Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT.

Background: Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. Objective: The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. Design: This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants: Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Interventions: Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. Results: A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014). Conclusions: The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Urinary problems among men become more common with age. Nearly one-third of all men aged > 65 years experience some urinary symptoms, which can have a substantial effect on their daily lives. Symptoms include needing to pass urine more often, urgently or during the night, and difficulties in passing urine. Men are usually diagnosed and treated by their general practitioner, and should be offered advice on controlling their symptoms themselves (e.g. lifestyle changes and exercises) before trying tablets or surgery. However, it is not known how helpful such advice is, and how general practices can effectively provide it. Thirty general practices in the West of England and Wessex took part in the study. Practices were split into two groups, with each practice providing either the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package or the practice's usual care to all of its patients in the trial. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package included a booklet of advice to help control urinary symptoms, with a nurse or healthcare assistant directing men to relevant sections according to their symptoms, and providing follow-up contacts. We mainly assessed the benefits of the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package, compared with usual care, by using a questionnaire on urinary symptoms completed by participants. A total of 1077 men with urinary symptoms that bothered them joined the study. The main result was that men reported greater improvement in urinary symptoms with the TRIUMPH care package than with usual care, 12 months after joining the study. We also found that men receiving the TRIUMPH care package had a slight improvement in quality of life and outlook on their urinary symptoms. There was no difference between the two groups in the number of patients referred to hospital for treatment, the type, number and severity of side effects or cost to the NHS. Overall, the TRIUMPH care package was more effective in treating men with urinary symptoms than usual care by their general practice.

Sertraline for anxiety in adults with a diagnosis of autism (STRATA): study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are commonly prescribed to manage anxiety in adults with an autism diagnosis. However, their effectiveness and adverse effect profile in the autistic population are not well known. This trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SSRI sertraline in reducing symptoms of anxiety and improving quality of life in adults with a diagnosis of autism compared with placebo and to quantify any adverse effects. METHODS: STRATA is a two-parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial with allocation at the level of the individual. It will be delivered through recruiting sites with autism services in 4 regional centres in the United Kingdom (UK) and 1 in Australia. Adults with an autism diagnosis and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) score ≥ 10 at screening will be randomised 1:1 to either 25 mg sertraline or placebo, with subsequent flexible dose titration up to 200 mg. The primary outcome is GAD-7 scores at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, proportionate change in GAD-7 scores including 50% reduction, social anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, panic attacks, repetitive behaviours, meltdowns, depressive symptoms, composite depression and anxiety, functioning and disability and quality of life. Carer burden will be assessed in a linked carer sub-study. Outcome data will be collected using online/paper methods via video call, face-to-face or telephone according to participant preference at 16, 24 and 52 weeks post-randomisation, with brief safety checks and data collection at 1-2, 4, 8, 12 and 36 weeks. An economic evaluation to study the cost-effectiveness of sertraline vs placebo and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment and informed consent are embedded within the trial. Qualitative interviews at various times during the study will explore experiences of participating and taking the trial medication. DISCUSSION: Results from this study should help autistic adults and their clinicians make evidence-based decisions on the use of sertraline for managing anxiety in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15984604 . Registered on 08 February 2021. EudraCT 2019-004312-66. ANZCTR ACTRN12621000801819. Registered on 07 April 2021.

Cost-effectiveness of a primary healthcare intervention to treat male lower urinary tract symptoms: the TRIUMPH cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a primary care intervention for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective with a 12-month time horizon. SETTING: Thirty NHS general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: 1077 men aged 18 or older identified in primary care with bothersome LUTS. INTERVENTIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention for the treatment of bothersome LUTS was compared with usual care. The intervention group (n=524) received a standardised information booklet with guidance on conservative treatment for LUTS, urinary symptom assessment and follow-up contacts for 12 weeks. The usual care group (n=553) followed local guidelines between general practice sites. MEASURES: Resource use was obtained from electronic health records, trial staff and participants, and valued using UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Adjusted mean differences in costs and QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit were estimated. RESULTS: 866 of 1077 (80.4%) participants had complete data and were included in the base-case analysis. Over the 12-month follow-up period, intervention and usual care arms had similar mean adjusted costs and QALYs. Mean differences were lower in the intervention arm for adjusted costs -£29.99 (95% CI -£109.84 to £22.63) while higher in the intervention arm for adjusted QALYs 0.001 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.014). The incremental net monetary benefit statistic was £48.01 (95% CI -£225.83 to £321.85) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence UK threshold of £20 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a 63% probability of the intervention arm being cost-effective at this threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and QALYs were similar between the two arms at 12 months follow-up. This indicates that the intervention can be implemented in general practice at neutral cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11669964.

Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men in primary care using a conservative intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention in men in primary care could achieve superior improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 30 National Health Service general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Sites were randomised 1:1 to the intervention and control arms. 1077 men (≥18 years) with bothersome LUTS recruited between June 2018 and August 2019: 524 were assigned to the intervention arm (n=17 sites) and 553 were assigned to the usual care arm (n=13 sites). INTERVENTION: Standardised information booklet developed with patient and expert input, providing guidance on conservative and lifestyle interventions for LUTS in men. After assessment of urinary symptoms (manualised element), general practice nurses and healthcare assistants or research nurses directed participants to relevant sections of the manual and provided contact over 12 weeks to assist with adherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) measured 12 months after participants had consented to take part in the study. The target reduction of 2.0 points on which the study was powered reflects the minimal clinically important difference where baseline IPSS is <20. Secondary outcomes were patient reported quality of life, urinary symptoms and perception of LUTS, hospital referrals, and adverse events. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included 887 participants (82% of those recruited) and used a mixed effects multilevel linear regression model adjusted for site level variables used in the randomisation and baseline scores. RESULTS: Participants in the intervention arm had a lower mean IPSS at 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95) indicating less severe urinary symptoms than those in the usual care arm. LUTS specific quality of life, incontinence, and perception of LUTS also improved more in the intervention arm than usual care arm at 12 months. The proportion of urology referrals (intervention 7.3%, usual care 7.9%) and adverse events (intervention seven events, usual care eight events) were comparable between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention in primary care showed a sustained reduction in LUTS in men at 12 months. The mean difference of -1.81 points (95% confidence interval -0.95 to -2.66) on the IPSS was less than the predefined target reduction of 2.0 points. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11669964.

Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT.

Background: Emollients are recommended for children with eczema (atopic eczema/dermatitis). A lack of head-to-head comparisons of the effectiveness and acceptability of the different types of emollients has resulted in a 'trial and error' approach to prescribing. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of four commonly used types of emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema. Design: Four group, parallel, individually randomised, superiority randomised clinical trials with a nested qualitative study, completed in 2021. A purposeful sample of parents/children was interviewed at ≈ 4 and ≈ 16 weeks. Setting: Primary care (78 general practitioner surgeries) in England. Participants: Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema, of at least mild severity, and with no known sensitivity to the study emollients or their constituents. Interventions: Study emollients sharing the same characteristics in the four types of lotion, cream, gel or ointment, alongside usual care, and allocated using a web-based randomisation system. Participants were unmasked and the researcher assessing the Eczema Area Severity Index scores was masked. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 52 weeks, Eczema Area Severity Index score at 16 weeks, quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, scores), Dermatitis Family Impact and satisfaction levels at 16 weeks. Results: A total of 550 children were randomised to receive lotion (analysed for primary outcome 131/allocated 137), cream (137/140), gel (130/135) or ointment (126/138). At baseline, 86.0% of participants were white and 46.4% were female. The median (interquartile range) age was 4 (2-8) years and the median Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure score was 9.3 (SD 5.5). There was no evidence of a difference in mean Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over the first 16 weeks between emollient types (global p = 0.765): adjusted Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure pairwise differences - cream-lotion 0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.48 to 1.32), gel-lotion 0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.75 to 1.09), ointment-lotion -0.01 (95% confidence interval -0.93 to 0.91), gel-cream -0.25 (95% confidence interval -1.15 to 0.65), ointment-cream -0.43 (95% confidence interval -1.34 to 0.48) and ointment-gel -0.18 (95% confidence interval -1.11 to 0.75). There was no effect modification by parent expectation, age, disease severity or the application of UK diagnostic criteria, and no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes. Median weekly use of allocated emollient, non-allocated emollient and topical corticosteroids was similar across groups. Overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. There was no difference in the number of adverse reactions and there were no significant adverse events. In the nested qualitative study (n = 44 parents, n = 25 children), opinions about the acceptability of creams and ointments varied most, yet problems with all types were reported. Effectiveness may be favoured over acceptability. Parents preferred pumps and bottles over tubs and reported improved knowledge about, and use of, emollients as a result of taking part in the trial. Limitations: Parents and clinicians were unmasked to allocation. The findings may not apply to non-study emollients of the same type or to children from more ethnically diverse backgrounds. Conclusions: The four emollient types were equally effective. Satisfaction with the same emollient types varies, with different parents/children favouring different ones. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollient types to find one that suits them. Future work: Future work could focus on how best to support shared decision-making of different emollient types and evaluations of other paraffin-based, non-paraffin and 'novel' emollients. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84540529 and EudraCT 2017-000688-34. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 15/130/07) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

One in five children in the UK have eczema, a long-term, itchy, dry skin condition. It can significantly affect both the child and their family. Most children are diagnosed and looked after by their family doctor (general practitioner) and are prescribed moisturisers (also called emollients) to relieve skin dryness and other creams (topical corticosteroids) to control flare-ups. However, there are many different types of emollients and, to our knowledge, limited research to show which is better. In the Best Emollients for Eczema clinical trial, we compared the four main types of moisturisers ­ lotions, creams, gels and ointments. These types vary in their consistency, from thin to thick. We recruited 550 children (most of whom were white and had moderate eczema) and randomly assigned them to use one of the four different types as their main moisturiser for 16 weeks. We found no difference in effectiveness. Parent-reported eczema symptoms, eczema severity and quality of life were the same for all the four types of moisturisers. However, overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. Ointments may need to be used less and cause less stinging. We interviewed 44 parents and 25 children who took part. Opinions of all four types of moisturisers varied. What one family liked about a moisturiser was not necessarily the same for another and preferences were individual to each user. Sometimes there was a tension between how well a moisturiser worked (effectiveness) and how easy it was to use (acceptability). In these cases, effectiveness tended to decide whether or not parents kept using it. People found moisturisers in pumps and bottles easier to use than those in tubs. A number of participants valued the information they were given about how to use moisturisers. Our results suggest that the type of moisturiser matters less than finding one that suits the child and family.

The Randomised Evaluation of early topical Lidocaine patches In Elderly patients admitted to hospital with rib Fractures (RELIEF): feasibility trial protocol.

Background: Topical lidocaine patches, applied over rib fractures, have been suggested as a non-invasive method of local anaesthetic delivery to improve respiratory function, reduce opioid consumption and consequently reduce pulmonary complications. Older patients may gain most benefit from improved analgesic regimens yet lidocaine patches are untested as an early intervention in the Emergency Department (ED). The aim of this trial is to investigate uncertainties around trial design and conduct, to establish whether a definitive randomised trial of topical lidocaine patches in older patients with rib fractures is feasible. Methods: RELIEF is an open label, multicentre, parallel group, individually randomised, feasibility randomised controlled trial with economic scoping and nested qualitative study. Patients aged ≥ 65 years presenting to the ED with traumatic rib fracture(s) requiring admission will be randomised 1:1 to lidocaine patches (intervention), in addition to standard clinical management, or standard clinical management alone. Lidocaine patches will be applied immediately after diagnosis in ED and continued daily for 72 hours or until discharge. Feasibility outcomes will focus on recruitment, adherence and follow-up data with a total sample size of 100. Clinical outcomes, such as 30-day pulmonary complications, and resource use will be collected to understand feasibility of data collection. Qualitative interviews will explore details of the trial design, trial acceptability and recruitment processes. An evaluation of the feasibility of measuring health economics outcomes data will be completed. Discussion: Interventions to improve outcomes in elderly patients with rib fractures are urgently required. This feasibility trial will test a novel early intervention which has the potential of fulfilling this unmet need. The Randomised Evaluation of early topical Lidocaine patches In Elderly patients admitted to hospital with rib Fractures (RELIEF) feasibility trial will determine whether a definitive trial is feasible. ISRCTN Registration: ISRCTN14813929 (22/04/2021).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patches containing a numbing medication (lidocaine), put on the skin over broken ribs, may help to improve outcomes in older people. We will carry out a clinical trial of these patches, to see whether this research would work in Accident and Emergency (A&E) and whether patients will take part. DESIGN: We will ask 100 older people who need to stay in hospital with broken ribs to take part in this research. We will ask permission from relatives to include people with dementia. We will put those who agree to take part into one of two groups by chance. One group will have the patch put over their broken ribs in A&E for up to 3 days, along with usual pain killers if needed. We will treat people in the other group in the normal way, without a patch. We will track how many people are willing to take part. We will collect information on patient recovery in the 30 days after going to A&E and ask people to complete questionnaires about their health. We will interview patients and clinicians to get feedback. Patient and Public Involvement: Patient volunteers helped us design this research and will provide advice throughout. They agreed that including older people was appropriate, people with dementia and their carers should take part, and side-effects of strong pain killers are important to patients. FINDINGS: We will use the research findings to develop a larger trial to see if lidocaine patches help patients with broken ribs. We will write up results for scientific journals, speak at conferences and to our patient group.

