Optimising the analysis of vascular prevention trials: Re-Assessment of the TARDIS trial, the first prevention trial to adopt an ordinal primary outcome measure.

Background: Ordinalised vascular outcomes incorporating event severity are more informative than binary outcomes that just include event numbers. The TARDIS trial was the first vascular prevention study to use an ordinalised vascular outcome as its primary efficacy and safety measures and collected severity information for other vascular events. Methods: TARDIS was an international prospective randomised open-label blinded-endpoint trial assessing one month of intensive versus guideline antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute non-cardioembolic stroke or TIA. Vascular events and their severity were recorded up to final follow-up at 90 days post randomisation. For each outcome, statistical techniques compared ordinal/continuous (10 models) and dichotomous (5 models) analyses; results were then ranked with the smallest p-value being given the smallest rank. Outcomes were also assessed within the pre-defined subgroup of participants with mild stroke (NIHSS≤3), or TIA recruited within 24 h. Results: Ordinal versions of vascular event outcomes were created in 3096 participants for stroke, myocardial infarction, major cardiac events, bleeding events, serious adverse events and venous thromboembolism (VTE), with 32 outcomes being created overall (29 in the subgroup population due to the absence of VTE events). Overall, the tests run on ordinal outcomes tended to rank higher than tests performed on binary outcomes. 764 (24.7%) participants were recruited within 24 h of a mild stroke/TIA; again, tests run on ordinal outcomes ranked higher. Conclusions: In TARDIS, tests performed on ordinal vascular outcomes tended to attain a higher rank than those performed on binary outcomes. Trial registration: ISRCTN47823388.

Bleeding with intensive versus guideline antiplatelet therapy in acute cerebral ischaemia.

Intensive antiplatelet therapy did not reduce recurrent stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) events as compared with guideline treatment in the Triple Antiplatelets for Reducing Dependency after Ischaemic Stroke (TARDIS) trial, but did increase the frequency and severity of bleeding. In this pre-specified analysis, we investigated predictors of bleeding and the association of bleeding with outcome. TARDIS was an international prospective randomised open-label blinded-endpoint trial in participants with ischaemic stroke or TIA within 48 h of onset. Participants were randomised to 30 days of intensive antiplatelet therapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, dipyridamole) or guideline-based therapy (either clopidogrel alone or combined aspirin and dipyridamole). Bleeding was defined using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis five-level ordered categorical scale: fatal, major, moderate, minor, none. Of 3,096 participants, bleeding severity was: fatal 0.4%, major 1.5%, moderate 1.2%, minor 11.4%, none 85.5%. Major/fatal bleeding was increased with intensive as compared with guideline therapy: 39 vs. 17 participants, adjusted hazard ratio 2.21, 95% CI 1.24-3.93, p = 0.007. Bleeding events diverged between treatment groups in the 8-35 day period but not in the 0-7 or 36-90 day epochs. In multivariate analysis more, and more severe, bleeding events were seen with increasing age, female sex, pre-morbid dependency, increased time to randomisation, prior major bleed, prior antiplatelet therapy and in those randomised to triple vs guideline antiplatelet therapy. More severe bleeding was associated with worse clinical outcomes across multiple physical, emotional and quality of life domains.Trial registration ISRCTN47823388 .

