Efficacy and safety of ciclosporin versus methotrexate in the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis in children and young people (TREAT): a multicentre parallel group assessor-blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional systemic drugs are used to treat children and young people (CYP) with severe atopic dermatitis (AD) worldwide, but no robust randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence exists regarding their efficacy and safety in this population. While novel therapies have expanded therapeutic options, their high cost means traditional agents remain important, especially in lower-resource settings. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of ciclosporin (CyA) with methotrexate (MTX) in CYP with severe AD in the TREatment of severe Atopic Eczema Trial (TREAT) trial. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group assessor-blinded RCT in 13 UK and Irish centres. Eligible participants aged 2-16 years and unresponsive to potent topical treatment were randomized to either oral CyA (4 mg kg-1 daily) or MTX (0.4 mg kg-1 weekly) for 36 weeks and followed-up for 24 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were change from baseline to 12 weeks in Objective Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) and time to first significant flare (relapse) after treatment cessation. Secondary outcomes included change in quality of life (QoL) from baseline to 60 weeks; number of participant-reported flares following treatment cessation; proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 50) and ≥ 75% improvement in EASI (EASI 75); and stratification of outcomes by filaggrin status. RESULTS: In total, 103 participants were randomized (May 2016-February 2019): 52 to CyA and 51 to MTX. CyA showed greater improvement in disease severity by 12 weeks [mean difference in o-SCORAD -5.69, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) -10.81 to -0.57 (P = 0.01)]. More participants achieved ≥ 50% improvement in o-SCORAD (o-SCORAD 50) at 12 weeks in the CyA arm vs. the MTX arm [odds ratio (OR) 2.60, 95% CI 1.23-5.49; P = 0.01]. By 60 weeks MTX was superior (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.85; P = 0.02), a trend also seen for ≥ 75% improvement in o-SCORAD (o-SCORAD 75), EASI 50 and EASI 75. Participant-reported flares post-treatment were higher in the CyA arm (OR 3.22, 95% CI 0.42-6.01; P = 0.02). QoL improved with both treatments and was sustained after treatment cessation. Filaggrin status did not affect outcomes. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was comparable between both treatments. Five (10%) participants on CyA and seven (14%) on MTX experienced a serious AE. CONCLUSIONS: Both CyA and MTX proved effective in CYP with severe AD over 36 weeks. Participants who received CyA showed a more rapid response to treatment, while MTX induced more sustained disease control after discontinuation.

Which outcomes should be used in future bronchiolitis trials? Developing a bronchiolitis core outcome set using a systematic review, Delphi survey and a consensus workshop.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future clinical trials in bronchiolitis. We wanted to find out which outcomes are important to healthcare professionals (HCPs) and to parents and which outcomes should be prioritised for use in future clinical trials. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study used a systematic review, workshops and interviews, a Delphi survey and a final consensus workshop. RESULTS: Thirteen parents and 45 HCPs took part in 5 workshops; 15 other parents were also separately interviewed. Fifty-six items were identified from the systematic review, workshops and interviews. Rounds one and two of the Delphi survey involved 299 and 194 participants, respectively. Sixteen outcomes met the criteria for inclusion within the COS. The consensus meeting was attended by 10 participants, with representation from all three stakeholder groups. Nine outcomes were added, totalling 25 outcomes to be included in the COS. CONCLUSION: We have developed the first parent and HCP consensus on a COS for bronchiolitis in a hospital setting. The use of this COS will ensure outcomes in future bronchiolitis trials are important and relevant, and will enable the trial results to be compared and combined. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN75766048.

Humidified and standard oxygen therapy in acute severe asthma in children (HUMOX): A pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen (O2) is a mainstay of treatment in acute severe asthma but how it is administered varies widely. The objectives were to examine whether a trial comparing humidified O2 to standard O2 in children is feasible, and specifically to obtain data on recruitment, tolerability and outcome measure stability. METHODS: Heated humidified, cold humidified and standard O2 treatments were compared for children (2-16 years) with acute severe asthma in a multi-centre, open, parallel, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT). Multiple outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 258 children screened, 66 were randomised (heated humidified O2 n = 25; cold humidified O2 n = 21; standard O2 n = 20). Median (IQR) length of stay (hours) in hospital was 37.9 (29.1), 52 (35.4) and 49.1 (29.7) for standard, heated humidified and cold humidified respectively and time (hours) on O2 was 15.9 (9.4), 13.6 (14.9) and 13.1 (14.9) for the three groups respectively. The mean (standard deviation) time (hours) taken to step down nebulised to inhaled treatment was 5.6 (14.3), 35.1 (28.2) and 32.7 (20.1). Asthma Severity Score decreased in all three groups similarly, although missing data prevented complete analysis. Humidified O2 was least well tolerated with eight participants discontinuing their randomised treatment early. An important barrier to recruitment was research nurse availability. CONCLUSION: Although, the results of this pilot study should not be extrapolated beyond the study sample and inferential conclusions should not be drawn from the results, this is the first RCT to compare humidified and standard O2 therapy in acute severe asthmatics of any age. These findings and accompanying screening data show that a large RCT of O2 therapy is feasible. However, challenges associated with randomisation and data collection should be addressed in any future trial design.

