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

BACKGROUND: People with cystic fibrosis are susceptible to pulmonary infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This may become chronic and lead to increased mortality and morbidity. If treatment is commenced promptly, infection may be eradicated through prolonged antibiotic treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of two eradication regimens. DESIGN: This was a Phase IV, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Seventy UK and two Italian cystic fibrosis centres. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were individuals with cystic fibrosis aged > 28 days old who had never had a P. aeruginosa infection or who had been infection free for 1 year. INTERVENTIONS: Fourteen days of intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin or 3 months of oral ciprofloxacin. Inhaled colistimethate sodium was included in both regimens over 3 months. Consenting patients were randomly allocated to either treatment arm in a 1 : 1 ratio using simple block randomisation with random variable block length. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eradication of P. aeruginosa at 3 months and remaining free of infection to 15 months. Secondary outcomes included time to reoccurrence, spirometry, anthropometrics, pulmonary exacerbations and hospitalisations. Primary analysis used intention to treat (powered for superiority). Safety analysis included patients who had received at least one dose of any of the study drugs. Cost-effectiveness analysis explored the cost per successful eradication and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: Between 5 October 2010 and 27 January 2017, 286 patients were randomised: 137 patients to intravenous antibiotics and 149 patients to oral antibiotics. The numbers of participants achieving the primary outcome were 55 out of 125 (44%) in the intravenous group and 68 out of 130 (52%) in the oral group. Participants randomised to the intravenous group were less likely to achieve the primary outcome; although the difference between groups was not statistically significant, the clinically important difference that the trial aimed to detect was not contained within the confidence interval (relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.09; p = 0.184). Significantly fewer patients in the intravenous group (40/129, 31%) than in the oral group (61/136, 44.9%) were hospitalised in the 12 months following eradication treatment (relative risk 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 0.95; p = 0.02). There were no clinically important differences in other secondary outcomes. There were 32 serious adverse events in 24 participants [intravenous: 10/126 (7.9%); oral: 14/146 (9.6%)]. Oral therapy led to reductions in costs compared with intravenous therapy (-£5938.50, 95% confidence interval -£7190.30 to -£4686.70). Intravenous therapy usually necessitated hospital admission, which accounted for a large part of this cost. LIMITATIONS: Only 15 out of the 286 participants recruited were adults - partly because of the smaller number of adult centres participating in the trial. The possibility that the trial participants may be different from the rest of the cystic fibrosis population and may have had a better clinical status, and so be more likely to agree to the uncertainty of trial participation, cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous antibiotics did not achieve sustained eradication of P. aeruginosa in a greater proportion of cystic fibrosis patients. Although there were fewer hospitalisations in the intravenous group during follow-up, this confers no advantage over the oral therapy group, as intravenous eradication frequently requires hospitalisation. These results do not support the use of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate P. aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. FUTURE WORK: Future research studies should combine long-term follow-up with regimens to reduce reoccurrence after eradication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02734162 and EudraCT 2009-012575-10. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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

Mycophenolate Mofetil Versus Cyclophosphamide for Remission Induction in Childhood Polyarteritis Nodosa: An Open-Label, Randomized, Bayesian Noninferiority Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cyclophosphamide (CYC) is used in clinical practice off-label for the induction of remission in childhood polyarteritis nodosa (PAN). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) might offer a less toxic alternative. This study was undertaken to explore the relative effectiveness of CYC and MMF treatment in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: This was an international, open-label, Bayesian RCT to investigate the relative effectiveness of CYC and MMF for remission induction in childhood PAN. Eleven patients with newly diagnosed childhood PAN were randomized (1:1) to receive MMF or intravenous CYC; all patients received the same glucocorticoid regimen. The primary end point was remission within 6 months while compliant with glucocorticoid taper. Bayesian distributions for remission rates were established a priori for MMF and CYC by experienced clinicians and updated to posterior distributions on trial completion. RESULTS: Baseline disease activity and features were similar between the 2 treatment groups. The primary end point was met in 4 of 6 patients (67%) in the MMF group and 4 of 5 patients (80%) in the CYC group. Time to remission was shorter in the MMF group compared to the CYC group (median 7.1 weeks versus 17.6 weeks). No relapses occurred in either group within 18 months. Two serious infections were found to be likely linked to MMF treatment. Physical and psychosocial quality-of-life scores were superior in the MMF group compared to the CYC group at 6 months and 18 months. Combining the prior expert opinion with results from the present study provided posterior estimates of remission of 71% for MMF (90% credibility interval [90% CrI] 51, 83) and 75% for CYC (90% CrI 57, 86). CONCLUSION: The present results, taken together with prior opinion, indicate that rates of remission induction in childhood PAN are similar with MMF treatment and CYC treatment, and MMF treatment might be associated with better health-related quality of life than CYC treatment.

