Text Messages With Financial Incentives for Men With Obesity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Effective weight loss interventions are needed for men with obesity. Objective: To determine whether an intervention that combined text messaging with financial incentives attained significant weight loss at the 12-month follow-up compared with the control group and whether an intervention of text messaging alone attained significant weight loss at the 12-month follow-up compared with the control group. Design, Setting, and Participants: An assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial conducted in Belfast, Bristol, and Glasgow areas in the UK. A total of 585 men with body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more were enrolled between July 2021 and May 2022. Final follow-up occurred June 2023. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to 12 months of behavioral focused text messages combined with financial incentives (n = 196), 12 months of behavioral focused text messages alone (n= 194), or a waiting list (control group; n= 195). The financial incentive consisted of a monetary reward that was lost if weight loss targets were not met. All participants received weight management information and a pedometer at baseline. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 2 primary comparisons were the 12-month comparison of within-participant weight change between the text messaging with financial incentive group and the control group and the comparison between the text messaging alone group and the control group (minimum clinically important difference, 3%). The P value defined for statistical significance was P < .025 for each comparison. Results: Of the 585 men (mean [SD] age, 50.7 [13.3] years; mean weight, 118.5 [19.9] kg; mean BMI, 37.7 [5.7]; 525 [90%] White), 227 (39%) lived in postal code areas with lower socioeconomic status, and 426 (73%) completed the 12-month follow-up. At the 12-month follow-up, compared with the control group, the mean percent weight change was significantly greater in the text messaging with financial incentive group (mean difference, -3.2%; 97.5% CI, -4.6% to -1.9%; P < .001) but was not significantly greater in the text messaging alone group (mean difference, -1.4%; 97.5% CI, -2.9% to 0.0, P = .05). The mean (SD) weight changes were -5.7 (7.4) kg for the text messaging with financial incentives group, -3.0 (7.5) kg for the text messaging alone group, and -1.5 (6.6) kg for the control group. The 12-month mean (SD) percentage weight changes from baseline were -4.8% (6.1%) for the text messaging with financial incentives group, -2.7% (6.3%) for text messaging alone group, and -1.3% (5.5%) for the control group. Of 366 adverse events reported, the most common were infections (83 [23%]). Of the 23 serious adverse events (6.3%), 12 (52%) occurred in the text messaging with financial incentives group, 5 (22%) in the texts messaging alone group, and 6 (26%) in the control group. None were considered related to participating in a trial group. Conclusion and Relevance: Among men with obesity, an intervention with text messaging with financial incentive significantly improved weight loss compared with a control group, whereas text messaging alone was not significantly better than the control condition. These findings support text messaging combined with financial incentives to attain weight loss in men with obesity. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN91974895.

Bisoprolol in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease at High Risk of Exacerbation: The BICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Observational studies report that ß-blocker use may be associated with reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. However, a recent trial reported that metoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations and increased COPD exacerbations requiring hospital admission. Objective: To test whether bisoprolol decreased COPD exacerbations in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbations. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bisoprolol in COPD Study (BICS) was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in 76 UK sites (45 primary care clinics and 31 secondary clinics). Patients with COPD who had at least moderate airflow obstruction on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] to forced vital capacity <0.7; FEV1 <80% predicted) and at least 2 COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both in the prior 12 months were enrolled from October 17, 2018, to May 31, 2022. Follow-up concluded on April 18, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to bisoprolol (n = 261) or placebo (n = 258). Bisoprolol was started at 1.25 mg orally daily and was titrated as tolerated during 4 sessions to a maximum dose of 5 mg/d, using a standardized protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was the number of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both during the 1-year treatment period. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events and adverse reactions. Results: Although the trial planned to enroll 1574 patients, recruitment was suspended from March 16, 2020, to July 31, 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients in each group were excluded postrandomization. Among the 515 patients (mean [SD] age, 68 [7.9] years; 274 men [53%]; mean FEV1, 50.1%), primary outcome data were available for 514 patients (99.8%) and 371 (72.0%) continued taking the study drug. The primary outcome of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both was 526 in the bisoprolol group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.03/y, vs 513 exacerbations in the placebo group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.01/y. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P = .72). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 of 255 patients in the bisoprolol group (14.5%) vs 36 of 251 in the placebo group (14.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.66; P = .96). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce the number of self-reported COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10497306.

