Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

Routine hospital data - is it good enough for trials? An example using England's Hospital Episode Statistics in the SHIFT trial of Family Therapy vs. Treatment as Usual in adolescents following self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Use of routine data sources within clinical research is increasing and is endorsed by the National Institute for Health Research to increase trial efficiencies; however there is limited evidence for its use in clinical trials, especially in relation to self-harm. One source of routine data, Hospital Episode Statistics, is collated and distributed by NHS Digital and contains details of admissions, outpatient, and Accident and Emergency attendances provided periodically by English National Health Service hospitals. We explored the reliability and accuracy of Hospital Episode Statistics, compared to data collected directly from hospital records, to assess whether it would provide complete, accurate, and reliable means of acquiring hospital attendances for self-harm - the primary outcome for the SHIFT (Self-Harm Intervention: Family Therapy) trial evaluating Family Therapy for adolescents following self-harm. METHODS: Participant identifiers were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics Accident and Emergency, and Admissions data, and episodes combined to describe participants' complete hospital attendance. Attendance data were initially compared to data previously gathered by trial researchers from pre-identified hospitals. Final comparison was conducted of subsequent attendances collected through Hospital Episode Statistics and researcher follow-up. Consideration was given to linkage rates; number and proportion of attendances retrieved; reliability of Accident and Emergency, and Admissions data; percentage of self-harm episodes recorded and coded appropriately; and percentage of required data items retrieved. RESULTS: Participants were first linked to Hospital Episode Statistics with an acceptable match rate of 95%, identifying a total of 341 complete hospital attendances, compared to 139 reported by the researchers at the time. More than double the proportion of Hospital Episode Statistics Accident and Emergency episodes could not be classified in relation to self-harm (75%) compared to 34.9% of admitted episodes, and of overall attendances, 18% were classified as self-harm related and 20% not related, while ambiguity or insufficient information meant 62% were unclassified. Of 39 self-harm-related attendances reported by the researchers, Hospital Episode Statistics identified 24 (62%) as self-harm related while 15 (38%) were unclassified. Based on final data received, 1490 complete hospital attendances were identified and comparison to researcher follow-up found Hospital Episode Statistics underestimated the number of self-harm attendances by 37.2% (95% confidence interval 32.6%-41.9%). CONCLUSION: Advantages of routine data collection via NHS Digital included the acquisition of more comprehensive and timely trial outcome data, identifying more than double the number of hospital attendances than researchers. Disadvantages included ambiguity in the classification of self-harm relatedness. Our resulting primary outcome data collection strategy used routine data to identify hospital attendances supplemented by targeted researcher data collection for attendances requiring further self-harm classification.

The RETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) trial: Findings from a mixed-methods process evaluation of the Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) intervention.

INTRODUCTION: A key goal for working age stroke survivors is to return to work, yet only around 50% achieve this at 12 months. Currently, there is limited evidence of effectiveness of early stroke-specialist vocational rehabilitation (ESSVR) interventions from randomised controlled trials. This study examined fidelity to ESSVR and explored social and structural factors which may have influenced implementation in the RETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Mixed-methods process evaluation assessing intervention fidelity and incorporating longitudinal case-studies exploring stroke survivors' experiences of support to return to work. Normalisation Process Theory, and the Conceptual Model for Implementation Fidelity, informed data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen sites across England and Wales participated in RETAKE. Forty-eight occupational therapists (OTs), supported by 6 mentors experienced in vocational rehabilitation (VR), delivered the intervention (duration 12 months) between February 2018 and April 2022. Twenty-six participants (15 ESSVR, 11 usual care (UC)) were included in longitudinal case-studies. An additional 18 participants (8 ESSVR and 10 UC) were interviewed once. Nineteen OTs, 6 mentors and 19 service managers were interviewed. Fidelity was measured for 39 ESSVR participants; mean fidelity score was 78.8% (SD:19.2%, range 31-100%). Comparison of the experiences of ESSVR and UC participants indicated duration and type of support to return to work were perceived to be better for ESSVR participants. They received early, co-ordinated support including employer liaison and workplace adjustments where appropriate. In contrast, UC participants reported limited or no VR or return to work support from health professionals. Typically, UC support lasted 2-8 weeks, with poor communication and co-ordination between rehabilitation providers. Mentor support for OTs appeared to increase fidelity. Service managers indicated ESSVR would enhance post-stroke services. CONCLUSIONS: ESSVR was valued by participants and was delivered with fidelity; implementation appeared to be facilitated by mentor support for OTs.

