Personalised versus standard text message prompts for increasing trial participant response to telephone follow-up: an embedded randomised controlled retention trial.

BACKGROUND: Improving retention within randomised controlled trials is important. The effectiveness of different strategies can be assessed using a Study Within A Trial (SWAT). Previous research has shown personalised text message reminders improve clinic attendance rates; however, the results are mixed on improving postal questionnaire return. This SWAT aims to assess whether personalised text message reminders improve completion rates for scheduled telephone follow-ups. METHODS: This SWAT is a two-arm, multi-centre randomised controlled trial with equal allocation. The host trial was the Melatonin for Anxiety prior to General anaesthesia In Children trial (ISRCTN 18296119), where the child's caregiver was to answer a scheduled telephone follow-up 14 days post-surgery; participants for the SWAT were therefore the caregiver. Text messages were sent 24-48 h before the scheduled call and the personalised version contained the first name of the caregiver which was omitted in the non-personalised version. The primary outcome was questionnaire completion rate, defined as the proportion of caregivers successfully contacted, and completed any of the questionnaires, over the telephone within the follow-up window (day 14 + 7 days). RESULTS: The SWAT included 100 of the 110 (91%) participants randomised into the host trial. Randomisation within the SWAT was equal between non-personalised (n = 50) and personalised (n = 50) interventions. The overall questionnaire response rate was 73% with a difference between the two interventions of 68% in the non-personalised text message arm and 78% in the personalised text message arm. The adjusted absolute risk difference was 7.1% (95% confidence interval = -10.2%, 24.4%). There was no difference in either the time to response or the number of contact attempts between the two interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that personalised text messages could be effective at increasing response rates when data is collected via telephone and in a population of caregivers for paediatric trial participants. However, similar SWATs have shown mixed results. Given the low-cost and low risks associated with personalising text message reminders, this SWAT could be implemented easily in other RCTs scheduling telephone follow-up appointments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 18296119 , SWAT 35 (MRC Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Network).

The MAGIC trial: a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, noninferiority, randomised trial of melatonin versus midazolam in the premedication of anxious children attending for elective surgery under general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Child anxiety before general anaesthesia and surgery is common. Midazolam is a commonly used premedication to address this. Melatonin is an alternative anxiolytic, however trials evaluating its efficacy in children have delivered conflicting results. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind randomised trial was performed in 20 UK NHS Trusts. A sample size of 624 was required to declare noninferiority of melatonin. Anxious children, awaiting day case elective surgery under general anaesthesia, were randomly assigned 1:1 to midazolam or melatonin premedication (0.5 mg kg-1, maximum 20 mg) 30 min before transfer to the operating room. The primary outcome was the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale-Short Form (mYPAS-SF). Secondary outcomes included safety. Results are presented as n (%) and adjusted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely (n=110; 55 per group) because of recruitment futility. Participants had a median age of 7 (6-10) yr, and 57 (52%) were female. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale-Short Form analyses showed adjusted mean differences of 13.1 (3.7-22.4) and 12.9 (3.1-22.6), respectively, in favour of midazolam. The upper 95% confidence interval limits exceeded the predefined margin of 4.3 in both cases, whereas the lower 95% confidence interval excluded zero, indicating that melatonin was inferior to midazolam, with a difference considered to be clinically relevant. No serious adverse events were seen in either arm. CONCLUSION: Melatonin was less effective than midazolam at reducing preoperative anxiety in children, although the early termination of the trial increases the likelihood of bias. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN18296119.

