Abatacept in individuals at high risk of rheumatoid arthritis (APIPPRA): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. In the arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept (APIPPRA) trial, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of treating high risk individuals with the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept. METHODS: The APIPPRA study was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial done in 28 hospital-based early arthritis clinics in the UK and three in the Netherlands. Participants (aged ≥18 years) at risk of rheumatoid arthritis positive for ACPA and rheumatoid factor with inflammatory joint pain were recruited. Exclusion criteria included previous episodes of clinical synovitis and previous use of corticosteroids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) stratified by sex, smoking, and country, to 125 mg abatacept subcutaneous injections weekly or placebo for 12 months, and then followed up for 12 months. Masking was achieved by providing four kits (identical in appearance and packaging) with pre-filled syringes with coded labels of abatacept or placebo every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time to development of clinical synovitis in three or more joints or rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria, whichever was met first. Synovitis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Follow-up was completed on Jan 13, 2021. All participants meeting the intention-to-treat principle were included in the analysis. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2013-003413-18). FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 14, 2019, 280 individuals were evaluated for eligibility and, of 213 participants, 110 were randomly assigned to abatacept and 103 to placebo. During the treatment period, seven (6%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group and 30 (29%) of 103 participants in the placebo group met the primary endpoint. At 24 months, 27 (25%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group had progressed to rheumatoid arthritis, compared with 38 (37%) of 103 in the placebo group. The estimated proportion of participants remaining arthritis-free at 12 months was 92·8% (SE 2·6) in the abatacept group and 69·2% (4·7) in the placebo group. Kaplan-Meier arthritis-free survival plots over 24 months favoured abatacept (log-rank test p=0·044). The difference in restricted mean survival time between groups was 53 days (95% CI 28-78; p<0·0001) at 12 months and 99 days (95% CI 38-161; p=0·0016) at 24 months in favour of abatacept. During treatment, abatacept was associated with improvements in pain scores, functional wellbeing, and quality-of-life measurements, as well as low scores of subclinical synovitis by ultrasonography, compared with placebo. However, the effects were not sustained at 24 months. Seven serious adverse events occurred in the abatacept group and 11 in the placebo group, including one death in each group deemed unrelated to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Therapeutic intervention during the at-risk phase of rheumatoid arthritis is feasible, with acceptable safety profiles. T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept for 12 months reduces progression to rheumatoid arthritis, with evidence of sustained efficacy beyond the treatment period, and with no new safety signals. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

A microenvironment-inspired synthetic three-dimensional model for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma organoids.

Experimental in vitro models that capture pathophysiological characteristics of human tumours are essential for basic and translational cancer biology. Here, we describe a fully synthetic hydrogel extracellular matrix designed to elicit key phenotypic traits of the pancreatic environment in culture. To enable the growth of normal and cancerous pancreatic organoids from genetically engineered murine models and human patients, essential adhesive cues were empirically defined and replicated in the hydrogel scaffold, revealing a functional role of laminin-integrin α3/α6 signalling in establishment and survival of pancreatic organoids. Altered tissue stiffness-a hallmark of pancreatic cancer-was recapitulated in culture by adjusting the hydrogel properties to engage mechano-sensing pathways and alter organoid growth. Pancreatic stromal cells were readily incorporated into the hydrogels and replicated phenotypic traits characteristic of the tumour environment in vivo. This model therefore recapitulates a pathologically remodelled tumour microenvironment for studies of normal and pancreatic cancer cells in vitro.

Co-ordinated control of the Aurora B abscission checkpoint by PKCε complex assembly, midbody recruitment and retention.