Protocol to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an environmental nutrition and physical activity intervention in nurseries (Nutrition and Physical Activity Self Assessment for Child Care - NAP SACC UK): a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One in seven UK children have obesity when starting school, with higher prevalence associated with deprivation. Most pre-school children do not meet UK recommendations for physical activity and nutrition. Formal childcare settings provide opportunities to deliver interventions to improve nutritional quality and physical activity to the majority of 3-4-year-olds. The nutrition and physical activity self-assessment for childcare (NAP SACC) intervention has demonstrated effectiveness in the USA with high acceptability in the UK. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NAP SACC UK intervention to increase physical activity, reduce sedentary time and improve nutritional intake. METHODS: Multi-centre cluster RCT with process and economic evaluation. Participants are children aged 2 years or over, attending UK early years settings (nurseries) for ≥ 12 h/week or ≥ 15 h/week during term time and their parents, and staff at participating nurseries. The 12-month intervention involves nursery managers working with a Partner (public health practitioner) to self-assess policies and practices relating to physical activity and nutrition; nursery staff attending one physical activity and one nutrition training workshop and setting goals to be achieved within 6 months. The Partner provides support and reviews progress. Nursery staff receive a further workshop and new goals are set, with Partner support for a further 6 months. The comparator is usual practice. Up to 56 nurseries will be stratified by area and randomly allocated to intervention or comparator arm with minimisation of differences in level of deprivation. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: accelerometer-assessed mean total activity time on nursery days and average total energy (kcal) intake per eating occasion of lunch and morning/afternoon snacks consumed within nurseries. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: accelerometer-assessed mean daily minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary time per nursery day, total physical activity on nursery days compared to non-nursery days, average serving size of lunch and morning/afternoon snacks in nursery per day, average percentage of core and non-core food in lunch and morning/afternoon snacks, zBMI, proportion of children who are overweight/obese and child quality-of-life. A process evaluation will examine fidelity, acceptability, sustainability and context. An economic evaluation will compare costs and consequences from the perspective of the local government, nursery and parents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33134697, 31/10/2019.

Multi-faceted intervention to improve management of antibiotics for children presenting to primary care with acute cough and respiratory tract infection (CHICO): efficient cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether an easy-to-use multifaceted intervention for children presenting to primary care with respiratory tract infections would reduce antibiotic dispensing, without increasing hospital admissions for respiratory tract infection. DESIGN: Two arm randomised controlled trial clustered by general practice, using routine outcome data, with qualitative and economic evaluations. SETTING: English primary care practices using the EMIS electronic medical record system. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 0-9 years presenting with respiratory tract infection at 294 general practices, before and during the covid-19 pandemic. INTERVENTION: Elicitation of parental concerns during consultation; a clinician focused prognostic algorithm to identify children at very low, normal, or elevated 30 day risk of hospital admission accompanied by antibiotic prescribing guidance; and a leaflet for carers including safety netting advice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics (superiority comparison) and hospital admissions for respiratory tract infection (non-inferiority comparison) for children aged 0-9 years over 12 months (same age practice list size as denominator). RESULTS: Of 310 practices needed, 294 (95%) were randomised (144 intervention and 150 controls) representing 5% of all registered 0-9 year olds in England. Of these, 12 (4%) subsequently withdrew (six owing to the pandemic). Median intervention use per practice was 70 (by a median of 9 clinicians). No evidence was found that antibiotic dispensing differed between intervention practices (155 (95% confidence interval 138 to 174) items/year/1000 children) and control practices (157 (140 to 176) items/year/1000 children) (rate ratio 1.011, 95% confidence interval 0.992 to 1.029; P=0.25). Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggested reduced dispensing in intervention practices with fewer prescribing nurses, in single site (compared with multisite) practices, and in practices located in areas of lower socioeconomic deprivation, which may warrant future investigation. Pre-specified sensitivity analysis suggested reduced dispensing among older children in the intervention arm (P=0.03). A post hoc sensitivity analysis suggested less dispensing in intervention practices before the pandemic (rate ratio 0.967, 0.946 to 0.989; P=0.003). The rate of hospital admission for respiratory tract infections in the intervention practices (13 (95% confidence interval 10 to 18) admissions/1000 children) was non-inferior compared with control practices (15 (12 to 20) admissions/1000 children) (rate ratio 0.952, 0.905 to 1.003). CONCLUSIONS: This multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention for children with respiratory tract infections did not reduce overall antibiotic dispensing or increase respiratory tract infection related hospital admissions. Evidence suggested that in some subgroups and situations (for example, under non-pandemic conditions) the intervention slightly reduced prescribing rates but not in a clinically relevant way. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11405239ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11405239.

Protocol to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an environmental nutrition and physical activity intervention in nurseries (Nutrition and Physical Activity Self Assessment for Child Care - NAP SACC UK): a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial.

