Search

The ACROBAT pilot trial of early cryoprecipitate for severe postpartum haemorrhage used deferred consent procedures. Pretrial discussions with a patient and public involvement group found mixed views towards deferred consent. This study aimed to build an understanding of how the deferred consent procedures worked in practice, to inform plans for a full-scale trial.Qualitative interview study within a cluster-randomised pilot trial, involving four London maternity services.Individual interviews were conducted postnatally with 10 women who had received blood transfusion for severe postpartum haemorrhage and had consented to the trial. We also interviewed four 'recruiters'-two research midwives and two clinical trials practitioners who conducted trial recruitment.Consent procedures in the ACROBAT pilot trial were generally acceptable and the intervention was viewed as low risk, but most women did not remember much about the consent conversation. As per trial protocol, recruiters sought to consent women before hospital discharge, but this time pressure had to be balanced against the need to ensure women were not approached when distressed or very unwell. Extra efforts had to be made to communicate trial information to women due to the exhaustion of their recovery and competing demands for their attention. Participant information was further complicated by explanations about the cluster design and change in transfusion process, even though the consent sought was for access to medical data.Our findings indicate that deferred consent procedures raise similar concerns as taking consent when emergency obstetric research is occurring-that is, the risk that participants may conflate research with clinical care, and that their ability to process trial information may be impacted by the stressful nature of recovery and newborn care. A future trial may support more meaningful informed consent by extending the window of consent discussion and ensuring trial information is minimal and easy to understand.ISRCTN12146519.

IntroductionWomen with gestational diabetes are at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes later in life. In at-risk general populations, Mediterranean-style diet helps prevent type 2 diabetes. But its effect on postnatal women with a history of gestational diabetes is not known. Prior to a full-scale trial on Mediterranean-style diet in the postnatal period to prevent type 2 diabetes, a feasibility study is required to assess the acceptability of the diet and evaluate the trial processes.Methods and analysisMEditerranean diet for pReventIon of type 2 diabeTes is a single-arm feasibility study (65 women) with qualitative evaluation of women who have recently given birth and had gestational diabetes. The intervention is a Mediterranean-style diet supplemented with nuts and olive oil, with dietary advice and an action plan. A dedicated Health Coach will interact with participants through an interactive lifestyle App. Women will follow the intervention from 6 to 13 weeks post partum until 1 year post partum. The primary outcomes are rates of recruitment, follow-up, adherence and attrition. The secondary outcomes are maternal dysglycaemia, cost and quality of life outcomes, and acceptability of the intervention to participants, and to healthcare professionals delivering the intervention. Feasibility outcomes will be reported using descriptive statistics.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained through the South Central—Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0064). Study findings will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals, as well as via newsletters made available to participants and members of Katie’s Team (a women’s health patient and public advisory group).Trial registration numberISRCTN40582975.

Objectives To test two methods for reporting of fecal incontinence (FI) in people with inflammatory bowel disease. Methods Consecutive patients from IBD clinics in six UK hospitals completed a short three-item case-finding survey about FI; they either completed the survey themselves or were asked the same questions face to face by a clinician. Results Of 1336 eligible patients with complete data (48% male; mean 43 years; 55% Crohn’s disease, 41% ulcerative colitis), 772 were asked about FI face to face, and 564 self-completed the survey: FI was reported in 63% and 56%, respectively (p = 0.012). In regression analyses, those aged 51–60, having Crohn’s disease and higher disease activity, were more likely to report FI. Of all respondents, 38.7% were interested in receiving help for their incontinence. Conclusions Fecal incontinence affects the majority of people with IBD. Although more patients reported fecal incontinence when asked face to face than self-reported, routine screening by either method in clinical practice is recommended. Over one-third of patients with IBD want help for bowel control problems.

