Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

A hypothesis test of feasibility for external pilot trials assessing recruitment, follow-up, and adherence rates.

The power of a large clinical trial can be adversely affected by low recruitment, follow-up, and adherence rates. External pilot trials estimate these rates and use them, via prespecified decision rules, to determine if the definitive trial is feasible and should go ahead. There is little methodological research underpinning how these decision rules, or the sample size of the pilot, should be chosen. In this article we propose a hypothesis test of the feasibility of a definitive trial, to be applied to the external pilot data and used to make progression decisions. We quantify feasibility by the power of the planned trial, as a function of recruitment, follow-up, and adherence rates. We use this measure to define hypotheses to test in the pilot, propose a test statistic, and show how the error rates of this test can be calculated for the common scenario of a two-arm parallel group definitive trial with a single normally distributed primary endpoint. We use our method to redesign TIGA-CUB, an external pilot trial comparing a psychotherapy with treatment as usual for children with conduct disorders. We then extend our formulation to include using the pilot data to estimate the standard deviation of the primary endpoint and incorporate this into the progression decision.

Bayesian design and analysis of external pilot trials for complex interventions.

External pilot trials of complex interventions are used to help determine if and how a confirmatory trial should be undertaken, providing estimates of parameters such as recruitment, retention, and adherence rates. The decision to progress to the confirmatory trial is typically made by comparing these estimates to pre-specified thresholds known as progression criteria, although the statistical properties of such decision rules are rarely assessed. Such assessment is complicated by several methodological challenges, including the simultaneous evaluation of multiple endpoints, complex multi-level models, small sample sizes, and uncertainty in nuisance parameters. In response to these challenges, we describe a Bayesian approach to the design and analysis of external pilot trials. We show how progression decisions can be made by minimizing the expected value of a loss function, defined over the whole parameter space to allow for preferences and trade-offs between multiple parameters to be articulated and used in the decision-making process. The assessment of preferences is kept feasible by using a piecewise constant parametrization of the loss function, the parameters of which are chosen at the design stage to lead to desirable operating characteristics. We describe a flexible, yet computationally intensive, nested Monte Carlo algorithm for estimating operating characteristics. The method is used to revisit the design of an external pilot trial of a complex intervention designed to increase the physical activity of care home residents.

Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: an open-cohort cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Agitation is common and problematic in care home residents with dementia. This study investigated the (cost)effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation in this population. METHOD: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis in 50 care homes, follow-up at 6 and 16 months and stratified randomisation to intervention (n = 31) and control (n = 19). Residents with dementia were recruited at baseline (n = 726) and 16 months (n = 261). Clusters were not blinded to allocation. Three DCM cycles were scheduled, delivered by two trained staff per home. Cycle one was supported by an external DCM expert. Agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI)) at 16 months was the primary outcome. RESULTS: DCM was not superior to control on any outcomes (cross-sectional sample n = 675: 287 control, 388 intervention). The adjusted mean CMAI score difference was -2.11 points (95% CI -4.66 to 0.44, p = 0.104, adjusted ICC control = 0, intervention 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis. Incremental cost per unit improvement in CMAI and QALYs (intervention vs control) on closed-cohort baseline recruited sample (n = 726, 418 intervention, 308 control) was £289 and £60,627 respectively. Loss to follow-up at 16 months in the original cohort was 312/726 (43·0%) mainly (87·2%) due to deaths. Intervention dose was low with only a quarter of homes completing more than one DCM cycle. CONCLUSION: No benefits of DCM were evidenced. Low intervention dose indicates standard care homes may be insufficiently resourced to implement DCM. Alternative models of implementation, or other approaches to reducing agitation should be considered.