Mental health in clinically referred children and young people before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic and mitigation approaches, including lockdowns and school closures, are thought to have negatively impacted children and young people's (CYP) mental health. However, the impact for clinically referred CYP is less clear. We investigated differences in the mental health of CYP referred to specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) before and since the onset of the pandemic. Using baseline data (self- and parent- completed Mood and Feelings Questionnaire and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) from an ongoing RCT (STADIA; ISRCTN: 15748675) in England involving 5-17-year-olds with emotional difficulties recently referred to CAMHS (non-urgent referrals), with repeated cross-sectional comparisons of CYP (n = 1028) recruited during 5 different time  periods: (1) Before schools were closed (Group 1 (pre-pandemic); n = 308; 27.08.2019-20.03.2020). (2) Early pandemic period until schools fully re-opened, which included the first national lockdown, its easing and the summer holidays (Group 2 (in-pandemic); n = 183; 21.03.2020-31.08.2020). (3) The following school-term-schools fully re-opened and remained open, including during the second national lockdown (Group 3 (in-pandemic); n = 204; 01.09.2020-18.12.2020). (4) Schools closed as part of the third national lockdown (Group 4 (in-pandemic); n = 101; 05.01.2021-07.03.2021). (5) Schools re-opened and remained open, until the school summer holidays (Group 5 (in-pandemic); n = 232; 08.03.2021-16.07.2021). Most CYP scored above cutoff for emotional problems and depression, with three-quarters meeting criteria for a probable disorder ('caseness'). The groups did not differ on parent-rated mental health measures. However, self-rated emotional problems, depression, functional impairment and caseness appeared to be higher amongst participants recruited in the two periods following school re-openings. In particular, functional impairment and caseness were greater in Group 5 compared with Group 2. Although symptom severity or impairment did not change in the initial pandemic period, self-reported difficulties were greater during the periods after schools re-opened. This suggests possible greater stresses in the adjustment to re-starting school following recurrent lockdowns and school closures.

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of digital hearing aids in patients with tinnitus and hearing loss: a randomised feasibility trial (THE HUSH Trial).

BACKGROUND: Education and advice is provided for tinnitus management in all UK audiology clinics. Sound therapy, including provision of hearing aids may be offered, but this is often dependent on a clinician's decision rather than UK policy. This inconsistent management reflects a lack of evidence around the effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus. This open-label, two-arm multicentre randomised controlled feasibility trial gathered data around recruitment, acceptability and outcome assessments to determine the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus management. METHODS: Adults referred to audiology for tinnitus, with an aidable hearing loss were recruited at five UK audiology clinics. They were randomised 1:1 to either education and advice (treatment as usual (TAU), n = 41) or TAU plus hearing aids (n = 42). Outcomes were collected by questionnaires 12 weeks after randomisation. After participation, interviews were conducted with a subset of both participants and clinicians from each trial centre. RESULTS: Eighty three participants from five sites were randomised. Non-aidable hearing loss was the main reason for ineligibility to participate in the trial reported by the sites. Seventy three percent of participants returned the 12-week questionnaires, with return rates by site ranging from 61 to 100%. Fifteen out of 33 participants (45%) reported using hearing aids for the clinician-recommended time, or longer, during the day. The Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) was the outcome measure most responsive to change. The majority of participants also agreed it was relevant to their tinnitus and hearing loss. Qualitative data demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to participants. Feedback from clinicians revealed a potential lack of equipoise. It also highlighted the differences in referral and treatment pathways between departments and differences in audiometric criteria for fitting hearing aids. Health economic measures were well completed for those returned. No change in health-related quality of life was observed. Costs were higher in the intervention arm, but self-reports of healthcare service use indicated participant confusion in treatment pathways. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility trial is the first step towards obtaining high quality evidence to determine potential clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus versus usual care. A definitive trial was deemed to be feasible, with some modifications based on feasibility findings and using the TFI as the primary outcome. This trial was funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit Programme (PB-PG-0816-20,014) and registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14218416).

STAndardised DIagnostic Assessment for children and young people with emotional difficulties (STADIA): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Emotional disorders (such as anxiety and depression) are associated with considerable distress and impairment in day-to-day function for affected children and young people and for their families. Effective evidence-based interventions are available but require appropriate identification of difficulties to enable timely access to services. Standardised diagnostic assessment (SDA) tools may aid in the detection of emotional disorders, but there is limited evidence on the utility of SDA tools in routine care and equipoise among professionals about their clinical value. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial, with embedded qualitative and health economic components. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the Development and Well-Being Assessment SDA tool as an adjunct to usual clinical care, or usual care only. A total of 1210 participants (children and young people referred to outpatient, specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services with emotional difficulties and their parent/carers) will be recruited from at least 6 sites in England. The primary outcome is a clinician-made diagnosis about the presence of an emotional disorder within 12 months of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include referral acceptance, diagnosis and treatment of emotional disorders, symptoms of emotional difficulties and comorbid disorders and associated functional impairment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received favourable opinion from the South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 19/WM/0133). Results of this trial will be reported to the funder and published in full in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Journal series and also submitted for publication in a peer reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15748675; Pre-results.