Background Data collection consumes a large proportion of clinical trial resources. Each data item requires time and effort for collection, processing and quality control procedures. In general, more data equals a heavier burden for trial staff and participants. It is also likely to increase costs. Knowing the types of data being collected, and in what proportion, will be helpful to ensure that limited trial resources and participant goodwill are used wisely. Aim The aim of this study is to categorise the types of data collected across a broad range of trials and assess what proportion of collected data each category represents. Methods We developed a standard operating procedure to categorise data into primary outcome, secondary outcome and 15 other categories. We categorised all variables collected on trial data collection forms from 18, mainly publicly funded, randomised superiority trials, including trials of an investigational medicinal product and complex interventions. Categorisation was done independently in pairs: one person having in-depth knowledge of the trial, the other independent of the trial. Disagreement was resolved through reference to the trial protocol and discussion, with the project team being consulted if necessary. Key results Primary outcome data accounted for 5.0% (median)/11.2% (mean) of all data items collected. Secondary outcomes accounted for 39.9% (median)/42.5% (mean) of all data items. Non-outcome data such as participant identifiers and demographic data represented 32.4% (median)/36.5% (mean) of all data items collected. Conclusion A small proportion of the data collected in our sample of 18 trials was related to the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes accounted for eight times the volume of data as the primary outcome. A substantial amount of data collection is not related to trial outcomes. Trialists should work to make sure that the data they collect are only those essential to support the health and treatment decisions of those whom the trial is designed to inform.

IntroductionThe incidence of severe postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) that requires blood transfusion is on the increase. Fibrinogen levels have been shown to drop early and significantly during PPH, which is associated with worse outcomes. Early fibrinogen replacement could potentially improve outcomes. No studies have investigated the clinical impact of early cryoprecipitate transfusion in PPH. Prior to performing a full-scale trial, a pilot study is needed to determine feasibility of the intervention and recruitment.MethodsACROBAT is a cluster-randomised pilot study with a qualitative evaluation. Four large London maternity units are randomised to either the intervention or control group. The intervention group will adapt their major obstetric haemorrhage procedures to administer cryoprecipitate early for primary PPH. The control group will retain their standard of care.We include women at >24 weeks gestation who are actively bleeding within 24 hours of delivery and for whom transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs) has been started. We exclude women who decline blood transfusions in advance or have inherited Factor XIII or fibrinogen deficiency. Due to the emergency nature of the intervention, informed consent for administering the intervention is waived.The primary objective is to assess the feasibility of administering cryoprecipitate within 90 min of RBC request, as compared with standard treatment where cryoprecipitate is given later or not at all. Secondary objectives include the feasibility of recruitment and data collection, reasons for and barriers to consent, preliminary maternal clinical outcomes, identification of the optimal infrastructure pathways for study delivery, and acceptability of the intervention and outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has approvals from the London—Brighton & Sussex Research Ethics Committee (ref. 18/LO/2062), the Confidentiality Advisory Group (ref. 18/CAG/0199) and Health Research Authority (IRAS number 237959). Data analysis and publication of manuscripts will start in Q3 2020.Trial registration numberISRCTN12146519.

IntroductionUp to half of all women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus develop type 2 diabetes within 5 years after delivery. Metformin is effective in preventing type 2 diabetes in high-risk non-pregnant individuals, but its effect when commenced in the postnatal period is not known. We plan to assess the feasibility of evaluating metformin versus placebo in minimising the risk of dysglycaemia including type 2 diabetes after delivery in postnatal women with a history of gestational diabetes through a randomised trial.Methods and analysisOptimising health outcomes with Metformin to prevent diAbetes After pregnancy (OMAhA) is a multicentre placebo-controlled double-blind randomised feasibility trial, where we will randomly allocate 160 postnatal women with gestational diabetes treated with medication to either metformin (intervention) or placebo (control) tablets to be taken until 1 year after delivery. The primary outcomes are rates of recruitment, randomisation, adherence and attrition. The secondary outcomes are maternal dysglycaemia, cost and quality of life outcomes in both arms, and acceptability of the study and intervention, which will be evaluated through a nested qualitative study. Feasibility outcomes will be summarised using descriptive statistics, point estimates and 95% CIs.Ethics and disseminationThe OMAhA study received ethics approval from the London-Brent Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0505). Trial findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated at conferences, through our Patient and Public Involvement advisory group (Katie’s Team) and through social media platforms.Trial registration numberISRCTN20930880

