Search

Background We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis), aflibercept (Eylea) and bevacizumab (Avastin) for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. Methods We calculated costs and quality-adjusted life-years from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. We performed a within-trial analysis using the efficacy, safety, resource use and health utility data from a randomised controlled trial (LEAVO) over 100 weeks. We built a discrete event simulation to model long-term outcomes. We estimated utilities using the Visual-Functioning Questionnaire-Utility Index, EQ-5D and EQ-5D with an additional vision question. We used standard UK costs sources for 2018/19 and a cost of £28 per bevacizumab injection. We discounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years at 3.5% annually. Results Bevacizumab was the least costly intervention followed by ranibizumab and aflibercept in both the within-trial analysis (bevacizumab: £6292, ranibizumab: £13,014, aflibercept: £14,328) and long-term model (bevacizumab: £18,353, ranibizumab: £30,226, aflibercept: £35,026). Although LEAVO did not demonstrate bevacizumab to be non-inferior for the visual acuity primary outcome, the three interventions generated similar quality-adjusted life-years in both analyses. Bevacizumab was always the most cost-effective intervention at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, even using the list price of £243 per injection. Conclusions Wider adoption of bevacizumab for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion could result in substantial savings to healthcare systems and deliver similar health-related quality of life. However, patients, funders and ophthalmologists should be fully aware that LEAVO could not demonstrate that bevacizumab is non-inferior to the licensed agents.

Introduction: Recruitment into trials in rare chronic pain conditions can be challenging, so such trials consequently are underpowered or fail. Methods: Drawing from our experience in conducting, to date, the largest academic trial in a rare chronic pain condition, complex regional pain syndrome, we have identified recruitment and retention strategies for successful trial conduct. Results: We present 13 strategies grouped across the categories of ‘setting the recruitment rate’, ‘networking’, ‘patient information’, ‘trial management’ and ‘patient retention’. Moreover, six recruitment risks are also discussed. A conservative recruitment estimate, based on audits of newly referred patients to the trial centres without taking into account availability of ‘old’ patients or recruitment from outside centres, and assuming a 55% patient refusal rate yielded accurate numbers. Conclusion: Appreciation of these identified recruitment challenges and opportunities may contribute to supporting prospective investigators when they design clinical trials for chronic pain patient population groups where it has been historically difficult to conduct high-quality and robust clinical trials.

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

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

Background: Opioid use disorder is a chronic, debilitating, and costly disorder that has increased in prevalence in many countries, with an associated sharp rise in mortality. Maintenance opioid agonist therapy is the first-line treatment, but many patients do not stop using illicit or non-prescribed drugs concomitantly. We aimed to test the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a personalised psychosocial intervention implemented with a toolkit of behaviour-change techniques as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy. Methods: We did a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial at a specialist UK National Health Service community addictions clinic in London, UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, met criteria for opioid or cocaine dependence, or both, in the past 12 months, and voluntarily sought continued oral maintenance opioid agonist therapy, which they had been prescribed for at least 6 weeks. All participants were treatment resistant (ie, had used illicit or non-prescribed opioids or cocaine on one or more days in the past 28 days at study screening, which was verified by positive urine drug screen). Participants were allocated (1:1) by a web-accessed randomisation sequence (stratified by opioid agonist medication, current cocaine use, and current rug use) to receive a personalised psychosocial intervention (comprising a flexible toolkit of psychological-change methods, including contingency management to reinforce abstinence, recovery activities, and clinic attendance) in addition to treatment as usual, or treatment as usual only (control group). The primary outcome was treatment response at 18 weeks, which was defined as abstinence from illicit and non-prescribed opioids and cocaine in the past 28 days, as measured with treatment outcomes profiles and urine drug screening. Taking a societal cost perspective, we did an evaluation of cost-effectiveness with a wide range of willingness-to-pay values for a unit improvement in the probability of treatment response. We also calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Efficacy was analysed in a modified-intention-to-treat population, including all participants who were randomly allocated but excluding those who had previously completed the intervention. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN69313751. The trial is completed. Findings: Between June 7, 2013, and Dec 21, 2015, we randomly allocated 136 participants to the psychosocial intervention group and 137 to the control group. The trial database was locked on April 19, 2017. Three patients (one in the psychosocial intervention group and two in the control group) who were re-randomised in error were excluded from the analysis. 22 (16%) of 135 patients in the psychosocial intervention group had a treatment response, compared with nine (7%) of 135 in the control group (adjusted log odds 1·20 [95% CI 0·01–2·37]; p=0·048). The psychosocial intervention had a higher probability of being cost-effective than treatment as usual. There was a probability range of 47–87% for willingness-to-pay thresholds of £0–1000 for a unit improvement in the probability of treatment response. QALYs were higher in the psychosocial intervention group than in the control group (mean difference 0·048 [95% CI 0·016–0·080]; p=0·004) in adjusted analyses, with 60% and 67% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's willingness-to-pay thresholds of £20 000 and £30 000 per QALY, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between groups, and no severe adverse events in either group were judged to be treatment related. One participant in the control group was hospitalised with drug-injection-related sepsis and died. Interpretation: In maintenance opioid agonist therapy, an adjunctive personalised psychosocial intervention in addition to standard therapy was efficacious and cost-effective compared with standard therapy alone at helping treatment-resistant patients abstain from using illicit and non-prescribed opioids and cocaine. Funding: Indivior.