Effectiveness of conservative management versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the prevention of recurrent symptoms and complications in adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease (C-GALL trial): pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of conservative management compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the prevention of symptoms and complications in adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. DESIGN: Parallel group, pragmatic randomised, superiority trial. SETTING: 20 secondary care centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 434 adults (>18 years) with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease referred to secondary care, assessed for eligibility between August 2016 and November 2019, and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive conservative management or laparoscopic cholecystectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Conservative management or surgical removal of the gallbladder. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary patient outcome was quality of life, measured by area under the curve, over 18 months using the short form 36 (SF-36) bodily pain domain, with higher scores (range 0-100) indicating better quality of life. Other outcomes included costs to the NHS, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: Of 2667 patients assessed for eligibility, 434 were randomised: 217 to the conservative management group and 217 to the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group. By 18 months, 54 (25%) participants in the conservative management arm and 146 (67%) in the cholecystectomy arm had received surgery. The mean SF-36 norm based bodily pain score was 49.4 (standard deviation 11.7) in the conservative management arm and 50.4 (11.6) in the cholecystectomy arm. The SF-36 bodily pain area under the curve up to 18 months did not differ (mean difference 0.0, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to 1.7; P=1.00). Conservative management was less costly (mean difference -£1033, (-$1334; -€1205), 95% credible interval -£1413 to -£632) and QALYs did not differ (mean difference -0.019, 95% credible interval -0.06 to 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In the short term (≤18 months), laparoscopic surgery is no more effective than conservative management for adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease, and as such conservative management should be considered as an alternative to surgery. From an NHS perspective, conservative management may be cost effective for uncomplicated symptomatic gallstone disease. As costs, complications, and benefits will continue to be incurred in both groups beyond 18 months, future research should focus on longer term follow-up to establish effectiveness and lifetime cost effectiveness and to identify the cohort of patients who should be routinely offered surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN55215960.

Emergency Department Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Trauma Patients With Exsanguinating Hemorrhage: The UK-REBOA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Bleeding is the most common cause of preventable death after trauma. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) when used in the emergency department along with standard care vs standard care alone on mortality in trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, bayesian, randomized clinical trial conducted at 16 major trauma centers in the UK. Patients aged 16 years or older with exsanguinating hemorrhage were enrolled between October 2017 and March 2022 and followed up for 90 days. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 allocation) to a strategy that included REBOA and standard care (n = 46) or standard care alone (n = 44). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. Ten secondary outcomes included mortality at 6 months, while in the hospital, and within 24 hours, 6 hours, or 3 hours; the need for definitive hemorrhage control procedures; time to commencement of definitive hemorrhage control procedures; complications; length of stay; blood product use; and cause of death. Results: Of the 90 patients (median age, 41 years [IQR, 31-59 years]; 62 [69%] were male; and the median Injury Severity Score was 41 [IQR, 29-50]) randomized, 89 were included in the primary outcome analysis because 1 patient in the standard care alone group declined to provide consent for continued participation and data collection 4 days after enrollment. At 90 days, 25 of 46 patients (54%) had experienced all-cause mortality in the REBOA and standard care group vs 18 of 43 patients (42%) in the standard care alone group (odds ratio [OR], 1.58 [95% credible interval, 0.72-3.52]; posterior probability of an OR >1 [indicating increased odds of death with REBOA], 86.9%). Among the 10 secondary outcomes, the ORs for mortality and the posterior probabilities of an OR greater than 1 for 6-month, in-hospital, and 24-, 6-, or 3-hour mortality were all increased in the REBOA and standard care group, and the ORs were increased with earlier mortality end points. There were more deaths due to bleeding in the REBOA and standard care group (8 of 25 patients [32%]) than in standard care alone group (3 of 18 patients [17%]), and most occurred within 24 hours. Conclusions and Relevance: In trauma patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage, a strategy of REBOA and standard care in the emergency department does not reduce, and may increase, mortality compared with standard care alone. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16184981.