Involving patients and the public In sTatistIcal Analysis pLans (INITIAL): A delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in trials aims to enhance research by improving its relevance and transparency. Planning for statistical analysis begins at the design stage of a trial within the protocol and is refined and detailed in a Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). While PPI is common in design and protocol development it is less common within SAPs. This study aimed to reach consensus on the most important and relevant statistical analysis items within an SAP to involve patients and the public. METHODS: We developed a UK-based, two-round Delphi survey through an iterative consultation with public partners, statisticians, and trialists. The consultation process started with 55 items from international guidance for statistical analysis plans. We aimed to recruit at least 20 participants per key stakeholder group for inclusion in the final analysis of the Delphi survey. Participants were asked to vote on each item using a Likert scale from 1 to 9, where a rating of 1 to 3 was labelled as having 'limited importance'; 4 to 6 as 'important but not critical' and 7 to 9 as 'critical' to involve patients and the public. Results from the second round determined consensus on critical items for PPI. RESULTS: The consultation exercise led to the inclusion of 15 statistical items in the Delphi survey. We recruited 179 participants, of whom 72% (129: 36 statisticians, 29 patients or public partners, 25 clinical researchers or methodologists, 27 trial managers, and 12 PPI coordinators) completed both rounds. Participants were on average 48 years old, 60% were female, 84% were White, 64% were based in England and 84% had at least five years' experience in trials. Four items reached consensus regarding critical importance for patient and public involvement: presentation of results to trial participants; summary and presentation of harms; interpretation and presentation of findings in an academic setting; factors impacting how well a treatment works. No consensus was reached for the remaining 11 items. In general, the results were consistent across stakeholder groups. DISCUSSION: We identified four critical items to involve patients and the public in statistical analysis plans. The remaining 11 items did not reach consensus and need to be considered in a case-by-case basis with most responders considering patient and public involvement important (but not critical). Our research provides a platform to enable focused future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and enhance the relevance of statistical analyses to patients and the public.

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.

A review of sample sizes for UK pilot and feasibility studies on the ISRCTN registry from 2013 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Pilot and feasibility studies provide information to be used when planning a full trial. A sufficient sample size within the pilot/feasibility study is required so this information can be extracted with suitable precision. This work builds upon previous reviews of pilot and feasibility studies to evaluate whether the target sample size aligns with recent recommendations and whether these targets are being reached. METHODS: A review of the ISRCTN registry was completed using the keywords "pilot" and "feasibility". The inclusion criteria were UK-based randomised interventional trials that started between 2013 (end of the previous review) and 2020. Target sample size, actual sample size and key design characteristics were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to present sample sizes overall and by key characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 761 studies were included in the review of which 448 (59%) were labelled feasibility studies, 244 (32%) pilot studies and 69 (9%) described as both pilot and feasibility studies. Over all included pilot and feasibility studies (n = 761), the median target sample size was 30 (IQR 20-50). This was consistent when split by those labelled as a pilot or feasibility study. Slightly larger sample sizes (median = 33, IQR 20-50) were shown for those labelled both pilot and feasibility (n = 69). Studies with a continuous outcome (n = 592) had a median target sample size of 30 (IQR 20-43) whereas, in line with recommendations, this was larger for those with binary outcomes (median = 50, IQR 25-81, n = 97). There was no descriptive difference in the target sample size based on funder type. In studies where the achieved sample size was available (n = 301), 173 (57%) did not reach their sample size target; however, the median difference between the target and actual sample sizes was small at just minus four participants (IQR -25-0). CONCLUSIONS: Target sample sizes for pilot and feasibility studies have remained constant since the last review in 2013. Most studies in the review satisfy the earlier and more lenient recommendations however do not satisfy the most recent largest recommendation. Additionally, most studies did not reach their target sample size meaning the information collected may not be sufficient to estimate the required parameters for future definitive randomised controlled trials.

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop.

Background: Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit-risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials. Objectives: The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit-risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting. Methods: A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019). Results: We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit-risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit-risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit-risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit-risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results. Conclusions: These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit-risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit-risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made. Limitations: This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit-risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method. Study registration: The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882. Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme.

Randomised controlled trials are considered the best way to gather evidence about potential NHS treatments. They can be designed from different perspectives depending whether the aim is to show that a new treatment is better than, equal to or no worse than the current best available treatment. The selection of this design relates to the single most important outcome; however, often multiple outcomes can be affected by a treatment. For example, a new treatment may improve disease management but increase side effects. Patients want a treatment to work but not at the price of poor quality of life; therefore, a trade-off must be made, and the recommended treatment depends on this trade-off. Benefit­risk methods can assess the trade-off between multiple outcomes and can include patient preference. These methods could improve the way that decisions are made about treatments in the NHS, but there is currently limited research about the use of these methods in publicly funded trials. The aim of this report is to improve the design of clinical trials by helping researchers to select the most appropriate trial design and to decide when to include a benefit­risk method. The recommendations were created using the opinions of experts within the field and consisted of a survey, review of the literature and a workshop. The project created a list of 19 factors that can assist researchers to select the most appropriate trial design. Furthermore, six key areas were identified in which researchers may consider including a benefit­risk method within a trial. Finally, if a benefit­risk assessment is being used, a checklist of items has been created that identifies the information important to include in reports. This report is, however, limited in its applicability and further research should extend this work, as well as provide more detail on individual methods that are available.

