Metformin in the prevention of type 2 diabetes after gestational diabetes in postnatal women (OMAhA): a UK multicentre randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind feasibility trial with nested qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a definitive trial of metformin to prevent type 2 diabetes in the postnatal period in women with gestational diabetes. DESIGN: A multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised feasibility trial with qualitative evaluation. SETTING: Three inner-city UK National Health Service hospitals in London. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women with gestational diabetes treated with medication. INTERVENTIONS: 2 g of metformin (intervention) or placebo (control) from delivery until 1 year postnatally. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of recruitment, randomisation, follow-up, attrition and adherence to the intervention. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Preliminary estimates of glycaemic effects, qualitative exploration, acceptability of the intervention and costs. RESULTS: Out of 302 eligible women, 57.9% (175/302) were recruited. We randomised 82.3% (144/175) of those recruited, with 71 women in the metformin group and 73 women in the placebo group. Of the participants remaining in the study and providing any adherence information, 54.1% (59/109) took at least 75% of the target intervention dose; the overall mean adherence was 64% (SD 33.6). Study procedures were found to be acceptable to women and healthcare professionals. An increased perceived risk of developing type 2 diabetes, or a positive experience of taking metformin during pregnancy, encouraged participation and adherence to the intervention. Barriers to adherence included disruption to the medication schedule caused by the washout periods ahead of each study visit or having insufficient daily reminders. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to run a full-scale definitive trial on the effectiveness of metformin to prevent type 2 diabetes in women with gestational diabetes, during the early postnatal period. Adherence and engagement with the study could be improved with more regular reminders and potentially the addition of ongoing educational or peer support to reinforce messages around type 2 diabetes prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20930880.

Supported Intervention Versus Intervention Alone for Management of Fecal Incontinence in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Multicenter Mixed-Methods Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to test a noninvasive self-management intervention supported by specialist nurses versus intervention alone in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) experiencing fecal incontinence and to conduct a qualitative evaluation of the trial. DESIGN: Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, mixed-methods randomized controlled trial (RCT). SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The sample comprised patients from a preceding case-finding study who reported fecal incontinence and met study requirements; the RCT was delivered via IBD outpatient clinics in 6 hospitals (5 in major UK cities, 1 rural) between September 2015 and August 2017. Sixteen participants and 11 staff members were interviewed for qualitative evaluation. METHODS: Adults with IBD completed the study activities over a 3-month period following randomization. Each participant received either four 30-minute structured sessions with an IBD clinical nurse specialist and a self-management booklet or the booklet alone. Low retention numbers precluded statistical analysis; individual face-to-face or telephone interviews, recorded digitally and transcribed professionally, were conducted to evaluate the RCT. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using an inductive method. RESULTS: Sixty-seven participants (36%) of the targeted 186 participants were recruited. The groups comprised 32 participants (17% of targeted participants) allocated to the nurse + booklet intervention and 35 (18.8% of targeted participants) allocated to the booklet alone. Less than one-third (n = 21, 31.3%) completed the study. Given the low recruitment and high attrition, statistical analysis of quantitative data was considered futile. Participant interviews were conducted concerning study participation and 4 themes emerged that described experiences of patients and staff. These data provided insights into reasons for low recruitment and high attrition, as well as challenges of delivering resource-heavy studies in busy health service environments. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative approaches to trials of nurse-led interventions in hospital settings are needed as many interfering factors may prevent successful completion.

Deferred consent in emergency obstetric research: findings from qualitative interviews with women and recruiters in the ACROBAT pilot trial for severe postpartum haemorrhage.

