The Infant KIdney Dialysis and Utrafiltration (I-KID) Study: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomized Study in Infants, Comparing Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Venovenous Hemofiltration, and Newcastle Infant Dialysis Ultrafiltration System, a Novel Infant Hemodialysis Device.

OBJECTIVES: Renal replacement therapy (RRT) options are limited for small babies because of lack of available technology. We investigated the precision of ultrafiltration, biochemical clearances, clinical efficacy, outcomes, and safety profile for a novel non-Conformité Européenne-marked hemodialysis device for babies under 8 kg, the Newcastle Infant Dialysis Ultrafiltration System (NIDUS), compared with the current options of peritoneal dialysis (PD) or continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH). DESIGN: Nonblinded cluster-randomized cross-sectional stepped-wedge design with four periods, three sequences, and two clusters per sequence. SETTING: Clusters were six U.K. PICUs. PATIENTS: Babies less than 8 kg requiring RRT for fluid overload or biochemical disturbance. INTERVENTIONS: In controls, RRT was delivered by PD or CVVH, and in interventions, NIDUS was used. The primary outcome was precision of ultrafiltration compared with prescription; secondary outcomes included biochemical clearances. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At closure, 97 participants were recruited from the six PICUs (62 control and 35 intervention). The primary outcome, obtained from 62 control and 21 intervention patients, showed that ultrafiltration with NIDUS was closer to that prescribed than with control: sd controls, 18.75, intervention, 2.95 (mL/hr); adjusted ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.71; p = 0.018. Creatinine clearance was smallest and least variable for PD (mean, sd ) = (0.08, 0.03) mL/min/kg, larger for NIDUS (0.46, 0.30), and largest for CVVH (1.20, 0.72). Adverse events were reported in all groups. In this critically ill population with multiple organ failure, mortality was lowest for PD and highest for CVVH, with NIDUS in between. CONCLUSIONS: NIDUS delivers accurate, controllable fluid removal and adequate clearances, indicating that it has important potential alongside other modalities for infant RRT.

Study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial of pramipexole in addition to mood stabilisers for patients with treatment resistant bipolar depression (the PAX-BD study).

BACKGROUND: Treatment Resistant Bipolar Depression (TRBD) is a major contributor to the burden of disease associated with Bipolar Disorder (BD). Treatment options for people experiencing bipolar depression are limited to three interventions listed by National Institute for Health and Care: lamotrigine, quetiapine and olanzapine, of which the latter two are often not well tolerated. The majority of depressed people with BD are therefore prescribed antidepressants despite limited efficacy. This demonstrates an unmet need for additional interventions. Pramipexole has been shown to improve mood symptoms in animal models of depression, in people with Parkinson's Disease and two proof of principle trials of pramipexole for people with BD who are currently depressed. METHODS: The PAX-BD study, funded by the United Kingdom (UK) National Institute for Health Research, aims to extend previous findings by assessing the efficacy, safety and health economic impact of pramipexole in addition to mood stabilisers for patients with TRBD. A randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled design is conducted in a naturalistic UK National Health Service setting. An internal pilot study to examine feasibility and acceptability of the study design is included. Participants with TRBD are screened from National Health Service secondary care services in up to 40 mental health trusts in the UK, with the aim of recruiting approximately 414 participants into a pre-randomisation phase to achieve a target of 290 randomised participants. Primary safety and efficacy measures are at 12 weeks following randomisation, with follow up of participants to 52 weeks. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms as measured by Quick Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology - Self Report. Secondary outcomes include changes in anxiety, manic symptoms, tolerability, acceptability, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Outcome measures are collected remotely using self-report tools implemented online, and observer-rated assessments conducted via telephone. ANCOVA will be used to examine the difference in rating scale scores between treatment arms, and dependent on compliance in completion of weekly self-report measures. A mixed effects linear regression model may also be used to account for repeated measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN72151939. Registered on 28 August 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN72151939 Protocol Version: 04-FEB-2021, Version 9.0.