Background: Subfertility is a common problem for which in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment is commonly recommended. Success rates following IVF are suboptimal and have remained static over the last few years. This imposes a considerable financial burden on overstretched healthcare resources. Time-lapse imaging (TLI) of developing embryos in IVF treatment is hypothesised to improve the success rates of treatment. This may be either by providing undisturbed culture conditions or by improving the predictive accuracy for optimal embryo selection from a cohort of available embryos. However, the current best evidence for its effectiveness is inconclusive. Methods: The time-lapse imaging trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, three-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial using re-randomisation. The primary objective of the trial is to determine if the use of TLI or undisturbed culture in IVF treatment results in a higher live birth rate when compared to current standard methods of embryo incubation and assessment. Secondary outcomes include measures of clinical efficacy and safety. The trial will randomise 1575 participants to detect an increase in live birth from 26.5 to 35.25%. Discussion: In the absence of high-quality evidence, there is no current national guidance, recommendation or policy for the use of TLI. The use of TLI is not consistently incorporated into standard IVF care. A large, pragmatic, multi-centre, trial will provide much needed definitive evidence regarding the effectiveness of TLI. If proven to be effective, its incorporation into standard care would translate into significant clinical and economic benefits. If not, it would allow allocation of resources to more effective interventions., Barts Charity, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Health and Medical Research Fund, Food and Health Bureau, The Government of Hong Kong SAR 07180566

The EMmY trial is sponsored by Queen Mary University of London and funded by Barts Charity, grant number MGU0373. EP and AH are also supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research at Barts Health NHS Foundation Trust (NIHR ARC North Thames). KSK is distinguished investigator funded by the Beatriz Galindo (senior modality) grant to the University of Granada by the Spanish Ministry of Education., Objectives To determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomised trial on the effects of myo-inositol in preventing gestational diabetes in high-risk pregnant women. Design A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot randomised trial with nested qualitative evaluation. Setting Five inner city UK National Health Service hospitals Participants Multiethnic pregnant women at 12+0 and 15+6 weeks’ gestation with risk factors for gestational diabetes. Interventions 2 g of myo-inositol or placebo, both included 200 μg folic acid, twice daily until delivery. Primary outcome measures Rates of recruitment, randomisation, adherence and follow-up. Secondary outcome measures Glycaemic indices (including homoeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance HOMA-IR), gestational diabetes (diagnosed using oral glucose tolerance test at 28 weeks and by delivery), maternal, perinatal outcomes, acceptability of intervention and costs. Results Of the 1326 women screened, 58% (773/1326) were potentially eligible, and 27% (205/773) were recruited. We randomised 97% (198/205) of all recruited women (99 each in intervention and placebo arms) and ascertained outcomes in 90% of women (178/198) by delivery. The mean adherence was 52% (SD 44) at 28 weeks’ and 34% (SD 41) at 36 weeks’ gestation. HOMA-IR and serum insulin levels were lower in the myo-inositol vs placebo arm (mean difference −0.6, 95% CI −1.2 to 0.0 and −2.69, 95% CI −5.26 to −0.18, respectively). The study procedures were acceptable to women and healthcare professionals. Women who perceived themselves at high risk of gestational diabetes were more likely to participate and adhere to the intervention. The powder form of myo-inositol and placebo, along with nausea in pregnancy were key barriers to adherence. Conclusions A future trial on myo-inositol versus placebo to prevent gestational diabetes is feasible. The intervention will need to be delivered in a non-powder form to improve adherence. There is a signal for efficacy in reducing insulin resistance in pregnancy with myo-inositol., Queen Mary University of London, Barts Charity MGU0373, NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research at Barts Health NHS Foundation Trust (NIHR ARC North Thames), University of Granada by the Spanish Ministry of Education

Katie’s Team is funded by a grant from the Centre for Public Engagement Queen Mary University of London.

