POSNOC-POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy: a randomised controlled trial of axillary treatment in women with early-stage breast cancer who have metastases in one or two sentinel nodes.

INTRODUCTION: ACOSOG-Z0011(Z11) trial showed that axillary node clearance (ANC) may be omitted in women with ≤2 positive nodes undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and whole breast radiotherapy (RT). A confirmatory study is needed to clarify the role of axillary treatment in women with ≤2 macrometastases undergoing BCS and groups that were not included in Z11 for example, mastectomy and those with microscopic extranodal invasion. The primary objective of POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy (POSNOC) is to evaluate whether for women with breast cancer and 1 or 2 macrometastases, adjuvant therapy alone is non-inferior to adjuvant therapy plus axillary treatment, in terms of 5-year axillary recurrence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: POSNOC is a pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, international trial with participants randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Women are eligible if they have T1/T2, unifocal or multifocal invasive breast cancer, and 1 or 2 macrometastases at sentinel node biopsy, with or without extranodal extension. In the intervention group women receive adjuvant therapy alone, in the standard care group they receive ANC or axillary RT. In both groups women receive adjuvant therapy, according to local guidelines. This includes systemic therapy and, if indicated, RT to breast or chest wall. The UK Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group manages the in-built radiotherapy quality assurance programme. Primary endpoint is 5-year axillary recurrence. Secondary outcomes are arm morbidity assessed by Lymphoedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire and QuickDASH questionnaires; quality of life and anxiety as assessed with FACT B+4 and State/Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaires, respectively; other oncological outcomes; economic evaluation using EQ-5D-5L. Target sample size is 1900. Primary analysis is per protocol. Recruitment started on 1 August 2014 and as of 9 June 2021, 1866 participants have been randomised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Protocol was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee East Midlands-Nottingham 2 (REC reference: 13/EM/0459). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN54765244; NCT0240168Cite Now.

Identifying women giving birth preterm and care at the time of birth: a prospective audit of births at six hospitals in India, Kenya, Pakistan and Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Globally, 15 million infants are born preterm each year, and 1 million die due to complications of prematurity. Over 60% of preterm births occur in Sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. Care at birth for premature infants may be critical for survival and long term outcome. We conducted a prospective audit to assess whether women giving birth preterm could be identified, and to describe cord clamping and neonatal care at hospitals in Africa and south Asia. METHODS: This prospective audit of livebirths was conducted at six hospitals in Uganda, Kenya, India and Pakistan. Births were considered preterm if between 28+ 0 and 33+ 6 weeks gestation and/or the birthweight was 1.00 to 1.99 kg. A pre-specified audit plan was agreed with each hospital. Livebirths before 28 weeks gestation with birthweight less than 1.0 kg were excluded. Data were collected on estimated and actual gestation and birthweight, cord clamping, and neonatal care. RESULTS: Of 4149 women who gave birth during the audit, data were available for 3687 (90%). As 107 were multiple births, 3781 livebirths were included, of which 257 (7%) were preterm. Antenatal assessment correctly identified 148 infants as 'preterm' and 3429 as 'term', giving a positive predictive value of 72% and negative predictive value of 97%. For term births, cord clamping was usually later at the two Ugandan hospitals, median time to clamping 50 and 76 s, compared with 23 at Kenyatta (Kenya), 7 at CMC (India) and 12 at FBH/LNH (Pakistan). At the latter two, timing was similar between term and preterm births, and between vaginal and Caesarean births. For all the hospitals, the cord was clamped quickly at Caesarean births, with Mbale (Uganda) having the highest median time to clamping (15 s 'term', 19 'preterm'). For preterm infants temperature on admission to the neonatal unit was below 35.5 °C for 50%, and 59 (23%) died before hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal identification of preterm birth was good. Timing of cord clamping varied between hospitals, although at each there was no difference between 'term' and 'preterm' births. For premature infants hypothermia was common, and mortality before hospital discharge was high.