Intravenous or oral antibiotic treatment in adults and children with cystic fibrosis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: the TORPEDO-CF RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with cystic fibrosis are susceptible to pulmonary infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This may become chronic and lead to increased mortality and morbidity. If treatment is commenced promptly, infection may be eradicated through prolonged antibiotic treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of two eradication regimens. DESIGN: This was a Phase IV, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Seventy UK and two Italian cystic fibrosis centres. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were individuals with cystic fibrosis aged > 28 days old who had never had a P. aeruginosa infection or who had been infection free for 1 year. INTERVENTIONS: Fourteen days of intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin or 3 months of oral ciprofloxacin. Inhaled colistimethate sodium was included in both regimens over 3 months. Consenting patients were randomly allocated to either treatment arm in a 1 : 1 ratio using simple block randomisation with random variable block length. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eradication of P. aeruginosa at 3 months and remaining free of infection to 15 months. Secondary outcomes included time to reoccurrence, spirometry, anthropometrics, pulmonary exacerbations and hospitalisations. Primary analysis used intention to treat (powered for superiority). Safety analysis included patients who had received at least one dose of any of the study drugs. Cost-effectiveness analysis explored the cost per successful eradication and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: Between 5 October 2010 and 27 January 2017, 286 patients were randomised: 137 patients to intravenous antibiotics and 149 patients to oral antibiotics. The numbers of participants achieving the primary outcome were 55 out of 125 (44%) in the intravenous group and 68 out of 130 (52%) in the oral group. Participants randomised to the intravenous group were less likely to achieve the primary outcome; although the difference between groups was not statistically significant, the clinically important difference that the trial aimed to detect was not contained within the confidence interval (relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.09; p = 0.184). Significantly fewer patients in the intravenous group (40/129, 31%) than in the oral group (61/136, 44.9%) were hospitalised in the 12 months following eradication treatment (relative risk 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 0.95; p = 0.02). There were no clinically important differences in other secondary outcomes. There were 32 serious adverse events in 24 participants [intravenous: 10/126 (7.9%); oral: 14/146 (9.6%)]. Oral therapy led to reductions in costs compared with intravenous therapy (-£5938.50, 95% confidence interval -£7190.30 to -£4686.70). Intravenous therapy usually necessitated hospital admission, which accounted for a large part of this cost. LIMITATIONS: Only 15 out of the 286 participants recruited were adults - partly because of the smaller number of adult centres participating in the trial. The possibility that the trial participants may be different from the rest of the cystic fibrosis population and may have had a better clinical status, and so be more likely to agree to the uncertainty of trial participation, cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous antibiotics did not achieve sustained eradication of P. aeruginosa in a greater proportion of cystic fibrosis patients. Although there were fewer hospitalisations in the intravenous group during follow-up, this confers no advantage over the oral therapy group, as intravenous eradication frequently requires hospitalisation. These results do not support the use of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate P. aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. FUTURE WORK: Future research studies should combine long-term follow-up with regimens to reduce reoccurrence after eradication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02734162 and EudraCT 2009-012575-10. 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. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cystic fibrosis is a genetic condition that affects mucous glands, causing sticky mucus in the lungs and digestive system. People with cystic fibrosis are prone to lung infection with a bacterium called Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which can lead to serious long-term complications and death. It is possible to eradicate P. aeruginosa if antibiotics are started promptly and taken for several months. The Trial of Optimal TheRapy for Pseudomonas EraDicatiOn in Cystic Fibrosis (TORPEDO-CF) was designed to find out if intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin were better at eradicating P. aeruginosa than oral ciprofloxacin. A total of 286 children, young people and adults with cystic fibrosis joined the study from 70 UK and two Italian centres. Approximately half of the participants received treatment with intravenous antibiotics and half with oral antibiotics. All participants received inhaled colistin for 3 months and were followed up for a minimum of 15 months. We studied whether or not either treatment eradicated P. aeruginosa, and if reinfection happened during follow-up. We also collected data on lung function, other chest infections and hospital admissions, and examined whether or not one treatment was more cost-effective than the other. In total, 15 adults joined TORPEDO-CF, so the study population may not totally match the wider cystic fibrosis population; however, in TORPEDO-CF, we found that intravenous antibiotics did not achieve persistent eradication of P. aeruginosa in a greater proportion of cystic fibrosis patients. We also found that oral antibiotics were more cost-effective than intravenous antibiotics. The intravenous antibiotics group had fewer hospital admissions during follow-up, but, as they were usually admitted for their initial treatment, this was not considered an advantage over the oral antibiotics group. The TORPEDO-CF results do not support the use of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate P. aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis and, when the findings of this trial are applied in routine clinical practice in the NHS, patients will most likely receive oral treatment as an outpatient, avoiding the need for hospital admission.

Prospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infection, transmission and immunity in a cohort of households in Liverpool City Region, UK (COVID-LIV): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 have caused widespread and catastrophic public health and economic impact, requiring governments to restrict societal activity to reduce the spread of the disease. The role of household transmission in the population spread of SARS-CoV-2, and of host immunity in limiting transmission, is poorly understood. This paper describes a protocol for a prospective observational study of a cohort of households in Liverpool City Region, UK, which addresses the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between household members and how immunological response to the infection changes over time. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Households in the Liverpool City Region, in which members have not previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a nucleic acid amplification test, are followed up for an initial period of 12 weeks. Participants are asked to provide weekly self-throat and nasal swabs and record their activity and presence of symptoms. Incidence of infection and household secondary attack rates of COVID-19 are measured. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 will be investigated against a range of demographic and behavioural variables. Blood and faecal samples are collected at several time points to evaluate immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and prevalence and risk factors for faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received approval from the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee; REC Reference: 20/HRA/2297, IRAS Number: 283 464. Results will be disseminated through scientific conferences and peer-reviewed open access publications. A report of the findings will also be shared with participants. The study will quantify the scale and determinants of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, immunological responses before and during the different stages of infection will be analysed, adding to the understanding of the range of immunological response by infection severity.

Determining Optimal Outcome Measures in a Trial Investigating No Routine Gastric Residual Volume Measurement in Critically Ill Children.

BACKGROUND: Choosing trial outcome measures is important. When outcomes are not clinically relevant or important to parents/patients, trial evidence is less likely to be implemented into practice. This study aimed to determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of no routine gastric residual volume (GRV) measurement in critically ill children. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used: a focused literature review, parent and clinician interviews, a modified 2-round Delphi, and a stakeholder consensus meeting. RESULTS: The review generated 13 outcomes. Fourteen pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) parents proposed 3 additional outcomes; these 16 were then rated by 28 clinicians in Delphi round 1. Six further outcomes were proposed, and 22 outcomes were rated in the second round. No items were voted "consensus out." The 18 "no-consensus" items were voted in a face-to-face meeting by 30 participants. The final 12 outcome measures were time to reach energy targets, ventilator-associated pneumonia, vomiting, time enteral feeds withheld per 24 hours, necrotizing enterocolitis, length of invasive ventilation, PICU length of stay, mortality, change in weight and markers of feed intolerance (parenteral nutrition administered), feed formula altered, and change to postpyloric feeds all secondary to feed intolerance. CONCLUSION: We have identified 12 outcomes for a trial of no GRV measurement through a multistage process, seeking views of parents and clinicians.

Optimal outcome measures for a trial of not routinely measuring gastric residual volume in neonatal care: a mixed methods consensus process.

BACKGROUND: Routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding is widespread in neonatal units but not supported by high-quality evidence. Outcome selection is critical to trial design. OBJECTIVE: To determine optimal outcome measures for a trial of not routinely measuring gastric residual volume in neonatal care. DESIGN: A focused literature review, parent interviews, modified two-round Delphi survey and stakeholder consensus meeting. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-one neonatal healthcare professionals participated in an eDelphi survey; 17 parents were interviewed. 19 parents and neonatal healthcare professionals took part in the consensus meeting. RESULTS: Literature review generated 14 outcomes, and parent interviews contributed eight additional outcomes; these 22 outcomes were then ranked by 74 healthcare professionals in the first Delphi round where four further outcomes were proposed; 26 outcomes were ranked in the second round by 61 healthcare professionals. Five outcomes were categorised as 'consensus in', and no outcomes were voted 'consensus out'. 'No consensus' outcomes were discussed and voted on in a face-to-face meeting by 19 participants, where four were voted 'consensus in'. The final nine consensus outcomes were: mortality, necrotising enterocolitis, time to full enteral feeds, duration of parenteral nutrition, time feeds stopped per 24 hours, healthcare-associated infection; catheter-associated bloodstream infection, change in weight between birth and neonatal discharge and pneumonia due to milk aspiration. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We have identified outcomes for a trial of no routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide feeding in neonatal care. This outcome set will ensure outcomes are important to healthcare professionals and parents.

National survey of feasibility of NIV trials for management of children with bronchiolitis.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiolitis is a major cause of admission to hospital in children. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) support with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen is routinely used for infants in the UK with bronchiolitis. OBJECTIVE: To establish UK paediatric practice regarding management of bronchiolitis, and to explore issues pertinent to the design of a potential future randomised controlled trial of NIV. DESIGN: Screening logs were completed in hospitals in England capturing information on paediatric bronchiolitis admissions. An online national survey of clinical practice was disseminated to healthcare professionals (HCPs) across the UK to ascertain current management strategies. RESULTS: Screening logs captured data on 393 infants from 8 hospitals. Reasons for admission were most commonly respiratory distress and/or poor fluid intake. Oxygen was administered for 54% of admissions. Respiratory (CPAP and HFNC) and non-respiratory support administered varied considerably. The national survey was completed by 111 HCPs from 76 hospitals. Data were obtained on criteria used to commence and wean NIV, responsibilities for altering NIV settings, minimum training requirements for staff managing a child on NIV, and numbers of trained staff. Most centres were interested in and capable of running a trial of NIV, even out of normal office hours. CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory and non-respiratory management of bronchiolitis in UK centres varies widely. A trial of HFNC oxygen therapy in this group of patients is feasible and HCPs would be willing to randomise patients into such a trial. Future work should focus on defining trial eligibility criteria.