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

Aims Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF. Methods and results We randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients’ symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46–2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67–4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02). Conclusion Single procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA. Clinical Trial Registration ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688, Graphical Abstract

Background Chronic wounds are a major health burden and have a severe impact on well-being. This synthesis of qualitative studies was undertaken to inform a health technology assessment of antimicrobial wound dressings. It aimed to explore patients' experiences of chronic wounds and determine improvements for clinical practice. Method Inclusion criteria included use of qualitative methods, and English language publication. Databases searched included MEDLINE (Ovid), MEDLINE in Process (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), and PsychInfo (EBSCOHost). Searches were limited to 1990–2014. The method of analysis was Framework synthesis. Results A total of 20 studies were included. The synthesis confirmed the severe physical, social and psychological impact of the chronic wound. Inadequately controlled pain and sleeplessness, restrictions to lifestyle, and the loss of previous life roles can lead to feelings of hopelessness and helplessness and therefore depression and anxiety. Dressings and dressing changes are a key aspect of treatment and provide opportunities for positive interaction and person centred-care. Conclusion People with chronic wounds can be supported to live well within the severe physical, psychological and social restrictions of a chronic wound. Effective clinical pain management and the recognition of the experience of acute and chronic pain are of the utmost importance to people with a chronic wound. Treatment should not be purely focused on healing but incorporate symptom management, coping and wellbeing via person-centred and holistic care.

Background: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of severe sight impairment in people with diabetes. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy has been managed by panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) for the past 40 years. We report the 1 year safety and efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept. Methods: In this phase 2b, single-blind, non-inferiority trial (CLARITY), adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes and previously untreated or post-laser treated active proliferative diabetic retinopathy were recruited from 22 UK ophthalmic centres. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to repeated intravitreal aflibercept (2 mg/0·05 mL at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks, and from week 12 patients were reviewed every 4 weeks and aflibercept injections were given as needed) or PRP standard care (single spot or mutlispot laser at baseline, fractionated fortnightly thereafter, and from week 12 patients were assessed every 8 weeks and treated with PRP as needed) for 52 weeks. Randomisation was by minimisation with a web-based computer generated system. Primary outcome assessors were masked optometrists. The treating ophthalmologists and participants were not masked. The primary outcome was defined as a change in best-corrected visual acuity at 52 weeks with a linear mixed-effect model that estimated adjusted treatment effects at both 12 weeks and 52 weeks, having excluded fluctuations in best corrected visual acuity owing to vitreous haemorrhage. This modified intention-to-treat analysis was reapplied to the per protocol participants. The non-inferiority margin was prespecified as −5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. Safety was assessed in all participants. This trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number 32207582. Findings: We recruited 232 participants (116 per group) between Aug 22, 2014 and Nov 30, 2015. 221 participants (112 in aflibercept group, 109 in PRP group) contributed to the modified intention-to-treat model, and 210 participants (104 in aflibercept group and 106 in PRP group) within per protocol. Aflibercept was non-inferior and superior to PRP in both the modified intention-to-treat population (mean best corrected visual acuity difference 3·9 letters [95% CI 2·3–5·6], p

