T-wave morphology abnormalities in the STREAM stage 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Shorter regimens for drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) have non-inferior efficacy compared with longer regimens, but QT prolongation is a concern. T-wave morphology abnormalities may be a predictor of QT prolongation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: STREAM Stage 1 was a randomized controlled trial in rifampicin-resistant TB, comparing short and long regimens. All participants had regular ECGs. QT/QTcF prolongation (≥500 ms or increase in ≥60 ms from baseline) was more common on the short regimen which contained high-dose moxifloxacin and clofazimine. Blinded ECGs were selected from the baseline, early (weeks 1-4), and late (weeks 12-36) time points. T-wave morphology was categorized as normal or abnormal (notched, asymmetric, flat-wave, flat peak, or broad). Differences between groups were assessed using Chi-Square tests (paired/unpaired, as appropriate). RESULTS: Two-hundred participants with available ECGs at relevant times were analyzed (QT prolongation group n = 82; non-prolongation group n = 118). At baseline, 23% (45/200) of participants displayed abnormal T-waves, increasing to 45% (90/200, p < 0.001) at the late time point. Abnormalities were more common in participants allocated the Short regimen (75/117, 64%) than the Long (14/38, 36.8%, p = 0.003); these occurred prior to QT/QTcF ≥500 ms in 53% of the participants (Long 2/5; Short 14/25). CONCLUSIONS: T-wave abnormalities may help identify patients at risk of QT prolongation on DR-TB treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov identifier: NCT02409290). Current Controlled Trial number, ISRCTN78372190.

Performance of an artificial intelligence automated system for diabetic eye screening in a large English population.

AIMS: A diabetic eye screening programme has huge value in reducing avoidable sight loss by identifying diabetic retinopathy at a stage when it can be treated. Artificial intelligence automated systems can be used for diabetic eye screening but are not employed in the national English Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. The aim was to report the performance of a commercially available deep-learning artificial intelligence software in a large English population. METHODS: 9817 anonymised image sets from 10,000 consecutive diabetic eye screening episodes were presented to an artificial intelligence software. The sensitivity and specificity of the artificial intelligence system for detecting diabetic retinopathy were determined using the diabetic eye screening programme manual grade according to national protocols as the reference standard. RESULTS: For no diabetic retinopathy versus any diabetic retinopathy, the sensitivity of the artificial intelligence grading system was 69.7% and specificity 92.2%. The performance of the artificial intelligence system was superior for no or mild diabetic retinopathy versus significant or referrable diabetic retinopathy with a sensitivity of 95.4% and specificity of 92.0%. No cases were identified in which the artificial intelligence grade had missed significant diabetic retinopathy. CONCLUSION: The performance of a commercially available deep-learning artificial intelligence system for identifying diabetic retinopathy in an English national Diabetic Eye Screening Programme is presented. Using the pre-defined settings artificial intelligence performance was highest when identifying diabetic retinopathy which requires an action by the screening programme.

Economic evaluation of shortened, bedaquiline-containing treatment regimens for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (STREAM stage 2): a within-trial analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The STREAM stage 2 trial assessed two bedaquiline-containing regimens for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis: a 9-month all-oral regimen and a 6-month regimen containing an injectable drug for the first 2 months. We did a within-trial economic evaluation of these regimens. METHODS: STREAM stage 2 was an international, phase 3, non-inferiority randomised trial in which participants with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis were randomly assigned (1:2:2:2) to the 2011 WHO regimen (terminated early), a 9-month injectable-containing regimen (control regimen), a 9-month all-oral regimen with bedaquiline (oral regimen), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and an injectable for the first 2 months (6-month regimen). We prospectively collected direct and indirect costs and health-related quality of life data from trial participants until week 76 of follow-up. Cost-effectiveness of the oral and 6-month regimens versus control was estimated in four countries (oral regimen) and two countries (6-month regimen), using health-related quality of life for cost-utility analysis and trial efficacy for cost-effectiveness analysis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18148631. FINDINGS: 300 participants were included in the economic analyses (Ethiopia, 61; India, 142; Moldova, 51; Uganda, 46). In the cost-utility analysis, the oral regimen was not cost-effective in Ethiopia, India, Moldova, and Uganda from either a provider or societal perspective. In Moldova, the oral regimen was dominant from a societal perspective. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the oral regimen was likely to be cost-effective from a provider perspective at willingness-to-pay thresholds per additional favourable outcome of more than US$4500 in Ethiopia, $1900 in India, $3950 in Moldova, and $7900 in Uganda, and from a societal perspective at thresholds of more than $15 900 in Ethiopia, $3150 in India, and $4350 in Uganda, while in Moldova the oral regimen was dominant. In Ethiopia and India, the 6-month regimen would cost tuberculosis programmes and participants less than the control regimen and was highly likely to be cost-effective in both cost-utility analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Reducing the bedaquiline price from $1·81 to $1·00 per tablet made the oral regimen cost-effective in the provider-perspective cost-utility analysis in India and Moldova and dominate over the control regimen in the provider-perspective cost-effectiveness analysis in India. INTERPRETATION: At current costs, the oral bedaquiline-containing regimen for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis is unlikely to be cost-effective in many low-income and middle-income countries. The 6-month regimen represents a cost-effective alternative if injectable use for 2 months is acceptable. FUNDING: USAID and Janssen Research & Development.