Eicosapentaenoic acid and aspirin, alone and in combination, for the prevention of colorectal adenomas (seAFOod Polyp Prevention trial): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: The omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and aspirin both have proof of concept for colorectal cancer chemoprevention, aligned with an excellent safety profile. Therefore, we aimed to test the efficacy of EPA and aspirin, alone and in combination and compared with a placebo, in individuals with sporadic colorectal neoplasia detected at colonoscopy. METHODS: In a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial, patients aged 55-73 years who were identified during colonoscopy as being at high risk in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP; ≥3 adenomas if at least one was ≥10 mm in diameter or ≥5 adenomas if these were <10 mm in diameter) were recruited from 53 BCSP endoscopy units in England, UK. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1:1) using a secure web-based server to receive 2 g EPA-free fatty acid (FFA) per day (either as the FFA or triglyceride), 300 mg aspirin per day, both treatments in combination, or placebo for 12 months using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, and stratified by BCSP site. Research staff and participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the adenoma detection rate (ADR; the proportion of participants with any adenoma) at 1 year surveillance colonoscopy analysed in all participants with observable follow-up data using a so-called at-the-margins approach, adjusted for BCSP site and repeat endoscopy at baseline. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, number ISRCTN05926847. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2011, and June 10, 2016, 709 participants were randomly assigned to four treatment groups (176 to placebo, 179 to EPA, 177 to aspirin, and 177 to EPA plus aspirin). Adenoma outcome data were available for 163 (93%) patients in the placebo group, 153 (85%) in the EPA group, 163 (92%) in the aspirin group, and 161 (91%) in the EPA plus aspirin group. The ADR was 61% (100 of 163) in the placebo group, 63% (97 of 153) in the EPA group, 61% (100 of 163) in the aspirin group, and 61% (98 of 161) in the EPA plus aspirin group, with no evidence of any effect for EPA (risk ratio [RR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·87 to 1·12; risk difference -0·9%, -8·8 to 6·9; p=0·81) or aspirin (RR 0·99 (0·87 to 1·12; risk difference -0·6%, -8·5 to 7·2; p=0·88). EPA and aspirin were well tolerated (78 [44%] of 176 had ≥1 adverse event in the placebo group compared with 82 [46%] in the EPA group, 68 [39%] in the aspirin group, and 76 [45%] in the EPA plus aspirin group), although the number of gastrointestinal adverse events was increased in the EPA alone group at 146 events (compared with 85 in the placebo group, 86 in the aspirin group, and 68 in the aspirin plus placebo group). Six upper-gastrointestinal bleeding events were reported across the treatment groups (two in the EPA group, three in the aspirin group, and one in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Neither EPA nor aspirin treatment were associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients with at least one colorectal adenoma. Further research is needed regarding the effect on colorectal adenoma number according to adenoma type and location. Optimal use of EPA and aspirin might need a precision medicine approach to adenoma recurrence. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a UK Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

Monitoring performance of sites within multicentre randomised trials: a systematic review of performance metrics.

BACKGROUND: Large multicentre trials are complex and expensive projects. A key factor for their successful planning and delivery is how well sites meet their targets in recruiting and retaining participants, and in collecting high-quality, complete data in a timely manner. Collecting and monitoring easily accessible data relevant to performance of sites has the potential to improve trial management efficiency. The aim of this systematic review was to identify metrics that have either been proposed or used for monitoring site performance in multicentre trials. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, five biomedical bibliographic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO and SCOPUS) and Google Scholar for studies describing ways of monitoring or measuring individual site performance in multicentre randomised trials. Records identified were screened for eligibility. For included studies, data on study content were extracted independently by two reviewers, and disagreements resolved by discussion. RESULTS: After removing duplicate citations, we identified 3188 records. Of these, 21 were eligible for inclusion and yielded 117 performance metrics. The median number of metrics reported per paper was 8, range 1-16. Metrics broadly fell into six categories: site potential; recruitment; retention; data collection; trial conduct and trial safety. CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies a list of metrics to monitor site performance within multicentre randomised trials. Those that would be easy to collect, and for which monitoring might trigger actions to mitigate problems at site level, merit further evaluation.

Development of a standardised set of metrics for monitoring site performance in multicentre randomised trials: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Site performance is key to the success of large multicentre randomised trials. A standardised set of clear and accessible summaries of site performance could facilitate the timely identification and resolution of potential problems, minimising their impact. The aim of this study was to identify and agree a core set of key performance metrics for managing multicentre randomised trials. METHODS: We used a mixed methods approach to identify potential metrics and to achieve consensus about the final set, adapting methods that are recommended by the COMET Initiative for developing core outcome sets in health care. We used performance metrics identified from our systematic search and focus groups to create an online Delphi survey. We invited respondents to score each metric for inclusion in the final core set, over three survey rounds. Metrics scored as critical by ≥70% and unimportant by <15% of respondents were taken forward to a consensus meeting of representatives from key UK-based stakeholders. Participants in the consensus meeting discussed and voted on each metric, using anonymous electronic voting. Metrics with >50% of participants voting for inclusion were retained. RESULTS: Round 1 of the Delphi survey presented 28 performance metrics, and a further six were added in round 2. Of 294 UK-based stakeholders who registered for the Delphi survey, 211 completed all three rounds. At the consensus meeting, 17 metrics were discussed and voted on: 15 metrics were retained following survey round 3, plus two others that were preferred by consensus meeting participants. Consensus was reached on a final core set of eight performance metrics in three domains: (1) recruitment and retention, (2) data quality and (3) protocol compliance. A simple tool for visual reporting of the metrics is available from the Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit website. CONCLUSIONS: We have established a core set of metrics for measuring the performance of sites in multicentre randomised trials. These metrics could improve trial conduct by enabling researchers to identify and address problems before trials are adversely affected. Future work could evaluate the effectiveness of using the metrics and reporting tool.

