention-to-treat using all participants as randomised. Outcomes will be analysed comparing standard care versus biomarker-led care groups within the HLA Ab+ participants (including those who become HLA Ab+ through re-screening) as well as between HLA-Ab-unblinded and HLA-Ab-blinded groups using all participants. Discussion Changes to the primary outcome permit recruitment of fewer participants to achieve the same statistical power. Pre-stating the statistical analysis plan guards against changes to the analysis methods at the point of analysis that might otherwise introduce bias through knowledge of the data. Any deviations from the analysis plan will be justified in the final report. Trial registration ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN46157828. Registered on 26 March 2013; EudraCT 2012–004308-36. Registered on 10 December 2012.

Abstract Trial design We present a study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial that seeks to test the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a 52-week period of treatment with the first-in-class co-stimulatory blocker abatacept for preventing or delaying the onset of inflammatory arthritis. Methods The study aimed to recruit 206 male or female subjects from the secondary care hospital setting across the UK and the Netherlands. Participants who were at least 18 years old, who reported inflammatory sounding joint pain (clinically suspicious arthralgia) and who were found to be positive for serum autoantibodies associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were eligible for enrolment. All study subjects were randomly assigned to receive weekly injections of investigational medicinal product, either abatacept or placebo treatment over the course of a 52-week period. Participants were followed up for a further 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was defined as the time to development of at least three swollen joints or to the fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for RA using swollen but not tender joints, whichever endpoint was met first. In either case, swollen joints were confirmed by ultrasonography. Participants, care givers, and those assessing the outcomes were all blinded to group assignment. Clinical assessors and ultrasonographers were also blinded to each other’s assessments for the duration of the study. Conclusions There is limited experience of the design and implementation of trials for the prevention of inflammatory joint diseases. We discuss the rationale behind choice and duration of treatment and the challenges associated with defining the “at risk” state and offer pragmatic solutions in the protocol to enrolling subjects at risk of RA. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN46017566. Registered on 4 July 2014.

Abstract ‘Assumptions are made and most assumptions are wrong’ (Albert Einstein) Clinical trial conduct must be consistent with trial design, yet conducting the trial according to plan remains a major challenge. We discuss the importance of optimal co-applicant team formation in trial leadership, appropriate delegation of tasks and staff supervision arrangements. Finally, we discuss five standard documents which we believe require particular attention. With appropriate engagement by or with co-applicants during the preparation of these five standard documents, we believe many of the pitfalls trials commonly experience can be avoided. The risks inherent in failing to identify and address mistaken assumptions during the preparation of these documents are discussed and recommendations for best practice suggested.

Abstract Background There are enormous problems in recruiting depressed people into randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with numerous studies consistently failing to recruit to target (Sully et al., Trials 14:166, 2013). Given the high prevalence of—and disability associated with—depression, it is important to find ways of effectively recruiting to RCTs evaluating interventions. This study aimed to test the feasibility of using a self-referral system to recruit to a brief intervention in a multi-site trial, the CLASSIC trial of self-confidence workshops for depression. In that trial, participants referred themselves to a depression intervention with a positive non-diagnostic title of ‘self-confidence’, given the close relationship of depression and self-esteem (Horrell et al., Br J Psychiatry 204:222–233, 2014). Method We analysed uptake and retention rates by recruitment to the study, attendance at the workshops and follow-up rates. However, because of the rapid rate of recruitment, we decided to pause the trial and revise our original single-site research protocol in months 5–6. We report findings under three main headings: recruitment rates for the 12 months of the project before and after the pause; data regarding attendance at the workshops before and after the pause; and the follow-up rates before and after the pause. Results We recruited 459 participants within 12 months, representing 38 participants recruited per month. Improved uptake of the intervention and retention after the development of multi-site research protocols are reported. Discussion Based on previous evidence from RCT recruitment among depressed participants, our recruitment rate demonstrates that a self-referral system using a non-diagnostic title of self-confidence is a successful recruitment method. The implications of rapid recruitment using a self-referral system are described, including the impact on uptake of the intervention as well as participant retention. Because of the potential for recruiting many participants quickly, research teams need to be adequately resourced and the oversight committees prepared to meet at shorter intervals with RCTs of brief interventions. Short conclusion Self-referral to a brief intervention for depression with a non-diagnostic title can be a very effective way of recruiting depressed people into trials. However, there are also some challenges. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN26634837. Registered on 10 June 2010.

Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation is the commonest arrhythmia which raises the risk of heart failure, thromboembolic stroke, morbidity and death. Pharmacological treatments of this condition are focused on heart rate control, rhythm control and reduction in risk of stroke. Selective ablation of cardiac tissues resulting in isolation of areas causing atrial fibrillation is another treatment strategy which can be delivered by two minimally invasive interventions: percutaneous catheter ablation and thoracoscopic surgical ablation. The main purpose of this trial is to compare the effectiveness and safety of these two interventions. Methods/design Catheter Ablation versus Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (CASA-AF) is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial within three NHS tertiary cardiovascular centres specialising in treatment of atrial fibrillation. Eligible adults (n = 120) with symptomatic, long-standing, persistent atrial fibrillation will be randomly allocated to either catheter ablation or thoracoscopic ablation in a 1:1 ratio. Pre-determined lesion sets will be delivered in each treatment arm with confirmation of appropriate conduction block. All patients will have an implantable loop recorder (ILR) inserted subcutaneously immediately following ablation to enable continuous heart rhythm monitoring for at least 12 months. The devices will be programmed to detect episodes of atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia ≥ 30 s in duration. The patients will be followed for 12 months, completing appropriate clinical assessments and questionnaires every 3 months. The ILR data will be wirelessly transmitted daily and evaluated every month for the duration of the follow-up. The primary endpoint in the study is freedom from atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia at the end of the follow-up period. Discussion The CASA-AF Trial is a National Institute for Health Research-funded study that will provide first-class evidence on the comparative efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of thoracoscopic surgical ablation and conventional percutaneous catheter ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. In addition, the results of the trial will provide information on the effects on patients’ quality of life. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN18250790. Registered on 24 April 2015.

Background: Hypoxia may contribute to the development and progression of diabetic macular oedema (DMO) and diabetic retinopathy. The photoreceptors are the most metabolically active cells in the retina and the rod photoreceptors consume the maximal amount of oxygen for dark adaptation. Therefore, a lightmask emitting 500- to 505-nm light and worn at night during sleep may prevent rod-related dark adaptation and, thereby, reduce the retinal oxygen consumption and improve or prevent progression of DMO and diabetic retinopathy as evidenced in small short-term studies. Objectives: The clinical effectiveness and safety of using a lightmask to prevent dark adaptation as a treatment and preventative option was evaluated for DMO over 24 months. Design: A Phase III, multicentre, prospective, single-masked, randomised controlled clinical trial that evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of a lightmask that prevents dark adaptation to treat and prevent non-central DMO versus standard care (i.e. non-lightmask arm) at 24 months. A subset of participants also enrolled for a mechanistic substudy that evaluated the role of hypoxia in DMO. Setting: Fifteen NHS clinical sites in the UK. Participants: Adults with non-centre-involving DMO. Intervention: The participants were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to being offered a lightmask (Noctura 400 Sleep Masks, Polyphotonix Medical Ltd, Durham, UK) to wear at night during sleep to prevent dark adaptation or to the non-lightmask arm (standard care) for 24 months. The participants were evaluated every 4 months. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was defined as a change in retinal thickness at the zone of maximum thickness measured by spectral domain optical coherence tomography at 24 months in the study eye, analysed using a linear mixed-effects model that estimated adjusted treatment effects at both 12 and 24 months. Results: A total of 308 participants were recruited between April 2014 and May 2015. A total of 155 participants in the lightmask arm and 153 in the control arm contributed to the intention-to-treat strategy. The lightmask arm did not show any difference in effect compared with the non-lightmask arm [adjusted mean difference between arms –0.65 µm, 95% confidence interval –6.90 to 5.59 µm; p = 0.84). The compliance of wearing the lightmask was suboptimal, as recorded electronically, from the returned lightmasks. There were no lightmask-related severe adverse events. The mechanistic study aimed at studying the effect of improving hypoxia by inhaling 100% oxygen or by offering lightmasks to wear during sleep at night over 12 months did not demonstrate any clinically beneficial effect on DMO. Conclusion: The lightmask, as offered in this trial to prevent dark adaptation, did not show any treatment or preventative effect in participants with non-central oedema or diabetic retinopathy at 24 months. No effect was seen as early as 4 months when compliance was higher. Future work: Future research is needed to evaluate the role of rod-induced hypoxia in the pathogenesis of DMO and diabetic retinopathy. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN85596558. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership. The report will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 6, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The lightmasks were purchased at a discounted rate from Polyphotonix Medical Ltd.