A qualitative process evaluation within a clinical trial that used healthcare technologies for children with asthma-insights and implications.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare technologies are becoming more commonplace, however clinical and patient perspectives regarding the use of technology in the management of childhood asthma have yet to be investigated. Within a clinical trial of asthma management in children, we conducted a qualitative process evaluation that provided insights into the experiences and perspectives of healthcare staff and families on (i) the use of smart inhalers to monitor medication adherence and (ii) the use of algorithm generated treatment recommendations. METHODS: We interviewed trial staff (n = 15) and families (n = 6) who were involved in the trial to gauge perspectives around the use of smart inhalers to monitor adherence and the algorithm to guide clinical decision making. FINDINGS: Staff and families indicated that there were technical issues associated with the smart inhalers. While staff suggested that the smart inhalers were good for monitoring adherence and enabling communication regarding medication use, parents and children indicated that smart inhaler use increased motivation to adhere to medication and provided the patient (child) with a sense of responsibility for the management of their asthma. Staff were open-minded about the use of the algorithm to guide treatment recommendations, but some were not familiar with its' use in clinical care. There were some concerns expressed regarding treatment step-down decisions generated by the algorithm, and some staff highlighted the importance of using clinical judgement. Families perceived the algorithm to be a useful technology, but indicated that they felt comforted by the clinicians' own judgements. CONCLUSION: The use of technology and individual data within appointments was considered useful to both staff and families: closer monitoring and the educational impacts were especially highlighted. Utilising an algorithm was broadly acceptable, with caveats around clinicians using the recommendations as a guide only and wariness around extreme step-ups/downs considering contextual factors not taken into account.

Trial Forge Guidance 3: randomised trials and how to recruit and retain individuals from ethnic minority groups-practical guidance to support better practice.

Randomised trials, especially those intended to directly inform clinical practice and policy, should be designed to reflect all those who could benefit from the intervention under test should it prove effective. This does not always happen. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) INCLUDE project identified many groups in the UK that are under-served by trials, including ethnic minorities.This guidance document presents four key recommendations for designing and running trials that include the ethnic groups needed by the trial. These are (1) ensure eligibility criteria and recruitment pathway do not limit participation in ways you do not intend, (2) ensure your trial materials are developed with inclusion in mind, (3) ensure staff are culturally competent and (4) build trusting partnerships with community organisations that work with ethnic minority groups. Each recommendation comes with best practice advice, public contributor testimonials, examples of the inclusion problem tackled by the recommendation, or strategies to mitigate the problem, as well as a collection of resources to support implementation of the recommendations.We encourage trial teams to follow the recommendations and, where possible, evaluate the strategies they use to implement them. Finally, while our primary audience is those designing, running and reporting trials, we hope funders, grant reviewers and approvals agencies may also find our guidance useful.

Randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of various washout policies versus no washout policy in preventing catheter associated complications in adults living with long-term catheters: study protocol for the CATHETER II study.