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

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

A 67-year-old woman with post-menopausal bleeding and a suspicious endocervical mass was referred to gynaecology outpatients’ for diagnosis and management. Cervical punch biopsies taken showed a benign cervical perivascular epithelioid cell tumour (PEComa), with MRI imaging and PET-CT scan indicating a 3–4 cm endocervical tumour with malignant features. The patient underwent radical hysterectomy with lymph node dissection and the surgical specimen histopathology demonstrated a residual benign PEComa and a stage IIB mesonephric adenocarcinoma (MNA) of the cervix. There is no disease recurrence 12 months after surgery. Cervical PEComas are extremely rare tumours of mesenchymal origin deriving from the perivascular epithelioid cells with only 14 cases described so far. Cervical MNAs are rare tumours originating from the remnants of the mesonephric duct of Wolff with only 40 cases reported. Our case adds to the existing literature and highlights the challenges with regard to preoperative diagnosis, treatment and prognosis.

Trial design We present a study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial that seeks to test the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a 52-week period of treatment with the first-in-class co-stimulatory blocker abatacept for preventing or delaying the onset of inflammatory arthritis. Methods The study aimed to recruit 206 male or female subjects from the secondary care hospital setting across the UK and the Netherlands. Participants who were at least 18 years old, who reported inflammatory sounding joint pain (clinically suspicious arthralgia) and who were found to be positive for serum autoantibodies associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were eligible for enrolment. All study subjects were randomly assigned to receive weekly injections of investigational medicinal product, either abatacept or placebo treatment over the course of a 52-week period. Participants were followed up for a further 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was defined as the time to development of at least three swollen joints or to the fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for RA using swollen but not tender joints, whichever endpoint was met first. In either case, swollen joints were confirmed by ultrasonography. Participants, care givers, and those assessing the outcomes were all blinded to group assignment. Clinical assessors and ultrasonographers were also blinded to each other’s assessments for the duration of the study. Conclusions There is limited experience of the design and implementation of trials for the prevention of inflammatory joint diseases. We discuss the rationale behind choice and duration of treatment and the challenges associated with defining the “at risk” state and offer pragmatic solutions in the protocol to enrolling subjects at risk of RA. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN46017566. Registered on 4 July 2014. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3403-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess 24-month outcomes of wearing an organic light-emitting sleep mask as an intervention to treat and prevent progression of non-central diabetic macular oedema.METHODS: CLEOPATRA was a phase 3, single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial undertaken at 15 ophthalmic centres in the UK. Adults with non-centre-involving diabetic macular oedema were randomly assigned (1:1) to wearing either a light mask during sleep (Noctura 400 Sleep Mask, PolyPhotonix Medical, Sedgefield, UK) or a sham (non-light) mask, for 24 months. Randomisation was by minimisation generated by a central web-based computer system. Outcome assessors were masked technicians and optometrists. The primary outcome was the change in maximum retinal thickness on optical coherence tomography (OCT) at 24 months, analysed using a linear mixed-effects model incorporating 4-monthly measurements and baseline adjustment. Analysis was done using the intention-to-treat principle in all randomised patients with OCT data. Safety was assessed in all patients. This trial is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN85596558.FINDINGS: Between April 10, 2014, and June 15, 2015, 308 patients were randomly assigned to wearing the light mask (n=155) or a sham mask (n=153). 277 patients (144 assigned the light mask and 133 the sham mask) contributed to the mixed-effects model over time, including 246 patients with OCT data at 24 months. The change in maximum retinal thickness at 24 months did not differ between treatment groups (mean change -9·2 μm [SE 2·5] for the light mask vs -12·9 μm [SE 2·9] for the sham mask; adjusted mean difference -0·65 μm, 95% CI -6·90 to 5·59; p=0·84). Median compliance with wearing the light mask at 24 months was 19·5% (IQR 1·9-51·6). No serious adverse events were related to either mask. The most frequent adverse events related to the assigned treatment were discomfort on the eyes (14 with the light mask vs seven with the sham mask), painful, sticky, or watery eyes (14 vs six), and sleep disturbance (seven vs one).INTERPRETATION: The light mask as used in this study did not confer long-term therapeutic benefit on non-centre-involving diabetic macular oedema and the study does not support its use for this indication.FUNDING: The Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