Can they stomach it? Parent and practitioner acceptability of a trial comparing gastric residual volume measurement versus no gastric residual volume in UK NNU and PICUs: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Routine measurement of gastric residual volume (GRV) to guide feeding in neonatal and paediatric intensive care is widespread. However, this practice is not evidence based and may cause harm. As part of a feasibility study, we explored parent and practitioner views on the acceptability of a trial comparing GRV measurement or no GRV measurement. METHODS: A mixed-methods study involving interviews and focus groups with practitioners and interviews with parents with experience of tube feeding in neonatal and/or paediatric intensive care. A voting system recorded closed question responses during practitioner data collection, enabling the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We interviewed 31 parents and nine practitioners and ran five practitioner focus groups (n=42). Participants described how the research question was logical, and the intervention would not be invasive and potential benefits of not withholding the child's feeds. However, both groups held concerns about the potential risk of not measuring GRV, including delayed diagnosis of infection and gut problems, increased risk of vomiting into lungs and causing discomfort or pain. Parent's views on GRV measurement and consent decision making were influenced by their views on the importance of feeding in the ICU, their child's prognosis and associated comorbidities or complications. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of parents and practitioners viewed the proposed trial as acceptable. Potential concerns and preferences were identified that will need careful consideration to inform the development of the proposed trial protocol and staff training.

Optimal outcome measures for a trial of not routinely measuring gastric residual volume in neonatal care: a mixed methods consensus process.

BACKGROUND: Routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding is widespread in neonatal units but not supported by high-quality evidence. Outcome selection is critical to trial design. OBJECTIVE: To determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of not routinely measuring gastric residual volume in neonatal care. DESIGN: A focused literature review, parent interviews, modified two-round Delphi survey and stakeholder consensus meeting. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one neonatal healthcare professionals participated in an eDelphi survey; 17 parents were interviewed. 19 parents and neonatal healthcare professionals took part in the consensus meeting. RESULTS: Literature review generated 14 outcomes, and parent interviews contributed eight additional outcomes; these 22 outcomes were then ranked by 74 healthcare professionals in the first Delphi round where four further outcomes were proposed; 26 outcomes were ranked in the second round by 61 healthcare professionals. Five outcomes were categorised as 'consensus in', and no outcomes were voted 'consensus out'. 'No consensus' outcomes were discussed and voted on in a face-to-face meeting by 19 participants, where four were voted 'consensus in'. The final nine consensus outcomes were: mortality, necrotising enterocolitis, time to full enteral feeds, duration of parenteral nutrition, time feeds stopped per 24 hours, healthcare-associated infection; catheter-associated bloodstream infection, change in weight between birth and neonatal discharge and pneumonia due to milk aspiration. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We have identified outcomes for a trial of no routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding in neonatal care. This outcome set will ensure outcomes are important to healthcare professionals and parents.

Determining Optimal Outcome Measures in a Trial Investigating No Routine Gastric Residual Volume Measurement in Critically Ill Children.

BACKGROUND: Choosing trial outcome measures is important. When outcomes are not clinically relevant or important to parents/patients, trial evidence is less likely to be implemented into practice. This study aimed to determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of no routine gastric residual volume (GRV) measurement in critically ill children. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used: a focused literature review, parent and clinician interviews, a modified 2-round Delphi, and a stakeholder consensus meeting. RESULTS: The review generated 13 outcomes. Fourteen pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) parents proposed 3 additional outcomes; these 16 were then rated by 28 clinicians in Delphi round 1. Six further outcomes were proposed, and 22 outcomes were rated in the second round. No items were voted "consensus out." The 18 "no-consensus" items were voted in a face-to-face meeting by 30 participants. The final 12 outcome measures were time to reach energy targets, ventilator-associated pneumonia, vomiting, time enteral feeds withheld per 24 hours, necrotizing enterocolitis, length of invasive ventilation, PICU length of stay, mortality, change in weight and markers of feed intolerance (parenteral nutrition administered), feed formula altered, and change to postpyloric feeds all secondary to feed intolerance. CONCLUSION: We have identified 12 outcomes for a trial of no GRV measurement through a multistage process, seeking views of parents and clinicians.

Seven-step framework to enhance practitioner explanations and parental understandings of research without prior consent in paediatric emergency and critical care trials.

BACKGROUND: Alternatives to prospective informed consent enable the conduct of paediatric emergency and critical care trials. Research without prior consent (RWPC) involves practitioners approaching parents after an intervention has been given and seeking consent for their child to continue in the trial. As part of an embedded study in the 'Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children' (EcLiPSE) trial, we explored how practitioners described the trial and RWPC during recruitment discussions, and how well this information was understood by parents. We aimed to develop a framework to assist trial conversations in future paediatric emergency and critical care trials using RWPC. METHODS: Qualitative methods embedded within the EcLiPSE trial processes, including audiorecorded practitioner-parent trial discussions and telephone interviews with parents. We analysed data using thematic analysis, drawing on the Realpe et al (2016) model for recruitment to trials. RESULTS: We analysed 76 recorded trial discussions and conducted 30 parent telephone interviews. For 19 parents, we had recorded trial discussion and interview data, which were matched for analysis. Parental understanding of the EcLiPSE trial was enhanced when practitioners: provided a comprehensive description of trial aims; explained the reasons for RWPC; discussed uncertainty about which intervention was best; provided a balanced description of trial intervention; provided a clear explanation about randomisation and provided an opportunity for questions. We present a seven-step framework to assist recruitment practice in trials involving RWPC. CONCLUSION: This study provides a framework to enhance recruitment practice and parental understanding in paediatric emergency and critical care trials involving RWPC. Further testing of this framework is required.

