Search

Thousands of clinical trials are conducted globally each year. Yet, little is known about their environmental impact. This paper presents the results of a high-level literature review of the carbon footprint of clinical trials. Five papers were identified and their contents summarised qualitatively. All papers were authored by UK researchers. Carbon footprint metrics from 14 trials were presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Emissions were broken down by three broadly defined clinical trial activities: operations, travel, and supplies. Recommen - dations for carbon reduction are discussed. The review showed a dearth of publications on greenhouse gas emissions generated by clinical trials. More work in this area is needed to achieve sustainable, low carbon clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. Main text: We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. Conclusions: We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stroke survivors with aphasia want to improve their everyday talking (discourse). In current UK practice, 90% of speech and language therapists believe discourse assessment and treatment is part of their role but are hampered by barriers in resources, time and expertise. There is a clinical need for well-articulated discourse assessment and treatments. LUNA is a multi-level treatment targeting words, sentences and discourse macrostructure in personal stories that addresses this clinical need. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of LUNA trial procedures in a randomised waitlist-controlled trial; and to evaluate preliminary efficacy. Methods: This paper reports a phase II, waitlist-controlled, proof-of-concept feasibility trial. Participants with chronic aphasia (n = 28) were recruited from the community and randomised to an Immediate (n = 14) or Delayed (n = 14) group. LUNA treatment was delivered twice weekly for 10 weeks via the videoconferencing technology, Zoom. Feasibility was assessed in terms of participant recruitment and retention, adherence, missing data, and treatment fidelity. Preliminary treatment efficacy was assessed in terms of between group differences in outcome measures relating to discourse, language, and psychosocial state. Results: The remote LUNA trial was feasible: 85% of those eligible consented to the trial; trial retention was 86%; 87% of treatment sessions were delivered as scheduled, and 79% of participants completed 80%+ of the treatment programme; data was missing only for participants who withdrew; treatment fidelity was high at 92% adherence; and only one clinical outcome measure demonstrated ceiling effects. ANCOVA analysis of the clinical outcome measures revealed group differences with medium and large effect sizes, indicating, improvements in the production of words, sentences, discourse macrostructure, overall language functioning (WAB-R), and psychosocial state (VAMS) following LUNA treatment. For most outcomes measured, similar treatment benefits were suggested in a secondary, non-parametric analysis. Conclusions: Large-scale evaluation of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LUNA is warranted and supported by these findings. Trial registration: Clinical trials registration: NCT05847023 (clinical trials.gov). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite global efforts to improve paediatric clinical trials, significant delays continue in paediatric drug approvals. Collaboration between research networks is needed to address these delays. This paper is a first step to promote interoperability between paediatric networks from different jurisdictions by comparing drivers for, and content of, metrics about clinical trial conduct. Methods: Three paediatric networks, Institute for Advanced Clinical Trials for Children, the Maternal Infant Child and Youth Research Network and conect4children, have each developed metrics to address delays and create efficiencies. We identified the methodology by which each network identified metrics, described the metrics of each network, and mapped consistency to come to consensus about core metrics that networks could share. Results: Metric selection was driven by site quality improvement in one network (11 metrics), by network performance in one network (13 metrics), and by both in one network (five metrics). The domains of metrics were research capacity/capability, site identification/feasibility, trial start-up, and recruitment/enrolment. The network driven by site quality improvement did not have indicators for capacity/capability or identification/feasibility. Fifteen metrics for trial start up and conduct were identified. Metrics related to site approvals were found in all three networks. The themes for metrics can inform the development of 'shared' metrics. Conclusion: We found disparity in drivers, methodology and metrics. Tackling this disparity will result in a unified approach to addressing delays in paediatric drug approvals. Collaborative work to define inter-operable metrics globally is outlined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the globalization of clinical trials, regulators have increased collaboration to evaluate the adequacy of clinical trial conduct and to optimize regulatory oversight. The 2020 joint Good Clinical Practice (GCP) symposium of the US Food and Drug Administration and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency provided the agencies' perspectives on the challenges in ensuring data quality in novel clinical trial designs and the importance of the management and documentation of protocol deviations, sponsor oversight of clinical trials, and use of electronic source data, including electronic health records. This paper summarizes considerations of both agencies on these topics, along with case examples. This paper touches upon considerations when using real‐world data to support regulatory decisions. It also discusses the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic on clinical trial conduct and underscores the importance of well‐designed, resilient, and adaptable systems for GCP compliance and data integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

Objective: This paper presents the findings of a study evaluating the effectiveness, accessibility, sustainability and patient satisfaction of the Assessment PLUS model. This model aimed to reduce patients' symptomology, improve their functioning and alleviate the demand on Psychological Therapies Team (PTT) staff, particularly in response to the challenges posed by the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: The intervention was offered to 55 patients with mild‐to‐moderate mental health conditions across three localities in Lanarkshire, UK, of whom only 25 completed the sessions. Clinical outcome measure scores, patients' feedback, wait times, discharge, returning patients and re‐referral rates were analysed using a mixed methods approach. Results: The results of the statistical analysis highlight a statistically significant improvement (p < 0.001) in patients' presentations and results of the thematic analysis reveal that almost all patients found the intervention helpful and returned overall positive feedback. On completing the intervention, less than a third of patients returned to the waiting list, while more than half were discharged completely. At the 6‐month follow‐up, those returning to the PTT waitlists (n = 12) had between 6 and 8 sessions on average, while over the 80% of those discharged from A+ did not require further psychological input. The average wait time across the full sample was 6 weeks. Conclusions: In summary, the results of the mixed methods analysis demonstrate a significant improvement in patients' presentations after completing the A+ intervention. The majority of patients found the intervention helpful and provided positive feedback. Moreover, a significant proportion of patients were discharged completely, and those who returned to the PTT waitlists required fewer sessions on average. The average wait time for the full sample was just over 6 weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: Melanoma incidence has quadrupled since 1970 and melanoma is now the second most common cancer in individuals under 50. Targeted immunotherapies for melanoma now potentially enable long-term remission even in advanced melanoma, but these melanoma survivors require ongoing surveillance, with implications for NHS resources and significant social and psychological consequences for patients. Total skin self-examination (TSSE) can detect recurrence earlier and improve clinical outcomes but is underperformed in the UK. To support survivors, the Achieving Self-directed Integrated Cancer Aftercare (ASICA) intervention was developed to prompt and improve TSSE performance, with subsequent reporting of concerns and submission of skin photos to a Dermatology Nurse Practitioner (DNP). ASICA was delivered as a randomized pilot trial.Methods: This paper reports on process evaluation. Data on participants' demographics and the concerns they reported during the trial were tabulated and displayed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. We explored which participants used ASICA, and how frequently, to report any skin concerns. We also determined how the interactions had worked in terms of quality of skin photographs submitted, clinical assessments made by the DNP, and the assessments and decisions made for each concern. Finally, we explored significant events occurring during the trial. Data on participants' demographics and the concerns they reported during the trial were tabulated and displayed using SPSS. A semi-structured interview was undertaken with the DNP to gain perspective on the range of concerns presented and how they were resolved.Results: Of 121 recruited melanoma patients receiving ASICA for 12 months, 69 participants submitted a total of 123 reports detailing 189 separate skin-related concerns and including 188 skin photographs. Where participants fully complied with follow-up by the DNP, concerns were usually resolved remotely, but 19 (10.1%) were seen at a secondary care clinic and 14 (7.4%) referred to their GP. 49 (25.9%) of concerns were not completely resolved due to partial non-compliance with DNP follow-up.Conclusion: Melanoma patients randomized to the ASICA intervention were able to report skin-related concerns that could be resolved remotely through interaction with a DNP. Feasibility issues highlighted by ASICA will support further development and optimization of this digital tool.