Background Panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) has been the standard of care for patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) for the last 40 years. It prevents severe visual loss in PDR but is also associated with adverse effects on visual functions. Objectives The clinical efficacy and mechanistic evaluation of aflibercept for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (CLARITY) trial evaluated the clinical efficacy, mechanisms and cost-effectiveness of intravitreal aflibercept (Eylea®, Regeneron, Tarrytown, NY, USA/Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany therapy for PDR. Design A multicentre, prospective, individually randomised, single-masked, active-controlled trial with concurrent economic evaluation that tested the non-inferiority of intravitreal aflibercept versus standard care PRP at 52 weeks. A subset of the participants enrolled in a mechanistic evaluation substudy. Setting 22 UK NHS clinical sites. Participants Patients aged at least 18 years having either treatment-naive PDR or active retinal neovascularisation (NV) despite prior PRP requiring treatment and best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 54 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters or better in the study eye were included. Eyes with evidence of macular oedema at baseline confirmed by central subfield thickness > 320 µm on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography were excluded. Intervention In the intervention arm, intravitreal aflibercept injections were given at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks and patients were subsequently reviewed every month and injected pro re nata based on the treatment response defined by degree of regression of retinal NV. In the comparator arm, PRP was completed in 2-weekly sessions and then supplemented if necessary at 8-weekly intervals. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the mean change in BCVA at 52 weeks utilising a linear mixed-effects model incorporating data from both week 12 and week 52. Results A total of 232 participants (116 per arm) were recruited between August 2014 and November 2015. A total of 221 and 210 participants contributed to the intention-to-treat (ITT) model and per-protocol (PP) analysis, respectively. Economic evaluation was undertaken on 202 participants (101 per arm) with complete cost and outcome data. Aflibercept was non-inferior and superior to PRP in both the ITT population [mean BCVA difference 3.9 letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3 to 5.6 letters; p p Limitations This study is limited to 1 year of follow-up. Conclusions At an additional cost, the study shows that intravitreal aflibercept is an effective alternative treatment option for PDR in the first year. Future work Future research is needed to evaluate the long-term benefits of aflibercept in comparison with PRP and other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents for this condition. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32207582. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and NIHR partnership. Aflibercept was supplied by Bayer Plc (Reading, UK). The study was sponsored by NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre and supported by the UK Clinical Research Network. The research was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and University College London Institute of Ophthalmology, the NIHR Moorfields Clinical Research Facility and the UK Clinical Reasearch Collaboration-registered King’s Clinical Trials Unit at King’s Health Partners, which is partly funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London.

Background Atrial fibrillation is the commonest arrhythmia which raises the risk of heart failure, thromboembolic stroke, morbidity and death. Pharmacological treatments of this condition are focused on heart rate control, rhythm control and reduction in risk of stroke. Selective ablation of cardiac tissues resulting in isolation of areas causing atrial fibrillation is another treatment strategy which can be delivered by two minimally invasive interventions: percutaneous catheter ablation and thoracoscopic surgical ablation. The main purpose of this trial is to compare the effectiveness and safety of these two interventions. Methods/design Catheter Ablation versus Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (CASA-AF) is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial within three NHS tertiary cardiovascular centres specialising in treatment of atrial fibrillation. Eligible adults (n = 120) with symptomatic, long-standing, persistent atrial fibrillation will be randomly allocated to either catheter ablation or thoracoscopic ablation in a 1:1 ratio. Pre-determined lesion sets will be delivered in each treatment arm with confirmation of appropriate conduction block. All patients will have an implantable loop recorder (ILR) inserted subcutaneously immediately following ablation to enable continuous heart rhythm monitoring for at least 12 months. The devices will be programmed to detect episodes of atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia ≥ 30 s in duration. The patients will be followed for 12 months, completing appropriate clinical assessments and questionnaires every 3 months. The ILR data will be wirelessly transmitted daily and evaluated every month for the duration of the follow-up. The primary endpoint in the study is freedom from atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia at the end of the follow-up period. Discussion The CASA-AF Trial is a National Institute for Health Research-funded study that will provide first-class evidence on the comparative efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of thoracoscopic surgical ablation and conventional percutaneous catheter ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. In addition, the results of the trial will provide information on the effects on patients’ quality of life. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN18250790. Registered on 24 April 2015. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2487-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