An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

Measuring commissioners' willingness-to-pay for community based childhood obesity prevention programmes using a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, rates of childhood obesity remain high. Community based programmes for child obesity prevention are available to be commissioned by local authorities. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding how programmes are commissioned and which attributes of programmes are valued most by commissioners. The aim of this study was to determine the factors that decision-makers prioritise when commissioning programmes that target childhood obesity prevention. METHODS: An online discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to survey commissioners and decision makers in the UK to assess their willingness-to-pay for childhood obesity programmes. RESULTS: A total of 64 commissioners and other decision makers completed the DCE. The impact of programmes on behavioural outcomes was prioritised, with participants willing to pay an extra £16,600/year if average daily fruit and vegetable intake increased for each child by one additional portion. Participants also prioritised programmes that had greater number of parents fully completing them, and were willing to pay an extra £4810/year for every additional parent completing a programme. The number of parents enrolling in a programme (holding the number completing fixed) and hours of staff time required did not significantly influence choices. CONCLUSIONS: Emphasis on high programme completion rates and success increasing children's fruit and vegetable intake has potential to increase commissioning of community based obesity prevention programmes.

The HAPPY (Healthy and Active Parenting Programmme for early Years) feasibility randomised control trial: acceptability and feasibility of an intervention to reduce infant obesity.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of infant obesity is increasing, but there is a lack of evidence-based approaches to prevent obesity at this age. This study tested the acceptability and feasibility of evaluating a theory-based intervention aimed at reducing risk of obesity in infants of overweight/obese women during and after pregnancy: the Healthy and Active Parenting Programme for Early Years (HAPPY). METHODS: A feasibility randomised controlled trial was conducted in Bradford, England. One hundred twenty overweight/obese pregnant women (Body Mass Index [BMI] ≥25 kg/m(2)) were recruited between 10-26 weeks gestation. Consenting women were randomly allocated to HAPPY (6 antenatal, 6 postnatal sessions: N = 59) or usual care (N = 61). Appropriate outcome measures for a full trial were explored, including: infant's length and weight, woman's BMI, physical activity and dietary intake of the women and infants. Health economic data were collected. Measurement occurred before randomisation and when the infant was aged 6 months and 12 months. Feasibility outcomes were: recruitment/attrition rates, and acceptability of: randomisation, measurement, and intervention. Intra-class correlations for infant weight were calculated. Fidelity was assessed through observations and facilitator feedback. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews explored acceptability of methods, implementation, and intervention content. RESULTS: Recruitment targets were met (~20 women/month) with a recruitment rate of 30 % of eligible women (120/396). There was 30 % attrition at 12 months; 66 % of recruited women failed to attend intervention sessions, but those who attended the first session were likely to continue to attend (mean 9.4/12 sessions, range 1-12). Reaction to intervention content was positive, and fidelity was high. Group clustering was minimal; an adjusted effect size of -0.25 standard deviation scores for infant weight at 12 months (95 % CI: -0.16-0.65) favouring the intervention was observed using intention to treat analyses. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The HAPPY intervention appeared feasible and acceptable to participants who attended and those delivering it, however attendance was low; adaptations to increase initial attendance are recommended. Whilst the study was not powered to detect a definitive effect, our results suggest a potential to reduce risk of infant obesity. The evidence reported provides valuable lessons to inform progression to a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56735429.

