Search

Background: Sharing trial results with participants is a moral imperative, but too often does not happen in appropriate ways., Methods: We carried out semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 13) and site staff (n = 11), and surveyed 180 patients and 68 site staff who were part of the Show RESPECT study, which tested approaches to sharing results with participants in the context of the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Qualitative and free-text data were analysed thematically, and findings used to develop the SHOW RESPECT adaptable framework of considerations for planning how to share trial results with participants. This paper presents the framework, with illustrations drawn from the Show RESPECT study., Results: Our adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework covers (1) Supporting and preparing trial participants to receive results, (2) HOw will the results reach participants?, (3) Who are the trial participants?, (4) REsults-what do they show?, (5) Special considerations, (6) Provider-who will share results with participants?, (7) Expertise and resources, (8) Communication tools and (9) Timing of sharing results. While the data upon which the framework is based come from a single trial, many of our findings are corroborated by findings from other studies in this area, supporting the transferability of our framework to trials beyond the UK ovarian cancer setting in which our work took place., Conclusions: This adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework can guide researchers as they plan how to share aggregate trial results with participants. While our data are drawn from a single trial context, the findings from Show RESPECT illustrate how approaches to communication in a specific trial can influence patient and staff experiences of feedback of trial results. The framework generated from these findings can be adapted to fit different trial contexts and used by other researchers to plan the sharing of results with their own participants., Trial Registration: ISRCTN96189403. Registered on February 26, 2019. Show RESPECT was supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12023/24 and MC_UU_00004/08) and the NIHR CRN., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: This study aimed to understand the role of surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives (TRCs) in conducting randomised controlled trials and identify strategies to enhance trainee engagement in trials., Design: This is a mixed methods study. We used observation of TRC meetings, semi-structured interviews and an online survey to explore trainees' motivations for engagement in trials and TRCs, including barriers and facilitators. Interviews were analysed thematically, alongside observation field notes. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Strategies to enhance TRCs were developed at a workshop by 13 trial methodologists, surgical trainees, consultants and research nurses., Setting: This study was conducted within a secondary care setting in the UK., Participants: The survey was sent to registered UK surgical trainees. TRC members and linked stakeholders across surgical specialties and UK regions were purposefully sampled for interviews., Results: We observed 5 TRC meetings, conducted 32 semi-structured interviews and analysed 73 survey responses. TRCs can mobilise trainees thus gaining wider access to patients. Trainees engaged with TRCs to improve patient care, surgical evidence and to help progress their careers. Trainees valued the TRC infrastructure, research expertise and mentoring. Challenges for trainees included clinical and other priorities, limited time and confidence, and recognition, especially by authorship. Key TRC strategies were consultant support, initial simple rapid studies, transparency of involvement and recognition for trainees (including authorship policies) and working with Clinical Trials Units and research nurses. A 6 min digital story on YouTube disseminated these strategies., Conclusion: Trainee surgeons are mostly motivated to engage with trials and TRCs. Trainee engagement in TRCs can be enhanced through building relationships with key stakeholders, maximising multi-disciplinary working and offering training and career development opportunities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: NH, TP, JB, NSB, JG, DN have been involved with a TRC; CC, KC, JAC, RB, AA-P, CS, LM, GM, JAL are methodologists who work with a CTU or in trials methodology and ZH and VH are research nurses who work with clinical research networks., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background/aims: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches., Methods: We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression., Results: We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients., Conclusions: Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: AS, JB, CS, AJC, NJ-H, CD-M, KG, TI and WJC have nothing to declare. MRS reports grants from Clovis; grants and non-financial support from Astellas, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi; personal fees from Lilly Oncology and Janssen, outside the submitted work. BEB reports receiving consulting fees from Lilly outside the submitted work.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic brought rapid and major changes to research, and those wishing to carry out Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) activities faced challenges, such as restrictions on movement and contact, illness, bereavement and risks to potential participants. Some researchers moved PPI to online settings during this time but remote consultations raise, as well as address, a number of challenges. It is important to learn from PPI undertaken in this period as face-to-face consultation may no longer be the dominant method for PPI., Methods: UK stay-at-home measures announced in March 2020 necessitated immediate revisions to the intended face-to-face methods of PPI consultation for the ESORT Study, which evaluated emergency surgery for patients with common acute conditions. PPI plans and methods were modified to all components being online. We describe and reflect on: initial plans and adaptation; recruitment; training and preparation; implementation, contextualisation