Evaluation of two short standardised regimens for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (STREAM stage 2): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The STREAM stage 1 trial showed that a 9-month regimen for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis was non-inferior to the 20-month 2011 WHO-recommended regimen. In STREAM stage 2, we aimed to compare two bedaquiline-containing regimens with the 9-month STREAM stage 1 regimen. METHODS: We did a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 13 hospital clinics in seven countries, in individuals aged 15 years or older with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance. Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 to the 2011 WHO regimen (terminated early), a 9-month control regimen, a 9-month oral regimen with bedaquiline (primary comparison), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and 8 weeks of second-line injectable. Randomisations were stratified by site, HIV status, and CD4 count. Participants and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignments, but laboratory staff were masked. The primary outcome was favourable status (negative cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavourable outcome) at 76 weeks; any death, bacteriological failure or recurrence, and major treatment change were considered unfavourable outcomes. All comparisons used groups of participants randomly assigned concurrently. For non-inferiority to be shown, the upper boundary of the 95% CI should be less than 10% in both modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol analyses, with prespecified tests for superiority done if non-inferiority was shown. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18148631. FINDINGS: Between March 28, 2016, and Jan 28, 2020, 1436 participants were screened and 588 were randomly assigned. Of 517 participants in the mITT population, 133 (71%) of 187 on the control regimen and 162 (83%) of 196 on the oral regimen had a favourable outcome: a difference of 11·0% (95% CI 2·9-19·0), adjusted for HIV status and randomisation protocol (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). By 76 weeks, 108 (53%) of 202 participants on the control regimen and 106 (50%) of 211 allocated to the oral regimen had an adverse event of grade 3 or 4; five (2%) participants on the control regimen and seven (3%) on the oral regimen had died. Hearing loss (Brock grade 3 or 4) was more frequent in participants on the control regimen than in those on the oral regimen (18 [9%] vs four [2%], p=0·0015). Of 134 participants in the mITT population who were allocated to the 6-month regimen, 122 (91%) had a favourable outcome compared with 87 (69%) of 127 participants randomly assigned concurrently to the control regimen (adjusted difference 22·2%, 95% CI 13·1-31·2); six (4%) of 143 participants on the 6-month regimen had grade 3 or 4 hearing loss. INTERPRETATION: Both bedaquiline-containing regimens, a 9-month oral regimen and a 6-month regimen with 8 weeks of second-line injectable, had superior efficacy compared with a 9-month injectable-containing regimen, with fewer cases of hearing loss. FUNDING: USAID and Janssen Research & Development.

Keeping up with the guidelines: design changes to the STREAM stage 2 randomised controlled non-inferiority trial for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.

