A methodological review of randomised n-of-1 trials.

BACKGROUND: n-of-1 trials are a type of crossover trial designed to optimise the evaluation of health technologies in individual patients. This trial design may be considered for the evaluation of health technologies in rare conditions where fewer patients are available to take part in research. This review describes the characteristics of randomised n-of-1 trials conducted over the span of 12 years, including how the n-of-1 design has been employed to study both rare and non-rare conditions. METHODS: Databases and clinical trials registries were searched for articles including "n-of-1" in the title between 2011 and 2023. The reference lists of reviews identified by the searches were searched for any additional eligible articles. Randomised n-of-1 trials were selected for inclusion and data were extracted on a range of design, population, and analysis characteristics. Descriptive statistics were produced for all variables. RESULTS: We identified 74 studies meeting our eligibility criteria, 13 of which (17.6%) were conducted in rare conditions. They were conducted in a range of clinical areas with the most common being neurological conditions (n = 16, 21.6%). The median (Q1, Q3) number of participants randomised was 9 (4, 20) and 12 trials (16.2%) involved a single patient only. Forty-six (62.2%) trials evaluated pharmaceutical interventions and 49 (66.2%) trials were placebo controlled. Trials had a median (Q1, Q3) of six (4, 8) periods and 61 (82.4%) compared two health technologies. Fifty-seven (77.0%) trials incorporated blinding and 32 (43.2%) had a washout period. Forty-nine trials (66.2%) used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess the primary outcome. Trials used a range of approaches to analysis and 48 (64.9%) combined data from multiple patients. The characteristics of the n-of-1 trials conducted in rare conditions were generally consistent with those in non-rare conditions. CONCLUSIONS: n-of-1 trials are still underused and the application of the n-of-1 design for the evaluation of health technologies for rare diseases has been particularly limited. We have summarised the characteristics of randomised n-of-1 trials in rare and non-rare conditions. We hope that it can inform researchers in the design of future n-of-1 studies. Further work is required to provide guidance on specific design considerations, implementation, and statistical analysis of these studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Exploring the barriers to, and importance of, participant diversity in early-phase clinical trials: an interview-based qualitative study of professionals and patient and public representatives.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the importance of, and barriers to achieving, diversity in early-phase clinical trials. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Five professionals (clinical researchers and methodologists) and three patient and public representatives (those with experience of early-phase clinical trials and/or those from ethnic minority backgrounds) were interviewed between June and August 2022. Participants were identified via their institutional web page, existing contacts or social media (eg, X, formerly known as Twitter). RESULTS: Professionals viewed that diversity is not currently considered in all early-phase clinical trials but felt that it should always be taken into account. Such trials are primarily undertaken at a small number of centres, thus limiting the populations they can access. Referrals from clinicians based in the community may increase diversity; however, those referred are often not from underserved groups. Referrals may be hindered by the extra resources required to approach and recruit underserved groups and participants often having to undertake 'self-driven' referrals. Patient and public representatives stated that diversity is important in research staff and that potential participants should be informed of the need for diversity. Those from underserved groups may require clarification regarding the potential harms of a treatment, even if these are unknown. Education may improve awareness and perception of early-phase clinical trials. We provide 14 recommendations to improve diversity in early-phase clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity should be considered in all early-phase trials. Consideration is required regarding the extent of diversity and how it is addressed. The increased resources needed to recruit those from underserved groups may warrant funders to increase the funds to support the recruitment of such participants. The potential harms and societal benefits of the research should be presented to potential participants in a balanced but accurate way to increase transparency.

Outpatient paracentesis for the management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: study protocol for the STOP-OHSS randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is the most significant short-term complication of pharmacological ovarian stimulation. Symptoms range from mild abdominal discomfort to rare complications such as renal failure, thromboembolism and respiratory distress syndrome.Currently, clinical practice typically involves monitoring the patient until the condition becomes severe, at which point they are admitted to hospital, where drainage of ascitic fluid (paracentesis) may take place. Preliminary studies have indicated that earlier outpatient paracentesis may reduce the progression of OHSS and prevent hospitalisation in women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This UK, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, adaptive (group sequential with one interim analysis), open-label, superiority, confirmatory, group sequential, individually randomised controlled trial, with internal pilot will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of outpatient paracentesis versus conservative management (usual care) for moderate or severe OHSS. 224 women from 20 National Health Service and private fertility units will be randomised (1:1) and followed up for up to 13.5 months. The primary outcome is the rate of OHSS related hospital admission of at least 24 hours within 28 days postrandomisation. The primary analysis will be an intention to treat with difference in hospitalisation rates as measure of treatment effect. Secondary outcomes include time to resolution of symptoms, patient satisfaction, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative substudy will facilitate the feasibility of recruitment. Participant recruitment commenced in June 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Southeast Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol (reference: 22/LO/0015). Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences, as well as being disseminated to trial participants and patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN71978064.