LeucoPatch system for the management of hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers in the UK, Denmark, and Sweden: an observer-masked, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The LeucoPatch device uses bedside centrifugation without additional reagents to generate a disc comprising autologous leucocytes, platelets, and fibrin, which is applied to the surface of the wound. We aimed to test the effectiveness of LeucoPatch on the healing of hard-to-heal foot ulcers in people with diabetes. METHODS: This was a multicentre, international, observer-masked, randomised controlled trial of people with diabetes and a hard-to-heal foot ulcer done in 32 specialist diabetic foot clinics in three countries (UK, Denmark, and Sweden). After a 4-week run-in period, those with a reduction in ulcer area of less than 50% were randomly allocated (1:1) by computer-generated, web-based randomisation (block sizes of two, four, and six) to either prespecified good standard care alone or care plus weekly application of LeucoPatch. The primary outcome was the proportion of ulcers that healed within 20 weeks assessed in the intention-to-treat population (all participants with post-randomisation data collected), defined as complete epithelialisation (confirmed by an observer who was masked to randomisation group), and remained healed for 4 weeks. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number 27665670, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02224742. FINDINGS: Between Aug 30, 2013, and May 3, 2017, 269 participants were randomly allocated to receive treatment (137 to receive standard care and 132 to receive LeucoPatch). The mean age was 61·9 years (SD 11·6), 217 (82%) were men, and 222 (83%) had type 2 diabetes. In the LeucoPatch group, 45 (34%) of 132 ulcers healed within 20 weeks versus 29 (22%) of 134 ulcers in the standard care group (odds ratio 1·58, 96% CI 1·04-2·40; p=0·0235) by intention-to-treat analysis. Time to healing was shorter in the LeucoPatch group (p=0·0246) than in the standard care group. No difference in adverse events was seen between the groups. The most common serious adverse event (SAE) was diabetic foot infection (24 events in the LeucoPatch group [24% of all SAEs] and 20 in the standard care group [27% of all SAEs]. There were no device-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The use of LeucoPatch is associated with significant enhancement of healing of hard-to-heal foot ulcers in people with diabetes. FUNDING: Reapplix ApS.

Home interventions and light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Vitiligo is a condition resulting in white patches on the skin. People with vitiligo can suffer from low self-esteem, psychological disturbance and diminished quality of life. Vitiligo is often poorly managed, partly due to lack of high-quality evidence to inform clinical care. We describe here a large, independent, randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the comparative effectiveness of potent topical corticosteroid, home-based hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B-light (NB-UVB) or combination of the two, for the management of vitiligo. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial is a multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, pragmatic, placebo-controlled RCT. 516 adults and children with actively spreading, but limited, vitiligo are randomised (1:1:1) to one of three groups: mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus dummy NB-UVB light, vehicle ointment plus NB-UVB light or mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus NB-UVB light. Treatment of up to three patches of vitiligo is continued for up to 9 months with clinic visits at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months and four post-treatment questionnaires.The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial assesses outcomes included in the vitiligo core outcome set and places emphasis on participants' views of treatment success. The primary outcome is proportion of participants achieving treatment success (patient-rated Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) for a target patch of vitiligo at 9 months with further independent blinded assessment using digital images of the target lesion before and after treatment. Secondary outcomes include time to onset of treatment response, treatment success by body region, percentage repigmentation, quality of life, time-burden of treatment, maintenance of response, safety and within-trial cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals were granted by East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (14/EM/1173) and the MHRA (EudraCT 2014-003473-42). The trial was registered 8 January 2015 ISRCTN (17160087). Results will be published in full as open access in the NIHR Journal library and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17160087.

Job retention vocational rehabilitation for employed people with inflammatory arthritis (WORK-IA): a feasibility randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory arthritis leads to work disability, absenteeism and presenteeism (i.e. at-work productivity loss) at high cost to individuals, employers and society. A trial of job retention vocational rehabilitation (VR) in the United States identified this helped people keep working. The effectiveness of this VR in countries with different socioeconomic policies and conditions, and its impact on absenteeism, presenteeism and health, are unknown. This feasibility study tested the acceptability of this VR, modified for the United Kingdom, compared to written advice about managing work problems. To help plan a randomized controlled trial, we tested screening, recruitment, intervention delivery, response rates, applicability of the control intervention and identified the relevant primary outcome. METHODS: A feasibility randomized controlled trial with rheumatoid, psoriatic or inflammatory arthritis patients randomized to receive either job retention VR or written information only (the WORK-IA trial). Following three days VR training, rheumatology occupational therapists provided individualised VR on a one to one basis. VR included work assessment, activity diaries and action planning, and (as applicable) arthritis self-management in the workplace, ergonomics, fatigue and stress management, orthoses, employment rights and support services, assistive technology, work modifications, psychological and disclosure support, workplace visits and employer liaison. RESULTS: Fifty five (10%) people were recruited from 539 screened. Follow-up response rates were acceptable at 80%. VR was delivered with fidelity. VR was more acceptable than written advice only (7.8 versus 6.7). VR took on average 4 h at a cost of £135 per person. Outcome assessment indicated VR was better than written advice in reducing presenteeism (Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) change score mean: VR = -12.4 (SD 13.2); control = -2.5 (SD 15.9), absenteeism, perceived risk of job loss and improving pain and health status, indicating proof of concept. The preferred primary outcome measure was the WLQ, a presenteeism measure. CONCLUSIONS: This brief job retention VR is a credible and acceptable intervention for people with inflammatory arthritis with concerns about continuing to work due to arthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 76777720 . Registered 21.9.12.