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

© 2017 American College of Physicians. Background: Two small trials suggest that low-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) may improve the symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a rare posttraumatic pain condition.Objective: To confirm the efficacy of low-dose IVIg compared with placebo in reducing pain during a 6-week period in adult patients who had CRPS from 1 to 5 years. Design: 1:1 parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial for 6 weeks, with an optional 6-week open extension. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study groups between 27 August 2013 and 28 October 2015; the last patient completed follow-up on 21 March 2016. Patients, providers, researchers, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. (ISRCTN42179756) Setting: 7 secondary and tertiary care pain management centers in the United Kingdom. Participants: 111 patients with moderate or severe CRPS of 1 to 5 years' duration. Intervention: IVIg, 0.5 g/kg of body weight, or visually indistinguishable placebo of 0.1% albumin in saline on days 1 and 22 after randomization. Measurements: The primary outcome was 24-hour average pain intensity, measured daily between days 6 and 42, on an 11-point (0- to 10-point) rating scale. Secondary outcomes were pain interference and quality of life. Results: The primary analysis sample consisted of 108 eligible patients, 103 of whom had outcome data. Mean (average) pain scores were 6.9 points (SD, 1.5) for placebo and 7.2 points (SD, 1.3) for IVIg. The adjusted difference in means was 0.27 (95% CI, -0.25 to 0.80; P = 0.30), which excluded the prespecified, clinically important difference of -1.2. No statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes were found between the groups. In the open extension, 12 of the 67 patients (18%) who received 2 IVIg infusions had pain reduction of at least 2 points compared with their baseline score. Two patients in the blinded phase (1 in the placebo and 1 in the IVIg group) and 4 in the open IVIg phase had serious events. Limitations: Results do not apply to patients who have had CRPS for less than 1 year or more than 5 years and do not extend to full-dose treatment (for example, 2 g/kg). The study was inadequately powered to detect subgroup effects. Conclusion: Low-dose immunoglobulin treatment for 6 weeks was not effective in relieving pain in patients with moderate to severe CRPS of 1 to 5 years' duration.Primary Funding Source: Medical Research Council/National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program, Pain Relief Foundation, and Biotest United Kingdom.