Bracing Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (BASIS) study - night-time versus full-time bracing in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: study protocol for a multicentre, randomized controlled trial.

Aims: Scoliosis is a lateral curvature of the spine with associated rotation, often causing distress due to appearance. For some curves, there is good evidence to support the use of a spinal brace, worn for 20 to 24 hours a day to minimize the curve, making it as straight as possible during growth, preventing progression. Compliance can be poor due to appearance and comfort. A night-time brace, worn for eight to 12 hours, can achieve higher levels of curve correction while patients are supine, and could be preferable for patients, but evidence of efficacy is limited. This is the protocol for a randomized controlled trial of 'full-time bracing' versus 'night-time bracing' in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Methods: UK paediatric spine clinics will recruit 780 participants aged ten to 15 years-old with AIS, Risser stage 0, 1, or 2, and curve size (Cobb angle) 20° to 40° with apex at or below T7. Patients are randomly allocated 1:1, to either full-time or night-time bracing. A qualitative sub-study will explore communication and experiences of families in terms of bracing and research. Patient and Public Involvement & Engagement informed study design and will assist with aspects of trial delivery and dissemination. Discussion: The primary outcome is 'treatment failure' (Cobb angle progression to 50° or more before skeletal maturity); skeletal maturity is at Risser stage 4 in females and 5 in males, or 'treatment success' (Cobb angle less than 50° at skeletal maturity). The comparison is on a non-inferiority basis (non-inferiority margin 11%). Participants are followed up every six months while in brace, and at one and two years after skeletal maturity. Secondary outcomes include the Scoliosis Research Society 22 questionnaire and measures of quality of life, psychological effects of bracing, adherence, anxiety and depression, sleep, satisfaction, and educational attainment. All data will be collected through the British Spine Registry.

Learning from COVID-19 related trial adaptations to inform efficient trial design-a sequential mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical trial procedures were often undertaken in-person prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in adaptations to these procedures to enable trials to continue. The aim of this study was to understand whether the adaptations made to clinical trials by UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) during the pandemic have the potential to improve the efficiency of trials post-pandemic. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study, initially involving an online survey administered to all registered UK CTUs to identify studies that had made adaptations due to the pandemic. Representatives from selected studies were qualitatively interviewed to explore the adaptations made and their potential to improve the efficiency of future trials. A literature review was undertaken to locate published evidence concerning the investigated adaptations. The findings from the interviews were reviewed by a group of CTU and patient representatives within a workshop, where discussions focused on the potential of the adaptations to improve the efficiency of future trials. RESULTS: Forty studies were identified by the survey. Fourteen studies were selected and fifteen CTU staff were interviewed about the adaptations. The workshop included 15 CTU and 3 patient representatives. Adaptations were not seen as leading to direct efficiency savings for CTUs. However, three adaptations may have the potential to directly improve efficiencies for trial sites and participants beyond the pandemic: a split remote-first eligibility assessment, recruitment outside the NHS via a charity, and remote consent. There was a lack of published evidence to support the former two adaptations, however, remote consent is widely supported in the literature. Other identified adaptations may benefit by improving flexibility for the participant. Barriers to using these adaptations include the impact on scientific validity, limitations in the role of the CTU, and participant's access to technology. CONCLUSIONS: Three adaptations (a split remote-first eligibility assessment, recruitment outside the NHS via a charity, and remote consent) have the potential to improve clinical trials but only one (remote consent) is supported by evidence. These adaptations could be tested in future co-ordinated 'studies within a trial' (SWAT).