Background: Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) has been the standard of care for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) for the last 40 years. It prevents severe visual loss in PDR but is also associated with adverse effects on visual functions. Objectives: The clinical efficacy and mechanistic evaluation of aflibercept for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (CLARITY) trial evaluated the clinical efficacy, mechanisms and cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept (Eylea®, Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY, USA/Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany therapy for PDR. Design: A multicentre, prospective, individually randomised, single-masked, active-controlled trial with concurrent economic evaluation that tested the non-inferiority of intravitreal aflibercept versus standard care PRP at 52 weeks. A subset of the participants enrolled in a mechanistic evaluation substudy. Setting: 22 UK NHS clinical sites. Participants: Patients aged at least 18 years having either treatment-naive PDR or active retinal neovascularisation (NV) despite prior PRP requiring treatment and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 54 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters or better in the study eye were included. Eyes with evidence of macular oedema at baseline confirmed by central subfield thickness > 320 µm on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography were excluded. Intervention: In the intervention arm, intravitreal aflibercept injections were given at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks and patients were subsequently reviewed every month and injected pro re nata based on the treatment response defined by degree of regression of retinal NV. In the comparator arm, PRP was completed in 2-weekly sessions and then supplemented if necessary at 8-weekly intervals. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the mean change in BCVA at 52 weeks utilising a linear mixed-effects model incorporating data from both week 12 and week 52. Results: A total of 232 participants (116 per arm) were recruited between August 2014 and November 2015. A total of 221 and 210 participants contributed to the intention-to-treat (ITT) model and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. Economic evaluation was undertaken on 202 participants (101 per arm) with complete cost and outcome data. Aflibercept was non-inferior and superior to PRP in both the ITT population [mean BCVA difference 3.9 letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3 to 5.6 letters; p