Intravenous versus oral antibiotics for eradication of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis (TORPEDO-CF): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pulmonary infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa is one of the most important causes of mortality and morbidity in cystic fibrosis. If antibiotics are commenced promptly, infection can be eradicated. The aim of the trial was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin versus oral ciprofloxacin in the eradication of P aeruginosa. METHODS: We did a multicentre, parallel group, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 72 cystic fibrosis centres (70 in the UK and two in Italy). Eligible participants were older than 28 days with an isolate of P aeruginosa (either the first ever isolate or a new isolate after at least 1 year free of infection). Participants were excluded if the P aeruginosa was resistant to, or they had a contraindication to, one or more of the trial antibiotics; if they were already receiving P aeruginosa suppressive therapy; if they had received any P aeruginosa eradication therapy within the previous 9 months; or if they were pregnant or breastfeeding. We used web-based randomisation to assign patients to 14 days intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin or 12 weeks oral ciprofloxacin. Both were combined with 12 weeks inhaled colistimethate sodium. Randomisation lists were generated by a statistician, who had no involvement in the trial, using a computer-generated list. Randomisation was stratified by centre and because of the nature of the interventions, blinding was not possible. Our primary outcome was eradication of P aeruginosa at 3 months and remaining free of infection to 15 months. Primary analysis used intention to treat (powered for superiority). Safety analysis included patients who received at least one dose of study drug. TORPEDO-CF was registered on the ISRCTN register, ISRCTN02734162, and EudraCT, 2009-012575-10. FINDINGS: Between Oct 5, 2010, and Jan 27, 2017, 286 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 137 to intravenous antibiotics and 149 to oral antibiotics. 55 (44%) of 125 participants in the intravenous group and 68 (52%) of 130 participants in the oral group achieved the primary outcome. Participants randomly assigned to the intravenous group were less likely to achieve the primary outcome, although the difference between groups was not statistically significant (relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·65-1·09; p=0·18). 11 serious adverse events occurred in ten (8%) of 126 participants in the intravenous antibiotics group and 17 serious adverse events in 12 (8%) of 146 participants in the oral antibiotics group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with oral therapy, intravenous antibiotics did not achieve sustained eradication of P aeruginosa in a greater proportion of patients with cystic fibrosis and was more expensive. Although there were fewer hospitalisations in the intravenous group than the oral group during follow-up, this confers no advantage over oral treatment because intravenous eradication frequently requires hospitalisation. These results do not support the use of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate P aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: the SIRJIA mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common inflammatory disorder in childhood, affecting 10 : 100,000 children and young people aged < 16 years each year, with a population prevalence of around 1 : 1000. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis; however, there is currently a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used with various disease subtypes and severities of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The main study objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study. Work packages included a literature review; qualitative interviews with children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their families; a questionnaire survey and screening log to establish current UK practice; a consensus meeting with health-care professionals, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and their families to establish the primary outcome; a feasibility study to pilot data capture and to collect data for future sample size calculations; and a final consensus meeting to establish the final protocol. SETTING: The setting was rheumatology clinics across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children, young people and their families who attended clinics and health-care professionals took part in this mixed-methods study. INTERVENTIONS: This study observed methods of prescribing corticosteroids across the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main study outcomes were the acceptability of a future trial for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals, and the feasibility of delivering such a trial. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews identified differences in the views of children, young people and their families on a randomised controlled trial and potential barriers to recruitment. A total of 297 participants were screened from 13 centres in just less than 6 months. In practice, all routes of corticosteroid administration were used, and in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection was the most common treatment. The questionnaire surveys showed the varying clinical practice across the UK, but established intra-articular corticosteroids as the treatment control for a future trial. The primary outcome of choice for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals was the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count. However, results from the feasibility study showed that, owing to missing blood test data, the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score should be used. The Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score are composite disease activity scoring systems for juvenile arthritis. Two final trial protocols were established for a future randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS: Fewer clinics were included in this feasibility study than originally planned, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions about these units to take part in future research. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive randomised controlled trial is likely to be feasible based on the findings from this study; however, important recommendations should be taken into account when planning such a trial. FUTURE WORK: This mixed-methods study has laid down the foundations to develop the evidence base in this area and conducting a randomised control trial to compare different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is likely to be feasible. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16649996. 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. 24, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ABOUT JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis refers to a group of conditions that cause inflammation and damage of the joints, starting in children and young people aged < 16 years. Treatments include anti-inflammatory medicines, disease-modifying/biologic medicines and corticosteroids. Young people often require corticosteroids at the start of their treatment, or in a flare with worsening inflammation, to get their juvenile idiopathic arthritis under control. A short course of corticosteroids can help and can be given by injection into the joint, through a drip into a vein, by injection into the muscle or in the form of tablets or liquid to be taken orally. Although they have been used for decades, there is no research to show the best way(s) of giving corticosteroids. STUDY AIMS: The study aimed to (1) agree on what corticosteroid treatments to compare in a treatment trial and the best way to measure changes in juvenile idiopathic arthritis to evaluate a quick-acting treatment and (2) find out if there are enough young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK to be included in such a study. METHODS: Published research on corticosteroids in juvenile idiopathic arthritis was reviewed. Health-care professionals were asked how they choose which corticosteroids to use and which method of administration to use. Interviews were carried out with children and young people and their families to (1) consider the design of a study comparing corticosteroid routes, (2) identify outcomes important to them and (3) determine whether or not they would be willing to take part in a future study. A 3-month feasibility study was carried out to collect details of children and young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis before and after corticosteroid treatment to measure improvements in juvenile idiopathic arthritis activity, and to see whether or not a larger study would be possible. FINDINGS: This study showed that corticosteroids are used in different ways across the UK. The views of children, young people and their families must be taken into account when designing a future study. This study calculated the number of young people who would be needed to take part in the future, showing that it would be possible to do a larger study that compared different corticosteroid treatments, which would help everyone to understand the best way to use corticosteroids.

