Effects of high-dose versus standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine among patients with diabetes: A post-hoc analysis of the DANFLU-1 trial.

AIM: High-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD) has been shown to be more effective than standard-dose (QIV-SD) in reducing influenza infection, but whether diabetes status affects relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) is unknown. We aimed to assess rVE on change in glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c (∆HbA1c)], incident diabetes, total all-cause hospitalizations (first + recurrent), and a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza. METHODS: DANFLU-1 was a pragmatic, open-label trial randomizing adults (65-79 years) 1:1 to QIV-HD or QIV-SD during the 2021/22 influenza season. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate rVE against incident diabetes and the composite endpoint, negative binomial regression to estimate rVE against all-cause hospitalizations, and ANCOVA when assessing rVE against ∆HbA1c. RESULTS: Of the 12 477 participants, 1162 (9.3%) had diabetes at baseline. QIV-HD, compared with QIV-SD, was associated with a reduction in the rate of all-cause hospitalizations irrespective of diabetes [overall: 647 vs. 742 events, incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.87, 95% CI (0.76-0.99); diabetes: 93 vs. 118 events, IRR: 0.80, 95% CI (0.55-1.15); without diabetes: 554 vs. 624 events, IRR: 0.88, 95% CI (0.76-1.01), pinteraction = 0.62]. Among those with diabetes, QIV-HD was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome [2 vs. 11 events, HR: 0.18, 95% CI (0.04-0.83)] but had no effect on ∆HbA1c; QIV-HD adjusted mean difference: ∆ + 0.2 mmol/mol, 95% CI (-0.9 to 1.2). QIV-HD did not affect the risk of incident diabetes [HR 1.18, 95% CI (0.94-1.47)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis, QIV-HD versus QIV-SD was associated with an increased rVE against the composite of all-cause death and hospitalization for pneumonia/influenza, and the all-cause hospitalization rate irrespective of diabetes status.

Beta-blockers or Placebo for Primary Prophylaxis (BOPPP) of oesophageal varices: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Liver disease is within the top five causes of premature death in adults. Deaths caused by complications of cirrhosis continue to rise, whilst deaths related to other non-liver disease areas are declining. Portal hypertension is the primary sequelae of cirrhosis and is associated with the development of variceal haemorrhage, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and infection, collectively termed hepatic decompensation, which leads to hospitalisation and mortality. It remains uncertain whether administering a non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB), specifically carvedilol, at an earlier stage, i.e. when oesophageal varices are small, can prevent VH and reduce all-cause decompensation (ACD). METHODS/DESIGN: The BOPPP trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients aged 18 years or older with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices that have never bled will be recruited, subject to exclusion criteria. The trial aims to enrol 740 patients across 55 hospitals in the UK. Patients are allocated randomly on a 1:1 ratio to receive either carvedilol 6.25 mg (a NSBB) or a matched placebo, once or twice daily, for 36 months, to attain adequate power to determine the effectiveness of carvedilol in preventing or reducing ACD. The primary outcome is the time to first decompensating event. It is a composite primary outcome made up of variceal haemorrhage (VH, new or worsening ascites, new or worsening hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatorenal syndrome, an increase in Child-Pugh grade by 1 grade or MELD score by 5 points, and liver-related mortality. Secondary outcomes include progression to medium or large oesophageal varices, development of gastric, duodenal, or ectopic varices, participant quality of life, healthcare costs and transplant-free survival. DISCUSSION: The BOPPP trial aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of carvedilol in patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices to determine whether this non-selective beta-blocker can prevent or reduce hepatic decompensation. There is clinical equipoise on whether intervening in cirrhosis, at an earlier stage of portal hypertension, with NSBB therapy is beneficial. Should the trial yield a positive result, we anticipate that the administration and use of carvedilol will become widespread with pathways developed to standardise the administration of the medication in primary care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number: 19/YH/0015). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Participants will be informed of the results via the BOPPP website ( www.boppp-trial.org ) and partners in the British Liver Trust (BLT) organisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUDRACT reference number: 2018-002509-78. ISRCTN reference number: ISRCTN10324656. Registered on April 24 2019.