Delivering an Optimised Behavioural Intervention (OBI) to people with low back pain with high psychological risk; results and lessons learnt from a feasibility randomised controlled trial of Contextual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CCBT) vs. Physiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Low Back Pain (LBP) remains a common and costly problem. Psychological obstacles to recovery have been identified, but psychological and behavioural interventions have produced only moderate improvements. Reviews of trials have suggested that the interventions lack clear theoretical basis, are often compromised by low dose, lack of fidelity, and delivery by non-experts. In addition, interventions do not directly target known risk mechanisms. We identified a theory driven intervention (Contexual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, CCBT) that directly targets an evidence-based risk mechanism (avoidance and ensured dose and delivery were optimised. This feasibility study was designed to test the credibility and acceptability of optimised CCBT against physiotherapy for avoidant LBP patients, and to test recruitment, delivery of the intervention and response rates prior to moving to a full definitive trial. METHODS: A randomised controlled feasibility trial with patients randomised to receive CCBT or physiotherapy. CCBT was delivered by trained supervised psychologists on a one to one basis and comprised up to 8 one-hour sessions. Physiotherapy comprised back to fitness group exercises with at least 60 % of content exercise-based. Patients were eligible to take part if they had back pain for more than 3 months, and scored above a threshold indicating fear avoidance, catastrophic beliefs and distress. RESULTS: 89 patients were recruited. Uptake rates were above those predicted. Scores for credibility and acceptability of the interventions met the set criteria. Response rates at three and six months fell short of the 75 % target. Problems associated with poor response rates were identified and successfully resolved, rates increased to 77 % at 3 months, and 68 % at 6 months. Independent ratings of treatment sessions indicated that CCBT was delivered to fidelity. Numbers were too small for formal analysis. Although average scores for acceptance were higher in the CCBT group than in the group attending physiotherapy (increase of 7.9 versus 5.1) and change in disability and pain from baseline to 6 months were greater in the CCBT group than in the physiotherapy group, these findings should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: CCBT is a credible and acceptable intervention for LBP patients who exhibit psychological obstacles to recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN43733490 , registered 15/12/2010.

Approaches and experiences implementing remote, electronic consent at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. MAIN TEXT: We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach.

Supported exercise TrAining for Men wIth prostate caNcer on Androgen deprivation therapy (STAMINA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention compared with optimised usual care, including internal pilot and parallel process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: UK national clinical guidance recommends that men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy are offered twice weekly supervised aerobic and resistance exercise to address iatrogenic harm caused by treatment. Very few NHS trusts have established adequate provision of such services. Furthermore, interventions fail to demonstrate sustained behaviour change. The STAMINA lifestyle intervention offers a system-level change to clinical care delivery addressing barriers to long-term behaviour change and implementation of new prostate cancer care pathways. This trial aims to establish whether STAMINA is clinically and cost-effective in improving cancer-specific quality of life and/or reducing fatigue compared to optimised usual care. The process evaluation aims to inform the interpretation of results and, if the intervention is shown to benefit patients, to inform the implementation of the intervention into the NHS. METHODS: Men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (n = 697) will be identified from a minimum of 12 UK NHS trusts to participate in a multi-centre, two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial. Consenting men will have a 'safety to exercise' check and be randomly allocated (5:4) to the STAMINA lifestyle intervention (n = 384) or optimised usual care (n = 313). Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-month post-randomisation. The two primary outcomes are cancer-specific quality of life and fatigue. The parallel process evaluation will follow a mixed-methods approach to explore recruitment and aspects of the intervention including, reach, fidelity, acceptability, and implementation. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness of the STAMINA lifestyle intervention versus optimised usual care and a discrete choice experiment will explore patient preferences. DISCUSSION: The STAMINA lifestyle intervention has the potential to improve quality of life and reduce fatigue in men on androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. Embedding supervised exercise into prostate cancer care may also support long-term positive behaviour change and reduce adverse events caused by treatment. Findings will inform future clinical care and could provide a blueprint for the integration of supervised exercise and behavioural support into other cancer and/or clinical services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 46385239, registered on 30/07/2020. Cancer Research UK 17002, retrospectively registered on 24/08/2022.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

A DELPHI study priority setting the remaining challenges for the use of routinely collected data in trials: COMORANT-UK.