Endometrial scratch in women undergoing first-time IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The endometrial scratch procedure is an IVF 'add-on' sometimes provided prior to the first IVF cycle. A 2019 systematic review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show whether endometrial scratch has a significant effect on pregnancy outcomes (including live birth rate, LBR) when undertaken prior to the first IVF cycle. Further evidence was published following this review, including the Endometrial Scratch Trial (ISRCTN23800982). The objective of the current review was to synthesize and critically appraise the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch procedure in women undergoing their first IVF cycle. Databases searched include MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible randomized controlled trials included women undergoing IVF for the first time that reported the effectiveness and/or safety of the endometrial scratch procedure; 12 studies were included. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a significant effect of the endometrial scratch on LBR (10 trials, odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.79) or other pregnancy outcomes. This review confirms that there is a lack of evidence that endometrial scratch improves pregnancy outcomes, including LBR, for women undergoing their first IVF cycle. Clinicians are recommended not to perform this procedure in individuals undergoing their first cycle of IVF.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials. SETTING: Sixteen UK fertility units. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2 and previous trauma to the endometrium. INTERVENTIONS: Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs. RESULTS: One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22). LIMITATIONS: A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982. 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. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The endometrial scratch is a simple procedure that involves 'scratching' the lining of the womb (the endometrium). Several small studies have shown that undertaking this before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle may improve live birth rates; however, other studies have contradicted this. This large study was carried out to confirm whether or not having an endometrial scratch before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle would increase the number of women having a live birth compared with those having 'usual' in vitro fertilisation treatment (known as the 'control' group). We collected information about pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, pain during the procedure and costs of treatment to find out if there were any meaningful differences. A total of 1048 women aged between 18 and 37 years were randomly allocated to the two groups, so participants had a 50% chance of having the endometrial scratch. Women were followed up throughout their pregnancy to ascertain the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation cycle. Although the live birth rate was 1.5% higher in the endometrial scratch group (38.6%) than in the control group (37.1%), the difference was not large enough to show any benefit of having the procedure. Other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the procedure was safe and tolerable. We found that the cost of treatment was, on average, £316 per participant higher in the group that received endometrial scratch than in the control group; the difference was not large enough to show that receiving endometrial scratch was more cost-effective. We combined the results of this trial with those of previous trials that looked to answer a similar question, and found that, overall, the endometrial scratch procedure does not enhance the chances of achieving a live birth. We conclude that endometrial scratch before first-time in vitro fertilisation does not improve the outcome of treatment, and we recommend that this procedure is not undertaken prior to a first cycle of in vitro fertilisation.

The Current Role of Induced Endometrial Trauma (Endometrial Scratch) in Women Undergoing Infertility Treatment.

Induced endometrial trauma, otherwise known as endometrial scratch is a simple technique that has been rapidly adopted into clinical practice, mainly for women having IVF treatment, in an attempt to increase pregnancy rates. The introduction of endometrial scratch followed early reports of improved clinical pregnancy rates in women with repetitive implantation failure after having the procedure and follows on from evidence from animal models in the early 20th century suggesting that mechanical trauma to the endometrium can induce decidual changes. Due to the ease and low cost of the procedure, it has been rapidly adopted as an add-on to fertility treatments, in many cases where evidence is still lacking. Despite the initial publication of a large number of studies that demonstrated encouraging improvements in pregnancy rates in women who underwent this procedure, these studies were mainly limited by the small sample sizes and heterogeneity of their study populations, leading to limited validity of the evidence provided by these studies. More recently, three large randomized controlled studies have been published that paint a different picture regarding the value of this procedure. This article explores the evolution of the evidence and the current state of endometrial scratch as an adjuvant therapy for women undergoing IVF treatment.