Importance The value of facedown positioning following surgery for large full-thickness macular holes is unknown. Objective To determine whether advice to position facedown postoperatively improves the outcome for large macular holes. Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized, parallel group superiority trial with 1:1 randomization stratified by site with 3 months’ follow-up was conducted at 9 sites across the United Kingdom and included participants with an idiopathic full-thickness macular hole of at least 400 μm minimum linear diameter and a duration of fewer than 12 months. All participants had vitrectomy surgery with peeling of the internal limiting membrane and injection of perfluoropropane (14%) gas, with or without simultaneous surgery for cataract. Interventions Following surgery, participants were randomly advised to position either facedown or face forward for 8 hours daily for 5 days. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was closure of the macular hole determined 3 months following surgery by masked optical coherence tomography evaluation. Secondary outcome measures at 3 months were visual acuity, participant-reported experience of positioning, and quality of life measured by the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25. Results A total of 185 participants (45 men [24.3%]; 156 white [84.3%]; 9 black [4.9%]; 10 Asian [5.4%]; median age, 69 years [interquartile range, 64-73 years]) were randomized. Macular hole closure was observed in 90 (85.6%) who were advised to position face forward and 88 (95.5%) advised to position facedown (adjusted odds ratio, 3.15; 95% CI, 0.87-11.41;P = .08). The mean (SD) improvement in best-corrected visual acuity at 3 months was 0.34 (0.69) logMAR (equivalent to 1 Snellen line) in the face-forward group and 0.57 (0.42) logMAR (equivalent to 3 Snellen lines) in the facedown group (adjusted mean difference, 0.22 [95 % CI, 0.05-0.38]; equivalent to 2 Snellen lines); 95% CI, 0.05-0.38;P = .01). The median National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25 score was 89 (interquartile range, 76-94) in the facedown group and 87 (interquartile range, 73-93) in the face-forward group (mean [SD] change on a logistic scale, 0.08 [0.26] face forward and 0.11 [0.25] facedown; adjusted mean [SD] difference on a logistic scale, 0.02; 95% CI, −0.03 to 0.07;P = .41). Conclusions and Relevance The results do not prove that facedown positioning following surgery is more likely to close large macular holes compared with facing forward but do support the possibility that visual acuity outcomes may be superior. Trial Registration Isrctn.org Identifier: 12410596

BackgroundCaesarean section is associated with blood loss and maternal morbidity. Excessive blood loss requires transfusion of donor (allogeneic) blood, which is a finite resource. Cell salvage returns blood lost during surgery to the mother. It may avoid the need for donor blood transfusion, but reliable evidence of its effects is lacking.ObjectivesTo determine if routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section in mothers at risk of haemorrhage reduces the rates of blood transfusion and postpartum maternal morbidity, and is cost-effective, in comparison with standard practice without routine salvage use.DesignIndividually randomised controlled, multicentre trial with cost-effectiveness analysis. Treatment was not blinded.SettingA total of 26 UK obstetric units.ParticipantsOut of 3054 women recruited between June 2013 and April 2016, we randomly assigned 3028 women at risk of haemorrhage to cell salvage or routine care. Randomisation was stratified using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. Of these, 1672 had emergency and 1356 had elective caesareans. We excluded women for whom cell salvage or donor blood transfusion was contraindicated.InterventionsCell salvage (intervention) versus routine care without salvage (control). In the intervention group, salvage was set up in 95.6% of the women and, of these, 50.8% had salvaged blood returned. In the control group, 3.9% had salvage deployed.Main outcome measuresPrimary – donor blood transfusion. Secondary – units of donor blood transfused, time to mobilisation, length of hospitalisation, mean fall in haemoglobin, fetomaternal haemorrhage (FMH) measured by Kleihauer–Betke test, and maternal fatigue. Analyses were adjusted for stratification factors and other factors that were believed to be prognostic a priori. Cost-effectiveness outcomes – costs of resources and service provision taking the UK NHS perspective.ResultsWe analysed 1498 and 1492 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Overall, the transfusion rate was 2.5% in the intervention group and 3.5% in the control group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.01;p = 0.056]. In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 3.0% in the intervention group and 4.6% in the control group among emergency caesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 1.8% in the intervention group and 2.2% in the control group among elective caesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interactionp = 0.46, suggesting that the difference in effect between subgroups was not statistically significant). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups, except for FMH, which was higher under salvage in rhesus D (RhD)-negative women with RhD-positive babies (25.6% vs. 10.5%, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14;p = 0.013). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The additional cost of routine cell salvage during caesarean was estimated, on average, at £8110 per donor blood transfusion avoided.ConclusionsThe modest evidence for an effect of routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section on rates of donor blood transfusion was associated with increased FMH, which emphasises the need for adherence to guidance on anti-D prophylaxis. We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects. Based on the findings of this trial, cell salvage is unlikely to be considered cost-effective.Future workResearch into risk of alloimmunisation among women exposed to cell salvage is needed.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN66118656.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing popularity of mixed-methods studies and considerable emphasis on the potential value of qualitative research to the trial endeavour, there remains a dearth of published studies reporting on actual contribution. This paper presents a critically reflective account of our experience of the actual value of undertaking qualitative research alongside a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a guided e-learning intervention for managers in an NHS Mental Health Trust to improve employee wellbeing and reduce sickness absence. For the qualitative study we undertook 36 in-depth interviews with key informants, managers and employees. We observed and took in-depth field notes of 10 meetings involving managers and employees at the Trust, and the two qualitative researchers acted as participant observers at steering committee and monthly research team meetings. We adopted a narrative methodological orientation alongside a thematic approach to data analysis, eliciting a rich account of the complexities of managing stress at work.RESULTS: We identified two key overarching roles played by the qualitative research: 'problematising' and 'contextualising'. Specifically, the qualitative data revealed and challenged assumptions embedded in the trial about the nature of the learning process, and exposed the slippery and contested nature of abstracted variables, on which a trial depends. The qualitative data challenged the trial's logic model, and provided a rich understanding of the context within which the trial and intervention took place.CONCLUSIONS: While acknowledging the ever-present tension in mixed-methods research between the requirements of quantitative research to represent the social world as abstracted variables, and the goal of qualitative research to explore and document the complexity of social phenomena, we adopted a pragmatic position that enabled us to engage with this tension in a productive and partially integrative way. Our critically reflective account of the praxis of integration illuminated opportunities and challenges for maximising the value of qualitative research to a trial. This paper sets out tangible illustrative lessons for other mixed-methods researchers endeavouring to get the most from qualitative research.TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered as ISRCTN58661009 . Registration was submitted on 22 April 2013 and completed on 17 June 2013.