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov , NCT03328247 . Registered on 1 November 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advancing physical therapy interventions for children and young people is a high research priority. This includes research to describe and specify the control condition, typically 'current care', for effectiveness trials. This paper aims to identify physical therapy outcomes commonly targeted, and intervention techniques and approaches commonly used, by physiotherapists working with children (aged 2–19 years) with mobility limitations in the United Kingdom. Methods: A cross‐sectional survey. Participants were recruited through the interactive Chartered Society of Physiotherapy members‐only online discussion forum, the Association of Paediatric Chartered Physiotherapists, direct emails and snowball sampling within the authors' professional networks and Twitter. Data were collected using a structured online questionnaire and analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: We received 146 responses, 95/146 (65.1%) of which were fully complete. Therapists reported targeting 367 unique outcome constructs, of which 193 (52.6%) mapped onto activities and participation (e.g. moving around using equipment, maintaining body position and walking), 158 (43.1%) on body functions (e.g. muscle strength, joint mobility and gait functions), 11 (3.0%) on body structure (e.g. muscle length) and 3 (0.8%) on environmental factors (e.g. access home environment, access school environment and family confidence). The most commonly used interventions related to postural management (115/133 of respondents, 86.4%) and exercise therapy (116/137, 84.67%) and included techniques such as 'use equipment' (118/137, 86.1%), 'instruct how to do something' (117/137, 85.4%), 'practice' (105/137, 76.6%) and 'stretch' (99/137, 72.3%). Conclusions: In designing trials, current care can be described as a combination of biomechanical and physiological techniques and approaches targeted at body functions and through that to activity and participation. Although some environmental behaviour change techniques and strategies were reported, the explicit use of these in current care appears limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the importance of menstruation and the menstrual cycle to health, human rights, and sociocultural and economic wellbeing, the study of menstrual health suffers from a lack of funding, and research remains fractured across many disciplines. We sought to systematically review validated approaches to measure four aspects of changes to the menstrual cycle—bleeding, blood, pain, and perceptions—caused by any source and used within any field. We then evaluated the measure quality and utility for clinical trials of the identified instruments. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and four instrument databases and included peer-reviewed articles published between 2006 and 2023 that reported on the development or validation of instruments assessing menstrual changes using quantitative or mixed-methods methodology. From a total of 8,490 articles, 8,316 were excluded, yielding 174 articles reporting on 94 instruments. Almost half of articles were from the United States or United Kingdom and over half of instruments were only in English, Spanish, French, or Portuguese. Most instruments measured bleeding parameters, uterine pain, or perceptions, but few assessed characteristics of blood. Nearly 60% of instruments were developed for populations with menstrual or gynecologic disorders or symptoms. Most instruments had fair or good measure quality or clinical trial utility; however, most instruments lacked evidence on responsiveness, question sensitivity and/or transferability, and only three instruments had good scores of both quality and utility. Although we took a novel, transdisciplinary approach, our systematic review found important gaps in the literature and instrument landscape, pointing towards a need to examine the menstrual cycle in a more comprehensive, inclusive, and standardized way. Our findings can inform the development of new or modified instruments, which—if used across the many fields that study menstrual health and within clinical trials—can contribute to a more systemic and holistic understanding of menstruation and the menstrual cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 40% of treated head and neck cancer (HNC) patients develop recurrence. The risk of recurrence declines with time from treatment. Current guidelines recommend clinical follow-up every two months for the first two years after treatment, with reducing intensity over the next three years. However, evidence for the effectiveness of these regimes in detecting recurrence is lacking, with calls for more flexible, patient-centred follow-up strategies. Methods: PETNECK2 is a UK-based multi-centre programme examining a new paradigm of follow-up, using positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT)-guided, symptom-based, patient-initiated surveillance. This paradigm is being tested in a unblinded, non-inferiority, phase III, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Patients with HNC, one year after completing curative intent treatment, with no clinical symptoms or signs of loco-regional or distant metastasis will be randomised using a 1:1 allocation ratio to either regular scheduled follow-up, or to PET-CT guided, patient-initiated follow-up. Patients at a low risk of recurrence (negative PET-CT) will receive a face-to-face education session along with an Information and Support (I&S) resource package to monitor symptoms and be in control of initiating an urgent appointment when required. The primary outcome of the RCT is overall survival. The RCT also has an in-built pilot, a nested QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI), and a nested mixed-methods study on patient experience and fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). An initial, single-arm feasibility study has been completed which determined the acceptability of the patient-initiated surveillance intervention, the completion rates of baseline questionnaires, and optimised the I&S resource prior to implementation in the RCT. Discussion: We hypothesise that combining an additional 12-month post-treatment PET-CT scan and I&S resource will both identify patients with asymptomatic recurrence and identify those at low risk of future recurrence who will be empowered to monitor their symptoms and seek early clinical follow-up when recurrence is suspected. This change to a patient-centred model of care may have effects on both quality of life and fear of cancer recurrence. Trial registration: ISRCTN: 13,709,798; 15-Oct-2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: Solving complex research challenges requires innovative thinking and alternative approaches to traditional methods. One such example is the problem of arm and hand, or upper limb function in multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurological condition affecting approximately 2.9 million people worldwide and more than 150,000 in the United Kingdom. Historically, clinical trials and research have focused on mobility and walking ability. This excludes a large number of patients who are wheelchair users, limiting their quality of life and restricting access to possibly helpful medications. To address this issue, the ThinkHand campaign was launched in 2016, aiming to raise awareness about the importance of upper limb function in MS and develop alternative ways to measure, record, and account for hand and arm function changes. Main body: The campaign utilised innovative strategies at scientific conferences and online surveys to engage people affected by MS, healthcare professionals, charities, and researchers in discussing the importance of preserving upper limb function. Through co-design and interdisciplinary collaboration, the campaign developed new tools like the low-cost cardboard version of the Nine-Hole Peg Test, facilitating remote monitoring of hand function. Additionally, the campaign co-created the "Under & Over" rehabilitation tool, allowing individuals with advanced MS to participate in a remote rehabilitation program. The impact of the ThinkHand campaign has been significant, helping to shift the focus of both academic and industry-supported trials, including the O'HAND and ChariotMS trials, both using upper limb function as their primary end