Letter on Predicting the number of sites needed to deliver a multicentre clinical trial within a limited time frame in the UK.

When planning a multicentre clinical trial, it can be difficult to predict the time needed to open individual sites, and this in turn impacts on the total number of sites needed, the budget and the time frame for a clinical trial to be delivered successfully. This is of particular importance for funding applications with a limited time frame and budget such as NIHR RfPB. It is more efficient and cost-effective to open the total number of sites needed at the outset of a trial, rather than to respond later to slow site opening and recruitment. Here, we share our experience of successfully delivering a multicentre clinical trial for a rare disease within a limited time frame and budget by approximately doubling the number of sites initially predicted to be needed. We initially predicted 20 sites would be needed to deliver the clinical trial, but early on in the trial, the number of sites was more than doubled to allow successful recruitment of the target sample size within the desired time frame. Of the 48 ethically approved sites, the median time from ethical approval of a site to opening for recruitment was 182 days (95% confidence interval [143 to 245 days]) and ranged from 18 to 613 days. In four (9%) of these sites, part of the delay was due to pharmacy sign off not being given when R&D had issued capacity and capability (C&C). Delays due to pharmacy sign off varied from 10 days to over 3 months delay in two sites (94 days and 102 days). A mathematical solution to the problem of planning a study with a short recruitment window has been given to support the planning and costing of grants with fixed time constraints: number of sites = required sample size divided by (number of eligible patients per site per month times recruitment rate times (the number of months accrual minus 6 months)). We expect these results to help others who are planning multicentre clinical trials in the UK. Ethical approval from NRES Committee South West (IRAS number 225959). TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number 2017-001171-23 . Registered on 26 June 2017.

Cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis of a low-friction environment following skin graft in patients with burn injury.

BACKGROUND: Patients with burn injuries may receive a skin graft to achieve healing in a timely manner. However, in around 7% of cases, the skin graft is lost (fails to attach to the wound site) and a re-grafting procedure is necessary. It has been hypothesised that low-friction (smooth, more slippery) bedding may reduce the risk of skin-graft loss. A before and after feasibility study comparing low-friction with standard bedding in skin-grafted patients was conducted in order to collect proof of concept data. The resulting relative risk on the primary outcome (number of patients with skin graft failure) for the non-randomised study provided no evidence of effect but had a large standard error. The aim of this study is to see if an appropriately powered randomised control trial would be worthwhile. METHODS: A probabilistic decision-analytic model was constructed to compare low-friction bedding to standard care in a population of burn patients who have undergone skin grafting. Results from the before and after study were used as model inputs. The sensitivity of results to bias in the relative risk of graft loss was conducted. Low-friction bedding is considered optimal if expected incremental net benefit (INB) is positive. Uncertainty is assessed using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Expected Value of Perfect Partial Information (EVPPI) provides an upper bound for the potential net health benefits of new research for given model input. RESULTS: At a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, INB = £151 (95% Credible Interval (CrI) -142 to 814), marginally favouring low-friction bedding but with high uncertainty (probability of being cost-effective 70.5%). Expected value of perfect information (EVPI) per patient was £20.29, which results in a population EVPI of £174,765 over a 10-year lifetime for the technology (based on 1000 patients per year who would benefit from the intervention). The parameter contributing most to the uncertainty was the inpatient care cost, i.e. information that could be obtained from the audit of practice and without an expensive trial. These findings were robust to a wide-range of assumptions about the potential bias due to the observational nature of the comparative evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results suggest that an RCT (randomised controlled trial) is unlikely to be worthwhile, but there may be value in a study to estimate the re-graft rates and associated costs in this population.