Low-dose amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS): a qualitative study of patients' and GPs' views and experiences.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) can cause troublesome symptoms impacting patients' quality of life and incur considerable health service resource use. Guidelines suggest low-dose amitriptyline for IBS as second line treatment, but this is rarely prescribed in primary care. AIM: To explore patients' and general practitioners' (GPs) views and experiences of using low-dose amitriptyline for IBS. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study with patients and GPs in England, nested within the ATLANTIS trial of low-dose amitriptyline versus placebo (ISRCTN48075063). METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews with 42 patients at 6-months post-randomisation, 19 patients again at 12-months post-randomisation, and 16 GPs. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse patient and GP data separately, then together, to identify unique and cross-cutting themes. RESULTS: We found concerns about amitriptyline being an antidepressant, medicalising IBS, and side-effects. Perceived benefits included the low and flexible dose, ease of treatment, familiarity of amitriptyline and its potential to offer benefits beyond IBS symptom relief. These concerns and perceived benefits were expressed in the context of desire for a novel approach to IBS: GPs were keen to offer more options for IBS and patients sought a cure for their symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and GPs felt the potential benefits from trying low-dose amitriptyline for IBS outweighed their concerns. When offering low-dose amitriptyline for IBS, GPs could address patient concerns about taking an antidepressant for IBS, highlighting the low and flexible dosage and other potential benefits of amitriptyline such as improved sleep.

Early vocational rehabilitation and psychological support for trauma patients to improve return to work (the ROWTATE trial): study protocol for an individually randomised controlled multicentre pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Moderately severe or major trauma (injury severity score (ISS) > 8) is common, often resulting in physical and psychological problems and leading to difficulties in returning to work. Vocational rehabilitation (VR) can improve return to work/education in some injuries (e.g. traumatic brain and spinal cord injury), but evidence is lacking for other moderately severe or major trauma. METHODS: ROWTATE is an individually randomised controlled multicentre pragmatic trial of early VR and psychological support in trauma patients. It includes an internal pilot, economic evaluation, a process evaluation and an implementation study. Participants will be screened for eligibility and recruited within 12 weeks of admission to eight major trauma centres in England. A total of 722 participants with ISS > 8 will be randomised 1:1 to VR and psychological support (where needed, following psychological screening) plus usual care or to usual care alone. The ROWTATE VR intervention will be provided within 2 weeks of study recruitment by occupational therapists and where needed, by clinical psychologists. It will be individually tailored and provided for ≤ 12 months, dependent on participant need. Baseline assessment will collect data on demographics, injury details, work/education status, cognitive impairment, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic distress, disability, recovery expectations, financial stress and health-related quality of life. Participants will be followed up by postal/telephone/online questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary objective is to establish whether the ROWTATE VR intervention plus usual care is more effective than usual care alone for improving participants' self-reported return to work/education for at least 80% of pre-injury hours at 12 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include other work outcomes (e.g. hours of work/education, time to return to work/education, sickness absence), depression, anxiety, post-traumatic distress, work self-efficacy, financial stress, purpose in life, health-related quality of life and healthcare/personal resource use. The process evaluation and implementation study will be described elsewhere. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide robust evidence regarding a VR intervention for a major trauma population. Evidence of a clinically and cost-effective VR intervention will be important for commissioners and providers to enable adoption of VR services for this large and important group of patients within the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 43115471. Registered 27/07/2021.

Low-dose titrated amitriptyline as second-line treatment for adults with irritable bowel syndrome in primary care: the ATLANTIS RCT.