Results from the STREAM stage 1 trial showed that a 9-month regimen for patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis was non-inferior to the 20-month regimen recommended by the 2011 WHO treatment guidelines. Similar levels of severe adverse events were reported on both regimens suggesting the need for further research to optimise treatment. Stage 2 of STREAM evaluates two additional short-course regimens, both of which include bedaquiline. Throughout stage 2 of STREAM, new drug choices and a rapidly changing treatment landscape have necessitated changes to the trial's design to ensure it remains ethical and relevant. This paper describes changes to the trial design to ensure that stage 2 continues to answer important questions. These changes include the early closure to recruitment of two trial arms and an adjustment to the definition of the primary endpoint. If the STREAM experimental regimens are shown to be non-inferior or superior to the stage 1 study regimen, this would represent an important contribution to evidence about potentially more tolerable and more efficacious MDR-TB regimens, and a welcome advance for patients with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and tuberculosis control programmes globally.Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN18148631 . Registered 10 February 2016.

Toxicity related to standard TB therapy for pulmonary tuberculosis and treatment outcomes in the REMoxTB study according to HIV status.

BACKGROUND: The phase III REMoxTB study prospectively enrolled HIV-positive (with CD4+ count > 250 cells, not on anti-retroviral therapy) and HIV-negative patients. We investigated the incidence of adverse events and cure rates according to HIV status for patients receiving standard TB therapy in the trial. METHODS: Forty-two HIV-positive cases were matched to 220 HIV-negative controls by age, gender, ethnicity, and trial site using coarsened exact matching. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs) were summarised by MedDRA System Organ Class. Kaplan-Meier curves for time to first grade 3 or 4 AE were constructed according to HIV status with hazard ratios calculated. Patients were considered cured if they were culture negative 18 months after commencing therapy with ≥2 consecutive negative culture results. RESULTS: Twenty of 42 (47.6%) HIV-positive and 34 of 220 (15.5%) HIV-negative patients experienced ≥1 grade 3 or 4 AE, respectively. The majority of these were hepatobiliary disorders that accounted for 12 of 40 (30.0%) events occurring in 6 of 42 (14.3%) HIV-positive patients and for 15 of 60 (25.0%) events occurring in 9 of 220 (4.1%) HIV-negative patients. The median time to first grade 3 or 4 AE was 54 days (IQR 15.5-59.0) for HIV-positive and 29.5 days (IQR 9.0-119.0) for HIV-negative patients, respectively. The hazard ratio for experiencing a grade 3 or 4 AE among HIV-positive patients was 3.25 (95% CI 1.87-5.66, p < 0.01). Cure rates were similar, with 38 of 42 (90.5%) HIV-positive and 195 of 220 (88.6%) HIV-negative patients (p = 0.73) cured at 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: HIV-positive patients receiving standard TB therapy in the REMoxTB study were at greater risk of adverse events during treatment but cure rates were similar when compared to a matched sample of HIV-negative patients.

A Trial of a Shorter Regimen for Rifampin-Resistant Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Cohort studies in Bangladesh showed promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2011. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3 noninferiority trial in participants with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis that was susceptible to fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive a short regimen (9 to 11 months) that included high-dose moxifloxacin or a long regimen (20 months) that followed the 2011 WHO guidelines. The primary efficacy outcome was a favorable status at 132 weeks, defined by cultures negative for Mycobacterium tuberculosis at 132 weeks and at a previous occasion, with no intervening positive culture or previous unfavorable outcome. An upper 95% confidence limit for the between-group difference in favorable status that was 10 percentage points or less was used to determine noninferiority. RESULTS: Of 424 participants who underwent randomization, 383 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Favorable status was reported in 79.8% of participants in the long-regimen group and in 78.8% of those in the short-regimen group - a difference, with adjustment for human immunodeficiency virus status, of 1.0 percentage point (95% confidence interval [CI], -7.5 to 9.5) (P = 0.02 for noninferiority). The results with respect to noninferiority were consistent among the 321 participants in the per-protocol population (adjusted difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.5 to 9.1). An adverse event of grade 3 or higher occurred in 45.4% of participants in the long-regimen group and in 48.2% in the short-regimen group. Prolongation of either the QT interval or the corrected QT interval (calculated with Fridericia's formula) to 500 msec occurred in 11.0% of participants in the short-regimen group, as compared with 6.4% in the long-regimen group (P = 0.14); because of the greater incidence in the short-regimen group, participants were closely monitored and some received medication adjustments. Death occurred in 8.5% of participants in the short-regimen group and in 6.4% in the long-regimen group, and acquired resistance to fluoroquinolones or aminoglycosides occurred in 3.3% and 2.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In persons with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis that was susceptible to fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides, a short regimen was noninferior to a long regimen with respect to the primary efficacy outcome and was similar to the long regimen in terms of safety. (Funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN78372190; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02409290.).