BACKGROUND: Various washout policies are widely used in adults living with long-term catheters (LTC). There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefits and potential harms of prophylactic LTC washout policies in the prevention of blockages and other LTC-related adverse events, such as urinary tract infections. CATHETER II tests the hypothesis that weekly prophylactic LTC washouts (normal saline or citric acid) in addition to standard LTC care reduce the incidence of catheter blockage requiring intervention compared to standard LTC care only in adults living with LTC. METHODS: CATHETER II is a pragmatic three-arm open multi-centre superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic analysis, and embedded qualitative study. Eligible participants are adults aged ≥ 18 years, who have had a LTC in use for ≥ 28 days, have no plans to discontinue the use of the catheter, are able to undertake the catheter washouts, and complete trial documentation or have a carer able to help them. Participants are identified from general practitioner practices, secondary/tertiary care, community healthcare, care homes, and via public advertising strategies. Participants are randomised 1:1:1 to receive a weekly saline (0.9%) washout in addition to standard LTC care, a weekly citric acid (3.23%) washout in addition to standard LTC care or standard LTC care only. Participants and/or carers will receive training to administer the washouts. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline and for 24 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is catheter blockage requiring intervention up to 24 months post-randomisation expressed per 1000 catheter days. Secondary outcomes include symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics, catheter change, adverse events, NHS/ healthcare use, and impact on quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study will guide treatment decision-making and clinical practice guidelines regarding the effectiveness of various prophylactic catheter washout policies in men and women living with LTC. This research has received ethical approval from Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 (19/WA/0015). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN17116445 . Registered prospectively on 06 November 2019.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of text messages with or without endowment incentives for weight management in men with obesity (Game of Stones): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, mobility problems and some cancers, and its prevalence is rising. Men engage less than women in existing weight loss interventions. Game of Stones builds on a successful feasibility study and aims to find out if automated text messages with or without endowment incentives are effective and cost-effective for weight loss at 12 months compared to a waiting list comparator arm in men with obesity. METHODS: A 3-arm, parallel group, assessor-blind superiority randomised controlled trial with process evaluation will recruit 585 adult men with body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or more living in and around three UK centres (Belfast, Bristol, Glasgow), purposively targeting disadvantaged areas. Intervention groups: (i) automated, theory-informed text messages daily for 12 months plus endowment incentives linked to verified weight loss targets at 3, 6 and 12 months; (ii) the same text messages and weight loss assessment protocol; (iii) comparator group: 12 month waiting list, then text messages for 3 months. The primary outcome is percentage weight change at 12 months from baseline. Secondary outcomes at 12 months are as follows: quality of life, wellbeing, mental health, weight stigma, behaviours, satisfaction and confidence. Follow-up includes weight at 24 months. A health economic evaluation will measure cost-effectiveness over the trial and over modelled lifetime: including health service resource-use and quality-adjusted life years. The cost-utility analysis will report incremental cost per quality-adjusted life years gained. Participant and service provider perspectives will be explored via telephone interviews, and exploratory mixed methods process evaluation analyses will focus on mental health, multiple long-term conditions, health inequalities and implementation strategies. DISCUSSION: The trial will report whether text messages (with and without cash incentives) can help men to lose weight over 1 year and maintain this for another year compared to a comparator group; the costs and benefits to the health service; and men's experiences of the interventions. Process analyses with public involvement and service commissioner input will ensure that this open-source digital self-care intervention could be sustainable and scalable by a range of NHS or public services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 91974895 . Registered on 14/04/2021.

Use of the oral beta blocker bisoprolol to reduce the rate of exacerbation in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a randomised controlled trial (BICS).

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Beta blockers are well-established drugs widely used to treat cardiovascular conditions. Observational studies consistently report that beta blocker use in people with COPD is associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. The bisoprolol in COPD study (BICS) investigates whether adding bisoprolol to routine COPD treatment has clinical and cost-effective benefits. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure to investigate whether any beneficial effect of bisoprolol is restricted to those with unrecognised heart disease. METHODS: BICS is a pragmatic randomised parallel group double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in UK primary and secondary care sites. The major inclusion criteria are an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator FEV1 < 80% predicted, FEV1/FVC < 0.7), a self-reported history of ≥ 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in a 12-month period since March 2019, age ≥ 40 years and a smoking history ≥ 10 pack years. A computerised randomisation system will allocate 1574 participants with equal probability to intervention or control groups, stratified by centre and recruitment in primary/secondary care. The intervention is bisoprolol (1.25 mg tablets) or identical placebo. The dose of bisoprolol/placebo is titrated up to a maximum of 4 tablets a day (5 mg bisoprolol) over 4-7 weeks depending on tolerance to up-dosing of bisoprolol/placebo-these titration assessments are completed by telephone or video call. Participants complete the remainder of the 52-week treatment period on the final titrated dose (1, 2, 3, 4 tablets) and during that time are followed up at 26 and 52 weeks by telephone or video call. The primary outcome is the total number of participant reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and/or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure by echocardiography and measurement of blood biomarkers. DISCUSSION: The demonstration that bisoprolol reduces the incidence of exacerbations would be relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN10497306 . Registered on 16 August 2018.