Background One in seven UK children have obesity when starting school, with higher prevalence associated with deprivation. Most pre-school children do not meet UK recommendations for physical activity and nutrition. Formal childcare settings provide opportunities to deliver interventions to improve nutritional quality and physical activity to the majority of 3-4-year-olds. The nutrition and physical activity self-assessment for childcare (NAP SACC) intervention has demonstrated effectiveness in the USA with high acceptability in the UK. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NAP SACC UK intervention to increase physical activity, reduce sedentary time and improve nutritional intake. Methods Multi-centre cluster RCT with process and economic evaluation. Participants are children aged 2 years or over, attending UK early years settings (nurseries) for ≥ 12 hours/week or ≥ 15 hours/week during term time and their parents, and staff at participating nurseries. The 12-month intervention involves nursery managers working with a Partner (public health practitioner) to self-assess policies and practices relating to physical activity and nutrition; nursery staff attending one physical activity and one nutrition training workshop and setting goals to be achieved within six months. The Partner provides support and reviews progress. Nursery staff receive a further workshop and new goals are set, with Partner support for a further six months. The comparator is usual practice. Up to 56 nurseries will be stratified by area and randomly allocated to intervention or comparator arm with minimisation of differences in level of deprivation. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: accelerometer-assessed mean total activity time on nursery days and average total energy (kcal) intake per eating occasion of lunch and morning/afternoon snacks consumed within nurseries. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: accelerometer-assessed mean daily minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary time per nursery day, total physical activity on nursery days compared to non-nursery days, average serving size of lunch and morning/afternoon snacks in nursery per day, average percentage of core and non-core food in lunch and morning/afternoon snacks, zBMI, proportion of children who are overweight/obese and child quality-of-life. A process evaluation will examine fidelity, acceptability, sustainability and context. An economic evaluation will compare costs and consequences from the perspective of the local government, nursery and parents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33134697.

A multifaceted intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing among CHIldren with acute COugh and respiratory tract infection: the CHICO cluster RCT.

Background: Clinical uncertainty in primary care regarding the prognosis of children with respiratory tract infections contributes to the unnecessary use of antibiotics. Improved identification of children at low risk of future hospitalisation might reduce clinical uncertainty. A National Institute for Health and Care Research-funded 5-year programme (RP-PG-0608-10018) was used to develop and feasibility test an intervention. Objectives: The aim of the children with acute cough randomised controlled trial was to reduce antibiotic prescribing among children presenting with acute cough and respiratory tract infection without increasing hospital admission. Design: An efficient, pragmatic open-label, two-arm trial (with embedded qualitative and health economic analyses) using practice-level randomisation using routinely collected data as the primary outcome. Setting: General practitioner practices in England. Participants: General practitioner practices using the Egton Medical Information Systems® patient-record system for children aged 0-9 years presenting with a cough or upper respiratory tract infection. Recruited by Clinical Research Networks and Clinical Commissioning Groups. Intervention: Comprised: (1) elicitation of parental concerns during consultation; (2) a clinician-focused prognostic algorithm to identify children with acute cough and respiratory tract infection at low, average or elevated risk of hospitalisation in the next 30 days accompanied by prescribing guidance, (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety-netting advice. Main outcome measures: Co-primaries using the practice list-size for children aged 0-9 years as the denominator: rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide items at each practice (superiority comparison) from NHS Business Services Authority ePACT2 and rate of hospital admission for respiratory tract infection (non-inferiority comparison) from Clinical Commissioning Groups, both routinely collected over 12 months. Results: Of the 310 practices required, 294 (95%) were recruited (144 intervention and 150 controls) with 336,496 registered 0-9-year-olds (5% of all 0-9-year-old children in England) from 47 Clinical Commissioning Groups. Included practices were slightly larger than those not included, had slightly lower baseline dispensing rates and were located in more deprived areas (reflecting the distribution for practice postcodes nationally). Twelve practices (4%) subsequently withdrew (six related to the pandemic). The median number of times the intervention was used was 70 per practice (by a median of 9 clinicians) over 12 months. There was no evidence that the antibiotic dispensing rate in the intervention practices [0.155 (95% confidence interval 0.135 to 0.179)] differed to controls [0.154 (95% confidence interval 0.130 to 0.182), relative risk= 1.011 (95% confidence interval 0.992 to 1.029); p = 0.253]. There was, overall, a reduction in dispensing levels and intervention usage during the pandemic. The rate of hospitalisation for respiratory tract infection in the intervention practices [0.019 (95% confidence interval 0.014 to 0.026)] compared to the controls [0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.014 to 0.029)] was non-inferior [relative risk = 0.952 (95% confidence interval 0.905 to 1.003)]. The qualitative evaluation found the clinicians liked the intervention, used it as a supportive aid, especially with borderline cases but that it, did not always integrate well within the consultation flow and was used less over time. The economic evaluation found no evidence of a difference in mean National Health Service costs between arms; mean difference -£1999 (95% confidence interval -£6627 to 2630). Conclusions: The intervention was feasible and subjectively useful to practitioners, with no evidence of harm in terms of hospitalisations, but did not impact on antibiotic prescribing rates. Future work and limitations: Although the intervention does not appear to change prescribing behaviour, elements of the approach may be used in the design of future interventions. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11405239 (date assigned 20 April 2018) at www.controlled-trials.com (accessed 5 September 2022). Version 4.0 of the protocol is available at: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/ (accessed 5 September 2022). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (NIHR award ref: 16/31/98) programme and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 32. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Coughs and colds (also known as respiratory tract infections) are the most common reason that children are taken to family doctors and nurses in primary care. These clinicians are not always sure how best to treat them and often use antibiotics 'just in case'. There are now concerns that clinicians are using antibiotics too often, and that this is increasing the number of resistant bugs (bacteria that cannot be killed by antibiotics). We wanted to see if using a scoring system of symptoms and signs of illness to help clinicians identify children very unlikely to need hospital care as well as listening to parents' concerns and giving them a personalised leaflet with care and safety advice, reduced antibiotic use. We recruited practices rather than patients, so did not need individual patient consent. The two main outcomes were the rate of antibiotics dispensed for children and number of children admitted to hospital for respiratory tract infections, using routinely collected data for 0­9-year-olds. We recruited 294 general practitioner practices, which was 95% of the total needed; 144 were asked to use the intervention and 150 to continue providing usual care (controls); only 12 practices subsequently withdrew (6 related to the pandemic). The average number of times the intervention was used was 70 per practice (by an average of 9 clinicians) over 12 months. There was no evidence that the antibiotic dispensing rate in the intervention practices differed from control practices. Further analyses showed an overall reduction in dispensing levels and intervention usage during the pandemic. The rate of hospitalisation for respiratory tract infection in the intervention practices was similar to the control practices. In the interviews, we found that clinicians liked the intervention and used it as a supportive aid during consultations, especially for borderline cases, rather than a tool to change prescribing behaviour.