Trends in hospital admissions for childhood fractures in England.

Purpose: Fractures to the axial and appendicular skeleton are common in children causing loss of opportunities and disability. There are relatively few studies available to quantify the number of children who have their fractures diagnosed in the emergency department and are then admitted to hospital for ongoing management. The purpose of this study is to explore trends of frequency, types and age of children sustaining fractures who were admitted for intervention to National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. Design: The study uses data from the Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics from 2012 to 2019 to calculate the annual incidence of hospital admission for limb, spine, facial and skull fractures per 100 000 children. Results: During 2012-2019, 368 120 children were admitted to English NHS hospitals with a fracture. 256 008 (69.5%) were upper limb fractures, 85 737 (23.3%) were lower limb fractures and 20 939 (5.7%) were skull or facial fractures. The annual incidence of upper limb fractures was highest in children aged 5-9 (348.3 per 100 000 children) and the highest incidence of lower limb fractures was in children aged 10-15 (126.5 per 100 000 children). The incidence of skull and facial fractures in preschool (age 0-4) children has been increasing at a rate of 0.629 per 100 000 children per year. Implications: The annual incidence of hospital admission for fractures in children has been shown to be consistent for several fracture types between 2012 and 2019. An increasing trend of admissions with preschool skull fractures was observed, though the study data do not have sufficient granularity to demonstrate if this is due to changes in practice or to accidental or non-accidental causes.

Development of the CORE-Kids core set of outcome domains for studies of childhood limb fractures.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to develop a core set of outcome domains that should be considered and reported in all future trials of childhood limb fractures. METHODS: A four-phase study was conducted to agree a set of core outcome domains. Identification of candidate outcome domains were identified through systematic review of trials, and outcome domains relevant to families were identified through semi-structured interviews with 20 families (parent-child pairing or group). Outcome domains were prioritized using an international three-round Delphi survey with 205 panellists and then condensed into a core outcome set through a consensus workshop with 30 stakeholders. RESULTS: The systematic review and interviews identified 85 outcome domains as relevant to professionals or families. The Delphi survey prioritized 30 upper and 29 lower limb outcome domains at first round, an additional 17 upper and 18 lower limb outcomes at second round, and four additional outcomes for upper and lower limb at the third round as important domains. At the consensus workshop, the core outcome domains were agreed as: 1) pain and discomfort; 2) return to physical and recreational activities; 3) emotional and psychosocial wellbeing; 4) complications from the injury and treatment; 5) rturn to baseline activities daily living; 6) participation in learning; 7) appearance and deformity; and 8) time to union. In addition, 9a) recovery of mobility and 9b) recovery of manual dexterity was recommended as a core outcome for lower and upper limb fractures, respectively. CONCLUSION: This set of core outcome domains is recommended as a minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials. It is not an exhaustive set and further work is required to identify what outcome tools should be used to measure each of these outcomes. Adoption of this outcome set will improve the consistency of research for these children that can be combined for more meaningful meta-analyses and policy development. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1821-1830.

Correction: A Direct-to-Public Peer Support Program (Big White Wall) Versus Web-Based Information to Aid the Self-management of Depression and Anxiety: Results and Challenges of an Automated Randomized Controlled Trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/23487.].