OBJECTIVE: The ACROBAT pilot trial of early cryoprecipitate for severe postpartum haemorrhage used deferred consent procedures. Pretrial discussions with a patient and public involvement group found mixed views towards deferred consent. This study aimed to build an understanding of how the deferred consent procedures worked in practice, to inform plans for a full-scale trial. SETTING: Qualitative interview study within a cluster-randomised pilot trial, involving four London maternity services. PARTICIPANTS: Individual interviews were conducted postnatally with 10 women who had received blood transfusion for severe postpartum haemorrhage and had consented to the trial. We also interviewed four 'recruiters'-two research midwives and two clinical trials practitioners who conducted trial recruitment. RESULTS: Consent procedures in the ACROBAT pilot trial were generally acceptable and the intervention was viewed as low risk, but most women did not remember much about the consent conversation. As per trial protocol, recruiters sought to consent women before hospital discharge, but this time pressure had to be balanced against the need to ensure women were not approached when distressed or very unwell. Extra efforts had to be made to communicate trial information to women due to the exhaustion of their recovery and competing demands for their attention. Participant information was further complicated by explanations about the cluster design and change in transfusion process, even though the consent sought was for access to medical data. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that deferred consent procedures raise similar concerns as taking consent when emergency obstetric research is occurring-that is, the risk that participants may conflate research with clinical care, and that their ability to process trial information may be impacted by the stressful nature of recovery and newborn care. A future trial may support more meaningful informed consent by extending the window of consent discussion and ensuring trial information is minimal and easy to understand. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12146519.

Myo-inositol nutritional supplement for prevention of gestational diabetes (EMmY): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot trial with nested qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomised trial on the effects of myo-inositol in preventing gestational diabetes in high-risk pregnant women. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot randomised trial with nested qualitative evaluation. SETTING: Five inner city UK National Health Service hospitals PARTICIPANTS: Multiethnic pregnant women at 12+0 and 15+6 weeks' gestation with risk factors for gestational diabetes. INTERVENTIONS: 2 g of myo-inositol or placebo, both included 200 µg folic acid, twice daily until delivery. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of recruitment, randomisation, adherence and follow-up. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Glycaemic indices (including homoeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance HOMA-IR), gestational diabetes (diagnosed using oral glucose tolerance test at 28 weeks and by delivery), maternal, perinatal outcomes, acceptability of intervention and costs. RESULTS: Of the 1326 women screened, 58% (773/1326) were potentially eligible, and 27% (205/773) were recruited. We randomised 97% (198/205) of all recruited women (99 each in intervention and placebo arms) and ascertained outcomes in 90% of women (178/198) by delivery. The mean adherence was 52% (SD 44) at 28 weeks' and 34% (SD 41) at 36 weeks' gestation. HOMA-IR and serum insulin levels were lower in the myo-inositol vs placebo arm (mean difference -0.6, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.0 and -2.69, 95% CI -5.26 to -0.18, respectively). The study procedures were acceptable to women and healthcare professionals. Women who perceived themselves at high risk of gestational diabetes were more likely to participate and adhere to the intervention. The powder form of myo-inositol and placebo, along with nausea in pregnancy were key barriers to adherence. CONCLUSIONS: A future trial on myo-inositol versus placebo to prevent gestational diabetes is feasible. The intervention will need to be delivered in a non-powder form to improve adherence. There is a signal for efficacy in reducing insulin resistance in pregnancy with myo-inositol. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN48872100.

Clinician Administered and Self-Report Survey Both Effective for Identifying Fecal Incontinence in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

OBJECTIVES: To test two methods for reporting of fecal incontinence (FI) in people with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: Consecutive patients from IBD clinics in six UK hospitals completed a short three-item case-finding survey about FI; they either completed the survey themselves or were asked the same questions face to face by a clinician. RESULTS: Of 1336 eligible patients with complete data (48% male; mean 43 years; 55% Crohn's disease, 41% ulcerative colitis), 772 were asked about FI face to face, and 564 self-completed the survey: FI was reported in 63% and 56%, respectively (p = 0.012). In regression analyses, those aged 51-60, having Crohn's disease and higher disease activity, were more likely to report FI. Of all respondents, 38.7% were interested in receiving help for their incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Fecal incontinence affects the majority of people with IBD. Although more patients reported fecal incontinence when asked face to face than self-reported, routine screening by either method in clinical practice is recommended. Over one-third of patients with IBD want help for bowel control problems.

TILT: Time-Lapse Imaging Trial-a pragmatic, multi-centre, three-arm randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of time-lapse imaging in in vitro fertilisation treatment.