Can primary care research be conducted more efficiently using routinely reported practice-level data: a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in England?

OBJECTIVES: Conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care is challenging; recruiting patients during time-limited or remote consultations can increase selection bias and physical access to patients' notes is costly and time-consuming. We investigated barriers and facilitators to running a more efficient design. DESIGN: An RCT aiming to reduce antibiotic prescribing among children presenting with acute cough and a respiratory tract infection (RTI) with a clinician-focused intervention, embedded at the practice level. By using aggregate level, routinely collected data for the coprimary outcomes, we removed the need to recruit individual participants. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Baseline data from general practitioner practices and interviews with individuals from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) in England who helped recruit practices and Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) who collected outcome data. INTERVENTION: The intervention included: (1) explicit elicitation of parental concerns, (2) a prognostic algorithm to identify children at low risk of hospitalisation and (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety-netting advice. COPRIMARY OUTCOMES: For 0-9 years old-(1) Dispensing data for amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics and (2) hospital admission rate for RTI. RESULTS: We recruited 294 of the intended 310 practices (95%) representing 336 496 registered 0-9 years old (5% of all 0-9 years old children). Included practices were slightly larger, had slightly lower baseline prescribing rates and were located in more deprived areas reflecting the national distribution. Engagement with CCGs and their understanding of their role in this research was variable. Engagement with CRNs and installation of the intervention was straight-forward although the impact of updates to practice IT systems and lack of familiarity required extended support in some practices. Data on the coprimary outcomes were almost 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The infrastructure for trials at the practice level using routinely collected data for primary outcomes is viable in England and should be promoted for primary care research where appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11405239.

A lineage-specific Exo70 is required for receptor kinase-mediated immunity in barley.

In the evolution of land plants, the plant immune system has experienced expansion in immune receptor and signaling pathways. Lineage-specific expansions have been observed in diverse gene families that are potentially involved in immunity but lack causal association. Here, we show that Rps8-mediated resistance in barley to the pathogen Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici (wheat stripe rust) is conferred by a genetic module: Pur1 and Exo70FX12, which are together necessary and sufficient. Pur1 encodes a leucine-rich repeat receptor kinase and is the ortholog of rice Xa21, and Exo70FX12 belongs to the Poales-specific Exo70FX clade. The Exo70FX clade emerged after the divergence of the Bromeliaceae and Poaceae and comprises from 2 to 75 members in sequenced grasses. These results demonstrate the requirement of a lineage-specific Exo70FX12 in Pur1-mediated immunity and suggest that the Exo70FX clade may have evolved a specialized role in receptor kinase signaling.

The high-volume haemodiafiltration vs high-flux haemodialysis registry trial (H4RT): a multi-centre, unblinded, randomised, parallel-group, superiority study to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high-volume haemodiafiltration and high-flux haemodialysis in people with kidney failure on maintenance dialysis using linkage to routine healthcare databases for outcomes.

BACKGROUND: More than a third of the 65,000 people living with kidney failure in the UK attend a dialysis unit 2-5 times a week to have their blood cleaned for 3-5 h. In haemodialysis (HD), toxins are removed by diffusion, which can be enhanced using a high-flux dialyser. This can be augmented with convection, as occurs in haemodiafiltration (HDF), and improved outcomes have been reported in people who are able to achieve high volumes of convection. This study compares the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of high-volume HDF compared with high-flux HD in the treatment of kidney failure. METHODS: This is a UK-based, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Adult patients already receiving HD or HDF will be randomised 1:1 to high-volume HDF (aiming for 21+ L of substitution fluid adjusted for body surface area) or high-flux HD. Exclusion criteria include lack of capacity to consent, life expectancy less than 3 months, on HD/HDF for less than 4 weeks, planned living kidney donor transplant or home dialysis scheduled within 3 months, prior intolerance of HDF and not suitable for high-volume HDF for other clinical reasons. The primary outcome is a composite of non-cancer mortality or hospital admission with a cardiovascular event or infection during follow-up (minimum 32 months, maximum 91 months) determined from routine data. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular- and infection-related morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and environmental impact. Baseline data will be collected by research personnel on-site. Follow-up data will be collected by linkage to routine healthcare databases - Hospital Episode Statistics, Civil Registration, Public Health England and the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) in England, and equivalent databases in Scotland and Wales, as necessary - and centrally administered patient-completed questionnaires. In addition, research personnel on-site will monitor for adverse events and collect data on adherence to the protocol (monthly during recruitment and quarterly during follow-up). DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HD as compared to HDF for adults with kidney failure in-centre HD or HDF. It will inform management for this patient group in the UK and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10997319 . Registered on 10 October 2017.