Triggered or routine site monitoring visits for randomised controlled trials: results of TEMPER, a prospective, matched-pair study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In multi-site clinical trials, where trial data and conduct are scrutinised centrally with pre-specified triggers for visits to sites, targeted monitoring may be an efficient way to prioritise on-site monitoring. This approach is widely used in academic trials, but has never been formally evaluated. METHODS: TEMPER assessed the ability of targeted monitoring, as used in three ongoing phase III randomised multi-site oncology trials, to distinguish sites at which higher and lower rates of protocol and/or Good Clinical Practice violations would be found during site visits. Using a prospective, matched-pair design, sites that had been prioritised for visits after having activated 'triggers' were matched with a control ('untriggered') site, which would not usually have been visited at that time. The paired sites were visited within 4 weeks of each other, and visit findings are recorded and categorised according to the seriousness of the deviation. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of sites with ≥1 'Major' or 'Critical' finding not previously identified centrally. The study was powered to detect an absolute difference of ≥30% between triggered and untriggered visits. A sensitivity analysis, recommended by the study's blinded endpoint review committee, excluded findings related to re-consent. Additional analyses assessed the prognostic value of individual triggers and data from pre-visit questionnaires completed by site and trials unit staff. RESULTS: In total, 42 matched pairs of visits took place between 2013 and 2016. In the primary analysis, 88.1% of triggered visits had ≥1 new Major/Critical finding, compared to 81.0% of untriggered visits, an absolute difference of 7.1% (95% confidence interval -8.3%, +22.5%; p = 0.365). When re-consent findings were excluded, these figures reduced to 85.7% versus 59.5%, (difference = 26.2%, 95% confidence interval 8.0%, 44.4%; p = 0.007). Individual triggers had modest prognostic value but knowledge of the trial-related activities carried out by site staff may be useful. CONCLUSION: Triggered monitoring approaches, as used in these trials, were not sufficiently discriminatory. The rate of Major and Critical findings was higher than anticipated, but the majority related to consent and re-consent with no indication of systemic problems that would impact trial-wide safety issues or integrity of the results in any of the three trials. Sensitivity analyses suggest triggered monitoring may be of potential use, but needs improvement and investigation of further central monitoring triggers is warranted. TEMPER highlights the need to question and evaluate methods in trial conduct, and should inform further developments in this area.

Toxicity associated with tuberculosis chemotherapy in the REMoxTB study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and severity of tuberculosis chemotherapy toxicity is poorly characterised. We used data available from patients in the REMoxTB trial to provide an assessment of the risks associated with the standard regimen and two experimental regimens containing moxifloxacin. METHODS: All grade 3 & 4 adverse events (AEs) and their relationship to treatment for patients who had taken at least one dose of therapy in the REMoxTB clinical trial were recorded. Univariable logistic regression was used to test the relationship of baseline characteristics to the incidence of grade 3 & 4 AEs and significant characteristics (p < 0.10) were incorporated into a multivariable model. The timing of AEs during therapy was analysed in standard therapy and the experimental arms. Logistic regression was used to investigate the relationship between AEs (total and related-only) and microbiological cure on treatment. RESULTS: In the standard therapy arm 57 (8.9%) of 639 patients experienced ≥1 related AEs with 80 of the total 113 related events (70.8%) occurring in the intensive phase of treatment. Both four-month experimental arms ("isoniazid arm" with moxifloxacin substituted for ethambutol & "ethambutol arm" with moxifloxacin substituted for isoniazid) had a lower total of related grade 3 & 4 AEs than standard therapy (63 & 65 vs 113 AEs). Female gender (adjOR 1.97, 95% CI 0.91-1.83) and HIV-positive status (adjOR 3.33, 95% CI 1.55-7.14) were significantly associated with experiencing ≥1 related AE (p < 0.05) on standard therapy. The most common adverse events on standard therapy related to hepatobiliary, musculoskeletal and metabolic disorders. Patients who experienced ≥1 related AE were more likely to fail treatment or relapse (adjOR 3.11, 95% CI 1.59-6.10, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most AEs considered related to standard therapy occurred in the intensive phase of treatment with female patients and HIV-positive patients demonstrating a significantly higher risk of AEs during treatment. Almost a tenth of standard therapy patients had a significant side effect, whereas both experimental arms recorded a lower incidence of toxicity. That patients with one or more AE are more likely to fail treatment suggests that treatment outcomes could be improved by identifying such patients through targeted monitoring.