Routine gastric residual volume measurement to guide enteral feeding in mechanically ventilated infants and children: the GASTRIC feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The routine measurement of gastric residual volume to guide the initiation and delivery of enteral feeding is widespread in paediatric intensive care and neonatal units, but has little underlying evidence to support it. OBJECTIVE: To answer the question: is a trial of no gastric residual volume measurement feasible in UK paediatric intensive care units and neonatal units? DESIGN: A mixed-methods study involving five linked work packages in two parallel arms: neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. Work package 1: a survey of units to establish current UK practice. Work package 2: qualitative interviews with health-care professionals and caregivers of children admitted to either setting. Work package 3: a modified two-round e-Delphi survey to investigate health-care professionals' opinions on trial design issues and to obtain consensus on outcomes. Work package 4: examination of national databases to determine the potential eligible populations. Work package 5: two consensus meetings of health-care professionals and parents to review the data and agree consensus on outcomes that had not reached consensus in the e-Delphi study. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Parents of children with experience of ventilation and tube feeding in both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units, and health-care professionals working in neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units. RESULTS: Baseline surveys showed that the practice of gastric residual volume measurement was very common (96% in paediatric intensive care units and 65% in neonatal units). Ninety per cent of parents from both neonatal units and paediatric intensive care units supported a future trial, while highlighting concerns around possible delays in detecting complications. Health-care professionals also indicated that a trial was feasible, with 84% of staff willing to participate in a trial. Concerns expressed by junior nurses about the intervention arm of not measuring gastric residual volumes were addressed by developing a simple flow chart and education package. The trial design survey and e-Delphi study gained consensus on 12 paediatric intensive care unit and nine neonatal unit outcome measures, and identified acceptable inclusion and exclusion criteria. Given the differences in physiology, disease processes, environments, staffing and outcomes of interest, two different trials are required in the two settings. Database analyses subsequently showed that trials were feasible in both settings in terms of patient numbers. Of 16,222 children who met the inclusion criteria in paediatric intensive care units, 12,629 stayed for > 3 days. In neonatal units, 15,375 neonates < 32 weeks of age met the inclusion criteria. Finally, the two consensus meetings demonstrated 'buy-in' from the wider UK neonatal communities and paediatric intensive care units, and enabled us to discuss and vote on the outcomes that did not achieve consensus in the e-Delphi study. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK: Two separate UK trials (one in neonatal units and one in paediatric intensive care units) are feasible to conduct, but they cannot be combined as a result of differences in outcome measures and treatment protocols, reflecting the distinctness of the two specialties. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42110505. 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. 24, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nurses looking after babies and children on intensive care units in the UK usually pass a tube and aspirate whatever food or fluid is in the baby's stomach before they give a feed. The idea is to ensure that the stomach is not overdistended with food and prevent the baby vomiting or, worse, aspirating food into the lungs. However, there is little justification for this practice. It is rarely done in many other countries. It may not be pleasant for the child and perhaps is unnecessary. Some experts have suggested that the policy should be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial. This would mean allocating a large number of children at random to either have the stomach aspirated before feeds, or not. Such a trial would be a major undertaking and we are unsure if parents or staff would be willing to allow children to participate. The aim of this study was to see if it is possible to conduct such a large trial in the UK. Two surveys (of 119 units) showed us that regularly measuring the stomach contents when starting and increasing feeds is common practice for both newborn and older children in UK intensive care units. However, in some countries, such as France, this practice is rarely done. We asked 31 parents and 51 health-care professionals about a future study. Overall, parents were supportive of a trial if it was explained to them well by a knowledgeable and caring professional, and if they were approached at the right time. Some concerns were expressed about not picking up complications early if gastric residual volume was not measured. Health-care professionals were also mainly positive about a future trial, but mentioned similar concerns about not picking up complications early and the difficulty of changing a long-standing routine practice. Parents suggested study outcomes that were important to them. These, along with other outcomes, were voted on in a further survey of 106 professionals and at face-to-face meetings involving 41 participants. Overall, our findings suggest that a trial is feasible to perform and acceptable to parents. However, because of differences in both treatments and important outcomes between children's intensive care units and newborn baby intensive care units, two trials would be needed, one in each type of intensive care unit. These two trials will test whether or not the benefits of not measuring gastric residual volume (e.g. improved calorie intake) outweigh the potential harms (e.g. delayed diagnosis of complications).