Psychoeducation and Problem Solving (PEPS) Therapy for Adults With Personality Disorder: A Pragmatic Randomized-Controlled Trial.

We compared psychoeducation and problem solving (PEPS) therapy against usual treatment in a multisite randomized-controlled trial. The primary outcome was social functioning. We aimed to recruit 444 community-dwelling adults with personality disorder; however, safety concerns led to an early cessation of recruitment. A total of 154 people were randomized to PEPS and 152 to usual treatment. Follow-up at 72 weeks was completed for 68%. PEPS therapy was no more effective than usual treatment for improving social functioning (adjusted difference in mean Social Functioning Questionnaire scores = -0.73; 95% CI [-1.83, 0.38]; p = 0.19). PEPS therapy is not an effective treatment for improving social functioning of adults with personality disorder living in the community.

A randomised controlled trial to compare the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of doxycycline (200 mg/day) with that of oral prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg/day) for initial treatment of bullous pemphigoid: the Bullous Pemphigoid Steroids and Tetracyclines (BLISTER) trial.

BACKGROUND: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering skin disorder with increased morbidity and mortality in the elderly. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of a strategy of initiating BP treatment with oral doxycycline or oral prednisolone. We hypothesised that starting treatment with doxycycline gives acceptable short-term blister control while conferring long-term safety advantages over starting treatment with oral prednisolone. DESIGN: Pragmatic multicentre two-armed parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation. SETTING: A total of 54 dermatology secondary care centres in the UK and seven in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with BP [three or more blisters at two sites and positive direct and/or indirect immunofluorescence (immunoglobulin G and/or complement component 3 immunofluorescence at the dermal-epidermal junction)] and able to give informed consent. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were allocated using online randomisation to initial doxycycline treatment (200 mg/day) or prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg/day). Up to 30 g/week of potent topical corticosteroids was permitted for weeks 1-3. After 6 weeks, clinicians could switch treatments or alter the prednisolone dose as per normal practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes: (1) the proportion of participants with three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks (investigator blinded) and (2) the proportion with severe, life-threatening and fatal treatment-related events at 52 weeks. A regression model was used in the analysis adjusting for baseline disease severity, age and Karnofsky score, with missing data imputed. Secondary outcomes included the effectiveness of blister control after 6 weeks, relapses, related adverse events and quality of life. The economic evaluation involved bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a NHS perspective. RESULTS: In total, 132 patients were randomised to doxycycline and 121 to prednisolone. The mean patient age was 77.7 years and baseline severity was as follows: mild 31.6% (three to nine blisters), moderate 39.1% (10-30 blisters) and severe 29.3% (> 30 blisters). For those starting on doxycycline, 83 out of 112 (74.1%) had three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks, whereas for those starting on prednisolone 92 out of 101 (91.1%) had three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks, an adjusted difference of 18.6% in favour of prednisolone [90% confidence interval (CI) 11.1% to 26.1%], using a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Per-protocol analysis showed similar results: 74.4% compared with 92.3%, an adjusted difference of 18.7% (90% CI 9.8% to 27.6%). The rate of related severe, life-threatening and fatal events at 52 weeks was 18.2% for those started on doxycycline and 36.6% for those started on prednisolone (mITT analysis), an adjusted difference of 19.0% (95% CI 7.9% to 30.1%; p = 0.001) in favour of doxycycline. Secondary outcomes showed consistent findings. There was no significant difference in costs or QALYs per patient at 1 year between doxycycline-initiated therapy and prednisolone-initiated therapy (incremental cost of doxycycline-initiated therapy £959, 95% CI -£24 to £1941; incremental QALYs of doxycycline-initiated therapy -0.024, 95% CI -0.088 to 0.041). Using a willingness-to-pay criterion of < £20,000 per QALY gained, the net monetary benefit associated with doxycycline-initiated therapy was negative but imprecise (-£1432, 95% CI -£3094 to £230). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of starting BP patients on doxycycline is non-inferior to standard treatment with oral prednisolone for short-term blister control and considerably safer in the long term. The limitations of the trial were the wide non-inferiority margin, the moderate dropout rate and that serious adverse event collection was unblinded. Future work might include inducing remission with topical or oral corticosteroids and then randomising to doxycycline or prednisolone for maintenance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13704604. 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. 21, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Doxycycline versus prednisolone as an initial treatment strategy for bullous pemphigoid: a pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bullous pemphigoid is a blistering skin disorder with increased mortality. We tested whether a strategy of starting treatment with doxycycline gives acceptable short-term blister control while conferring long-term safety advantages over starting treatment with oral corticosteroids. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of adults with bullous pemphigoid (three or more blisters at two or more sites and linear basement membrane IgG or C3). Participants were randomly assigned to doxycycline (200 mg per day) or prednisolone (0·5 mg/kg per day) using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, and stratified by baseline severity (3-9, 10-30, and >30 blisters for mild, moderate, and severe disease, respectively). Localised adjuvant potent topical corticosteroids (<30 g per week) were permitted during weeks 1-3. The non-inferiority primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants with three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks. We assumed that doxycycline would be 25% less effective than corticosteroids with a 37% acceptable margin of non-inferiority. The primary safety outcome was the proportion with severe, life-threatening, or fatal (grade 3-5) treatment-related adverse events by 52 weeks. Analysis (modified intention to treat [mITT] for the superiority safety analysis and mITT and per protocol for non-inferiority effectiveness analysis) used a regression model adjusting for baseline disease severity, age, and Karnofsky score, with missing data imputed. The trial is registered at ISRCTN, number ISRCTN13704604. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2009, and Oct 31, 2013, 132 patients were randomly assigned to doxycycline and 121 to prednisolone from 54 UK and seven German dermatology centres. Mean age was 77·7 years (SD 9·7) and 173 (68%) of 253 patients had moderate-to-severe baseline disease. For those starting doxycycline, 83 (74%) of 112 patients had three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks compared with 92 (91%) of 101 patients on prednisolone, an adjusted difference of 18·6% (90% CI 11·1-26·1) favouring prednisolone (upper limit of 90% CI, 26·1%, within the predefined 37% margin). Related severe, life-threatening, and fatal events at 52 weeks were 18% (22 of 121) for those starting doxycycline and 36% (41 of 113) for prednisolone (mITT), an adjusted difference of 19·0% (95% CI 7·9-30·1), p=0·001. INTERPRETATION: Starting patients on doxycycline is non-inferior to standard treatment with oral prednisolone for short-term blister control in bullous pemphigoid and significantly safer in the long-term. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Psychoeducation with problem-solving (PEPS) therapy for adults with personality disorder: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manualised intervention to improve social functioning.