A Direct-to-Public Peer Support Program (Big White Wall) Versus Web-Based Information to Aid the Self-management of Depression and Anxiety: Results and Challenges of an Automated Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective help for depression and anxiety reaches a small proportion of people who might benefit from it. The scale of the problem suggests the need for effective, safe web-based public health services delivered directly to the public. One model, the Big White Wall (BWW), offers peer support at low cost. As these interventions are delivered digitally, we tested whether a randomized controlled trial (RCT) intervention could also be fully delivered and evaluated digitally. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the reach, feasibility, acceptability, baseline costs, and outcomes of a public health campaign for an automated RCT of the BWW, providing digital peer support and information, compared with a standard website used by the National Health Service Moodzone (MZ), to people with probable mild-to-moderate depression and anxiety disorder. The primary outcome was the change in self-rated well-being at 6 weeks, measured using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale. METHODS: An 18-month campaign was conducted across Nottinghamshire, the United Kingdom (target population 914,000) to advertise the trial directly to the public through general marketing, web-based and social media sources, health services, other public services, and third-sector groups. The population reach of this campaign was examined by the number of people accessing the study website and self-registering to the study. A pragmatic, parallel-group, single-blind RCT was then conducted using a fully automated trial website in which eligible participants were randomized to receive either 6 months of access to BWW or signposted to MZ. Those eligible for participation were aged >16 years with probable mild-to-moderate depression or anxiety disorders. RESULTS: Of 6483 visitors to the study website, 1510 (23.29%) were eligible. Overall, 790 of 1510 (52.32%) visitors participated. Of 790 visitors, 397 (50.3%) were randomized to BWW and 393 (49.7%) to MZ. Their mean age was 38 (SD 13.8) years, 81.0% (640/790) were female, 93.4% (738/790) were White, and 47.4% (271/572) had no contact with health services in the previous 3 months. We estimated 3-month productivity losses of £1001.01 (95% CI 868.75-1133.27; US $1380.79; 95% CI 1198.35-1563.23) per person for those employed. Only 16.6% (131/790) participants completed the primary outcome assessment. There were no differences in the primary or secondary outcomes between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants reached and those eligible for this trial of digital interventions were White women not in recent contact with health services and whose productivity losses represent a significant annual societal burden. A fully automated RCT recruiting directly from the public failed to recruit and retain sufficient participants to test the clinical effectiveness of this digital intervention, primarily because it did not personally engage participants and explain how these unfamiliar interventions might benefit them. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 12673428; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12673428. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.8061.

Optimising medication management in children and young people with ADHD using a computerised test (QbTest): a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) should be closely monitored to ensure optimisation. There is growing interest in using computerised assessments of ADHD symptoms to support medication monitoring. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy of one such computerised assessment, the Quantified Behavior (Qb) Test, as part of medication management for ADHD. METHODS: This feasibility multi-site RCT conducted in child and adolescent mental health and community paediatric settings recruited participants aged 6-15 years diagnosed with ADHD starting stimulant medication. Participants were randomised into one of two arms: experimental (QbTest protocol) where participants completed a QbTest at baseline and two follow-up QbTests on medication (2-4 weeks and 8-10 weeks later) and control where participants received treatment as usual, including at least two follow-up consultations. Measures of parent, teacher, and clinician-rated symptoms and global functioning were completed at each time point. Clinicians recorded treatment decision-making and health economic measures were obtained. Data were analysed using multi-level modelling and participants (children and parents) and clinicians were interviewed about their experiences, resulting data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Forty-four children and young people were randomised. Completion of study outcome measures by care-givers and teachers ranged from 52 to 78% at baseline to 47-65% at follow-up. Participants reported the questionnaires to be useful to complete. SNAP-IV inattention scores showed greater reduction in the intervention than the control group (- 5.85, 95% CI - 10.33, - 1.36,). Engagement with the intervention ranged from 100% at baseline, to 78% follow-up 1 and 57% follow-up 2. However, only 37% of QbTests were conducted in the correct time period. Interview data highlighted that the objectivity of the QbTest was appreciated by clinicians and parents. Clinicians commented that the additional time and resources required meant that it is not feasible to use QbTest for all cases. CONCLUSION: The trial design and protocol appear to be feasible and acceptable but could be improved by modifying QbTest time periods and the method of data collection. With these changes, the protocol may be appropriate for a full trial. Adding QbTest may improve symptom outcome as measured by SNAP-IV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03368573 , prospectively registered, 11th December 2017, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN69461593 , retrospectively registered, 10th April 2018.

