Syndromic case definitions for lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) are less sensitive in older age: an analysis of symptoms among hospitalised adults.

BACKGROUND: Lower Respiratory Tract Infections (LRTI) pose a serious threat to older adults but may be underdiagnosed due to atypical presentations. Here we assess LRTI symptom profiles and syndromic (symptom-based) case ascertainment in older (≥ 65y) as compared to younger adults (< 65y). METHODS: We included adults (≥ 18y) with confirmed LRTI admitted to two acute care Trusts in Bristol, UK from 1st August 2020- 31st July 2022. Logistic regression was used to assess whether age ≥ 65y reduced the probability of meeting syndromic LRTI case definitions, using patients' symptoms at admission. We also calculated relative symptom frequencies (log-odds ratios) and evaluated how symptoms were clustered across different age groups. RESULTS: Of 17,620 clinically confirmed LRTI cases, 8,487 (48.1%) had symptoms meeting the case definition. Compared to those not meeting the definition these cases were younger, had less severe illness and were less likely to have received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or to have active SARS-CoV-2 infection. Prevalence of dementia/cognitive impairment and levels of comorbidity were lower in this group. After controlling for sex, dementia and comorbidities, age ≥ 65y significantly reduced the probability of meeting the case definition (aOR = 0.67, 95% CI:0.63-0.71). Cases aged ≥ 65y were less likely to present with fever and LRTI-specific symptoms (e.g., pleurisy, sputum) than younger cases, and those aged ≥ 85y were characterised by lack of cough but frequent confusion and falls. CONCLUSIONS: LRTI symptom profiles changed considerably with age in this hospitalised cohort. Standard screening protocols may fail to detect older and frailer cases of LRTI based on their symptoms.

The RELIEF feasibility trial: topical lidocaine patches in older adults with rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Lidocaine patches, applied over rib fractures, may reduce pulmonary complications in older patients. Known barriers to recruiting older patients in emergency settings necessitate a feasibility trial. We aimed to establish whether a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating lidocaine patches in older patients with rib fracture(s) was feasible. METHODS: This was a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, feasibility RCT in seven hospitals in England and Scotland. Patients aged ≥65 years, presenting to ED with traumatic rib fracture(s) requiring hospital admission were randomised to receive up to 3×700 mg lidocaine patches (Ralvo), first applied in ED and then once daily for 72 hours in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, retention and adherence. Clinical end points (pulmonary complications, pain and frailty-specific outcomes) and patient questionnaires were collected to determine feasibility of data collection and inform health economic scoping. Interviews and focus groups with trial participants and clinicians/research staff explored the understanding and acceptability of trial processes. RESULTS: Between October 23, 2021 and October 7, 2022, 206 patients were eligible, of whom 100 (median age 83 years; IQR 74-88) were randomised; 48 to lidocaine patches and 52 to standard care. Pulmonary complications at 30 days were determined in 86% of participants and 83% of expected 30-day questionnaires were returned. Pulmonary complications occurred in 48% of the lidocaine group and 59% in standard care. Pain and some frailty-specific outcomes were not feasible to collect. Staff reported challenges in patient compliance, unfamiliarity with research measures and overwhelming the patients with research procedures. CONCLUSION: Recruitment of older patients with rib fracture(s) in an emergency setting for the evaluation of lidocaine patches is feasible. Refinement of data collection, with a focus on the collection of pain, frailty-specific outcomes and intervention delivery are needed before progression to a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14813929.

Improving the inclusion of an under-served group in trials: development and implementation of the INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework.

BACKGROUND: For the potential benefits of trials to reach all that they should, trials must be designed to ensure that those taking part reflect the population who will receive the intervention. However, adults with impaired capacity to consent are frequently excluded from trials - partly because researchers are unfamiliar with the legal and ethical frameworks and lack the necessary methodological expertise. Researchers identified a need for guidance on designing more inclusive trials. Building on the NIHR INCLUDE initiative, we developed the INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework to help researchers design inclusive trials. METHODS: The framework was developed over five phases: (1) establishing the scope and content of the framework and adapting the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework for this population; (2) scoping the relevance of the framework to different populations and piloting in a range of trials; (3) consulting people living with impairing conditions and carers to explore their views about the framework and identify missing content areas; (4) refining the framework; and (5) the development of an implementation toolkit of resources to support researchers using the framework. RESULTS: The framework has two parts: a set of four key questions to help researchers identify who should be included in their trial, and a series of worksheets covering intervention design, recruitment and consent processes, data collection and analysis, and public involvement and dissemination. It is supported by a summary of the ethical and legal frameworks and a website of resources on capacity and consent. Implementation resources include infographics and animations, a library of completed frameworks, and facilitated workshops for researchers. The framework and toolkit were launched at a webinar (November 2022), with polling demonstrating an increase in attendees' awareness about research involving adults lacking capacity. A post-webinar survey found that stakeholders viewed the framework and toolkit as valuable tools to facilitate greater inclusion of this under-served population in trials. The framework is available online: https://www.capacityconsentresearch.com/include-impaired-capacity-to-consent-framework.html . CONCLUSIONS: The INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework and implementation toolkit can support researchers to design more inclusive trials and other types of research studies. Further engagement, including with funders who are key to ensuring uptake, and evaluation is needed.

