Dietary nitrate supplementation for preventing and reducing the severity of winter infections, including COVID-19, in care homes (BEET-Winter): a randomised placebo-controlled feasibility trial.

PURPOSE: Infections cause considerable care home morbidity and mortality. Nitric oxide (NO) has broad-spectrum anti-viral, bacterial and yeast activity in vitro. We assessed the feasibility of supplementing dietary nitrate (NO substrate) intake in care home residents. METHODS: We performed a cluster-randomised placebo-controlled trial in UK residential and nursing care home residents and compared nitrate containing (400 mg) versus free (0 mg daily) beetroot juice given for 60 days. Outcomes comprised feasibility of recruitment, adherence, salivary and urinary nitrate, and ordinal infection/clinical events. RESULTS: Of 30 targeted care homes in late 2020, 16 expressed interest and only 6 participated. 49 residents were recruited (median 8 [interquartile range 7-12] per home), mean (standard deviation) age 82 (8) years, with proxy consent 41 (84%), advance directive for hospital non-admission 8 (16%) and ≥ 1 doses of COVID-19 vaccine 37 (82%). Background dietary nitrate was < 30% of acceptable daily intake. 34 (76%) residents received > 50% of juice. Residents randomised to nitrate vs placebo had higher urinary nitrate levels, median 50 [18-175] v 18 [10-50] mg/L, difference 25 [0-90]. Data paucity precluded clinical between-group comparisons; the outcome distribution was as follows: no infection 32 (67%), uncomplicated infection 0, infection requiring healthcare support 11 (23%), all-cause hospitalisation 5 (10%), all-cause mortality 0. Urinary tract infections were most common. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic was partially successful. Supplemented dietary nitrate was tolerated and elevated urinary nitrate. Together, infections, hospitalisations and deaths occurred in 33% of residents over 60 days. A larger trial is now required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN51124684. Application date 7/12/2020; assignment date 13/1/2021.

Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS: Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS: In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS: Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK: Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Home Interventions and Light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo) trial aimed to find out whether or not treating vitiligo at home with a narrowband ultraviolet B light, either by itself or with a steroid ointment, is better than treatment using a steroid ointment only. We enrolled 517 children (aged ≥ 5 years) and adults who had small, active (i.e. recently changing) patches of vitiligo into the study. Participants received one of three possible treatment options: steroid ointment (plus dummy light), hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy (plus placebo ointment) or both treatments used together. We asked participants to judge how noticeable their target vitiligo patch was after 9 months of treatment. We considered the treatment to be successful if the participants' responses were either 'a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable'. The results showed that using both treatments together was better than using a steroid ointment on its own. Around one-quarter of participants (27%) who used both treatments together said that their vitiligo was either 'no longer noticeable' or 'a lot less noticeable' after 9 months of treatment. This was compared with 17% of those using steroid ointment on its own and 22% of those using narrowband ultraviolet B light on its own. All treatments were able to stop the vitiligo from spreading. Patches on the hands and feet were less likely to respond to treatment than patches on other parts of the body. The trial found that the vitiligo tended to return once treatments were stopped, so ongoing intermittent treatment may be needed to maintain the treatment response. The treatments were found to be relatively safe and easy to use, but light treatment required a considerable time commitment (approximately 20 minutes per session, two or three times per week). This trial showed that using steroid ointment and narrowband ultraviolet B light together is likely to be better than steroid ointment alone for people with small patches of vitiligo. Steroid ointment alone can still be effective for some people and remains a useful treatment that is able to stop vitiligo from spreading. The challenge is to make hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment available as normal care in the NHS for people with vitiligo.

Gentamicin, azithromycin and ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea: the relationship between antibiotic MIC and clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between MIC and clinical outcome in a randomized controlled trial that compared gentamicin 240 mg plus azithromycin 1 g with ceftriaxone 500 mg plus azithromycin 1 g. MIC analysis was performed on Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates from all participants who were culture positive before they received treatment. METHODS: Viable gonococcal cultures were available from 279 participants, of whom 145 received ceftriaxone/azithromycin and 134 received gentamicin/azithromycin. Four participants (6 isolates) and 14 participants (17 isolates) did not clear infection in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin and gentamicin/azithromycin arms, respectively. MICs were determined by Etest on GC agar base with 1% Vitox. The geometric mean MICs of azithromycin, ceftriaxone and gentamicin were compared using logistic and linear regression according to treatment received and N. gonorrhoeae clearance. RESULTS: As the azithromycin MIC increased, gentamicin/azithromycin treatment was less effective than ceftriaxone/azithromycin at clearing N. gonorrhoeae. There was a higher geometric mean MIC of azithromycin for isolates from participants who had received gentamicin/azithromycin and did not clear infection compared with those who did clear infection [ratio 1.95 (95% CI 1.28-2.97)], but the use of categorical MIC breakpoints did not accurately predict the treatment response. The geometric mean MIC of azithromycin was higher in isolates from the pharynx compared with genital isolates. CONCLUSIONS: We found that categorical resistance to azithromycin or ceftriaxone in vitro, and higher gentamicin MICs in the absence of breakpoints, were poorly predictive of treatment failure.