Graves-PCD: protocol for a randomised, dose-finding, adaptive trial of the plasma cell-depleting agent daratumumab in severe Graves' disease.

INTRODUCTION: Severe Graves' disease is a life-changing condition with poor outcomes from currently available treatments. It is caused by directly pathogenic thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor-stimulating antibodies (TRAb), which are secreted from plasma cells. The human anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab was developed to target plasma cells which express high levels of CD38, and is currently licensed for treatment of the plasma cell malignancy, myeloma. However, it can also deplete benign plasma cells with the potential to reduce TRAb and alter the natural history of severe Graves' disease. This study aims to establish proof of concept that daratumumab has efficacy in patients with severe Graves' disease and will provide important data to inform a choice of dosing regimen for subsequent trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Graves-PCD trial aims to determine if daratumumab modulates the humoral immune response in patients with severe Graves' disease, and if so, over what time period, and to find an optimal dose. It is a single-blinded, randomised, dose-finding, adaptive trial using four different doses of daratumumab or placebo in 30 adult patients. Part 1 of the trial is dose-finding and, following an interim analysis, in part 2, the remaining patients will be randomised between the chosen dose(s) from the interim analysis or placebo. The primary outcome is the percentage change in serum TRAb from baseline to 12 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received a favourable ethical opinion from London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (reference 21/LO/0449). The results of this trial will be disseminated at international meetings, in the peer-reviewed literature and through partner patient group newsletters and presentations at patient education events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81162400.

Using the AR-V7 biomarker to determine treatment in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer, a feasibility randomised control trial, conclusions from the VARIANT trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

Background: Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in the UK. Castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) can be difficult to manage with response to next generation hormonal treatment variable. AR-V7 is a protein biomarker that can be used to predict response to treatment and potentially better inform management in these patients. Our aim was to establish the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical utility of AR-V7 biomarker assay in personalising treatments for patients with metastatic CRPC within the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS).  Due to a number of issues the trial was not completed successfully, we aim to discuss and share lessons learned herein. Methods: We conducted a randomised, open, feasibility trial, which aimed to recruit 70 adult men with metastatic CRPC within three secondary care NHS trusts in the UK to be run over an 18-month period. Participants were randomised to personalised treatment based on AR-V7 status (intervention) or standard care (control). The primary outcome was feasibility, which included: recruitment rate, retention and compliance. Additionally, a baseline prevalence of AR-V7 expression was to be estimated. Results: Fourteen participants were screened and 12 randomised with six into each arm over a nine-month period. Reliability issues with the AR-V7 assay meant prevalence was not estimated. Due to limited recruitment the study did not complete to target. Conclusions: Whilst the trial did not complete to target, we have ascertained that men with advanced cancer are willing to take part in trials utilising biomarker guided treatment. A number of issues were identified that serve as important learning points in future clinical trials.