Experiences of trial participants and site staff of participating in and running a large randomised trial within fertility (the endometrial scratch trial): a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of endometrial scratch (ES) trial participants and site staff of trial recruitment and participation, in order to improve the experience of participants in future trials. DESIGN: Qualitative study of a subset of participants in the ES randomised controlled trial and a subset of trial site staff. SETTING: A purposeful sample of 9 of the 16 UK Fertility Units that participated in the trial. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of 27 trial participants and 7 site staff. RESULTS: Participants were largely happy with the recruitment practices, however, some were overwhelmed with the amount of information received. Interviewees had positive preconceptions regarding the possible effect of the ES on the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle, which often originated from their own internet research and seemed to be exacerbated by how site staff described the intervention. Some participants appeared to not understand that receiving the ES could potentially reduce their chances of a successful IVF outcome. Those randomised to the control arm discussed feeling discontent; site staff developed mechanisms of dealing with this. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of equipoise in both study participants and the recruiting site staff led to trial participants having positive preconceptions of the potential impact of the ES on their upcoming IVF cycle. Trial participants may not have understood the potential harms of participating in a randomised trial. The trial information sheet did not clearly state this; further research should assess how such information should be presented to potential participants, to proportionately present the level of risk, but to not unduly discourage participation. The amount of information fertility patients require about a research study should also be investigated, in order to avoid participants feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information they receive prior to starting IVF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23800982.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Adjuncts to Minimally Invasive Treatment of Urethral Stricture in Men.

CONTEXT: Urethral stricture disease (USD) is initially managed with minimally invasive techniques such as urethrotomy and urethral dilatation. Minimally invasive techniques are associated with a high recurrence rate, especially in recurrent USD. Adjunctive measures, such as local drug injection, have been used in an attempt to reduce recurrence rates. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence for the efficacy and safety of adjuncts used alongside minimally invasive treatment of USD. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature published between 1990 and 2020 was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA checklist. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 26 studies were included in the systematic review, from which 13 different adjuncts were identified, including intralesional injection (triamcinolone, n = 135; prednisolone, n = 58; mitomycin C, n = 142; steroid-mitomycin C-hyaluronidase, n = 103, triamcinolone-mitomycin C-N-acetyl cysteine, n = 50; platelet-rich plasma, n = 44), intraluminal instillation (mitomycin C, n = 20; hyaluronic acid and carboxymethylcellulose, n = 70; captopril, n = 37; 192-iridium brachytherapy, n = 10), application via a lubricated catheter (triamcinolone, n = 124), application via a coated balloon (paclitaxel, n = 106), and enteral application (tamoxifen, n = 30; deflazacort, n = 36). Overall, 13 randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Use of any adjunct was associated with a lower rate of USD recurrence (odds ratio [OR] 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.50; p <  0.001) compared to no adjunct use. Of all the adjuncts, mitomycin C was associated with the lowest rate of USD recurrence (intralesional injection: OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11-0.48; p <  0.001; intraluminal injection: OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02-0.61; p =  0.01). Urinary tract infection (2.9-14%), bleeding (8.8%), and extravasation (5.8%) were associated with steroid injection; pruritis of the urethra (61%) occurred after instillation of captopril; mild gynaecomastia (6.7%) and gastrointestinal side effects (6.7%) were associated with oral tamoxifen. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuncts to minimally invasive treatment of USD appear to lower the recurrence rate and are associated with a low adjunct-specific complication rate. However, the studies included were at high risk of bias. Mitomycin C is the adjunct supported by the highest level of evidence. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed studies on additional therapies (called adjuncts) to minimally invasive treatments for narrowing of the urethra in men. Adjuncts such as mitomycin C injection result in a lower recurrence rate compared to no adjunct use. The use of adjuncts appeared to be safe and complications are uncommon; however, the studies were small and of low quality.

A randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch procedure prior to first-time IVF, with or without ICSI.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the clinical-effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch (ES) procedure compared to no ES, prior to usual first time in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: ES was safe but did not improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF cycle, with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: ES is an 'add-on' treatment that is available to women undergoing a first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, despite a lack of evidence to support its use. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This pragmatic, superiority, open-label, multi-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial involving 1048 women assessed the clinical effectiveness and safety of the ES procedure prior to first time IVF, with or without ICSI, between July 2016 and October 2019. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants aged 18-37 years undergoing their first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, were recruited from 16 UK fertility clinics and randomised (1:1) by a web-based system with restricted access rights that concealed allocation. Stratified block randomisation was used to allocate participants to TAU or ES in the mid-luteal phase followed by usual IVF with or without ICSI treatment. The primary outcome was live birth after completing 24 weeks gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 1048 women randomised to TAU (n = 525) and ES (n = 523) were available for intention to treat analysis. In the ES group, 453 (86.6%) received the ES procedure. IVF, with or without ICSI, was received in 494 (94.1%) and 497 (95.0%) of ES and TAU participants respectively. Live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the TAU and 38.6% (202/523) in the ES: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% CI -4.4% to 7.4%, P = 0.621). There were no statistical differences in secondary outcomes. Adverse events were comparable across groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A sham ES procedure was not undertaken in the control group, however, we do not believe this would have influenced the results as objective fertility outcomes were used. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the largest trial that is adequately powered to assess the impact of ES on women undergoing their first cycle of IVF. ES was safe, but did not significantly improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF or ICSI cycle. We recommend that ES is not undertaken in this population. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funded by the National Institute of Health Research. Stephen Walters is an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator (2018 to present) and was a member of the following during the project: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Trials and Evaluation Committee (2011-2017), NIHR HTA Commissioning Strategy Group (2012 to 2017); NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research Committee (2020 to present); NIHR Pre doctoral Fellowship Committee (2019 to present). Dr. Martins da Silva reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; and is Associate editor of Human Reproduction and Editorial Board member of Reproduction and Fertility. Dr. Bhide reports grants from Bart's Charity and grants and non-financial support from Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN number: ISRCTN23800982. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 31 May 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 04 July 2016.

Lifestyle Matters Randomized Controlled Trial of a Preventive Health Intervention for Older People: Qualitative Sub Study with Participants and Intervention Facilitators.

OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study embedded within a randomized controlled trial was conducted to explore the acceptability, experiences of, and short-term impact of a preventive health intervention (Lifestyle Matters) from the perspectives of those who took part, and to uncover any evidence for the theorised mechanisms of action (improved participation and self efficacy) underpinning the intervention. It was also conducted to help explain the quantitative trial results. METHODS: A purposive sample of 13 trial participants who had been randomized to receive the Lifestyle Matters intervention (approximately 10%) were individually qualitatively interviewed immediately following their involvement. All four intervention facilitators were also individually interviewed. RESULTS: Evidence of the hypothesized behavioural changes could be identified within the interview data, demonstrating the potential of this intervention. However, lack of adherence to the overall intervention eroded receipt of benefit. This finding complements the quantitative trial results which found that the study had failed to recruit those who considered themselves to be at risk of age-related decline. CONCLUSION: This form of preventive health intervention requires proactive identification of those who recognise the need to make lifestyle changes. This is difficult if reactive health and social care systems are the main referral routes. The methodological approaches taken towards the study of complex interventions requires reconsideration if potential benefits are to be accurately assessed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN67209155.

Challenges in the design, planning and implementation of trials evaluating group interventions.

BACKGROUND: Group interventions are interventions delivered to groups of people rather than to individuals and are used in healthcare for mental health recovery, behaviour change, peer support, self-management and/or health education. Evaluating group interventions in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) presents trialists with a set of practical problems, which are not present in RCTs of one-to-one interventions and which may not be immediately obvious. METHODS: Case-based approach summarising Sheffield trials unit's experience in the design and implementation of five group interventions. We reviewed participant recruitment and attrition, facilitator training and attrition, attendance at the group sessions, group size and fidelity aspects across five RCTs. RESULTS: Median recruitment across the five trials was 3.2 (range 1.7-21.0) participants per site per month. Group intervention trials involve a delay in starting the intervention for some participants, until sufficient numbers are available to start a group. There was no evidence that the timing of consent, relative to randomisation, affected post-randomisation attrition which was a matter of concern for all trial teams. Group facilitator attrition was common in studies where facilitators were employed by the health system rather than the by the grant holder and led to the early closure of one trial; research sites responded by training 'back-up' and new facilitators. Trials specified that participants had to attend a median of 62.5% (range 16.7%-80%) of sessions, in order to receive a 'therapeutic dose'; a median of 76.7% (range 42.9%-97.8%) received a therapeutic dose. Across the five trials, 75.3% of all sessions went ahead without the pre-specified ideal group size. A variety of methods were used to assess the fidelity of group interventions at a group and individual level across the five trials. CONCLUSION: This is the first paper to provide an empirical basis for planning group intervention trials. Investigators should expect delays/difficulties in recruiting groups of the optimal size, plan for both facilitator and participant attrition, and consider how group attendance and group size affects treatment fidelity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17993825 registered on 11/10/2016, ISRCTN28645428 registered on 11/04/2012, ISRCTN61215213 registered on 11/05/2011, ISRCTN67209155 registered on 22/03/2012, ISRCTN19447796 registered on 20/03/2014.

