Rationale and design of a randomised trial of trientine in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

AIMS: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is characterised by left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), myocardial fibrosis, enhanced oxidative stress and energy depletion. Unbound/loosely bound tissue copper II ions are powerful catalysts of oxidative stress and inhibitors of antioxidants. Trientine is a highly selective copper II chelator. In preclinical and clinical studies in diabetes, trientine is associated with reduced LVH and fibrosis, and improved mitochondrial function and energy metabolism. Trientine was associated with improvements in cardiac structure and function in an open-label study in patients with HCM. METHODS: The Efficacy and Mechanism of Trientine in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (TEMPEST) trial is a multicentre, double-blind, parallel group, 1:1 randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and mechanism of action of trientine in patients with HCM. Patients with a diagnosis of HCM according to the European Society of Cardiology Guidelines and in New York Heart Association classes I-III are randomised to trientine or matching placebo for 52 weeks. Primary outcome is change in left ventricular (LV) mass indexed to body surface area, measured using cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Secondary efficacy objectives will determine whether trientine improves exercise capacity, reduces arrhythmia burden, reduces cardiomyocyte injury, improves LV and atrial function, and reduces LV outflow tract gradient. Mechanistic objectives will determine whether the effects are mediated by cellular or extracellular mass regression and improved myocardial energetics. CONCLUSION: TEMPEST will determine the efficacy and mechanism of action of trientine in patients with HCM. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04706429 and ISRCTN57145331.

Humidified and standard oxygen therapy in acute severe asthma in children (HUMOX): A pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen (O2) is a mainstay of treatment in acute severe asthma but how it is administered varies widely. The objectives were to examine whether a trial comparing humidified O2 to standard O2 in children is feasible, and specifically to obtain data on recruitment, tolerability and outcome measure stability. METHODS: Heated humidified, cold humidified and standard O2 treatments were compared for children (2-16 years) with acute severe asthma in a multi-centre, open, parallel, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT). Multiple outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 258 children screened, 66 were randomised (heated humidified O2 n = 25; cold humidified O2 n = 21; standard O2 n = 20). Median (IQR) length of stay (hours) in hospital was 37.9 (29.1), 52 (35.4) and 49.1 (29.7) for standard, heated humidified and cold humidified respectively and time (hours) on O2 was 15.9 (9.4), 13.6 (14.9) and 13.1 (14.9) for the three groups respectively. The mean (standard deviation) time (hours) taken to step down nebulised to inhaled treatment was 5.6 (14.3), 35.1 (28.2) and 32.7 (20.1). Asthma Severity Score decreased in all three groups similarly, although missing data prevented complete analysis. Humidified O2 was least well tolerated with eight participants discontinuing their randomised treatment early. An important barrier to recruitment was research nurse availability. CONCLUSION: Although, the results of this pilot study should not be extrapolated beyond the study sample and inferential conclusions should not be drawn from the results, this is the first RCT to compare humidified and standard O2 therapy in acute severe asthmatics of any age. These findings and accompanying screening data show that a large RCT of O2 therapy is feasible. However, challenges associated with randomisation and data collection should be addressed in any future trial design.