BACKGROUND: Subfertility is a common problem for which in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment is commonly recommended. Success rates following IVF are suboptimal and have remained static over the last few years. This imposes a considerable financial burden on overstretched healthcare resources. Time-lapse imaging (TLI) of developing embryos in IVF treatment is hypothesised to improve the success rates of treatment. This may be either by providing undisturbed culture conditions or by improving the predictive accuracy for optimal embryo selection from a cohort of available embryos. However, the current best evidence for its effectiveness is inconclusive. METHODS: The time-lapse imaging trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre, three-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial using re-randomisation. The primary objective of the trial is to determine if the use of TLI or undisturbed culture in IVF treatment results in a higher live birth rate when compared to current standard methods of embryo incubation and assessment. Secondary outcomes include measures of clinical efficacy and safety. The trial will randomise 1575 participants to detect an increase in live birth from 26.5 to 35.25%. DISCUSSION: In the absence of high-quality evidence, there is no current national guidance, recommendation or policy for the use of TLI. The use of TLI is not consistently incorporated into standard IVF care. A large, pragmatic, multi-centre, trial will provide much needed definitive evidence regarding the effectiveness of TLI. If proven to be effective, its incorporation into standard care would translate into significant clinical and economic benefits. If not, it would allow allocation of resources to more effective interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN17792989 . Prospectively registered on 18 April 2018.

Effect of early cryoprecipitate transfusion versus standard care in women who develop severe postpartum haemorrhage (ACROBAT) in the UK: a protocol for a pilot cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of severe postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) that requires blood transfusion is on the increase. Fibrinogen levels have been shown to drop early and significantly during PPH, which is associated with worse outcomes. Early fibrinogen replacement could potentially improve outcomes. No studies have investigated the clinical impact of early cryoprecipitate transfusion in PPH. Prior to performing a full-scale trial, a pilot study is needed to determine feasibility of the intervention and recruitment. METHODS: ACROBAT is a cluster-randomised pilot study with a qualitative evaluation. Four large London maternity units are randomised to either the intervention or control group. The intervention group will adapt their major obstetric haemorrhage procedures to administer cryoprecipitate early for primary PPH. The control group will retain their standard of care.We include women at >24 weeks gestation who are actively bleeding within 24 hours of delivery and for whom transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs) has been started. We exclude women who decline blood transfusions in advance or have inherited Factor XIII or fibrinogen deficiency. Due to the emergency nature of the intervention, informed consent for administering the intervention is waived.The primary objective is to assess the feasibility of administering cryoprecipitate within 90 min of RBC request, as compared with standard treatment where cryoprecipitate is given later or not at all. Secondary objectives include the feasibility of recruitment and data collection, reasons for and barriers to consent, preliminary maternal clinical outcomes, identification of the optimal infrastructure pathways for study delivery, and acceptability of the intervention and outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has approvals from the London-Brighton & Sussex Research Ethics Committee (ref. 18/LO/2062), the Confidentiality Advisory Group (ref. 18/CAG/0199) and Health Research Authority (IRAS number 237959). Data analysis and publication of manuscripts will start in Q3 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12146519.

Using systematic data categorisation to quantify the types of data collected in clinical trials: the DataCat project.

BACKGROUND: Data collection consumes a large proportion of clinical trial resources. Each data item requires time and effort for collection, processing and quality control procedures. In general, more data equals a heavier burden for trial staff and participants. It is also likely to increase costs. Knowing the types of data being collected, and in what proportion, will be helpful to ensure that limited trial resources and participant goodwill are used wisely. AIM: The aim of this study is to categorise the types of data collected across a broad range of trials and assess what proportion of collected data each category represents. METHODS: We developed a standard operating procedure to categorise data into primary outcome, secondary outcome and 15 other categories. We categorised all variables collected on trial data collection forms from 18, mainly publicly funded, randomised superiority trials, including trials of an investigational medicinal product and complex interventions. Categorisation was done independently in pairs: one person having in-depth knowledge of the trial, the other independent of the trial. Disagreement was resolved through reference to the trial protocol and discussion, with the project team being consulted if necessary. KEY RESULTS: Primary outcome data accounted for 5.0% (median)/11.2% (mean) of all data items collected. Secondary outcomes accounted for 39.9% (median)/42.5% (mean) of all data items. Non-outcome data such as participant identifiers and demographic data represented 32.4% (median)/36.5% (mean) of all data items collected. CONCLUSION: A small proportion of the data collected in our sample of 18 trials was related to the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes accounted for eight times the volume of data as the primary outcome. A substantial amount of data collection is not related to trial outcomes. Trialists should work to make sure that the data they collect are only those essential to support the health and treatment decisions of those whom the trial is designed to inform.