A requirement for PKCε in exiting from the Aurora B dependent abscission checkpoint is associated with events at the midbody, however, the recruitment, retention and action of PKCε in this compartment are poorly understood. Here, the prerequisite for 14-3-3 complex assembly in this pathway is directly linked to the phosphorylation of Aurora B S227 at the midbody. However, while essential for PKCε control of Aurora B, 14-3-3 association is shown to be unnecessary for the activity-dependent enrichment of PKCε at the midbody. This localisation is demonstrated to be an autonomous property of the inactive PKCε D532N mutant, consistent with activity-dependent dissociation. The C1A and C1B domains are necessary for this localisation, while the C2 domain and inter-C1 domain (IC1D) are necessary for retention at the midbody. Furthermore, it is shown that while the IC1D mutant retains 14-3-3 complex proficiency, it does not support Aurora B phosphorylation, nor rescues division failure observed with knockdown of endogenous PKCε. It is concluded that the concerted action of multiple independent events facilitates PKCε phosphorylation of Aurora B at the midbody to control exit from the abscission checkpoint.

Catheter ablation vs. thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients' symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46-2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67-4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Single procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688.

Clinical efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept versus panretinal photocoagulation for best corrected visual acuity in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy at 52 weeks (CLARITY): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised, controlled, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy is the most common cause of severe sight impairment in people with diabetes. Proliferative diabetic retinopathy has been managed by panretinal laser photocoagulation (PRP) for the past 40 years. We report the 1 year safety and efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept. METHODS: In this phase 2b, single-blind, non-inferiority trial (CLARITY), adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes and previously untreated or post-laser treated active proliferative diabetic retinopathy were recruited from 22 UK ophthalmic centres. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to repeated intravitreal aflibercept (2 mg/0·05 mL at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks, and from week 12 patients were reviewed every 4 weeks and aflibercept injections were given as needed) or PRP standard care (single spot or mutlispot laser at baseline, fractionated fortnightly thereafter, and from week 12 patients were assessed every 8 weeks and treated with PRP as needed) for 52 weeks. Randomisation was by minimisation with a web-based computer generated system. Primary outcome assessors were masked optometrists. The treating ophthalmologists and participants were not masked. The primary outcome was defined as a change in best-corrected visual acuity at 52 weeks with a linear mixed-effect model that estimated adjusted treatment effects at both 12 weeks and 52 weeks, having excluded fluctuations in best corrected visual acuity owing to vitreous haemorrhage. This modified intention-to-treat analysis was reapplied to the per protocol participants. The non-inferiority margin was prespecified as -5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters. Safety was assessed in all participants. This trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number 32207582. FINDINGS: We recruited 232 participants (116 per group) between Aug 22, 2014 and Nov 30, 2015. 221 participants (112 in aflibercept group, 109 in PRP group) contributed to the modified intention-to-treat model, and 210 participants (104 in aflibercept group and 106 in PRP group) within per protocol. Aflibercept was non-inferior and superior to PRP in both the modified intention-to-treat population (mean best corrected visual acuity difference 3·9 letters [95% CI 2·3-5·6], p<0·0001) and the per-protocol population (4·0 letters [2·4-5·7], p<0·0001). There were no safety concerns. The 95% CI adjusted difference between groups was more than the prespecified acceptable margin of -5 letters at both 12 weeks and 52 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy who were treated with intravitreal aflibercept had an improved outcome at 1 year compared with those treated with PRP standard care. FUNDING: The Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

