Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) in the treatment of chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD): a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial studying the addition of ECP to standard care in the treatment of bilateral lung transplant patients with CLAD (E-CLAD UK).

BACKGROUND: Long-term survival after lung transplantation is limited compared with other organ transplants. The main cause is development of progressive immune-mediated damage to the lung allograft. This damage, which can develop via multiple immune pathways, is captured under the umbrella term chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD). Despite the availability of powerful immunosuppressive drugs, there are presently no treatments proven to reverse or reliably halt the loss of lung function caused by CLAD. The aim of the E-CLAD UK trial is to determine whether the addition of immunomodulatory therapy, in the form of extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP), to standard care is more efficacious at stabilising lung function in CLAD compared with standard care alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: E-CLAD UK is a Phase II clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product (Methoxsalen) delivered to a buffy coat prepared via an enclosed ECP circuit. Target recruitment is 90 bilateral lung transplant patients identified as having CLAD and being treated at one of the five UK adult lung transplant centres. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to intervention plus standard of care, or standard of care alone. Intervention will comprise nine ECP cycles spread over 20 weeks, each course involving two treatments of ECP on consecutive days. All participants will be followed up for a period of 24 weeks.The primary outcome is lung function stabilisation derived from change in forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity at 12 and 24 weeks compared with baseline at study entry. Other parameters include change in exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and safety. A mechanistic study will seek to identify molecular or cellular markers linked to treatment response and qualitative interviews will explore patient experiences of CLAD and the ECP treatment.A patient and public advisory group is integral to the trial from design to implementation, developing material to support the consent process and interview materials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee has provided ethical approval (REC 22/EM/0218). Dissemination will be via publications, patient-friendly summaries and presentation at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT number 2022-002659-20; ISRCTN 10615985.

AppReminders - a pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial of a memory aid app for people with acquired brain injury.

Mobile phone reminding apps can be used by people with acquired brain injury (ABI) to compensate for memory impairments. This pilot feasibility trial aimed to establish the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing reminder apps in an ABI community treatment setting. Adults with ABI and memory difficulty who completed the three-week baseline were randomized (n = 29) and allocated to Google Calendar or ApplTree app. Those who attended an intervention session (n = 21) watched a 30-minute video tutorial of the app then completed reminder setting assignments to ensure they could use the app. Guidance was given if needed from a clinician or researcher. Those who passed the app assignments (n = 19) completed a three-week follow up. Recruitment was lower than target (n = 50), retention rate was 65.5%, adherence rate was 73.7%. Qualitative feedback highlighted issues that may impact usability of reminding apps introduced within community brain injury rehabilitation. Feasibility results indicate a full trial would require 72 participants to demonstrate the minimally clinically important efficacy difference between apps, should a difference exist. Most participants (19 of 21) given an app could learn to use it with the short tutorial. Design features implemented in ApplTree have potential to improve the uptake and utility of reminding apps.

A pilot feasibility study of a randomized controlled trial of goal setting using the values in action inventory of strengths following brain injury.

In a single-blind feasibility pilot randomized controlled trial design, brain injury (BI) participants were recruited from a community rehabilitation centre and randomized into goal-setting using the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS), and goal-setting as usual. Outcomes included the feasibility and acceptability of the VIA-IS, and its use in setting goals in a BI rehabilitation context, and whether it affected types of goals set (International Classification of Functioning (ICF)). Memory for goals two weeks later was measured, and a sample size calculated for a full-scale trial. Twenty-six BI participants were recruited, and randomized to the VIA-IS (n = 13) and control group (n = 13). Two dropped out of the VIA-IS condition, leaving a total n = 24. The majority (92%) of participants rated the VIA-IS as acceptable; both groups described the goal-setting process as "easy". VIA-IS feedback varied; over two thirds (73%) of VIA-IS participants used their VIA-IS results to set goals and described it as "helpful". There were no major differences in ICF categories between groups. A sample size of 66 would be required for a full-scale trial. A full-scale trial with multi-centre design appears warranted though might be more clinically beneficial for difficult to engage BI clients.