point. The campaign's patient-centred approach highlighted the importance of recognising patients' perspectives in research and challenged established assumptions and practices. It demonstrated the effectiveness of interdisciplinary collaboration, systems thinking, and co-creation with stakeholders in tackling complex problems. Conclusion: The ThinkHand campaign provides valuable insights for health research practices. By involving patients at all stages, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the impact of disease on their lives, identify gaps and focus research on their needs. Experimentation and iteration can lead to innovative solutions, and openness to unconventional methods can drive widespread change. The ThinkHand campaign exemplifies the potential of patient-centred approaches to address complex research challenges and revolutionise the field of MS research and management. Embracing such approaches will contribute to more inclusive and impactful research in the future. Plain English Summary: Solving complex research challenges requires creative thinking and new ways of doing things. One such challenge is understanding the problems with arm and hand function in multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurological condition that affects more than 150,000 in the United Kingdom. In the past, research focused mainly on walking ability, leaving out many people who use wheelchairs. To tackle this issue, we created the ThinkHand campaign in 2016. Its goal was to raise awareness about the importance of hand and arm function for people with MS (pwMS) and find better ways to measure changes in these functions such that they can become outcomes in clinical trials. This could provide a pathway to better treatments for pwMS who cannot walk. The campaign used various methods, including surveys, social media posts, exhibitions and music to involve pwMS, healthcare professionals, charities, and researchers in discussions about the issues. Working together, they created tools to support pwMS, particularly those at an advanced stage of the disease (pwAMS), to take part in research and measure their hand and arm function. Through our collaborative approach focusing on patients' perspectives, the campaign challenged old ideas and deeply embedded practices. It showed that collaboration between different areas of expertise involving pwMS at all stages of research can help solve complex problems. This campaign teaches us valuable lessons for health research. When researchers listen to patients and try new things, they can better understand how a disease affects people's lives and develop better solutions. In conclusion, we show how embracing a patient-centred approach can address complex research challenges and improve how we study and manage MS and other conditions in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Providing informed consent for trials requires providing trial participants with comprehensive information about the trial, including information about potential risks and benefits. It is required by the ethical principle of respecting patient autonomy. Our study examines the variation in the way information about potential trial benefits and harms is shared in participant information leaflets (PILs). Methods: A total of 214 PILs and informed consent forms from clinical trials units (CTUs) and Clinical Research Facilities (CRFs) in Ireland and the UK were assessed by two authors independently, to check the extent to which they adhered to seven recently developed principles. Discrepancies were resolved by a third. Results: Usage of the seven principles varied widely between PILs regardless of the intended recipient or trial type. None of the PILs used more than four principles, and some (4%) used none. Twenty-seven per cent of PILs presented information about all known potential harms, whereas 45% presented information on all known potential benefits. Some PILs did not provide any potential harms or potential benefits (8%). There was variation in the information contained in adult and children PILs and across disease areas. Conclusion: Significant variation exists in how potential trial benefits and harms are described to potential trial participants in PILs in our sample. Usage of the seven principles of good practice will promote consistency, ensure informed ethical decision-making and invoke trust and transparency. In the long term, a standardised PIL template is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of routinely collected electronic healthcare records (EHR) for outcome assessment in clinical trials has been described as a 'disruptive' new technique more than a decade ago. Despite this potential, significant methodological issues and regulatory barriers have hampered the progress in this area. This article discusses the key considerations that trialists should take into account when incorporating EHR into their trials. These include considerations of the clinical relevance of the outcome, data timeliness and quality, ethical and regulatory issues, and some practical considerations for clinical trials units. In addition, this article describes the benefits of using EHR which include cost, reduced trial burden for participants and staff, follow up efficiencies, and improved health economic evaluation procedures. We also describe the major regulatory and start up costs of using EHR in clinical trials. This article focuses on the UK specific EHR landscape in clinical trials and would help researchers and trials units considering the use of this method of outcome data collection in their next trial. If the issues described are mitigated, this method will be a formidable tool for conducting pragmatic clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is crucial to include a wide range of the population in clinical trials for the outcome to be applicable in real-world settings. Existing literature indicates that under-served groups, including disabled people, have been excluded from participating in clinical trials without justification. Exclusion from clinical trials exacerbates disparities in healthcare and diminishes the benefits for excluded populations. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate potential obstacles that prevent disabled people from participating in clinical trials in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: The study was carried out through an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The Imperial Clinical Trials Unit devised and implemented an online questionnaire-based survey (with open/closed-ended questions) and an online focus group discussion. The target population were disabled people, family members/carers of disabled people and staff involved in clinical trials, whereupon the sample was recruited by convenience sampling methods via posters and emails through various networks. The Qualtrics XM survey system was used as the host platform for the online survey, and Microsoft Teams was used for an online focus group discussion. The focus group discussion was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the themes identified from the survey responses. We analysed responses to the survey via descriptive analysis and used thematic analysis to synthesise the free-text answers from the survey and focus group discussion. Results: We received 45 responses to the survey questionnaire and 5 disabled people took part in a focus group discussion. Our findings highlighted the differences between the perspectives of researchers and those "being researched" and different types of barriers experienced by disabled people: opportunity barriers (inadequate recruitment strategy and ambiguous eligibility criteria), awareness barriers (perception of disability) and acceptance/refusal barriers (available support and adjustment, and sharing of trial results). Conclusion: Our findings support perspectives drawn from the Ford Framework regarding the need to consider all barriers, not just up to the point of enrolment into trials but also beyond the point of inclusion in clinical trials. We support calls for the introduction of legislation on including disabled people in clinical trials, implementation of industry/community-wide participatory approaches and the development of guidelines, a combined public–private approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: Despite the importance of statistical and numerical aspects in key decisions related to clinical trials and their impact in patient's care, patient and public involvement remains underdeveloped in this field. Communication is a barrier to enable successful involvement of patients and the public in numerical aspects. Treatment important differences, a crucial numerical aspect in trials, is considered a priority for patient and public involvement. Creative methods have been proposed to improve communication of technical concepts with members of the public; and to democratise and improve inclusivity in patient and public involvement in health research. Methods: Working with creative professionals, public partners, and statisticians, we aimed to develop, pilot and implement creative workshops to promote a shared understanding of treatment important differences; and co-develop creative prototypes that could be used to communicate the statistical concept to a wider audience in the future. Three 2 to 4 h creative workshops based in the UK were delivered. The first two workshops included 22 participants. They were online and worked as pilots to refine the final