Photobiomodulation in the management of oral mucositis for adult head and neck cancer patients receiving irradiation: the LiTEFORM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a debilitating and painful complication of head and neck cancer irradiation that is characterised by inflammation of the mucous membranes, erythema and ulceration. Oral mucositis affects 6000 head and neck cancer patients per year in England and Wales. Current treatments have not proven to be effective. International studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be an effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer irradiation. To identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing low-level laser therapy in routine care. DESIGN: Placebo-controlled, individually randomised, multicentre Phase III superiority trial, with an internal pilot and health economic and qualitative process evaluations. The participants, outcome assessors and therapists were blinded. SETTING: Nine NHS head and neck cancer sites in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 87 out of 380 participants were recruited who were aged ≥ 18 years and were undergoing head and neck cancer irradiation with ≥ 60 Gy. INTERVENTION: Random allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either low-level laser therapy or sham low-level laser therapy three times per week for the duration of irradiation. The diode laser had the following specifications: wavelength 660 nm, power output 75 mW, beam area 1.5 cm2, irradiance 50 mW/cm2, exposure time 60 seconds and fluence 3 J/cm2. There were 20-30 spots per session. Sham low-level laser therapy was delivered in an identical manner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks following the start of irradiation. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were screened and, of these, 87 were randomised (low-level laser therapy arm, n = 44; sham arm, n = 43). The mean age was 59.4 years (standard deviation 8.8 years) and 69 participants (79%) were male. The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks was 33.2 (standard deviation 10) in the low-level laser therapy arm and 27.4 (standard deviation 13.8) in the sham arm. LIMITATIONS: The trial lacked statistical power because it did not meet the recruitment target. Staff and patients willingly participated in the trial and worked hard to make the LiTEFORM trial succeed. However, the task of introducing, embedding and sustaining new low-level laser therapy services into a complex care pathway proved challenging. Sites could deliver low-level laser therapy to only a small number of patients at a time. The administration of low-level laser therapy was viewed as straightforward, but also time-consuming and sometimes uncomfortable for both patients and staff, particularly those staff who were not used to working in a patient's mouth. CONCLUSIONS: This trial had a robust design but lacked power to be definitive. Low-level laser therapy is relatively inexpensive. In contrast with previous trials, some patients found low-level laser therapy sessions to be difficult. The duration of low-level laser therapy sessions is, therefore, an important consideration. Clinicians experienced in oral cavity work most readily adapt to delivering low-level laser therapy, although other allied health professionals can be trained. Blinding the clinicians delivering low-level laser therapy is feasible. There are important human resource, real estate and logistical considerations for those setting up low-level laser therapy services. FUTURE WORK: Further well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating low-level laser therapy in head and neck cancer irradiation are needed, with similar powered recruitment targets but addressing the recruitment challenges and logistical findings from this research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14224600. 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. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 9 out of 10 head and neck cancer patients undergoing treatment experience pain, swelling and sores in their mouth (oral mucositis). This can lead to weight loss, painful ulcers, difficulty talking, eating and drinking, and even hospitalisation. Current care includes helping patients to keep their mouth and teeth clean, encouraging them to have a healthy diet and prescribing mouthwashes, painkillers and mouth-coating gels. However, these treatments give limited help in preventing or treating this condition. The LiTEFORM trial looked at whether or not low-level laser therapy could be used to prevent and treat oral mucositis. Patients were allocated to one of two arms at random: active laser or fake (sham) laser. Neither the patients nor the hospital staff knew which laser was being used. Eighty-seven people joined the study during the time allowed (44 received low-level laser therapy and 43 received sham treatment); however, this was a smaller number than the planned target of 380 people. As a result, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the results about whether the therapy is beneficial or cost-effective. People receiving the low-level laser therapy reported slightly more soreness in their mouth than those receiving the sham laser, but this could be down to chance. The number of participants is too small to draw conclusions about whether or not the low-level laser is helpful. Some patients found the laser treatment sessions to be difficult. Setting up a new service delivering laser therapy at the same time as cancer treatments was more complicated than originally anticipated. Problems included the scheduling of appointments, finding suitable rooms and having enough trained staff with time to deliver laser therapy. However, this study has provided us with knowledge on how best to set up a laser therapy service in the NHS as part of the cancer treatment pathway and the costs involved. These findings could help future studies looking into low-level laser therapy for those with head and neck cancer.