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome, characterised by abdominal pain and a change in stool form or frequency, is most often managed in primary care. When first-line therapies are ineffective, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines suggest considering low-dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown and they are infrequently prescribed by general practitioners. Objective: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of low-dose titrated amitriptyline as a second-line treatment for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care. Design: A pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A nested, qualitative study explored participant and general practitioner experiences of treatments and trial participation, and implications for wider use of amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome in primary care. Participants, clinicians, investigators and analysts were masked to allocation. Setting: Fifty-five general practices in three regions in England (Wessex, West of England, West Yorkshire). Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Rome IV criteria for irritable bowel syndrome with ongoing symptoms after trying first-line treatments and no contraindications to TCAs. Intervention: Amitriptyline 10 mg once-daily, self-titrated by participants to a maximum of 30 mg once-daily or matched placebo for 6 months. Participants randomised 1 : 1 with most having the option to continue blinded treatment for a further 6 months. Main outcome measures: The primary participant-reported outcome was the effect of amitriptyline on global irritable bowel syndrome symptoms at 6 months, measured using the irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System, with a 35-point between-group difference defined as the minimum clinically important difference. The key secondary outcome was the proportion of participants reporting subjective global assessment of relief at 6 months, defined as somewhat, considerable, or complete relief of symptoms. Other secondary outcomes included: effect on global symptoms, via the irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System, and subjective global assessment of relief of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms at 3 and 12 months; effect on somatic symptom-reporting at 6 months; anxiety an-d depression scores; ability to work and participate in other activities at 3, 6 and 12 months; acceptability, tolerability and adherence to trial medication. Results: Four hundred and sixty-three participants were randomised to amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). An intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome Severity Scoring System score between arms at 6 months [-27.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -46.9 to -7.10; p = 0.008]. For the key secondary outcome of subjective global assessment of relief of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms, amitriptyline was superior to placebo at 6 months (odds ratio 1.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.66; p = 0.005). Amitriptyline was superior to placebo across a range of other irritable bowel syndrome symptom measures but had no impact on somatoform symptom-reporting, anxiety, depression, or work and social adjustment scores. Adverse event trial withdrawals were more common with amitriptyline (12.9% vs. 8.7% for placebo) but most adverse events were mild. The qualitative study thematically analysed 77 semistructured interviews with 42 participants and 16 GPs. Most participants found the self-titration process acceptable and empowering. Conclusions: General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with irritable bowel syndrome whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies. Guidance and resources should support GP-patient communication to distinguish amitriptyline for irritable bowel syndrome from use as an antidepressant and to support patients managing their own dose titration. Study registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN48075063. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/162/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 28, No. 66. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People with irritable bowel syndrome experience stomach (abdominal) pain and changes to their bowel movements. Irritable bowel syndrome can have a serious impact on people's lives. Previous small trials suggest that a drug called amitriptyline used at a low dose may help irritable bowel syndrome. Amitriptyline is already used to treat other conditions. It is available for irritable bowel syndrome but is not used much by general practitioners. We recruited adults aged ≥ 18 years with irritable bowel syndrome from UK general practices who did not have any issues preventing the use of amitriptyline. Patients received either low-dose amitriptyline or placebo (a dummy tablet) for 6 months. Patients could adjust the dose according to symptoms and side effects. Neither the researchers nor the patients knew which treatment they were getting. Participants recorded symptoms using a questionnaire containing an irritable bowel syndrome severity score. We looked at the difference in average irritable bowel syndrome severity score between patients receiving amitriptyline and placebo. We also looked at effects of amitriptyline on mood, ability to work, and non-gut symptoms related to irritable bowel syndrome, as well as safety and acceptability. Some patients and general practitioners were interviewed about their experiences. Four hundred and sixty-three patients took part. Participants receiving amitriptyline reported a bigger improvement in their irritable bowel syndrome severity scores at 6 months, compared with patients on placebo. Amitriptyline was better across a range of irritable bowel syndrome symptom measures but did not impact anxiety, depression or ability to work. Forty-six people (19.8%) stopped taking amitriptyline and 59 (25.5%) stopped the placebo before 6 months. Patients liked being able to adjust their dose and valued contact with the research team. This study showed that amitriptyline is more effective than a placebo and is safe. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to people with irritable bowel syndrome if symptoms do not improve with other standard treatments. Patients should be supported and helped to adjust their dose as needed. The dose adjustment sheet used in this trial will be made available.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. METHODS: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. RESULTS: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. CONCLUSIONS: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

The detection and management of attempted fraud during an online randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Online studies offer an efficient method of recruiting participants and collecting data. Whilst delivering an online randomised trial, we detected unusual recruitment activity. We describe our approach to detecting and managing suspected fraud and share lessons for researchers. METHODS: Our trial investigated the single and combined effects of different ways of presenting clinical audit and feedback. Clinicians and managers who received feedback from one of five United Kingdom national clinical audit programmes were emailed invitations that contained a link to the trial website. After providing consent and selecting their relevant audit, participants were randomised automatically to different feedback versions. Immediately after viewing their assigned feedback, participants completed a questionnaire and could request a financial voucher by entering an email address. Email addresses were not linked to trial data to preserve participant anonymity. We actively monitored participant numbers, questionnaire completions, and voucher claims. RESULTS: Following a rapid increase in trial participation, we identified 268 new voucher claims from three email addresses that we had reason to believe were linked. Further scrutiny revealed duplicate trial completions and voucher requests from 24 email addresses. We immediately suspended the trial, improved security measures, and went on to successfully complete the study. We found a peak in questionnaires completed in less than 20 seconds during a likely contamination period. Given that study and personal data were not linked, we could not directly identify the trial data from the 268 duplicate entries within the 603 randomisations occurring during the same period. We therefore excluded all 603 randomisations from the primary analysis, which was consequently based on 638 randomisations. A sensitivity analysis, including all 961 randomisations over the entire study except for questionnaire completions of less than 20 seconds, found only minor differences from the primary analysis. CONCLUSION: Online studies offering incentives for participation are at risk of attempted fraud. Systematic monitoring and analysis can help detect such activity. Measures to protect study integrity include linking participant identifiers to study data, balancing study security and ease of participation, and safeguarding the allocation of participant incentives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN41584028. Registration date is August 17, 2017.