Background: People with an intellectual (learning) disability (ID) and epilepsy have an increased seizure frequency, higher frequencies of multiple antiepileptic drug (AED) use and side effects, higher treatment costs, higher mortality rates and more behavioural problems than the rest of the population with epilepsy. The introduction of nurse-led care may lead to improvements in outcome for those with an ID and epilepsy; however, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial. Objective: To determine whether or not ID nurses, using a competency framework developed to optimise nurse management of epilepsy in people with an ID, can cost-effectively improve clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in the management of epilepsy compared with treatment as usual. Design: Cluster-randomised two-arm trial. Setting: Community-based secondary care delivered by members of community ID teams. Participants: Participants were adults aged 18–65 years with an ID and epilepsy under the care of a community ID team and had had at least one seizure in the 6 months before the trial. Interventions: The experimental intervention was the Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework. This provides guidelines describing a structure and goals to support the delivery of epilepsy care and management by ID-trained nurses. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the seizure severity scale from the Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life questionnaire. Measures of mood, behaviour, AED side effects and carer strain were also collected. A cost–utility analysis was undertaken along with a qualitative examination of carers’ views of participants’ epilepsy management. Results: In total, 312 individuals were recruited into the study from 17 research clusters. Using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for baseline individual-level and cluster-level variables there was no significant difference in seizure severity score between the two arms. Altogether, 238 complete cases were included in the non-imputed primary analysis. Analyses of the secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences between arms. A planned subgroup analysis identified a significant interaction between treatment arm and level of ID. There was a suggestion in those with mild to moderate ID that the competency framework may be associated with a small reduction in concerns over seizure severity (standard error 2.005, 95% confidence interval –0.554 to 7.307; p = 0.092). However, neither subgroup showed a significant intervention effect individually. Family members’ perceptions of nurses’ management depended on the professional status of the nurses, regardless of trial arm. Economic analysis suggested that the competency framework intervention was likely to be cost-effective, primarily because of a reduction in the costs of supporting participants compared with treatment as usual. Limitations: The intervention could not be delivered blinded. Treatment as usual varied widely between the research sites. Conclusions: Overall, for adults with an ID and epilepsy, the framework conferred no clinical benefit compared with usual treatment. The economic analysis suggested that there may be a role for the framework in enhancing the cost-effectiveness of support for people with epilepsy and an ID. Future research could explore the specific value of the competency framework for those with a mild to moderate ID and the potential for greater long-term benefits arising from the continuing professional development element of the framework. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96895428. Funding: This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a rare, severe post-traumatic pain condition affecting distal limbs. Patients who do not spontaneously improve in 12 months are classed as having ‘long-standing CRPS’ and often cannot be effectively treated, leading to a poor prognosis. CRPS is associated with functional autoantibodies. Two small trials, including a randomised controlled trial, have suggested that low-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) may be an effective treatment for some patients. Objective: We hypothesised that low-dose IVIg is effective for reducing pain in long-standing CRPS. Methods: A randomised, double blinded placebo-controlled multicentre trial in seven UK pain management centres. Patients were eligible if they had moderate or severe long-standing CRPS that they had experienced for up to 5 years. Participants were randomly allocated to receive 0.5 g/kg IVIg, the active intervention, or visually indistinguishable 0.1% albumin in saline placebo. Randomisation was initiated by study sites via an independent online randomisation system and was 1 : 1 with varying block sizes, stratified by study centre. Participants, investigators and assessors were blinded to group assignment. The study drug/placebo was infused intravenously at the study centres on day 1 and day 23 after randomisation. The primary outcome was the 24-hour average pain intensity between day 6 and day 42, on an 11-point (0–10) numeric rating scale, compared between the groups. Outcomes were analysed using a mixed-effects regression model that used 37 measurements of pain intensity (the primary outcome) per participant. All patients who received an infusion and provided any outcome were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Results: A total of 111 patients were recruited and assigned between 27 August 2013 and 28 October 2015. Three patients were excluded because they had been inappropriately randomised, five patients were withdrawn from the primary analysis because they provided no outcomes and 103 patients were analysed for the primary outcome. The average pain score in the IVIg group was 0.27 units (95% confidence interval –0.24 to 0.80 units) higher than in the placebo group. Therefore, there is no significant evidence of a treatment effect at the 5% level and there was no significant difference between groups. Six serious adverse events but no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions were reported during the blinded and open-label phase. Conclusion and future work: Low-dose immunoglobulin was not effective in relieving pain in patients with moderate to severe CRPS of 1–5 years’ duration. Better drug treatments for long-standing CRPS are urgently required. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42179756. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership. Additional funding was obtained by the Pain Relief Foundation. Biotest UK Ltd provided the active study medication at no cost.

Background: Transverse myelitis (TM) is an immune-mediated disorder of the spinal cord that affects adults and children and that causes motor, sensory and autonomic dysfunction. There is a prolonged recovery phase, which may continue for many years. Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) is an uncommon relapsing inflammatory central nervous system condition in which TM can be the first presenting symptom. As TM and NMO affect many patients in the prime of their working life, the disorder can impose a significant demand on health resources. There are currently no robust controlled trials in children or adults to inform the optimal treatment of TM. However, treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is being effectively used in the management of a range of neurological conditions. Although other interventions such as plasma exchange (PLEX) in addition to intravenous (IV) methylprednisolone therapy can be beneficial in TM, PLEX is costly and technically challenging to deliver in the acute setting. IVIG is more readily accessible and less costly. Objective: To evaluate whether additional and early treatment with IVIG is of extra benefit in TM compared with standard therapy with IV steroids. Design: A multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of IVIG compared with standard therapy for the treatment of TM in adults and children. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 1 year diagnosed with either acute first-onset TM or first presentation of NMO. Target recruitment was 170 participants (85 participants per arm). Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to treatment with IV methylprednisolone only or treatment with IV methylprednisolone plus 2 g/kg of IVIG in divided doses within 5 days of the first commencement of steroid therapy. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome measure – American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale at 6 months post randomisation, with a good outcome defined by a two-grade change. Secondary and tertiary outcome measures – ASIA motor and sensory scales, Expanded Disability Status Scale, health outcome, quality of life, Client Service Receipt Inventory and International Spinal Cord Injury Pain, Bladder and Bowel Basic Data Sets. Results: In total, 26 participants were screened and two were randomised into the study. With the limited sample size, treatment effect could not be determined. However, we identified barriers to accrual that included strict inclusion criteria, the short enrolment window, challenges associated with the use of the ASIA Impairment Scale as an outcome measure and estimation of the incidence of TM. Conclusions: The study did not reach the end point and the effect of IVIG in TM/NMO could not be determined. Investigators should be aware of the potential challenges associated with carrying out a rare disease trial with a short enrolment window. The study question is one that still necessitates investigation. Preliminary work to ameliorate the effect of the barriers encountered in this study is vital. Trial registration: EudraCT 2014-002335-34, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02398994 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12127581. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also received from Biotest AG, Germany (supply of IVIG) and the Transverse Myelitis Society (excess research cost to facilitate study initiation).