Effectiveness and safety of lotion, cream, gel, and ointment emollients for childhood eczema: a pragmatic, randomised, phase 4, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there are no trials comparing emollients commonly used for childhood eczema. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of the four main emollient types: lotions, creams, gels, and ointments. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, individually randomised, parallel group, phase 4 superiority trial in 77 general practice surgeries in England. Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema (Patient Orientated Eczema Measure [POEM] score >2) were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1; stratified by centre and minimised by baseline POEM score and age, using a web-based system) to lotions, creams, gels, or ointments. Clinicians and parents were unmasked. The initial emollient prescription was for 500 g or 500 mL, to be applied twice daily and as required. Subsequent prescriptions were determined by the family. The primary outcome was parent-reported eczema severity over 16 weeks (weekly POEM), with analysis as randomly assigned regardless of adherence, adjusting for baseline and stratification variables. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN84540529. FINDINGS: Between Jan 19, 2018, and Oct 31, 2019, 12 417 children were assessed for eligibility, 550 of whom were randomly assigned to a treatment group (137 to lotion, 140 to cream, 135 to gel, and 138 to ointment). The numbers of participants who contributed at least two POEM scores and were included in the primary analysis were 131 in the lotion group, 137 in the cream group, 130 in the gel group, and 126 in the ointment group. Baseline median age was 4 years (IQR 2-8); 255 (46%) participants were girls, 295 (54%) were boys; 473 (86%) participants were White; and the mean POEM score was 9·3 (SD 5·5). There was no difference in eczema severity between emollient types over 16 weeks (global p value=0·77), with adjusted POEM pairwise differences of: cream versus lotion 0·42 (95% CI -0·48 to 1·32), gel versus lotion 0·17 (-0·75 to 1·09), ointment versus lotion -0·01 (-0·93 to 0·91), gel versus cream -0·25 (-1·15 to 0·65), ointment versus cream -0·43 (-1·34 to 0·48), and ointment versus gel -0·18 (-1·11 to 0·75). This result remained unchanged following multiple imputation, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses. The total number of adverse events did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (lotions 49 [36%], creams 54 [39%], gels 54 [40%], and ointments 48 [35%]; p=0·79), although stinging was less common with ointments (12 [9%] of 138 participants) than lotions (28 [20%] of 137), creams (24 [17%] of 140), or gels (25 [19%] of 135). INTERPRETATION: We found no difference in effectiveness between the four main types of emollients for childhood eczema. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollients to find one that they are more likely to use effectively. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Supraglottic airway device versus tracheal intubation in the initial airway management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the AIRWAYS-2 cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: When a cardiac arrest occurs, cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be started immediately. However, there is limited evidence about the best approach to airway management during cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine whether or not the i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd, Wokingham, UK) supraglottic airway is superior to tracheal intubation as the initial advanced airway management strategy in adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, open, parallel, two-group, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial. A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanied the trial. SETTING: The setting was four ambulance services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years who had a non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and were attended by a participating paramedic were enrolled automatically under a waiver of consent between June 2015 and August 2017. Follow-up ended in February 2018. INTERVENTION: Paramedics were randomised 1 : 1 to use tracheal intubation (764 paramedics) or i-gel (759 paramedics) for their initial advanced airway management and were unblinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale score at hospital discharge or 30 days after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, whichever occurred earlier, collected by assessors blinded to allocation. The modified Rankin Scale, a measure of neurological disability, was dichotomised: a score of 0-3 (good outcome) or 4-6 (poor outcome/death). The primary outcome for the economic evaluation was quality-adjusted life-years, estimated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. RESULTS: A total of 9296 patients (supraglottic airway group, 4886; tracheal intubation group, 4410) were enrolled [median age 73 years; 3373 (36.3%) women]; modified Rankin Scale score was known for 9289 patients. Characteristics were similar between groups. A total of 6.4% (311/4882) of patients in the supraglottic airway group and 6.8% (300/4407) of patients in the tracheal intubation group had a good outcome (adjusted difference in proportions of patients experiencing a good outcome: -0.6%, 95% confidence interval -1.6% to 0.4%). The supraglottic airway group had a higher initial ventilation success rate than the tracheal intubation group [87.4% (4255/4868) vs. 79.0% (3473/4397), respectively; adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 8.3%, 95% confidence interval 6.3% to 10.2%]; however, patients in the tracheal intubation group were less likely to receive advanced airway management than patients in the supraglottic airway group [77.6% (3419/4404) vs. 85.2% (4161/4883), respectively]. Regurgitation rate was similar between the groups [supraglottic airway group, 26.1% (1268/4865); tracheal intubation group, 24.5% (1072/4372); adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 1.4%, 95% confidence interval -0.6% to 3.4%], as was aspiration rate [supraglottic airway group, 15.1% (729/4824); tracheal intubation group, 14.9% (647/4337); adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 0.1%, 95% confidence interval -1.5% to 1.8%]. The longer-term outcomes were also similar between the groups (modified Rankin Scale: at 3 months, odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.14; at 6 months, odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.16). Sensitivity analyses did not alter the overall findings. There were no unexpected serious adverse events. Mean quality-adjusted life-years to 6 months were 0.03 in both groups (supraglottic airway group minus tracheal intubation group difference -0.0015, 95% confidence interval -0.0059 to 0.0028), and total costs were £157 (95% confidence interval -£270 to £583) lower in the tracheal intubation group. Although the point estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio suggested that tracheal intubation may be cost-effective, the huge uncertainty around this result indicates no evidence of a difference between groups. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included imbalance in the number of patients in each group, caused by unequal distribution of high-enrolling paramedics; crossover between groups; and the fact that participating paramedics, who were volunteers, might not be representative of all paramedics in the UK. Findings may not be applicable to other countries. CONCLUSION: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, randomisation to the supraglottic airway group compared with the tracheal intubation group did not result in a difference in outcome at 30 days. There were no notable differences in costs, outcomes and overall cost-effectiveness between the groups. FUTURE WORK: Future work could compare alternative supraglottic airway types with tracheal intubation; include a randomised trial of bag mask ventilation versus supraglottic airways; and involve other patient populations, including children, people with trauma and people in hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN08256118. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and supported by the NIHR Comprehensive Research Networks and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest is a serious medical emergency in which the heartbeat and breathing stop suddenly. Every year in the UK, a large number of patients (around 123 per 100,000) suffer a cardiac arrest outside hospital. Only 7­9% of these patients survive to leave hospital. The best initial treatment in cardiac arrest is cardiopulmonary resuscitation (commonly known as CPR), during which it is vital to give chest compressions and maintain a clear airway. Two main techniques are used to keep the airway clear: tracheal intubation (inserting a breathing tube into the windpipe) and a supraglottic airway device (a newer device that is inserted less deeply and sits just above the voicebox). Both techniques are used routinely by paramedics in the UK when treating a cardiac arrest, but there is no evidence about which technique is best. The AIRWAYS-2 trial aimed to find out whether or not a supraglottic airway device is better than tracheal intubation. WHO PARTICIPATED AND WHAT WAS INVOLVED?: Paramedics from four UK ambulance services were put into one of two groups at random. One group was randomly chosen to use tracheal intubation and the other group was randomly chosen to use a supraglottic airway device at all adult cardiac arrests they attended for approximately 2 years. Paramedics were able to apply their clinical judgement and use a different device if they felt that this would be best for the patient. A total of 1523 paramedics took part and enrolled 9296 patients. Following cardiac arrest, a patient's recovery was assessed as good or poor (including patients who did not survive). WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: A similar percentage of patients in both groups had a good recovery. There was no evidence to suggest that the supraglottic airway device was any better than tracheal intubation for treating a cardiac arrest.