The IMPROVE trial: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of using lay health workers to improve uptake and completion of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a programme of exercise and education and the most effective treatment for the symptoms and disability associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, the benefits of PR are limited by poor uptake and completion. This trial will determine whether using trained volunteer lay health workers, called "PR buddies," improves uptake and completion of PR and is cost-effective. This trial protocol outlines the methods for evaluating effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability. METHODS: The IMPROVE trial is a pragmatic, open, cluster randomised controlled trial planned in 38 PR services across England and Wales. PR services will be randomised to either intervention arm-offering support from PR buddies to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-or to usual care as the control arm. PR staff in trial sites randomised to the intervention arm will receive training in recruiting and training PR buddies. They will deliver training to volunteers, recruited from among people who have recently completed PR in their service. The 3-day PR-buddy training programme covers communication skills, confidentiality, boundaries of the PR-buddy role and behaviour change techniques to help patients overcome obstacles to attending PR. An internal pilot will test the implementation of the trial in eight sites (four intervention sites and four in control arm). The primary outcome of the trial is the uptake and completion of PR. A process evaluation will investigate the acceptability of the intervention to patients, PR staff and the volunteer PR buddies, and intervention fidelity. We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: Improving outcomes for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and access to PR are priorities for the UK National Health Service (NHS) in its long-term plan. The trial hypothesis is that volunteer PR buddies, who are recruited and trained by local PR teams, are an effective and cost-effective way to improve the uptake and completion rates of PR. The trial is pragmatic, since it will test whether the intervention can be incorporated into NHS PR services. Information obtained in this trial may be used to influence policy on the use of PR buddies in PR and other similar services in the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12658458. Registered on 23/01/2023.

Distributive randomization: a pragmatic fractional factorial design to screen or evaluate multiple simultaneous interventions in a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In some medical indications, numerous interventions have a weak presumption of efficacy, but a good track record or presumption of safety. This makes it feasible to evaluate them simultaneously. This study evaluates a pragmatic fractional factorial trial design that randomly allocates a pre-specified number of interventions to each participant, and statistically tests main intervention effects. We compare it to factorial trials, parallel-arm trials and multiple head-to-head trials, and derive some good practices for its design and analysis. METHODS: We simulated various scenarios involving 4 to 20 candidate interventions among which 2 to 8 could be simultaneously allocated. A binary outcome was assumed. One or two interventions were assumed effective, with various interactions (positive, negative, none). Efficient combinatorics algorithms were created. Sample sizes and power were obtained by simulations in which the statistical test was either difference of proportions or multivariate logistic regression Wald test with or without interaction terms for adjustment, with Bonferroni multiplicity-adjusted alpha risk for both. Native R code is provided without need for compiling or packages. RESULTS: Distributive trials reduce sample sizes 2- to sevenfold compared to parallel arm trials, and increase them 1- to twofold compared to factorial trials, mostly when fewer allocations than for the factorial design are possible. An unexpectedly effective intervention causes small decreases in power (< 10%) if its effect is additive, but large decreases (possibly down to 0) if not, as for factorial designs. These large decreases are prevented by using interaction terms to adjust the analysis, but these additional estimands have a sample size cost and are better pre-specified. The issue can also be managed by adding a true control arm without any intervention. CONCLUSION: Distributive randomization is a viable design for mass parallel evaluation of interventions in constrained trial populations. It should be introduced first in clinical settings where many undercharacterized interventions are potentially available, such as disease prevention strategies, digital behavioral interventions, dietary supplements for chronic conditions, or emerging diseases. Pre-trial simulations are recommended, for which tools are provided.

SCALE-UP II: protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial examining population health management interventions to increase the uptake of at-home COVID-19 testing in community health centres.