Induced endometrial trauma (endometrial scratch) in the mid-luteal menstrual cycle phase preceding first cycle IVF/ICSI versus usual IVF/ICSI therapy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Endometrial trauma commonly known as endometrial scratch (ES) has been shown to improve pregnancy rates in women with a history of repeated implantation failure undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF), with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). However, the procedure has not yet been fully explored in women having IVF/ICSI for the first time. This study aims to examine the effect of performing an ES in the mid-luteal phase prior to a first-time IVF/ICSI cycle on the chances of achieving a clinical pregnancy and live birth. If ES can influence this success rate, there would be a significant cost saving to the National Health Service through decreasing the number of IVF/ICSI cycles necessary to achieve a pregnancy, increase the practice of single embryo transfer and consequently have a large impact on risks and costs associated with multiple pregnancies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This 30-month, UK, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial includes a 9-month internal pilot and health economic analysis recruiting 1044 women from 16 fertility units. It will follow up participants to identify if IVF/ICSI has been successful and live birth has occurred up to 6 weeks post partum. Primary analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. A substudy of endometrial samples obtained during the ES will assess the role of immune factors in embryo implantation. Main trial recruitment commenced on January 2017 and is ongoing.Participants randomised to the intervention group will receive the ES procedure in the mid-luteal phase of the preceding cycle prior to first-time IVF/ICSI treatment versus usual IVF/ICSI treatment in the control group, with 1:1 randomisation. The primary outcome is live birth rate after completed 24 weeks gestation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol. Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23800982; Pre-results.

Recruitment of older adults to three preventative lifestyle improvement studies.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting isolated older adults to clinical trials is complex, time-consuming and difficult. Previous studies have suggested querying existing databases to identify appropriate potential participants. We aim to compare recruitment techniques (general practitioner (GP) mail-outs, community engagement and clinician referrals) used in three randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies assessing the feasibility or effectiveness of two preventative interventions in isolated older adults (the Lifestyle Matters and Putting Life In Years interventions). METHODS: During the three studies (the Lifestyle Matters feasibility study, the Lifestyle Matters RCT, the Putting Life In Years RCT) data were collected about how participants were recruited. The number of letters sent by GP surgeries for each study was recorded. In the Lifestyle Matters RCT, we qualitatively interviewed participants and intervention facilitators at 6 months post randomisation to seek their thoughts on the recruitment process. RESULTS: Referrals were planned to be the main source of recruitment in the Lifestyle Matters feasibility study, but due to a lack of engagement from district nurses, community engagement was the main source of recruitment. District nurse referrals and community engagement were also utilised in the Lifestyle Matters and Putting Life In Years RCTs; both mechanisms yielded few participants. GP mail-outs were the main source of recruitment in both the RCTs, but of those contacted, recruiting yield was low (< 3%). Facilitators of the Lifestyle Matters intervention questioned whether the most appropriate individuals had been recruited. Participants recommended that direct contact with health professionals would be the most beneficial way to recruit. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment to the Lifestyle Matters RCT did not mirror recruitment to the feasibility study of the same intervention. Direct district nurse referrals were not effective at recruiting participants. The majority of participants were recruited via GP mail-outs, which may have led to isolated individuals not being recruited to the trials. Further research is required into alternative recruitment techniques, including respondent-driven sampling plus mechanisms which will promote health care professionals to recruit vulnerable populations to research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN28645428 (Putting Life In Years RCT). Registered on 11 April 2012; International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN67209155 (Lifestyle Matters RCT). Registered on 22 March 2012; ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT03054311 (Lifestyle Matters feasibility study). Registered retrospectively on 19 January 2017.