The SILKIE (Skin graftIng Low friKtIon Environment) study: a non-randomised proof-of-concept and feasibility study on the impact of low-friction nursing environment on skin grafting success rates in adult and paediatric burns.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of low-friction (LF) bedding on graft loss in an acute burn care setting, and to examine the feasibility and costs of using LF bedding compared with standard care. DESIGN: Proof of concept before and after study with feasibility of delivering the intervention. SETTING: Three burns services within two UK hospital trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were patients older than 4 weeks, who received a skin graft after burn injury and were admitted overnight. The comparator cohort were eligible patients admitted in a 12-month period before the intervention. INTERVENTION: Introduction of LF sheets and pillowcases during a 15-month period. OUTCOME MEASURES: For proof of concept, the LF and comparator cohorts were compared in terms of number of regrafting operations (primary), percentage graft loss, hospital length of stay (LoS) and LoS cost (secondary). Feasibility outcomes were practicality and safety of using LF bedding. RESULTS: 131 patients were eligible for the LF cohort and 90 patients for the comparator cohort. Although the primary outcome of the proportion needing regrafting was halved in the LF cohort, the confidence interval (CI) crossed 1 (OR (95% CI): 0.56 (0.16 to 1.88)). Partial graft loss (any loss) was significantly reduced in the LF cohort (OR (95% CI): 0.27 (0.14, 0.51)). Inpatient LoS was no different between the two cohorts (difference in median days (95% CI): 0 (-2 to 1)), and the estimated difference in LoS cost was £-1139 (-4829 to 2551). Practical issues were easily resolved, and no safety incidents occurred while patients were nursed on LF bedding. CONCLUSIONS: LF bedding is safe to use in burned patients with skin grafts and we have shown proof of concept for the intervention. Further economic modelling is required to see if an appropriately powered randomised control trial would be worthwhile or if roll out across the National Health Service is justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN82599687.

The revised Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue measures and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease scale: validation in six countries.

Objective: To evaluate the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the revised Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS V2) and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) scale in six countries. Methods: We surveyed RA patients in France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK, including the HAQ, 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and potential revisions of the BRAF-NRS coping and Spanish RAID coping items. Factor structure and internal consistency were examined by factor analysis and Cronbach's α and construct validity by Spearman's correlation. Results: A total of 1276 patients participated (76% female, 25% with a disease duration <5 years, median HAQ 1.0). The original BRAF-MDQ four-factor structure and RAID single-factor structure were confirmed in every country with ⩾66% of variation in items explained by each factor and all item factor loadings of 0.71-0.98. Internal consistency for the BRAF-MDQ total and subscales was a Cronbach's α of 0.75-0.96 and for RAID, 0.93-0.96. Fatigue construct validity was shown for the BRAF-MDQ and BRAF-NRS severity and effect scales, correlated internally with SF-36 vitality and with RAID fatigue (r = 0.63-0.93). Broader construct validity for the BRAFs and RAID was shown by correlation with each other, HAQ and SF-36 domains (r = 0.46-0.82), with similar patterns in individual countries. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 Coping item had stronger validity than the original in all analyses. The revised Spanish RAID coping item performed as well as the original. Conclusion: Across six European countries, the BRAF-MDQ identifies the same four aspects of fatigue, and along with the RAID, shows strong factor structure and internal consistency and moderate-good construct validity. The revised BRAF-NRS V2 shows improved construct validity and replaces the original.

Can paramedics use FRAX (the WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool) to help GPs improve future fracture risk in patients who fall? Protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Currently identification, and therefore, management of patients at risk of osteoporotic fracture in the UK is suboptimal. As the majority of patients who fracture have fallen, it follows that people who fall can usefully be targeted in any programme that aims to reduce osteoporotic fracture. Targeting vulnerable patients who are likely to benefit from intervention may help shift the management of fracture prevention into primary care, away from emergency departments. Paramedics who attend to patients who have fallen may be well placed to assess future fracture risk, using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and communicate that information directly to general practitioners (GPs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This feasibility study takes the form of a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial aimed at exploring and refining issues of study design, recruitment, retention, sample size and acceptability preceding a large-scale study with fracture as the end point. Patients (aged >50) who fall, call an ambulance, are attended by a study paramedic and give verbal consent will be asked FRAX and fall questions. Patients who subsequently formally consent to participation will be randomised to control (usual care) or intervention groups. Intervention will constitute transmission of calculated future fracture risk to the patients' GP with suitable, evidence-based recommendations for investigation or treatment. 3 months after the index fall, data (proportion of patients in each group undergoing investigation or starting new treatment, quality of life and health economic) will be collected and analysed using descriptive statistics. A nested qualitative study will explore issues of acceptability and study design with patients, paramedics and GPs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by NRES Committee South Central Oxford C in October 2012. Research Ethics Committee ref.12/SC/0604. The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and local public events. A publication plan and authorship criteria have been preagreed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN: 36245726.

The administration of intermittent parathyroid hormone affects functional recovery from pertrochanteric fractured neck of femur: a protocol for a prospective mixed method pilot study with randomisation of treatment allocation and blinded assessment (FRACTT).