Liver toxicity associated with tuberculosis chemotherapy in the REMoxTB study.

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a common complication of tuberculosis treatment. We utilised data from the REMoxTB clinical trial to describe the incidence of predisposing factors and the natural history in patients with liver enzyme levels elevated in response to tuberculosis treatment. METHODS: Patients received either standard tuberculosis treatment (2EHRZ/4HR), or a 4-month regimen in which moxifloxacin replaced either ethambutol (isoniazid arm, 2MHRZ/2MHR) or isoniazid (ethambutol arm, 2EMRZ/2MR). Hepatic enzymes were measured at 0, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 17 weeks and as clinically indicated during reported adverse events. Patients included were those receiving at least one dose of drug and with two or more hepatic enzyme measurements. RESULTS: A total of 1928 patients were included (639 2EHRZ/4HR, 654 2MHRZ/2MHR and 635 2EMRZ/2MR). DILI was defined as peak alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≥ 5 times the upper limit of normal (5 × ULN) or ALT ≥ 3 × ULN with total bilirubin > 2 × ULN. DILI was identified in 58 of the 1928 (3.0%) patients at a median time of 28 days (interquartile range IQR 14-56). Of 639 (6.4%) patients taking standard tuberculosis therapy, 41 experienced clinically significant enzyme elevations (peak ALT ≥ 3 × ULN). On standard therapy, 21.1% of patients aged >55 years developed a peak ALT/aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ≥ 3 × ULN (p = 0.01) and 15% of HIV-positive patients experienced a peak ALT/AST ≥ 3 × ULN compared to 9% of HIV-negative patients (p = 0.160). The median peak ALT/AST was higher in isoniazid-containing regimens vs no-isoniazid regimens (p < 0.05), and lower in moxifloxacin-containing arms vs no-moxifloxacin arms (p < 0.05). Patients receiving isoniazid reached a peak ALT ≥ 3 × ULN 9.5 days earlier than those on the ethambutol arm (median time of 28 days vs 18.5 days). Of the 67 Asian patients with a peak ALT/AST ≥ 3 × ULN, 57 (85.1%) were on an isoniazid-containing regimen (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide evidence of the risk of DILI in tuberculosis patients on standard treatment. Older patients on standard therapy, HIV-positive patients, Asian patients and those receiving isoniazid were at higher risk of elevated enzyme levels. Monitoring hepatic enzymes during the first 2 months of standard therapy detected approximately 75% of patients with a peak enzyme elevation ≥3 × ULN, suggesting this should be a standard of care. These results provide evidence for the potential of moxifloxacin in hepatic sparing.

Spot sputum samples are at least as good as early morning samples for identifying Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: The use of early morning sputum samples (EMS) to diagnose tuberculosis (TB) can result in treatment delay given the need for the patient to return to the clinic with the EMS, increasing the chance of patients being lost during their diagnostic workup. However, there is little evidence to support the superiority of EMS over spot sputum samples. In this new analysis of the REMoxTB study, we compare the diagnostic accuracy of EMS with spot samples for identifying Mycobacterium tuberculosis pre- and post-treatment. METHODS: Patients who were smear positive at screening were enrolled into the study. Paired sputum samples (one EMS and one spot) were collected at each trial visit pre- and post-treatment. Microscopy and culture on solid LJ and liquid MGIT media were performed on all samples; those missing corresponding paired results were excluded from the analyses. RESULTS: Data from 1115 pre- and 2995 post-treatment paired samples from 1931 patients enrolled in the REMoxTB study were analysed. Patients were recruited from South Africa (47%), East Africa (21%), India (20%), Asia (11%), and North America (1%); 70% were male, median age 31 years (IQR 24-41), 139 (7%) co-infected with HIV with a median CD4 cell count of 399 cells/µL (IQR 318-535). Pre-treatment spot samples had a higher yield of positive Ziehl-Neelsen smears (98% vs. 97%, P = 0.02) and LJ cultures (87% vs. 82%, P = 0.006) than EMS, but there was no difference for positivity by MGIT (93% vs. 95%, P = 0.18). Contaminated and false-positive MGIT were found more often with EMS rather than spot samples. Surprisingly, pre-treatment EMS had a higher smear grading and shorter time-to-positivity, by 1 day, than spot samples in MGIT culture (4.5 vs. 5.5 days, P < 0.001). There were no differences in time to positivity in pre-treatment LJ culture, or in post-treatment MGIT or LJ cultures. Comparing EMS and spot samples in those with unfavourable outcomes, there were no differences in smear or culture results, and positive results were not detected earlier in Kaplan-Meier analyses in either EMS or spot samples. CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the hypothesis that EMS samples are superior to spot sputum samples in a clinical trial of patients with smear positive pulmonary TB. Observed small differences in mycobacterial burden are of uncertain significance and EMS samples do not detect post-treatment positives any sooner than spot samples.