BACKGROUND: Researchers are increasingly seeking to use routinely collected data to support clinical trials. This approach has the potential to transform the way clinical trials are conducted in the future. The availability of routinely collected data for research, whether healthcare or administrative, has increased, and infrastructure funding has enabled much of this. However, challenges remain at all stages of a trial life cycle. This study, COMORANT-UK, aimed to systematically identify, with key stakeholders across the UK, the ongoing challenges related to trials that seek to use routinely collected data. METHODS: This three-step Delphi method consisted of two rounds of anonymous web-based surveys and a virtual consensus meeting. Stakeholders included trialists, data infrastructures, funders of trials, regulators, data providers and the public. Stakeholders identified research questions or challenges that they considered were of particular importance and then selected their top 10 in the second survey. The ranked questions were taken forward to the consensus meeting for discussion with representatives invited from the stakeholder groups. RESULTS: In the first survey, 66 respondents yielded over 260 questions or challenges. These were thematically grouped and merged into a list of 40 unique questions. Eighty-eight stakeholders then ranked their top ten from the 40 questions in the second survey. The most common 14 questions were brought to the virtual consensus meeting in which stakeholders agreed a top list of seven questions. We report these seven questions which are within the following domains: trial design, Patient and Public Involvement, trial set-up, trial open and trial data. These questions address both evidence gaps (requiring further methodological research) and implementation gaps (requiring training and/or service re-organisation). CONCLUSION: This prioritised list of seven questions should inform the direction of future research in this area and should direct efforts to ensure that the benefits in major infrastructure for routinely collected data are achieved and translated. Without this and future work to address these questions, the potential societal benefits of using routinely collected data to help answer important clinical questions will not be realised.

The detection and management of attempted fraud during an online randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Online studies offer an efficient method of recruiting participants and collecting data. Whilst delivering an online randomised trial, we detected unusual recruitment activity. We describe our approach to detecting and managing suspected fraud and share lessons for researchers. METHODS: Our trial investigated the single and combined effects of different ways of presenting clinical audit and feedback. Clinicians and managers who received feedback from one of five United Kingdom national clinical audit programmes were emailed invitations that contained a link to the trial website. After providing consent and selecting their relevant audit, participants were randomised automatically to different feedback versions. Immediately after viewing their assigned feedback, participants completed a questionnaire and could request a financial voucher by entering an email address. Email addresses were not linked to trial data to preserve participant anonymity. We actively monitored participant numbers, questionnaire completions, and voucher claims. RESULTS: Following a rapid increase in trial participation, we identified 268 new voucher claims from three email addresses that we had reason to believe were linked. Further scrutiny revealed duplicate trial completions and voucher requests from 24 email addresses. We immediately suspended the trial, improved security measures, and went on to successfully complete the study. We found a peak in questionnaires completed in less than 20 seconds during a likely contamination period. Given that study and personal data were not linked, we could not directly identify the trial data from the 268 duplicate entries within the 603 randomisations occurring during the same period. We therefore excluded all 603 randomisations from the primary analysis, which was consequently based on 638 randomisations. A sensitivity analysis, including all 961 randomisations over the entire study except for questionnaire completions of less than 20 seconds, found only minor differences from the primary analysis. CONCLUSION: Online studies offering incentives for participation are at risk of attempted fraud. Systematic monitoring and analysis can help detect such activity. Measures to protect study integrity include linking participant identifiers to study data, balancing study security and ease of participation, and safeguarding the allocation of participant incentives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN41584028. Registration date is August 17, 2017.

Randomised, placebo-controlled trial and meta-analysis show benefit of ondansetron for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea: The TRITON trial.

BACKGROUND: Ondansetron may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea (IBS-D). AIM: To conduct a 12-week parallel group, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron 4 mg o.d. (titrated up to 8 mg t.d.s.) in 400 IBS-D patients. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: % responders using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) composite endpoint. Secondary and mechanistic endpoints included stool consistency (Bristol Stool Form Scale) and whole gut transit time (WGTT). After literature review, results were pooled with other placebo-controlled trials in a meta-analysis to estimate relative risks (RR), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and number needed to treat (NNT). RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomised. On intention-to-treat analysis, 15/37 (40.5%; 95% CI 24.7%-56.4%) met the primary endpoint on ondansetron versus 12/43 (27.9%; 95% CI 14.5%-41.3%) on placebo (p = 0.19). Ondansetron improved stool consistency compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference - 0.7; 95% CI -1.0 to-0.3, p < 0.001). Ondansetron increased WGTT between baseline and week 12 (mean (SD) difference 3.8 (9.1) hours, versus placebo -2.2 (10.3) hours, p = 0.01). Meta-analysis of 327 patients from this, and two similar trials, demonstrated ondansetron was superior to placebo for the FDA composite endpoint (RR of symptoms not responding = 0.86; 95% CI 0.75-0.98, NNT = 9) and stool response (RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.52-0.82, NNT = 5), but not abdominal pain response (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.74-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Although small numbers meant the primary endpoint was not met in this trial, when pooled with other similar trials meta-analysis suggests ondansetron improves stool consistency and reduces days with loose stool and urgency. Trial registration - http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17508514.