Planning for success: overcoming challenges to recruitment and conduct of an open-label emergency department-led paediatric trial.

BACKGROUND: Key challenges to the successful conduct of The Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children (EcLiPSE) trial were identified at the pre-trial stage. These included practitioner anxieties about conducting research without prior consent (RWPC), inexperience in conducting an ED-led trial and use of a medication that was not usual ED practice. As part of an embedded study, we explored parent and practitioner experiences of recruitment, RWPC and conduct of the trial to inform the design and conduct of future ED-led trials. METHODS: A mixed-methods study within a trial involving (1) questionnaires and interviews with parents of randomised children, (2) interviews and focus groups with EcLiPSE practitioners and (3) audio-recorded trial discussions. We analysed data using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 143 parents (93 mothers, 39 fathers, 11 missing information) of randomised children completed a questionnaire and 30 (25 mothers, 5 fathers) were interviewed. We analysed 76 recorded trial recruitment discussions. Ten practitioners (4 medical, 6 nursing) were interviewed, 36 (16 medical, 20 nursing) participated in one of six focus groups. Challenges to the success of the trial were addressed by having a clinically relevant research question, pragmatic trial design, parent and practitioner support for EcLiPSE recruitment and research without prior consent processes, and practitioner motivation and strong leadership. Lack of leadership negatively affected practitioner engagement and recruitment. EcLiPSE completed on time, achieving its required sample size target. CONCLUSIONS: Successful trial recruitment and conduct in a challenging ED-led trial was driven by trial design, recruitment experience, teamwork and leadership. Our study provides valuable insight from parents and practitioners to inform the design and conduct of future trials in this setting.

Levetiracetam as an alternative to phenytoin for second-line emergency treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus: the EcLiPSE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Convulsive status epilepticus is the most common neurological emergency in children. Its management is important to avoid or minimise neurological morbidity and death. The current first-choice second-line drug is phenytoin (Epanutin, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), for which there is no robust scientific evidence. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether phenytoin or levetiracetam (Keppra, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) is the more clinically effective intravenous second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus and to help better inform its management. DESIGN: A multicentre parallel-group randomised open-label superiority trial with a nested mixed-method study to assess recruitment and research without prior consent. SETTING: Participants were recruited from 30 paediatric emergency departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Participants aged 6 months to 17 years 11 months, who were presenting with convulsive status epilepticus and were failing to respond to first-line treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous levetiracetam (40 mg/kg) or intravenous phenytoin (20 mg/kg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - time from randomisation to cessation of all visible signs of convulsive status epilepticus. Secondary outcomes - further anticonvulsants to manage the convulsive status epilepticus after the initial agent, the need for rapid sequence induction owing to ongoing convulsive status epilepticus, admission to critical care and serious adverse reactions. RESULTS: Between 17 July 2015 and 7 April 2018, 286 participants were randomised, treated and consented. A total of 152 participants were allocated to receive levetiracetam and 134 participants to receive phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) participants who were allocated to levetiracetam and 86 (64%) participants who were allocated to phenytoin. Median time from randomisation to convulsive status epilepticus cessation was 35 (interquartile range 20-not assessable) minutes in the levetiracetam group and 45 (interquartile range 24-not assessable) minutes in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.60; p = 0.2). Results were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses, including time from treatment commencement to convulsive status epilepticus termination and competing risks. One phenytoin-treated participant experienced serious adverse reactions. LIMITATIONS: First, this was an open-label trial. A blinded design was considered too complex, in part because of the markedly different infusion rates of the two drugs. Second, there was subjectivity in the assessment of 'cessation of all signs of continuous, rhythmic clonic activity' as the primary outcome, rather than fixed time points to assess convulsive status epilepticus termination. However, site training included simulated demonstration of seizure cessation. Third, the time point of randomisation resulted in convulsive status epilepticus termination prior to administration of trial treatment in some cases. This affected both treatment arms equally and had been prespecified at the design stage. Last, safety measures were a secondary outcome, but the trial was not powered to demonstrate difference in serious adverse reactions between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Levetiracetam was not statistically superior to phenytoin in convulsive status epilepticus termination rate, time taken to terminate convulsive status epilepticus or frequency of serious adverse reactions. The results suggest that it may be an alternative to phenytoin in the second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. Simple trial design, bespoke site training and effective leadership were found to facilitate practitioner commitment to the trial and its success. We provide a framework to optimise recruitment discussions in paediatric emergency medicine trials. FUTURE WORK: Future work should include a meta-analysis of published studies and the possible sequential use of levetiracetam and phenytoin or sodium valproate in the second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22567894 and European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT number 2014-002188-13. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Most epileptic tonic­clonic seizures, also called convulsions, last for < 4 minutes and stop spontaneously. A convulsion that lasts for > 5 minutes is called convulsive status epilepticus. This may cause neurological abnormalities or, rarely, death. There is good scientific evidence for the best first-line medicine, called a benzodiazepine, to stop convulsive status epilepticus. When a benzodiazepine has not stopped status, a second-line medicine is given. The usual second-line medicine, which has been used for > 50 years, is phenytoin (Epanutin, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA). However, it stops status in only half of children. It must be given slowly because it can cause unpleasant and potentially serious side effects. A new medicine called levetiracetam (Keppra, UCB Pharma, Brussels, Belgium) may be more effective. It seems to have less serious side effects than phenytoin. However, there is no good scientific evidence as to whether phenytoin or levetiracetam is better. A randomised controlled trial is the best scientific way to decide which of these two medicines is better. The Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children (EcLiPSE) trial was a randomised controlled trial that compared levetiracetam with phenytoin. A total of 152 children were randomised to receive levetiracetam and a total of 134 children were randomised to receive phenytoin. Research without prior consent was shown to be acceptable to parents, doctors and nurses. Parents' consent to use their child's data and continue in the trial was provided after the emergency situation was resolved. Convulsive status epilepticus stopped in 70.4% of the levetiracetam-treated children and in 64% of the phenytoin-treated children. The median time to status stopping was 35 minutes in the levetiracetam-treated children and 45 minutes in the phenytoin-treated children. Only one participant on phenytoin (vs. none on levetiracetam) experienced serious side effects that were thought to be caused by their treatment. None of the results showed any statistically significant or meaningful difference between levetiracetam and phenytoin. However, the results suggest that levetiracetam might be an alternative choice to phenytoin.