Facedown Positioning Following Surgery for Large Full-Thickness Macular Hole: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The value of facedown positioning following surgery for large full-thickness macular holes is unknown. Objective: To determine whether advice to position facedown postoperatively improves the outcome for large macular holes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized, parallel group superiority trial with 1:1 randomization stratified by site with 3 months' follow-up was conducted at 9 sites across the United Kingdom and included participants with an idiopathic full-thickness macular hole of at least 400 µm minimum linear diameter and a duration of fewer than 12 months. All participants had vitrectomy surgery with peeling of the internal limiting membrane and injection of perfluoropropane (14%) gas, with or without simultaneous surgery for cataract. Interventions: Following surgery, participants were randomly advised to position either facedown or face forward for 8 hours daily for 5 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was closure of the macular hole determined 3 months following surgery by masked optical coherence tomography evaluation. Secondary outcome measures at 3 months were visual acuity, participant-reported experience of positioning, and quality of life measured by the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25. Results: A total of 185 participants (45 men [24.3%]; 156 white [84.3%]; 9 black [4.9%]; 10 Asian [5.4%]; median age, 69 years [interquartile range, 64-73 years]) were randomized. Macular hole closure was observed in 90 (85.6%) who were advised to position face forward and 88 (95.5%) advised to position facedown (adjusted odds ratio, 3.15; 95% CI, 0.87-11.41; P = .08). The mean (SD) improvement in best-corrected visual acuity at 3 months was 0.34 (0.69) logMAR (equivalent to 1 Snellen line) in the face-forward group and 0.57 (0.42) logMAR (equivalent to 3 Snellen lines) in the facedown group (adjusted mean difference, 0.22 [95 % CI, 0.05-0.38]; equivalent to 2 Snellen lines); 95% CI, 0.05-0.38; P = .01). The median National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25 score was 89 (interquartile range, 76-94) in the facedown group and 87 (interquartile range, 73-93) in the face-forward group (mean [SD] change on a logistic scale, 0.08 [0.26] face forward and 0.11 [0.25] facedown; adjusted mean [SD] difference on a logistic scale, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.07; P = .41). Conclusions and Relevance: The results do not prove that facedown positioning following surgery is more likely to close large macular holes compared with facing forward but do support the possibility that visual acuity outcomes may be superior. Trial Registration: Isrctn.org Identifier: 12410596.

Effectiveness and acceptability of metformin in preventing the onset of type 2 diabetes after gestational diabetes in postnatal women: a protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind feasibility trial­Optimising health outcomes with Metformin to prevent diAbetes After pregnancy (OMAhA).

INTRODUCTION: Up to half of all women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus develop type 2 diabetes within 5 years after delivery. Metformin is effective in preventing type 2 diabetes in high-risk non-pregnant individuals, but its effect when commenced in the postnatal period is not known. We plan to assess the feasibility of evaluating metformin versus placebo in minimising the risk of dysglycaemia including type 2 diabetes after delivery in postnatal women with a history of gestational diabetes through a randomised trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Optimising health outcomes with Metformin to prevent diAbetes After pregnancy (OMAhA) is a multicentre placebo-controlled double-blind randomised feasibility trial, where we will randomly allocate 160 postnatal women with gestational diabetes treated with medication to either metformin (intervention) or placebo (control) tablets to be taken until 1 year after delivery. The primary outcomes are rates of recruitment, randomisation, adherence and attrition. The secondary outcomes are maternal dysglycaemia, cost and quality of life outcomes in both arms, and acceptability of the study and intervention, which will be evaluated through a nested qualitative study. Feasibility outcomes will be summarised using descriptive statistics, point estimates and 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The OMAhA study received ethics approval from the London-Brent Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0505). Trial findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated at conferences, through our Patient and Public Involvement advisory group (Katie's Team) and through social media platforms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20930880.

What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study.