Explaining variable effects of an adaptable implementation package to promote evidence-based practice in primary care: a longitudinal process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Implementing evidence-based recommendations is challenging in UK primary care, especially given system pressures and multiple guideline recommendations competing for attention. Implementation packages that can be adapted and hence applied to target multiple guideline recommendations could offer efficiencies for recommendations with common barriers to achievement. We developed and evaluated a package of evidence-based interventions (audit and feedback, educational outreach and reminders) incorporating behaviour change techniques to target common barriers, in two pragmatic trials for four "high impact" indicators: risky prescribing; diabetes control; blood pressure control; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. We observed a significant, cost-effective reduction in risky prescribing but there was insufficient evidence of effect on the other outcomes. We explored the impact of the implementation package on both social processes (Normalisation Process Theory; NPT) and hypothesised determinants of behaviour (Theoretical Domains Framework; TDF). METHODS: We conducted a prospective multi-method process evaluation. Observational, administrative and interview data collection and analyses in eight primary care practices were guided by NPT and TDF. Survey data from trial and process evaluation practices explored fidelity. RESULTS: We observed three main patterns of variation in how practices responded to the implementation package. First, in integration and achievement, the package "worked" when it was considered distinctive and feasible. Timely feedback directed at specific behaviours enabled continuous goal setting, action and review, which reinforced motivation and collective action. Second, impacts on team-based determinants were limited, particularly when the complexity of clinical actions impeded progress. Third, there were delivery delays and unintended consequences. Delays in scheduling outreach further reduced ownership and time for improvement. Repeated stagnant or declining feedback that did not reflect effort undermined engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Variable integration within practice routines and organisation of care, variable impacts on behavioural determinants, and delays in delivery and unintended consequences help explain the partial success of an adaptable package in primary care.

A randomised fractional factorial screening experiment to predict effective features of audit and feedback.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback aims to improve patient care by comparing healthcare performance against explicit standards. It is used to monitor and improve patient care, including through National Clinical Audit (NCA) programmes in the UK. Variability in effectiveness of audit and feedback is attributed to intervention design; separate randomised trials to address multiple questions about how to optimise effectiveness would be inefficient. We evaluated different feedback modifications to identify leading candidates for further "real-world" evaluation. METHODS: Using an online fractional factorial screening experiment, we randomised recipients of feedback from five UK NCAs to different combinations of six feedback modifications applied within an audit report excerpt: use effective comparators, provide multimodal feedback, recommend specific actions, provide optional detail, incorporate the patient voice, and minimise cognitive load. Outcomes, assessed immediately after exposure to the online modifications, included intention to enact audit standards (primary outcome, ranked on a scale of -3 to +3, tailored to the NCA), comprehension, user experience, and engagement. RESULTS: We randomised 1241 participants (clinicians, managers, and audit staff) between April and October 2019. Inappropriate repeated participant completion occurred; we conservatively excluded participant entries during the relevant period, leaving a primary analysis population of 638 (51.4%) participants. None of the six feedback modifications had an independent effect on intention across the five NCAs. We observed both synergistic and antagonistic effects across outcomes when modifications were combined; the specific NCA and whether recipients had a clinical role had dominant influences on outcome, and there was an antagonistic interaction between multimodal feedback and optional detail. Among clinical participants, predicted intention ranged from 1.22 (95% confidence interval 0.72, 1.72) for the least effective combination in which multimodal feedback, optional detail, and reduced cognitive load were applied within the audit report, up to 2.40 (95% CI 1.88, 2.93) for the most effective combination including multimodal feedback, specific actions, patient voice, and reduced cognitive load. CONCLUSION: Potentially important synergistic and antagonistic effects were identified across combinations of feedback modifications, audit programmes, and recipients, suggesting that feedback designers must explicitly consider how different features of feedback may interact to achieve (or undermine) the desired effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN41584028.