Intravenous or oral antibiotic treatment in adults and children with cystic fibrosis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: the TORPEDO-CF RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with cystic fibrosis are susceptible to pulmonary infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This may become chronic and lead to increased mortality and morbidity. If treatment is commenced promptly, infection may be eradicated through prolonged antibiotic treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of two eradication regimens. DESIGN: This was a Phase IV, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Seventy UK and two Italian cystic fibrosis centres. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were individuals with cystic fibrosis aged > 28 days old who had never had a P. aeruginosa infection or who had been infection free for 1 year. INTERVENTIONS: Fourteen days of intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin or 3 months of oral ciprofloxacin. Inhaled colistimethate sodium was included in both regimens over 3 months. Consenting patients were randomly allocated to either treatment arm in a 1 : 1 ratio using simple block randomisation with random variable block length. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eradication of P. aeruginosa at 3 months and remaining free of infection to 15 months. Secondary outcomes included time to reoccurrence, spirometry, anthropometrics, pulmonary exacerbations and hospitalisations. Primary analysis used intention to treat (powered for superiority). Safety analysis included patients who had received at least one dose of any of the study drugs. Cost-effectiveness analysis explored the cost per successful eradication and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: Between 5 October 2010 and 27 January 2017, 286 patients were randomised: 137 patients to intravenous antibiotics and 149 patients to oral antibiotics. The numbers of participants achieving the primary outcome were 55 out of 125 (44%) in the intravenous group and 68 out of 130 (52%) in the oral group. Participants randomised to the intravenous group were less likely to achieve the primary outcome; although the difference between groups was not statistically significant, the clinically important difference that the trial aimed to detect was not contained within the confidence interval (relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.09; p = 0.184). Significantly fewer patients in the intravenous group (40/129, 31%) than in the oral group (61/136, 44.9%) were hospitalised in the 12 months following eradication treatment (relative risk 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 0.95; p = 0.02). There were no clinically important differences in other secondary outcomes. There were 32 serious adverse events in 24 participants [intravenous: 10/126 (7.9%); oral: 14/146 (9.6%)]. Oral therapy led to reductions in costs compared with intravenous therapy (-£5938.50, 95% confidence interval -£7190.30 to -£4686.70). Intravenous therapy usually necessitated hospital admission, which accounted for a large part of this cost. LIMITATIONS: Only 15 out of the 286 participants recruited were adults - partly because of the smaller number of adult centres participating in the trial. The possibility that the trial participants may be different from the rest of the cystic fibrosis population and may have had a better clinical status, and so be more likely to agree to the uncertainty of trial participation, cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous antibiotics did not achieve sustained eradication of P. aeruginosa in a greater proportion of cystic fibrosis patients. Although there were fewer hospitalisations in the intravenous group during follow-up, this confers no advantage over the oral therapy group, as intravenous eradication frequently requires hospitalisation. These results do not support the use of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate P. aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. FUTURE WORK: Future research studies should combine long-term follow-up with regimens to reduce reoccurrence after eradication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02734162 and EudraCT 2009-012575-10. 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. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic condition that affects mucous glands, causing sticky mucus in the lungs and digestive system. People with cystic fibrosis are prone to lung infection with a bacterium called Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which can lead to serious long-term complications and death. It is possible to eradicate P. aeruginosa if antibiotics are started promptly and taken for several months. The Trial of Optimal TheRapy for Pseudomonas EraDicatiOn in Cystic Fibrosis (TORPEDO-CF) was designed to find out if intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin were better at eradicating P. aeruginosa than oral ciprofloxacin. A total of 286 children, young people and adults with cystic fibrosis joined the study from 70 UK and two Italian centres. Approximately half of the participants received treatment with intravenous antibiotics and half with oral antibiotics. All participants received inhaled colistin for 3 months and were followed up for a minimum of 15 months. We studied whether or not either treatment eradicated P. aeruginosa, and if reinfection happened during follow-up. We also collected data on lung function, other chest infections and hospital admissions, and examined whether or not one treatment was more cost-effective than the other. In total, 15 adults joined TORPEDO-CF, so the study population may not totally match the wider cystic fibrosis population; however, in TORPEDO-CF, we found that intravenous antibiotics did not achieve persistent eradication of P. aeruginosa in a greater proportion of cystic fibrosis patients. We also found that oral antibiotics were more cost-effective than intravenous antibiotics. The intravenous antibiotics group had fewer hospital admissions during follow-up, but, as they were usually admitted for their initial treatment, this was not considered an advantage over the oral antibiotics group. The TORPEDO-CF results do not support the use of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate P. aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis and, when the findings of this trial are applied in routine clinical practice in the NHS, patients will most likely receive oral treatment as an outpatient, avoiding the need for hospital admission.

Pirfenidone in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a randomized phase 2 trial.