in-person workshop via participant feedback and discussion. The final workshop focused on treatment important differences, and we collected information from participants on expectations, subjective numeracy, and experience. Results: The final workshop included 13 participants (5 creative professionals, 4 public partners, and 4 clinical trial statisticians). Participants reported creative workshops helped improve communication of treatment important differences between stakeholders reaching a common understanding of their meaning; and helped democratise knowledge exchange. Each group developed a creative prototype to communicate about treatment important differences with a wider audience, including a song, game, and a cartoon. Participants recommended the format to improve communication of other statistical or complex concepts between stakeholders. Conclusions: Creative workshops can promote shared understanding of complex, statistical concepts and co-development of creative outputs amongst stakeholders. Future work should explore generalisability of the intervention, and what outcomes might be important to consider when implementing creative workshops in patient and public involvement practice. Plain English summary: Patient and public involvement in clinical trials helps improve their relevance. Decisions related to numbers in trials consider information related to patients and their clinical experience, but patients and the public are rarely involved in these decisions. One barrier to achieve this is communication: numbers can be challenging to discuss. Creative methods (including writing, dancing, drawing) have been suggested as a potential way to improve communication of numbers with a wide audience. Working with creative professionals, public partners, and statisticians we developed, piloted, and implemented a creative workshop focusing on improving communication by reaching a common understanding between participants of a specific numerical concept related to clinical trials and where patient and public involvement is crucial. The creative workshop aimed to facilitate mutual learning between creative professionals, members of the public, and statisticians; and to promote co-development of creative outputs to describe the same numerical concept to a wider audience. Workshop participants felt the creative workshops improved communication of the numerical concept and helped everyone feel heard. Workshop participants were particularly interested in visual methods to support communication, and recommended creative workshops should be used to improve communication of other statistical and complex concepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Increased moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes for people living with and beyond cancer (LWBC). This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures in a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a theory‐driven app‐based intervention with behavioural support focused on promoting brisk walking (a form of MVPA) in people LWBC (APPROACH). Methods: Participants diagnosed with breast, prostate or colorectal cancer were recruited from a single UK hospital site. Assessments at baseline and 3 months included online questionnaires, device‐measured brisk walking (activPAL accelerometer) and self‐reported weight and height. Participants were randomised to intervention or control (care as usual). The intervention comprised a non‐cancer‐specific app to promote brisk walking (National Health Service 'Active 10') augmented with print information about habit formation, a walking planner and two behavioural support telephone calls. Feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures were explored. Initial estimates for physical activity informed a power calculation for a phase III RCT. A preliminary health economics analysis was conducted. Results: Of those medically eligible, 369/577 (64%) were willing to answer further eligibility questions and 90/148 (61%) of those eligible were enrolled. Feasibility outcomes, including retention (97%), assessment completion rates (>86%) and app download rates in the intervention group (96%), suggest that the trial procedures are acceptable and that the intervention is feasible. The phase III RCT will require 472 participants to be randomised. As expected, the preliminary health economic analyses indicate a high level of uncertainty around the cost‐effectiveness of the intervention. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrates that a large trial of the brisk walking intervention with behavioural support is both feasible and acceptable to people LWBC. The results support progression onto a confirmatory phase III trial to determine the efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of the intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1796, American physician Elisha Perkins patented "metallick Tractors" for the treatment of various ailments, particularly those associated with pain. They were subsequently rapidly and widely disseminated in the United States and Great Britain based on testimonials and deceptive marketing tactics. Dissemination was facilitated by endorsements from prominent physicians, politicians, and clergymen; quasi-theoretical, handwaving explanations of efficacy based on Galvani's then-current experiments; and the procedure's apparent safety and simplicity. However, blinded placebo-controlled trials in Great Britain using sham devices demonstrated that the therapy was ineffective. In response, in the period from 1798 to 1806, Perkinists unleashed a barrage of disinformation (ad hominem attacks, misleading arguments, unethical propaganda tactics, and poetic and graphic satire) to sway public opinion in favor of the fraudulent therapy and against its critics. The disinformation slowed the abandonment of "tractoration", but higher-level scientific argumentation ultimately prevailed. The Perkinist disinformation campaign had antecedents with the Mesmerist disinformation campaign in the mid-1780s. Similar propaganda tactics are still widely employed to encourage the purchase and use of disproven or fraudulent therapies, as evidenced by propaganda from adherents of acupuncture in response to negative clinical trials and from supporters of unsafe and ineffective therapies promulgated during COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F have overlapping roles in pro-inflammatory signaling and have been implicated in the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease. Bimekizumab is the first human monoclonal antibody to selectively inhibit IL-17F in addition to IL-17A. Bimekizumab has been studied in several phase II/III trials and has been approved for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the EU and UK. A literature search identified clinical trials examining the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab for PsA, which were critically appraised. Clinical trials of bimekizumab in PsA have demonstrated rapid and sustained treatment responses and depth of response across the multiple disease domains. High levels of efficacy were sustained to 152 weeks in phase IIb trials, and to 52 weeks in phase III trials. Bimekizumab was generally well tolerated. As expected, due to the role of IL-17 in the immune response to fungal pathogens, there was an increase in mild-to-moderate, localized fungal infections with bimekizumab treatment, very few of which led to discontinuation. Studies over longer time periods, with relevant comparators from the IL-17A inhibitor class, and real-world data will be important to further define the role of bimekizumab among currently available treatments for PsA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: The intelligent knee osteoarthritis lifestyle app (iKOALA) has been co-developed with target users to extend the support for physical activity (PA) and musculoskeletal health, beyond short-term structured rehabilitation, using personalised PA guidance, education, and social support. The purpose of this study was to assess the preliminary effectiveness and usability of the iKOALA digital intervention on indices of musculoskeletal (MSK) health, symptoms, and physical activity levels in a broad range of individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) over 12 weeks to inform the design of a larger randomised controlled trial. Methods: Thirty-eight (33 female) participants living in the UK with a mean (SD) age of 58 (± 9) years diagnosed radiographically or clinically with KOA completed a 12-week user trial of the iKOALA. Participants completed an in-app physical activity questionnaire which intelligently recommended suitable strengthening and aerobic based activities to individuals. Throughout the trial, participants wore a physical activity monitor and were given access to functions within the app (physical activity (PA) reminders, information and education, symptom and PA tracking as well as social support forums) to support them in maintaining their PA plan. Participants completed a MSK questionnaire for chronic symptoms and quality of life (MSK-HQ) as well as an acute iKOALA symptoms questionnaire (confidence, fatigue, mood, pain during the day/night, sleep and ability to walk) in the week prior to starting and following completion of the trial. Results: Physical activity levels were consistent over the 12 weeks with total daily steps of 9102 (± 3514) in week 1, 9576 (± 4214) in week 6 and 9596 (± 3694) in week 12. Group mean changes in all iKOALA MSK symptom