Development of an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) Patient-Reported Experience Measure (PREM): A patient-led consensus work and 'think aloud' study for a quality improvement programme.

BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are key in improving healthcare quality, but no PREM exists for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This study aimed to co-produce a PREM with IBD service users for IBD service evaluation and quality improvement programme. METHODS: A pool of 75 items was drawn from published survey instruments covering interactions with services and aspects of living with IBD. In Stage 1, during two workshops, eight expert service users reduced candidate items through a ranked-choice voting exercise and suggested further items. During Stage 2, 18 previously uninvolved people with IBD assessed the face and content validity of the candidate items in 'Think Aloud' interviews. During two final workshops (Stage 3), the expert service users removed, modified and added items based on the interview findings to produce a final version of the PREM. RESULTS: Stage 1 generated a draft working PREM mapped to the following four domains: Patient-Centred Care; Quality; Accessibility; Communication and Involvement. The PREM included a set of nine items created by the expert group which shifted the emphasis from 'self-management' to 'living with IBD'. Stage 2 interviews showed that comprehension of the PREM was very good, although there were concerns about the wording, IBD-relevance and ambiguity of some items. During the final two workshops in Stage 3, the expert service users removed 7 items, modified 15 items and added seven new ones based on the interview findings, resulting in a 38-item PREM. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how extensive service user involvement can inform PREM development. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved as active members of the research team and as research participants to co-produce and validate a PREM for IBD services. In Stage 1, eight expert service users ('the expert group') reduced candidate items for the PREM through a voting exercise and suggested new items. During Stage 2, 18 previously uninvolved people with IBD (the 'think aloud' participants) assessed the validity of the candidate items in 'Think Aloud' interviews as research participants. In Stage 3, the expert group removed, changed and added items based on the interview findings to produce a final version of the 38-item PREM. This study shows how service user involvement can meaningfully inform PREM development.

How do we know a treatment is good enough? A survey of non-inferiority trials.

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority and equivalence trials aim to determine whether a new treatment is good enough (non-inferior) or as good as (equivalent to) another treatment. To inform the decision about non-inferiority or equivalence, a margin is used. We aimed to identify the current methods used to determine non-inferiority or equivalence margins, as well as the main challenges and suggestions from trialists. METHODS: We developed an online questionnaire that included both closed and open-ended questions about methods to elicit non-inferiority or equivalence margins, underlying principles, and challenges and suggestions for improvement. We recruited trialists with experience of determining a margin by contacting corresponding authors for non-inferiority or equivalence trials. We used descriptive statistics and content analysis to identify categories in qualitative data. RESULTS: We had forty-one responses, all from non-inferiority trials. More than half of the trials were non-pharmacological (n = 21, 51%), and the most common primary outcome was clinical (n = 29, 71%). The two most used methods to determine the margin were as follows: a review of the evidence base (n = 27, 66%) and opinion seeking methods (n = 24, 59%). From those using reviews, the majority used systematic reviews or reviews of multiple RCTs to determine the margin (n = 17, 63%). From those using opinion seeking methods, the majority involved clinicians with or without other professionals (n = 19, 79%). Respondents reported that patients' opinions on the margin were sought in four trials (16%). Median confidence in overall quality of the margin was 5 out of 7 (maximum confidence); however, around a quarter of the respondents were "completely unconfident" that the margin reflected patient's views. We identified "stakeholder involvement" as the most common category to determine respondent's confidence in the quality of the margins and whether it reflected stakeholder's views. The most common suggestion to improve the definition of margins was "development of methods to involve stakeholders," and the most common challenge identified was "communication of margins." CONCLUSIONS: Responders highlighted the need for clearer guidelines on defining a margin, more and better stakeholder involvement in its selection, and better communication tools that enable discussions about non-inferiority trials with stakeholders. Future research should focus on developing best practice recommendations.