and interpretation. Through first-hand accounts we show how the PPI processes were developed, experienced and viewed by different partners in the process., Discussion and Conclusions: While concerns have been expressed about the possible limiting effects of forgoing face-to-face contact with PPI partners, we found important benefits from the altered dynamic of the online PPI environment. There were increased opportunities for participation which might encourage the involvement of a broader demographic, and unexpected benefits in that the online platform seemed to have a 'democratising' effect on the meetings, to the benefit of the PPI processes and outcomes. Other studies may however find that their particular research context raises particular challenges for the use of online methods, especially in relation to representation and inclusion, as new barriers to participation may be raised. It is important that methodological challenges are addressed, and researchers provide detailed examples of novel methods for discussion and empirical study., Patient and Public Contribution: We report a process which involved people with lived experience of emergency conditions and members of the public. A patient member was involved in the design and implementation, and two patients with lived experience contributed to the manuscript., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Late-phase platform protocols (including basket, umbrella, multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS), and master protocols) are generally agreed to be more efficient than traditional two-arm clinical trial designs but are not extensively used. We have gathered the experience of running a number of successful platform protocols together to present some operational recommendations., Methods: Representatives of six UK clinical trials units with experience in running late-phase platform protocols attended a 1-day meeting structured to discuss various practical aspects of running these trials. We report and give guidance on operational aspects which are either harder to implement compared to a traditional late-phase trial or are specific to platform protocols., Results: We present a list of practical recommendations for trialists intending to design and conduct late-phase platform protocols. Our recommendations cover the entire life cycle of a platform trial: from protocol development, obtaining funding, and trial set-up, to a wide range of operational and regulatory aspects such as staffing, oversight, data handling, and data management, to the reporting of results, with a particular focus on communication with trial participants and stakeholders as well as public and patient involvement., Discussion: Platform protocols enable many questions to be answered efficiently to the benefit of patients. Our practical lessons from running platform trials will support trial teams in learning how to run these trials more effectively and efficiently., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Adaptive designs are a class of methods for improving efficiency and patient benefit of clinical trials. Although their use has increased in recent years, research suggests they are not used in many situations where they have potential to bring benefit. One barrier to their more widespread use is a lack of understanding about how the choice to use an adaptive design, rather than a traditional design, affects resources (staff and non-staff) required to set-up, conduct and report a trial. The Costing Adaptive Trials project investigated this issue using quantitative and qualitative research amongst UK Clinical Trials Units. Here, we present guidance that is informed by our research, on considering the appropriate resourcing of adaptive trials. We outline a five-step process to estimate the resources required and provide an accompanying costing tool. The process involves understanding the tasks required to undertake a trial, and how the adaptive design affects them. We identify barriers in the publicly funded landscape and provide recommendations to trial funders that would address them. Although our guidance and recommendations are most relevant to UK non-commercial trials, many aspects are relevant more widely., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: The success of pharmacological randomised controlled trials (RCTs) depends on the recruitment of the required number of participants. Recruitment to RCTs for patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices raises specific additional challenges. The objectives of the study were 1) to explore patient perspectives on factors that influence RCT recruitment, 2) to understand factors that influence the success of recruitment from a staff perspective, and 3) to identify opportunities for tailored interventions to improve trial recruitment in this context., Methods: The qualitative study was embedded in a multi-centre blinded RCT (BOPPP trial) and was conducted alongside site opening. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who enrolled to participate in the trial (n = 13), patients who declined to take part (n = 5), and staff who were responsible for recruiting participants to the trial (n = 18). An open approach to data collection and analysis was adopted and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to provide a theoretical lens through which to view influences on behaviour. Data was analysed using thematic analysis., Results: The findings consist of 5 overarching themes that outline trial recruitment influences at the patient, staff, team, organisational and trial levels: i) patient risks and benefits ii) staff attitudes, knowledge and capacity, iii) team-based approach, iv) organisational context and v) Trial collective. Patient-generated themes map onto thirteen of the fourteen TDF domains and staff-generated themes map onto all TDF domains. The overarching themes are not mutually exclusive; with evidence of direct interactions between patient and staff-level themes that influence recruitment behaviours., Conclusions: This study uses a theory-informed approach to gain new insights into improving clinical trial recruitment for patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices. Although people with cirrhosis often display decreased