The long-term (24-month) effect on health and well-being of the Lifestyle Matters community-based intervention in people aged 65 years and over: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effect on health and well-being of the Lifestyle Matters programme. DESIGN: Qualitative study of a subset of intervention arm participants who participated in the Lifestyle Matters randomised controlled trial (RCT). SETTING: The intervention took place at community venues within two sites in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of 13 participants aged between 66 and 88 years from the intervention arm of the RCT were interviewed at 24 months post randomisation. Interviews aimed to understand how participants had used their time in the preceding 2 years and whether the intervention had any impact on their lifestyle choices, participation in meaningful activities and well-being. INTERVENTION: Lifestyle Matters is a 4-month occupational therapy intervention, consisting of group and individual sessions, designed to enable community living older people to make positive lifestyle choices and participate in new or neglected activities through increasing self-efficacy. RESULTS: Interviews revealed that the majority of interviewed participants were reportedly active at 24 months, with daily routines and lifestyles not changing significantly over time. All participants raised some form of benefit from attending Lifestyle Matters, including an improved perspective on life, trying new hobbies and meeting new friends. A number of intervention participants spoke of adapting to their changing circumstances, but there were significant and lasting benefits for 2 of 13 intervention participants interviewed. CONCLUSION: The majority of those who experienced the Lifestyle Matters intervention reported minor benefits and increases in self-efficacy, but they did not perceive that it significantly improved their health and well-being. The two participants who had experienced major benefits also reported having had life-changing events, suggesting that this intervention is most effective at the time when lifestyle has to be reconsidered if mental well-being is to be sustained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN67209155, post results.

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER) 2: a cluster randomised trial and systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new protocols for emergency ambulance paramedics to assess older people following a fall with referral to community-based care when appropriate.

BACKGROUND: Emergency calls are frequently made to ambulance services for older people who have fallen, but ambulance crews often leave patients at the scene without any ongoing care. We evaluated a new clinical protocol which allowed paramedics to assess older people who had fallen and, if appropriate, refer them to community-based falls services. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes, processes and costs of care between intervention and control groups; and to understand factors which facilitate or hinder use. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participating paramedics at three ambulance services in England and Wales were based at stations randomised to intervention or control arms. Participants were aged 65 years and over, attended by a study paramedic for a fall-related emergency service call, and resident in the trial catchment areas. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention paramedics received a clinical protocol with referral pathway, training and support to change practice. Control paramedics continued practice as normal. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome comprised subsequent emergency health-care contacts (emergency admissions, emergency department attendances, emergency service calls) or death at 1 month and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pathway of care, ambulance service operational indicators, self-reported outcomes and costs of care. Those assessing outcomes remained blinded to group allocation. RESULTS: Across sites, 3073 eligible patients attended by 105 paramedics from 14 ambulance stations were randomly allocated to the intervention group, and 2841 eligible patients attended by 110 paramedics from 11 stations were randomly allocated to the control group. After excluding dissenting and unmatched patients, 2391 intervention group patients and 2264 control group patients were included in primary outcome analyses. We did not find an effect on our overall primary outcome at 1 month or 6 months. However, further emergency service calls were reduced at both 1 month and 6 months; a smaller proportion of patients had made further emergency service calls at 1 month (18.5% vs. 21.8%) and the rate per patient-day at risk at 6 months was lower in the intervention group (0.013 vs. 0.017). Rate of conveyance to emergency department at index incident was similar between groups. Eight per cent of trial eligible patients in the intervention arm were referred to falls services by attending paramedics, compared with 1% in the control arm. The proportion of patients left at scene without further care was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (22.6% vs. 30.3%). We found no differences in duration of episode of care or job cycle. No adverse events were reported. Mean cost of the intervention was £17.30 per patient. There were no significant differences in mean resource utilisation, utilities at 1 month or 6 months or quality-adjusted life-years. In total, 58 patients, 25 paramedics and 31 stakeholders participated in focus groups or interviews. Patients were very satisfied with assessments carried out by paramedics. Paramedics reported that the intervention had increased their confidence to leave patients at home, but barriers to referral included patients' social situations and autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that this new pathway may be introduced by ambulance services at modest cost, without risk of harm and with some reductions in further emergency calls. However, we did not find evidence of improved health outcomes or reductions in overall NHS emergency workload. Further research is necessary to understand issues in implementation, the costs and benefits of e-trials and the performance of the modified Falls Efficacy Scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756 and PROSPERO CRD42013006418. 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. 21, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Paramedic Assessment of Older Adults After Falls, Including Community Care Referral Pathway: Cluster Randomized Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of a paramedic protocol for the care of older people who fall. METHODS: We undertook a cluster randomized trial in 3 UK ambulance services between March 2011 and June 2012. We included patients aged 65 years or older after an emergency call for a fall, attended by paramedics based at trial stations. Intervention paramedics could refer the patient to a community-based falls service instead of transporting the patient to the emergency department. Control paramedics provided care as usual. The primary outcome was subsequent emergency contacts or death. RESULTS: One hundred five paramedics based at 14 intervention stations attended 3,073 eligible patients; 110 paramedics based at 11 control stations attended 2,841 eligible patients. We analyzed primary outcomes for 2,391 intervention and 2,264 control patients. One third of patients made further emergency contacts or died within 1 month, and two thirds within 6 months, with no difference between groups. Subsequent 999 call rates within 6 months were lower in the intervention arm (0.0125 versus 0.0172; adjusted difference -0.0045; 95% confidence interval -0.0073 to -0.0017). Intervention paramedics referred 8% of patients (204/2,420) to falls services and left fewer patients at the scene without any ongoing care. Intervention patients reported higher satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care. There were no other differences between groups. Mean intervention cost was $23 per patient, with no difference in overall resource use between groups at 1 or 6 months. CONCLUSION: A clinical protocol for paramedics reduced emergency ambulance calls for patients attended for a fall safely and at modest cost.