Patient preferences and current practice for adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis: POPSTER mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are a mainstay of the treatment of moderately severe relapses of ulcerative colitis, yet almost 50% of patients do not respond fully to these and risk prolonged steroid use and side effects. There is a lack of clarity about the definitions of steroid resistance, the optimum choice of treatment, and patient and health-care professional treatment preferences. OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of this research was to understand how steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis is managed in adult secondary care and how current practice compares with patient and health-care professional preferences. DESIGN: A mixed-methods study, including an online survey, qualitative interviews and discrete choice experiments. SETTING: NHS inflammatory bowel disease services in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ulcerative colitis and health-care professionals treating inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: We carried out a survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), qualitative interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), discrete choice experiments with health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115), and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals showed that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab) are the most frequently offered drugs across most steroid-resistant (and steroid-dependent) patient scenarios, but they are less frequently offered to thiopurine-naive patients. Patient interviews identified several factors influencing their treatment choices, including effectiveness of treatment, recommendations from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Over time, depending on the severity and duration of symptoms and, crucially, as medical treatment options become exhausted, patients are willing to try alternative treatments and, eventually, to undergo surgery. The discrete choice experiments found that the probability of remission and of side effects strongly influences the treatment choices of both patients and health-care professionals. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. The treatments ranked most positively by patients were infliximab and tofacitinib (each preferred by 38% of patients), and the predicted probability of uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab (62%). LIMITATIONS: The survey and the discrete choice experiments with patients and health-care professionals are limited by their relatively small sample sizes. The qualitative studies are subject to selection bias. The timing of the different substudies, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, is a potential limitation. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified factors influencing treatment decisions for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis and the characteristics to consider when choosing treatments to evaluate in future randomised controlled trials. The findings may be used to improve discussions between patients and health-care professionals when they review treatment options for steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis. FUTURE WORK: This research highlights the need for consensus work to establish an agreed definition of steroid resistance in ulcerative colitis and a greater understanding of the optimal use of tofacitinib and surgery for this patient group. A randomised controlled trial comparing infliximab with tofacitinib is also recommended. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Steroids are one of the main treatments for ulcerative colitis; however, steroids work well for only about 50% of people who take them. There are many other treatments that can be given when steroids do not work, but evidence is limited about how these treatments are best used. To carry out better research about the best treatment options and to improve clinical practice in the future, this study aimed to find out how adults with steroid-resistant ulcerative colitis are managed in hospital and why patients and health-care professionals prefer different treatments. The study combined various methods of research, including an online survey of health-care professionals (n = 168), interviews with health-care professionals (n = 20) and patients (n = 33), a survey of health-care professionals (n = 116) and patients (n = 115) to ask them about treatment preferences, and a multistakeholder workshop (n = 9). The interviews with and survey of health-care professionals found that most health-care professionals define steroid resistance as an incomplete response to 40 mg per day of prednisolone after 2 weeks. The survey also found that the most frequently offered drugs are anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs (particularly infliximab). Patient interviews found that several factors influenced treatment choices, including effectiveness of treament, guidance from health-care professionals, route of administration and side effects. Patients were willing to try alternative treatments and surgery over time. The survey found that a higher level of remission and a lower chance of side effects strongly influenced treatment choices. Patients are less likely to choose a treatment that takes longer to improve symptoms. Health-care professionals are willing to make difficult compromises by tolerating greater safety risks in exchange for therapeutic benefits. Infliximab and tofacitinib were ranked most positively by patients, and the predicted uptake by health-care professionals was greatest for infliximab. The results of this study help improve understanding of why people choose certain treatments, improve decision-making in partnership and inform the design of future research.