Low-Dose Intravenous Immunoglobulin Treatment for Long-Standing Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Two small trials suggest that low-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) may improve the symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a rare posttraumatic pain condition. OBJECTIVE: To confirm the efficacy of low-dose IVIg compared with placebo in reducing pain during a 6-week period in adult patients who had CRPS from 1 to 5 years. DESIGN: 1:1 parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial for 6 weeks, with an optional 6-week open extension. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study groups between 27 August 2013 and 28 October 2015; the last patient completed follow-up on 21 March 2016. Patients, providers, researchers, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. (ISRCTN42179756). SETTING: 7 secondary and tertiary care pain management centers in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 111 patients with moderate or severe CRPS of 1 to 5 years' duration. INTERVENTION: IVIg, 0.5 g/kg of body weight, or visually indistinguishable placebo of 0.1% albumin in saline on days 1 and 22 after randomization. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was 24-hour average pain intensity, measured daily between days 6 and 42, on an 11-point (0- to 10-point) rating scale. Secondary outcomes were pain interference and quality of life. RESULTS: The primary analysis sample consisted of 108 eligible patients, 103 of whom had outcome data. Mean (average) pain scores were 6.9 points (SD, 1.5) for placebo and 7.2 points (SD, 1.3) for IVIg. The adjusted difference in means was 0.27 (95% CI, -0.25 to 0.80; P = 0.30), which excluded the prespecified, clinically important difference of -1.2. No statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes were found between the groups. In the open extension, 12 of the 67 patients (18%) who received 2 IVIg infusions had pain reduction of at least 2 points compared with their baseline score. Two patients in the blinded phase (1 in the placebo and 1 in the IVIg group) and 4 in the open IVIg phase had serious events. LIMITATIONS: Results do not apply to patients who have had CRPS for less than 1 year or more than 5 years and do not extend to full-dose treatment (for example, 2 g/kg). The study was inadequately powered to detect subgroup effects. CONCLUSION: Low-dose immunoglobulin treatment for 6 weeks was not effective in relieving pain in patients with moderate to severe CRPS of 1 to 5 years' duration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Medical Research Council/National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program, Pain Relief Foundation, and Biotest United Kingdom.

Intradermal grass pollen immunotherapy increases TH2 and IgE responses and worsens respiratory allergic symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Repeated low-dose grass pollen intradermal allergen injection suppresses allergen-induced cutaneous late-phase responses comparably with conventional subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of grass pollen intradermal immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. METHODS: We randomly assigned 93 adults with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis to receive 7 preseasonal intradermal allergen injections (containing 7 ng of Phl p 5 major allergen) or a histamine control. The primary end point was daily combined symptom-medication scores during the 2013 pollen season (area under the curve). Analysis was by intention to treat. Skin biopsy specimens were collected after intradermal allergen challenges, and late-phase responses were measured 4 and 7, 10, or 13 months after treatment. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the primary end point between treatment arms (active, n = 46; control, n = 47; median difference, 14; 95% CI, -172.5 to 215.1; P = .80). Among secondary end points, nasal symptoms were worse in the intradermal treatment group, as measured based on daily (median difference, 35; 95% CI, 4.0-67.5; P = .03) and visual analog scale (median difference, 53; 95% CI, -11.6 to 125.2; P = .05) scores. In a per-protocol analysis intradermal immunotherapy was further associated with worse asthma symptoms and fewer symptom-free days. Intradermal immunotherapy increased serum Phleum pratense-specific IgE levels (P = .001) compared with those in the control arm. T cells cultured from biopsy specimens of subjects undergoing intradermal immunotherapy had higher expression of the TH2 surface marker CRTH2 (P = .04) and lower expression of the TH1 marker CXCR3 (P = .01), respectively. Late-phase responses remained inhibited 7 months after treatment (P = .03). CONCLUSION: Intradermal allergen immunotherapy suppressed skin late-phase responses but was not clinically effective and resulted in worsening of respiratory allergic symptoms.

Placing the patient at the centre of chronic wound care: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic wounds are a major health burden and have a severe impact on well-being. This synthesis of qualitative studies was undertaken to inform a health technology assessment of antimicrobial wound dressings. It aimed to explore patients' experiences of chronic wounds and determine improvements for clinical practice. METHOD: Inclusion criteria included use of qualitative methods, and English language publication. Databases searched included MEDLINE (Ovid), MEDLINE in Process (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), and PsychInfo (EBSCOHost). Searches were limited to 1990-2014. The method of analysis was Framework synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies were included. The synthesis confirmed the severe physical, social and psychological impact of the chronic wound. Inadequately controlled pain and sleeplessness, restrictions to lifestyle, and the loss of previous life roles can lead to feelings of hopelessness and helplessness and therefore depression and anxiety. Dressings and dressing changes are a key aspect of treatment and provide opportunities for positive interaction and person centred-care. CONCLUSION: People with chronic wounds can be supported to live well within the severe physical, psychological and social restrictions of a chronic wound. Effective clinical pain management and the recognition of the experience of acute and chronic pain are of the utmost importance to people with a chronic wound. Treatment should not be purely focused on healing but incorporate symptom management, coping and wellbeing via person-centred and holistic care.