scores and the total MSK-HQ (pre 33.1 (7.6) vs. post 40.2 (7.6)) score improved significantly (p <.001, 95% CI [-8.89, -5.16]) over the 12-week period. Conclusions: Physical activity levels were maintained at a high level throughout the 12 weeks. Significant improvements in mean MSK symptom scores and the total MSK-HQ score were also observed. Efforts to ensure more generalised reach amongst sex and socioeconomic status of the digital intervention in a randomised controlled clinical trial are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The involvement of patients and the public in research is now an expectation in research with funders requesting a clear plan of involvement and engagement. In the United Kingdom involvement typically focuses on research prioritisation, design and delivery, in contrast activities that share the results of research or research methods more generally are considered to be engagement. Clinical trials tend to concentrate on involvement activities with less emphasis on engagement. To promote engagement activities in the context of clinical trials we asked people attending the 2022 International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference to share ideas on how we can best engage with patients and the public. Responses were reviewed and 22 themes identified. One suggestion was to create an advent calendar and so these 22 themes plus two from the authors were used as a daily tweet from the 1st to the 24th December 2022. Here we share these ideas and draw comparisons between engagement activities in research and traditions of the Christmas period. The ideas shared are not intended as a definitive list but instead a novel way to start discussions between experts by experience, researchers, health professionals and communities to facilitate co-production of meaningful engagement strategies. Plain English summary: Patient and public involvement and engagement are terms used to describe specific activities that have a variety of goals from information giving through topublic co-production of research. Involvement and engagement are important as they can help reduce waste in research by ensuring that the research is relevant, conducted well and that the results are shared to those that will use them to make decisions about treatments, including patients. In the United Kingdom the term "engagement" usually refers to activities that focus mainly on information giving, for example sharing the results of research or information about how research is done in general. In this commentary we share ideas for engagement activities that were collected from people attending the International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference in 2022. One of the ideas shared was to have an advent calendar and we have used this to draw comparisons between traditions surrounding the Christmas period and engagement of patients and the public. We share 24 different ideas in the form of a printable advent calendar and invite the clinical trials community, including experts by experience, to reflect on these to generate more ideas for meaningful engagement activities so that everyone who will use the results of research has the opportunity to shape, share, and benefit from research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To establish whether the use of a WaterPik® alongside a manual toothbrush (WaterPik® + MTB) is more effective for maintaining oral hygiene compared to the use of a manual toothbrush alone (MTB) in patients wearing fixed orthodontic appliances. A single-centre, two-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Orthodontic department at York Hospital, York Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK. A total of 40 fit and well participants, aged 10–20 years, being treated with upper and lower fixed orthodontic appliances. Participants were randomly allocated, using stratified block randomisation, to the control group (MTB) or intervention group '(Waterpik® + MTB)'. Plaque, gingival and interdental bleeding indices were recorded at baseline, 8 weeks, 32 weeks and 56 weeks. A generalised linear mixed model was used to assess differences between groups. An interim analysis of results was performed with 40 patients recruited and 85% of data collected. The overall mean differences between the groups were as follows: plaque index = 0.199 (P = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.24 to 0.27); gingival index = −0.008 (P = 0.94, 95% CI −0.22 to 0.20); and interdental bleeding index = 5.60 (P = 0.563, 95% CI −13.22 to 24.42). No statistical difference between the two groups was found for any variable. The trial was stopped at this point. In terms of oral hygiene, our study did not find evidence to support the claim of benefit of using a Waterpik® in addition to a manual toothbrush for patients wearing fixed orthodontic appliances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical trials should be as inclusive as possible to facilitate equitable access to research and better reflect the population towards which any intervention is aimed. Informed by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Innovations in Clinical Trial Design and Delivery for the Under-served (INCLUDE) guidance, we audited oncology trials conducted by the Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research, London (ICR-CTSU) to identify whether essential documents were overtly excluding any groups and whether sufficient data were collected to assess diversity of trial participants from groups suggested by INCLUDE as under-served by research in the UK. Methods: Thirty cancer clinical trials managed by ICR-CTSU and approved between 2011–2021 were audited. The first ethics approved version of each trial's protocol, patient information sheet, and patient completed questionnaire, together with the first case report forms (CRFs) version were reviewed. A range of items aligned with the INCLUDE under-served groups were assessed, including age, sex and gender, socio-economic and health factors. The scope did not cover trial processes in participating hospitals. Results: Data relating to participants' age, ethnic group and health status were well collected and no upper age limit was specified in any trials' eligibility criteria. 23/30 (77%) information sheets used at least one gendered term to address patients. Most CRFs did not specify whether they were collecting sex or gender and only included male or female categories. The median reading age for information sheets was 15–16 years (IQR: 14–15 – 16–17). Socio-economic factors were not routinely collected and not commonly mentioned in trial protocols. Conclusions: No systemic issues were identified in protocols which would explicitly prevent any under-served group from participating. Areas for improvement include reducing use of gendered words and improving readability of patient information. The challenge of fully assessing adequate inclusion of under-served populations remains, as socio-economic factors are not routinely collected because they fall beyond the data generally required for protocol-specified trial endpoint assessments. This audit has highlighted the need to agree and standardise demographic data collection to permit adequate monitoring of the under-served groups identified by the NIHR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Experimental and interventional studies show that light can regulate sleep timing and sleepiness while awake by setting the phase of circadian rhythms and supporting alertness. The extent to which differences in light exposure explain variations in sleep and sleepiness within and between individuals in everyday life remains less clear. Here, we establish a method to address this deficit, incorporating an open-source wearable wrist-worn light logger (SpectraWear) and smartphone-based online data collection. We use it to simultaneously record longitudinal light exposure (in melanopic equivalent daylight illuminance), sleep timing, and subjective alertness over seven days in a convenience sample of 59 UK adults without externally imposed circadian challenge (e.g., shift work or jetlag). Participants reliably had strong daily rhythms in light exposure but frequently were exposed to less light during the daytime and more light in pre-bedtime and sleep episodes than recommended [T. M. Brown et al., PLoS Biol. 20, e3001571 (2022)]. Prior light exposure over several hours was associated with lower subjective sleepiness with, in particular, brighter light in the late sleep episode and after wake linked to reduced early morning sleepiness (sleep inertia). Higher pre-bedtime light exposure was associated with longer sleep onset latency. Early sleep timing was correlated with more reproducible and robust daily patterns of light exposure and higher daytime/lower night-time light exposure. Our study establishes a method for collecting longitudinal sleep and health/performance data in everyday life and provides evidence of associations between light exposure and important determinants of sleep health and performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The UK has a significant and growing population of older adults with frailty and complex healthcare needs, necessitating innovative care solutions. This study aimed to explore patients' and carers' experiences of a novel integrated service that was set up to address the increasing healthcare needs of older people living with frailty. A qualitative study that combined free-text survey questions with in-depth