INTRODUCTION: Pertrochanteric hip fractures occur in an elderly population and cause considerable morbidity and loss of functional ability as the fracture heals. Recently, parathyroid hormone (PTH), which is licensed for the treatment of osteoporosis, has been shown to potentially accelerate bone healing in animal and human studies. If its administration could allow a faster functional recovery after pertrochanteric hip fracture, then a patient's hospital stay may be reduced and rehabilitation could be potentially accelerated. PTH can currently only be administered by subcutaneous injection. The acceptability of this intervention is unknown in this elderly population. The aim of this pilot study is to inform the design of a future powered study comparing the functional recovery after pertrochanteric hip fracture in patients undergoing standard care versus those who undergo administration of subcutaneous injection of PTH. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is an open label, prospective, randomised, comparative pilot study with blinded outcomes assessment to establish feasibility of the trial design. Patients will be randomised to receive a 6-week course of PTH or usual treatment. Functional outcomes will be assessed at 6 weeks and 12 weeks. Blinded assessment will be used to minimise the effect of bias of an open label study design. A nested qualitative study will investigate the patient experience of, and expectations following, hip fracture and the patient important aspects of recovery compared with the outcome measures proposed. RESULTS: Results will be analysed to establish the potential recruitment, compliance and retention rates using 95% CIs, and trial outcomes quoted with SDs and 95% CIs for the effect size. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the South West 2 Research Ethics committee (reference 10/H0206/34). The findings of this study will be disseminated to the medical community via presentations to orthopaedic, orthogeriatric and osteoporosis societies, and their relevant specialist journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register reference number: ISRCTN03362357. Eudract Number: 2010-020081-22.

Can endoscopy be avoided in the assessment of ulcerative colitis in clinical trials?

BACKGROUND: There is no gold standard index in the measurement of ulcerative colitis (UC) disease activity in clinical trials. Mucosal healing has been described as an important clinical endpoint requiring endoscopic assessment, which is unpleasant for the patient and may hamper recruitment to trials. The aim of this study was to determine whether endoscopy is necessary in the assessment of UC disease activity and whether a noninvasive disease activity index (partial Mayo score) could be used to predict the Mayo score. METHODS: In all, 149 subjects with moderate to severe UC enrolled in a clinical trial were assessed using total and partial Mayo scores. Histologic assessment of biopsies was performed. A regression model was constructed to predict total Mayo score from the partial Mayo score and histology score from the Mayo score. A Bland-Altman test of agreement was performed. RESULTS: The partial Mayo score correlated closely with the total Mayo score at week 4 (rho = 0.97) and week 8 (rho = 0.98). The model to predict total from partial Mayo score showed excellent correlation (rho = 0.97) and good agreement with the total Mayo score at week 4 and the week 8 validation set (rho = 0.97) and accurately classified disease severity (kappa = 0.82). The model to predict histology score from the Mayo score correlated only moderately with the actual histology score at week 4 (rho = 0.59) and week 8 (rho = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: The Mayo score can be accurately predicted from the partial Mayo score. A noninvasive index can replace the Mayo score in future clinical trials.

Is the Incredible Years programme effective for children with neuro-developmental disorders and for families with Social Services involvement in the "real world" of community CAMHS?

BACKGROUND: Over the past few years parenting has become the focus for political attention in an attempt to tackle high levels of disruptive and anti-social behaviour. The Incredible Years (IY) programme (Webster-Stratton, 1999) is one of the parenting training packages that has been identified as a treatment of choice. There are, however, few studies available to demonstrate the clinical relevance in real world Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and even less knowledge about how children affected by a neuro-developmental disorder and families involved with Social Services can benefit. METHOD: The BASIC IY videotape parent training programme was used for consecutive groups of parents across two neighbouring CAMH services (n = 128). Data were collected before and after intervention using the Eyberg Behaviour Checklist (Eyberg & Ross, 1978) and a number of Visual Analogue Scales. The effectiveness of the group was compared to that of other studies and the outcomes for two sub-groups--children with a neuro-developmental disorder and families with Social Services involvement--were evaluated. RESULTS: Statistically significantly post-intervention scores were found for all groups showing moderate to large effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: The results are comparable to other effectiveness studies (e.g., Gardner, Barton, & Klimes, 2006; Scott, 2005). They also show that the IY is equally effective for children diagnosed with a neuro-developmental disorder and for families with multiple and complex needs.