What do patients and the public know about clinical practice guidelines and what do they want from them? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Guideline producers are increasingly producing versions of guidelines for the public. The aim of this study was to explore what patients and the public understand about the purpose and production of clinical guidelines, and what they want from clinical guidelines to support their healthcare decisions. METHODS: Participants were purposively selected to represent a range of the likely users of patient versions of guidelines, including individuals with health conditions (diabetes and depression), general members of the public, health communication professionals and a group of young people. Participants were asked about their awareness and understanding of clinical guidelines and presented with scenario recommendations, or draft materials from patient guidelines to prompt discussion. Each discussion was facilitated by one or two researchers. All focus groups were recorded and transcribed prior to analysis. Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: We ran nine focus groups involving 62 individuals, supplemented by four interviews with people experiencing homelessness. Eight groups were held in Scotland, one in England. The four interviews were held in Scotland. The framework analysis yielded five themes: access and awareness; what patients want to know; properties of guidelines; presenting evidence; and format. Awareness of guidelines was low. Participants emphasised the need for information that enables them to choose between treatment options, including harms. They would like help with this from healthcare professionals, especially general practitioners. Participants differed in their support for the inclusion of numerical information and graphs. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the public want information to help them choose between treatments, including information on harms, particularly to support shared decisions with health professionals. Presenting numerical information is a challenge and layered approaches that present information in stages may be helpful. Ignoring the themes identified in this study is likely to lead to materials that fail to support public and patient healthcare decision making.

Patient views on antimicrobial dressings in chronic wounds.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial wound dressings (AWDs) may not consistently be used effectively. The authors aimed to explore what patients want from AWDs and their experiences of them. METHODS: Healthcare Improvement Scotland undertook a health technology assessment (HTA) on the use of AWDs in chronic wounds. A focus group (n=8) and six telephone interviews were carried out. The data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The participants were generally positive about AWDs. Some felt that access to AWDS was unjustifiably restricted because of costs. Participants reported wanting to try anything to heal their wound, or to control the symptoms. There was no one preferred AWD; what worked well for one person did not necessarily work for others. Patients experienced inconsistent access to AWDs, leading to frustration. CONCLUSION: Clinicians lack clear guidelines on the use of AWDs, which is resulting in inconsistency and increased burden for patients. Recommendations for the use of AWDs are given in the HTA, which is available on Healthcare Improvement Scotland's website.

One-day cognitive-behavioural therapy self-confidence workshops for people with depression: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite its high prevalence, help-seeking for depression is low. AIMS: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 1-day cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) self-confidence workshops in reducing depression. Anxiety, self-esteem, prognostic indicators as well as access were also assessed. METHOD: An open randomised controlled trial (RCT) waiting list control design with 12-week follow-up was used (trial registration: ISRCTN26634837). A total of 459 adult participants with depression (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores of ≥ 14) self-referred and 382 participants (83%) were followed up. RESULTS: At follow-up, experimental and control participants differed significantly on the BDI, with an effect size of 0.55. Anxiety and self-esteem also differed. Of those who participated, 25% were GP non-consulters and 32% were from Black and minority ethnic groups. Women benefited more than men on depression scores. The intervention has a 90% chance of being considered cost-effective if a depression-free day is valued at £14. CONCLUSIONS: Self-confidence workshops appear promising in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and access by difficult-to-engage groups.