Efficient and flexible simulation-based sample size determination for clinical trials with multiple design parameters.

Simulation offers a simple and flexible way to estimate the power of a clinical trial when analytic formulae are not available. The computational burden of using simulation has, however, restricted its application to only the simplest of sample size determination problems, often minimising a single parameter (the overall sample size) subject to power being above a target level. We describe a general framework for solving simulation-based sample size determination problems with several design parameters over which to optimise and several conflicting criteria to be minimised. The method is based on an established global optimisation algorithm widely used in the design and analysis of computer experiments, using a non-parametric regression model as an approximation of the true underlying power function. The method is flexible, can be used for almost any problem for which power can be estimated using simulation, and can be implemented using existing statistical software packages. We illustrate its application to a sample size determination problem involving complex clustering structures, two primary endpoints and small sample considerations.

A non-randomised feasibility study of an intervention to optimise medicines at transitions of care for patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure affects 26 million people globally, and the optimal management of medicines is crucial for patients, particularly when their care is transferred between hospital and the community. Optimising clinical outcomes requires well-calibrated cross-organisational processes with staff and patients responding and adapting to medicines changes. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of implementing a complex intervention (the Medicines at Transitions Intervention; MaTI) co-designed by patients and healthcare staff. The purpose of the intervention was to optimise medicines management across the gaps between secondary and primary care when hospitals handover care. The study objectives were to (1) assess feasibility through meeting specified progression criteria to proceed to the trial, (2) assess if the intervention was acceptable to staff and patients, and (3) determine whether amendment or refinement would be needed to enhance the MaTI. METHODS: The feasibility of the MaTI was tested in three healthcare areas in the North of England between July and October 2017. Feasibility was measured and assessed through four agreed progression to trial criteria: (1) patient recruitment, (2) patient receipt of a medicines toolkit, (3) transfer of discharge information to community pharmacy, and (4) offer of a community pharmacy medicines review/discussion or medicines reconciliation. From the cardiology wards at each of the three NHS Acute Trusts (sites), 10 patients (aged ≥ 18 years) were recruited and introduced to the 'My Medicines Toolkit' (MMT). Patients were asked to identify their usual community pharmacy or nominate a pharmacy. Discharge information was transferred to the community pharmacy; pharmacists were asked to reconcile medicines and invited patients for a medicines use review (MUR) or discussion. At 1 month following discharge, all patients were sent three questionnaire sets: quality-of-life, healthcare utilisation, and a patient experience survey. In a purposive sample, 20 patients were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about their experiences of the MaTI. Staff from hospital and primary care settings involved in patients' care were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview. Patient and staff interviews were analysed using Framework Analysis. Questionnaire completion rates were recorded and data were descriptively analysed. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were recruited across three sites. Eighteen staff and 18 patients took part in interviews, and 19 patients returned questionnaire sets. All four progression to trial criteria were met. We identified barriers to patient engagement with the intervention in hospital, which were compounded by patients' focus on returning home. Some patients described not engaging in discussions with staff about medicines and lacking motivation to do so because they were preoccupied with returning home. Some patients were unable or unwilling to attend a community pharmacy in person for a medicines review. Roles and responsibilities for delivering the MaTI were different in the three sites, and staff reported variations in time spent on MaTI activities. Staff reported some work pressures and staff absences that limited the time they could spend talking to patients about their medicines. Clinical teams reported that recording a target dose for heart failure medicines in patient-held documentation was difficult as they did not always know the ideal or tolerable dose. The majority of patients reported receiving the patient-held documentation. More than two-thirds reported being offered a MUR by their community pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of the Medicines at Transitions Intervention (MaTI) was feasible at all three sites, and progression to trial criteria were met. Refinements were found to be necessary to overcome identified barriers and strengthen delivery of all steps of the intervention. Necessary changes to the MaTI were identified along with amendments to the implementation plan for the subsequent trial. Future implementation needs to take into account the complexity of medicines management and adaptation to local context.