Using a learning health system to understand the mismatch between medicines supply and actual medicines use among adults with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Studies in separate cohorts suggest possible discrepancies between inhaled medicines supplied (median 50-60%) and medicines used (median 30-40%). We performed the first study that directly compares CF medicine supply against use to identify the cost of excess medicines supply. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included participants from 12 UK adult centres with ≥1 year of continuous adherence data from data-logging nebulisers. Medicine supply was measured as medication possession ratio (MPR) for a 1-year period from the first suitable supply date. Medicine use was measured as electronic data capture (EDC) adherence over the same period. The cost of excess medicines was calculated as whole excess box(es) supplied after accounting for the discrepancy between EDC adherence and MPR with 20% contingency. RESULTS: Among 275 participants, 133 (48.4%) were females and mean age was 30 years (95% CI 29-31 years). Median EDC adherence was 57% (IQR 23-86%), median MPR was 74% (IQR 46-96%) and the discrepancy between measures was median 14% (IQR 2-29%). Even with 20% contingency, mean potential cost of excess medicines was £1,124 (95% CI £855-1,394), ranging from £183 (95% CI £29-338) for EDC adherence ≥80% to £2,017 (95% CI £1,507-2,526) for EDC adherence <50%. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a conservative estimate of excess inhaled medicines supply cost among adults with CF in the UK. The excess supply cost was highest among those with lowest EDC adherence, highlighting the importance of adherence support and supplying medicine according to actual use. MPR provides information about medicine supply but over-estimates actual medicine use.

Prospectively predicting Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection/s using routine data from the UK cystic fibrosis register.

RATIONALE AND AIMS: Lung health of people with cystic fibrosis (PwCF) can be preserved by daily use of inhaled therapy. Adherence to inhaled therapy, therefore, provides an important process measure to understand the success of care and can be used as a quality indicator. Defining adherence is problematic, however, since the number of prescribed treatments varies considerably between PwCF. The problem is less pronounced among those with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA), for whom at least three daily doses of nebulized therapy should be prescribed and who thus constitute a more homogeneous group. The UK CF Registry provides routine data on PA status, but data are only available 12 months after collection. In this study, we aim to prospectively identify contemporary PA status from historic registry data. METHOD: UK CF Registry data from 2011 to 2015 for PwCF aged ≥16 was used to determine a pragmatic prediction rule for identifying contemporary PA status using historic registry data. Accuracy of three different prediction rules was assessed using the positive predictive value (PPV). The number and proportion of adults predicted to have PA infection were determined overall and per center for the selected prediction rule. Known characteristics linked to PA status were explored to ensure the robustness of the prediction rule. RESULTS: Having CF Registry defined chronic PA status in the two previous years is the selected definition to predict a patient will have PA infection within the current year (population-level PPV = 96%-97%, centre level PPV = 85%-100%). This approach provides a subset of data between 1852 and 1872 patients overall and a range of 8 to 279 patients per center. CONCLUSION: Historic registry data can be used to contemporaneously identify a subgroup of patients with chronic PA. Since this patient group has a narrower treatment schedule, this can facilitate a better benchmarking of adherence across centers.

Effect of Exercise Interventions on Health-Related Quality of Life After Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Exercise interventions have been shown to help physical fitness, walking, and balance after stroke, but data are lacking on whether such interventions lead to improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, 30 randomized controlled trials (n=1836 patients) were found from PubMed, OVID MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, SCOPUS, The Cochrane Library, and TRIP databases when searched from 1966 to February 2020 that examine the effects of exercise interventions on HRQoL after stroke or transient ischemic attack. Exercise interventions resulted in small to moderate beneficial effects on HRQoL at intervention end (standardized mean difference, -0.23 [95% CI, -0.40 to -0.07]) that appeared to diminish at longer-term follow-up (standardized mean difference, -0.11 [95% CI, -0.26 to 0.04]). Exercise was associated with moderate improvements in physical health (standardized mean difference, -0.33 [95% CI, -0.61 to -0.04]) and mental health (standardized mean difference, -0.29 [95% CI, -0.49 to -0.09]) domains of HRQoL while effects on social or cognitive composites showed little difference. Interventions that were initiated within 6 months, lasted at least 12 weeks in duration, involved at least 150 minutes per week, and included resistance training appeared most effective. Exercise can lead to moderate beneficial effects on HRQoL and should be considered an integral part of stroke rehabilitation.

Utilising benefit-risk assessments within clinical trials-a protocol for the BRAINS project.