Cancer patients' needs assessment in primary care: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT), economic evaluation and normalisation process theory evaluation of the needs assessment tool cancer (CANAssess).

INTRODUCTION: Unmet needs in patients with cancer and their carers are common but poorly identified and addressed. The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a structured consultation guide to identify and triage patient and carer unmet needs. The NAT-C is validated, but its effectiveness in reducing unmet patient and carer needs in primary care is unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Cluster randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and embedded process evaluation to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of the NAT-C in primary care for people with active cancer in reducing unmet patient and carer need, compared with usual care. We will recruit 1080 patients with active cancer (and carers if relevant) from 54 general practices in England.Participating practices will be randomised 1:1 to either deliver an NAT-guided clinical consultation plus usual care or to usual care alone. Consenting participants with active cancer and their carers (if nominated) will be asked to complete study questionnaires at baseline, 1 and 3 months for all, 6 months except for those recruited outside of the last 3 months of recruitment, and attend an NAT-C appointment if allocated to an intervention practice. An internal pilot will assess: site and participant recruitment, intervention uptake and follow-up rates. The primary outcome, the proportion of patients with an unmet need on the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form 34 at 3 months postregistration, will be analysed using a multilevel logistic regression. Mixed-methods process evaluation informed by Normalisation Process Theory will use quantitative survey and interview data from clinicians and key stakeholders in cancer care to develop an implementation strategy for nationwide rollout of the NAT-C if the intervention is cost-effective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval from London-Surrey REC (20/LO/0312). Results will be peer-reviewed, published and made available to research participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15497400.

Amitriptyline at low-dose and titrated for irritable bowel syndrome as second-line treatment (The ATLANTIS trial): protocol for a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional bowel disorder that has a considerable impact on patient quality of life and substantial societal and health care resource costs. Current treatments are often ineffective. Tricyclic antidepressants have shown promise in secondary care populations but their effectiveness in a primary care setting remains unclear. METHODS: ATLANTIS is a randomised, multi-centre, parallel-group, two-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of low-dose amitriptyline as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care. Participants will be invited by letter, or recruited opportunistically, from general practices in three regions of England (West Yorkshire, Wessex, and West of England) and screened for eligibility. A total of 518 adult patients with IBS, who are symptomatic despite first-line therapies, will be randomised 1:1 to amitriptyline or identical placebo for 6 months. Treatment will commence at a dose of 10 mg (or one placebo tablet) daily at night, with dose titration up to a maximum of 30 mg at night, depending on side effects and response to treatment. Participant-reported assessments will be conducted at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary objective is to determine the effectiveness of amitriptyline, compared with placebo, in improving participant-reported global symptoms of IBS at 6 months (using the IBS Severity Scoring System). Secondary outcomes include relief of IBS symptoms, effect on IBS-associated somatic symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-12), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), ability to work and participate in other activities (Work and Social Adjustment Scale), acceptability and tolerability of treatment, self-reported health care use, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), and cost-effectiveness. A nested, qualitative study will explore patient and general practitioner experiences of treatments and trial participation, including acceptability, adherence, unanticipated effects, and implications for wider use of amitriptyline for IBS in primary care. DISCUSSION: Determining the clinical and cost-effectiveness of low-dose amitriptyline as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care will provide robust evidence to inform management decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN48075063 . Registered on 7th June 2019.