Reducing asthma attacks in children using exhaled nitric oxide (RAACENO) as a biomarker to inform treatment strategy: a multicentre, parallel, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in guiding asthma treatment is uncertain. We evaluated the efficacy of adding FeNO to symptom-guided treatment in children with asthma versus only symptom-guided treatment. METHODS: RAACENO was a multicentre, parallel, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in 35 secondary care centres and 17 primary care recruitment sites (only seven primary care sites managed to recruit patients) in the UK. Patients with a confirmed asthma diagnosis, aged 6-15 years, prescribed inhaled corticosteroids, and who received a course of oral corticosteroids for at least one asthma exacerbation during the 12 months before recruitment were included. Participants were randomly assigned to either FeNO plus symptom-guided treatment (intervention) or symptom-guided treatment alone (standard care) using a 24 h in-house, web-based randomisation system. Participants and the clinical and research teams were not masked to the group allocation. A web-based algorithm gave treatment recommendations based on the Asthma Control Test (ACT) or Childhood ACT (CACT) score; current asthma treatment; adherence to study treatment in the past 3 months; and use of FeNO (in the intervention group). Follow-up occurred at 3-month intervals for 12 months. The primary outcome was any asthma exacerbation treated with oral corticosteroids in the 12 months after randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ISRCTN67875351. FINDINGS: Between June 22, 2017, and Aug 8, 2019, 535 children were assessed for eligibility, 20 were ineligible and six were excluded post-randomisation. 509 children were recruited and at baseline, the mean age of participants was 10·1 years (SD 2·6), and 308 (60·5%) were male. The median FeNO was 21 ppb (IQR 10-48), mean predicted FEV1 was 89·6% (SD 18·0), and median daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids was 400 µg budesonide equivalent (IQR 400-1000). Asthma was partly or fully controlled in 256 (50·3%) of 509 participants. The primary outcome, which was available for 506 (99%) of 509 participants, occurred in 123 (48·2%) of 255 participants in the intervention group and 129 (51·4%) of 251 in the standard care group, the intention-to-treat adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0·88 (95% CI 0·61 to 1·27; p=0·49). The adjusted difference in the percentage of participants who received the intervention in whom the primary outcome occurred compared with those who received standard care was -3·1% (-11·9% to 5·6%). In 377 (21·3%) of 1771 assessments, the algorithm recommendation was not followed. Adverse events were reported by 27 (5·3%) of 509 participants (15 in the standard care group and 12 in the intervention group). The most common adverse event was itch after skin prick testing (reported by eight participants in each group). INTERPRETATION: We found that the addition of FeNO to symptom-guided asthma treatment did not lead to reduced exacerbations among children prone to asthma exacerbation. Asthma symptoms remain the only tool for guiding treatment decisions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

The ALLEGRO trial: a placebo controlled randomised trial of intravenous lidocaine in accelerating gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Return of gastrointestinal (GI) function is fundamental to patient recovery after colorectal surgery and is required before patients can be discharged from hospital safely. Up to 40% of patients suffer delayed return of GI function after colorectal surgery, causing nausea, vomiting and abdominal discomfort, resulting in longer hospital stay. Small, randomised studies have suggested perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine, which has analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, may accelerate return of GI function after colorectal surgery. The ALLEGRO trial is a pragmatic effectiveness study to assess the benefit of perioperative IV lidocaine in improving return of GI function after elective minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery. METHODS: United Kingdom (UK) multi-centre double blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial in 562 patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colorectal resection. IV lidocaine or placebo will be infused for 6-12 h commencing at the start of surgery as an adjunct to usual analgesic/anaesthetic technique. The primary outcome will be return of GI function. DISCUSSION: A 6-12-h perioperative intravenous infusion of 2% lidocaine is a cheap addition to usual anaesthetic/analgesic practice in elective colorectal surgery with a low incidence of adverse side-effects. If successful in achieving quicker return of gut function for more patients, it would reduce the rate of postoperative ileus and reduce the duration of inpatient recovery, resulting in reduced pain and discomfort with faster recovery and discharge from hospital. Since colorectal surgery is a common procedure undertaken in every acute hospital in the UK, a reduced length of stay and reduced rate of postoperative ileus would accrue significant cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS). TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number 2017-003835-12; REC Number 17/WS/0210 the trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN52352431 ); date of registration 13 June 2018; date of enrolment of first participant 14 August 2018.