In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the occurrence of myocardial fibrosis is associated with adverse outcome. Whether pirfenidone, an oral antifibrotic agent without hemodynamic effect, is efficacious and safe for the treatment of HFpEF is unknown. In this double-blind, phase 2 trial ( NCT02932566 ), we enrolled patients with heart failure, an ejection fraction of 45% or higher and elevated levels of natriuretic peptides. Eligible patients underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance and those with evidence of myocardial fibrosis, defined as a myocardial extracellular volume of 27% or greater, were randomly assigned to receive pirfenidone or placebo for 52 weeks. Forty-seven patients were randomized to each of the pirfenidone and placebo groups. The primary outcome was change in myocardial extracellular volume, from baseline to 52 weeks. In comparison to placebo, pirfenidone reduced myocardial extracellular volume (between-group difference, -1.21%; 95% confidence interval, -2.12 to -0.31; P = 0.009), meeting the predefined primary outcome. Twelve patients (26%) in the pirfenidone group and 14 patients (30%) in the placebo group experienced one or more serious adverse events. The most common adverse events in the pirfenidone group were nausea, insomnia and rash. In conclusion, among patients with HFpEF and myocardial fibrosis, administration of pirfenidone for 52 weeks reduced myocardial fibrosis. The favorable effects of pirfenidone in patients with HFpEF will need to be confirmed in future trials.

Protocol for a definitive randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a community-based rehabilitation programme following hip fracture: fracture in the elderly multidisciplinary rehabilitation-phase III (FEMuR III).

INTRODUCTION: Proximal femoral (hip) fracture is common, serious and costly. Rehabilitation may improve functional recovery but evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are lacking. An enhanced rehabilitation intervention was previously developed and a feasibility study tested the methods used for this randomised controlled trial (RCT). The objectives are to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the enhanced rehabilitation programme following surgical repair of proximal femoral fracture in older people compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Protocol for phase III, parallel-group, two-armed, superiority, pragmatic RCT with 1:1 allocation ratio; allocation sequence by minimisation programme with a built-in random element; secure web-based allocation concealment. The two treatments will be usual care (control) and usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation programme (intervention). The enhanced rehabilitation will consist of a patient-held information workbook, goal setting diary and up to six additional therapy sessions. Outcome assessment and statistical analysis will be performed blind; patient and carer participants will be unblinded. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 17 and 52 weeks' follow-up. Primary outcome at 52 weeks will be the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale. Secondary outcomes will measure anxiety and depression, health utility, cognitive status, hip pain intensity, falls self-efficacy, fear of falling, grip strength and physical function. Carer strain, anxiety and depression will be measured in carers. All safety events will be recorded, and serious adverse events will be assessed to determine whether they are related to the intervention and expected. Concurrent economic evaluation will be a cost-utility analysis from a health service and personal social care perspective. An embedded process evaluation will determine the mechanisms and processes that explain the implementation and impacts of the enhanced rehabilitation programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Health Service research ethics approval reference 18/NE/0300. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN28376407; Pre-results registered on 23 November 2018.