Tocilizumab in patients with anti-TNF refractory juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis (APTITUDE): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is a cause of major ocular morbidity. A substantial proportion of children are refractory to systemic methotrexate and TNF inhibitors. Our aim was to study the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis refractory to both methotrexate and TNF inhibitors. METHODS: This multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial was done following a Simon's two-stage design at seven tertiary hospital sites in the UK. Patients aged 2-18 years with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis were eligible. All patients had been on a stable dose of methotrexate for at least 12 weeks and had not responded to treatment with a TNF inhibitor. Patients weighing 30 kg or more were treated with 162 mg subcutaneous tocilizumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, and participants weighing less than 30 kg were treated with 162 mg every 3 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was treatment response defined as a two-step decrease, or decrease to zero, from baseline in the level of inflammation (anterior chamber cells) at week 12, per the standardisation of uveitis nomenclature criteria. A phase 3 trial would be justified if more than seven patients responded to treatment. An interim analysis was planned to assess whether the trial would be stopped for futility, with futility defined as two or fewer treatment responses among ten participants. Adverse events were collected up to 30 calendar days after treatment cessation. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and the safety analysis was done in all patients who started the treatment. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN95363507) and EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2015-001323-23). FINDINGS: 22 participants were enrolled to the trial between Dec 3, 2015, and March 9, 2018, and 21 participants received treatment. One participant was found to be ineligible immediately after enrolment and was therefore withdrawn. Seven of 21 (median unbiased estimate of proportion 34% [95% CI 25-57]) responded to treatment (p=0·11). Safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of tocilizumab. INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint was not met, and thus the results do not support a phase 3 trial of tocilizumab in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis. Importantly, data on the use of tocilizumab in clinical practice is now captured in national registries. Despite this trial not meeting the threshold required to justify a larger phase 3 trial, several patients responded to treatment; as such, tocilzumab might still be a therapeutic option in some children with uveitis refractory to anti-TNF drugs, given the absence of other treatment options. FUNDING: Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network: Children.

Author Correction: A randomised controlled trial of rosuvastatin for the prevention of aminoglycoside-induced kidney toxicity in children with cystic fibrosis.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

A randomised controlled trial of rosuvastatin for the prevention of aminoglycoside-induced kidney toxicity in children with cystic fibrosis.

The PROteKT study tested the hypothesis that rosuvastatin can inhibit aminoglycoside-induced nephrotoxicity in children with Cystic Fibrosis (CF). This open label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial recruited children and young people aged 6 to 18 years with CF at 13 paediatric CF treatment centres in the UK. Participants were randomised equally to either receive oral rosuvastatin (10 mg once daily) or no intervention (control) throughout clinically indicated treatment with intravenous tobramycin. The primary outcome was the difference between the groups in mean fold-change in urinary Kidney Injury Molecule-1 (KIM-1). Fifty (rosuvastatin n = 23, control n = 27) participants were recruited between May 2015 and January 2017. Primary outcome data was available for 88% (rosuvastatin n = 20, control n = 24). The estimated mean treatment difference in the geometric mean-fold change of normalised KIM-1 was 1.08 (95% CI 0.87-1.35, p = 0.48). In total there were 12 adverse reactions, all mild, reported by five participants randomised to rosuvastatin, and one serious adverse event in each group. Whilst no protective effect of rosuvastatin was seen, there was a lower than expected level of nephrotoxicity in the cohort. Therefore, we can neither confirm nor refute the hypothesis that rosuvastatin protects against aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity.

Use of routinely collected data in a UK cohort of publicly funded randomised clinical trials.

Routinely collected data about health in medical records, registries and hospital activity statistics is now routinely collected in an electronic form. The extent to which such sources of data are now being routinely accessed to deliver efficient clinical trials, is unclear. The aim of this study was to ascertain current practice amongst a United Kingdom (UK) cohort of recently funded and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in relation to sources and use of routinely collected outcome data. Recently funded and ongoing RCTs were identified for inclusion by searching the National Institute for Health Research journals library. Trials that have a protocol available were assessed for inclusion and those that use or plan to use routinely collected health data (RCHD) for at least one outcome were included. RCHD sources and outcome information were extracted. Of 216 RCTs, 102 (47%) planned to use RCHD. A RCHD source was the sole source of outcome data for at least one outcome in 46 (45%) of those 102 trials. The most frequent sources are Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS), with the most common outcome data to be extracted being on mortality, hospital admission, and health service resource use. Our study has found that around half of publicly funded trials in a UK cohort (NIHR HTA funded trials that had a protocol available) plan to collect outcome data from routinely collected data sources.