INTRODUCTION: SCALE-UP II aims to investigate the effectiveness of population health management interventions using text messaging (TM), chatbots and patient navigation (PN) in increasing the uptake of at-home COVID-19 testing among patients in historically marginalised communities, specifically, those receiving care at community health centres (CHCs). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial is a multisite, randomised pragmatic clinical trial. Eligible patients are >18 years old with a primary care visit in the last 3 years at one of the participating CHCs. Demographic data will be obtained from CHC electronic health records. Patients will be randomised to one of two factorial designs based on smartphone ownership. Patients who self-report replying to a text message that they have a smartphone will be randomised in a 2×2×2 factorial fashion to receive (1) chatbot or TM; (2) PN (yes or no); and (3) repeated offers to interact with the interventions every 10 or 30 days. Participants who do not self-report as having a smartphone will be randomised in a 2×2 factorial fashion to receive (1) TM with or without PN; and (2) repeated offers every 10 or 30 days. The interventions will be sent in English or Spanish, with an option to request at-home COVID-19 test kits. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants using at-home COVID-19 tests during a 90-day follow-up. The study will evaluate the main effects and interactions among interventions, implementation outcomes and predictors and moderators of study outcomes. Statistical analyses will include logistic regression, stratified subgroup analyses and adjustment for stratification factors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. On completion, study data will be made available in compliance with National Institutes of Health data sharing policies. Results will be disseminated through study partners and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05533918 and NCT05533359.

Decentralising chronic disease management in sub-Saharan Africa: a protocol for the qualitative process evaluation of community-based integrated management of HIV, diabetes and hypertension in Tanzania and Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Sub-Saharan Africa continues to experience a syndemic of HIV and non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Vertical (stand-alone) HIV programming has provided high-quality care in the region, with almost 80% of people living with HIV in regular care and 90% virally suppressed. While integrated health education and concurrent management of HIV, hypertension and diabetes are being scaled up in clinics, innovative, more efficient and cost-effective interventions that include decentralisation into the community are required to respond to the increased burden of comorbid HIV/NCD disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes procedures for a process evaluation running concurrently with a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial (INTE-COMM) in Tanzania and Uganda that will compare community-based integrated care (HIV, diabetes and hypertension) with standard facility-based integrated care. The INTE-COMM intervention will manage multiple conditions (HIV, hypertension and diabetes) in the community via health monitoring and adherence/lifestyle advice (medicine, diet and exercise) provided by community nurses and trained lay workers, as well as the devolvement of NCD drug dispensing to the community level. Based on Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, the process evaluation will use qualitative methods to investigate sociostructural factors shaping care delivery and outcomes in up to 10 standard care facilities and/or intervention community sites with linked healthcare facilities. Multistakeholder interviews (patients, community health workers and volunteers, healthcare providers, policymakers, clinical researchers and international and non-governmental organisations), focus group discussions (community leaders and members) and non-participant observations (community meetings and drug dispensing) will explore implementation from diverse perspectives at three timepoints in the trial implementation. Iterative sampling and analysis, moving between data collection points and data analysis to test emerging theories, will continue until saturation is reached. This process of analytic reflexivity and triangulation across methods and sources will provide findings to explain the main trial findings and offer clear directions for future efforts to sustain and scale up community-integrated care for HIV, diabetes and hypertension. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the University College of London (UK), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee (UK), the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology and the Uganda Virus Research Institute Research and Ethics Committee (Uganda) and the Medical Research Coordinating Committee of the National Institute for Medical Research (Tanzania). The University College of London is the trial sponsor. Dissemination of findings will be done through journal publications and stakeholder meetings (with study participants, healthcare providers, policymakers and other stakeholders), local and international conferences, policy briefs, peer-reviewed journal articles and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15319595.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative deprescribing intervention of proton-pump-inhibitors on community-dwelling older adults: Protocol for the C-SENIoR, a pragmatic non-randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, demographic ageing is a major social, economic and health challenge. Despite the increase in life expectancy, elderly often live with multiple chronic conditions, exposing them to multiple medications. Concerns have been raised about the growing issue of inappropriate long-term usage of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI), which have been associated with adverse outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Deprescribing is a recommended intervention to reduce or withdraw medicines that might be causing harm or might no longer be of benefit. This protocol details a trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative deprescribing intervention of PPI among community-dwelling elderly, involving community pharmacists and general practitioners. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, non-randomised controlled trial of a structured PPI collaborative deprescribing intervention in the primary care setting with a 6-month follow-up will be conducted. Patients must be 65 years old or older, live in the community and have been using PPI for more than 8 weeks. We hypothesize that the intervention will reduce the PPI usage in the intervention group compared to the control group. The primary outcome is the successful discontinuation or dose decrease of any PPI, defined as a statistically significant absolute 20% reduction in medication use between the intervention and control groups at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. An economic evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial. This study was approved by the Ethics Research Committee of Nova Medical School, NOVA University of Lisbon and by the Ethics Committee from the Local Health Unit Alto Minho, Portugal. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred collaborative deprescribing intervention in the community setting in Portugal. It will also inform improvements for the development of future multi-faceted interventions that aim to optimise medication for the community-dwelling elderly. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 49637686.