BACKGROUND: One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. METHODS: This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. RESULTS: A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The 'Top 10' of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was 'What motivates a participant's decision to complete a clinical trial?' The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie . CONCLUSION: The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

Cost-effectiveness of cell salvage and donor blood transfusion during caesarean section: results from a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section in mothers at risk of haemorrhage compared with current standard of care. DESIGN: Model-based cost-effectiveness evaluation alongside a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Three main analyses were carried out on the trial data: (1) based on the intention-to-treat principle; (2) based on the per-protocol principle; (3) only participants who underwent an emergency caesarean section. SETTING: 26 obstetric units in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 3028 women at risk of haemorrhage recruited between June 2013 and April 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Cell salvage (intervention) versus routine care without salvage (control). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness based on incremental cost per donor blood transfusion avoided. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean difference in total costs between cell salvage and standard care was £83. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £8110 per donor blood transfusion avoided. For the per-protocol analysis, the mean difference in total costs was £92 and the ICER was £8252. In the emergency caesarean section analysis, the mean difference in total costs was £55 and the ICER was £13 713 per donor blood transfusion avoided. This ICER is driven by the increased probability that these patients would require a higher level of postoperative care and additional surgeries. The results of these analyses were shown to be robust for the majority of deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the economic evaluation suggest that while routine cell salvage is a marginally more effective strategy than standard care in avoiding a donor blood transfusion, there is uncertainty in relation to whether it is a less or more costly strategy. The lack of long-term data on the health and quality of life of patients in both arms of the trial means that further research is needed to fully understand the cost implications of both strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66118656.

A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of intraoperative cell salvage during caesarean section in women at risk of haemorrhage: the SALVO (cell SALVage in Obstetrics) trial.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section is associated with blood loss and maternal morbidity. Excessive blood loss requires transfusion of donor (allogeneic) blood, which is a finite resource. Cell salvage returns blood lost during surgery to the mother. It may avoid the need for donor blood transfusion, but reliable evidence of its effects is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To determine if routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section in mothers at risk of haemorrhage reduces the rates of blood transfusion and postpartum maternal morbidity, and is cost-effective, in comparison with standard practice without routine salvage use. DESIGN: Individually randomised controlled, multicentre trial with cost-effectiveness analysis. Treatment was not blinded. SETTING: A total of 26 UK obstetric units. PARTICIPANTS: Out of 3054 women recruited between June 2013 and April 2016, we randomly assigned 3028 women at risk of haemorrhage to cell salvage or routine care. Randomisation was stratified using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. Of these, 1672 had emergency and 1356 had elective caesareans. We excluded women for whom cell salvage or donor blood transfusion was contraindicated. INTERVENTIONS: Cell salvage (intervention) versus routine care without salvage (control). In the intervention group, salvage was set up in 95.6% of the women and, of these, 50.8% had salvaged blood returned. In the control group, 3.9% had salvage deployed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary - donor blood transfusion. Secondary - units of donor blood transfused, time to mobilisation, length of hospitalisation, mean fall in haemoglobin, fetomaternal haemorrhage (FMH) measured by Kleihauer-Betke test, and maternal fatigue. Analyses were adjusted for stratification factors and other factors that were believed to be prognostic a priori. Cost-effectiveness outcomes - costs of resources and service provision taking the UK NHS perspective. RESULTS: We analysed 1498 and 1492 participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively. Overall, the transfusion rate was 2.5% in the intervention group and 3.5% in the control group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.01; p = 0.056]. In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 3.0% in the intervention group and 4.6% in the control group among emergency caesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 1.8% in the intervention group and 2.2% in the control group among elective caesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46, suggesting that the difference in effect between subgroups was not statistically significant). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups, except for FMH, which was higher under salvage in rhesus D (RhD)-negative women with RhD-positive babies (25.6% vs. 10.5%, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14; p = 0.013). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The additional cost of routine cell salvage during caesarean was estimated, on average, at £8110 per donor blood transfusion avoided. CONCLUSIONS: The modest evidence for an effect of routine use of cell salvage during caesarean section on rates of donor blood transfusion was associated with increased FMH, which emphasises the need for adherence to guidance on anti-D prophylaxis. We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects. Based on the findings of this trial, cell salvage is unlikely to be considered cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Research into risk of alloimmunisation among women exposed to cell salvage is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66118656. 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. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cell salvage and donor blood transfusion during cesarean section: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial (SALVO).