Adalimumab in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-Associated Uveitis: 5-Year Follow-up of the Bristol Participants of the SYCAMORE Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine longer-term outcomes of participants enrolled from a single center in the SYCAMORE trial, a randomized placebo-controlled trial of adalimumab vs placebo in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis (JIA-U) uncontrolled on methotrexate. DESIGN: Retrospective interventional case series. METHODS: Medical records of all 28 SYCAMORE participants recruited at the Bristol Eye Hospital were reviewed at approximately 3-monthly intervals up to 5 years from the trial randomization date. Uveitis activity, treatment course, visual outcomes, ocular complications, and adverse events were recorded. Data are presented using summary statistics. RESULTS: Following withdrawal of the investigational medicinal product (IMP), 25 of the 28 participants were started on adalimumab for active JIA-U. Of the 12 participants in the active treatment arm of the SYCAMORE study, 11 (92%) were restarted on adalimumab after withdrawal of the IMP for active JIA-U (median time to flare 188 days [range 42-413 days). Two participants stopped adalimumab for uncontrolled JIA-U. One participant had a reduction in vision to 0.3 owing to cataract. Mean visual acuity for the remaining 27 participants was -0.04 (right eye) and -0.05 (left eye). CONCLUSIONS: Drug-induced remission of JIA-U did not persist when adalimumab was withdrawn after 1-2 years of treatment. Adalimumab was well tolerated and visual acuity outcomes were excellent.

Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate for refractory uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a RCT.

BACKGROUND: Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are at risk of uveitis. The role of adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Inc., Ludwigshafen, Germany) in the management of uveitis in children needs to be determined. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) versus placebo with MTX alone, with regard to controlling disease activity in refractory uveitis associated with JIA. DESIGN: This was a randomised (applying a ratio of 2 : 1 in favour of adalimumab), double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre parallel-group trial with an integrated economic evaluation. A central web-based system used computer-generated tables to allocate treatments. A cost-utility analysis based on visual acuity was conducted and a 10-year extrapolation by Markov modelling was also carried out. SETTING: The setting was tertiary care centres throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 2-18 years inclusive, with persistently active JIA-associated uveitis (despite optimised MTX treatment for at least 12 weeks). INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a stable dose of MTX and either adalimumab (20 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing < 30 kg or 40 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing ≥ 30 kg by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks based on body weight) or a placebo (0.8 ml as appropriate according to body weight by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks) for up to 18 months. A follow-up appointment was arranged at 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - time to treatment failure [multicomponent score as defined by set criteria based on the Standardisation of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) criteria]. Economic outcome - incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the NHS in England and Personal Social Services providers. Full details of secondary outcomes are provided in the study protocol. RESULTS: A total of 90 participants were randomised (adalimumab, n = 60; placebo, n = 30). There were 14 (23%) treatment failures in the adalimumab group and 17 (57%) in the placebo group. The analysis of the data from the double-blind phase of the trial showed that the hazard risk (HR) of treatment failure was significantly reduced, by 75%, for participants in the adalimumab group (HR 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.51; p < 0.0001 from log-rank test). The cost-effectiveness of adalimumab plus MTX was £129,025 per QALY gained. Adalimumab-treated participants had a much higher incidence of adverse and serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab in combination with MTX is safe and effective in the management of JIA-associated uveitis. However, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is < 1% at the £30,000-per-QALY threshold. FUTURE WORK: A clinical trial is required to define the most effective time to stop therapy. Prognostic biomarkers of early and complete response should also be identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10065623 and European Clinical Trials Database number 2010-021141-41. 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. 23, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This trial was also funded by Arthritis Research UK (grant reference number 19612). Two strengths of adalimumab (20 mg/0.8 ml and 40 mg/0.8 ml) and a matching placebo were manufactured by AbbVie Inc. (the Marketing Authorisation holder) and supplied in bulk to the contracted distributor (Sharp Clinical Services, Crickhowell, UK) for distribution to trial centres.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is one of the most common rheumatic diseases in children and young people, who are at risk of developing inflammation in an area of the eye called the uvea (called uveitis). The purpose of the study was to look at how effective the use of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) is compared with using MTX alone to treat JIA-associated uveitis. A total of 90 children (aged 2­18 years) taking MTX with JIA-associated uveitis took part in the study. If the inflammation in a patient's eye or eyes was not getting better during the 18 months, the patient was told to stop taking the study drug. It was found that those patients who were taking placebo and MTX in the trial stopped taking the study drug sooner than those who were taking adalimumab and MTX. This means that adalimumab and MTX was better at treating uveitis than MTX alone. It was found that more patients taking adalimumab and MTX together either reduced or stopped taking topical steroids than the patients taking placebo and MTX. It was found that patients taking adalimumab and MTX together experienced more side effects than those taking placebo with MTX. However, these were expected based on what was already known about adalimumab's side effects. An economic evaluation was conducted to estimate whether or not adalimumab would represent value for money for the NHS for this condition. This included long-term effects based on information about patients' clarity of vision. The analysis showed that adalimumab may not be cost-effective, as the additional costs of treatment may not be justified by the benefits. The final results show that although adalimumab used in combination with MTX does help to treat patients with JIA and uveitis, it may not represent good value for the NHS.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Adalimumab for the Treatment of Uveitis Associated with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the cost effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate, compared with methotrexate alone, for the management of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). DESIGN: A cost-utility analysis based on a clinical trial and decision analytic model. PARTICIPANTS: Children and adolescents 2 to 18 years of age with persistently active uveitis associated with JIA, despite optimized methotrexate treatment for at least 12 weeks. METHODS: The SYCAMORE (Randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness, SafetY and Cost effectiveness of Adalimumab in combination with MethOtRExate for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis) trial (identifier, ISRCTN10065623) of methotrexate (up to 25 mg weekly) with or without fortnightly administered adalimumab (20 or 40 mg, according to body weight) provided data on resource use (based on patient self-report and electronic records) and health utilities (from the Health Utilities Index questionnaire). Surgical event rates and long-term outcomes were based on data from a 10-year longitudinal cohort. A Markov model was used to extrapolate the effects of treatment based on visual impairment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical costs to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, utility of defined health states, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY. RESULTS: Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate resulted in additional costs of £39 316, with a 0.30 QALY gain compared with methotrexate alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £129 025 per QALY gained. The probability of cost effectiveness at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was less than 1%. Based on a threshold analysis, a price reduction of 84% would be necessary for adalimumab to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab is clinically effective in uveitis associated with JIA; however, its cost effectiveness is not demonstrated compared with methotrexate alone in the United Kingdom setting.