Background: We previously reported that repeated low-dose grass pollen intradermal allergen injection suppresses allergen-induced cutaneous late-phase responses, comparable with conventional high-dose subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and mechanism of grass pollen intradermal immunotherapy for treatment of allergic rhinitis. Design: A Phase II, double-blind, randomised controlled parallel-group trial. Setting: Single-centre UK study. Participants: Adults aged 18–65 years, with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Interventions: Seven 2-weekly intradermal injections were given into the forearm, containing either Phleum pratense soluble grass pollen extract (7 ng of the major allergen Phl p 5) or histamine control. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was a combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) during the 2013 grass pollen season. Secondary clinical outcomes were overall symptom scores; individual symptoms scores for nose, mouth, eyes and lungs; overall medication scores; CSMSs during the peak season; visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for nose and eye symptoms; Mini Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores; health-related quality-of-life scores (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, 5-levels); a global evaluation of symptoms, number of symptom-free and medication-free days; number of days when prednisolone was used; and adverse events. Mechanistic studies included measurement of late-phase skin response sizes, allergen-specific antibody titres, analysis of skin biopsies and basophil activation tests. Results: There was no significant difference in CSMSs between treatment arms [difference in median area under curve (AUC) 14, 95% confidence interval (CI) –172.5 to 215.1; p = 0.80]. Paradoxically, among the secondary outcomes, nasal symptoms measured with daily scores were higher in the active arm (difference in median AUC 35, 95% CI 4.0 to 67.5; p = 0.03), with a trend for higher nasal symptoms measured by VASs (difference in median AUC 53, 95% CI –11.6 to 125.2; p = 0.05). No differences were seen in other clinical outcomes in the main intention-to-treat analysis. In mechanistic studies, active treatment increased P. pratense-, Phl p 1- and Phl p 5-specific immunoglobulin E (all p = 0.001) compared with the control. T cells cultured from skin biopsies of active intradermal immunotherapy subjects showed higher T helper type 2 cell (Th2) marker CRTH2 (chemoattractant receptor-homologous molecule expressed on Th2 cells) expression (p

Background: Despite its high prevalence, help-seeking for depression is low., Aims: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 1-day cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) self-confidence workshops in reducing depression. Anxiety, self-esteem, prognostic indicators as well as access were also assessed., Method: An open randomised controlled trial (RCT) waiting list control design with 12-week follow-up was used (trial registration: ISRCTN26634837). A total of 459 adult participants with depression (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores of ≥ 14) self-referred and 382 participants (83%) were followed up., Results: At follow-up, experimental and control participants differed significantly on the BDI, with an effect size of 0.55. Anxiety and self-esteem also differed. Of those who participated, 25% were GP non-consulters and 32% were from Black and minority ethnic groups. Women benefited more than men on depression scores. The intervention has a 90% chance of being considered cost-effective if a depression-free day is valued at £14., Conclusions: Self-confidence workshops appear promising in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and access by difficult-to-engage groups.