Choosing and evaluating randomisation methods in clinical trials: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There exist many different methods of allocating participants to treatment groups during a randomised controlled trial. Although there is research that explores trial characteristics that are associated with the choice of method, there is still a lot of variety in practice not explained. This study used qualitative methods to explore more deeply the motivations behind researchers' choice of randomisation, and which features of the method they use to evaluate the performance of these methods. METHODS: Data was collected from online focus groups with various stakeholders involved in the randomisation process. Focus groups were recorded and then transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants from twenty clinical trials units across the UK were recruited to take part in one of four focus groups. Four main themes were identified: how randomisation methods are selected; researchers' opinions of the different methods; which features of the method are desirable and ways to measure method features. Most researchers agree that the randomisation method should be selected based on key trial characteristics; however, for many, a unit standard is in place. Opinions of methods were varied with some participants favouring stratified blocks and others favouring minimisation. This was generally due to researchers' perception of the effect these methods had on balance and predictability. Generally, predictability was considered more important than balance as adjustments cannot be made for it; however, most researchers felt that the importance of these two methods was dependent on the design of the study. Balance is usually evaluated by tabulating variables by treatment arm and looking for perceived imbalances, predictability was generally considered much harder to measure, partly due to differing definitions. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variety in practice on how randomisation methods are selected and researcher's opinions on methods. The difference in practice observed when looking at randomisation method selection can be explained by a difference in unit practice, and also by a difference in researchers prioritisation of balance and predictability. The findings of this study show a need for more guidance on randomisation method selection.

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme.

Background: Randomised controlled trials ('trials') are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted. Objectives: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial. Design: A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Setting: Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible. Participants: Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom. Interventions: Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial. Main outcome measures: Number of host trials funded. Results: Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials. Limitations: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3). Conclusions: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial. Future work: Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice. Study registration: All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

A Study Within A Trial is a research study nested inside a larger 'host trial', promoting the use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to do Study Within A Trial routine practice in clinical trial units by funding and supporting at least 25 Studies Within A Trial. The best way to test health and social care treatments is to do a randomised controlled trial ('trial'), where some patients get the treatment being tested and some do not. The results of different groups are compared to see if the treatment improves care. Recruiting patients and keeping them involved in trials is often very difficult. Research teams often do not know how best to recruit and keep patients engaged as the methods have not been tested to see if they work. The best way to test these methods is by doing a Study Within A Trial. We test a programme of Studies Within A Trial for recruiting and keeping patients engaged in trials. Trial teams were able to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from Promoting the use of Study Within A Trial team to do Studies Within A Trial. We used our experience of doing Studies Within A Trial to outline lessons learnt for doing Studies Within A Trial. We funded 42 Studies Within A Trial and gave teams necessary advice to do them. We significantly increased the knowledge for both recruitment and retention strategies, and found 'pre-notifying' before sending questionnaires, sending pens and personalised text messages were all effective for increasing responses by participants. We tested Studies Within A Trial across several different trials at the same time to find out more quickly whether their methods worked. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others doing Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient partners; picking the right strategy to test; getting ethical approvals; how to do and report Studies Within A Trial. Promoting the use of studies within a trial was successful and supported more Studies Within A Trial than planned. We hope our experience will support those doing Studies Within A Trial in the future.

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome.

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

Importance: Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials. Design: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist. Findings: This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

Consensus Statement for Protocols of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement.

Importance: Trial protocols outline a trial's objectives as well as the methods (design, conduct, and analysis) that will be used to meet those objectives, and transparent reporting of trial protocols ensures objectives are clear and facilitates appraisal regarding the suitability of study methods. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, no extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement, which provides guidance on reporting of trial protocols, for factorial trials is available. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the SPIRIT 2013 Statement for factorial trials. Evidence Review: The SPIRIT extension for factorial trials was developed using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework. First, a list of reporting recommendations was generated using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (inception to May 2019), which was supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors. Second, a 3-round Delphi survey (January to June 2022, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries) was conducted to assess the importance of items and identify additional recommendations. Third, a hybrid consensus meeting was held, attended by 15 panelists to finalize selection and wording of the checklist. Findings: This SPIRIT extension for factorial trials modified 9 of the 33 items in the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Key reporting recommendations were that the rationale for using a factorial design should be provided, including whether an interaction is hypothesized; the treatment groups that will form the main comparisons should be identified; and statistical methods for each main comparison should be provided, including how interactions will be assessed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement, 9 factorial-specific items were provided that should be addressed in all protocols of factorial trials to increase the trial's utility and transparency.