A phase II trial protocol of Tocilizumab in anti-TNF refractory patients with JIA-associated uveitis (the APTITUDE trial).

BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common rheumatic disease in children. Children with JIA are at risk of intraocular inflammation (uveitis). In the initial stages of mild-moderate inflammation uveitis is asymptomatic. Most children with mild-moderate uveitis are managed on topical steroid drops with or without systemic methotrexate (MTX). When children with moderate-severe uveitis are refractory to MTX, monoclonal anti-tumour necrosis factor agents have been trialled, interim analysis data showed positive results. However, several children with severe recalcitrant disease or non-responsive to anti-tumour necrosis factor agents remain and are at greater risk of significant ocular complications and visual loss. Further evidence of alternative therapies is needed with evidence of a potential role of anti-interleukin-6 agents in the management of severe refractory uveitis. METHODS: The trial will be conducted following a two-stage Simon design. The trial will register at least 22 patients aged 2 to 18 years with active JIA-associated uveitis, who have taken MTX for at least 12 weeks and have failed an anti-TNF agent. It will take place in 7 centres across the UK. All participants will be treated for 6 months, with follow up of 9 months from registration. Participants will receive a stable dose of MTX and those weighing ≥30 kg will be dosed with 162 mg of Tocilizumab every 2 weeks and participants weighing < 30 kg dosed with 162 mg of Tocilizumab every 3 weeks. Primary outcome is treatment response at 12 weeks. Adverse events will be collected up to 30 calendar days following treatment cessation. DISCUSSION: This is a novel adaptive design study of subcutaneous IL-6 inhibition in anti-TNF refractory JIA associated uveitis which will be able to determine if further research should be conducted. This is the first trial to look at ophthalmology outcomes in the efficacy of Tocilizumab in uveitis.This is the first paediatric clinical trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab with MTX in JIA associated uveitis. TRIALS REGISTRATION: The Trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN95363507) on the 10/06/2015 and EU Clinical Trials Register on the 03/07/2015 (EudraCT Number: 2015-001323-23).

Adalimumab plus Methotrexate for Uveitis in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab, a fully human anti-tumor necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody, is effective in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). We tested the efficacy of adalimumab in the treatment of JIA-associated uveitis. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in children and adolescents 2 years of age or older who had active JIA-associated uveitis. Patients who were taking a stable dose of methotrexate were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either adalimumab (at a dose of 20 mg or 40 mg, according to body weight) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Patients continued the trial regimen until treatment failure or until 18 months had elapsed. They were followed for up to 2 years after randomization. The primary end point was the time to treatment failure, defined according to a multicomponent intraocular inflammation score that was based on the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria. RESULTS: The prespecified stopping criteria were met after the enrollment of 90 of 114 patients. We observed 16 treatment failures in 60 patients (27%) in the adalimumab group versus 18 treatment failures in 30 patients (60%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12 to 0.49; P<0.0001 [the prespecified stopping boundary]). Adverse events were reported more frequently in patients receiving adalimumab than in those receiving placebo (10.07 events per patient-year [95% CI, 9.26 to 10.89] vs. 6.51 events per patient-year [95% CI, 5.26 to 7.77]), as were serious adverse events (0.29 events per patient-year [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.43] vs. 0.19 events per patient-year [95% CI, 0.00 to 0.40]). CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab therapy controlled inflammation and was associated with a lower rate of treatment failure than placebo among children and adolescents with active JIA-associated uveitis who were taking a stable dose of methotrexate. Patients who received adalimumab had a much higher incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events than those who received placebo. (Funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme and Arthritis Research UK; SYCAMORE EudraCT number, 2010-021141-41 .).