The ARIA trial protocol: a randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical, technical, and cost-effectiveness of a cloud-based, ARtificially Intelligent image fusion system in comparison to standard treatment to guide endovascular Aortic aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysmal disease is established due to perceived advantages in patient survival, reduced postoperative complications, and shorter hospital lengths of stay. High spatial and contrast resolution 3D CT angiography images are used to plan the procedures and inform device selection and manufacture, but in standard care, the surgery is performed using image-guidance from 2D X-ray fluoroscopy with injection of nephrotoxic contrast material to visualise the blood vessels. This study aims to assess the benefit to patients, practitioners, and the health service of a novel image fusion medical device (Cydar EV), which allows this high-resolution 3D information to be available to operators at the time of surgery. METHODS: The trial is a multi-centre, open label, two-armed randomised controlled clinical trial of 340 patient, randomised 1:1 to either standard treatment in endovascular aneurysm repair or treatment using Cydar EV, a CE-marked medical device comprising of cloud computing, augmented intelligence, and computer vision. The primary outcome is procedural time, with secondary outcomes of procedural efficiency, technical effectiveness, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of AAA or TAAA suitable for endovascular repair and able to provide written informed consent will be invited to participate. DISCUSSION: This trial is the first randomised controlled trial evaluating advanced image fusion technology in endovascular aortic surgery and is well placed to evaluate the effect of this technology on patient outcomes and cost to the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13832085. Dec. 3, 2021.

Randomised controlled trial of adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide in eyes undergoing vitreoretinal surgery following open globe trauma: The ASCOT study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To investigate the clinical effectiveness of adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide (TA) given at the time of vitreoretinal surgery following open globe trauma (OGT). METHODS: A phase 3, multicentre, double-masked randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing vitrectomy following OGT comparing adjunctive TA (intravitreal and subtenons) against standard care (2014-2020). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with at least 10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letter improvement in corrected visual acuity (VA) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included: change in ETDRS, retinal detachment (RD) secondary to PVR, retinal reattachment, macular reattachment, tractional RD, number of operations, hypotony, elevated intraocular pressure and quality of life. RESULTS: 280 patients were randomised over 75 months, of which 259 completed the study. 46.9% (n=61/130) of patients in the treatment group had a 10-letter improvement in VA compared with 43.4% (n=56/129) of the control group (difference 3.5% (95% CI -8.6% to 15.6%), OR=1.03 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.75), p=0.908)). Secondary outcome measures also failed to show any treatment benefit. For two of the secondary outcome measures, stable complete retinal and macular reattachment, outcomes were worse in the treatment group compared with controls, respectively, 51.6% (n=65/126) vs 64.2% (n=79/123), OR=0.59 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.99), and 54.0% (n=68/126) vs 66.7% (n=82/123), OR=0.59 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.98), for TA vs control. CONCLUSION: The use of combined intraocular and sub-Tenons capsule TA is not recommended as an adjunct to vitrectomy surgery following OGT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02873026.

