A smoking cessation smartphone app that delivers real-time 'context aware' behavioural support: the Quit Sense feasibility RCT.

Background: During a quit attempt, cues from a smoker's environment are a major cause of brief smoking lapses, which increase the risk of relapse. Quit Sense is a theory-guided Just-In-Time Adaptive Intervention smartphone app, providing smokers with the means to learn about their environmental smoking cues and provides 'in the moment' support to help them manage these during a quit attempt. Objective: To undertake a feasibility randomised controlled trial to estimate key parameters to inform a definitive randomised controlled trial of Quit Sense. Design: A parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial with a qualitative process evaluation and a 'Study Within A Trial' evaluating incentives on attrition. The research team were blind to allocation except for the study statistician, database developers and lead researcher. Participants were not blind to allocation. Setting: Online with recruitment, enrolment, randomisation and data collection (excluding manual telephone follow-up) automated through the study website. Participants: Smokers (323 screened, 297 eligible, 209 enrolled) recruited via online adverts on Google search, Facebook and Instagram. Interventions: Participants were allocated to 'usual care' arm (n = 105; text message referral to the National Health Service SmokeFree website) or 'usual care' plus Quit Sense (n = 104), via a text message invitation to install the Quit Sense app. Main outcome measures: Follow-up at 6 weeks and 6 months post enrolment was undertaken by automated text messages with an online questionnaire link and, for non-responders, by telephone. Definitive trial progression criteria were met if a priori thresholds were included in or lower than the 95% confidence interval of the estimate. Measures included health economic and outcome data completion rates (progression criterion #1 threshold: ≥ 70%), including biochemical validation rates (progression criterion #2 threshold: ≥ 70%), recruitment costs, app installation (progression criterion #3 threshold: ≥ 70%) and engagement rates (progression criterion #4 threshold: ≥ 60%), biochemically verified 6-month abstinence and hypothesised mechanisms of action and participant views of the app (qualitative). Results: Self-reported smoking outcome completion rates were 77% (95% confidence interval 71% to 82%) and health economic data (resource use and quality of life) 70% (95% CI 64% to 77%) at 6 months. Return rate of viable saliva samples for abstinence verification was 39% (95% CI 24% to 54%). The per-participant recruitment cost was £19.20, which included advert (£5.82) and running costs (£13.38). In the Quit Sense arm, 75% (95% CI 67% to 83%; 78/104) installed the app and, of these, 100% set a quit date within the app and 51% engaged with it for more than 1 week. The rate of 6-month biochemically verified sustained abstinence, which we anticipated would be used as a primary outcome in a future study, was 11.5% (12/104) in the Quit Sense arm and 2.9% (3/105) in the usual care arm (estimated effect size: adjusted odds ratio = 4.57, 95% CIs 1.23 to 16.94). There was no evidence of between-arm differences in hypothesised mechanisms of action. Three out of four progression criteria were met. The Study Within A Trial analysis found a £20 versus £10 incentive did not significantly increase follow-up rates though reduced the need for manual follow-up and increased response speed. The process evaluation identified several potential pathways to abstinence for Quit Sense, factors which led to disengagement with the app, and app improvement suggestions. Limitations: Biochemical validation rates were lower than anticipated and imbalanced between arms. COVID-19-related restrictions likely limited opportunities for Quit Sense to provide location tailored support. Conclusions: The trial design and procedures demonstrated feasibility and evidence was generated supporting the efficacy potential of Quit Sense. Future work: Progression to a definitive trial is warranted providing improved biochemical validation rates. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN12326962. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/92/31) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Smokers often fail to quit because of urges to smoke triggered by their surroundings (e.g. being around smokers). We developed a smartphone app ('Quit Sense') which learns about an individual's surroundings and locations where they smoke. During a quit attempt, Quit Sense uses in-built sensors to identify when smokers are in those locations and sends 'in the moment' advice to help prevent them from smoking. We ran a feasibility study to help plan for a future large study to see if Quit Sense helps smokers to quit. This feasibility study was designed to tell us how many participants complete study measures; recruitment costs; how many participants install and use Quit Sense; and estimate whether Quit Sense may help smokers to stop and how it might do this. We recruited 209 smokers using online adverts on Google search, Facebook and Instagram, costing £19 per participant. Participants then had an equal chance of receiving a web link to the National Health Service SmokeFree website ('usual care group') or receive that same web link plus a link to the Quit Sense app ('Quit Sense group'). Three-quarters of the Quit Sense group installed the app on their phone and half of these used the app for more than 1 week. We followed up 77% of participants at 6 months to collect study data, though only 39% of quitters returned a saliva sample for abstinence verification. At 6 months, more people in the Quit Sense group had stopped smoking (12%) than the usual care group (3%). It was not clear how the app helped smokers to quit based on study measures, though interviews found that the process of training the app helped people quit through learning about what triggered their smoking behaviour. The findings support undertaking a large study to tell us whether Quit Sense really does help smokers to quit.