A randomised fractional factorial screening experiment to predict effective features of audit and feedback.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback aims to improve patient care by comparing healthcare performance against explicit standards. It is used to monitor and improve patient care, including through National Clinical Audit (NCA) programmes in the UK. Variability in effectiveness of audit and feedback is attributed to intervention design; separate randomised trials to address multiple questions about how to optimise effectiveness would be inefficient. We evaluated different feedback modifications to identify leading candidates for further "real-world" evaluation. METHODS: Using an online fractional factorial screening experiment, we randomised recipients of feedback from five UK NCAs to different combinations of six feedback modifications applied within an audit report excerpt: use effective comparators, provide multimodal feedback, recommend specific actions, provide optional detail, incorporate the patient voice, and minimise cognitive load. Outcomes, assessed immediately after exposure to the online modifications, included intention to enact audit standards (primary outcome, ranked on a scale of -3 to +3, tailored to the NCA), comprehension, user experience, and engagement. RESULTS: We randomised 1241 participants (clinicians, managers, and audit staff) between April and October 2019. Inappropriate repeated participant completion occurred; we conservatively excluded participant entries during the relevant period, leaving a primary analysis population of 638 (51.4%) participants. None of the six feedback modifications had an independent effect on intention across the five NCAs. We observed both synergistic and antagonistic effects across outcomes when modifications were combined; the specific NCA and whether recipients had a clinical role had dominant influences on outcome, and there was an antagonistic interaction between multimodal feedback and optional detail. Among clinical participants, predicted intention ranged from 1.22 (95% confidence interval 0.72, 1.72) for the least effective combination in which multimodal feedback, optional detail, and reduced cognitive load were applied within the audit report, up to 2.40 (95% CI 1.88, 2.93) for the most effective combination including multimodal feedback, specific actions, patient voice, and reduced cognitive load. CONCLUSION: Potentially important synergistic and antagonistic effects were identified across combinations of feedback modifications, audit programmes, and recipients, suggesting that feedback designers must explicitly consider how different features of feedback may interact to achieve (or undermine) the desired effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN41584028.

A cluster randomised trial of a Needs Assessment Tool for adult Cancer patients and their carers (NAT-C) in primary care: A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer often have unidentified symptoms and social care needs. The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a validated, structured method of assessing patient/carer concerns and prompting action, to address unmet need. AIMS: Assess feasibility and acceptability of a definitive two-armed cluster randomised trial of NAT-C in primary care by evaluating: recruitment of GP practices, patients and carers; most effective approach of ensuring NAT-C appointments, acceptability of study measures and follow-up. METHODS: Non-blinded, feasibility study in four General Practices, with cluster randomisation to method of NAT-C appointment delivery, and process evaluation. Adults with active cancer were invited to participate with or without carer. Practices cluster randomised (1:1) to Arm I: promotion and use of NAT-C with a NAT-C trained clinician or Arm II: clinician of choice irrespective of training status. Participants completed study questionnaires at: baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months. Patients booked a 20 minute needs-assessment appointment post-baseline. Patients, carers and GP practice staff views regarding the study sought through interviews/focus groups. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically, informed by Normalisation Process Theory. Progression to a definitive trial was assessed against feasibility outcomes, relating to: recruitment rate, uptake and delivery of the NAT-C, data collection and quality. RESULTS: Five GP practices approached, four recruited and trained to use the NAT-C. Forty-seven participants and 17 carers recruited. At baseline, 34/47 (72%) participants reported at least one moderate-severe unmet need, confirming study rationale. 32/47 (68%) participants received a NAT-C-guided consultation, 19 of which on Arm I. Study attrition at one month (n = 44 (94%), n = 16 (94%)), three months (n = 38 (81%), n = 14 (82%)) and six months (n = 32 (68%), n = 10 (59%)). Fifteen patient interviews conducted across the whole study and one focus group at each GP practice. Participants supported a definitive study and found measures acceptable. CONCLUSION: The feasibility trial indicated that recruitment rate, intervention uptake and data collection were appropriate, with refinements, for a definitive multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial. Feasibility outcomes informed the design of a 2-armed cluster randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NAT-C compared with usual care.