BackgroundPsychosocial work environments influence employee well-being. There is a need for an evaluation of organisational-level interventions to modify psychosocial working conditions and hence employee well-being.ObjectiveTo test the acceptability of the trial and the intervention, the feasibility of recruitment and adherence to and likely effectiveness of the intervention within separate clusters of an organisation.DesignMixed methods: pilot cluster randomised controlled trial and qualitative study (in-depth interviews, focus group and observation).ParticipantsEmployees and managers of a NHS trust. Inclusion criteria were the availability of sickness absence data and work internet access. Employees on long-term sick leave and short-term contracts and those with a notified pregnancy were excluded.InterventionE-learning program for managers based on management standards over 10 weeks, guided by a facilitator and accompanied by face-to-face meetings. Three clusters were randomly allocated to receive the guided e-learning intervention; a fourth cluster acted as a control.Main outcome measuresRecruitment and participation of employees and managers; acceptability of the intervention and trial; employee subjective well-being using the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS); and feasibility of collecting sickness absence data.ResultsIn total, 424 employees out of 649 approached were recruited and 41 managers out of 49 were recruited from the three intervention clusters. Of those consenting, 350 [83%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 79% to 86%] employees completed the baseline assessment and 291 (69%, 95% CI 64% to 73%) completed the follow-up questionnaires. Sickness absence data were available from human resources for 393 (93%, 95% CI 90% to 95%) consenting employees. In total, 21 managers adhered to the intervention, completing at least three of the six modules. WEMWBS scores fell slightly in all groups, from 50.4 to 49.0 in the control group and from 51.0 to 49.9 in the intervention group. The overall intervention effect was 0.5 (95% CI –3.2 to 4.2). The fall in WEMWBS score was significantly less among employees whose managers adhered to the intervention than among those employees whose managers did not (–0.7 vs. 1.6, with an adjusted difference of 1.6, 95% CI 0.1 to 3.2). The intervention and trial were acceptable to managers, although our study raises questions about the widely used concept of ‘acceptability’. Managers reported insufficient time to engage with the intervention and lack of senior management ‘buy-in’. It was thought that the intervention needed better integration into organisational processes and practice.ConclusionsThe mixed-methods approach proved valuable in illuminating reasons for the trial findings, for unpacking processes of implementation and for understanding the influence of study context. We conclude from the results of our pilot study that further mixed-methods research evaluating the intervention and study design is needed. We found that it is feasible to carry out an economic evaluation of the intervention. We plan a further mixed-methods study to re-evaluate the intervention boosted with additional elements to encourage manager engagement and behaviour change in private and public sector organisations with greater organisational commitment.Study registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN58661009.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Public Health Research programme and will be published in full inPublic Health Research; Vol. 3, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