BACKGROUND: If effective, less intensive treatments for people with personality disorder have the potential to serve more people. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychoeducation with problem-solving (PEPS) therapy plus usual treatment against usual treatment alone in improving social problem-solving with adults with personality disorder. DESIGN: Multisite two-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled superiority trial. SETTING: Community mental health services in three NHS trusts in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults with any personality disorder recruited from community mental health services. INTERVENTIONS: Up to four individual sessions of psychoeducation, a collaborative dialogue about personality disorder, followed by 12 group sessions of problem-solving therapy to help participants learn a process for solving interpersonal problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ). Secondary outcomes were service use (general practitioner records), mood (measured via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and client-specified three main problems rated by severity. We studied the mechanism of change using the Social Problem-Solving Inventory. Costs were identified using the Client Service Receipt Inventory and quality of life was identified by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Research assistants blinded to treatment allocation collected follow-up information. RESULTS: There were 739 people referred for the trial and 444 were eligible. More adverse events in the PEPS arm led to a halt to recruitment after 306 people were randomised (90% of planned sample size); 154 participants received PEPS and 152 received usual treatment. The mean age was 38 years and 67% were women. Follow-up at 72 weeks after randomisation was completed for 62% of participants in the usual-treatment arm and 73% in the PEPS arm. Intention-to-treat analyses compared individuals as randomised, regardless of treatment received or availability of 72-week follow-up SFQ data. Median attendance at psychoeducation sessions was approximately 90% and for problem-solving sessions was approximately 50%. PEPS therapy plus usual treatment was no more effective than usual treatment alone for the primary outcome [adjusted difference in means for SFQ -0.73 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.83 to 0.38 points; p = 0.19], any of the secondary outcomes or social problem-solving. Over the follow-up, PEPS costs were, on average, £182 less than for usual treatment. It also resulted in 0.0148 more quality-adjusted life-years. Neither difference was statistically significant. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds, the intervention had a 64% likelihood of being the more cost-effective option. More adverse events, mainly incidents of self-harm, occurred in the PEPS arm, but the difference was not significant (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.64). LIMITATIONS: There was possible bias in adverse event recording because of dependence on self-disclosure or reporting by the clinical team. Non-completion of problem-solving sessions and non-standardisation of usual treatment were limitations. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the use of PEPS therapy alongside standard care for improving social functioning of adults with personality disorder living in the community. FUTURE WORK: We aim to investigate adverse events by accessing centrally held NHS data on deaths and hospitalisation for all PEPS trial participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70660936. 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. 20, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of Visual Cue Training to Improve Adaptability of Walking after Stroke: Multi-Centre, Single-Blind Randomised Control Pilot Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Given the importance of vision in the control of walking and evidence indicating varied practice of walking improves mobility outcomes, this study sought to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of varied walking practice in response to visual cues, for the rehabilitation of walking following stroke. DESIGN: This 3 arm parallel, multi-centre, assessor blind, randomised control trial was conducted within outpatient neurorehabilitation services. PARTICIPANTS: Community dwelling stroke survivors with walking speed <0.8m/s, lower limb paresis and no severe visual impairments. INTERVENTION: Over-ground visual cue training (O-VCT), Treadmill based visual cue training (T-VCT), and Usual care (UC) delivered by physiotherapists twice weekly for 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were randomised using computer generated random permutated balanced blocks of randomly varying size. Recruitment, retention, adherence, adverse events and mobility and balance were measured before randomisation, post-intervention and at four weeks follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-six participants participated (18 T-VCT, 19 O-VCT, 19 UC). Thirty-four completed treatment and follow-up assessments. Of the participants that completed, adherence was good with 16 treatments provided over (median of) 8.4, 7.5 and 9 weeks for T-VCT, O-VCT and UC respectively. No adverse events were reported. Post-treatment improvements in walking speed, symmetry, balance and functional mobility were seen in all treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient based treadmill and over-ground walking adaptability practice using visual cues are feasible and may improve mobility and balance. Future studies should continue a carefully phased approach using identified methods to improve retention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01600391.