interviews. This study is part of a larger non-randomized trial of the service, with evaluation of wellbeing and quality of life at baseline, 2 to 4 weeks, and 10 to 14 weeks. Patients (aged 65 and above) with an electronic Frailty Index in the severe range and their informal family carers participated in this study. Data were collected between April 2019 and March 2020. Free text survey responses and interview data were subjected to reflexive thematic analyses. Four themes were generated: the overall experience of the service; interactions within the service; treatment and interventions; and outcomes due to the service. Most participants wanted further follow-up and more extensive integration with other services. Most participants described their overall experience positively, especially the available time to address their full range of concerns, but opportunities to integrate the service more fully and to extend follow-up remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whole university approaches to student mental health and well‐being increasingly involve university counselling and mental health services (UCMHSs) as key stakeholders in higher education and the fulfilment of good academic outcomes. However, previous research using routine outcome measures has focussed on psychological distress only. Research is needed to demonstrate the value of university counselling on academic outcomes. This study aimed at profiling the psychological distress of a student sample according to the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation—Outcome Measure (CORE‐OM); measuring the change in perceived impact of problems on academic outcomes, and measuring the perceived impact of counselling on academic outcomes. Students from two UK university counselling services completed the CORE‐OM and the Counselling Impact on Academic Outcomes (CIAO) questionnaire as part of routine practice. After counselling, 67.4% (n = 323) of students with planned endings to counselling showed at least reliable improvement on the CORE‐OM. Significant reductions in the perceived impact of problems on all academic outcomes were also found. On average, 83% (n = 398) of students found counselling helpful for academic outcomes to at least a limited extent. University counselling was found to reduce psychological distress and the impact of problems on academic outcomes. Psychometric examination of the CIAO tool is warranted to strengthen its use. The need for robust data across UCMHSs is demonstrated by both the strengths and limitations of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heterogeneity in reported outcomes can limit the synthesis of research evidence. A core outcome set informs what outcomes are important and should be measured as a minimum in all future studies. We report the development of a core outcome set applicable to observational and interventional studies of pregnant women with multimorbidity. Methods: We developed the core outcome set in four stages: (i) a systematic literature search, (ii) three focus groups with UK stakeholders, (iii) two rounds of Delphi surveys with international stakeholders and (iv) two international virtual consensus meetings. Stakeholders included women with multimorbidity and experience of pregnancy in the last 5 years, or are planning a pregnancy, their partners, health or social care professionals and researchers. Study adverts were shared through stakeholder charities and organisations. Results: Twenty-six studies were included in the systematic literature search (2017 to 2021) reporting 185 outcomes. Thematic analysis of the focus groups added a further 28 outcomes. Two hundred and nine stakeholders completed the first Delphi survey. One hundred and sixteen stakeholders completed the second Delphi survey where 45 outcomes reached Consensus In (≥70% of all participants rating an outcome as Critically Important). Thirteen stakeholders reviewed 15 Borderline outcomes in the first consensus meeting and included seven additional outcomes. Seventeen stakeholders reviewed these 52 outcomes in a second consensus meeting, the threshold was ≥80% of all participants voting for inclusion. The final core outcome set included 11 outcomes. The five maternal outcomes were as follows: maternal death, severe maternal morbidity, change in existing long-term conditions (physical and mental), quality and experience of care and development of new mental health conditions. The six child outcomes were as follows: survival of baby, gestational age at birth, neurodevelopmental conditions/impairment, quality of life, birth weight and separation of baby from mother for health care needs. Conclusions: Multimorbidity in pregnancy is a new and complex clinical research area. Following a rigorous process, this complexity was meaningfully reduced to a core outcome set that balances the views of a diverse stakeholder group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health disparities affecting ethnic minority communities. There is growing concern about the lack of diversity in clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the representation of ethnic groups in UK-based COVID-19 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken. A search strategy was developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and Google Scholar (1st January 2020–4th May 2022). Prospective COVID-19 RCTs for vaccines or therapeutics that reported UK data separately with a minimum of 50 participants were eligible. Search results were independently screened, and data extracted into proforma. Percentage of ethnic groups at all trial stages was mapped against Office of National Statistics (ONS) statistics. Post hoc DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis of percentages and a meta-regression assessing recruitment over time were conducted. Due to the nature of the review question, risk of bias was not assessed. Data analysis was conducted in Stata v17.0. A protocol was registered (PROSPERO CRD42021244185). Results: In total, 5319 articles were identified; 30 studies were included, with 118,912 participants. Enrolment to trials was the only stage consistently reported (17 trials). Meta-analysis showed significant heterogeneity across studies, in relation to census-expected proportions at study enrolment. All ethnic groups, apart from Other (1.7% [95% CI 1.1–2.8%] vs ONS 1%) were represented to a lesser extent than ONS statistics, most marked in Black (1% [0.6–1.5%] vs 3.3%) and Asian (5.8% [4.4–7.6%] vs 7.5%) groups, but also apparent in White (84.8% [81.6–87.5%] vs 86%) and Mixed 1.6% [1.2–2.1%] vs 2.2%) groups. Meta-regression showed recruitment of Black participants increased over time (p = 0.009). Conclusions: Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups are under-represented or incorrectly classified in UK COVID-19 RCTs. Reporting by ethnicity lacks consistency and transparency. Under-representation in clinical trials occurs at multiple levels and requires complex solutions, which should be considered throughout trial conduct. These findings may not apply outside of the UK setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical trial participation for patients with non-curative cancer is unlikely to present personal clinical benefit, which raises the bar for informed consent. Previous work demonstrates that decisions by patients in this setting are made within a 'trusting relationship' with healthcare professionals. The current study aimed to further illuminate the nuances of this relationship from both the patients' and healthcare professionals' perspectives. Methods: Face-to-face interviews using a grounded theory approach were conducted at a regional Cancer Centre in the United Kingdom. Interviews were performed with 34 participants (patients with non-curative cancer, number (n) = 16; healthcare professionals involved in the consent process, n = 18). Data analysis was performed after each interview using open, selective, and theoretical coding. Results: The 'Trusting relationship' with healthcare professionals underpinned patient motivation to participate, with many patients 'feeling lucky' and articulating an unrealistic hope that a clinical trial could provide a cure. Patients adopted the attitude of 'What the doctor thinks is best' and placed significant trust in healthcare professionals, focusing on mainly positive aspects of the information provided. Healthcare professionals recognised that trial information was not received neutrally by patients, with some expressing concerns that patients would consent to 'please' them. This raises the question: Within the trusting relationship between patients and healthcare professionals, 'Is it possible to provide balanced information?'