Best-BRA (Is subpectoral or prepectoral implant placement best in immediate breast reconstruction?): a protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial of subpectoral versus prepectoral immediate implant-based breast reconstruction in women following mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) is the most commonly performed reconstructive procedure following mastectomy. IBBR techniques are evolving rapidly, with mesh-assisted subpectoral reconstruction becoming the standard of care and more recently, prepectoral techniques being introduced. These muscle-sparing techniques may reduce postoperative pain, avoid implant animation and improve cosmetic outcomes and have been widely adopted into practice. Although small observational studies have failed to demonstrate any differences in the clinical or patient-reported outcomes of prepectoral or subpectoral reconstruction, high-quality comparative evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness is lacking. A well-designed, adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare the techniques, but breast reconstruction RCTs are challenging. We, therefore, aim to undertake an external pilot RCT (Best-BRA) with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a trial comparing prepectoral and subpectoral techniques. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Best-BRA is a pragmatic, two-arm, external pilot RCT with an embedded QRI and economic scoping for resource use. Women who require a mastectomy for either breast cancer or risk reduction, elect to have an IBBR and are considered suitable for both prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction will be recruited and randomised 1:1 between the techniques.The QRI will be implemented in two phases: phase 1, in which sources of recruitment difficulties are rapidly investigated to inform the delivery in phase 2 of tailored interventions to optimise recruitment of patients.Primary outcomes will be (1) recruitment of patients, (2) adherence to trial allocation and (3) outcome completion rates. Outcomes will be reviewed at 12 months to determine the feasibility of a definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Wales REC 6 (20/WA/0338). Findings will be presented at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10081873.

Immediate oral versus immediate topical versus delayed oral antibiotics for children with acute otitis media with discharge: the REST three-arm non-inferiority electronic platform-supported RCT.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media is a painful infection of the middle ear that is commonly seen in children. In some children, the eardrum spontaneously bursts, discharging visible pus (otorrhoea) into the outer ear. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness of immediate topical antibiotics or delayed oral antibiotics with the clinical effectiveness of immediate oral antibiotics in reducing symptom duration in children presenting to primary care with acute otitis media with discharge and the economic impact of the alternative strategies. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, three-arm, individually randomised (stratified by age < 2 vs. ≥ 2 years), non-inferiority, open-label trial, with economic and qualitative evaluations, supported by a health-record-integrated electronic trial platform [TRANSFoRm (Translational Research and Patient Safety in Europe)] with an internal pilot. SETTING: A total of 44 English general practices. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged ≥ 12 months and < 16 years whose parents (or carers) were seeking medical care for unilateral otorrhoea (ear discharge) following recent-onset (≤ 7 days) acute otitis media. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Immediate ciprofloxacin (0.3%) solution, four drops given three times daily for 7 days, or (2) delayed 'dose-by-age' amoxicillin suspension given three times daily (clarithromycin twice daily if the child was penicillin allergic) for 7 days, with structured delaying advice. All parents were given standardised information regarding symptom management (paracetamol/ibuprofen/fluids) and advice to complete the course. COMPARATOR: Immediate 'dose-by-age' oral amoxicillin given three times daily (or clarithromycin given twice daily) for 7 days. Parents received standardised symptom management advice along with advice to complete the course. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Time from randomisation to the first day on which all symptoms (pain, fever, being unwell, sleep disturbance, otorrhoea and episodes of distress/crying) were rated 'no' or 'very slight' problem (without need for analgesia). METHODS: Participants were recruited from routine primary care appointments. The planned sample size was 399 children. Follow-up used parent-completed validated symptom diaries. RESULTS: Delays in software deployment and configuration led to small recruitment numbers and trial closure at the end of the internal pilot. Twenty-two children (median age 5 years; 62% boys) were randomised: five, seven and 10 to immediate oral, delayed oral and immediate topical antibiotics, respectively. All children received prescriptions as randomised. Seven (32%) children fully adhered to the treatment as allocated. Symptom duration data were available for 17 (77%) children. The median (interquartile range) number of days until symptom resolution in the immediate oral, delayed oral and immediate topical antibiotic arms was 6 (4-9), 4 (3-7) and 4 (3-6), respectively. Comparative analyses were not conducted because of small numbers. There were no serious adverse events and six reports of new or worsening symptoms. Qualitative clinician interviews showed that the trial question was important. When the platform functioned as intended, it was liked. However, staff reported malfunctioning software for long periods, resulting in missed recruitment opportunities. Troubleshooting the software placed significant burdens on staff. LIMITATIONS: The over-riding weakness was the failure to recruit enough children. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to answer the main research question because of a failure to reach the required sample size. Our experience of running an electronic platform-supported trial in primary care has highlighted challenges from which we have drawn recommendations for the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the research community. These should be considered before such a platform is used again. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12873692 and EudraCT 2017-003635-10. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Ear infections are common in childhood. Some are complicated by a burst eardrum, followed by discharge from the ear. The usual treatment for this is a short course of antibiotics taken by mouth. However, alternative treatment using antibiotic drops, or a 'wait and see' policy before starting antibiotics, would result in less antibiotic use and reduce the subsequent risk of antibiotic resistance, which is bad for both patients and the environment. This study set out to see if these alternative treatments were as effective as the usual treatment for children with ear discharge. Although ear infections are common, only one in six children develops ear discharge, so only a few children might be available to take part at each general practice. We planned to use an electronic recruitment system to help us to gather enough patients. The system [called the 'TRANSFoRm' (Translational Research and Patient Safety in Europe) platform] was designed to remind busy general practitioners and nurses about the study and take them through the recruitment process step by step, as well as to support trial processes. Although the TRANSFoRm platform had been developed and tested, it had not been used in general practices before. We were surprised to find that there were many technical problems in setting up the TRANSFoRm platform in general practices, and staff were too busy and/or did not have the skills to overcome the technical issues. As a result, recruiting patients was slow and the study was halted before we had enough children to answer the main research question. In total, we managed to get 44 general practices and 22 children, but this was not enough. We still think that this kind of research and electronic trial platforms are important. We have noted many system and technical issues that need to be solved to enable funders and researchers to use this recruitment approach in the future.