Can we achieve better trial recruitment by presenting patient information through multimedia? Meta-analysis of 'studies within a trial' (SWATs).

BACKGROUND: People need high-quality information to make decisions about research participation. Providing information in written format alone is conventional but may not be the most effective and acceptable approach. We developed a structure for the presentation of information using multimedia which included generic and trial-specific content. Our aim was to embed 'Studies Within A Trial' (SWATs) across multiple ongoing trials to test whether multimedia presentation of patient information led to better rates of recruitment. METHODS: Five trials included a SWAT and randomised their participants to receive a multimedia presentation alongside standard information, or standard written information alone. We collected data on trial recruitment, acceptance and retention and analysed the pooled results using random effects meta-analysis, with the primary outcome defined as the proportion of participants randomised following an invitation to take part. RESULTS: Five SWATs provided data on the primary outcome of proportion of participants randomised. Multimedia alongside written information results in little or no difference in recruitment rates (pooled odds ratio = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.17, p-value = 0.671, I2 = 0%). There was no effect on any other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multimedia alongside written information did not improve trial recruitment rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71952900, ISRCTN 06710391, ISRCTN 17160087, ISRCTN05926847, ISRCTN62869767.

Deferred cord clamping, cord milking, and immediate cord clamping at preterm birth: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Umbilical cord clamping strategies at preterm birth have the potential to affect important health outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of deferred cord clamping, umbilical cord milking, and immediate cord clamping in reducing neonatal mortality and morbidity at preterm birth. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. We searched medical databases and trial registries (from database inception until Feb 24, 2022; updated June 6, 2023) for randomised controlled trials comparing deferred (also known as delayed) cord clamping, cord milking, and immediate cord clamping for preterm births (<37 weeks' gestation). Quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised trials were excluded. Authors of eligible studies were invited to join the iCOMP collaboration and share individual participant data. All data were checked, harmonised, re-coded, and assessed for risk of bias following prespecified criteria. The primary outcome was death before hospital discharge. We performed intention-to-treat one-stage individual participant data meta-analyses accounting for heterogeneity to examine treatment effects overall and in prespecified subgroup analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019136640. FINDINGS: We identified 2369 records, of which 48 randomised trials provided individual participant data and were eligible for our primary analysis. We included individual participant data on 6367 infants (3303 [55%] male, 2667 [45%] female, two intersex, and 395 missing data). Deferred cord clamping, compared with immediate cord clamping, reduced death before discharge (odds ratio [OR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·51-0·91], high-certainty evidence, 20 studies, n=3260, 232 deaths). For umbilical cord milking compared with immediate cord clamping, no clear evidence was found of a difference in death before discharge (OR 0·73 [0·44-1·20], low certainty, 18 studies, n=1561, 74 deaths). Similarly, for umbilical cord milking compared with deferred cord clamping, no clear evidence was found of a difference in death before discharge (0·95 [0·59-1·53], low certainty, 12 studies, n=1303, 93 deaths). We found no evidence of subgroup differences for the primary outcome, including by gestational age, type of delivery, multiple birth, study year, and perinatal mortality. INTERPRETATION: This study provides high-certainty evidence that deferred cord clamping, compared with immediate cord clamping, reduces death before discharge in preterm infants. This effect appears to be consistent across several participant-level and trial-level subgroups. These results will inform international treatment recommendations. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Short, medium, and long deferral of umbilical cord clamping compared with umbilical cord milking and immediate clamping at preterm birth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis with individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Deferred (also known as delayed) cord clamping can improve survival of infants born preterm (before 37 weeks of gestation), but the optimal duration of deferral remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the effectiveness of umbilical cord clamping strategies with different timings of clamping or with cord milking for preterm infants. METHODS: We searched medical databases and trial registries from inception until Feb 24, 2022 (updated June 6, 2023) for randomised controlled trials comparing cord clamping strategies for preterm infants. Individual participant data were harmonised and assessed for risk of bias and quality. Interventions were grouped into immediate clamping, short deferral (≥15 s to <45 s), medium deferral (≥45 s to <120 s), long deferral (≥120 s), and intact cord milking. The primary outcome was death before hospital discharge. We calculated one-stage, intention-to-treat Bayesian random-effects individual participant data network meta-analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019136640. FINDINGS: We included individual participant data from 47 trials with 6094 participants. Of all interventions, long deferral reduced death before discharge the most (compared with immediate clamping; odds ratio 0·31 [95% credibility interval] 0·11-0·80; moderate certainty). The risk of bias was low for 10 (33%) of 30 trials, 14 (47%) had some concerns, and 6 (20%) were rated as having a high risk of bias. Heterogeneity was low, with no indication of inconsistency. INTERPRETATION: This study found that long deferral of clamping leads to reduced odds of death before discharge in preterm infants. In infants assessed as requiring immediate resuscitation, this finding might only be generalisable if there are provisions for such care with the cord intact. These results are based on thoroughly cleaned and checked individual participant data and can inform future guidelines and practice. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Optimising the analysis of vascular prevention trials: Re-Assessment of the TARDIS trial, the first prevention trial to adopt an ordinal primary outcome measure.