Flexor Injury Rehabilitation Splint Trial (FIRST): protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing three splints for finger flexor tendon repairs.

BACKGROUND: Without surgical repair, flexor tendon injuries do not heal and patients' ability to bend fingers and grip objects is impaired. However, flexor tendon repair surgery also requires optimal rehabilitation. There are currently three custom-made splints used in the rehabilitation of zone I/II flexor tendon repairs, each with different assumed harm/benefit profiles: the dorsal forearm and hand-based splint (long), the Manchester short splint (short), and the relative motion flexion splint (mini). There is, however, no robust evidence as to which splint, if any, is most clinical or cost effective. The Flexor Injury Rehabilitation Splint Trial (FIRST) was designed to address this evidence gap. METHODS: FIRST is a parallel group, superiority, analyst-blind, multi-centre, individual participant-randomised controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1:1 to receive either the long, short, or mini splint. We aim to recruit 429 participants undergoing rehabilitation following zone I/II flexor tendon repair surgery. Potential participants will initially be identified prior to surgery, in NHS hand clinics across the UK, and consented and randomised at their splint fitting appointment post-surgery. The primary outcome will be the mean post-randomisation score on the patient-reported wrist and hand evaluation measure (PRWHE), assessed at 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures include blinded grip strength and active range of movement (AROM) assessments, adverse events, adherence to the splinting protocol (measured via temperature sensors inserted into the splints), quality of life assessment, and further patient-reported outcomes. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of each splint, and a qualitative sub-study will evaluate participants' preferences for, and experiences of wearing, the splints. Furthermore, a mediation analysis will determine the relationship between patient preferences, splint adherence, and splint effectiveness. DISCUSSION: FIRST will compare the three splints with respect to clinical efficacy, complications, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. FIRST is a pragmatic trial which will recruit from 26 NHS sites to allow findings to be generalisable to current clinical practice in the UK. It will also provide significant insights into patient experiences of splint wear and how adherence to splinting may impact outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 10236011.

Effectiveness of a community-based multicomponent lifestyle intervention (the ADA programme) to improve the quality of life of French breast cancer survivors: protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised trial and embedded qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer survivors (BCSs) are often faced with multiple mental and physical sequelae and are at increased risk of emotional distress, degraded health-related quality of life (HRQoL), chronic pain and fatigue.Physical activity is strongly associated with improved HRQoL and survival rates; however, adherence rates to recommendations for a healthy lifestyle are seldom satisfactory among BCSs. Also, few studies have examined the effectiveness of multicomponent and personalised interventions that integrate physical activity and motivational techniques to improve the HRQoL of BCS. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: "Activité physique adaptée Doublée d'un Accompagnement d'après cancer" (ADA) is an integrated programme of physical activity enriched with a dietary and supportive care approach targeting BCS in the early post-treatment phase. The effectiveness of the ADA intervention will be evaluated using a cluster randomised controlled trial design with two arms (ADA programme vs usual care; 1:1 ratio).The ADA intervention aims to recruit 160 participants and will be implemented by Siel Bleu, a non-profit association specialised in health prevention via adapted physical activity. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after the start of the intervention. The primary outcome will be participants' HRQoL, at 12 months measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue global score. Secondary outcome will include participants' physical, social, emotional and functional well-being. The effect of the intervention on physical activity level, motivation for physical activity, relation to food and self-efficacy will also be evaluated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the 'CPP Paris XI' Institutional Review Board on 5 May 2022 (Ref no.: 21.04512.000048-22004). The study's findings will be shared through various channels, including academic publications, simplified reports for wider audiences and active engagement with medical and institutional organisations as well as patients' associations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05658341.