Intravenous versus oral antibiotics for eradication of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis (TORPEDO-CF): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pulmonary infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa is one of the most important causes of mortality and morbidity in cystic fibrosis. If antibiotics are commenced promptly, infection can be eradicated. The aim of the trial was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin versus oral ciprofloxacin in the eradication of P aeruginosa. METHODS: We did a multicentre, parallel group, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 72 cystic fibrosis centres (70 in the UK and two in Italy). Eligible participants were older than 28 days with an isolate of P aeruginosa (either the first ever isolate or a new isolate after at least 1 year free of infection). Participants were excluded if the P aeruginosa was resistant to, or they had a contraindication to, one or more of the trial antibiotics; if they were already receiving P aeruginosa suppressive therapy; if they had received any P aeruginosa eradication therapy within the previous 9 months; or if they were pregnant or breastfeeding. We used web-based randomisation to assign patients to 14 days intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin or 12 weeks oral ciprofloxacin. Both were combined with 12 weeks inhaled colistimethate sodium. Randomisation lists were generated by a statistician, who had no involvement in the trial, using a computer-generated list. Randomisation was stratified by centre and because of the nature of the interventions, blinding was not possible. Our primary outcome was eradication of P aeruginosa at 3 months and remaining free of infection to 15 months. Primary analysis used intention to treat (powered for superiority). Safety analysis included patients who received at least one dose of study drug. TORPEDO-CF was registered on the ISRCTN register, ISRCTN02734162, and EudraCT, 2009-012575-10. FINDINGS: Between Oct 5, 2010, and Jan 27, 2017, 286 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 137 to intravenous antibiotics and 149 to oral antibiotics. 55 (44%) of 125 participants in the intravenous group and 68 (52%) of 130 participants in the oral group achieved the primary outcome. Participants randomly assigned to the intravenous group were less likely to achieve the primary outcome, although the difference between groups was not statistically significant (relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·65-1·09; p=0·18). 11 serious adverse events occurred in ten (8%) of 126 participants in the intravenous antibiotics group and 17 serious adverse events in 12 (8%) of 146 participants in the oral antibiotics group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with oral therapy, intravenous antibiotics did not achieve sustained eradication of P aeruginosa in a greater proportion of patients with cystic fibrosis and was more expensive. Although there were fewer hospitalisations in the intravenous group than the oral group during follow-up, this confers no advantage over oral treatment because intravenous eradication frequently requires hospitalisation. These results do not support the use of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate P aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

It is unprecedented: trial management during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for the clinical trial community, both in the rapid establishment of COVID-19 clinical trials and many existing non-COVID-19 studies either being temporarily paused (whether that is a complete pause or pause in some activities) and/or adapting their processes. Trial managers have played a key role in decision-making, undertaking risk assessments and adapting trial processes, working closely with other members of the research team. This article presents some of the ways in which trial management processes have been altered and the key role that trial managers have played. It has been born out of discussions between trial managers in the UK who are members of the UK Trial Managers' Network (UKTMN), a national network of trial management professionals managing non-commercial trials.In these unprecedented times, clinical trials have faced many uncertainties and broad-ranging challenges encompassing a range of activities including prioritising patient safety amidst the pandemic, consenting and recruiting new participants into trials, data collection and management and intervention delivery. In many cases, recruitment has been paused whilst mitigations have been put in place to continue data collection. Innovative solutions have been implemented to ensure we continue, where possible, to deliver high-quality clinical trials. Technology has provided many solutions to these challenges, and trial managers have adapted to new ways of working whilst continuing to deliver their clinical trials. Trial management groups are now faced with new uncertainties around re-starting clinical trials, and it is unclear currently how this will go, though working together with sponsors, funders and site teams is clearly a priority.Clinical trial teams have worked together to ensure their trials have adapted quickly whilst ensuring participant safety is given utmost importance. There are clear examples where the trial community have come together to share experiences and expertise, and this should continue in the future to ensure the innovative practices developed become embedded in the design and conduct of clinical trials in the future.