A preventative lifestyle intervention for older adults (lifestyle matters): a randomised controlled trial.

Objectives: to test whether an occupation-based lifestyle intervention can sustain and improve the mental well-being of adults aged 65 years or over compared to usual care, using an individually randomised controlled trial. Participants: 288 independently living adults aged 65 years or over, with normal cognition, were recruited from two UK sites between December 2011 and November 2015. Interventions: lifestyle Matters is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended multi-component preventive intervention designed to improve the mental well-being of community living older people at risk of decline. It involves weekly group sessions over 4 months and one to one sessions. Main outcome measures: the primary outcome was mental well-being at 6 months (mental health (MH) dimension of the SF-36). Secondary outcomes included physical health dimensions of the SF-36, extent of depression (PHQ-9), quality of life (EQ-5D) and loneliness (de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale), assessed at 6 and 24 months. Results: data on 262 (intervention = 136; usual care = 126) participants were analysed using intention to treat analysis. Mean SF-36 MH scores at 6 months differed by 2.3 points (95 CI: -1.3 to 5.9; P = 0.209) after adjustments. Conclusions: analysis shows little evidence of clinical or cost-effectiveness in the recruited population with analysis of the primary outcome revealing that the study participants were mentally well at baseline. The results pose questions regarding how preventive interventions to promote well-being in older adults can be effectively targeted in the absence of proactive mechanisms to identify those who at risk of decline. Trial Registration: ISRCTN67209155.

The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews are of increasing importance within health technology assessment due to time and resource constraints. There are many rapid review methods available although there is little guidance as to the most suitable methods. We present three case studies employing differing methods to suit the evidence base for each review and outline some issues to consider when selecting an appropriate method. METHODS: Three recently completed systematic review short reports produced for the UK National Institute for Health Research were examined. Different approaches to rapid review methods were used in the three reports which were undertaken to inform the commissioning of services within the NHS and to inform future trial design. We describe the methods used, the reasoning behind the choice of methods and explore the strengths and weaknesses of each method. RESULTS: Rapid review methods were chosen to meet the needs of the review and each review had distinctly different challenges such as heterogeneity in terms of populations, interventions, comparators and outcome measures (PICO) and/or large numbers of relevant trials. All reviews included at least 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), each with numerous included outcomes. For the first case study (sexual health interventions), very diverse studies in terms of PICO were included. P-values and summary information only were presented due to substantial heterogeneity between studies and outcomes measured. For the second case study (premature ejaculation treatments), there were over 100 RCTs but also several existing systematic reviews. Data for meta-analyses were extracted directly from existing systematic reviews with new RCT data added where available. For the final case study (cannabis cessation therapies), studies included a wide range of interventions and considerable variation in study populations and outcomes. A brief summary of the key findings for each study was presented and narrative synthesis used to summarise results for each pair of interventions compared. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid review methods need to be chosen to meet both the nature of the evidence base of a review and the challenges presented by the included studies. Appropriate methods should be chosen after an assessment of the evidence base.