Background: Ordinalised vascular outcomes incorporating event severity are more informative than binary outcomes that just include event numbers. The TARDIS trial was the first vascular prevention study to use an ordinalised vascular outcome as its primary efficacy and safety measures and collected severity information for other vascular events. Methods: TARDIS was an international prospective randomised open-label blinded-endpoint trial assessing one month of intensive versus guideline antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute non-cardioembolic stroke or TIA. Vascular events and their severity were recorded up to final follow-up at 90 days post randomisation. For each outcome, statistical techniques compared ordinal/continuous (10 models) and dichotomous (5 models) analyses; results were then ranked with the smallest p-value being given the smallest rank. Outcomes were also assessed within the pre-defined subgroup of participants with mild stroke (NIHSS≤3), or TIA recruited within 24 h. Results: Ordinal versions of vascular event outcomes were created in 3096 participants for stroke, myocardial infarction, major cardiac events, bleeding events, serious adverse events and venous thromboembolism (VTE), with 32 outcomes being created overall (29 in the subgroup population due to the absence of VTE events). Overall, the tests run on ordinal outcomes tended to rank higher than tests performed on binary outcomes. 764 (24.7%) participants were recruited within 24 h of a mild stroke/TIA; again, tests run on ordinal outcomes ranked higher. Conclusions: In TARDIS, tests performed on ordinal vascular outcomes tended to attain a higher rank than those performed on binary outcomes. Trial registration: ISRCTN47823388.

Emollients for preventing atopic eczema: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the BEEP trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent discoveries have led to the suggestion that enhancing skin barrier from birth might prevent eczema and food allergy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children at 2 years from a health service perspective. We also considered a 5-year time horizon as a sensitivity analysis. METHODS: A within-trial economic evaluation using data on health resource use and quality of life captured as part of the BEEP trial alongside the trial data. Parents/carers of 1394 infants born to families at high risk of atopic disease were randomised 1:1 to the emollient group, which were advised to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel or Diprobase Cream) to their child at least once daily to the whole body during the first year of life or usual care. Both groups received advice on general skin care. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema in the primary cost-effectiveness analysis. Secondary analysis, undertaken as a cost-utility analysis, reports incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) where child utility was elicited using the proxy CHU-9D at 2 years. RESULTS: At 2 years, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI -54.31, 229.27) per participant, whilst the adjusted proportion without eczema was 0.0164 (95% CI -0.0329, 0.0656). The ICER was £5337 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. Adjusted incremental QALYs were very slightly improved in the emollient group, 0.0010 (95% CI -0.0069, 0.0089). At 5 years, adjusted incremental costs were lower for the emollient group, -£106.89 (95% CI -354.66, 140.88) and the proportion without eczema was -0.0329 (95% CI -0.0659, 0.0002). The 5-year ICER was £3201 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. However, when inpatient costs due to wheezing were excluded, incremental costs were lower and incremental effects greater in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: In line with effectiveness endpoints, advice given in the BEEP trial to apply daily emollient during infancy for eczema prevention in high-risk children does not appear cost-effective.