Intensive glycaemic targets in overweight and obese individuals with gestational diabetes mellitus: clinical trial protocol for the iGDM study.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of both obesity and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has increased, and each is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes including fetal overgrowth, neonatal morbidity, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and caesarean delivery. Women with GDM who are also overweight or obese have higher rates of pregnancy complications when compared with normal-weight women with GDM, which may occur in part due to suboptimal glycaemic control. The current recommendations for glycaemic targets in pregnant women with diabetes are based on limited evidence and exceed the mean fasting (70.9±7.8 mg/dL) and 1-hour postprandial (108.9±12.9 mg/dL) glucose values in pregnant individuals without diabetes. Our prior work demonstrated that the use of intensive (fasting <90 mg/dL and 1-hour postprandial <120 mg/dL) compared with standard (fasting <95 mg/dL and 1-hour postprandial <140 mg/dL) glycaemic targets resulted in improved glycaemic control without increasing the risk for hypoglycaemia in pregnant individuals with GDM, but the impact of intensive glycaemic targets on perinatal outcomes is unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Multicenter Randomized Trial (iGDM Trial) is a large, pragmatic randomised clinical trial designed to investigate the impact of intensive versus standard glycaemic targets on perinatal outcomes in women with GDM who are overweight and obese. During the 5-year project period, a multidisciplinary team of investigators from five medical centres representing regions of the USA with high rates of obesity will randomise 828 overweight and obese women with GDM to either intensive or standard glycaemic targets. We will test the central hypothesis that intensive glycaemic targets will result in lower rates of neonatal composite morbidity including large for gestational age birth weight, neonatal hypoglycaemia, respiratory distress syndrome and need for phototherapy when compared with standard glycaemic targets using the intention-to-treat approach to analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Indiana University School of Medicine approved this study (IRB# 11435; initial approval date 25 August 2021). We will submit the results of the trial for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at international scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05124808.

The effectiveness of customised 3D-printed insoles on perceived pain, comfort, and completion time among frequent Park Runners: Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (The ZOLES RCT).

BACKGROUND: Running, a popular recreational activity, often leads to the experience of pain and discomfort among participants impacting performance and participation longevity. The ZOLES trial evaluates customised 3D-printed insoles for reducing pain in frequent parkrunners aged 35 and over. An innovative process of foot-scanning and responses to questions relating to size, pain, discomfort, and previous medical conditions are combined leading to the production of personalised 3D-printed orthotics. METHODS: The ZOLES trial is a pragmatic, outcome assessor blinded, randomised, controlled, superiority trial involving 200 recreational runners, randomised to receive either customised 3D-printed insoles (ZOLES) or to a "do-as-usual" control group. The study follows a robust protocol, ensuring adherence to established guidelines for clinical trials, and is based at St Mary's University, Twickenham, London. The primary outcome is change in running-related pain over a 10-week period, assessed using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes include overall pain and discomfort, running-related comfort, 5k-completion time, time-loss due to injuries, running exposure, and adherence to the intervention. A balanced-block randomisation process is stratified by sex and parkrun location, and an intention-to-treat analyses will be employed on all outcomes in the primary trial report. The trial includes a 52-week post-market surveillance to assess long-term effects of the customised insoles. DISCUSSION: The ZOLES trial aims to provide insights into real-world applicability and effectiveness of customised 3D-printed insoles in reducing running-related pain and enhancing overall running experience. Despite the limitation of a subjective primary outcome measure without participant blinding, the methodological rigor, including external outcome assessment and data handling, we anticipate results that are academically credible and applicable in real-world settings The results of this trial may have important implications for runners, clinicians, and the sports footwear industry, as evidence for the use of individualised insoles to improve running experience and prevention of pain may become evident. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was pre-registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the trial identifier NCT06034210 on September 4, 2023, and publicly posted on September 13, 2023 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06034210). PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 1, September 27, 2023.

To allow or avoid pain during shoulder rehabilitation exercises for patients with chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy-Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (the PASE trial).