The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Participants want to receive the results of trials that they have participated in. Dissemination practices are disparate, and there is limited guidance available on what information to provide to participants and how to deliver it. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish what trial participants believe should be included in a results summary and how this information should be delivered. METHODS: A mixed-methods design was used with focus groups and interviews involving women convenience-sampled from two host randomized-controlled trials. Participants ranked information items in order of their importance for inclusion in a trial results summary and potential modes of delivery by preference. All participants provided written informed consent. RESULTS: Sixteen women (mean age [SD] = 71.6 [9.7] years) participated. Participants ranked 'individual results from the study' and 'summary of overall trial results' as most important. Themes such as reassurance and setting results in context were identified as contributing to participants' decisions around ranking. 'A thank you for your contribution to the study' was ranked the least important. Delivery by post was the preferred mode of receiving results, with receiving a hard copy of results cited as helpful to refer back to. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide insight into what information trial participants deem as important when receiving trial results and how they would like results delivered. Involving patients during development of trial results to be communicated to participants could help to ensure that the right information is delivered in the right way. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Public partners were involved in focussed aspects of study conduct.

ScotCap - A large observational cohort study.

AIM: The aim of this work was to evaluate the performance of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) in a lower gastrointestinal diagnostic care pathway. METHOD: This large multicentre prospective clinical evaluation recruited symptomatic patients (patients requiring investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal pathology) and surveillance patients (patients due to undergo surveillance colonoscopy). Patients aged 18 years or over were invited to participate and undergo CCE by a secondary-care clinician if they met the referral criteria for a colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the test completion rate (visualization of the whole colon and rectum). We also measured the need for further tests after CCE. RESULTS: A total of 733 patients were invited to take part in this evaluation, with 509 patients undergoing CCE. Of these, 316 were symptomatic patients and 193 were surveillance patients. Two hundred and twenty-eight of the 316 symptomatic patients (72%) and 137 of the 193 surveillance patients (71%) had a complete test. It was found that 118/316 (37%) of symptomatic patients required no further test following CCE, while 103/316 (33%) and 81/316 (26%) required a colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy, respectively. Fifty-three of the 193 surveillance patients (28%) required no further test following CCE, while 104/193 (54%) and 30/193 (16%) required a colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy, respectively. No patient in this evaluation was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Two patients experienced serious adverse events - one capsule retention with obstruction and one hospital admission with dehydration due to the bowel preparation. CONCLUSION: CCE is a safe, well-tolerated diagnostic test which can reduce the proportion of patients requiring colonoscopy, but the test completion rate needs to be improved to match that of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Has the human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization programme improved obstetric outcomes in spontaneous delivery? An ecological study.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the rates of adverse obstetric outcomes in spontaneous delivery in a population of young women with high uptake of the bivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. STUDY DESIGN: This was a population-based ecological study with data from the Aberdeen Maternity and Neonatal Databank, UK. All women born between 1986-1996 with spontaneous singleton live birth at age 20-30 years were included for analysis. Exposure was defined according to maternal year of birth and HPV immunisation eligibility: pre-immunisation cohort (1986-1990), catch-up immunisation cohort (1991-1994) and routine immunisation cohort (1995-1996). Outcomes were defined as spontaneous preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW) and pre-labour preterm rupture of membranes (pPROM). Generalized estimating equation models were applied, adjusted for deprivation, smoking status, marital status, body mass index, parity, maternal age and year of infant delivery. RESULTS: A total of 6515 spontaneous singleton live births were included in final analysis, with 5134 births included in the pre-immunisation cohort, 1250 in the catch-up immunisation cohort and 131 in the routine immunisation cohort. Compared with the pre-immunisation cohort, no statistically significant reduction on PTB, LBW or pPROM were observed in either immunised cohorts. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) on PTB was 0.64 (95 % confidence interval, 0.40-1.03) in the catch-up cohort and 0.71 (0.28-1.77) in the routine cohort. The corresponding aOR were 0.88 (0.54-1.45) and 0.51 (0.16-1.62) for LBW and 1.62 (0.58-4.54) and 1.51 (0.21-11.01) for pPROM. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a significant reduction on PTB, LBW or pPROM among spontaneous singleton live birth in either HPV immunised cohorts, although the additional benefit in improving obstetric outcomes cannot be excluded because of the limits of the sample size and the study design. Further demonstration is warranted when more women in the fully HPV immunised cohorts embark on pregnancy.