Bleeding with intensive versus guideline antiplatelet therapy in acute cerebral ischaemia.

Intensive antiplatelet therapy did not reduce recurrent stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) events as compared with guideline treatment in the Triple Antiplatelets for Reducing Dependency after Ischaemic Stroke (TARDIS) trial, but did increase the frequency and severity of bleeding. In this pre-specified analysis, we investigated predictors of bleeding and the association of bleeding with outcome. TARDIS was an international prospective randomised open-label blinded-endpoint trial in participants with ischaemic stroke or TIA within 48 h of onset. Participants were randomised to 30 days of intensive antiplatelet therapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, dipyridamole) or guideline-based therapy (either clopidogrel alone or combined aspirin and dipyridamole). Bleeding was defined using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis five-level ordered categorical scale: fatal, major, moderate, minor, none. Of 3,096 participants, bleeding severity was: fatal 0.4%, major 1.5%, moderate 1.2%, minor 11.4%, none 85.5%. Major/fatal bleeding was increased with intensive as compared with guideline therapy: 39 vs. 17 participants, adjusted hazard ratio 2.21, 95% CI 1.24-3.93, p = 0.007. Bleeding events diverged between treatment groups in the 8-35 day period but not in the 0-7 or 36-90 day epochs. In multivariate analysis more, and more severe, bleeding events were seen with increasing age, female sex, pre-morbid dependency, increased time to randomisation, prior major bleed, prior antiplatelet therapy and in those randomised to triple vs guideline antiplatelet therapy. More severe bleeding was associated with worse clinical outcomes across multiple physical, emotional and quality of life domains.Trial registration ISRCTN47823388 .

Intravaginal lactic acid gel versus oral metronidazole for treating women with recurrent bacterial vaginosis: the VITA randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial vaginosis is a common and distressing condition for women. Short-term antibiotic treatment is usually clinically effective, but recurrence is common. We assessed the effectiveness of intravaginal lactic acid gel versus oral metronidazole for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis. METHODS: We undertook an open-label, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in nineteen UK sexual health clinics and a university health centre. Women aged ≥ 16 years, with current bacterial vaginosis symptoms and a preceding history of bacterial vaginosis, were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a web-based minimisation algorithm, to 400 mg twice daily oral metronidazole tablets or 5 ml once daily intravaginal lactic acid gel, for 7 days. Masking of participants was not possible. The primary outcome was participant-reported resolution of symptoms within 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included time to first recurrence of symptoms, number of recurrences and repeat treatments over 6 months and side effects. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighteen participants were randomised before the trial was advised to stop recruiting by the Data Monitoring Committee. Primary outcome data were available for 79% (204/259) allocated to metronidazole and 79% (205/259) allocated to lactic acid gel. Resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms within 2 weeks was reported in 70% (143/204) receiving metronidazole versus 47% (97/205) receiving lactic acid gel (adjusted risk difference -23·2%; 95% confidence interval -32.3 to -14·0%). In those participants who had initial resolution and for whom 6 month data were available, 51 of 72 (71%) women in the metronidazole group and 32 of 46 women (70%) in the lactic acid gel group had recurrence of symptoms, with median times to first recurrence of 92 and 126 days, respectively. Reported side effects were more common following metronidazole than lactic acid gel (nausea 32% vs. 8%; taste changes 18% vs. 1%; diarrhoea 20% vs. 6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Metronidazole was more effective than lactic acid gel for short-term resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms, but recurrence is common following both treatments. Lactic acid gel was associated with fewer reported side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14161293 , prospectively registered on 18th September 2017.