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathy is the most reported shoulder disorder in the general population with highest prevalence in overhead athletes and adult working-age population. A growing body of evidence support exercise therapy as an effective intervention, but to date there are no prospective randomized controlled trials addressing pain as an intervention variable. METHODS: A single-site, prospective, pragmatic, assessor-blinded randomized controlled superiority trial. Eighty-four patients aged 18-55 years with chronic (symptom duration over 3 months) RC tendinopathy are randomized 1:1 to receive shoulder exercise during which pain is either allowed or avoided. The intervention period lasts 26 weeks. During that period, participants in both groups are offered 8 individual on-site sessions with an assigned sports physiotherapist. Participants perform home exercises and are provided with a pain and exercise logbook and asked to report completed home-based exercise sessions and reasons for not completing sessions (pain or other reasons). Patients are also asked to report load and the number of sets and repetitions per sets for each exercise session. The logbooks are collected continuously throughout the intervention period. The primary and secondary outcomes are obtained at baseline, 6 weeks, 26 weeks, and 1 year after baseline. The primary outcome is patient-reported pain and disability using the Shoulder PAin and Disability Index (SPADI). Secondary outcomes are patient-reported pain and disability using Disability Arm Shoulder and Hand short-form (Quick DASH), and shoulder pain using Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Objective outcomes are shoulder range of motion, isometric shoulder muscle strength, pain sensitivity, working ability, and structural changes in the supraspinatus tendon and muscle using ultrasound. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will contribute knowledge about the treatment strategies for patients with RC tendinopathy and help physiotherapists in clinical decision-making. This is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of allowing pain versus avoiding pain during shoulder exercises in patients with chronic RC tendinopathy. If tolerating pain during and after exercise proves to be effective, it will potentially expand our understanding of "exercising into pain" for this patient group, as there is currently no consensus. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05124769. Registered on August 11, 2021.

Pragmatic phase II clinical trial to improve depression care in a real-world diverse MS cohort from an academic MS centre in Northern California: MS CATCH study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Depression occurs in over 50% of individuals living with multiple sclerosis (MS) and can be treated using many modalities. Yet, it remains: under-reported by patients, under-ascertained by clinicians and under-treated. To enhance these three behaviours likely to promote evidence-based depression care, we engaged multiple stakeholders to iteratively design a first-in-kind digital health tool. The tool, MS CATCH (Care technology to Ascertain, Treat, and engage the Community to Heal depression in patients with MS), closes the communication loop between patients and clinicians. Between clinical visits, the tool queries patients monthly about mood symptoms, supports patient self-management and alerts clinicians to worsening mood via their electronic health record in-basket. Clinicians can also access an MS CATCH dashboard displaying patients' mood scores over the course of their disease, and providing comprehensive management tools (contributing factors, antidepressant pathway, resources in patient's neighbourhood). The goal of the current trial is to evaluate the clinical effect and usability of MS CATCH in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MS CATCH is a single-site, phase II randomised, delayed start, trial enrolling 125 adults with MS and mild to moderately severe depression. Arm 1 will receive MS CATCH for 12 months, and arm 2 will receive usual care for 6 months, then MS CATCH for 6 months. Clinicians will be randomised to avoid practice effects. The effectiveness analysis is superiority intent-to-treat comparing MS CATCH to usual care over 6 months (primary outcome: evidence of screening and treatment; secondary outcome: Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale-Depression scores). The usability of the intervention will also be evaluated (primary outcome: adoption; secondary outcomes: adherence, engagement, satisfaction). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board (22-36620). The findings of the study are planned to be shared through conferences and publishments in a peer-reviewed journal. The deidentified dataset will be shared with qualified collaborators on request, provision of CITI and other certifications, and data sharing agreement. We will share the results, once the data are complete and analysed, with the scientific community and patient/clinician participants through abstracts, presentations and manuscripts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05865405.

Effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention to enhance care for patients with complex multimorbidity in general practice: protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (the MM600 trial).

INTRODUCTION: Patients with complex multimorbidity face a high treatment burden and frequently have low quality of life. General practice is the key organisational setting in terms of offering people with complex multimorbidity integrated, longitudinal, patient-centred care. This protocol describes a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention in general practice for patients with complex multimorbidity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this study, 250 recruited general practices will be randomly assigned 1:1 to either the intervention or control group. The eligible population are adult patients with two or more chronic conditions, at least one contact with secondary care within the last year, taking at least five repeat prescription drugs, living independently, who experience significant problems with their life and health due to their multimorbidity. During 2023 and 2024, intervention practices are financially incentivised to provide an extended consultation based on a patient-centred framework to eligible patients. Control practices continue care as usual. The primary outcome is need-based quality of life. Outcomes will be evaluated using linear and logistic regression models, with clustering considered. The analysis will be performed as intention to treat. In addition, a process evaluation will be carried out and reported elsewhere. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the Helsinki Declaration in its most recent form and good clinical practice recommendations, as well as the regulation for informed consent. The study was submitted to the Danish Capital Region Ethical Committee (ref: H-22041229). As defined by Section 2 of the Danish Act on Research Ethics in Research Projects, this project does not constitute a health research project but is considered a quality improvement project that does not require formal ethical approval. All results from the study (whether positive, negative or inconclusive) will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05676541.