Gastric residual volume measurement in British neonatal intensive care units: a survey of practice.

OBJECTIVE: Despite little evidence, the practice of routine gastric residual volume (GRV) measurement to guide enteral feeding in neonatal units is widespread. Due to increased interest in this practice, and to examine trial feasibility, we aimed to determine enteral feeding and GRV measurement practices in British neonatal units. DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey was distributed via email to all neonatal units and networks in England, Scotland and Wales. A clinical nurse, senior doctor and dietitian were invited to collaboratively complete the survey and submit a copy of relevant guidelines. RESULTS: 95/184 (51.6%) approached units completed the survey, 81/95 (85.3%) reported having feeding guidelines and 28 guidelines were submitted for review. The majority of units used intermittent (90/95) gastric feeds as their primary feeding method. 42/95 units reported specific guidance for measuring and interpreting GRV. 20/90 units measured GRV before every feed, 39/90 at regular time intervals (most commonly four to six hourly 35/39) and 26/90 when felt to be clinically indicated. Most units reported uncertainty on the utility of aspirate volume for guiding feeding decisions; 13/90 reported that aspirate volume affected decisions 'very much'. In contrast, aspirate colour was reported to affect decisions 'very much' by 37/90 of responding units. Almost half, 44/90, routinely returned aspirates to the stomach. CONCLUSIONS: Routine GRV measurement is part of standard practice in British neonatal units, although there was inconsistency in how frequently to measure or how to interpret the aspirate. Volume was considered less important than colour of the aspirate.

Where do we go from here? - Opportunities and barriers to the career development of trial managers: a survey of UK-based trial management professionals.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials commonly have a dedicated trial manager and effective trial management is essential to the successful delivery of high-quality trials. Trial managers have diverse experience and currently there is no standardised structured career pathway. The UK Trial Managers' Network (UKTMN) surveyed its members to understand what is important to them with respect to career development since this would be important in the development of any initiative intended to develop a skilled workforce. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of UKTMN members, who are trial management professionals, working on academic-led trials in the UK. Members were asked what they perceive as opportunities and barriers to career development. Two reminders were sent to facilitate completion of the survey, and responders were offered the opportunity to enter a prize draw for waived fees at the UKTMN annual meeting. Data were analysed descriptively by using Stata (version 15.1), and free-text responses were reviewed for themes. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 819 UKTMN members; 433 responses were received, although 13 were from non-UKTMN members; thus 420 respondents' data were included in analyses. Respondents were representative of UKTMN membership; however, more responses were received by trial managers based in registered clinical trials units (CTUs). The top three opportunities for career development were (i) training, (ii) helping design trials and (iii) undertaking relevant qualifications. The top three barriers were (i) funding, (ii) few opportunities to get involved in development activities aside from managing a trial and (iii) unclear organisational career pathway. Almost all respondents (401/420, 95.4%) considered career development either very or quite important. Although all respondents had a day-to-day role in managing trials, there was huge disparity between job titles. CONCLUSION: Career development is important to trial managers yet there is a lack of a structured pathway. The enablers and disablers to career development for trial managers should be clearly considered by the clinical trial community and, in particular, employers, sponsors and funders in order to develop a highly skilled workforce of trial managers, who are key to the delivery of trials.