Safety and cost-effectiveness of individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR open-label, equivalence RCT.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Using variable diabetic retinopathy screening intervals, informed by personal risk levels, offers improved engagement of people with diabetes and reallocation of resources to high-risk groups, while addressing the increasing prevalence of diabetes. However, safety data on extending screening intervals are minimal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of individualised, variable-interval, risk-based population screening compared with usual care, with wide-ranging input from individuals with diabetes. METHODS: This was a two-arm, parallel-assignment, equivalence RCT (minimum 2 year follow-up) in individuals with diabetes aged 12 years or older registered with a single English screening programme. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 at baseline to individualised screening at 6, 12 or 24 months for those at high, medium and low risk, respectively, as determined at each screening episode by a risk-calculation engine using local demographic, screening and clinical data, or to annual screening (control group). Screening staff and investigators were observer-masked to allocation and interval. Data were collected within the screening programme. The primary outcome was attendance (safety). A secondary safety outcome was the development of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated within a 2 year time horizon from National Health Service and societal perspectives. RESULTS: A total of 4534 participants were randomised. After withdrawals, there were 2097 participants in the individualised screening arm and 2224 in the control arm. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent between the two arms (individualised screening 83.6%; control arm 84.7%; difference -1.0 [95% CI -3.2, 1.2]), while sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection rates were non-inferior in the individualised screening arm (individualised screening 1.4%, control arm 1.7%; difference -0.3 [95% CI -1.1, 0.5]). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. No important adverse events were observed. Mean differences in complete case quality-adjusted life-years (EuroQol Five-Dimension Questionnaire, Health Utilities Index Mark 3) did not significantly differ from zero; multiple imputation supported the dominance of individualised screening. Incremental cost savings per person with individualised screening were £17.34 (95% CI 17.02, 17.67) from the National Health Service perspective and £23.11 (95% CI 22.73, 23.53) from the societal perspective, representing a 21% reduction in overall programme costs. Overall, 43.2% fewer screening appointments were required in the individualised arm. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Stakeholders involved in diabetes care can be reassured by this study, which is the largest ophthalmic RCT in diabetic retinopathy screening to date, that extended and individualised, variable-interval, risk-based screening is feasible and can be safely and cost-effectively introduced in established systematic programmes. Because of the 2 year time horizon of the trial and the long time frame of the disease, robust monitoring of attendance and retinopathy rates should be included in any future implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 87561257 FUNDING: The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research. Graphical abstract.

Connectivity guided theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation versus repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant moderate to severe depression: study protocol for a randomised double-blind controlled trial (BRIGhTMIND).

INTRODUCTION: The BRIGhTMIND study aims to determine the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and mechanism of action of connectivity guided intermittent theta burst stimulation (cgiTBS) versus standard repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in adults with moderate to severe treatment resistant depression. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a randomised double-blind controlled trial with 1:1 allocation to either 20 sessions of (1) cgiTBS or (2) neuronavigated rTMS not using connectivity guidance. A total of 368 eligible participants with a diagnosis of current unipolar major depressive disorder that is both treatment resistant (defined as scoring 2 or more on the Massachusetts General Hospital Staging Score) and moderate to severe (scoring >16 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17)), will be recruited from primary and secondary care settings at four treatment centres in the UK. The primary outcome is depression response at 16 weeks (50% or greater reduction in HDRS-17 score from baseline). Secondary outcomes include assessments of self-rated depression, anxiety, psychosocial functioning, cognition and quality of life at 8, 16 and 26 weeks postrandomisation. Cost-effectiveness, patient acceptability, safety, mechanism of action and predictors of response will also be examined. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by East Midlands Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee (ref: 18/EM/0232) on 30 August 2018. The results of the study will be published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, and then through professional and public conferences and media. Further publications will explore patient experience, moderators and mediators of outcome and mechanism of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN19674644.