The Community In-Reach and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness study: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older people represent a significant proportion of patients admitted to hospital. Their care compared to younger patients is more challenging, length of stay is longer, risk of hospital-acquired problems higher and the risk of being re-admitted within 28 days greater. This study aims to compare a Community In-Reach and Care Transition (CIRACT) service with Traditional Hospital Based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) provided to the older person. The CIRACT service differs from the THB-rehab service in that they are able to provide more intensive hospital rehabilitation, visiting patients daily, and are able to continue with the patient's rehabilitation following discharge allowing a seamless, integrated discharge working alongside community providers. A pilot comparing the two services showed that the CIRACT service demonstrated reduced length of stay and reduced re-admission rates when analysed over a four-month period. METHODS/DESIGN: This trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the CIRACT service, conducted as a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an integral qualitative mechanism and action study designed to provide the explanatory and theoretical components on how the CIRACT service compares to current practice. The RCT element consists of 240 patients over 70 years of age, being randomised to either the THB therapy group or the CIRACT service following an unplanned hospital admission. The primary outcome will be hospital length of stay from admission to discharge from the general medical elderly care ward. Additional outcome measures including the Barthel Index, Charlson Co-morbidity Scale, EuroQoL-5D and the modified Client Service Receipt Inventory will be assessed at the time of recruitment and repeated at 91 days post-discharge. The qualitative mechanism and action study will involve a systematic programme of organisational profiling, observations of work processes, interviews with key informants and care providers and tracking of participants. In addition, a within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken comparing the CIRACT and THB-rehab services to determine cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The outcome of the study will inform clinical decision-making, with respect to allocation of resources linked to hospital discharge planning and re-admissions, in a resource intensive and growing group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with the ISRCTN registry ( ISCRCTN94393315 ) on 25 April 2013 (version 3.1, 11 September 2014).

Blinded randomised controlled trial of low-dose Adjuvant Steroids in Adults admitted to hospital with Pandemic influenza (ASAP): a trial 'in hibernation', ready for rapid activation.

BACKGROUND: There are no completed randomised trials of the use of corticosteroids in patients with severe influenza infection. Corticosteroid use in influenza is widespread, non-systematic and marked by controversy. A recent meta-analysis of observational studies of adjuvant corticosteroids in influenza found an association with increased mortality but there were important concerns regarding the risks of bias. OBJECTIVES: To (1) evaluate whether or not low-dose corticosteroids given as an adjunct to standard treatment is beneficial in patients who are hospitalised with severe pandemic influenza and (2) develop an 'off-the-shelf' clinical trial that is ready to be activated in a future pandemic. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, blinded, randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Thirty to 40 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥ 16 years) admitted to hospital with an influenza-like illness during a pandemic. INTERVENTION: Five-day course of dexamethasone (Dexsol®, Rosemont Pharmaceuticals Ltd) 6 mg daily, started within 24 hours of admission. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Admission to Intensive Care Unit, or death, within 30 days of admission to hospital. RESULTS: This trial has not yet been activated. It is currently set up with full ethics and regulatory approvals in place, ready for rapid activation at the onset of the next pandemic. Hurdles to setting up a pandemic trial include planning for pandemic-level pressures on UK NHS resources and co-enrolment of patients to multiple pandemic studies, ensuring adequate geographical distribution of participating sites, maintaining long-term low-level engagement with site investigators, addressing future trial-specific training needs of local investigators and resilience planning in trial management. Identified threats to trial delivery include changes to research capabilities or policies during the hibernation phase, lack of staff resources during a pandemic and the influence of media at the time of a pandemic. A mismatch in the approach to informed consent required by current regulations to that preferred by patients and the public was identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that advance set-up of a trial to be conducted during a pandemic, with full regulatory approvals in place, is possible. Regular review during the hibernation phase will be required. This study serves as a model for the development of other 'off-the-shelf' trials as part of preparedness planning for public health emergencies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72331452. European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials number: 2013-001051-12. 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. 19, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Visual cue training to improve walking and turning after stroke: a study protocol for a multi-centre, single blind randomised pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Visual information comprises one of the most salient sources of information used to control walking and the dependence on vision to maintain dynamic stability increases following a stroke. We hypothesize, therefore, that rehabilitation efforts incorporating visual cues may be effective in triggering recovery and adaptability of gait following stroke. This feasibility trial aims to estimate probable recruitment rate, effect size, treatment adherence and response to gait training with visual cues in contrast to conventional overground walking practice following stroke. METHODS/DESIGN: A 3-arm, parallel group, multi-centre, single blind, randomised control feasibility trial will compare overground visual cue training (O-VCT), treadmill visual cue training (T-VCT), and usual care (UC). Participants (n = 60) will be randomly assigned to one of three treatments by a central randomisation centre using computer generated tables to allocate treatment groups. The research assessor will remain blind to allocation. Treatment, delivered by physiotherapists, will be twice weekly for 8 weeks at participating outpatient hospital sites for the O-VCT or UC and in a University setting for T-VCT participants.Individuals with gait impairment due to stroke, with restricted community ambulation (gait speed <0.8m/s), residual lower limb paresis and who are able to take part in repetitive walking practice involving visual cues (i.e., no severe visual impairments, able to walk with minimal assistance and no comorbid medical contraindications for walking practice) will be included.The primary outcomes concerning participant enrolment, recruitment, retention, and health and social care resource use data will be recorded over a recruitment period of 18 months. Secondary outcome measures will be undertaken before randomisation (baseline), after the eight-week intervention (outcome), and at three months (follow-up). Outcome measures will include gait speed and step length symmetry; time and steps taken to complete a 180° turn; assessment of gait adaptability (success rate in target stepping); timed up and go; Fugl-Meyer lower limb motor assessment; Berg balance scale; falls efficacy scale; SF-12; and functional ambulation category. DISCUSSION: Participation and compliance measured by treatment logs, accrual rate, attrition, and response variation will determine sample sizes for an early phase randomised controlled trial and indicate whether a definitive late phase efficacy trial is justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01600391.