BACKGROUND: Depending on the treatment to be investigated, a clinical trial could be designed to assess objectives of superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority. The design of the study is affected by many different elements including the control treatment, the primary outcome and associated relationships. In some studies, there could be more than one outcome of interest. In these situations, benefit-risk methodologies could be used to assess the outcomes simultaneously and consider the trade-off between the benefits against the risks of a treatment. Benefit-risk is used within the regulatory industry but seldom included within publicly funded clinical trials within the UK. This project aims to gain an expert consensus on how to select the appropriate trial design (e.g. superiority) and when to consider including benefit-risk methods. METHODS: The project will consist of four work packages: 1. A web-based survey to elicit current experiences and opinions, 2. A rapid literature review to assess any current recommendations, 3. A two-day consensus workshop to gain agreement on the recommendations, and 4. Production of a guidance document. DISCUSSION: The aim of the project is to provide a guideline for clinical researchers, grant funding bodies and reviewers for grant bodies for how to select the most appropriate trial design and when it is appropriate to consider using benefit-risk methods. The focus of the guideline will be on publicly funded trials however, the vision is that the work will be applicable across research settings and we will connect with other organisations and committees as appropriate.

Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of the DAFNEplus (Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating) intervention compared with 5x1 DAFNE: a lifelong approach to promote effective self-management in adults with type 1 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: The successful treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) requires those affected to employ insulin therapy to maintain their blood glucose levels as close to normal to avoid complications in the long-term. The Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating (DAFNE) intervention is a group education course designed to help adults with T1D develop and sustain the complex self-management skills needed to adjust insulin in everyday life. It leads to improved glucose levels in the short term (manifest by falls in glycated haemoglobin, HbA1c), reduced rates of hypoglycaemia and sustained improvements in quality of life but overall glucose levels remain well above national targets. The DAFNEplus intervention is a development of DAFNE designed to incorporate behavioural change techniques, technology and longer-term structured support from healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in adults with T1D, delivered in diabetes centres in National Health Service secondary care hospitals in the UK. Centres will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to standard DAFNE or DAFNEplus. Primary clinical outcome is the change in HbA1c and the primary endpoint is HbA1c at 12 months, in those entering the trial with HbA1c >7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and HbA1c at 6 months is the secondary endpoint. Sample size is 662 participants (approximately 47 per centre); 92% power to detect a 0.5% difference in the primary outcome of HbA1c between treatment groups. The trial also measures rates of hypoglycaemia, psychological outcomes, an economic evaluation and process evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by South West-Exeter Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 18/SW/0100) on 14 May 2018. The results of the trial will be published in a National Institute for Health Research monograph and relevant high-impact journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN42908016.

Correction to: Sample size estimation for randomised controlled trials with repeated assessment of patient-reported outcomes: what correlation between baseline and follow-up outcomes should we assume?

Following publication of the original article [1], we have been notified that one of an error in the Conclusions section of the Abstract.

Sample size estimation for randomised controlled trials with repeated assessment of patient-reported outcomes: what correlation between baseline and follow-up outcomes should we assume?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are now frequently used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as primary endpoints. RCTs are longitudinal, and many have a baseline (PRE) assessment of the outcome and one or more post-randomisation assessments of outcome (POST). With such pre-test post-test RCT designs there are several ways of estimating the sample size and analysing the outcome data: analysis of post-randomisation treatment means (POST); analysis of mean changes from pre- to post-randomisation (CHANGE); analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Sample size estimation using the CHANGE and ANCOVA methods requires specification of the correlation between the baseline and follow-up measurements. Other parameters in the sample size estimation method being unchanged, an assumed correlation of 0.70 (between baseline and follow-up outcomes) means that we can halve the required sample size at the study design stage if we used an ANCOVA method compared to a comparison of POST treatment means method. So what correlation (between baseline and follow-up outcomes) should be assumed and used in the sample size calculation? The aim of this paper is to estimate the correlations between baseline and follow-up PROMs in RCTs. METHODS: The Pearson correlation coefficients between the baseline and repeated PROM assessments from 20 RCTs (with 7173 participants at baseline) were calculated and summarised. RESULTS: The 20 reviewed RCTs had sample sizes, at baseline, ranging from 49 to 2659 participants. The time points for the post-randomisation follow-up assessments ranged from 7 days to 24 months; 464 correlations, between baseline and follow-up, were estimated; the mean correlation was 0.50 (median 0.51; standard deviation 0.15; range - 0.13 to 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: There is a general consistency in the correlations between the repeated PROMs, with the majority being in the range of 0.4 to -0.6. The implications are that we can reduce the sample size in an RCT by 25% if we use an ANCOVA model, with a correlation of 0.50, for the design and analysis. There is a decline in correlation amongst more distant pairs of time points.