Group sequential designs for pragmatic clinical trials with early outcomes: methods and guidance for planning and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Group sequential designs are one of the most widely used methodologies for adaptive design in randomized clinical trials. In settings where early outcomes are available, they offer large gains in efficiency compared to a fixed design. However, such designs are underused and used predominantly in therapeutic areas where there is expertise and experience in implementation. One barrier to their greater use is the requirement to undertake simulation studies at the planning stage that require considerable knowledge, coding experience and additional costs. Based on some modest assumptions about the likely patterns of recruitment and the covariance structure of the outcomes, some simple analytic expressions are presented that negate the need to undertake simulations. METHODS: A model for longitudinal outcomes with an assumed approximate multivariate normal distribution and three contrasting simple recruitment models are described, based on fixed, increasing and decreasing rates. For assumed uniform and exponential correlation models, analytic expressions for the variance of the treatment effect and the effects of the early outcomes on reducing this variance at the primary outcome time-point are presented. Expressions for the minimum and maximum values show how the correlations and timing of the early outcomes affect design efficiency. RESULTS: Simulations showed how patterns of information accrual varied between correlation and recruitment models, and consequentially to some general guidance for planning a trial. Using a previously reported group sequential trial as an exemplar, it is shown how the analytic expressions given here could have been used as a quick and flexible planning tool, avoiding the need for extensive simulation studies based on individual participant data. CONCLUSIONS: The analytic expressions described can be routinely used at the planning stage of a putative trial, based on some modest assumptions about the likely number of outcomes and when they might occur and the expected recruitment patterns. Numerical simulations showed that these models behaved sensibly and allowed a range of design options to be explored in a way that would have been difficult and time-consuming if the previously described method of simulating individual trial participant data had been used.

A hybrid digital parenting programme to prevent abuse of adolescents in Tanzania: study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based parenting programmes have strong evidence in preventing and mitigating violence, but in-person programmes are challenging to deliver at scale. ParentApp is an open-source, offline-first app-based adaptation of the Parenting for Lifelong Health for Parents and Teens programme to promote playful and positive parenting, reduce risks for sexual violence victimisation, and prevent violence against adolescents. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ParentApp compared to an attention-control group. METHODS: This study is a two-arm pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial to test whether ParentApp reduces adolescent physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual violence risks and victimisation at 1 month and 12 months post-intervention. Caregivers of adolescents aged 10-17 years and their adolescent children (N = 2400 caregiver-adolescent dyads) will be recruited in urban and peri-urban communities in the Mwanza region of Tanzania. A total of 80 study clusters will be stratified and randomised (1:1) to the intervention group, who will receive ParentApp with support through a WhatsApp group, or to an attention-control group, who will receive a water, sanitation, and hygiene app. Quantitative data will be collected through outcomes questionnaires with caregivers and adolescents, administered at baseline, 4 months post-baseline, and 16 months post-baseline, as well as through routine implementation data and ParentApp engagement data. Qualitative data will be collected through individual interviews and focus groups with caregivers, adolescents, and implementing partner staff. DISCUSSION: App-based interventions have the potential to expand access to evidence-based parenting support, but currently lack rigorous evidence in low- and middle-income countries. This is the first known randomised control trial of a hybrid digital parenting programme to prevent the abuse of adolescents in low- and middle-income settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on the Open Science Framework on 14 March 2023, registration: OSF.IO/T9FXZ .