Tibial nerve stimulation compared with sham to reduce incontinence in care home residents: ELECTRIC RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is prevalent in nursing and residential care homes, and has a profound impact on residents' dignity and quality of life. Treatment options are limited in these care contexts and care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain incontinence, rather than actively treat it. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention that is effective in reducing urinary incontinence in adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation to treat urinary incontinence in care home residents and to determine the associated costs of the treatment. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, participant and outcome assessor-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: A total of 37 UK residential and nursing care homes. PARTICIPANTS: Care home residents with at least weekly urinary incontinence that is contained using absorbent pads and who are able to use a toilet/toilet aid with or without assistance. INTERVENTIONS: Residents were randomised (1 : 1) to receive 12 30-minute sessions of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or sham stimulation over a 6-week period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - change in volume of urine leaked over a 24-hour period at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes - number of pads used, Perception of Bladder Condition, toileting skills, quality of life and resource use. RESULTS: A total of 408 residents were randomised (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 197; sham stimulation, n = 209); two exclusions occurred post randomisation. Primary outcome data were available for 345 (85%) residents (transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation, n = 167; sham stimulation, n = 178). Adherence to the intervention protocol was as follows: 78% of the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and 71% of the sham group received the correct stimulation. Primary intention-to-treat adjusted analysis indicated a mean change of -5 ml (standard deviation 362 ml) urine leakage from baseline in the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation group and -66 ml (standard deviation 394 ml) urine leakage in the sham group, which was a statistically significant, but not clinically important, between-group difference of 68-ml urine leakage (95% confidence interval 0 to 136 ml; p = 0.05) in favour of the sham group. Sensitivity analysis supported the primary analysis. No meaningful differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. No serious adverse events related to transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation were reported. Economic evaluation assessed the resources used. The training and support costs for the staff to deliver the intervention were estimated at £121.03 per staff member. Estimated costs for delivery of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation during the trial were £81.20 per participant. No significant difference was found between participants' scores over time, or between transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and sham groups at any time point, for resident or proxy quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial showed, in the care home context (with a high proportion of residents with poor cognitive capacity and limited independent mobility), that transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was not effective in reducing urinary incontinence. No economic case for transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation was made by the cost-consequences analysis; however, the positive reception of learning about urinary incontinence for care home staff supports a case for routine education in this care context. LIMITATIONS: Completing 24-hour pad collections was challenging for care home staff, resulting in some missing primary outcome data. FUTURE WORK: Research should investigate transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation in residents with urgency urinary incontinence to determine whether or not targeted stimulation is effective. Research should evaluate the effects of continence training for staff on continence care in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98415244 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03248362. 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. 25, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bladder leakage (urinary incontinence) is common among people living in care homes. Most people wear absorbent pads to contain urine leakage, but this does not treat the cause of incontinence. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation is a treatment for the type of incontinence associated with a sudden need to use the toilet (urgency incontinence). Two sticky patches applied to the ankle are connected to a small electrical stimulator. The ELECTRIC (ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes) trial looked at whether or not transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation can help reduce incontinence for people in care homes. A total of 406 residents from 37 care homes were given transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment or a dummy treatment for 30 minutes, twice per week for 6 weeks. The amount of urine leaked by each resident was measured over 24 hours by collecting all pads used in a sealable plastic bag and weighing the bag. This happened after the final transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation or dummy treatment, and again after 3 and 5 months. Residents, family members and care home staff were asked if they thought that the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had any effect and for their views of the treatment. We found no important difference in leakage between residents who had the transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and those who had the dummy treatment. There were also no differences in daily pad use, feelings about bladder condition or quality of life. It cost around £120 to train staff to deliver transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and around £80 per person to have transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation treatment. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation had no serious side-effects. Care home residents, even those with severe dementia, found the application of transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation acceptable. Staff found learning about incontinence helpful, but continence care routines did not change. In summary, the ELECTRIC trial found that for very dependent older people in care homes, transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation did not reduce urinary incontinence. The findings do not support transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation use to reduce urinary incontinence in care home environments.