Reducing Self-harm in Adolescents. An individual participant data meta-analysis (RISA-IPD): systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Up to 10% of adolescents report self-harm in the previous year. Non-fatal repetition is common (18% in 1 year), death from any cause shows a fourfold and suicide a 10-fold excess. Despite the scale of the problem, there is insufficient evidence for effective interventions for self-harm. Those who self-harm do so for a variety of different reasons. Different treatments may be more effective for subgroups of adolescents; however, little is known about which subgroups are appropriate for further study. This protocol outlines a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) to identify subgroups of adolescents for which therapeutic interventions for self-harm show some evidence of benefit. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature search was conducted in August 2019 (including Cochrane Library, Embase, trial registers and other databases). An update search is planned. Study selection will identify randomised controlled trials examining interventions to reduce self-harm in adolescents who have self-harmed and presented to services. Identified research teams will be invited to contribute data and form a collaborative group. Two-stage IPD-MA will be used to evaluate effectiveness of different therapeutic interventions compared with any active or non-active control on repetition of self-harm, general psychopathology, depression, suicidal ideation, quality of life and death. Subgroup analyses will identify adolescent subgroups in whom different therapeutic interventions may be more effective. Meta-regression will explore moderating study and intervention effects. Sensitivity analyses will incorporate aggregate data from studies lacking IPD and test the robustness of results to methods for handling missing data, within-study clustering, non-adherence and study quality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is provided by the University of Leeds, Faculty of Medicine and Health Ethics Committee (18-098). Outcomes will inform research recommendations and will be disseminated internationally through the collaborative group, a service user advisory group, open-access peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019152119.

Problem-solving therapy rather than treatment as usual for adults after self-harm: a pragmatic, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (the MIDSHIPS trial).

BACKGROUND: Non-fatal self-harm is one of the commonest reasons for adults' emergency hospital attendance. Although strongly associated with fatal and non-fatal repetition, there is weak evidence about effective interventions-and no clear NICE guidance or clinical consensus concerning aftercare. We examined the practicability of a definitive trial to evaluate problem-solving therapy (PST) to reduce repetition of self-harm; MIDSHIPS is a single-centre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled feasibility trial comparing treatment-as-usual (TAU) alone to TAU plus up to six sessions of brief problem-solving therapy (PST) with adults who had recently attended hospital because of self-harm. Objectives were to adapt the intervention for a UK setting, train therapists, recruit and randomise patients, deliver PST under supervision, and establish comparative outcomes, assessed blindly. METHODS: We adapted the problem-solving intervention from an earlier trial and trained a mental-health nurse to deliver it. Adult patients attending the general hospital for self-harm were recruited while undergoing psychosocial assessment by the mental health team, and 62 were randomly allocated (32 TAU, 30 PST). The primary outcome assessed repeat hospital attendance due to further self-harm 6 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes included participant-reported outcomes and service use at 3 and 6 months post-randomisation. RESULTS: The recruitment period had to be extended and 710 patients screened in order to establish a trial sample of the planned size (N = 62). A quarter of participants allocated to PST did not undertake the therapy offered; those who received PST attended a median of three sessions. Secondary outcomes were established for 49 (79%) participants at 6 months; all participants' hospital records were retrieved. Repetition of self-harm leading to hospital presentation occurred in 19 of the 62 participants (30.6%, 95% CI 19.2%, 42.1%) within 6 months of randomisation. Promising differential rates of self-harm were observed with an event rate of 23.3% (95% CI 8.2%, 38.5%) in the PST arm; and 37.5% (95% CI 20.7%, 54.3%) in TAU. Economic findings were also encouraging, with a small QALY gain (0.0203) in the PST arm together with less reported use of the NHS in the PST arm (average £2120) than with TAU-only (£2878). CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility trial achieved its objectives despite considerable difficulties with recruitment-adapting the PST, training a therapist, recruiting patients who had recently self-harmed, delivering the therapy, and establishing primary and secondary outcomes. These data provide a robust platform for a definitive multicentre randomised controlled trial of brief problem-solving therapy after hospital attendance due to self-harm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Identification number and URL: ISRCTN54036115 http://www.isrctn.com/search?q=midships. Registered: 13 January 2012.

Problem-solving training: assessing the feasibility and acceptability of delivering and evaluating a problem-solving training model for front-line prison staff and prisoners who self-harm.

OBJECTIVES: Problem-solving skills training is adaptable, inexpensive and simple to deliver. However, its application with prisoners who self-harm is unknown. The study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a problem-solving training (PST) intervention for prison staff and prisoners who self-harm, to inform the design of a large-scale study. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-methods design used routinely collected data, individual outcome measures, an economic protocol and qualitative interviews at four prisons in Yorkshire and Humber, UK. PARTICIPANTS: (i) Front-line prison staff, (ii) male and female prisoners with an episode of self-harm in the previous 2 weeks. INTERVENTION: The intervention comprised a 1 hour staff training session and a 30 min prisoner session using adapted workbooks and case studies. OUTCOMES: We assessed the study processes-coverage of training; recruitment and retention rates and adequacy of intervention delivery-and available data (completeness of outcome data, integrity of routinely collected data and access to the National Health Service (NHS) resource information). Prisoner outcomes assessed incidence of self-harm, quality of life and depression at baseline and at follow-up. Qualitative findings are presented elsewhere. RESULTS: Recruitment was higher than anticipated for staff n=280, but lower for prisoners, n=48. Retention was good with 43/48 (89%) prisoners completing the intervention, at follow-up we collected individual outcome data for 34/48 (71%) of prisoners. Access to routinely collected data was inconsistent. Prisoners were frequent users of NHS healthcare. The additional cost of training and intervention delivery was deemed minimal in comparison to 'treatment as usual'. Outcome measures of self-harm, quality of life and depression were found to be acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention proved feasible to adapt. Staff training was delivered but on the whole it was not deemed feasible for staff to deliver the intervention. A large-scale study is warranted, but modifications to the implementation of the intervention are required.