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

This randomized clinical trial compares the clinical effectiveness of intravitreal therapy with ranibizumab vs aflibercept vs bevacizumab for the management of macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion., Key Points Question Does intravitreal aflibercept or bevacizumab result in a noninferior mean change in vision at 100 weeks compared with ranibizumab for eyes with central retinal vein occlusion–related macular edema? Findings In this randomized clinical trial of 463 individuals with central retinal vein occlusion–related macular edema from 44 UK National Health Service ophthalmology departments, aflibercept treatment was noninferior (no worse than) ranibizumab treatment at 100 weeks and the results for bevacizumab vs ranibizumab were not noninferior (ie, inconclusive compared with the ranibizumab group). Meaning This is important information for ophthalmologists to consider before treating such cases., Importance The comparative clinical effectiveness of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab for the management of macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is unclear. Objective To determine whether intravitreal aflibercept or bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab results in a noninferior mean change in vision at 100 weeks for eyes with CRVO-related macular edema. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective, 3-arm, double-masked, randomized noninferiority trial (Lucentis, Eylea, Avastin in Vein Occlusion [LEAVO] Study) took place from December 12, 2014, through December 16, 2016, at 44 UK National Health Service ophthalmology departments. Inclusion criteria included age 18 years or older, visual impairment due to CRVO-related macular edema of less than 12 months with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letter score (approximate Snellen equivalent) in the study eye between 19 (20/400) and 78 (20/32), and spectral domain optical coherence tomography imaging central subfield thickness of 320 μm or greater. Data were analyzed from March 4, 2019, to April 26, 2019. Interventions Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to receive repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 mL) (n = 155), aflibercept (2.0 mg/0.05 mL) (n = 154), or bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 mL) (n = 154) for 100 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Adjusted mean change in BCVA in the study eye at 100 weeks wherein noninferiority was concluded if the lower bounds of the 95% CI of both the intention-to-treat and the per protocol analyses were above –5 letters. Results Of 463 participants, 265 (57.2%) were male, with a mean (SD) age of 69.1 (13.0) years. The mean (SD) gain in BCVA letter score was 12.5 (21.1) for ranibizumab, 15.1 (18.7) for aflibercept, and 9.8 (21.4) for bevacizumab at 100 weeks. Aflibercept was noninferior to ranibizumab (intention-to-treat–adjusted mean BCVA difference, 2.23 letters; 95% CI, –2.17 to 6.63 letters; P

Background: Repeated low-dose grass pollen intradermal allergen injection suppresses allergen-induced cutaneous late-phase responses comparably with conventional subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy. Objective: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of grass pollen intradermal immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Methods: We randomly assigned 93 adults with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis to receive 7 preseasonal intradermal allergen injections (containing 7 ng of Phl p 5 major allergen) or a histamine control. The primary end point was daily combined symptom-medication scores during the 2013 pollen season (area under the curve). Analysis was by intention to treat. Skin biopsy specimens were collected after intradermal allergen challenges, and late-phase responses were measured 4 and 7, 10, or 13 months after treatment. Results: There was no significant difference in the primary end point between treatment arms (active, n = 46; control, n = 47; median difference, 14; 95% CI, -172.5 to 215.1; P = .80). Among secondary end points, nasal symptoms were worse in the intradermal treatment group, as measured based on daily (median difference, 35; 95% CI, 4.0-67.5; P = .03) and visual analog scale (median difference, 53; 95% CI, -11.6 to 125.2; P = .05) scores. In a per-protocol analysis intradermal immunotherapy was further associated with worse asthma symptoms and fewer symptom-free days. Intradermal immunotherapy increased serum Phleum pratense-specific IgE levels (P = .001) compared with those in the control arm. T cells cultured from biopsy specimens of subjects undergoing intradermal immunotherapy had higher expression of the TH2 surface marker CRTH2 (P = .04) and lower expression of the TH1 marker CXCR3 (P = .01), respectively. Late-phase responses remained inhibited 7 months after treatment (P = .03). Conclusion: Intradermal allergen immunotherapy suppressed skin late-phase responses but was not clinically effective and resulted in worsening of respiratory allergic symptoms.