CORE-Kids: a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for childhood fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Limb fractures in children are common yet there are few trials that compare treatments for these injuries. There is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes reported in the paediatric orthopaedic literature, which limits the ability to compare study results and draw firm conclusions. The aim of the CORE-Kids Study is to develop a core outcome set for use in research studies of childhood limb fractures. A core outcome set will provide a minimum set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to minimise the heterogeneity of outcomes reported and minimise reporting bias. A core outcome set ensures that outcomes are reported that are relevant to families as well as clinicians. The core outcome set will include additional upper and lower limb modules. METHODS: The development of the core outcome set will require four phases to evaluate:What are the outcomes that are relevant to professionals?What are the outcomes that are relevant to families?What are the most important of these outcomes?Which outcomes should be included in the core outcome set?This will be completed through a systematic review of trials to identify the outcomes domains that are relevant to trialists. A series of semi-structured interviews will be completed with families to identify the outcome domains that are relevant to families. These outcome domains will be used in a three-round Delphi Study to analyse the importance of these outcome domains to a range of stakeholders including parents, clinicians and researchers. Following this, the core outcome set will be decided at a consensus meeting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been awarded HRA/REC IRAS number 262503. Date of approval 06/08/2019. Dissemination will be through scientific literature and international societies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1274. Date of registration 13/12/2018. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018106605.

The ESCAPS study: a feasibility randomized controlled trial of early electrical stimulation to the wrist extensors and flexors to prevent post-stroke complications of pain and contractures in the paretic arm.

OBJECTIVE: To establish feasibility of initiating electrical stimulation treatment of wrist extensors and flexors in patients early after stroke to prevent muscle contractures and pain. DESIGN: Feasibility randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation. SETTING: A specialist stroke unit in Nottinghamshire. SUBJECTS: A total of 40 patients recruited within 72 hours post-stroke with arm hemiparesis. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive usual care or usual care and electrical stimulation to wrist flexors and extensors for 30 minutes, twice a day, five days a week for three months. Initial treatment was delivered by an occupational therapist or physiotherapist who trained participants to self-manage subsequent treatments. MEASURES: Measures of feasibility included recruitment and attrition rates, completion of treatment, and successful data collection. Outcome data on wrist range of motion, pain, arm function, independence, quality of life, and resource use were measured at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-randomization. RESULTS: A total of 40 participants (of 215 potentially eligible) were recruited in 15 months (20 men; mean age: 72 (SD: 13.0)). Half the participants lacked mental capacity and were recruited by consultee consent. Attrition at three-month follow-up was 12.5% (death (n = 2), end-of-life care (n = 2), and unable to contact (n = 1)). Compliance varied (mean: 65 (SD: 53)) and ranged from 10 to 166 treatments per patient (target dosage was 120). Data for a valid economic analysis can be adequately collected. CONCLUSION: Early initiation of electrical stimulation was acceptable and feasible. Data collection methods used were feasible and acceptable to participants. A large definitive study is needed to determine if electrical stimulation is efficacious and cost effective.

Individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR study-rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial comparing annual and individualised risk-based variable-interval screening.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, all people with diabetes (PWD) aged 12 years and over in the UK are invited for screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) annually. Resources are not increasing despite a 5% increase in the numbers of PWD nationwide each year. We describe the rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of personalised variable-interval risk-based screening for DR. This is the first randomised trial of personalised screening for DR and the largest ophthalmic RCT in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PWD attending seven screening clinics in the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Screening Programme were recruited into a single site RCT with a 1:1 allocation to individualised risk-based variable-interval or annual screening intervals. A risk calculation engine developed for the trial estimates the probability that an individual will develop referable disease (screen positive DR) within the next 6, 12 or 24 months using demographic, retinopathy and systemic risk factor data from primary care and screening programme records. Dynamic, secure, real-time data connections have been developed. The primary outcome is attendance for follow-up screening. We will test for equivalence in attendance rates between the two arms. Secondary outcomes are rates and severity of DR, visual outcomes, cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life. The required sample size was 4460 PWD. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from National Research Ethics Service Committee North West - Preston, reference 14/NW/0034. Results will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. This pragmatic RCT will inform screening policy in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN87561257; Pre-results.