A randomized controlled trial of eicosapentaenoic acid and/or aspirin for colorectal adenoma prevention during colonoscopic surveillance in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (The seAFOod Polyp Prevention Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The naturally-occurring omega (ω)-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) reduces colorectal adenoma (polyp) number and size in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. The safety profile and potential cardiovascular benefits associated with ω-3 PUFAs make EPA a strong candidate for colorectal cancer (CRC) chemoprevention, alone or in combination with aspirin, which itself has recognized anti-CRC activity. Colorectal adenoma number and size are recognized as biomarkers of future CRC risk and are established as surrogate end-points in CRC chemoprevention trials. DESIGN: The seAFOod Polyp Prevention Trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2×2 factorial 'efficacy' study, which will determine whether EPA prevents colorectal adenomas, either alone or in combination with aspirin. Participants are 55-73 year-old patients, who have been identified as 'high risk' (detection of ≥5 small adenomas or ≥3 adenomas with at least one being ≥10 mm in diameter) at screening colonoscopy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Exclusion criteria include the need for more than one repeat endoscopy within the three-month BCSP screening period, malignant change in an adenoma, regular use of aspirin or non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, regular use of fish oil supplements and concomitant warfarin or anti-platelet agent therapy. Patients are randomized to either EPA-free fatty acid 1 g twice daily or identical placebo AND aspirin 300 mg once daily or identical placebo, for approximately 12 months. The primary end-point is the number of participants with one or more adenomas detected at routine one-year BCSP surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary end-points include the number of adenomas (total and 'advanced') per patient, the location (left versus right colon) of colorectal adenomas and the number of participants re-classified as 'intermediate risk' for future surveillance. Exploratory end-points include levels of bioactive lipid mediators such as ω-3 PUFAs, resolvin E1 and PGE-M in plasma, urine, erythrocytes and rectal mucosa in order to gain insights into the mechanism(s) of action of EPA and aspirin, alone and in combination, as well as to discover predictive biomarkers of chemopreventive efficacy. The recruitment target is 904 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05926847.

The addition of a goal-based motivational interview to treatment as usual to enhance engagement and reduce dropouts in a personality disorder treatment service: results of a feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are high rates of treatment non-completion for personality disorder and those who do not complete treatment have poorer outcomes. A goal-based motivational interview may increase service users' readiness to engage with therapy and so enhance treatment retention. We conducted a feasibility study to inform the design of a randomized controlled trial. The aims were to test the feasibility of recruitment, randomization and follow-up, and to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of the motivational interview. METHODS: Patients in an outpatient personality disorder service were randomized to receive the Personal Concerns Inventory plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual only. The main randomized controlled trial feasibility criteria were recruitment of 54% of referrals, and 80% of clients and therapists finding the intervention acceptable. Information was collected on treatment attendance, the clarity of therapy goals and treatment engagement. RESULTS: The recruitment rate was 29% (76 of 258). Of 12 interviewed at follow-up, eight (67%) were positive about the Personal Concerns Inventory. Pre-intervention interviews were conducted with 61% (23 out of 38) of the Personal Concerns Inventory group and 74% (28 out of 38) of the treatment as usual group. Participants' therapy goals were blind-rated for clarity on a scale of 0 to 10. The mean score for the Personal Concerns Inventory group was 6.64 (SD = 2.28) and for the treatment as usual group 2.94 (SD = 1.71). Over 12 weeks, the median percentage session attendance was 83.33% for the Personal Concerns Inventory group (N = 17) and 66.67% for the treatment as usual group (N = 24). Of 59 eligible participants at follow-up, the Treatment Engagement Rating scale was completed for 40 (68%). The mean Treatment Engagement Rating scale score for the Personal Concerns Inventory group was 6.64 (SD = 2.28) and for the treatment as usual group 2.94 (SD = 1.71). Of the 76 participants, 63 (83%) completed the Client Service Receipt Inventory at baseline and 34 of 59 (58%) at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Shortfalls in recruitment and follow-up data collection were explained by major changes to the service. However, evidence of a substantial positive impact of the Personal Concerns Inventory on treatment attendance, clarity of therapy goals and treatment engagement, make a full-scale evaluation worth pursuing. Further preparatory work is required for a multisite trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov.UK Identifier - NCT01132976.