Effects of an increased financial incentive on follow-up in an online, automated smoking cessation trial: A randomised controlled Study Within a Trial (SWAT).

INTRODUCTION: Poor retention in clinical trials can impact on statistical power, reliability, validity and generalisability of findings and is a particular challenge in smoking cessation studies. In online trials with automated follow up mechanisms, poor response also increases resource-need for manual follow up. This study compared two financial incentives on response rates at 6 months follow up, in an online, automated smoking cessation feasibility trial of a cessation smartphone app (Quit Sense). METHODS: A study within a trial (SWAT), embedded within a host randomised controlled trial. Host trial participants were randomised 1:1 to receive either a £10 or £20 voucher incentive, for completing the 6-month questionnaire. Stratification for randomisation to the SWAT was by minimisation to ensure an even split of host trial arm participants, and by 6-week response rate. Outcome measures were: questionnaire completion rate, time to completion, number of completers requiring manual follow up and completeness of responses. RESULTS: 204 participants were randomised to the SWAT. The £20 and £10 incentives did not differ in completion rate at 6 months (79% versus 74%; p=0.362) but did reduce the proportion of participants requiring manual follow up (46% versus 62%; p=0.018) and the median completion time (7 days versus 15 days; p=0.008). Measure response completeness rates were higher among £20 incentive participants, though differences were small for the host trial's primary smoking outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits to using relatively modest increases in incentive for online smoking cessation trials include more rapid completion of follow up questionnaires and reduced manual follow up. IMPLICATIONS: A modest increase in incentive (from £10 to £20) to promote the completion of follow up questionnaires in online smoking cessation trials may not increase overall response rates but could lead to more rapid data collection, a reduced need for manual follow-up and reduced missing data among those who initiate completing a questionnaire. Such an improvement may help to reduce bias, increase validity and generalisability, and improve statistical power in smoking cessation trials.

A pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial to assess the safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in people with Alzheimer's disease and agitated behaviours: the HTA-SYMBAD trial.

Background: Agitation is common and impacts negatively on people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is first-line treatment, but we need other treatment when this fails. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. Objectives: To assess clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in treating agitation in dementia. Design: Pragmatic, phase III, multicentre, double-blind, superiority, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of mirtazapine over 12 weeks (carbamazepine arm discontinued). Setting: Twenty-six UK secondary care centres. Participants: Eligibility: probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score ≥ 45. Interventions: Mirtazapine (target 45 mg), carbamazepine (target 300 mg) and placebo. Outcome measures: Primary: Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score 12 weeks post randomisation. Main economic outcome evaluation: incremental cost per six-point difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score at 12 weeks, from health and social care system perspective. Data from participants and informants at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Long-term follow-up Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory data collected by telephone from informants at 6 and 12 months. Randomisation and blinding: Participants allocated 1 : 1 : 1 ratio (to discontinuation of the carbamazepine arm, 1 : 1 thereafter) to receive placebo or carbamazepine or mirtazapine, with treatment as usual. Random allocation was block stratified by centre and residence type with random block lengths of three or six (after discontinuation of carbamazepine, two or four). Double-blind, with drug and placebo identically encapsulated. Referring clinicians, participants, trial management team and research workers who did assessments were masked to group allocation. Results: Two hundred and forty-four participants recruited and randomised (102 mirtazapine, 102 placebo, 40 carbamazepine). The carbamazepine arm was discontinued due to slow overall recruitment; carbamazepine/placebo analyses are therefore statistically underpowered and not detailed in the abstract. Mean difference placebo-mirtazapine (-1.74, 95% confidence interval -7.17 to 3.69; p = 0.53). Harms: The number of controls with adverse events (65/102, 64%) was similar to the mirtazapine group (67/102, 66%). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n = 7) by week 16 than in the control group (n = 1). Post hoc analysis suggests this was of marginal statistical significance (p = 0.065); this difference did not persist at 6- and 12-month assessments. At 12 weeks, the costs of unpaid care by the dyadic carer were significantly higher in the mirtazapine than placebo group [difference: £1120 (95% confidence interval £56 to £2184)]. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, mean raw and adjusted outcome scores and costs of the complete cases samples showed no differences between groups. Limitations: Our study has four important potential limitations: (1) we dropped the proposed carbamazepine group; (2) the trial was not powered to investigate a mortality difference between the groups; (3) recruitment beyond February 2020, was constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic; and (4) generalisability is limited by recruitment of participants from old-age psychiatry services and care homes. Conclusions: The data suggest mirtazapine is not clinically or cost-effective (compared to placebo) for agitation in dementia. There is little reason to recommend mirtazapine for people with dementia with agitation. Future work: Effective and cost-effective management strategies for agitation in dementia are needed where non-pharmacological approaches are unsuccessful. Study registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17411897/NCT03031184. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