Isosorbide Mononitrate and Cilostazol Treatment in Patients With Symptomatic Cerebral Small Vessel Disease: The Lacunar Intervention Trial-2 (LACI-2) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) is a common cause of stroke (lacunar stroke), is the most common cause of vascular cognitive impairment, and impairs mobility and mood but has no specific treatment. Objective: To test the feasibility, drug tolerability, safety, and effects of 1-year isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) and cilostazol treatment on vascular, functional, and cognitive outcomes in patients with lacunar stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Lacunar Intervention Trial-2 (LACI-2) was an investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded end-point, randomized clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The trial aimed to recruit 400 participants from 26 UK hospital stroke centers between February 5, 2018, and May 31, 2021, with 12-month follow-up. Included participants had clinical lacunar ischemic stroke, were independent, were aged older than 30 years, had compatible brain imaging findings, had capacity to consent, and had no contraindications to (or indications for) the study drugs. Data analysis was performed on August 12, 2022. Interventions: All patients received guideline stroke prevention treatment and were randomized to ISMN (40-60 mg/d), cilostazol (200 mg/d), ISMN-cilostazol (40-60 and 200 mg/d, respectively), or no study drug. Main Outcomes: The primary outcome was recruitment feasibility, including retention at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were safety (death), efficacy (composite of vascular events, dependence, cognition, and death), drug adherence, tolerability, recurrent stroke, dependence, cognitive impairment, quality of life (QOL), and hemorrhage. Results: Of the 400 participants planned for this trial, 363 (90.8%) were recruited. Their median age was 64 (IQR, 56.0-72.0) years; 251 (69.1%) were men. The median time between stroke and randomization was 79 (IQR, 27.0-244.0) days. A total of 358 patients (98.6%) were retained in the study at 12 months, with 257 of 272 (94.5%) taking 50% or more of the allocated drug. Compared with those participants not receiving that particular drug, neither ISMN (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.09]; P = .16) nor cilostazol (aHR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.05]; P = .10) alone reduced the composite outcome in 297 patients. Isosorbide mononitrate reduced recurrent stroke in 353 patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.23 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.74]; P = .01) and cognitive impairment in 308 patients (aOR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.86]; P = .008). Cilostazol reduced dependence in 320 patients (aHR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.14 to 0.72]; P = .006). Combination ISMN-cilostazol reduced the composite (aHR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.92]; P = .02), dependence (aOR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.59]; P = .008), and any cognitive impairment (aOR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.85]; P = .02) and improved QOL (adjusted mean difference, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.17]; P = .005) in 153 patients. There were no safety concerns. Conclusions and Relevance: These results show that the LACI-2 trial was feasible and ISMN and cilostazol were well tolerated and safe. These agents may reduce recurrent stroke, dependence, and cognitive impairment after lacunar stroke, and they could prevent other adverse outcomes in cSVD. Therefore, both agents should be tested in large phase 3 trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03451591.

Optimizing cord management for each preterm baby - Challenges of collating individual participant data and recommendations for future collaborative research.

The optimal cord management strategy at birth for each preterm baby is still unknown, despite more than 100 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken on this question. To address this, we brought together all RCTs examining cord management strategies at preterm birth in the iCOMP (individual participant data on COrd Management at Preterm birth) Collaboration, to perform an individual participant data network meta-analysis. In this paper, we describe the trials and tribulations around obtaining individual participant data to resolve controversies around cord clamping, and we derive key recommendations for future collaborative research in perinatology. To reliably answer outstanding questions, future cord management research needs to be collaborative and coordinated, by aligning core protocol elements, ensuring quality and reporting standards are met, and carefully considering and reporting on vulnerable sub-populations. The iCOMP Collaboration is an example of the power of collaboration to address priority research questions, and ultimately improve neonatal outcomes worldwide.

Developing guidance for a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines recommend statisticians remain blinded to treatment allocation prior to the final analysis and that any interim analyses should be conducted by a separate team from the one undertaking the final analysis. However, there remains substantial variation in practice between UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) when it comes to blinding statisticians. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop guidance to advise CTUs on a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials. METHODS: This study employed a mixed methods approach involving three stages: (I) a quantitative study using a cohort of 200 studies (from a major UK funder published between 2016 and 2020) to assess the impact of blinding statisticians on the proportion of trials reporting a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome(s); (II) a qualitative study using focus groups to determine the perspectives of key stakeholders on the practice of blinding trial statisticians; and (III) combining the results of stages I and II, along with a stakeholder meeting, to develop guidance for UK CTUs. RESULTS: After screening abstracts, 179 trials were included for review. The results of the primary analysis showed no evidence that involvement of an unblinded trial statistician was associated with the likelihood of statistically significant findings being reported, odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.13). Six focus groups were conducted, with 37 participants. The triangulation between stages I and II resulted in developing 40 provisional statements. These were rated independently by the stakeholder group prior to the meeting. Ten statements reached agreement with no agreement on 30 statements. At the meeting, various factors were identified that could influence the decision of blinding the statistician, including timing, study design, types of intervention and practicalities. Guidance including 21 recommendations/considerations was developed alongside a Risk Assessment Tool to provide CTUs with a framework for assessing the risks associated with blinding/not blinding statisticians and for identifying appropriate mitigation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to develop a guidance document to enhance the understanding of blinding statisticians and to provide a framework for the decision-making process. The key finding was that the decision to blind statisticians should be based on the benefits and risks associated with a particular trial.