Background Eyes sustaining open globe trauma are at high risk of severe visual impairment. Ocular injuries which result in visual loss invariably affect the posterior segment of the eye, and prevention of visual loss involves posterior segment (vitreoretinal) surgery. Despite improvements in vitreoretinal surgical techniques, outcomes in these patients remain unsatisfactory, and development of the intraocular scarring response proliferative vitreoretinopathy is the leading cause. Proliferative vitreoretinopathy is the most common cause of recurrent retinal detachment in these eyes; it is reported to occur in up to 45 % of cases. Methods/design The Adjunctive Steroid Combination in Ocular Trauma (ASCOT) trial is a multi-centre, double-masked, parallel-arm randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot designed to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using intravitreal and sub-Tenon’s triamcinolone acetonide peri-operatively in patients undergoing vitrectomy following open globe trauma. In total, 300 eyes of 300 patients will be recruited and randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups. Both groups will receive standard surgical treatment and routine pre-operative and post-operative treatment and care. The treatment group will receive an adjunctive peri-operative steroid combination (triamcinolone acetonide) consisting of 4 mg/0.1 ml into the vitreous cavity and 40 mg/1 ml into the sub-Tenon’s space. The trial incorporates a two-stage internal pilot to examine projected recruitment and retention rates. Progression criteria from the internal pilot study will enable us to determine whether to undertake the main trial. Patients and primary outcome assessors will be masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome will be an improvement from baseline to 6 months of at least 10 on the corrected visual acuity as measured by ETDRS letter score. Secondary outcomes will be development of scarring, retinal detachment, intraocular pressure abnormalities, quality of life and public sector service use. Discussion This is the first powered, controlled clinical trial to investigate the use of adjunctive triamcinolone in patients undergoing vitrectomy following open globe trauma. Trial registration EudraCT2014-002193-37. Registered on 5 September 2014. ISRCTN30012492. Registered on 5 September 2014. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1445-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background In adults with intellectual disability (ID) and epilepsy there are suggestions that improvements in management may follow introduction of epilepsy nurse-led care. However, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial and results cannot be generalised from general population studies as epilepsy tends to be more severe and to involve additional clinical comorbidities in adults with ID. This trial investigates whether nurses with expertise in epilepsy and ID, working proactively to a clinically defined role, can improve clinical and quality of life outcomes in the management of epilepsy within this population, compared to treatment as usual. The trial also aims to establish whether any perceived benefits represent good value for money. Methods/design The EpAID clinical trial is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of nurse-led epilepsy management versus treatment as usual. This trial aims to obtain follow-up data from 320 participants with ID and drug-resistant epilepsy. Participants are randomly assigned either to a ‘treatment as usual’ control or a ‘defined epilepsy nurse role’ active arm, according to the cluster site at which they are treated. The active intervention utilises the recently developed Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework for adults with ID. Participants undergo 4 weeks of baseline data collection, followed by a minimum of 20 weeks intervention (novel treatment or treatment as usual), followed by 4 weeks of follow-up data collection. The primary outcome is seizure severity, including associated injuries and the level of distress manifest by the patient in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include cost-utility analysis, carer strain, seizure frequency and side effects. Descriptive measures include demographic and clinical descriptors of participants and clinical services in which they receive their epilepsy management. Qualitative study of clinical interactions and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and participants’ carers are also undertaken. Discussion The EpAID clinical trial is the first cluster randomised controlled trial to test possible benefits of a nurse-led intervention in adults with epilepsy and ID. This research will have important implications for ID and epilepsy services. The challenges of undertaking such a trial in this population, and the approaches to meeting these are discussed. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN96895428 version 1.1. Registered on 26 March 2013. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1429-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Antimicrobial wound dressings (AWDs) may not consistently be used effectively. The authors aimed to explore what patients want from AWDs and their experiences of them. Methods: Healthcare Improvement Scotland undertook a health technology assessment (HTA) on the use of AWDs in chronic wounds. A focus group (n=8) and six telephone interviews were carried out. The data were analysed thematically. Results: The participants were generally positive about AWDs. Some felt that access to AWDS was unjustifiably restricted because of costs. Participants reported wanting to try anything to heal their wound, or to control the symptoms. There was no one preferred AWD; what worked well for one person did not necessarily work for others. Patients experienced inconsistent access to AWDs, leading to frustration. Conclusion: Clinicians lack clear guidelines on the use of AWDs, which is resulting in inconsistency and increased burden for patients. Recommendations for the use of AWDs are given in the HTA, which is available on Healthcare Improvement Scotland's website.