CODIFI (Concordance in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Infection): a cross-sectional study of wound swab versus tissue sampling in infected diabetic foot ulcers in England.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of agreement and patterns of disagreement between wound swab and tissue samples in patients with an infected diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Primary and secondary care foot ulcer/diabetic outpatient clinics and hospital wards across England. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria: consenting patients aged ≥18 years; diabetes mellitus; suspected infected DFU. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: clinically inappropriate to take either sample. INTERVENTIONS: Wound swab obtained using Levine's technique; tissue samples collected using a sterile dermal curette or scalpel. OUTCOME MEASURES: Coprimary: reported presence, and number, of pathogens per sample; prevalence of resistance to antimicrobials among likely pathogens. Secondary: recommended change in antibiotic therapy based on blinded clinical review; adverse events; sampling costs. RESULTS: 400 consenting patients (79% male) from 25 centres.Most prevalent reported pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (43.8%), Streptococcus (16.7%) and other aerobic Gram-positive cocci (70.6%). At least one potential pathogen was reported from 70.1% of wound swab and 86.1% of tissue samples. Pathogen results differed between sampling methods in 58% of patients, with more pathogens and fewer contaminants reported from tissue specimens.The majority of pathogens were reported significantly more frequently in tissue than wound swab samples (P<0.01), with equal disagreement for S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Blinded clinicians more often recommended a change in antibiotic regimen based on tissue compared with wound swab results (increase of 8.9%, 95% CI 2.65% to 15.3%). Ulcer pain and bleeding occurred more often after tissue collection versus wound swabs (pain: 9.3%, 1.3%; bleeding: 6.8%, 1.5%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Reports of tissue samples more frequently identified pathogens, and less frequently identified non-pathogens compared with wound swab samples. Blinded clinicians more often recommended changes in antibiotic therapy based on tissue compared with wound swab specimens. Further research is needed to determine the effect of the additional information provided by tissue samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN52608451.

Developing and feasibility testing of data collection methods for an economic evaluation of a supported selfmanagement programme for adults with a learning disability and type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The challenges of conducting research with hard to reach vulnerable groups are particularly pertinent for people with learning disabilities. Data collection methods for previous cost and cost-effectiveness analyses of health and social care interventions targeting people with learning disabilities have relied on health care/health insurance records or data collection forms completed by the service provider rather than by people with learning disabilities themselves. This paper reports on the development and testing of data collection methods for an economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for a supported self-management programme for people with mild/moderate learning disabilities and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A case finding study was conducted to identify types of health and social care use and data collection methods employed in previous studies with this population. Based on this evidence, resource use questionnaires for completion by GP staff and interviewer-administered participant questionnaires (covering a wider cost perspective and health-related quality of life) were tested within a feasibility RCT. Interviewer-administered questionnaires included the EQ-5D-3L (the NICE recommended measure for use in economic evaluation). Participants were adults > 18 years with a mild or moderate learning disability and type 2 diabetes, with mental capacity to give consent to research participation. RESULTS: Data collection for questionnaires completed by GP staff requesting data for the last 12 months proved time intensive and difficult. Whilst 82.3% (121/147) of questionnaires were returned, up to 17% of service use items were recorded as unknown. Subsequently, a shorter recall period (4 months) led to a higher return rate but with a higher rate of missing data. Missing data for interviewer-administered participant questionnaires was > 8% but the interviewers reported difficulty with participant recall. Almost 60% (48/80) of participants had difficulty completing the EQ-5D-3L. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigation as to how service use can be recorded is recommended. Concerns about the reliability of identifying service use data directly from participants with a learning disability due to challenges in completion, specifically around recall, remain. The degree of difficulty to complete EQ-5D-3L indicates concerns regarding the appropriateness of using this measure in its current form in research with this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033 (registered 21 January 2013).