Mixed methods process evaluation of an enhanced community-based rehabilitation intervention for elderly patients with hip fracture.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the implementation of an enhanced rehabilitation programme for elderly hip fracture patients with mental capacity, in a randomised feasibility study compared with usual rehabilitation. To compare processes between the two and to collect the views of patients, carers and therapy staff about trial participation. DESIGN: Mixed methods process evaluation in a randomised feasibility study. SETTING: Patient participants were recruited on orthopaedic and rehabilitation wards; the intervention was delivered in the community following hospital discharge. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one older adults (aged ≥65 years) recovering from surgical treatment (replacement arthroplasty or internal fixation) following hip fracture, who were living independently prior to fracture and had mental capacity and 31 of their carers. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care (control) or usual care plus an enhanced rehabilitation package (intervention). The enhanced rehabilitation consisted of a patient-held information workbook, goal-setting diary and up to six additional therapy sessions. PROCESS EVALUATION COMPONENTS: Recruitment of sites and rehabilitation teams, response of rehabilitation teams, recruitment and reach in patient and carer participants, intervention delivery, delivery to individuals, response of individual patients to the enhanced intervention or usual rehabilitation, response of carer participants, unintended consequences and testing intervention theory and context. RESULTS: Usual rehabilitation care was very variable. The enhanced rehabilitation group received a mean of five additional therapy sessions. All of the returned goal-setting diaries had inputs from the therapy team, and half had written comments by the patients and carers. Focus group themes: variation of usual care and its impact on delivering the intervention; the importance of goal setting; the role of the therapist in providing reassurance about safe physical activities; and acceptability of the extra therapy sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learnt for a future definitive RCT include how to enhance recruitment and improve training materials, the workbook, delivery of the extra therapy sessions and recording of usual rehabilitation care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22464643; Post- results.

The B-ADENOMA Study: Bowelscope - Accuracy of Detection using Endocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities: Study Protocol for randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: UK Bowel Cancer Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (BowelScope) currently offers patients aged 55 a one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy for adenoma clearance to decrease colorectal cancer incidence by interrupting the adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Recent evidence has shown maximum benefit in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR) using the Endocuff Vision device in the left side of the colon and in screening patients. Currently, ADR is low and shows unacceptable variation in BowelScope. ADR is a quality indicator in screening sigmoidoscopy and higher rates have been shown to reduce colorectal cancer incidence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This will be a prospective, multicenter, UK-based randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ADR in Endocuff-assisted versus standard bowel cancer screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (BowelScope). All patients aged 55 to 61 years invited to BowelScope screening and able to give informed consent will be eligible for recruitment. Exclusion criteria include absolute contraindications to flexible sigmoidoscopy, known or suspected large bowel obstruction or pseudo-obstruction, colonic strictures or polyposis syndromes, known severe diverticular segment, active colitis, inability to give informed consent, anticoagulation precluding polypectomy and pregnancy. Patients will be randomized on the day of procedure to Endocuff-assisted flexible sigmoidoscopy or standard flexible sigmoidoscopy, stratified by age group and sex. Baseline, endoscopy and polyp data were collected as well as nurse and patient assessment of comfort. Polyp histology was collected when available. Patients will be asked to return a comfort questionnaire the following day and were followed up for 14 days for complications. RESULTS: The ADENOMA trial will be designed to demonstrate a significant improvement in ADR with maximal effect in the left colon and in fecal occult blood test-positive screening patients. This trial will be the first RCT to look at Endocuff Vision in bowel cancer screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. We will aim to establish whether Endocuff vision improves ADR in this population.