Consensus workshops on the development of an ADHD medication management protocol using QbTest: developing a clinical trial protocol with multidisciplinary stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: The study design and protocol that underpin a randomised controlled trial (RCT) are critical for the ultimate success of the trial. Although RCTs are considered the gold standard for research, there are multiple threats to their validity such as participant recruitment and retention, identifying a meaningful change, and non-adherence to the protocol. For clinical RCTs, involving patients and clinicians in protocol design provides the opportunity to develop research protocols that are meaningful to their target audience and may help overcome some of the inherent threats in conducting RCTs. However, the majority of protocols do not describe the methodology underpinning their development, limiting the amount of learned experience shared between research groups. METHOD: With the purpose of reporting a collaborative approach towards developing a protocol, we present the findings from three sequential workshops that were conducted with the aim of developing a protocol to investigate the feasibility of adding a computerised test of attention, impulsivity and activity (QbTest) to medication management of children and young people with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Based on previous qualitative interviews with clinicians and families, each workshop prioritised topics for focused discussion. Information from the workshops was fed back to the participants for reflection in advance of the next workshop. RESULTS: The workshops involved 21 multi-disciplinary ADHD experts, including clinicians, patient and public involvement (PPI) members, parents of young people with ADHD and researchers. The consensus workshops addressed key research issues such as: the most relevant outcome measures/ resource drivers; methods and time points for data collection; and the clinical protocol for utilising the QbTest, including when best to use this within the medication management process. The resulting protocol details a feasibility RCT design describing these factors. CONCLUSION: Protocols which are co-developed may help overcome some of the risks associated with RCT completion (e.g. recruitment, retention, protocol adherence) and help prioritise outcomes of greater relevance to the populations under study. The methodology has potential value for researchers and organisations developing clinical guidelines, and offers insights into the valuable impact of PPI upon trial design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03368573, 11th December 2017 (retrospectively registered).

Clinical and economic outcomes of remotely delivered cognitive behaviour therapy versus treatment as usual for repeat unscheduled care users with severe health anxiety: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It is challenging to engage repeat users of unscheduled healthcare with severe health anxiety in psychological help and high service costs are incurred. We investigated whether clinical and economic outcomes were improved by offering remote cognitive behaviour therapy (RCBT) using videoconferencing or telephone compared to treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: A single-blind, parallel group, multicentre randomised controlled trial was undertaken in primary and general hospital care. Participants were aged ≥18 years with ≥2 unscheduled healthcare contacts within 12 months and scored >18 on the Health Anxiety Inventory. Randomisation to RCBT or TAU was stratified by site, with allocation conveyed to a trial administrator, research assessors masked to outcome. Data were collected at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome was change in HAI score from baseline to six months on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes were generalised anxiety, depression, physical symptoms, function and overall health. Health economics analysis was conducted from a health service and societal perspective. RESULTS: Of the 524 patients who were referred and assessed for trial eligibility, 470 were eligible and 156 (33%) were recruited; 78 were randomised to TAU and 78 to RCBT. Compared to TAU, RCBT significantly reduced health anxiety at six months, maintained to 9 and 12 months (mean change difference HAI -2.81; 95% CI -5.11 to -0.50; P = 0.017). Generalised anxiety, depression and overall health was significantly improved at 12 months, but there was no significant change in physical symptoms or function. RCBT was strictly dominant with a net monetary benefit of £3,164 per participant at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000. No treatment-related adverse events were reported in either group. CONCLUSIONS: RCBT may reduce health anxiety, general anxiety and depression and improve overall health, with considerable reductions in health and informal care costs in repeat users of unscheduled care with severe health anxiety who have previously been difficult to engage in psychological treatment. RCBT may be an easy-to-implement intervention to improve clinical outcome and save costs in one group of repeat users of unscheduled care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 Nov 2014 with reference number NCT02298036.