Ondansetron and metoclopramide as second-line antiemetics in women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: the EMPOWER pilot factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. RESULTS: Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. LIMITATIONS: The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. 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. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy cause physical and emotional distress, and up to 30% of affected women require medical treatment. Guidelines on the use of anti-sickness drugs exist, but evidence is limited about which drugs work the best. The EMPOWER (EMesis in Pregnancy ­ Ondansetron With mEtoClopRamide) trial aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two anti-sickness drugs [metoclopramide (metoclopramide hydrochloride, Actavis UK Ltd, Barnstable, UK; IV Ratiopharm GmbH, Ulm, Germany) and ondansetron (ondansetron hydrochloride dehydrate, Wockhardt UK Ltd, Wrexham, UK; IV Hameln Pharma plus GmbH, Hameln)] for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Women who were < 17 weeks pregnant with severe nausea and vomiting who attended hospital because their first anti-sickness drug had failed to improve their symptoms were asked to take part in the trial. Participants received fluids and, with consent, were randomly allocated to one of four groups: (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron or (4) double dummy. Trial drugs were administered into a vein and then by tablet for 10 days. On advice from sufferers, the trial focused on treatment failure, but other outcomes, including drug side effects, costs and pregnancy outcome, were collected. The trial was unable to recruit enough women and, therefore, did not progress. Nearly 600 women at 11 hospitals were screened, of whom 122 (21%) were eligible and 33 were recruited. The main reason for ineligibility (68%) was prior use of trial drug (mostly ondansetron). Overall, 15 out of 30 evaluable women experienced treatment failure. Interviews with 21 women who were approached about the trial and 22 research staff identified complex hurdles to and enablers of recruitment. The main hurdles were the requirements of the study protocol in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs and the diversity of pathways to care. The role of research staff was a key enabler. The trial was too small to draw useful conclusions and it highlights the challenges of conducting complex studies on sick pregnant women. Subsequent concerns about the safety of ondansetron highlight the need for further studies to help inform women and the NHS about the best care for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.

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

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

Preoperative behavioural intervention to reduce drinking before elective orthopaedic surgery: the PRE-OP BIRDS feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Heavy alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and extended hospital stay. Alcohol consumption therefore represents a modifiable risk factor for surgical outcomes. Brief behavioural interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption among increased risk and risky drinkers in other health-care settings and may offer a method of addressing preoperative alcohol consumption. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of introducing a screening process to assess adult preoperative drinking levels and to deliver a brief behavioural intervention adapted for the target population group. To conduct a two-arm (brief behavioural intervention plus standard preoperative care vs. standard preoperative care alone), multicentre, pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility of proceeding to a definitive trial. To conduct focus groups and a national web-based survey to establish current treatment as usual for alcohol screening and intervention in preoperative assessment. DESIGN: A single-centre, qualitative, feasibility study was followed by a multicentre, two-arm (brief behavioural intervention vs. treatment as usual), individually randomised controlled pilot trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. Focus groups and a quantitative survey were employed to characterise treatment as usual in preoperative assessment. SETTING: The feasibility study took place at a secondary care hospital in the north-east of England. The pilot trial was conducted at three large secondary care centres in the north-east of England. PARTICIPANTS: Nine health-care professionals and 15 patients (mean age 70.5 years, 86.7% male) participated in the feasibility study. Eleven health-care professionals and 68 patients (mean age 66.2 years, 80.9% male) participated in the pilot randomised trial. An additional 19 health-care professionals were recruited to one of three focus groups, while 62 completed an electronic survey to characterise treatment as usual. INTERVENTIONS: The brief behavioural intervention comprised two sessions. The first session, delivered face to face in the preoperative assessment clinic, involved 5 minutes of structured brief advice followed by 15-20 minutes of behaviour change counselling, including goal-setting, problem-solving and identifying sources of social support. The second session, an optional booster, took place approximately 1 week before surgery and offered the opportunity to assess progress and boost self-efficacy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility was assessed using rates of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The progression criteria for a definitive trial were recruitment of ≥ 40% of eligible patients and retention of ≥ 70% at 6-month follow-up. Acceptability was assessed using themes identified in qualitative data. RESULTS: The initial recruitment of eligible patients was low but improved with the optimisation of recruitment processes. The recruitment of eligible participants to the pilot trial (34%) fell short of the progression criteria but was mitigated by very high retention (96%) at the 6-month follow-up. Multimethod analyses identified the methods as acceptable to the patients and professionals involved and offers recommendations of ways to further improve recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supports the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of brief behavioural intervention in reducing preoperative alcohol consumption and for secondary outcomes of surgical complications if recommendations for further improvements are adopted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36257982. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 12. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Most patients undergoing knee and hip replacements are over 65 years old. Older patients have an increased risk of complications following surgery. Heavy alcohol consumption in the weeks before surgery increases the risk of complications after surgery, which can extend recovery times. Advice that helps patients reduce their alcohol consumption before surgery may have benefits for recovery. The PRE-OP BIRDS study had two parts: a feasibility study followed by a pilot randomised controlled trial with focus groups and an electronic survey used to characterise usual care in the preoperative assessment clinic. The feasibility study took place at one hospital. It aimed to develop materials that help health-care professionals provide brief advice to patients on how to reduce alcohol consumption before surgery. This brief advice was delivered to eligible patients and the acceptability to staff and patients was assessed in interviews. The pilot trial took place in three hospitals. Patients who agreed to take part were placed, by equal chance, into either a group that received usual care or a group that received usual care plus brief advice about reducing alcohol use. The aim was to count how many people agreed to take part and how many also agreed to complete a follow-up 6 months later. Interviews were carried out with patients and staff to explore their views on the intervention and the trial as a whole. All of this information was collected to help decide if a future larger trial was possible. This work found that the tools used were acceptable to both patients and staff. Although the number of people who agreed to take part was smaller than hoped, almost all of those who took part also completed the 6-month follow-up. Therefore, a future larger trial was found to be possible, but some changes could be made to encourage more people to take part.