SWIM (sickle with ibuprofen and morphine) randomised controlled trial fails to recruit: lessons learnt.

OBJECTIVES: Sickle With Ibuprofen and Morphine (SWIM) trial was designed to assess whether co-administration of ibuprofen (a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug) resulted in a reduction of opioid consumption delivered by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for acute pain in sickle cell disease. DESIGN: A randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. SETTING: UK multicentre trial in acute hospital setting. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with sickle cell disease of any gender and phenotype aged 16 years and over. INTERVENTIONS: Oral ibuprofen at a dose of 800 mg three times daily or placebo in addition to opioids (morphine or diamorphine) administered via PCA pump for up to 4 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was opioid consumption over 4 days following randomisation. RESULTS: The SWIM trial closed early because it failed to randomise to its target of 316 patients within a reasonable time. CONCLUSIONS: The key issues identified include the unanticipated length of time between informed consent and randomisation, difficulties in randomisation of patients in busy emergency departments, availability of trained staff at weekends and out of hours, fewer centres than expected using PCA routinely for sickle cell pain treatment, lack of research staff and support for participation, and the trial design. There are implications for future UK trials in sickle cell disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN97241637, NCT00880373; Pre-results.

Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (TRIGGER): a pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion thresholds for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding are controversial. So far, only three small, underpowered studies and one single-centre trial have been done. Findings from the single-centre trial showed reduced mortality with restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. We aimed to assess whether a multicentre, cluster randomised trial is a feasible method to substantiate or refute this finding. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial, done in six university hospitals in the UK, we enrolled all patients aged 18 years or older with new presentations of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, irrespective of comorbidity, except for exsanguinating haemorrhage. We randomly assigned hospitals (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation sequence (random permuted block size of 6, without stratification or matching) to either a restrictive (transfusion when haemoglobin concentration fell below 80 g/L) or liberal (transfusion when haemoglobin concentration fell below 100 g/L) RBC transfusion policy. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate, protocol adherence, haemoglobin concentration, RBC exposure, selection bias, and information to guide design and economic evaluation of the phase 3 trial. Main exploratory clinical outcomes were further bleeding and mortality at day 28. We did analyses on all enrolled patients for whom an outcome was available. This trial is registered, ISRCTN85757829 and NCT02105532. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2012, and March 1, 2013, we enrolled 936 patients across six hospitals (403 patients in three hospitals with a restrictive policy and 533 patients in three hospitals with a liberal policy). Recruitment rate was significantly higher for the liberal than for the restrictive policy (62% vs 55%; p=0·04). Despite some baseline imbalances, Rockall and Blatchford risk scores were identical between policies. Protocol adherence was 96% (SD 10) in the restrictive policy vs 83% (25) in the liberal policy (difference 14%; 95% CI 7-21; p=0·005). Mean last recorded haemoglobin concentration was 116 (SD 24) g/L for patients on the restrictive policy and 118 (20) g/L for those on the liberal policy (difference -2·0 [95% CI -12·0 to 7·0]; p=0·50). Fewer patients received RBCs on the restrictive policy than on the liberal policy (restrictive policy 133 [33%] vs liberal policy 247 [46%]; difference -12% [95% CI -35 to 11]; p=0·23), with fewer RBC units transfused (mean 1·2 [SD 2·1] vs 1·9 [2·8]; difference -0·7 [-1·6 to 0·3]; p=0·12), although these differences were not significant. We noted no significant difference in clinical outcomes. INTERPRETATION: A cluster randomised design led to rapid recruitment, high protocol adherence, separation in degree of anaemia between groups, and non-significant reduction in RBC transfusion in the restrictive policy. A large cluster randomised trial to assess the effectiveness of transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is both feasible and essential before clinical practice guidelines change to recommend restrictive transfusion for all patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. FUNDING: NHS Blood and Transplant Research and Development.