Should we adjudicate outcomes in stroke trials? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Central adjudication of outcomes is common in randomized clinical trials in stroke. The rationale for adjudication is clear; centrally adjudicated outcomes should have less random and systematic errors than outcomes assessed locally by site investigators. However, adjudication brings added complexities to a clinical trial and can be costly. AIM: To assess the evidence for outcome adjudication in stroke trials. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: We identified 12 studies evaluating central adjudication in stroke trials. The majority of these were secondary analyses of trials, and the results of all of these would have remained unchanged had central adjudication not taken place, even for trials without sufficient blinding. The largest differences between site-assessed and adjudicator-assessed outcomes were between the most subjective outcomes, such as causality of serious adverse events. We found that the cost of adjudication could be upward of £100,000 for medium to large prevention trials. These findings suggest that the cost of central adjudication may outweigh the advantages it brings in many cases. However, through simulation, we found that only a small amount of bias is required in site investigators' outcome assessments before adjudication becomes important. CONCLUSION: Central adjudication may not be necessary in stroke trials with blinded outcome assessment. However, for open-label studies, central adjudication may be more important.

Emollients for prevention of atopic dermatitis: 5-year findings from the BEEP randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of emollients for preventing atopic dermatitis/eczema is controversial. The Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention trial evaluated the effects of daily emollients during the first year of life on atopic dermatitis and atopic conditions to age 5 years. METHODS: 1394 term infants with a family history of atopic disease were randomized (1:1) to daily emollient plus standard skin-care advice (693 emollient group) or standard skin-care advice alone (701 controls). Long-term follow-up at ages 3, 4 and 5 years was via parental questionnaires. Main outcomes were parental report of a clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis and food allergy. RESULTS: Parents reported more frequent moisturizer application in the emollient group through to 5 years. A clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis between 12 and 60 months was reported for 188/608 (31%) in the emollient group and 178/631 (28%) in the control group (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.30). Although more parents in the emollient group reported food reactions in the previous year at 3 and 4 years, cumulative incidence of doctor-diagnosed food allergy by 5 years was similar between groups (92/609 [15%] emollients and 87/632 [14%] controls, adjusted relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.45). Findings were similar for cumulative incidence of asthma and hay fever. CONCLUSIONS: Daily emollient application during the first year of life does not prevent atopic dermatitis, food allergy, asthma or hay fever.

Mental health in clinically referred children and young people before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Covid-19 pandemic and mitigation approaches, including lockdowns and school closures, are thought to have negatively impacted children and young people's (CYP) mental health. However, the impact for clinically referred CYP is less clear. We investigated differences in the mental health of CYP referred to specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) before and since the onset of the pandemic. Using baseline data (self- and parent- completed Mood and Feelings Questionnaire and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) from an ongoing RCT (STADIA; ISRCTN: 15748675) in England involving 5-17-year-olds with emotional difficulties recently referred to CAMHS (non-urgent referrals), with repeated cross-sectional comparisons of CYP (n = 1028) recruited during 5 different time  periods: (1) Before schools were closed (Group 1 (pre-pandemic); n = 308; 27.08.2019-20.03.2020). (2) Early pandemic period until schools fully re-opened, which included the first national lockdown, its easing and the summer holidays (Group 2 (in-pandemic); n = 183; 21.03.2020-31.08.2020). (3) The following school-term-schools fully re-opened and remained open, including during the second national lockdown (Group 3 (in-pandemic); n = 204; 01.09.2020-18.12.2020). (4) Schools closed as part of the third national lockdown (Group 4 (in-pandemic); n = 101; 05.01.2021-07.03.2021). (5) Schools re-opened and remained open, until the school summer holidays (Group 5 (in-pandemic); n = 232; 08.03.2021-16.07.2021). Most CYP scored above cutoff for emotional problems and depression, with three-quarters meeting criteria for a probable disorder ('caseness'). The groups did not differ on parent-rated mental health measures. However, self-rated emotional problems, depression, functional impairment and caseness appeared to be higher amongst participants recruited in the two periods following school re-openings. In particular, functional impairment and caseness were greater in Group 5 compared with Group 2. Although symptom severity or impairment did not change in the initial pandemic period, self-reported difficulties were greater during the periods after schools re-opened. This suggests possible greater stresses in the adjustment to re-starting school following recurrent lockdowns and school closures.