To determine the efficacy, impact on quality-of-life (QoL) and tolerability of two different irinotecan administration schedules in combination with capecitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.We carried out a randomized phase II trial to select one of the following treatment regimens for further investigation: weekly irinotecan at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 (arm A) or 3-weekly irinotecan at a dose of 300/240 mg/m(2) day 1 and days 22 (arm B) in combination with capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily days 1-14 and days 22-35 every 6 weeks.Seventy-five patients with good performance status entered the trial. The two arms were well balanced for relevant patient and disease characteristics. The most frequent toxic effects were grade 3/4 diarrhea (arm A: 34%, B: 19%), grade 3/4 neutropenia (A: 5%, B: 19%) and grade 2/3 alopecia (A: 26%, B: 65%). Other grade 3/4 toxic effects were rare (5%). Response rates were 34% [95% confidence interval (CI) 20% to 51%] in arm A and 35% (95% CI: 20% to 53%) in arm B. Median time to progression was 6.9 (4.6-10.1) and 9.2 (7.9-11.5) months and median overall survival was 17.4 (12.6-23.0+) and 24.7 (16.3-26.4+) months. Patients with an objective tumor response reported better physical well-being (P0.01), mood (P0.05), functional performance (P0.05) and less effort to cope (P0.05) compared with the non-responders and stable disease patients.The primary end point of this study was the objective response rate and based on the statistical design of the trial, the 3-weekly irinotecan schedule was selected over weekly irinotecan administration. The 3-weekly irinotecan schedule also seemed advantageous in terms of grade 3/4 diarrhea, time to progression, overall survival and patient convenience, but the study was not designed to detect differences in these parameters. In addition, tumor response was shown to have a beneficial effect on QoL indicators.

Objective Excessive haemorrhage at caesarean section requires the use of donor (allogeneic) blood transfusion. The SALVO trial assessed whether the routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section can reduce the need for donor blood transfusion. Study Design We conducted a randomised controlled trial (26 UK obstetric units; June 2013 through April 2016) of routine cell salvage use (intervention) vs. current standard of care without routine salvage use (control) in caesarean section among women at risk of haemorrhage. We used multivariable models, adjusting for stratification variables and prognostic factors identified a priori, to compare rates of donor blood transfusion (primary outcome) and fetomaternal haemorrhage ≥2ml in RhD-negative women with RhD-positive baby (one of the secondary outcomes) between groups. Results Of 3028 women randomised, 2990 were analysed (after exclusions for vaginal delivery or hospital transfer after randomisation). Of 1498 assigned to intervention, 95.6% had cell salvage deployed (50.8% had salvaged blood returned; mean 259.9 ml) vs. 3.9% of 1492 assigned to control. Donor blood transfusion rates were lower in the intervention group than in control (2.5% vs. 3.5%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 1.01). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. Fetomaternal haemorrhage was higher with intervention vs. control (25.6% vs. 10.5%, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14). Conclusion There was modest evidence for an effect of routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section on donor blood transfusion. The increased fetomaternal haemorrhage emphasises the need for adherence to guidance on anti-D prophylaxis and for research on risks of alloimmunisation to RhD and other red cell antigens following cell salvage. (Funder: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, ISRCTN66118656).

BACKGROUND: To determine the activity and tolerability of adding cetuximab to the oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) combination in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter two-arm phase II trial, patients were randomized to receive oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks alone or in combination with standard dose cetuximab. Treatment was limited to a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients with good performance status entered the trial. Objective partial response rates after external review and radiological confirmation were 14% and 41% in the XELOX and in the XELOX + Cetuximab arm, respectively. Stable disease has been observed in 62% and 35% of the patients, with 76% disease control in both arms. Cetuximab led to skin rash in 65% of the patients. The median overall survival was 16.5 months for arm A and 20.5 months for arm B. The median time to progression was 5.8 months for arm A and 7.2 months for arm B. CONCLUSION: Differences in response rates between the treatment arms indicate that cetuximab may improve outcome with XELOX. The correct place of the cetuximab, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combinations in first-line treatment of MCC has to be assessed in phase III trials.