Safety and efficacy of losartan for the reduction of brain atrophy in clinically diagnosed Alzheimer's disease (the RADAR trial): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Drugs modifying angiotensin II signalling could reduce Alzheimer's disease pathology, thus decreasing the rate of disease progression. We investigated whether the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan, compared with placebo, could reduce brain volume loss, as a measure of disease progression, in clinically diagnosed mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, eligible patients aged 55 years or older, previously untreated with angiotensin II drugs and diagnosed (National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association criteria) with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, and who had capacity to consent, were recruited from 23 UK National Health Service hospital trusts. After undergoing a 4-week, open-label phase of active treatment then washout, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) oral over-encapsulated preparations of either 100 mg losartan (after an initial two-dose titration stage) or matched placebo daily for 12 months. Randomisation, minimised by age and baseline medial temporal lobe atrophy score, was undertaken online or via pin-access service by telephone. Participants, their study companions, and study personnel were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle (ie, participants analysed in the group to which they were randomised, without imputation for missing data), was change in whole brain volume between baseline and 12 months, measured using volumetric MRI and determined by boundary shift interval (BSI) analysis. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register (ISRCTN93682878) and the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2012-003641-15), and is completed. FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2014, and May 17, 2018, 261 participants entered the open-label phase. 211 were randomly assigned losartan (n=105) or placebo (n=106). Of 197 (93%) participants who completed the study, 171 (81%) had complete primary outcome data. The mean brain volume (BSI) reduction was 19·1 mL (SD 10·3) in the losartan group and 20·0 mL (10·8) in the placebo group. The difference in total volume reduction between groups was -2·29 mL (95% CI -6·46 to 0·89; p=0·14). The number of adverse events was low (22 in the losartan group and 20 in the placebo group) with no differences between treatment groups. There was one treatment-related death per treatment group. INTERPRETATION: 12 months of treatment with losartan was well tolerated but was not effective in reducing the rate of brain atrophy in individuals with clinically diagnosed mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. Further research is needed to assess the potential therapeutic benefit from earlier treatment in patients with milder cognitive impairment or from longer treatment periods. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme (UK Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research).

Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: While patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials is beneficial and mandated by some funders, formal guidance on how to implement PPI is limited and challenges have been reported. We aimed to investigate how PPI is approached within a UK Clinical Trials Unit (CTU)'s portfolio of randomised controlled trials, perceived barriers to/facilitators of its successful implementation, and perspectives on the CTU's role in PPI. METHODS: A mixed-methods study design, involving (1) an online survey of 26 trial managers (TMs) and (2) Interviews with Trial Management Group members and public contributors from 8 case-study trials. Quantitative survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics and interview transcripts analysed thematically. Two public contributors advised throughout and are co-authors. RESULTS: (1) 21 TMs completed the survey; (2) 19 in-depth interviews were conducted with public contributors (n=8), TMs (n=5), chief investigators (n=3), PPI coordinators (n=2) and a researcher. 15/21 TMs surveyed reported that a public contributor was on the trial team, and 5 used another PPI method. 12/21 TMs reported that public contributors were paid (range £10-50/h). 5 TMs reported that training was provided for public contributors and few staff members had received any formal PPI training. The most commonly reported tasks undertaken by public contributors were the review of participant-facing materials/study documents and advising on recruitment/retention strategies. Public contributors wanted and valued feedback on changes made due to their input, but it was not always provided. Barriers to successful PPI included recruitment challenges, group dynamics, maintaining professional boundaries, negative attitudes to PPI amongst some researchers, a lack of continuity of trial staff, and the academic environment. Successful PPI required early and explicit planning, sharing of power and ownership of the trial with public contributors, building and maintaining relationships, and joint understanding and clarity about expectations/roles. CTUs have an important role to play in supporting recruitment, signposting and coordinating PPI. CONCLUSIONS: While highly valuable, PPI in trials is currently variable. PPI representatives are recruited informally, may not be provided with any training and are paid inconsistently across trials. Study findings can help optimise PPI in trials and ensure researchers and public contributors are adequately supported.

Challenges to implementing electronic trial data collection in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Within-consultation recruitment to primary care trials is challenging. Ensuring procedures are efficient and self-explanatory is the key to optimising recruitment. Trial recruitment software that integrates with the electronic health record to support and partially automate procedures is becoming more common. If it works well, such software can support greater participation and more efficient trial designs. An innovative electronic trial recruitment and outcomes software was designed to support recruitment to the Runny Ear randomised controlled trial, comparing topical, oral and delayed antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media with discharge in children. A qualitative evaluation investigated the views and experiences of primary care staff using this trial software. METHODS: Staff were purposively sampled in relation to site, role and whether the practice successfully recruited patients. In-depth interviews were conducted using a flexible topic guide, audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Sixteen staff were interviewed, including GPs, practice managers, information technology (IT) leads and research staff. GPs wanted trial software that automatically captures patient data. However, the experience of getting the software to work within the limited and complex IT infrastructure of primary care was frustrating and time consuming. Installation was reliant on practice level IT expertise, which varied between practices. Although most had external IT support, this rarely included supported for research IT. Arrangements for approving new software varied across practices and often, but not always, required authorisation from Clinical Commissioning Groups. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care IT systems are not solely under the control of individual practices or CCGs or the National Health Service. Rather they are part of a complex system that spans all three and is influenced by semi-autonomous stakeholders operating at different levels. This led to time consuming and sometimes insurmountable barriers to installation at the practice level. These need to be addressed if software supporting efficient research in primary care is to become a reality.