It is common for people with Alzheimer's disease to experience agitation, for example feeling restless or unsettled. If left untreated, agitation can lead to poorer quality of life and increased hospitalisation and strain for family carers. Often these symptoms are treated with medications that are usually used to manage psychosis (antipsychotic drugs), but such medication has limited effectiveness and can cause serious adverse effects to patients, including risk of increased death. Two medications that are already commonly prescribed for other health issues, mirtazapine (an antidepressant) and carbamazepine (a drug used to treat epilepsy), had been identified as a possible alternative way of treating agitation in Alzheimer's disease that might not have the harms associated with antipsychotic medication. In this study, we compared the effects of giving mirtazapine or carbamazepine with a dummy drug (placebo) in people with Alzheimer's disease who were experiencing agitation. The results of the study showed that neither medication was any more effective than the placebo in reducing agitation over 12 weeks in terms of improving symptoms, or in economic terms. Mirtazapine may lead to additional carer costs as compared to placebo. The study findings are stronger for mirtazapine than carbamazepine because the carbamazepine arm was stopped when it had recruited less than half the numbers needed. That was done because the study was not recruiting quickly enough to support both the mirtazapine and the carbamazepine arms. The findings from this study show that mirtazapine should not be recommended to treat agitation in Alzheimer's disease. More work is needed to formulate effective ways and to test new drug and non-drug treatments for agitation in dementia.

A double-blinded randomised controlled trial of vitamin A drops to treat post-viral olfactory loss: study protocol for a proof-of-concept study for vitamin A nasal drops in post-viral olfactory loss (APOLLO).

BACKGROUND: Smell loss is a common problem with an estimated 5% of the population having no functioning sense of smell. Viral causes of smell loss are the second most common cause and the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is estimated to have caused 20,000 more people this year to have a lasting loss of smell. Isolation, depression, anxiety, and risk of danger from hazards such as toxic gas and spoiled food are all negative impacts. It also affects appetite with weight loss/gain in two-thirds of those affected. Phantosmia or smell distortion can also occur making most foods seem unpalatable. Smell training has been tried with good results in the immediate post-viral phase. Evidence behind treatment with steroids has not shown to have proven effectiveness. With this, a key problem for patients and their clinicians is the lack of proven effective therapeutic treatment options. Based on previous studies, there is some evidence supporting the regenerative potential of retinoic acid, the metabolically active form of vitamin A in the regeneration of olfactory receptor neurons. It is based on this concept that we have chosen vitamin A as our study comparator. AIM: To undertake a two-arm randomised trial of intranasally delivered vitamin A vs no intervention to determine proof of concept. METHODS/DESIGN: The study will compare 10,000 IU once daily Vitamin A self-administered intranasal drops versus peanut oil drops (placebo) delivered over 12 weeks in patients with post-viral olfactory loss. Potentially eligible patients will be recruited from the Smell & Taste Clinic and via the charity Fifth Sense. They will be invited to attend the Brain Imaging Centre at the University of East Anglia on two occasions, 3 months apart. If they meet the eligibility criteria, they will be consented to enter the study and randomised to receive vitamin A drops or no treatment in a 2:1 ratio. MRI scanning will enable volumetric measurement of the OB and ROS; fMRI will then be conducted using an olfactometer to deliver pulsed odours-phenethylalcohol (rose-like) and hydrogen sulphide (rotten eggs). Participants will also perform a standard smell test at both visits as well as complete a quality-of-life questionnaire. Change in OB volume will be the primary outcome measure. DISCUSSION: We expect the outputs of this study to enable a subsequent randomised controlled trial of Vitamin A versus placebo. With PPI input we will make the outputs publicly available using journals, conferences, and social media via Fifth Sense. We have already prepared a draft RCT proposal in partnership with the Norwich Clinical Trials Unit and plan to develop this further in light of the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry 39523. Date of registration in the primary registry: 23rd February 2021.