Sharing data from clinical trials: the rationale for a controlled access approach.

BACKGROUND: The move towards increased transparency around clinical trials is welcome. Much focus has been on under-reporting of trials and access to individual patient data to allow independent verification of findings. There are many other good reasons for data sharing from clinical trials. We describe some key issues in data sharing, including the challenges of open access to data. These include issues in consent and disclosure; risks in identification, including self-identification; risks in distorting data to prevent self-identification; and risks in analysis. These risks have led us to develop a controlled access policy, which safeguards the rights of patients entered in our trials, guards the intellectual property rights of the original researchers who designed the trial and collected the data, provides a barrier against unnecessary duplication, and ensures that researchers have the necessary resources and skills to analyse the data. METHODS: We briefly discuss the practicalities of our current approach to data sharing, including ensuring that data are discoverable and how to deal with old studies. We describe data sharing activities at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit. RESULTS: One hundred and three data sharing activities were logged from 2012 to 2014 from external and internal applicants. The motivations are varied, but none have been for replication of the primary results. CONCLUSIONS: For any request to share data, we note the important role of independent reviewers as well as reviewers who know the study well, and present some of the key questions that all reviewers should ask when deciding whether a request is reasonable. We consider the responsibilities of all parties. We highlight the potential for opportunity costs. Clinical trial data should be shared for reasonable requests but there are many practical issues that must be explicitly considered.

Evaluation of a standardized treatment regimen of anti-tuberculosis drugs for patients with multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis (STREAM): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to drug-sensitive tuberculosis, the guidelines for the treatment of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) have a very poor evidence base; current recommendations, based on expert opinion, are that patients should be treated for a minimum of 20 months. A series of cohort studies conducted in Bangladesh identified a nine-month regimen with very promising results. There is a need to evaluate this regimen in comparison with the currently recommended regimen in a randomized controlled trial in a variety of settings, including patients with HIV-coinfection. METHODS/DESIGN: STREAM is a multi-centre randomized trial of non-inferiority design comparing a nine-month regimen to the treatment currently recommended by the World Health Organization in patients with MDR pulmonary TB with no evidence on line probe assay of fluoroquinolone or kanamycin resistance. The nine-month regimen includes clofazimine and high-dose moxifloxacin and can be extended to 11 months in the event of delay in smear conversion. The primary outcome is based on the bacteriological status of the patients at 27 months post-randomization. Based on the assumption that the nine-month regimen will be slightly more effective than the control regimen and, given a 10% margin of non-inferiority, a total of 400 patients are required to be enrolled. Health economics data are being collected on all patients in selected sites. DISCUSSION: The results from the study in Bangladesh and cohorts in progress elsewhere are encouraging, but for this regimen to be recommended more widely than in a research setting, robust evidence is needed from a randomized clinical trial. Results from the STREAM trial together with data from ongoing cohorts should provide the evidence necessary to revise current recommendations for the treatment for MDR-TB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with clincaltrials.gov (registration number: ISRCTN78372190) on 14 October 2010.