Home interventions and light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Vitiligo is a condition resulting in white patches on the skin. People with vitiligo can suffer from low self-esteem, psychological disturbance and diminished quality of life. Vitiligo is often poorly managed, partly due to lack of high-quality evidence to inform clinical care. We describe here a large, independent, randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the comparative effectiveness of potent topical corticosteroid, home-based hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B-light (NB-UVB) or combination of the two, for the management of vitiligo. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial is a multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, pragmatic, placebo-controlled RCT. 516 adults and children with actively spreading, but limited, vitiligo are randomised (1:1:1) to one of three groups: mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus dummy NB-UVB light, vehicle ointment plus NB-UVB light or mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus NB-UVB light. Treatment of up to three patches of vitiligo is continued for up to 9 months with clinic visits at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months and four post-treatment questionnaires.The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial assesses outcomes included in the vitiligo core outcome set and places emphasis on participants' views of treatment success. The primary outcome is proportion of participants achieving treatment success (patient-rated Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) for a target patch of vitiligo at 9 months with further independent blinded assessment using digital images of the target lesion before and after treatment. Secondary outcomes include time to onset of treatment response, treatment success by body region, percentage repigmentation, quality of life, time-burden of treatment, maintenance of response, safety and within-trial cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals were granted by East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (14/EM/1173) and the MHRA (EudraCT 2014-003473-42). The trial was registered 8 January 2015 ISRCTN (17160087). Results will be published in full as open access in the NIHR Journal library and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17160087.

Gentamicin versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-TOG trial): study protocol for a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection which causes genital pain and discomfort; in women it can also lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility, and in men to epididymo-orchitis. Current treatment is with ceftriaxone, but there is increasing evidence of antimicrobial resistance which is reducing its effectiveness against gonorrhoea. A small, but increasing, number of patients have already been found to have highly resistant strains of gonorrhoea which has been associated with clinical failure. This trial aims to determine whether gentamicin is not clinically worse than ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a blinded, two-arm, multicentre, noninferiority randomised trial. Patients are eligible if they are aged 16-70 years with a diagnosis of genital, pharyngeal and/or rectal gonorrhoea. Exclusion criteria are: known concurrent sexually transmitted infection(s) (excluding chlamydia); bacterial vaginosis and/or Trichomonas vaginalis infection; contraindications or an allergy to gentamicin, ceftriaxone, azithromycin or lidocaine; pregnancy or breastfeeding; complicated gonorrhoeal infection; weight under 40 kg; use of ceftriaxone, gentamicin or azithromycin within the preceding 28 days. Randomisation is to receive a single intramuscular injection of either gentamicin or ceftriaxone, all participants receive 1 g oral azithromycin as standard treatment. The estimated sample size is 720 participants (noninferiority limit 5%). The primary outcome is clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all infected sites by a negative Nucleic Acid Amplification Test, 2 weeks post treatment. Secondary outcomes include clinical resolution of symptoms, frequency of adverse events, tolerability of therapy, relationship between clinical effectiveness and antibiotic minimum inhibitory concentration for N. gonorrhoeae, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The options for future treatment of gonorrhoea are limited. Results from this randomised trial will demonstrate whether gentamicin is not clinically worse than ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea. This will inform clinical practice and policy for the treatment of gonorrhoea when current therapy with cephalosporins is no longer effective, or is contraindicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number - ISRCTN51783227 , Registered on 18 September 2014. Current protocol version 2.0 17 June 2015.

Effectiveness of an integrated telehealth service for patients with depression: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention.