Routine gastric residual volume measurement to guide enteral feeding in mechanically ventilated infants and children: the GASTRIC feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide the initiation and delivery of enteral feeding is widespread in paediatric intensive care and neonatal units, but has little underlying evidence to support it. OBJECTIVE: To answer the question: is a trial of no gastric residual volume measurement feasible in UK paediatric intensive care units and neonatal units? DESIGN: A mixed-methods study involving five linked work packages in two parallel arms: neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. Work package 1: a survey of units to establish current UK practice. Work package 2: qualitative interviews with health-care professionals and caregivers of children admitted to either setting. Work package 3: a modified two-round e-Delphi survey to investigate health-care professionals' opinions on trial design issues and to obtain consensus on outcomes. Work package 4: examination of national databases to determine the potential eligible populations. Work package 5: two consensus meetings of health-care professionals and parents to review the data and agree consensus on outcomes that had not reached consensus in the e-Delphi study. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Parents of children with experience of ventilation and tube feeding in both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units, and health-care professionals working in neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. RESULTS: Baseline surveys showed that the practice of gastric residual volume measurement was very common (96% in paediatric intensive care units and 65% in neonatal units). Ninety per cent of parents from both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units supported a future trial, while highlighting concerns around possible delays in detecting complications. Health-care professionals also indicated that a trial was feasible, with 84% of staff willing to participate in a trial. Concerns expressed by junior nurses about the intervention arm of not measuring gastric residual volumes were addressed by developing a simple flow chart and education package. The trial design survey and e-Delphi study gained consensus on 12 paediatric intensive care unit and nine neonatal unit outcome measures, and identified acceptable inclusion and exclusion criteria. Given the differences in physiology, disease processes, environments, staffing and outcomes of interest, two different trials are required in the two settings. Database analyses subsequently showed that trials were feasible in both settings in terms of patient numbers. Of 16,222 children who met the inclusion criteria in paediatric intensive care units, 12,629 stayed for > 3 days. In neonatal units, 15,375 neonates < 32 weeks of age met the inclusion criteria. Finally, the two consensus meetings demonstrated 'buy-in' from the wider UK neonatal communities and paediatric intensive care units, and enabled us to discuss and vote on the outcomes that did not achieve consensus in the e-Delphi study. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK: Two separate UK trials (one in neonatal units and one in paediatric intensive care units) are feasible to conduct, but they cannot be combined as a result of differences in outcome measures and treatment protocols, reflecting the distinctness of the two specialties. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42110505. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nurses looking after babies and children on intensive care units in the UK usually pass a tube and aspirate whatever food or fluid is in the baby's stomach before they give a feed. The idea is to ensure that the stomach is not overdistended with food and prevent the baby vomiting or, worse, aspirating food into the lungs. However, there is little justification for this practice. It is rarely done in many other countries. It may not be pleasant for the child and perhaps is unnecessary. Some experts have suggested that the policy should be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. This would mean allocating a large number of children at random to either have the stomach aspirated before feeds, or not. Such a trial would be a major undertaking and we are unsure if parents or staff would be willing to allow children to participate. The aim of this study was to see if it is possible to conduct such a large trial in the UK. Two surveys (of 119 units) showed us that regularly measuring the stomach contents when starting and increasing feeds is common practice for both newborn and older children in UK intensive care units. However, in some countries, such as France, this practice is rarely done. We asked 31 parents and 51 health-care professionals about a future study. Overall, parents were supportive of a trial if it was explained to them well by a knowledgeable and caring professional, and if they were approached at the right time. Some concerns were expressed about not picking up complications early if gastric residual volume was not measured. Health-care professionals were also mainly positive about a future trial, but mentioned similar concerns about not picking up complications early and the difficulty of changing a long-standing routine practice. Parents suggested study outcomes that were important to them. These, along with other outcomes, were voted on in a further survey of 106 professionals and at face-to-face meetings involving 41 participants. Overall, our findings suggest that a trial is feasible to perform and acceptable to parents. However, because of differences in both treatments and important outcomes between children's intensive care units and newborn baby intensive care units, two trials would be needed, one in each type of intensive care unit. These two trials will test whether or not the benefits of not measuring gastric residual volume (e.g. improved calorie intake) outweigh the potential harms (e.g. delayed diagnosis of complications).

Challenges Conveying Clinical Equipoise and Exploring Patient Treatment Preferences in an Oncology Trial Comparing Active Monitoring with Radiotherapy (ROAM/EORTC 1308).

INTRODUCTION: Providing balanced information that emphasizes clinical equipoise (i.e., uncertainty regarding the relative merits of trial interventions) and exploring patient treatment preferences can improve informed consent and trial recruitment. Within a trial comparing adjuvant radiotherapy versus active monitoring following surgical resection for an atypical meningioma (ROAM/EORTC-1308), we explored patterns in communication and reasons why health practitioners may find it challenging to convey equipoise and explore treatment preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualitative study embedded within ROAM/EORTC-1308. Data were collected on 40 patients and 18 practitioners from 13 U.K. sites, including audio recordings of 39 patients' trial consultations, 23 patient interviews, and 18 practitioner interviews. Qualitative analysis drew on argumentation theory. RESULTS: Practitioners acknowledged the importance of the research question that the trial aimed to answer. However, they often demonstrated a lack of equipoise in consultations, particularly with eligible patients who practitioners believed to be susceptible to side effects (e.g., cognitive impairment) or inconvenienced by radiotherapy. Practitioners elicited but rarely explored patient treatment preferences, especially if a patient expressed an initial preference for active monitoring. Concerns about coercing patients, loss of practitioner agency, and time constraints influenced communication in ways that were loaded against trial participation. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several challenges that practitioners face in conveying equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences in oncology, and particularly neuro-oncology, trials with distinct management pathways. The findings informed communication about ROAM/EORTC-1308 and will be relevant to enhancing trial communication in future oncology trials. Qualitative studies embedded within trials can address difficulties with communication, thus improving informed consent and recruitment. ROAM/EORTC-1308 RCT: ISRCTN71502099. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology trials can be challenging to recruit to, especially those that compare treatment versus monitoring. Conveying clinical equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences can enhance recruitment and patient understanding. This study focused on the challenges that practitioners encounter in trying to use such communication strategies and how practitioners may inadvertently impede patient recruitment and informed decision making. This article provides recommendations to support practitioners in balancing the content and presentation of trial management pathways. The results can inform training to optimize communication, especially for neuro-oncology trials and trials comparing markedly different management pathways.

Gastric Residual Volume Measurement in U.K. PICUs: A Survey of Practice.