Beta-blockers or Placebo for Primary Prophylaxis (BOPPP) of oesophageal varices: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Liver disease is within the top five causes of premature death in adults. Deaths caused by complications of cirrhosis continue to rise, whilst deaths related to other non-liver disease areas are declining. Portal hypertension is the primary sequelae of cirrhosis and is associated with the development of variceal haemorrhage, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and infection, collectively termed hepatic decompensation, which leads to hospitalisation and mortality. It remains uncertain whether administering a non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB), specifically carvedilol, at an earlier stage, i.e. when oesophageal varices are small, can prevent VH and reduce all-cause decompensation (ACD). METHODS/DESIGN: The BOPPP trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients aged 18 years or older with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices that have never bled will be recruited, subject to exclusion criteria. The trial aims to enrol 740 patients across 55 hospitals in the UK. Patients are allocated randomly on a 1:1 ratio to receive either carvedilol 6.25 mg (a NSBB) or a matched placebo, once or twice daily, for 36 months, to attain adequate power to determine the effectiveness of carvedilol in preventing or reducing ACD. The primary outcome is the time to first decompensating event. It is a composite primary outcome made up of variceal haemorrhage (VH, new or worsening ascites, new or worsening hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatorenal syndrome, an increase in Child-Pugh grade by 1 grade or MELD score by 5 points, and liver-related mortality. Secondary outcomes include progression to medium or large oesophageal varices, development of gastric, duodenal, or ectopic varices, participant quality of life, healthcare costs and transplant-free survival. DISCUSSION: The BOPPP trial aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of carvedilol in patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices to determine whether this non-selective beta-blocker can prevent or reduce hepatic decompensation. There is clinical equipoise on whether intervening in cirrhosis, at an earlier stage of portal hypertension, with NSBB therapy is beneficial. Should the trial yield a positive result, we anticipate that the administration and use of carvedilol will become widespread with pathways developed to standardise the administration of the medication in primary care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number: 19/YH/0015). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Participants will be informed of the results via the BOPPP website ( www.boppp-trial.org ) and partners in the British Liver Trust (BLT) organisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUDRACT reference number: 2018-002509-78. ISRCTN reference number: ISRCTN10324656. Registered on April 24 2019.

Randomized controlled double-blind trial of optimal dose methylphenidate in children and adolescents with severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and intellectual disability.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is increased in children with intellectual disability. Previous research has suggested stimulants are less effective than in typically developing children but no studies have titrated medication for individual optimal dosing or tested the effects for longer than 4 weeks. METHOD: One hundred and twenty two drug-free children aged 7-15 with hyperkinetic disorder and IQ 30-69 were recruited to a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that randomized participants using minimization by probability, stratified by referral source and IQ level in a one to one ratio. Methylphenidate was compared with placebo. Dose titration comprised at least 1 week each of low (0.5 mg/kg/day), medium (1.0 mg/kg/day) and high dose (1.5 mg/kg/day). Parent and teacher Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) index of the Conners Rating Scale-Short Version at 16 weeks provided the primary outcome measures. Clinical response was determined with the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI-I). Adverse effects were evaluated by a parent-rated questionnaire, weight, pulse and blood pressure. Analyses were by intention to treat. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 68384912. RESULTS: Methylphenidate was superior to placebo with effect sizes of 0.39 [95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.09, 0.70] and 0.52 (95% CIs 0.23, 0.82) for the parent and teacher Conners ADHD index. Four (7%) children on placebo versus 24 (40%) of those on methylphenidate were judged improved or much improved on the CGI. IQ and autistic symptoms did not affect treatment efficacy. Active medication was associated with sleep difficulty, loss of appetite and weight loss but there were no significant differences in pulse or blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal dosing of methylphenidate is practical and effective in some children with hyperkinetic disorder and intellectual disability. Adverse effects typical of methylphenidate were seen and medication use may require close monitoring in this vulnerable group.

Presenting clinical characteristics of open globe injuries in ocular trauma: baseline analysis of cases in the ASCOT national clinical trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The Adjunctive Steroid Combination in Ocular Trauma (ASCOT) trial is a unique pragmatic, multi-centre, patient and assessor masked, randomised controlled trial. We evaluate the clinical characteristics and pathology of this large trial cohort of patients with open globe injuries undergoing vitreoretinal surgery, including the associations between patient characteristics and their baseline vision. SUBJECTS/METHODS: We (i) summarise demographics, injury history and ocular history of the 280 participants recruited into the ASCOT trial using descriptive statistics; (ii) analyse the national and seasonal variation across England and Scotland in these participant characteristics; and (iii) explore the associations between participant demographic, trauma history, ocular history and presenting baseline visual acuity (measured using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study, ETDRS) using multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: The majority of participants with open globe penetrating injuries were of white ethnicity (233, 84%), male (246, 88%), with a median age of 43 years (IQR 30-55 years). There was considerable variability in presenting visual acuity with 75% unable to read any letters on the ETDRS chart, whilst the median ETDRS letter score was 58 (IQR 24-80) for those who could read ≥1 letter. The most common causes of injury were workplace related (31%) or interpersonal violence (24%). Previous eye surgery, visual axis corneal scar, lens status, hyphaemia and vitreous haemorrhaging were found to be associated with presenting vision as measured by the ETDRS chart. CONCLUSION: The ASCOT trial provides valuable insights into the spectrum of pathology of patients with open globe eye injuries undergoing vitreoretinal surgery. The identified causes of injury and clinical presentation of the cases will help in training and resource planning to deal with these often challenging surgical cases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No. 014-002193-37. HTA Project 12/35/64.