BACKGROUND: Excessive haemorrhage at cesarean section requires donor (allogeneic) blood transfusion. Cell salvage may reduce this requirement. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (at 26 obstetric units; participants recruited from 4 June 2013 to 17 April 2016) of routine cell salvage use (intervention) versus current standard of care without routine salvage use (control) in cesarean section among women at risk of haemorrhage. Randomisation was stratified, using random permuted blocks of variable sizes. In an intention-to-treat analysis, we used multivariable models, adjusting for stratification variables and prognostic factors identified a priori, to compare rates of donor blood transfusion (primary outcome) and fetomaternal haemorrhage ≥2 ml in RhD-negative women with RhD-positive babies (a secondary outcome) between groups. Among 3,028 women randomised (2,990 analysed), 95.6% of 1,498 assigned to intervention had cell salvage deployed (50.8% had salvaged blood returned; mean 259.9 ml) versus 3.9% of 1,492 assigned to control. Donor blood transfusion rate was 3.5% in the control group versus 2.5% in the intervention group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 1.01, p = 0.056; adjusted risk difference -1.03, 95% CI -2.13 to 0.06). In a planned subgroup analysis, the transfusion rate was 4.6% in women assigned to control versus 3.0% in the intervention group among emergency cesareans (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99), whereas it was 2.2% versus 1.8% among elective cesareans (adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.83) (interaction p = 0.46). No case of amniotic fluid embolism was observed. The rate of fetomaternal haemorrhage was higher with the intervention (10.5% in the control group versus 25.6% in the intervention group, adjusted OR 5.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 22.14, p = 0.013). We are unable to comment on long-term antibody sensitisation effects. CONCLUSIONS: The overall reduction observed in donor blood transfusion associated with the routine use of cell salvage during cesarean section was not statistically significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered on ISRCTN as trial number 66118656 and can be viewed on http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66118656.

The role of qualitative research in adding value to a randomised controlled trial: lessons from a pilot study of a guided e-learning intervention for managers to improve employee wellbeing and reduce sickness absence.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing popularity of mixed-methods studies and considerable emphasis on the potential value of qualitative research to the trial endeavour, there remains a dearth of published studies reporting on actual contribution. This paper presents a critically reflective account of our experience of the actual value of undertaking qualitative research alongside a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a guided e-learning intervention for managers in an NHS Mental Health Trust to improve employee wellbeing and reduce sickness absence. For the qualitative study we undertook 36 in-depth interviews with key informants, managers and employees. We observed and took in-depth field notes of 10 meetings involving managers and employees at the Trust, and the two qualitative researchers acted as participant observers at steering committee and monthly research team meetings. We adopted a narrative methodological orientation alongside a thematic approach to data analysis, eliciting a rich account of the complexities of managing stress at work. RESULTS: We identified two key overarching roles played by the qualitative research: 'problematising' and 'contextualising'. Specifically, the qualitative data revealed and challenged assumptions embedded in the trial about the nature of the learning process, and exposed the slippery and contested nature of abstracted variables, on which a trial depends. The qualitative data challenged the trial's logic model, and provided a rich understanding of the context within which the trial and intervention took place. CONCLUSIONS: While acknowledging the ever-present tension in mixed-methods research between the requirements of quantitative research to represent the social world as abstracted variables, and the goal of qualitative research to explore and document the complexity of social phenomena, we adopted a pragmatic position that enabled us to engage with this tension in a productive and partially integrative way. Our critically reflective account of the praxis of integration illuminated opportunities and challenges for maximising the value of qualitative research to a trial. This paper sets out tangible illustrative lessons for other mixed-methods researchers endeavouring to get the most from qualitative research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered as ISRCTN58661009 . Registration was submitted on 22 April 2013 and completed on 17 June 2013.