Cilostazol and isosorbide mononitrate for the prevention of progression of cerebral small vessel disease: baseline data and statistical analysis plan for the Lacunar Intervention Trial-2 (LACI-2) (ISRCTN14911850).

BACKGROUND: Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) causes lacunar strokes (25% of all ischaemic strokes), physical frailty and cognitive impairment and vascular and mixed dementia. There is no specific treatment to prevent progression of SVD. METHODS: The LACunar Intervention Trial-2 is an investigator-initiated prospective randomised open-label blinded-endpoint phase II feasibility study assessing cilostazol and isosorbide mononitrate for preventing SVD progression. We aimed to recruit 400 patients with clinically evident lacunar ischaemic stroke and randomised to cilostazol, isosorbide mononitrate, both or neither, in addition to guideline secondary ischaemic stroke prevention, in a partial factorial design. The primary outcome is feasibility of recruitment and adherence to medication; key secondary outcomes include: drug tolerability; recurrent vascular events, cognition and function at 1 year after randomisation; and safety (bleeding, falls, death). Data are number (%) and median (IQR). RESULTS: The trial commenced on 5 February 2018 and ceased recruitment on 31 May 2021 with 363 patients randomised, with the following baseline characteristics: average age 64 (56.0, 72.0) years, female 112 (30.9%), stroke onset to randomisation 79.0 (27.0, 244.0) days, hypertension 267 (73.6%), median blood pressures 143.0 (130.0, 157.0)/83.0 (75.0, 90.0) mm Hg, current smokers 67 (18.5%), educationally achieved end of school examinations (A-level) or higher 118 (32.5%), modified Rankin scale 1.0 (0.0, 1.0), National Institutes Health stroke scale 1.0 (1.4), Montreal Cognitive Assessment 26.0 (23.0, 28.0) and total SVD score on brain imaging 1.0 (0.0, 2.0). This publication summarises the baseline data and presents the statistical analysis plan. SUMMARY: The trial is currently in follow-up which will complete on 31 May 2022 with results expected in October 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14911850.

A systematic review of randomisation method use in RCTs and association of trial design characteristics with method selection.

BACKGROUND: When conducting a randomised controlled trial, there exist many different methods to allocate participants, and a vast array of evidence-based opinions on which methods are the most effective at doing this, leading to differing use of these methods. There is also evidence that study characteristics affect the performance of these methods, but it is unknown whether the study design affects researchers' decision when choosing a method. METHODS: We conducted a review of papers published in five journals in 2019 to assess which randomisation methods are most commonly being used, as well as identifying which aspects of study design, if any, are associated with the choice of randomisation method. Randomisation methodology use was compared with a similar review conducted in 2014. RESULTS: The most used randomisation method in this review is block stratification used in 162/330 trials. A combination of simple, randomisation, block randomisation, stratification and minimisation make up 318/330 trials, with only a small number of more novel methods being used, although this number has increased marginally since 2014. More complex methods such as stratification and minimisation seem to be used in larger multicentre studies. CONCLUSIONS: Within this review, most methods used can be classified using a combination of simple, block stratification and minimisation, suggesting that there is not much if any increase in the uptake of newer more novel methods. There seems to be a noticeable polarisation of method use, with an increase in the use of simple methods, but an increase in the complexity of more complex methods, with greater numbers of variables included in the analysis, and a greater number of strata.