Four-month moxifloxacin-based regimens for drug-sensitive tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Early-phase and preclinical studies suggest that moxifloxacin-containing regimens could allow for effective 4-month treatment of uncomplicated, smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to test the noninferiority of two moxifloxacin-containing regimens as compared with a control regimen. One group of patients received isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol for 8 weeks, followed by 18 weeks of isoniazid and rifampin (control group). In the second group, we replaced ethambutol with moxifloxacin for 17 weeks, followed by 9 weeks of placebo (isoniazid group), and in the third group, we replaced isoniazid with moxifloxacin for 17 weeks, followed by 9 weeks of placebo (ethambutol group). The primary end point was treatment failure or relapse within 18 months after randomization. RESULTS: Of the 1931 patients who underwent randomization, in the per-protocol analysis, a favorable outcome was reported in fewer patients in the isoniazid group (85%) and the ethambutol group (80%) than in the control group (92%), for a difference favoring the control group of 6.1 percentage points (97.5% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 10.5) versus the isoniazid group and 11.4 percentage points (97.5% CI, 6.7 to 16.1) versus the ethambutol group. Results were consistent in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and all sensitivity analyses. The hazard ratios for the time to culture negativity in both solid and liquid mediums for the isoniazid and ethambutol groups, as compared with the control group, ranged from 1.17 to 1.25, indicating a shorter duration, with the lower bounds of the 95% confidence intervals exceeding 1.00 in all cases. There was no significant difference in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events, with events reported in 127 patients (19%) in the isoniazid group, 111 (17%) in the ethambutol group, and 123 (19%) in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The two moxifloxacin-containing regimens produced a more rapid initial decline in bacterial load, as compared with the control group. However, noninferiority for these regimens was not shown, which indicates that shortening treatment to 4 months was not effective in this setting. (Funded by the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development and others; REMoxTB ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00864383.).

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Loss to follow-up from randomised trials can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to reduce loss to follow-up and improve retention but few have been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention on the proportion of participants retained in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial strategy and trial setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, DARE, CINAHL, Campbell Collaboration's Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register, and ERIC. We handsearched conference proceedings and publication reference lists for eligible retention trials. We also surveyed all UK Clinical Trials Units to identify further studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included eligible retention trials of randomised or quasi-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We contacted authors to supplement or confirm data that we had extracted. For retention trials, we recorded data on the method of randomisation, type of strategy evaluated, comparator, primary outcome, planned sample size, numbers randomised and numbers retained. We used risk ratios (RR) to evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials using the Chi(2) and I(2) statistics. For main trials that hosted retention trials, we extracted data on disease area, intervention, population, healthcare setting, sequence generation and allocation concealment. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 38 eligible retention trials. Included trials evaluated six broad types of strategies to improve retention. These were incentives, communication strategies, new questionnaire format, participant case management, behavioural and methodological interventions. For 34 of the included trials, retention was response to postal and electronic questionnaires with or without medical test kits. For four trials, retention was the number of participants remaining in the trial. Included trials were conducted across a spectrum of disease areas, countries, healthcare and community settings. Strategies that improved trial retention were addition of monetary incentives compared with no incentive for return of trial-related postal questionnaires (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28, P value < 0.0001), addition of an offer of monetary incentive compared with no offer for return of electronic questionnaires (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38, P value < 0.00001) and an offer of a GBP20 voucher compared with GBP10 for return of postal questionnaires and biomedical test kits (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.22, P value < 0.005). The evidence that shorter questionnaires are better than longer questionnaires was unclear (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08, P value = 0.07) and the evidence for questionnaires relevant to the disease/condition was also unclear (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14). Although each was based on the results of a single trial, recorded delivery of questionnaires seemed to be more effective than telephone reminders (RR 2.08; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.87, P value = 0.02) and a 'package' of postal communication strategies with reminder letters appeared to be better than standard procedures (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.67, P value < 0.0001). An open trial design also appeared more effective than a blind trial design for return of questionnaires in one fracture prevention trial (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63, P value = 0.0003).There was no good evidence that the addition of a non-monetary incentive, an offer of a non-monetary incentive, 'enhanced' letters, letters delivered by priority post, additional reminders, or questionnaire question order either increased or decreased trial questionnaire response/retention. There was also no evidence that a telephone survey was either more or less effective than a monetary incentive and a questionnaire. As our analyses are based on single trials, the effect on questionnaire response of using offers of charity donations, sending reminders to trial sites and when a questionnaire is sent, may need further evaluation. Case management and behavioural strategies used for trial retention may also warrant further evaluation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the retention trials that we identified evaluated questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. Monetary incentives and offers of monetary incentives increased postal and electronic questionnaire response. Some other strategies evaluated in single trials looked promising but need further evaluation. Application of the findings of this review would depend on trial setting, population, disease area, data collection and follow-up procedures.