BACKGROUND: Many countries are exploring the potential of telehealth interventions to manage the rising number of people with chronic disorders. However, evidence of the effectiveness of telehealth is ambiguous. Based on an evidence-based conceptual framework, we developed an integrated telehealth service (the Healthlines Service) for chronic disorders and assessed its effectiveness in patients with depression. We aimed to compare the Healthlines Depression Service plus usual care with usual care alone. METHODS: This study was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with participants recruited from 43 general practices in three areas of England. To be eligible, participants needed to have access to the internet and email, a Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of at least 10, and a confirmed diagnosis of depression. Participants were individually assigned (1:1) to either the Healthlines Depression Service plus usual care or usual care alone. Random assignment was done by use of a web-based automated randomisation system, stratified by site and minimised by practice and PHQ-9 score. Participants were aware of their allocation, but outcomes were analysed masked. The Healthlines Service consisted of regular telephone calls from non-clinical, trained health advisers who followed standardised scripts generated by interactive software. After an initial assessment and goal-setting telephone call, the advisers called each participant on six occasions over 4 months, and then made up to three more calls at intervals of roughly 2 months to provide reinforcement and to detect relapse. Advisers supported participants in the use of online resources (including computerised cognitive behavioural therapy) and sought to encourage healthier lifestyles, optimise medication, and improve treatment adherence. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants responding to the intervention (defined as PHQ-9 <10 and reduction in PHQ-9 of ≥5 points) at 4 months after randomisation. The primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle without imputation and all serious adverse events were investigated. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN 14172341. FINDINGS: Between July 24, 2012, and July 31, 2013, we recruited 609 participants, randomly assigning 307 to the Healthlines Service plus usual care and 302 to usual care. Primary outcome data were available for 525 (86%) participants. At 4 months, 68 (27%) of 255 individuals in the intervention group had a treatment response compared with 50 (19%) of 270 individuals in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·7, 95% CI 1·1-2·5, p=0·019). Compared with usual care alone, intervention participants reported improvements in anxiety, better access to support and advice, greater satisfaction with the support they received, and improvements in self-management and health literacy. During the trial, 70 adverse events were reported by participants, one of which was related to the intervention (increased anxiety from discussing depression) and was not serious. INTERPRETATION: This telehealth service based on non-clinically trained health advisers supporting patients in use of internet resources was both acceptable and effective compared with usual care. Our results provide support for the development and assessment of similar interventions in other chronic disorders to expand care provision. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Expanding care for perinatal women with depression (EXPONATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of an intervention package for perinatal depression in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common among women during perinatal period and is associated with long-term adverse consequences for the mother and infant. In Nigeria, as in many other low- and-middle-income countries (LMIC), perinatal depression usually goes unrecognized and untreated. The aim of EXPONATE is to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention package for perinatal depression delivered by community midwives in primary maternal care in which physician support and enhanced patient compliance are implemented using mobile phones. METHODS/STUDY DESIGN: A pragmatic two-arm parallel cluster randomized controlled trial was designed. The units of allocation are the primary maternal care clinics. Thirty eligible and consenting clinics were randomized but, due to problems with logistics, 29 eventually participated. Consenting pregnant women with a gestational age between 16 and 28 weeks who screened positive on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS score ≥12), absent psychosis or bipolar disorder, and not actively suicidal were recruited into the trial (N = 686). Midwives in the intervention arm were trained to deliver psychoeducation, problem solving treatment, and parenting skills. Eight weekly sessions were delivered following entry into the study. Further sessions during pregnancy and 6 weeks following childbirth were determined by level of depressive symptoms. Clinical support and supervision, delivered mainly by mobile phone, were provided by general physicians and psychiatrists. Automated text and voice messages, also delivered by mobile phones, were used to facilitate patient compliance with clinic appointments and 'homework' tasks. Patients in the control arm received care as usual enhanced by further training of the providers in that arm in the recognition and standard treatment of depression. Assessments are undertaken at baseline, 2 months following recruitment into the study and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after childbirth. The primary outcome is recovery from depression (EPDS < 6) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include measures of disability, parenting skills, maternal attitudes, health care utilization as well as infant physical and cognitive development comprehensively assessed using the Bayley's Scales. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest randomized controlled trial of an intervention package delivered by community midwives in sub-Saharan Africa. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial is registered with the ISRTCN registry at isrtcn.com; Trial number ISRCTN60041127 . Date of registration is 15/05/2013.