Managing with Learning Disability and Diabetes: OK-Diabetes - a case-finding study and feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity and type 2 diabetes are common in adults with a learning disability. It is not known if the principles of self-management can be applied in this population. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a case-finding method and undertake an observational study of adults with a learning disability and type 2 diabetes, to develop a standardised supported self-management (SSM) intervention and measure of adherence and to undertake a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of SSM versus treatment as usual (TAU). DESIGN: Observational study and an individually randomised feasibility RCT. SETTING: Three cities in West Yorkshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: In the observational study: adults aged > 18 years with a mild or moderate learning disability, who have type 2 diabetes that is not being treated with insulin and who are living in the community. Participants had mental capacity to consent to research and to the intervention. In the RCT participants had glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of > 6.5% (48 mmol/mol), a body mass index (BMI) of > 25 kg/m2 or self-reported physical activity below national guideline levels. INTERVENTIONS: Standardised SSM. TAU supported by an easy-read booklet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) The number of eligible participants identified and sources of referral; (2) current living and support arrangements; (3) current health state, including level of HbA1c, BMI and waist circumference, blood pressure and lipids; (4) mood, preferences for change; (5) recruitment and retention in RCT; (6) implementation and adherence to the intervention; (7) completeness of data collection and values for candidate primary outcomes; and (8) qualitative data on participant experience of the research process and intervention. RESULTS: In the observational study we identified 147 eligible consenting participants. The mean age was 54.4 years. In total, 130 out of 147 (88%) named a key supporter, with 113 supporters (77%) being involved in diabetes management. The mean HbA1c level was 54.5 mmol/mol [standard deviation (SD) 14.8 mmol/mol; 7.1%, SD 1.4%]. The BMI of 65% of participants was > 30 kg/m2 and of 21% was > 40 kg/m2. Many participants reported low mood, dissatisfaction with lifestyle and diabetes management and an interest in change. Non-response rates were high (45/147, 31%) for medical data requested from the primary care team. In the RCT, 82 participants were randomised. The mean baseline HbA1c level was 56 mmol/mol (SD 16.5 mmol/mol; 7.3%, SD 1.5%) and the mean BMI was 34 kg/m2 (SD 7.6 kg/m2). All SSM sessions were completed by 35 out of 41 participants. The adherence measure was obtained in 37 out of 41 participants. The follow-up HbA1c level and BMI was obtained for 75 out of 82 (91%) and 77 out of 82 (94%) participants, respectively. Most participants reported a positive experience of the intervention. A low response rate and difficulty understanding the EuroQol-5 Dimensions were challenges in obtaining data for an economic analysis. LIMITATIONS: We recruited from only 60% of eligible general practices, and 90% of participants were on a general practice learning disability register, which meant that we did not recruit many participants from the wider population with milder learning disability. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive RCT is feasible and would need to recruit 194 participants per arm. The main barrier is the resource-intensive nature of recruitment. Future research is needed into the effectiveness of obesity treatments in this population, particularly estimating the longer-term outcomes that are important for health benefit. Research is also needed into improving ways of assessing quality of life in adults with a learning disability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41897033. 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. 22, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Improving the management of pain from advanced cancer in the community: study protocol for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with advanced cancer, research shows that pain is frequent, burdensome and undertreated. Evidence-based approaches to support cancer pain management have been developed but have not been implemented within the context of the UK National Health Service. This protocol is for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for a multicomponent intervention for pain management in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial will assess the feasibility of implementation and uptake of evidence-based interventions, developed and piloted as part of the Improving the Management of Pain from Advanced Cancer in the Community Programme grant, into routine clinical practice and determine whether there are potential differences with respect to patient-rated pain, patient pain knowledge and experience, healthcare use, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. 160 patients will receive either the intervention (usual care plus supported self-management) delivered within the oncology clinic and palliative care services by locally assigned community palliative care nurses, consisting of a self-management educational intervention and eHealth intervention for routine pain assessment and monitoring; or usual care. The primary outcomes are to assess implementation and uptake of the interventions, and differences in terms of pain severity. Secondary outcomes include pain interference, participant pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. Outcome assessment will be blinded and patient-reported outcome measures collected via post at 6 and 12 weeks following randomisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This RCT has the potential to significantly influence National Health Service delivery to community-based patients with pain from advanced cancer. We aim to provide definitive evidence of whether two simple interventions delivered by community palliative care nurse in palliative care that support-self-management are clinically effective and cost-effective additions to standard community palliative care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18281271; Pre-results.