Targeting synovial fibroblast proliferation in rheumatoid arthritis (TRAFIC): an open-label, dose-finding, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Current rheumatoid arthritis therapies target immune inflammation and are subject to ceiling effects. Seliciclib is an orally available cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor that suppresses proliferation of synovial fibroblasts-cells not yet targeted in rheumatoid arthritis. Part 1 of this phase 1b/2a trial aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose of seliciclib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite ongoing treatment with TNF inhibitors, and to evaluate safety and pharmacokinetics. METHODS: Phase 1b of the TRAFIC study was a non-randomised, open-label, dose-finding trial done in rheumatology departments in five UK National Health Service hospitals. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) fulfilled the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) or the 2010 ACR-European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and had moderate to severe disease activity (a Disease Activity Score for 28 joints [DAS28] of ≥3·2) despite stable treatment with anti-TNF therapy for at least 3 months before enrolment. Participants were recruited sequentially to a maximum of seven cohorts of three participants each, designated to receive seliciclib 200 mg, 400 mg, 600 mg, 800 mg, or 1000 mg administered in 200 mg oral capsules. Sequential cohorts received doses determined by a restricted, one-stage Bayesian continual reassessment model, which determined the maximum tolerated dose (the primary outcome) based on a target dose-limiting toxicity rate of 35%. Seliciclib maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration time curve 0-6 h (AUC0-6) were measured. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN36667085. FINDINGS: Between Oct 8, 2015, and Aug 15, 2017, 37 patients were screened and 15 were enrolled to five cohorts and received seliciclib, after which the trial steering committee and the data monitoring committee determined that the maximum tolerated dose could be defined. In addition to a TNF inhibitor, ten (67%) enrolled patients were taking conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs. The maximum tolerated dose of seliciclib was 400 mg, with an estimated dose-limiting toxicity probability of 0·35 (90% posterior probability interval 0·18-0·52). Two serious adverse events occurred (one acute kidney injury in a patient receiving the 600 mg dose and one drug-induced liver injury in a patient receiving the 400 mg dose), both considered to be related to seliciclib and consistent with its known safety profile. 65 non-serious adverse events occurred during the trial, 50 of which were considered to be treatment related. Most treatment-related adverse events were mild; 20 of the treatment-related non-serious adverse events contributed to dose-limiting toxicities. There were no deaths. Average Cmax and AUC0-6 were two-times higher in participants developing dose-limiting toxicities. INTERPRETATION: The maximum tolerated dose of seliciclib has been defined for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to TNF blockade. No unexpected safety concerns were identified to preclude ongoing clinical evaluation in a formal efficacy trial. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, Cyclacel, Research into Inflammatory Arthritis Centre (Versus Arthritis), and the National Institute of Health Research Newcastle and Birmingham Biomedical Research Centres and Clinical Research Facilities.

Prostate cancer androgen receptor splice variant 7 biomarker study - a multicentre randomised feasibility trial of biomarker-guided personalised treatment in patients with advanced prostate cancer (the VARIANT trial) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is the most common male cancer with one in four developing non-curable metastatic disease. Initial treatment responses to hormonal therapies are transient and further management options lie between (1) further hormone therapy or (2) a non-hormonal approach involving additional chemotherapy or molecular radiotherapy (radium-223). There is no clear rationale for choosing between these mechanistically different treatment approaches. The biology of hormone resistance is driven through abnormal androgen receptor activity and we can assay this through a blood test measuring androgen receptor variant 7 (AR-V7) expression in circulating tumour cells. Despite increasing evidence supporting AR-V7's role as a prognostic marker, the clinical utility of such measures remains unknown in helping personalise treatment decisions. METHODS AND DESIGN: The VARIANT feasibility trial is a pragmatic design, to be run over 18 months with participants randomised into the intervention arm receiving biomarker (AR-V7) guided clinical treatment and participants randomised into the control arm with conventional standard management (no biomarker guidance). AR-V7 positive participants (likely to be insensitive to further hormone treatment) will receive chemotherapy or in other cases radium-223 (where routinely available). Seventy male ≥18 years old participants with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer clinically indicated to proceed to further hormone therapy or chemotherapy, will be recruited from three National Health Service Trusts based in England, Scotland and Wales. The feasibility primary outcome is willingness of patients to be randomised and clinicians to recruit to a biomarker-based treatment strategy, with trial data informing the basis of a definitive and appropriately powered randomised control trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics review was undertaken with a favourable opinion, through Wales NRES Committee 2 18/WA/0419. Findings to be disseminated through patient and professional organisations that have expressed their support, media outlets and peer-reviewed journal publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10246848; pre-results.