Bathing adaptations in the homes of older adults (BATH-OUT): results of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Housing adaptations have been identified as an important environmental and prevention intervention for older adults, which may improve health and quality of life. The onset of disability in bathing can act as a warning for further disability in other activities and may therefore be a judicious time-point for intervention. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of conducting a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of bathing adaptations, to evaluate whether they improve older adults' perceived health status and quality of life, prevent further functional deterioration, and reduce the use of other health and social care resources. This study was conducted in preparation for a powered RCT. METHOD: Eligibility criteria were aged > 65 and referred to local authority housing adaptations service for an accessible flush-floor shower. Participants were randomised to either usual adaptations (3-4 month wait) or immediate adaptations (no wait). Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6 and 9 months and included perceived physical and mental health status, health and social care related quality of life, independence in activities of daily living (ADL) and bathing, and falls. Data on costs and the use of health and social care resources were collected during follow-up in order to inform a definitive health economic evaluation. RESULTS: Sixty participants were recruited and randomised, 31 to immediate adaptations and 29 to waiting list control. Mean age was 77(SD8), 58% women and 58% living alone. Follow-ups were completed with 90, 85 and 72% at 3, 6 and 9 months respectively. Adaptations were delivered to 65% of participants within the requisite timescales as there were delays with some privately owned properties. There were improvements from baseline in both groups on all outcome measures following the completion of the adaptations. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first RCT of housing adaptations in the UK. We demonstrated the feasibility of using a waiting list control, subject to minor alterations to the timescales for privately owned properties. A powered trial would evaluate the impact on older adults' quality of life and investigate the impact of waiting times on functional outcomes and health and care resource use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14876332 Registered 12 July 2016.

Triple versus guideline antiplatelet therapy to prevent recurrence after acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: the TARDIS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Two antiplatelet agents are better than one for preventing recurrent stroke after acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Therefore, intensive treatment with three agents might be better still, providing it does not cause undue bleeding. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of intensive therapy with guideline antiplatelet therapy for acute ischaemic stroke and TIA. DESIGN: International prospective randomised open-label blinded end-point parallel-group superiority clinical trial. SETTING: Acute hospitals at 106 sites in four countries. PARTICIPANTS: Patients > 50 years of age with acute non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or TIA within 48 hours of ictus (stroke). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were allocated at random by computer to 1 month of intensive (combined aspirin, clopidogrel and dipyridamole) or guideline (combined aspirin and dipyridamole, or clopidogrel alone) antiplatelet agents, and followed for 90 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence and severity of any recurrent stroke (ischaemic, haemorrhagic; assessed using the modified Rankin Scale) or TIA within 90 days by blinded telephone follow-up. Analysis using ordinal logistic regression was by intention to treat. Other outcomes included bleeding and its severity, death, myocardial infarction (MI), disability, mood, cognition and quality of life. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early on the recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee after recruitment of 3096 participants (intensive, n = 1556; guideline, n = 1540) from 106 hospitals in four countries between April 2009 and March 2016. The incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA did not differ between intensive and guideline therapy in 3070 (99.2%) participants with data [93 vs. 105 stroke/TIA events; adjusted common odds ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.20; p = 0.47]. Major (encompassing fatal) bleeding was increased with intensive as compared with guideline therapy [39 vs. 17 participants; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.23, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.96; p = 0.006]. There were no differences between the treatment groups in all-cause mortality, or the composite of death, stroke, MI and major bleeding (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35; p = 0.88). LIMITATIONS: Patients and investigators were not blinded to treatment. The comparator group comprised two guideline strategies because of changes in national guidelines during the trial. The trial was stopped early, thereby reducing its statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: The use of three antiplatelet agents is associated with increased bleeding without any significant reduction in recurrence of stroke or TIA. FUTURE WORK: The safety and efficacy of dual antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin and clopidogrel) versus aspirin remains to be defined. Further research is required on identifying individual patient response to antiplatelets, and the relationship between response and the subsequent risks of vascular recurrent events and bleeding complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47823388. 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. 22, No. 48. See the NIHR Journal Library website for further project information. The Triple Antiplatelets for Reducing Dependency after Ischaemic Stroke (TARDIS) vanguard phase was funded by the British Heart Foundation (grant PG/08/083/25779, from 1 April 2009 to 30 September 2012) and indirect funding was provided by the Stroke Association through its funding of the Stroke Trials Unit, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. There was no commercial support for the trial and antiplatelet drugs were sourced locally at each site. The trial was sponsored by the University of Nottingham.