Preoperative Behavioural Intervention versus standard care to Reduce Drinking before elective orthopaedic Surgery (PRE-OP BIRDS): protocol for a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that increased preoperative alcohol consumption increases the risk of postoperative complications; therefore, a reduction or cessation in alcohol intake before surgery may reduce perioperative risk. Preoperative assessment presents an opportunity to intervene to optimise patients for surgery. This multicentre, two-arm, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial will investigate whether a definitive trial of a brief behavioural intervention aimed at reducing preoperative alcohol consumption is feasible and acceptable to healthcare professionals responsible for its delivery and the preoperative elective orthopaedic patient population. METHODS: Screening will be conducted by trained healthcare professionals at three hospitals in the North East of England. Eligible patients (those aged 18 or over, listed for elective hip or knee arthroplasty surgery and scoring 5 or more or reporting consumption of six or more units on a single occasion at least weekly on the alcohol screening tool) who enrol in the trial will be randomised on a one-to-one non-blinded basis to either treatment as usual or brief behavioural intervention delivered in the pre-assessment clinic. Patients will be followed up 1-2 days pre-surgery, 1-5 days post-surgery (as an in-patient), 6 weeks post-surgery, and 6 months post intervention. Feasibility will be assessed through rates of screening, eligibility, recruitment, and retention to 6-month follow-up. An embedded qualitative study will explore the acceptability of study methods to patients and staff. DISCUSSION: This pilot randomised controlled trial will establish the feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures reducing uncertainties ahead of a definitive randomised controlled trial to establish the effectiveness of brief behavioural intervention to reduce alcohol consumption in the preoperative period and the potential impact on perioperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Reference number ISRCTN36257982.

A randomised controlled trial of losartan as an anti-fibrotic agent in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common liver disease worldwide. Experimental and small clinical trials have demonstrated that angiotensin II blockers (ARB) may be anti-fibrotic in the liver. The aim of this randomised controlled trial was to assess whether treatment with Losartan for 96 weeks slowed, halted or reversed the progression of fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). METHODS: Double-blind randomised-controlled trial of Losartan 50 mg once a day versus placebo for 96 weeks in patients with histological evidence of NASH. The primary outcome for the study was change in histological fibrosis stage from pre-treatment to end-of-treatment. RESULTS: The study planned to recruit 214 patients. However, recruitment was slower than expected, and after 45 patients were randomised (median age 55; 56% male; 60% diabetic; median fibrosis stage 2), enrolment was suspended. Thirty-two patients (15 losartan and 17 placebo) completed follow up period: one patient (6.7%) treated with losartan and 4 patients (23.5%) in the placebo group were "responders" (lower fibrosis stage at follow up compared with baseline). The major reason for slow recruitment was that 39% of potentially eligible patients were already taking an ARB or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), and 15% were taking other prohibited medications. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the widespread use of ACEI and ARB in patients with NASH this trial failed to recruit sufficient patients to determine whether losartan has anti-fibrotic effects in the liver. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 57849521.