Bridging research gaps in geriatric oncology: unraveling the potential of pragmatic clinical trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examines the role of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) in addressing the underrepresentation of older adults with cancer (OAC) in clinical trials. Focusing on real-world evidence (RWE), it aims to provide a comprehensive overview of PCT utilization, emphasizing their potential to enhance treatment decisions and patient outcomes. Existing knowledge gaps in PCT implementation are also discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: PCTs are identified as effective tools to include OACs with comorbidities and complex conditions in research, bridging the representation gap. Despite their proven value in healthcare provision, their application in OAC contexts remains limited, hindering comprehensive understanding and inclusivity in clinical trials. SUMMARY: While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard in oncology research, OACs have historically been excluded, perpetuating underrepresentation. Furthermore, even in current oncology clinical development trials, this demographic continues to be underrepresented. PCTs offer a valuable avenue for the identification and evaluation of therapies within authentic RW contexts, encompassing various healthcare settings, such as hospitals, clinics, and physician practices. RCTs and PCTs complement one another, and the utilization of PCTs has the potential to inform clinical decision-making across the OACs entire treatment trajectory.

Routine sterile glove and instrument change at the time of abdominal wound closure to prevent surgical site infection (ChEETAh): a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial in seven low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a major burden on patients and health systems. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of routine change of sterile gloves and instruments before abdominal wall closure to prevent SSI. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was built to estimate average costs and outcomes of changing gloves and instruments before abdominal wall closure compared with current practice. Clinical data were obtained from the ChEETAh trial, a multicentre, cluster-randomised trial in seven low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), and costs were obtained from a study (KIWI) that assessed costs associated with SSIs in LMICs. Outcomes were measured as the percentage of surgeries resulting in SSIs. Costs were measured from a health-care provider perspective and were reported in 2021 US$. The economic analysis used a partially split single-country costing approach, with pooled outcomes data from all seven countries in the ChEETAh trial, and data for resource use and unit costs from India (KIWI); secondary analyses used resource use and costs from Mexico and Ghana (KIWI). FINDINGS: In the base case, the average cost of the intervention was $259∙92 compared with $261∙10 for current practice (cost difference -$1∙18, 95% CI -4∙08 to 1∙33). In the intervention group, an estimated 17∙6% of patients had an SSI compared with 19∙7% of patients in the current practice group (absolute risk reduction 2∙10%, 95% CI 2∙07-2∙84). At all cost-effectiveness thresholds assumed ($0 to $14 000), the intervention had a higher likelihood of being cost-effective compared with current practice, indicating that the intervention was cost-effective. Similar results were obtained when the analysis using data from India was repeated using resource use and unit cost data from Mexico and Ghana. INTERPRETATION: Routine sterile glove and instrument change before abdominal wall closure is effective and the costs are similar to those for current practice. Routine change of gloves and instruments before abdominal wall closure should be rolled out in LMICs. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist Award, NIHR Global Health Research Unit Grant, and Mölnlycke Healthcare.

Sertraline for anxiety in adults with a diagnosis of autism (STRATA): study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are commonly prescribed to manage anxiety in adults with an autism diagnosis. However, their effectiveness and adverse effect profile in the autistic population are not well known. This trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SSRI sertraline in reducing symptoms of anxiety and improving quality of life in adults with a diagnosis of autism compared with placebo and to quantify any adverse effects. METHODS: STRATA is a two-parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial with allocation at the level of the individual. It will be delivered through recruiting sites with autism services in 4 regional centres in the United Kingdom (UK) and 1 in Australia. Adults with an autism diagnosis and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) score ≥ 10 at screening will be randomised 1:1 to either 25 mg sertraline or placebo, with subsequent flexible dose titration up to 200 mg. The primary outcome is GAD-7 scores at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, proportionate change in GAD-7 scores including 50% reduction, social anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, panic attacks, repetitive behaviours, meltdowns, depressive symptoms, composite depression and anxiety, functioning and disability and quality of life. Carer burden will be assessed in a linked carer sub-study. Outcome data will be collected using online/paper methods via video call, face-to-face or telephone according to participant preference at 16, 24 and 52 weeks post-randomisation, with brief safety checks and data collection at 1-2, 4, 8, 12 and 36 weeks. An economic evaluation to study the cost-effectiveness of sertraline vs placebo and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment and informed consent are embedded within the trial. Qualitative interviews at various times during the study will explore experiences of participating and taking the trial medication. DISCUSSION: Results from this study should help autistic adults and their clinicians make evidence-based decisions on the use of sertraline for managing anxiety in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15984604 . Registered on 08 February 2021. EudraCT 2019-004312-66. ANZCTR ACTRN12621000801819. Registered on 07 April 2021.