An Automated, Online Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of a Just-In-Time Adaptive Intervention for Smoking Cessation (Quit Sense).

INTRODUCTION: Learned smoking cues from a smoker's environment are a major cause of lapse and relapse. Quit Sense, a theory-guided Just-In-Time Adaptive Intervention smartphone app, aims to help smokers learn about their situational smoking cues and provide in-the-moment support to help manage these when quitting. METHODS: A two-arm feasibility randomized controlled trial (N = 209) to estimate parameters to inform a definitive evaluation. Smoker's willing to make a quit attempt were recruited using online paid-for adverts and randomized to "usual care" (text message referral to NHS SmokeFree website) or "usual care" plus a text message invitation to install Quit Sense. Procedures, excluding manual follow-up for nonresponders, were automated. Follow-up at 6 weeks and 6 months included feasibility, intervention engagement, smoking-related, and economic outcomes. Abstinence was verified using cotinine assessment from posted saliva samples. RESULTS: Self-reported smoking outcome completion rates at 6 months were 77% (95% CI 71%, 82%), viable saliva sample return rate was 39% (95% CI 24%, 54%), and health economic data 70% (95% CI 64%, 77%). Among Quit Sense participants, 75% (95% CI 67%, 83%) installed the app and set a quit date and, of those, 51% engaged for more than one week. The 6-month biochemically verified sustained abstinence rate (anticipated primary outcome for definitive trial), was 11.5% (12/104) among Quit Sense participants and 2.9% (3/105) for usual care (adjusted odds ratio = 4.57, 95% CIs 1.23, 16.94). No evidence of between-group differences in hypothesized mechanisms of action was found. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation feasibility was demonstrated alongside evidence supporting the effectiveness potential of Quit Sense. IMPLICATIONS: Running a primarily automated trial to initially evaluate Quit Sense was feasible, resulting in modest recruitment costs and researcher time, and high trial engagement. When invited, as part of trial participation, to install a smoking cessation app, most participants are likely to do so, and, for those using Quit Sense, an estimated one-half will engage with it for more than 1 week. Evidence that Quit Sense may increase verified abstinence at 6-month follow-up, relative to usual care, was generated, although low saliva return rates to verify smoking status contributed to considerable imprecision in the effect size estimate.

Comparison of the Journey II bicruciate stabilised (JII-BCS) and GENESIS II total knee arthroplasty for functional ability and motor impairment: the CAPAbility, blinded, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if a newer design of total knee replacement (TKR) (Journey II BCS) produces superior patient-reported outcomes scores and biomechanical outcomes than the older, more established design (Genesis II). SETTING: Patients were recruited from an NHS University Hospital between July 2018 and October 2019 with surgery at two sites. Biomechanical and functional capacity measurements were at a University Movement and Exercise Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 80 participants undergoing single-stage TKR. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive either the Journey II BCS (JII-BCS) or Genesis II TKR. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were: OKS Activity and Participation Questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L and UCLA Activity scores, Timed Up and Go Test, 6 min walk test, lower limb kinematics and lower limb muscle activity during walking and balance. RESULTS: This study found no difference in the OKS between groups. The OKS scores for the JII-BCS and Genesis II groups were mean (SD) 42.97 (5.21) and 43.13 (5.20) respectively, adjusted effect size 0.35 (-2.01,2.71) p=0.771In secondary outcome measures, the Genesis II group demonstrated a significantly greater walking range-of-movement (50.62 (7.33) vs 46.07 (7.71) degrees, adjusted effect size, 3.14 (0.61,5.68) p=0.02) and higher peak knee flexion angular velocity during walking (mean (SD) 307.69 (38.96) vs 330.38 (41.40) degrees/second, adjusted effect size was 21.75 (4.54,38.96), p=0.01) and better postural control (smaller resultant centre of path length) during quiet standing than the JII-BCS group (mean (SD) 158.14 (65.40) vs 235.48 (176.94) mm, adjusted effect size, 59.91 (-105.98, -13.85) p=0.01.). CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, the findings do not support the hypothesis that the Journey II BCS produces a better outcome than the Genesis II for the primary outcome of the OKS at 6 months after surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN32315753.

Cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine for agitated behaviors in dementia: findings from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine compared to placebo over 12-week follow-up. DESIGN: Economic evaluation in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of mirtazapine vs. placebo. SETTING: Community settings and care homes in 26 UK centers. PARTICIPANTS: People with probable or possible Alzheimer's disease and agitation. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome included incremental cost of participants' health and social care per 6-point difference in CMAI score at 12 weeks. Secondary cost-utility analyses examined participants' and unpaid carers' gain in quality-adjusted life years (derived from EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-Proxy-U, and DEMQOL-U) from the health and social care and societal perspectives. RESULTS: One hundred and two participants were allocated to each group; 81 mirtazapine and 90 placebo participants completed a 12-week assessment (87 and 95, respectively, completed a 6-week assessment). Mirtazapine and placebo groups did not differ on mean CMAI scores or health and social care costs over the study period, before or after adjustment for center and living arrangement (independent living/care home). On the primary outcome, neither mirtazapine nor placebo could be considered a cost-effective strategy with a high level of confidence. Groups did not differ in terms of participant self- or proxy-rated or carer self-rated quality of life scores, health and social care or societal costs, before or after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: On cost-effectiveness grounds, the use of mirtazapine cannot be recommended for agitated behaviors in people living with dementia. Effective and cost-effective medications for agitation in dementia remain to be identified in cases where non-pharmacological strategies for managing agitation have been unsuccessful.

Multicentre evaluation of two multiplex PCR platforms for the rapid microbiological investigation of nosocomial pneumonia in UK ICUs: the INHALE WP1 study.

BACKGROUND: Culture-based microbiological investigation of hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP or VAP) is insensitive, with aetiological agents often unidentified. This can lead to excess antimicrobial treatment of patients with susceptible pathogens, while those with resistant bacteria are treated inadequately for prolonged periods. Using PCR to seek pathogens and their resistance genes directly from clinical samples may improve therapy and stewardship. METHODS: Surplus routine lower respiratory tract samples were collected from intensive care unit patients about to receive new or changed antibiotics for hospital-onset lower respiratory tract infections at 15 UK hospitals. Testing was performed using the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (bioMérieux) and Unyvero Pneumonia Panel (Curetis). Concordance analysis compared machine and routine microbiology results, while Bayesian latent class (BLC) analysis estimated the sensitivity and specificity of each test, incorporating information from both PCR panels and routine microbiology. FINDINGS: In 652 eligible samples; PCR identified pathogens in considerably more samples compared with routine microbiology: 60.4% and 74.2% for Unyvero and FilmArray respectively vs 44.2% by routine microbiology. PCR tests also detected more pathogens per sample than routine microbiology. For common HAP/VAP pathogens, FilmArray had sensitivity of 91.7%-100.0% and specificity of 87.5%-99.5%; Unyvero had sensitivity of 50.0%-100.0%%, and specificity of 89.4%-99.0%. BLC analysis indicated that, compared with PCR, routine microbiology had low sensitivity, ranging from 27.0% to 69.4%. INTERPRETATION: Conventional and BLC analysis demonstrated that both platforms performed similarly and were considerably more sensitive than routine microbiology, detecting potential pathogens in patient samples reported as culture negative. The increased sensitivity of detection realised by PCR offers potential for improved antimicrobial prescribing.

Study of mirtazapine for agitated behaviours in dementia (SYMBAD): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Agitation is common in people with dementia and negatively affects the quality of life of both people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is the first-line treatment, but there is a need for other treatment when this care is not effective. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. We assessed the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine, an antidepressant prescribed for agitation in dementia. METHODS: This parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial-the Study of Mirtazapine for Agitated Behaviours in Dementia trial (SYMBAD)-was done in 26 UK centres. Participants had probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, and a Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score of 45 or more. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either mirtazapine (titrated to 45 mg) or placebo. The primary outcome was reduction in CMAI score at 12 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03031184, and ISRCTN17411897. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2017, and March 6, 2020, 204 participants were recruited and randomised. Mean CMAI scores at 12 weeks were not significantly different between participants receiving mirtazapine and participants receiving placebo (adjusted mean difference -1·74, 95% CI -7·17 to 3·69; p=0·53). The number of controls with adverse events (65 [64%] of 102 controls) was similar to that in the mirtazapine group (67 [66%] of 102 participants receiving mirtazapine). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n=7) by week 16 than in the control group (n=1), with post-hoc analysis suggesting this difference was of marginal statistical significance (p=0·065). INTERPRETATION: This trial found no benefit of mirtazapine compared with placebo, and we observed a potentially higher mortality with use of mirtazapine. The data from this study do not support using mirtazapine as a treatment for agitation in dementia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