Delivering COVID-19 vaccine trials at speed: the implementation of a phase IV UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines (ComFluCOV).

BACKGROUND: In February 2021, the UK Department of Health and Social Care sought evidence on the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccine co-administration to inform the 2021/2022 influenza vaccine policy. Co-administration could support vaccine uptake and reduce healthcare appointments. ComFluCOV was a randomised controlled trial designed to provide this evidence. This report outlines the methods used to deliver the trial in 6 months to answer an urgent public health question as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. METHODS: ComFluCOV was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care and was managed by the Bristol Trials Centre, a UK-registered clinical trials unit. It was classed as an Urgent Public Health trial which facilitated fast-track regulatory approvals. Trial materials and databases were developed using in-house templates and those used in other COVID-19 vaccine trials. Participants were recruited by advertising, and via a trial website. Electronic trial systems enabled daily review of participant data. Weekly virtual meetings were held with stakeholders and trial sites. RESULTS: ComFluCOV was delivered within 6 months from inception to reporting, and trial milestones to inform the Department of Health and Social Care policy were met. Set-up was achieved within 1 month. Regulators provided expedited reviews, with feedback ahead of submission. Recruitment took place at 12 sites. Over 380 site staff were trained. Overall, 679 participants were recruited in two months. The final report to the Department of Health and Social Care was submitted in September 2021, following a preliminary safety report in May 2021. Trial results have been published. CONCLUSION: The rapid delivery of ComFluCOV was resource intensive. It was made possible in part due to a unique set of circumstances created by the pandemic situation including measures put in place to support urgent public health research and public support for COVID-19 vaccine research. Elements of the trial could be adopted to increase efficiency in 'non-pandemic' situations including working with a clinical trials unit to enable immediate mobilisation of a team of experienced researchers, greater sharing of resources between clinical trials units, use of electronic trial systems and virtual meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14391248, submitted on 17/03/2021. Registered on 30/03/2021.

Conservative management versus invasive management of significant traumatic pneumothoraces in the emergency department (the CoMiTED trial): a study protocol for a randomised non-inferiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic pneumothoraces are present in one of five victims of severe trauma. Current guidelines advise chest drain insertion for most traumatic pneumothoraces, although very small pneumothoraces can be managed with observation at the treating clinician's discretion. There remains a large proportion of patients in whom there is clinical uncertainty as to whether an immediate chest drain is required, with no robust evidence to inform practice. Chest drains carry a high risk of complications such as bleeding and infection. The default to invasive treatment may be causing potentially avoidable pain, distress and complications. We are evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an initial conservative approach to the management of patients with traumatic pneumothoraces. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CoMiTED (Conservative Management in Traumatic Pneumothoraces in the Emergency Department) trial is a multicentre, pragmatic parallel group, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to establish whether initial conservative management of significant traumatic pneumothoraces is non-inferior to invasive management in terms of subsequent emergency pleural interventions, complications, pain, breathlessness and quality of life. We aim to recruit 750 patients from at least 40 UK National Health Service hospitals. Patients allocated to the control (invasive management) group will have a chest drain inserted in the emergency department. For those in the intervention (initial conservative management) group, the treating clinician will be advised to manage the participant without chest drain insertion and undertake observation. The primary outcome is a binary measure of the need for one or more subsequent emergency pleural interventions within 30 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include complications, cost-effectiveness, patient-reported quality of life and patient and clinician views of the two treatment options; participants are followed up for 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial received approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 4 (reference: 22/WA/0118) and the Health Research Authority. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN35574247.

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.

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.