A randomised controlled trial of adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide in eyes undergoing vitreoretinal surgery for open globe trauma - the ASCOT study.

Background: Eyes sustaining open globe trauma are at high risk of severe visual impairment. Proliferative vitreoretinopathy is the most common cause of retinal detachment and visual loss in eyes with open globe trauma. There is evidence from experimental studies and pilot clinical trials that the use of adjunctive steroid medication triamcinolone acetonide can reduce the incidence of proliferative vitreoretinopathy and improve outcomes of surgery for open globe trauma. Objective: The Adjunctive Steroid Combination in Ocular Trauma or ASCOT study aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness of adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide given at the time of vitreoretinal surgery for open globe trauma. Design: A phase 3 multicentre double-masked randomised controlled trial randomising patients undergoing vitrectomy following open globe trauma to either adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide or standard care. Setting: Hospital vitreoretinal surgical services dealing with open globe trauma. Participants: Patients undergoing vitrectomy surgery who had sustained open globe trauma. Interventions: Triamcinolone acetonide 4 mg/0.1 ml into the vitreous cavity and 40 mg/1 ml sub-Tenon's or standard vitreoretinal surgery and postoperative care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with at least 10 letters of improvement in corrected visual acuity at six months. Secondary outcomes included retinal detachment secondary to proliferative vitreoretinopathy, retinal reattachment, macula reattachment, tractional retinal detachment, number of operations, hypotony, elevated intraocular pressure and quality of life. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the EuroQol Five Domain and Visual Function Questionnaire 25 questionnaires. Results: A total of 280 patients were randomised; 129 were analysed from the control group and 130 from the treatment group. The treatment group appeared, by chance, to have more severe pathology on presentation. The primary outcome (improvement in visual acuity) and principal secondary outcome (change in visual acuity) did not demonstrate any treatment benefit for triamcinolone acetonide. The proportion of patients with improvement in visual acuity was 47% for triamcinolone acetonide and 43% for standard care (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.75, p = 0.908); the baseline adjusted mean difference in the six-month change in visual acuity was -2.65 (95% confidence interval -9.22 to 3.92, p = 0.430) for triamcinolone acetonide relative to control. Similarly, the secondary outcome measures failed to show any treatment benefit. For two of the secondary outcome measures, stable complete retinal reattachment and stable macular retinal reattachment, outcomes for the treatment group were significantly worse for triamcinolone acetonide at the 5% level (respectively, odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.99, p = 0.044 and odds ratio 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.98, p = 0.041) compared with control in favour of control. The cost of the intervention was £132 per patient. Health economics outcome measures (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study, Visual Function Questionnaire 25 and EuroQol Five Dimensions) did not demonstrate any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years. Conclusions: The use of combined intraocular and sub-Tenon's capsule triamcinolone acetonide is not recommended as an adjunct to vitrectomy surgery for intraocular trauma. Secondary outcome measures are suggestive of a negative effect of the adjunct, although the treatment group appeared to have more severe pathology on presentation. Future work: The use of alternative adjunctive medications in cases undergoing surgery for open globe trauma should be investigated. Refinement of clinical grading and case selection will enable better trail design for future studies. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN 30012492, EudraCT number 2014-002193-37, REC 14/LNO/1428, IRAS 156358, Local R&D registration CHAD 1031. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (12/35/64) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Despite advances in surgical techniques, eye trauma remains a leading cause of blindness and visual impairment. The main cause of trauma is a scarring process within the eye ­ proliferative vitreoretinopathy. There is good evidence from laboratory work and small-scale clinical studies that the addition of a steroid medication, triamcinolone acetonide, given in and around the eye at the time of surgery for eye trauma, can reduce the incidence of proliferative vitreoretinopathy scarring and improve the outcomes of surgery. The Adjunctive Steroid Combination in Ocular Trauma or ASCOT study was a multicentre clinical trial designed to test the use of triamcinolone acetonide as an addition to surgery to improve outcomes in eyes with 'open globe' penetrating injuries. A total of 280 patients were recruited and randomised to receive standard surgery or surgery with the additional steroid (triamcinolone acetonide). No benefit was found from the addition of the steroid medication. The addition of steroid medication was not good value for money. Secondary outcome measures suggested that triamcinolone acetonide may have had a negative effect on outcomes, although this may have been due to the presence of more severe cases amongst the patients allocated to receive the additional steroid (triamcinolone acetonide). The use of adjunctive triamcinolone acetonide in eye trauma cases undergoing surgery is therefore not recommended. Future studies with different additional medications and/or more targeted case selection are indicated to improve outcomes for eyes experiencing penetrating trauma.

Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background: Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective-but there has been no superiority evaluation. Methods: This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60-120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8-24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8-168 (i.e., weeks 2-24; range: 0-161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed. Findings: Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0-161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24-161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively-most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild-moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group-none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] -1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00-0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment. Interpretation: Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term. Funding: Indivior.

Optimized immunosuppression to prevent graft failure in renal transplant recipients with HLA antibodies (OuTSMART): a randomised controlled trial.

Background: 3% of kidney transplant recipients return to dialysis annually upon allograft failure. Development of antibodies (Ab) against human leukocyte antigens (HLA) is a validated prognostic biomarker of allograft failure. We tested whether screening for HLA Ab, combined with an intervention to improve adherence and optimization of immunosuppression could prevent allograft failure. Methods: Prospective, open-labelled randomised biomarker-based strategy (hybrid) trial in 13 UK transplant centres [EudraCT (2012-004308-36) and ISRCTN (46157828)]. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to unblinded or double-blinded arms and screened every 8 months. Unblinded HLA Ab+ patients were interviewed to encourage medication adherence and had tailored optimisation of Tacrolimus, Mycophenolate mofetil and Prednisolone. The primary outcome was time to graft failure in an intention to treat analysis. The trial had 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.49 in donor specific antibody (DSA)+ patients. Findings: From 11/9/13 to 27/10/16, 5519 were screened for eligibility and 2037 randomised (1028 to unblinded care and 1009 to double blinded care). We identified 198 with DSA and 818 with non-DSA. Development of DSA, but not non-DSA was predictive of graft failure. HRs for graft failure in unblinded DSA+ and non-DSA+ groups were 1.54 (95% CI: 0.72 to 3.30) and 0.97 (0.54-1.74) respectively, providing no evidence of an intervention effect. Non-inferiority for the overall unblinded versus blinded comparison was not demonstrated as the upper confidence limit of the HR for graft failure exceeded 1.4 (1.02, 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.44). The only secondary endpoint reduced in the unblinded arm was biopsy-proven rejection. Interpretation: Intervention to improve adherence and optimize immunosuppression does not delay failure of renal transplants after development of DSA. Whilst DSA predicts increased risk of allograft failure, novel interventions are needed before screening can be used to direct therapy. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme grant (ref 11/100/34).

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness - monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2-24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63.