INHALE: the impact of using FilmArray Pneumonia Panel molecular diagnostics for hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia on antimicrobial stewardship and patient outcomes in UK Critical Care-study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonias (HAP and VAP) are common in critical care and can be life-threatening. Rapid microbiological diagnostics, linked to an algorithm to translate their results into antibiotic choices, could simultaneously improve patient outcomes and antimicrobial stewardship. METHODS: The INHALE Randomised Controlled Trial is a multi-centre, parallel study exploring the potential of the BioFire FilmArray molecular diagnostic to guide antibiotic treatment of HAP/VAP in intensive care units (ICU); it identifies pathogens and key antibiotic resistance in around 90 min. The comparator is standard care whereby the patient receives empirical antibiotics until microbiological culture results become available, typically after 48-72 h. Adult and paediatric ICU patients are eligible if they are about to receive antibiotics for a suspected lower respiratory infection (including HAP/VAP) for the first time or a change in antibiotic because of a deteriorating clinical condition. Breathing spontaneously or intubated, they must have been hospitalised for 48 h or more. Patients are randomised 1:1 to receive either antibiotics guided by the FilmArray molecular diagnostic and its trial-based prescribing algorithm or standard care, meaning empirical antibiotics based on local policy, adapted subsequently based upon local microbiology culture results. Co-primary outcomes are (i) non-inferiority in clinical cure of pneumonia at 14 days post-randomisation and (ii) superiority in antimicrobial stewardship at 24 h post-randomisation (defined as % of patients on active and proportionate antibiotics). Secondary outcomes include further stewardship reviews; length of ICU stay; co-morbidity indicators, including septic shock, change in sequential organ failure assessment scores, and secondary pneumonias; ventilator-free days; adverse events over 21 days; all-cause mortality; and total antibiotic usage. Both cost-effectiveness of the molecular diagnostic-guided therapy and behavioural aspects determining antibiotic prescribing are being explored. A sample size of 552 will be required to detect clinically significant results with 90% power and 5% significance for the co-primary outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will test whether the potential merits of rapid molecular diagnostics for pathogen and resistance detection in HAP/VAP are realised in patient outcomes and/or improved antibiotic stewardship. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN16483855 . Retrospectively registered on 15 July 2019.

Randomised controlled trial of a just-in-time adaptive intervention (JITAI) smoking cessation smartphone app: the Quit Sense feasibility trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: A lapse (any smoking) early in a smoking cessation attempt is strongly associated with reduced success. A substantial proportion of lapses are due to urges to smoke triggered by situational cues. Currently, no available interventions proactively respond to such cues in real time. Quit Sense is a theory-guided just-in-time adaptive intervention smartphone app that uses a learning tool and smartphone sensing to provide in-the-moment tailored support to help smokers manage cue-induced urges to smoke. The primary aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to assess the feasibility of delivering a definitive online efficacy trial of Quit Sense. METHODS AND ANALYSES: A two-arm parallel-group RCT allocating smokers willing to make a quit attempt, recruited via online adverts, to usual care (referral to the NHS SmokeFree website) or usual care plus Quit Sense. Randomisation will be stratified by smoking rate (<16 vs ≥16 cigarettes/day) and socioeconomic status (low vs high). Recruitment, enrolment, baseline data collection, allocation and intervention delivery will be automated through the study website. Outcomes will be collected at 6 weeks and 6 months follow-up via the study website or telephone, and during app usage. The study aims to recruit 200 smokers to estimate key feasibility outcomes, the preliminary impact of Quit Sense and potential cost-effectiveness, in addition to gaining insights on user views of the app through qualitative interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the Wales NHS Research Ethics Committee 7 (19/WA/0361). The findings will be disseminated to the public, the funders, relevant practice and policy representatives and other researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12326962.