Different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: the SIRJIA mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common inflammatory disorder in childhood, affecting 10 : 100,000 children and young people aged < 16 years each year, with a population prevalence of around 1 : 1000. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis; however, there is currently a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used with various disease subtypes and severities of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The main study objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study. Work packages included a literature review; qualitative interviews with children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their families; a questionnaire survey and screening log to establish current UK practice; a consensus meeting with health-care professionals, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and their families to establish the primary outcome; a feasibility study to pilot data capture and to collect data for future sample size calculations; and a final consensus meeting to establish the final protocol. SETTING: The setting was rheumatology clinics across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children, young people and their families who attended clinics and health-care professionals took part in this mixed-methods study. INTERVENTIONS: This study observed methods of prescribing corticosteroids across the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main study outcomes were the acceptability of a future trial for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals, and the feasibility of delivering such a trial. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews identified differences in the views of children, young people and their families on a randomised controlled trial and potential barriers to recruitment. A total of 297 participants were screened from 13 centres in just less than 6 months. In practice, all routes of corticosteroid administration were used, and in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection was the most common treatment. The questionnaire surveys showed the varying clinical practice across the UK, but established intra-articular corticosteroids as the treatment control for a future trial. The primary outcome of choice for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals was the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count. However, results from the feasibility study showed that, owing to missing blood test data, the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score should be used. The Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score are composite disease activity scoring systems for juvenile arthritis. Two final trial protocols were established for a future randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS: Fewer clinics were included in this feasibility study than originally planned, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions about these units to take part in future research. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive randomised controlled trial is likely to be feasible based on the findings from this study; however, important recommendations should be taken into account when planning such a trial. FUTURE WORK: This mixed-methods study has laid down the foundations to develop the evidence base in this area and conducting a randomised control trial to compare different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is likely to be feasible. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16649996. 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. 24, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ABOUT JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis refers to a group of conditions that cause inflammation and damage of the joints, starting in children and young people aged < 16 years. Treatments include anti-inflammatory medicines, disease-modifying/biologic medicines and corticosteroids. Young people often require corticosteroids at the start of their treatment, or in a flare with worsening inflammation, to get their juvenile idiopathic arthritis under control. A short course of corticosteroids can help and can be given by injection into the joint, through a drip into a vein, by injection into the muscle or in the form of tablets or liquid to be taken orally. Although they have been used for decades, there is no research to show the best way(s) of giving corticosteroids. STUDY AIMS: The study aimed to (1) agree on what corticosteroid treatments to compare in a treatment trial and the best way to measure changes in juvenile idiopathic arthritis to evaluate a quick-acting treatment and (2) find out if there are enough young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK to be included in such a study. METHODS: Published research on corticosteroids in juvenile idiopathic arthritis was reviewed. Health-care professionals were asked how they choose which corticosteroids to use and which method of administration to use. Interviews were carried out with children and young people and their families to (1) consider the design of a study comparing corticosteroid routes, (2) identify outcomes important to them and (3) determine whether or not they would be willing to take part in a future study. A 3-month feasibility study was carried out to collect details of children and young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis before and after corticosteroid treatment to measure improvements in juvenile idiopathic arthritis activity, and to see whether or not a larger study would be possible. FINDINGS: This study showed that corticosteroids are used in different ways across the UK. The views of children, young people and their families must be taken into account when designing a future study. This study calculated the number of young people who would be needed to take part in the future, showing that it would be possible to do a larger study that compared different corticosteroid treatments, which would help everyone to understand the best way to use corticosteroids.

Pirfenidone in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction-Rationale and Design of the PIROUETTE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PIROUETTE (PIRfenidOne in patients with heart failUre and preserved lEfT venTricular Ejection fraction) trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the anti-fibrotic pirfenidone in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and myocardial fibrosis. HFpEF is a diverse syndrome associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Myocardial fibrosis is a key pathophysiological mechanism of HFpEF and myocardial fibrotic burden is strongly and independently associated with adverse outcome. Pirfenidone is an oral anti-fibrotic agent, without haemodynamic effect, that leads to regression of myocardial fibrosis in preclinical models. It has proven clinical effectiveness in pulmonary fibrosis. METHODS: The PIROUETTE trial is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of 52 weeks of treatment with pirfenidone in patients with chronic HFpEF (symptoms and signs of heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45%, elevated natriuretic peptides [BNP ≥ 100 pg/ml or NT-proBNP ≥ 300 pg/ml; or BNP ≥ 300 pg/ml or NT-proBNP ≥ 900 pg/ml if in atrial fibrillation]) and myocardial fibrosis (extracellular matrix (ECM) volume ≥ 27% measured using cardiovascular magnetic resonance). The primary outcome measure is change in myocardial ECM volume. A sub-study will investigate the relationship between myocardial fibrosis and myocardial energetics, and the impact of pirfenidone, using 31phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy. DISCUSSION: PIROUETTE will determine whether pirfenidone is superior to placebo in relation to regression of myocardial fibrosis and improvement in myocardial energetics in patients with HFpEF and myocardial fibrosis (NCT02932566). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02932566) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02932566.