A randomized controlled trial of eicosapentaenoic acid and/or aspirin for colorectal adenoma prevention during colonoscopic surveillance in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (The seAFOod Polyp Prevention Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The naturally-occurring omega (ω)-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) reduces colorectal adenoma (polyp) number and size in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. The safety profile and potential cardiovascular benefits associated with ω-3 PUFAs make EPA a strong candidate for colorectal cancer (CRC) chemoprevention, alone or in combination with aspirin, which itself has recognized anti-CRC activity. Colorectal adenoma number and size are recognized as biomarkers of future CRC risk and are established as surrogate end-points in CRC chemoprevention trials. DESIGN: The seAFOod Polyp Prevention Trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2×2 factorial 'efficacy' study, which will determine whether EPA prevents colorectal adenomas, either alone or in combination with aspirin. Participants are 55-73 year-old patients, who have been identified as 'high risk' (detection of ≥5 small adenomas or ≥3 adenomas with at least one being ≥10 mm in diameter) at screening colonoscopy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Exclusion criteria include the need for more than one repeat endoscopy within the three-month BCSP screening period, malignant change in an adenoma, regular use of aspirin or non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, regular use of fish oil supplements and concomitant warfarin or anti-platelet agent therapy. Patients are randomized to either EPA-free fatty acid 1 g twice daily or identical placebo AND aspirin 300 mg once daily or identical placebo, for approximately 12 months. The primary end-point is the number of participants with one or more adenomas detected at routine one-year BCSP surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary end-points include the number of adenomas (total and 'advanced') per patient, the location (left versus right colon) of colorectal adenomas and the number of participants re-classified as 'intermediate risk' for future surveillance. Exploratory end-points include levels of bioactive lipid mediators such as ω-3 PUFAs, resolvin E1 and PGE-M in plasma, urine, erythrocytes and rectal mucosa in order to gain insights into the mechanism(s) of action of EPA and aspirin, alone and in combination, as well as to discover predictive biomarkers of chemopreventive efficacy. The recruitment target is 904 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05926847.

A qualitative investigation of the decision-making process of couples considering prenatal screening for Down syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate how couples regard screening information and how they make subsequent decisions about undergoing prenatal screening for Down syndrome. METHODS: Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore aspects of the decision-making process. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim, and data were analysed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Couples reported a strong desire for a joint but ultimately private decision-making process and saw the main role of their midwife as an information provider. Considerable confusion existed over which screening tests were available via the National Health Service and which were offered privately. Provision of experiential information regarding both subsequent diagnostic tests and the experience of living with Down syndrome would have been beneficial. CONCLUSION: This study shows that couples would benefit from receiving experiential information when they are deciding about Down syndrome screening. Future research should be conducted to establish what form such information should take, the most helpful means to provide such information, and whether such information would also be useful in other contexts where people need to make decisions whether to undergo screening.

Paracetamol plus ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children (PITCH): randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether paracetamol (acetaminophen) plus ibuprofen are superior to either drug alone for increasing time without fever and the relief of fever associated discomfort in febrile children managed at home. DESIGN: Individually randomised, blinded, three arm trial. SETTING: Primary care and households in England. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged between 6 months and 6 years with axillary temperatures of at least 37.8 degrees C and up to 41.0 degrees C. INTERVENTION: Advice on physical measures to reduce temperature and the provision of, and advice to give, paracetamol plus ibuprofen, paracetamol alone, or ibuprofen alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the time without fever (<37.2 degrees C) in the first four hours after the first dose was given and the proportion of children reported as being normal on the discomfort scale at 48 hours. Secondary outcomes were time to first occurrence of normal temperature (fever clearance), time without fever over 24 hours, fever associated symptoms, and adverse effects. RESULTS: On an intention to treat basis, paracetamol plus ibuprofen were superior to paracetamol for less time with fever in the first four hours (adjusted difference 55 minutes, 95% confidence interval 33 to 77; P<0.001) and may have been as good as ibuprofen (16 minutes, -7 to 39; P=0.2). For less time with fever over 24 hours, paracetamol plus ibuprofen were superior to paracetamol (4.4 hours, 2.4 to 6.3; P<0.001) and to ibuprofen (2.5 hours, 0.6 to 4.4; P=0.008). Combined therapy cleared fever 23 minutes (2 to 45; P=0.025) faster than paracetamol alone but no faster than ibuprofen alone (-3 minutes, 18 to -24; P=0.8). No benefit was found for discomfort or other symptoms, although power was low for these outcomes. Adverse effects did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Parents, nurses, pharmacists, and doctors wanting to use medicines to supplement physical measures to maximise the time that children spend without fever should use ibuprofen first and consider the relative benefits and risks of using paracetamol plus ibuprofen over 24 hours. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN26362730.