OBJECTIVES: Despite little evidence, the practice of routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide both the initiation and delivery of enteral feeding in PICUs is widespread internationally. In light of increased scrutiny of the evidence surrounding this practice, and as part of a trial feasibility study, we aimed to determine enteral feeding and gastric residual volume measurement practices in U.K. PICUs. DESIGN: An online survey to 27 U.K. PICUs. SETTING: U.K. PICUs. SUBJECTS: A clinical nurse, senior doctor, and dietician were invited to collaboratively complete one survey per PICU and send a copy of their unit guidelines on enteral feeding and gastric residual volume. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-four of 27 units (89%) approached completed the survey. Twenty-three units (95.8%; 23/24) had written feeding guidelines, and 19 units (19/23; 83%) sent their guidelines for review. More units fed continuously (15/24; 62%) than intermittently (9/24; 37%) via the gastric route as their primary feeding method. All but one PICU routinely measured gastric residual volume, regardless of the method of feeding. Eighteen units had an agreed definition of feed tolerance, and all these included gastric residual volume. Gastric residual volume thresholds for feed tolerance were either volume based (mL/kg body weight) (11/21; 52%) or a percentage of the volume of feed administered (6/21; 29%). Yet only a third of units provided guidance about the technique of gastric residual volume measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Routine gastric residual volume measurement is part of standard practice in U.K. PICUs, with little guidance provided about the technique which may impact the accuracy of gastric residual volume. All PICUs that defined feed tolerance included gastric residual volume in the definition. This is important to know when proposing a standard practice arm of any future trial of no-routine gastric residual volume measurement in critically ill children.

Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate for refractory uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a RCT.

BACKGROUND: Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are at risk of uveitis. The role of adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Inc., Ludwigshafen, Germany) in the management of uveitis in children needs to be determined. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) versus placebo with MTX alone, with regard to controlling disease activity in refractory uveitis associated with JIA. DESIGN: This was a randomised (applying a ratio of 2 : 1 in favour of adalimumab), double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre parallel-group trial with an integrated economic evaluation. A central web-based system used computer-generated tables to allocate treatments. A cost-utility analysis based on visual acuity was conducted and a 10-year extrapolation by Markov modelling was also carried out. SETTING: The setting was tertiary care centres throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 2-18 years inclusive, with persistently active JIA-associated uveitis (despite optimised MTX treatment for at least 12 weeks). INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a stable dose of MTX and either adalimumab (20 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing < 30 kg or 40 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing ≥ 30 kg by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks based on body weight) or a placebo (0.8 ml as appropriate according to body weight by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks) for up to 18 months. A follow-up appointment was arranged at 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - time to treatment failure [multicomponent score as defined by set criteria based on the Standardisation of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) criteria]. Economic outcome - incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the NHS in England and Personal Social Services providers. Full details of secondary outcomes are provided in the study protocol. RESULTS: A total of 90 participants were randomised (adalimumab, n = 60; placebo, n = 30). There were 14 (23%) treatment failures in the adalimumab group and 17 (57%) in the placebo group. The analysis of the data from the double-blind phase of the trial showed that the hazard risk (HR) of treatment failure was significantly reduced, by 75%, for participants in the adalimumab group (HR 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.51; p < 0.0001 from log-rank test). The cost-effectiveness of adalimumab plus MTX was £129,025 per QALY gained. Adalimumab-treated participants had a much higher incidence of adverse and serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab in combination with MTX is safe and effective in the management of JIA-associated uveitis. However, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is < 1% at the £30,000-per-QALY threshold. FUTURE WORK: A clinical trial is required to define the most effective time to stop therapy. Prognostic biomarkers of early and complete response should also be identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10065623 and European Clinical Trials Database number 2010-021141-41. 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. 23, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This trial was also funded by Arthritis Research UK (grant reference number 19612). Two strengths of adalimumab (20 mg/0.8 ml and 40 mg/0.8 ml) and a matching placebo were manufactured by AbbVie Inc. (the Marketing Authorisation holder) and supplied in bulk to the contracted distributor (Sharp Clinical Services, Crickhowell, UK) for distribution to trial centres.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is one of the most common rheumatic diseases in children and young people, who are at risk of developing inflammation in an area of the eye called the uvea (called uveitis). The purpose of the study was to look at how effective the use of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) is compared with using MTX alone to treat JIA-associated uveitis. A total of 90 children (aged 2­18 years) taking MTX with JIA-associated uveitis took part in the study. If the inflammation in a patient's eye or eyes was not getting better during the 18 months, the patient was told to stop taking the study drug. It was found that those patients who were taking placebo and MTX in the trial stopped taking the study drug sooner than those who were taking adalimumab and MTX. This means that adalimumab and MTX was better at treating uveitis than MTX alone. It was found that more patients taking adalimumab and MTX together either reduced or stopped taking topical steroids than the patients taking placebo and MTX. It was found that patients taking adalimumab and MTX together experienced more side effects than those taking placebo with MTX. However, these were expected based on what was already known about adalimumab's side effects. An economic evaluation was conducted to estimate whether or not adalimumab would represent value for money for the NHS for this condition. This included long-term effects based on information about patients' clarity of vision. The analysis showed that adalimumab may not be cost-effective, as the additional costs of treatment may not be justified by the benefits. The final results show that although adalimumab used in combination with MTX does help to treat patients with JIA and uveitis, it may not represent good value for the NHS.

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (EcLiPSE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the UK; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. METHODS: This open-label, randomised clinical trial was undertaken at 30 UK emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centres. Participants aged 6 months to under 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 min), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomisation and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894. FINDINGS: Between July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomised participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam, and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 min (IQR 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 min (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 0·91-1·60; p=0·20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral oedema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction]). INTERPRETATION: Although levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Enhancing practitioners' confidence in recruitment and consent in the EcLiPSE trial: a mixed-method evaluation of site training - a Paediatric Emergency Research in the United Kingdom and Ireland (PERUKI) study.