INTRODUCTION:As the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) community moves towards greater levels of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), the need to communicate with the public about the results and impact of HTA, and of PPI itself, is also increasing. DECIDE was a European Commission funded collaborative project arising from the GRADE working group, which developed and evaluated strategies for effectively communicating the recommendations from clinical guidelines to a multiple stakeholders. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) led the work stream on patients and the public (1, 2). We extended the findings to develop a patient/public version of an HTA on Antimicrobial Wound Dressings (AWDs). The clinical and cost effectiveness evidence was inconclusive (3) which increased the importance of engagement with clinical and patient/public stakeholders.METHODS:A literature review, and a series of focus groups and user testing informed the development of a set of principles for designing patient versions of guidelines (1,2). Using these principles developed by the DECIDE collaboration, a patient version of the HTA was developed, in partnership with public volunteers and a standing public communications advisory group.RESULTS:We incorporated key facilitators of usability, such as distinct branding as material for the public, a clearly communicated purpose, and the layering of information. Other facilitators included a “friendly” and accessible tone which was achieved by the use of colour, icons, simple language and charts, and brief chunked text. While feedback about clarity, design and usefulness was generally positive, some public reviewers were concerned by the level of uncertainty and complexity in the findings.CONCLUSIONS:Using the principles from the DECIDE project, it is feasible and useful to develop public versions of an HTA report. The patient version is currently informing the development of educational material for patients/public about chronic wounds and AWDs by the Scottish Government. However, it remains a challenge to balance the complexity and uncertainty underlying evidence-based recommendations, with the need to provide accessible, understandable, and yet accurate information about them for the public.

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

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and lethal of all gliomas. The current standard of care includes surgery followed by concomitant radiation and chemotherapy with the DNA alkylating agent temozolomide (TMZ). O⁶-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) repairs the most cytotoxic of lesions generated by TMZ, O⁶-methylguanine. Methylation of the MGMT promoter in GBM correlates with increased therapeutic sensitivity to alkylating agent therapy. However, several aspects of TMZ sensitivity are not explained by MGMT promoter methylation. Here, we investigated our hypothesis that the base excision repair enzyme alkylpurine-DNA-N-glycosylase (APNG), which repairs the cytotoxic lesions N³-methyladenine and N⁷-methylguanine, may contribute to TMZ resistance. Silencing of APNG in established and primary TMZ-resistant GBM cell lines endogenously expressing MGMT and APNG attenuated repair of TMZ-induced DNA damage and enhanced apoptosis. Reintroducing expression of APNG in TMZ-sensitive GBM lines conferred resistance to TMZ in vitro and in orthotopic xenograft mouse models. In addition, resistance was enhanced with coexpression of MGMT. Evaluation of APNG protein levels in several clinical datasets demonstrated that in patients, high nuclear APNG expression correlated with poorer overall survival compared with patients lacking APNG expression. Loss of APNG expression in a subset of patients was also associated with increased APNG promoter methylation. Collectively, our data demonstrate that APNG contributes to TMZ resistance in GBM and may be useful in the diagnosis and treatment of the disease.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) involves ongoing intravitreal injections of anti-angiogenic drugs targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). The most commonly used anti-VEGF drugs are ranibizumab, bevacizumab and aflibercept. The main objective of the STAR trial is to determine if stereotactic radiotherapy can reduce the number of anti-VEGF injections that patients with nAMD require.METHODS/DESIGN: STAR is a multicentre, double-masked, randomised, sham-controlled clinical trial. It evaluates a new device (manufactured by Oraya, Newark, CA, USA) designed to deliver stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) to nAMD lesions. The trial enrols participants with chronic, active nAMD. Participants receive a single SRT treatment (16 Gy or sham) with a concomitant baseline intravitreal injection of 0.5 mg ranibizumab. Thereafter, they attend every month for 24 months, and ranibizumab is administered at the visit if retreatment criteria are met. The primary outcome is the number of pro re nata ranibizumab injections during the first 24 months. Secondary outcomes include visual acuity, lesion morphology, quality of life and safety. Additional visits occur at 36 and 48 months to inspect for radiation retinopathy. The target sample size of 411 participants (randomised 2:1 in favour of radiation) is designed to detect a reduction of 2.5 injections against ranibizumab monotherapy, at 90% power, and a significance level (alpha) of 0.025 (one-sided two-sample t test). This gives 97% power to detect non-inferiority of visual acuity at a five-letter margin. The primary analyses will be by intention to treat.DISCUSSION: The safety and efficacy outcomes will help determine the role of SRT in the management of chronic, active nAMD.TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN12884465. Registered on 28 November 2014. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02243878 . Registered on 17 September 2014.