Psycho-education with problem solving (PEPS) therapy for adults with personality disorder: a pragmatic multi-site community-based randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Impairment in social functioning is a key component of personality disorder. Therefore psycho-education and problem solving (PEPS) therapy may benefit people with this disorder. Psycho-education aims to educate, build rapport, and motivate people for problem solving therapy. Problem solving therapy aims to help clients solve interpersonal problems positively and rationally, thereby improving social functioning and reducing distress. PEPS therapy has been evaluated with community adults with personality disorder in an exploratory trial. At the end of treatment, compared to a wait-list control group, those treated with PEPS therapy showed better social functioning, as measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ). A definitive evaluation is now being conducted to determine whether PEPS therapy is a clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with personality disorder METHODS: This is a pragmatic, two-arm, multi-centre, parallel, randomised controlled clinical trial. The target population is community-dwelling adults with one or more personality disorder, as identified by the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE). Inclusion criteria are: Living in the community (including residential or supported care settings); presence of one or more personality disorder; aged 18 or over; proficiency in spoken English; capacity to provide informed consent. Exclusion criteria are: Primary diagnosis of a functional psychosis; insufficient degree of literacy, comprehension or attention to be able to engage in trial therapy and assessments; currently engaged in a specific programme of psychological treatment for personality disorder or likely to start such treatment during the trial period; currently enrolled in any other trial. Suitable participants are randomly allocated to PEPS therapy plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU only. We aim to recruit 340 men and women. The primary outcome is social functioning as measured by the SFQ. A reduction (i.e., an improvement) of 2 points or more on the SFQ at follow-up 72 weeks post-randomisation is our pre-specified index of clinically significant change. Secondary outcomes include a reduction of unscheduled service usage and an increase in scheduled service usage; improved quality of life; and a reduction in mental distress. DISCUSSION: PEPS therapy has potential as an economical, accessible, and acceptable intervention for people with personality disorder. The results from this randomised controlled trial will tell us if PEPS therapy is effective and cost-effective. If so, then it will be a useful treatment for inclusion in a broader menu of treatment options for this group of service users. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number - ISRCTN70660936.

The addition of a goal-based motivational interview to standardised treatment as usual to reduce dropouts in a service for patients with personality disorder: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Rates of non-completion of treatments for personality disorder are high and there are indications that those who do not complete treatment have worse outcomes than those who do. Improving both cost-efficiency and client welfare require attention to engaging people with personality disorder in treatment. A motivational interview, based on the Personal Concerns Inventory, may have the ability to enhance engagement and retention in therapy. Here, we report the protocol for a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: All referrals accepted to the psychological service of Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust's outpatient service for people with personality disorder are eligible for inclusion. Consenting participants are randomised to receive the Personal Concerns Inventory interview plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual only. We aim to recruit 100 participants over 11/2 years. A randomised controlled trial will be considered feasible if 1 the recruitment rate to the project is 54% of all referrals (95% CI 54-64), 2 80% of clients find the intervention acceptable in terms of its practicability and usefulness (95% CI 80-91), and 3 80% of therapists report finding the intervention helpful (95% CI 80-100). In a full-scale randomised controlled trial, the primary outcome measure will be completion of treatment i.e., entry into and completion of ≥ 75% of sessions offered. Therefore, information will be collected on recruitment rates, attendance at therapy sessions, and completion of treatment. The feasibility of examining the processes of engagement will be tested by assessing the value, coherence, and attainability of goals pre-treatment, and engagement in treatment. The costs associated with the intervention will be calculated, and the feasibility of calculating the cost-benefits of the intervention will be tested. The views of clients and therapists on the intervention, collected using semi-structured interviews, will be analysed using thematic analysis. DISCUSSION: The Personal Concerns Interview as a preparation for treatment of people with personality has the potential to maximise treatment uptake, reduce unfilled places in treatment programmes, and prevent group treatments faltering through non-attendance. Most importantly, it has the potential to improve patient outcomes, helping them to function better and reduce hospitalisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov.UK Identifier--NCT01132976.