. The theoretical model identified in this study is central to understanding how the trusting professional-patient relationship influences the decision-making process. Conclusion: The significant trust placed on healthcare professionals by patients presented an obstacle to delivering balanced trial information, with patients sometimes participating to please the 'experts'. In this high-stakes scenario, it may be pertinent to consider strategies, such as separation of the clinician-researcher roles and enabling patients to articulate their care priorities and preferences within the informed consent process. Further research is needed to expand on these ethical conundrums and ensure patient choice and autonomy in trial participation are prioritised, particularly when the patient's life is limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Partial ectogestation continues to move towards human clinical trials. This article draws upon the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Warnock Report) to provide guidance as to what may need to be considered for the future regulation of this technology. While the Warnock Report dates back to 1984, its significance and legacy continue to influence the current regulation of reproductive practices in the UK. By drawing upon specific elements within the report, many of the decisions and recommendations within it could provide direction for the future regulation of partial ectogestation. The role of the public, the social and political context at the time of the Warnock report, the determination of the status of the embryo, and arguments pitted against in vitro fertilisation (IVF) at the time, are all examined. As a result, this article suggests that the inclusion of the general public in the development and implementation of partial ectogestation prior to another Warnock-style inquiry will increase the success of long-standing regulatory and legislative provisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Key Points: Question: Is minimally invasive mitral valve repair better at improving physical function at 12 weeks than conventional sternotomy mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral regurgitation? Findings: In this randomized clinical trial involving 330 patients, minimally invasive repair was not superior to sternotomy as determined by recovery of physical function at 12 weeks. Both techniques achieved high-quality and durable valve repair at 1 year with similar postoperative complications. Meaning: Minimally invasive mitral valve repair does not improve physical function at 12 weeks compared with sternotomy, but outcomes at 1 year show minimally invasive repair is as safe and effective as sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation. These findings can inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines. Importance: The safety and effectiveness of mitral valve repair via thoracoscopically-guided minithoracotomy (minithoracotomy) compared with median sternotomy (sternotomy) in patients with degenerative mitral valve regurgitation is uncertain. Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of minithoracotomy vs sternotomy mitral valve repair in a randomized trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, multicenter, superiority, randomized clinical trial in 10 tertiary care institutions in the UK. Participants were adults with degenerative mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral valve repair surgery. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 with concealed allocation to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) version 2 physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the index surgery, assessed by an independent researcher masked to the intervention. Secondary outcomes included recurrent mitral regurgitation grade, physical activity, and quality of life. The prespecified safety outcomes included death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year. Results: Between November 2016 and January 2021, 330 participants were randomized (mean age, 67 years, 100 female [30%]); 166 were allocated to minithoracotomy and 164 allocated to sternotomy, of whom 309 underwent surgery and 294 reported the primary outcome. At 12 weeks, the mean between-group difference in the change in the SF-36 physical function T score was 0.68 (95% CI, −1.89 to 3.26). Valve repair rates (≈ 96%) were similar in both groups. Echocardiography demonstrated mitral regurgitation severity as none or mild for 92% of participants at 1 year with no difference between groups. The composite safety outcome occurred in 5.4% (9 of 166) of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% (10 of 163) undergoing sternotomy at 1 year. Conclusions and relevance: Minithoracotomy is not superior to sternotomy in recovery of physical function at 12 weeks. Minithoracotomy achieves high rates and quality of valve repair and has similar safety outcomes at 1 year to sternotomy. The results provide evidence to inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN13930454 This randomized clinical trial compares the effectiveness and safety of minithoracotomy vs sternotomy mitral valve repair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Clinical trials must include diverse participants to ensure the wide applicability of results. However, people from ethnic minorities are included in clinical trials at rates lower than expected given their share of the population. Working with South Riverside Community Development Centre (SRCDC), Talking Trials used public engagement to foster discussions around the underrepresentation of those from minority ethnic communities in clinical trials and to identify and address concerns surrounding trial participation. Methods: We conducted three workshops with 13 co‐researchers from minority ethnic backgrounds. We explored perceptions and understanding of clinical trials alongside participatory art activities to help move away from verbocentric methods of communication. These artworks formed an exhibition that was presented to the community, prompting further discussions and engagement. Findings: Co‐production workshops were an effective tool to introduce the public to trial research. With little knowledge of clinical trials at the beginning of the process, our co‐researchers formed a cohesive group, sharing initial fears and mistrust towards trials. As conversations progressed these attitudes clearly shifted. Artwork produced during the workshops was incorporated into an exhibition. Quotes and creative pieces from the group were included to reflect the themes identified. Presenting the exhibition at Riverside Festival enabled further engagement with a wider diverse community. The focus on co‐production helped build a network of individuals new to research and keen to become involved further. Conclusion: Inclusive and democratic co‐production, enriched by participatory art practices, provided a powerful means of enabling our group to create new insights and foster new relationships. Projects like Talking Trials can diversify the research process itself—for example, four co‐researchers have commenced lay research partner roles on trial management groups and a lay advisory group is in development. Patient or Public Contribution: Three members of staff at SRCDC were on the project delivery group and involved in the initial project design, subsequently helping to connect us with members of the Riverside community to work as co‐researchers. Two of the SRCDC staff are co‐authors of this manuscript. The project had 13 public co‐researchers guiding the direction of this research and creating the artwork displayed in the art exhibition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For some adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), nonstimulants need to be considered either as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to stimulants. Objectives: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to assess the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of nonstimulants in adults with ADHD. Methods: Data sources, searches, and study selection were based on a previously published network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by Cortese at al. (Lancet Psychiatry 5(9):727–738, 2018), which we updated in March 2022. Specifically, we searched PubMed, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, OpenGrey, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UK and Ireland), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (abstracts and international), and the WHO International Trials Registry Platform, including ClinicalTrials.gov for double-blind RCTs with a placebo arm, lasting at least one week, including adults with a diagnosis of ADHD based on DSM-III, DSM-III-R, DSM-IV(TR), DSM-5 or ICD-9- or 10, and reporting data on efficacy, tolerability (drop-out due to side effects) and acceptability (drop-out due to any cause) of guanfacine, clonidine, or atomoxetine. Additionally, we searched for RCTs of viloxazine extended release (ER), approved for ADHD in 2021. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, and the risk of bias for individual RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Results: We included 18 studies in the meta-analyses (4308 participants) plus one additional study in the narrative synthesis (374 participants). The meta-analysis showed that atomoxetine (15 RCTs) (Hedge's g = − 0.48, 95% CI [− 0.64; − 0.33]), guanfacine (two RCTs) (Hedge's g = − 0.66, 95% CI [− 0.94; − 0.38]) and viloxazine ER (one RCT) were significantly more efficacious than placebo. Atomoxetine was less well tolerated than placebo, while tolerability of guanfacine and viloxazine ER could not be meta-analysed, since only one study, for each medication, reported on it. Conclusions: All investigated nonstimulants were more efficacious in the treatment of ADHD in adults, than placebo, while the placebo had better acceptability and tolerability. Protocol: https://osf.io/5vnmt/?view_only=2bf87ed12ba94645babedceeee4c0120. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We identify individuals who set daily intake budgets and examine if an intervention making people estimate their calorie intake up to a certain point in the day helps those setting daily budgets to regulate their calorie intake for the remainder of the day, after high prior consumption. We conducted an online experiment in five countries: Australia, China, Germany, India, and the UK (n = 3,032) using a 2 (setting calorie budget: yes vs. no, measured) x 2 (intervention: intake reminder vs. control, manipulated) between-subjects design, with the amount of prior consumption measured. Participants were contacted in the afternoon. Those in the intervention condition were asked to estimate their prior calorie intake on that day. We measured the individual characteristics of those who set daily calorie budgets and the intended calorie intake for the remainder of the day. Among people who set daily calorie budgets, the intervention reduced intended calorie intake for the remainder of the day by 176 calories if they had already consumed a high amount of calories that day. A timely intervention to estimate one's calorie intake can lower additional intended calorie intake among those who set daily calorie budget. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Symptomatic gallstones are common. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) is a bile acid that dissolves gallstones. There is increasing interest in UDCA for symptomatic gallstones, particularly in those unfit for surgery. Method: A UK clinician survey of use and opinions about UDCA in symptomatic gallstones was performed, assessing clinicians' beliefs and perceptions of UDCA effectiveness. A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched for studies of UDCA for symptomatic gallstones (key terms included 'ursodeoxycholic acid'; 'UDCA'; 'biliary pain'; and 'biliary colic'). Information was assessed by two authors, including bias assessment, with independent review of conflicts. Results: Overall, 102 clinicians completed the survey, and 42 per cent had previous experience of using UDCA. Survey responses demonstrated clinical equipoise surrounding the benefit of UDCA for the management of symptomatic gallstones, with no clear consensus for benefit or non-benefit; however, 95 per cent would start using UDCA if there was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) demonstrating a benefit. Eight studies were included in the review: four RCTs, three prospective studies, and one retrospective study. Seven of eight studies were favourable of UDCA for biliary pain. Outcomes and follow-up times were heterogenous, as well as comparator type, with only four of eight studies comparing with placebo. Conclusion: Evidence for UDCA in symptomatic gallstones is scarce and heterogenous. Clinicians currently managing symptomatic gallstone disease are largely unaware of the benefit of UDCA, and there is clinical equipoise surrounding the benefit of UDCA. Level 1 evidence is required by clinicians to support UDCA use in the future. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) may be beneficial for patients with symptomatic gallstone disease; however, current evidence is heterogenous. Clinicians currently managing symptomatic gallstone disease are largely unaware of the benefit of UDCA, and there is clinical equipoise surrounding the benefit of UDCA. Level 1 evidence is required by clinicians to support UDCA use in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Each year, approximately 70 million people suffer traumatic brain injury, which has a significant physical, psychosocial and economic impact for patients and their families. It is recommended in the UK that all patients with traumatic brain injury and a Glasgow coma scale ≤ 8 should be transferred to a neurosurgical centre. However, many patients, especially those in whom neurosurgery is not required, are not treated in, nor transferred to, a neurosurgical centre. This review aims to provide clinicians who work in non‐neurosurgical centres with a summary of contemporary studies relevant to the critical care management of patients with traumatic brain injury. A targeted literature review was undertaken that included guidelines, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses, clinical trials and randomised controlled trials (published in English between 1 January 2017 and 1 July 2022). Studies involving key clinical management strategies published before this time, but which have not been updated or repeated, were also eligible for inclusion. Analysis of the topics identified during the review was then summarised. These included: fundamental critical care management approaches (including ventilation strategies, fluid management, seizure control and osmotherapy); use of processed electroencephalogram monitoring; non‐invasive assessment of intracranial pressure; prognostication; and rehabilitation techniques. Through this process, we have formulated practical recommendations to guide clinical practice in non‐specialist centres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about the information parents of children with cancer find when searching for clinical trials information on YouTube. Thus, this study aimed to analyse the content, quality and reliability of YouTube videos focused on clinical trials for paediatric cancer. A descriptive cross-sectional design was used, and YouTube was searched using the phrases 'clinical trials for children with cancer' and 'paediatric cancer clinical trials'. Videos that met inclusion criteria were assessed using the instruments Global Quality Scale and DISCERN. About half of the examined videos were in the GQS excellent-quality group and exhibited a total of 84,804 views. The mean time for videos was 5.7 minutes, they originated from the US or UK, were uploaded after 2016, and had a cancer centre/foundation or children hospital as video source. Half of them were focusing on early experimental trials and had a positive tone. Twenty percent were classified as useful without serious shortcomings, almost 50% as misleading with serious shortcomings, and 30% as inappropriate sources of information. In conclusion, most YouTube videos on paediatric cancer trials are not very informative and fall short of what could ethically be required regarding their facilitation of informed decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article draws on data collected from a qualitative study designed to assess the effectiveness of an early intervention programme aimed to raise awareness of Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) among young people. The programme was implemented by a large police force area, referred to as Shireland. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with practitioners implementing safeguarding policies within the police service, youth and social welfare work designed to support young people, we focus on the mobilisation of perceptions of risk and vulnerability as they translate in professional practice via a specific preventative initiative. More specifically, we wish to examine the extent to which blurring occurs between constructions of 'risk' and 'vulnerability' in relation to practitioners' understandings of the dangerousness of young people's behaviour. In our analysis, we draw attention to a palpable tension apparent in the interview narratives of those involved in delivering the programme, between expressed understandings which on the one hand universalise vulnerability and, on the other, extricate specific risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Geographic atrophy (GA) is the advanced form of the non-neovascular (dry) type of age-related macular degeneration. Presently, GA cannot be treated. However, new therapies administered by intravitreal injection are in late-stage development. These can slow down, but do not stop or reverse, GA progression. The acceptability of these emerging therapies to people with GA is currently unknown. The present case study explores the perspectives of a person living with GA who took part in the terminated Phase 3 clinical trial of Lampalizumab, a candidate intravitreal treatment for GA. We explored this patient's perspective on the retrospective acceptability of regular Lampalizumab injections, and the prospective acceptability of future intravitreal therapies for GA. Patients and Methods: A 78-year-old woman living in the UK was recruited as part of a mixed-methods pilot study and interviewed by telephone, regarding: her experience of the Lampalizumab trial injections; and her thoughts regarding emerging intravitreal therapies for GA. The Framework Method was used for initial inductive analysis of the interview transcript. Subsequently, deductive analysis was undertaken, informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Results: For this participant, intravitreal injections in the Lampalizumab trial were acceptable, although streamlining processes within the clinic would have improved the patient experience. Regarding prospective acceptability of new intravitreal therapies, the participant considered a delay in progression of GA a valuable goal. Potential discomfort, anxiety and inconvenience associated with regular intravitreal injections would be acceptable in the context of preserving her vision for as long as possible. Conclusion: Analysis of one participant's experience demonstrates the value of exploring GA patients' unique views on the acceptability of new intravitreal treatments. Larger prospective studies will provide more insight that help to optimise treatment design and delivery, thereby maximising likelihood of adherence and persistence when these therapies eventually arrive in clinic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]