BACKGROUND: EcLiPSE (Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children) is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the United Kingdom. Challenges to success include the need to immediately administer an intervention without informed consent and changes in staffing during trial conduct, mainly due to physician rotations. Using literature on parents' perspectives and research without prior consent (RWPC) guidance, we developed an interactive training package (including videos, simulation and question and answer sessions) and evaluated its dissemination and impact upon on practitioners' confidence in recruitment and consent. METHODS: Questionnaires were administered before and immediately after training followed by telephone interviews (mean 11 months later), focus groups (mean 14 months later) and an online questionnaire (8 months before trial closure). RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-five practitioners from 26/30 (87%) participating hospitals completed a questionnaire before and after training. We conducted 10 interviews and six focus groups (comprising 36 practitioners); 199 practitioners working in all recruiting hospitals completed the online questionnaire. Before training, practitioners were concerned about recruitment and consent. Confidence increased after training for explaining (all scale 0-5, 95% CIs above 0 and p values < 0.05): the study (66% improved mean score before 3.28 and after 4.52), randomisation (47% improvement, 3.86 to 4.63), RWPC (72% improvement, 2.98 to 4.39), and addressing parents' objections to randomisation (51% improvement, 3.37 to 4.25). Practitioners rated highly the content and clarity of the training, which was successfully disseminated. Some concerns about staff availability for training and consent discussions remained. CONCLUSIONS: Training improved practitioners' confidence in recruitment and RWPC. Our findings highlight the value of using parents' perspectives to inform training and to engage practitioners in trials that are at high risk of being too challenging to conduct.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adalimumab for the Treatment of Uveitis Associated with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate, compared with methotrexate alone, for the management of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis based on a clinical trial and decision analytic model. PARTICIPANTS: Children and adolescents 2 to 18 years of age with persistently active uveitis associated with JIA, despite optimized methotrexate treatment for at least 12 weeks. METHODS: The SYCAMORE (Randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness, SafetY and Cost effectiveness of Adalimumab in combination with MethOtRExate for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis) trial (identifier, ISRCTN10065623) of methotrexate (up to 25 mg weekly) with or without fortnightly administered adalimumab (20 or 40 mg, according to body weight) provided data on resource use (based on patient self-report and electronic records) and health utilities (from the Health Utilities Index questionnaire). Surgical event rates and long-term outcomes were based on data from a 10-year longitudinal cohort. A Markov model was used to extrapolate the effects of treatment based on visual impairment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical costs to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, utility of defined health states, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY. RESULTS: Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate resulted in additional costs of £39 316, with a 0.30 QALY gain compared with methotrexate alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £129 025 per QALY gained. The probability of cost effectiveness at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was less than 1%. Based on a threshold analysis, a price reduction of 84% would be necessary for adalimumab to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab is clinically effective in uveitis associated with JIA; however, its cost effectiveness is not demonstrated compared with methotrexate alone in the United Kingdom setting.

A phase II trial protocol of Tocilizumab in anti-TNF refractory patients with JIA-associated uveitis (the APTITUDE trial).

BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common rheumatic disease in children. Children with JIA are at risk of intraocular inflammation (uveitis). In the initial stages of mild-moderate inflammation uveitis is asymptomatic. Most children with mild-moderate uveitis are managed on topical steroid drops with or without systemic methotrexate (MTX). When children with moderate-severe uveitis are refractory to MTX, monoclonal anti-tumour necrosis factor agents have been trialled, interim analysis data showed positive results. However, several children with severe recalcitrant disease or non-responsive to anti-tumour necrosis factor agents remain and are at greater risk of significant ocular complications and visual loss. Further evidence of alternative therapies is needed with evidence of a potential role of anti-interleukin-6 agents in the management of severe refractory uveitis. METHODS: The trial will be conducted following a two-stage Simon design. The trial will register at least 22 patients aged 2 to 18 years with active JIA-associated uveitis, who have taken MTX for at least 12 weeks and have failed an anti-TNF agent. It will take place in 7 centres across the UK. All participants will be treated for 6 months, with follow up of 9 months from registration. Participants will receive a stable dose of MTX and those weighing ≥30 kg will be dosed with 162 mg of Tocilizumab every 2 weeks and participants weighing < 30 kg dosed with 162 mg of Tocilizumab every 3 weeks. Primary outcome is treatment response at 12 weeks. Adverse events will be collected up to 30 calendar days following treatment cessation. DISCUSSION: This is a novel adaptive design study of subcutaneous IL-6 inhibition in anti-TNF refractory JIA associated uveitis which will be able to determine if further research should be conducted. This is the first trial to look at ophthalmology outcomes in the efficacy of Tocilizumab in uveitis.This is the first paediatric clinical trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab with MTX in JIA associated uveitis. TRIALS REGISTRATION: The Trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN95363507) on the 10/06/2015 and EU Clinical Trials Register on the 03/07/2015 (EudraCT Number: 2015-001323-23).