Developing the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework-a tool to help trialists design trials that better reflect the communities they serve.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring that a trial is designed so that its participants reflect those who might benefit from the results, or be spared harms, is key to the potential benefits of the trial reaching all they should. This paper describes the process, facilitated by Trial Forge, that was used between July 2019 and October 2020 to develop the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework, part of the wider INCLUDE initiative from the National Institute for Health Research to improve inclusion of under-served groups in clinical research studies. METHODS: Development of the Framework was done in seven phases: (1) outline, (2) initial draft, (3) stakeholder meeting, (4) modify draft, (5) Stakeholder feedback, (6) applying the Framework and (7) packaging. Phases 2 and 3 were face-to-face meetings. Consultation with stakeholders was iterative, especially phases 4 to 6. Movement to the next phase was done once all or most stakeholders were comfortable with the results of the current phase. When there was a version of the Framework that could be considered final, the Framework was applied to six trials to create a set of examples (phase 6). Finally, the Framework, guidance and examples were packaged ready for dissemination (phase 7). RESULTS: A total of 40 people from stakeholder groups including patient and public partners, clinicians, funders, academics working with various ethnic groups, trial managers and methodologists contributed to the seven phases of development. The Framework comprises two parts. The first part is a list of four key questions: 1. Who should my trial apply to? 2. Are the groups identified likely to respond in different ways? 3. Will my study intervention make it harder for some groups to engage? 4. Will the way I have designed the study make it harder for some groups to engage? The second part is a set of worksheets to help trial teams address these questions. The Framework can be used for any stage of trial, for a healthcare intervention in any disease area. The Framework was launched on 1st October 2020 and is available open access at the Trial Forge website: https://www.trialforge.org/trial-forge-centre/include/ . CONCLUSION: Thinking about the number of people in our trials is not enough: we need to start thinking more carefully about who our participants are.

Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated.

It is unprecedented: trial management during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for the clinical trial community, both in the rapid establishment of COVID-19 clinical trials and many existing non-COVID-19 studies either being temporarily paused (whether that is a complete pause or pause in some activities) and/or adapting their processes. Trial managers have played a key role in decision-making, undertaking risk assessments and adapting trial processes, working closely with other members of the research team. This article presents some of the ways in which trial management processes have been altered and the key role that trial managers have played. It has been born out of discussions between trial managers in the UK who are members of the UK Trial Managers' Network (UKTMN), a national network of trial management professionals managing non-commercial trials.In these unprecedented times, clinical trials have faced many uncertainties and broad-ranging challenges encompassing a range of activities including prioritising patient safety amidst the pandemic, consenting and recruiting new participants into trials, data collection and management and intervention delivery. In many cases, recruitment has been paused whilst mitigations have been put in place to continue data collection. Innovative solutions have been implemented to ensure we continue, where possible, to deliver high-quality clinical trials. Technology has provided many solutions to these challenges, and trial managers have adapted to new ways of working whilst continuing to deliver their clinical trials. Trial management groups are now faced with new uncertainties around re-starting clinical trials, and it is unclear currently how this will go, though working together with sponsors, funders and site teams is clearly a priority.Clinical trial teams have worked together to ensure their trials have adapted quickly whilst ensuring participant safety is given utmost importance. There are clear examples where the trial community have come together to share experiences and expertise, and this should continue in the future to ensure the innovative practices developed become embedded in the design and conduct of clinical trials in the future.

How to deal with a temporary suspension and restarting your trial: our experiences and lessons learnt.

Whilst the issues around early termination of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented in the literature, trials can also be temporarily suspended with the real prospect that they may subsequently restart. There is little guidance in the literature as to how to manage such a temporary suspension. In this paper, we describe the temporary suspension of a trial within our clinical trials unit because of concerns over the safety of transvaginal synthetic mesh implants. We also describe the challenges, considerations, and lessons learnt during the suspension that we are now applying in the current COVID-19 pandemic which has led to activities in many RCTs across the world undergoing a temporary suspension.There were three key phases within the temporary suspension: the decision to suspend, implementation of the suspension, and restarting. Each of these phases presented individual challenges which are discussed within this paper, along with the lessons learnt. There were obvious challenges around recruitment, delivery of the intervention, and follow-up. Additional challenges included communication between stakeholders, evolving risk assessment, updates to trial protocol and associated paperwork, maintaining site engagement, data-analysis, and workload within the trial team and Sponsor organisation.Based on our experience of managing a temporary suspension, we developed an action plan and guidance (see Additional File 1) for managing a significant trial event, such as a temporary suspension. We have used this document to help us manage the suspension of activities within our portfolio of trials during the current COVID-19 pandemic.