Cluster randomised controlled feasibility study of HENRY: a community-based intervention aimed at reducing obesity rates in preschool children.

BACKGROUND: Community-based obesity prevention interventions are often commissioned despite the limited evidence base. HENRY (Health, Exercise, Nutrition for the Really Young) is a programme delivered to parents of preschool children across the UK. Early evidence suggests that it may be effective, but a robust evaluation has not been conducted. We initiated a systematic evaluation of HENRY by studying the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre definitive trial to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to prevent obesity. Objectives were to assess the feasibility of recruiting local authorities, centres and parents; test processes and time required to train and certify intervention staff; explore HENRY commissioning processes; identify potential sources (and associated impact) of contamination; and consider the feasibility of trial procedures. METHODS: We conducted a multi-centre, open labelled, two group, prospective, cluster randomised, controlled, feasibility study, with embedded process evaluation and pre-defined criteria for progression to definitive trial. We sought to recruit 120 parents from 12 children's centres, across two UK local authority (government) areas. Within each local authority, we planned to randomise three centres to HENRY and three to 'standard care' control. Our plan was to collect data in family homes at baseline and 12 months, including parent and child height and weight, and parent-reported questionnaires on self-efficacy, feeding, eating habits, quality of life and resource use. Contamination, implementation and study acceptability were explored using parent interviews. RESULTS: We recruited two local authorities and 12 children's centres within eight months. One hundred and seventeen parents were recruited (average 3.9 parents per programme) and follow-up data were collected from 85% of participants. Process data from 20 parents and 24 members of staff indicate that both would benefit from more detail about their involvement as participants, but that methods were acceptable. Contamination was likely, though the impact of this on behaviour was unclear. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that a cluster RCT of HENRY to assess its effect on childhood obesity prevention is feasible. This study has allowed us to design a pragmatic definitive trial with minimal bias, taking account of lessons learnt from conducting evaluation research in public health settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03333733 registered 6th November 2017.

Home-based Extended Rehabilitation for Older people (HERO): study protocol for an individually randomised controlled multi-centre trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a home-based exercise intervention for older people with frailty as extended rehabilitation following acute illness or injury, including embedded process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The majority of older people (> 65 years) in hospital have frailty and are at increased risk of readmission or death following discharge home. In the UK, following acute hospitalisation, around one third of older people with frailty are referred on for rehabilitation, termed 'intermediate care' services. Although this rehabilitation can reduce early readmission to hospital (< 30 days), recipients often do not feel ready to leave the service on discharge, suggesting possible incomplete recovery. Limited evidence suggests extended rehabilitation is of benefit in several conditions and there is preliminary evidence that progressive physical exercise can improve mobility and function for older people with frailty, and slow progression to disability. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home-based Older People's Exercise (HOPE) programme as extended rehabilitation for older people with frailty discharged home from hospital or intermediate care services after acute illness or injury. METHODS: A multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the HOPE programme. This individualised, graded and progressive 24-week exercise programme is delivered by NHS physiotherapy teams to people aged 65 and older with frailty, identified using the Clinical Frailty Scale, following discharge from acute hospitalisation and linked intermediate care rehabilitation pathways. The primary outcome is physical health-related quality of life, measured using the physical component summary score of the modified Short Form 36- item health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include self-reported physical and mental health, functional independence, death, hospitalisations, care home admissions. Plans include health economic analyses and an embedded process evaluation. DISCUSSION: This trial seeks to determine if extended rehabilitation, via the HOPE programme, can improve physical health-related quality of life for older people with frailty following acute hospitalisation. Results will improve awareness of the rehabilitation needs of older people with frailty, and provide evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the targeted exercise intervention. There is potential for considerable benefit for health and social care services through widespread implementation of trial findings if clinical and cost-effectiveness is demonstrated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 13927531 . Registered on April 19, 2017.