Pilot study of a cluster randomised trial of a guided e-learning health promotion intervention for managers based on management standards for the improvement of employee well-being and reduction of sickness absence: GEM Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of recruitment, adherence and likely effectiveness of an e-learning intervention for managers to improve employees' well-being and reduce sickness absence. METHODS: The GEM Study (guided e-learning for managers) was a mixed methods pilot cluster randomised trial. Employees were recruited from four mental health services prior to randomising three services to the intervention and one to no-intervention control. Intervention managers received a facilitated e-learning programme on work-related stress. Main outcomes were Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS), 12-item GHQ and sickness absence <21 days from human resources. 35 in-depth interviews were undertaken with key informants, managers and employees, and additional observational data collected. RESULTS: 424 of 649 (65%) employees approached consented, of whom 350 provided WEMWBS at baseline and 284 at follow-up; 41 managers out of 49 were recruited from the three intervention clusters and 21 adhered to the intervention. WEMWBS scores fell from 50.4-49.0 in the control (n=59) and 51.0-49.9 in the intervention (n=225), giving an intervention effect of 0.5 (95% CI -3.2 to 4.2). 120/225 intervention employees had a manager who was adherent to the intervention. HR data on sickness absence (n=393) showed no evidence of effect. There were no effects on GHQ score or work characteristics. Online quiz knowledge scores increased across the study in adherent managers. Qualitative data provided a rich picture of the context within which the intervention took place and managers' and employees' experiences of it. CONCLUSIONS: A small benefit from the intervention on well-being was explained by the mixed methods approach, implicating a low intervention uptake by managers and suggesting that education alone may be insufficient. A full trial of the guided e-learning intervention and economic evaluation is feasible. Future research should include more active encouragement of manager motivation, reflection and behaviour change. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN58661009.

Oxaliplatin, irinotecan and capecitabine (OCX) for first-line treatment of advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase I trial (SAKK 41/03).

BACKGROUND: A phase I multicentre trial was conducted to define the recommended dose of capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin and irinotecan (OCX) in metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with performance status (PS) < 2 and adequate haematological, renal and liver function received oxaliplatin 70 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15, irinotecan 100 mg/m(2) on days 8 and 22 and one of five dose levels (DL 1-5, between 800 and 1,600 mg/ m(2)) of capecitabine on days 1-29 every 5 weeks. RESULTS: 23 patients received a median of 3 cycles. 3 dose-limiting toxicities occurred (DL 1: grade 3 (G3) elevated alkaline phosphatase; DL 5: 1 patient G4 hyperglycaemia/G3 diarrhoea and 1 sudden death). The most common severe adverse event was G3 diarrhoea (13%). Severe haematotoxicity was rare. Therapy was stopped mainly due to metastasectomy or tumour progression (7 patients each). 8 patients reached a partial response. Median time to progression and overall survival (OS) were 8.0 and 21.9 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended capecitabine dose in this schedule is 1,400 mg/m(2) daily. The OCX regimen is well tolerated. The response rate was surprisingly low with progression-free survival (PFS) and OS within the range of a triple combination. Further studies in combination with targeted agents are warranted.

A novel diagram and complement to the CONSORT chart for presenting multimodal clinical trials.

We developed a novel diagram to depict patient flow and outcomes in clinical trials. In contrast to flow diagrams such as the CONSORT chart, our diagram enables individual patient histories to be traced and depicts important patterns of treatment administration and outcomes, such as response and adverse events. Also, it is particularly useful for multimodal treatments or a sequence of different therapies where the CONSORT flow chart is less informative and can be confusing.

Efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine with weekly paclitaxel for patients with metastatic breast cancer: a phase II report of the SAKK.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel and capecitabine have proven activity in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Paclitaxel increases the expression of thymidine phosphorylase, the enzyme that activates capecitabine. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine in combination with weekly paclitaxel largely as first-line therapy in patients with MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 2002 to September 2004, 19 patients with MBC received oral capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14) plus i.v. paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15) in a 21-day cycle for a maximum of 6 cycles. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 19.3 months the overall response rate was 63% with 1 complete response (5%) and 11 partial responses (58%). Disease was stabilized in 1 patient (5%) and 3 patients had progressive disease (16%). Three patients were unable to be assessed for response to treatment. Median time to progression was 3.3 months, median time to treatment failure 3.0 months and median overall survival 13.8 months. A substantial number of patients experienced major side effects. The most common treatment-related adverse events were hand-foot syndrome (53%; grade 3: 37%), alopecia (42%; grade 3: 26%), diarrhea (32%; grade 3: 11%) and neurotoxicity (32%; grade 3: 16%). Hematologic toxicities were uncommon. CONCLUSION: The combination of capecitabine and paclitaxel appears to be active in MBC but the safety profile with the dosages used in this trial was unacceptably high and led to a short time to treatment failure. However, based on the efficacy data alternative schedules deserve further evaluation.