A phase IV randomised, open-label pilot study to evaluate switching from protease-inhibitor based regimen to Bictegravir/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Alafenamide single tablet regimen in Integrase inhibitor-naïve, virologically suppressed HIV-1 infected adults harbouring drug resistance mutations (PIBIK study): study protocol for a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently recommended boosted protease-inhibitor (bPI) regimens may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular or chronic kidney diseases; in addition, boosted regimens are particularly associated with drug-drug interactions. Since both cardiovascular and renal disease, and polypharmacy, are common in ageing people with HIV, there is a need for alternative efficacious regimens. bPI-based regimens are often the treatment of choice for individuals with pre-treatment or treatment-acquired resistance but it is plausible that carefully selected HIV-positive individuals with drug resistance, who are virologically suppressed on their current bPI regimen, could maintain virological efficacy when switched to bictegravir, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) fixed dose combination (FDC). METHODS/DESIGN: A phase IV, investigator-initiated, multicentre, open label pilot, randomised two-arm study to assess the safety and efficacy of switching from bPI regimen to B/F/TAF single tablet regimen in integrase inhibitor-naïve, virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection harbouring drug resistance mutations. Eligible individuals will either continue on their bPI regimen or switch to B/F/TAF FDC. After 24 weeks, all participants in the bPI arm will be switched to B/F/TAF and followed for a further 24 weeks and all participants will be followed for 48 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL at week 24 using pure virologic response whilst the secondary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL at Week 48. Other secondary outcome measures include between arm comparisons of drug resistance at virological failure, safety and tolerability and patient-reported outcome measures. DISCUSSION: We aim to provide preliminary evidence of the efficacy of switching to B/F/TAF in patients with virological suppression on a bPI-based regimen who harbour select drug resistance mutations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 44453201 , registered 19 June 2019 and EudraCT 2018-004732-30.

Randomised clinical trial: palliative long-term abdominal drains vs large-volume paracentesis in refractory ascites due to cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care remains suboptimal in end-stage liver disease. AIM: To inform a definitive study, we assessed palliative long-term abdominal drains in end-stage liver disease to determine recruitment, attrition, safety/potential effectiveness, questionnaires/interview uptake/completion and make a preliminary cost comparison. METHODS: A 12-week feasibility nonblinded randomised controlled trial comparing large-volume paracentesis vs long-term abdominal drains in refractory ascites due to end-stage liver disease with fortnightly home visits for clinical/questionnaire-based assessments. Study success criteria were attrition not >50%, <10% long-term abdominal drain removal due to complications, the long-term abdominal drain group to spend <50% ascites-related study time in hospital vs large-volume paracentesis group and 80% questionnaire/interview uptake/completion. RESULTS: Of 59 eligible patients, 36 (61%) were randomised, 17 to long-term abdominal drain and 19 to large-volume paracentesis. Following randomisation, median number (IQR) of hospital ascitic drains (long-term abdominal drain group vs large-volume paracentesis group) were 0 (0-1) vs 4 (3-7); week 12 serum albumin (g/L) and serum creatinine (µmol/L) were 29 (26.5-32.5) vs 30 (25-35) and 104.5 (81-115.5) vs 127 (63-158) respectively. Total attrition was 42% (long-term abdominal drain group 47%, large-volume paracentesis group 37%). Median (IQR) fortnightly community/hospital/social care ascites-related costs and percentage study time in hospital were lower in the long-term abdominal drain group, £329 (253-580) vs £843 (603-1060) and 0% (0-0.74) vs 2.75% (2.35-3.84) respectively. Self-limiting cellulitis/leakage occurred in 41% (7/17) in the long-term abdominal drain group vs 11% (2/19) in the large-volume paracentesis group; peritonitis incidence was 6% (1/17) vs 11% (2/19) respectively. Questionnaires/interview uptake/completion were ≥80%; interviews indicated that long-term abdominal drains could transform the care pathway. CONCLUSIONS: The REDUCe study demonstrates feasibility with preliminary evidence of long-term abdominal drain acceptability/effectiveness/safety and reduction in health resource utilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN30697116, date assigned: 07/10/2015.

Correction to: Palliative long-term abdominal drains versus repeated drainage in individuals with untreatable ascites due to advanced cirrhosis: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported that the figure legend for Figure 3 was absent. In addition, they have requested additional funding information to be added. In this Correction the initial and updated funding information are shown. The original publication of this article has been corrected.

Palliative long-term abdominal drains versus repeated drainage in individuals with untreatable ascites due to advanced cirrhosis: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: UK deaths due to chronic liver diseases such as cirrhosis have quadrupled over the last 40 years, making this condition now the third most common cause of premature death. Most patients with advanced cirrhosis (end-stage liver disease [ESLD]) develop ascites. This is often managed with diuretics, but if refractory, then the fluid is drained from the peritoneal cavity every 10-14 days by large volume paracentesis (LVP), a procedure requiring hospital admissions. As the life expectancy of patients with ESLD and refractory ascites (if ineligible for liver transplantation) is on average ≤ 6 months, frequent hospital visits are inappropriate from a palliative perspective. One alternative is long-term abdominal drains (LTADs), used successfully in patients whose ascites is due to malignancy. Although inserted in hospital, these drains allow ascites management outside of a hospital setting. LTADs have not been formally evaluated in patients with refractory ascites due to ESLD. METHODS/DESIGN: Due to uncertainty about appropriate outcome measures and whether patients with ESLD would wish or be able to participate in a study, a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) was designed. Patients were consulted on trial design. We plan to recruit 48 patients with refractory ascites and randomise them (1:1) to either (1) LTAD or (2) current standard of care (LVP) for 12 weeks. Outcomes of interest include acceptability of the LTAD to patients, carers and healthcare professionals as well as recruitment and retention rates. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, the Short Form Liver Disease Quality of Life questionnaire, the EuroQol 5 dimensions instrument and carer-reported (Zarit Burden Interview) outcomes will also be assessed. Preliminary data on cost-effectiveness will be collected, and patients and healthcare professionals will be interviewed about their experience of the trial with a view to identifying barriers to recruitment. DISCUSSION: LTADs could potentially improve end-of-life care in patients with refractory ascites due to ESLD by improving symptom control, reducing hospital visits and enabling some self-management. Our trial is designed to see if such patients can be recruited, as well as to inform the design of a subsequent definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN30697116 . Registered on 7 October 2015.

The Lower Limb Amputee Measurement Scale: reliability and predictive validity.

This study assesses the reliability and predictive validity of the Lower Limb Extremity Amputee Measurement Scale (LLAMS), which is an assessment tool designed to predict the length of stay (LOS) of patients with lower limb amputations in a rehabilitation program. In order to evaluate inter-rater reliability a prospective evaluation was completed by five independent evaluators (n = 10). Predictive validity was evaluated retrospectively by comparing the LLAMS predicted LOS to actual LOS (n = 147). The ability of the amputee team members to administer the LLAMS to patients was very high (ICC [2,1] = 0.98, CI 95% = 0.96 - 0.99, F[9, 36] = 78.71, p < 0.05). In addition, a moderate positive correlation was found between the LLAMS predicted LOS and the actual LOS (Pearson Correlation Coefficient, r = 0.465, p < 0.01), and the LLAMS was able to identify those patients who required short versus long rehabilitation stays. The incorporation of the LLAMS into the physiatrist's initial assessment of patients in the amputee clinic has enhanced the ability to manage better the LOS and the time patients wait to enter the rehabilitation program.