healthcare-seeking behaviours, we found that patients used research to empower themselves to improve their health. Pragmatic trials involving unpredictable populations require staff expertise in building trust, and a deep knowledge of the patient group and their vulnerabilities. RCT recruitment is also more successful when research visits align with what staff identified as the natural rhythm of care., Trial Registration: ISRCTN10324656; https://clinicaltrials.gov/., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Adaptive designs offer great promise in improving the efficiency and patient-benefit of clinical trials. An important barrier to further increased use is a lack of understanding about which additional resources are required to conduct a high-quality adaptive clinical trial, compared to a traditional fixed design. The Costing Adaptive Trials (CAT) project investigated which additional resources may be required to support adaptive trials., Methods: We conducted a mock costing exercise amongst seven Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the UK. Five scenarios were developed, derived from funded clinical trials, where a non-adaptive version and an adaptive version were described. Each scenario represented a different type of adaptive design. CTU staff were asked to provide the costs and staff time they estimated would be needed to support the trial, categorised into specified areas (e.g. statistics, data management, trial management). This was calculated separately for the non-adaptive and adaptive version of the trial, allowing paired comparisons. Interviews with 10 CTU staff who had completed the costing exercise were conducted by qualitative researchers to explore reasons for similarities and differences., Results: Estimated resources associated with conducting an adaptive trial were always (moderately) higher than for the non-adaptive equivalent. The median increase was between 2 and 4% for all scenarios, except for sample size re-estimation which was 26.5% (as the adaptive design could lead to a lengthened study period). The highest increase was for statistical staff, with lower increases for data management and trial management staff. The percentage increase in resources varied across different CTUs. The interviews identified possible explanations for differences, including (1) experience in adaptive trials, (2) the complexity of the non-adaptive and adaptive design, and (3) the extent of non-trial specific core infrastructure funding the CTU had., Conclusions: This work sheds light on additional resources required to adequately support a high-quality adaptive trial. The percentage increase in costs for supporting an adaptive trial was generally modest and should not be a barrier to adaptive designs being cost-effective to use in practice. Informed by the results of this research, guidance for investigators and funders will be developed on appropriately resourcing adaptive trials., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. We tested an Enhanced Webpage versus a Basic Webpage, Mailed Printed Summary versus no Mailed Printed Summary, and Email List Invitation versus no Email List Invitation to see which approach resulted in the highest patient satisfaction with how the results were communicated., Methods and Findings: We carried out a cluster randomised, 2 by 2 by 2 factorial, nonblinded study within a trial, with semistructured qualitative interviews with some patients (ISRCTN96189403). Each cluster was a UK hospital participating in the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial. Interventions were shared with 384 ICON8 participants who were alive and considered well enough to be contacted, at 43 hospitals. Hospitals were allocated to share results with participants through one of the 8 intervention combinations based on random permutation within blocks of 8, stratified by number of participants. All interventions contained a written plain English summary of the results. The Enhanced Webpage also contained a short video. Both the Enhanced Webpage and Email contained links to further information and support. The Mailed Printed Summary was opt-out. Follow-up questionnaires were sent 1 month after patients had been offered the interventions. Patients' reported satisfaction was measured using a 5-point scale, analysed by ordinal logistic regression estimating main effects for all 3 interventions, with random effects for site, restricted to those who reported receiving the results and assuming no interaction. Data collection took place in 2018 to 2019. Questionnaires were sent to 275/384 randomly selected participants and returned by 180: 90/142 allocated Basic Webpage, 90/133 Enhanced Webpage; 91/141 no Mailed Printed Summary, 89/134 Mailed Printed Summary; 82/129 no Email List Invitation, 98/146 Email List Invitation. Only 3 patients opted out of receiving the Mailed Printed Summary; no patients signed up to the email list. Patients' satisfaction was greater at sites allocated the Mailed Printed Summary, where 65/81 (80%) were quite or very satisfied compared to sites with no Mailed Printed Summary 39/64 (61%), ordinal odds ratio (OR) = 3.15 (1.66 to 5.98, p < 0.001). We found no effect on patient satisfaction from the Enhanced Webpage, OR = 1.47 (0.78 to 2.76, p = 0.235) or Email List Invitation, OR = 1.38 (0.72 to 2.63, p = 0.327). Interviewees described the results as interesting, important, and disappointing (the ICON8 trial found no benefit). Finding out the results made some feel their trial participation had been more worthwhile. Regardless of allocated group, patients who received results generally reported that the information was easy to understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results. The main limitation of our study is the 65% response rate., Conclusions: Nearly all respondents wanted to know the results and were glad to receive them. Adding an opt-out Mailed Printed Summary alongside a webpage yielded the highest reported satisfaction. This study provides evidence on how to share results with other similar trial populations. Further research is needed to look at different results scenarios and patient populations., Trial Registration: ISRCTN: ISRCTN96189403., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: AS, ECJ, CP, CT, CS, AM, AJC, NJH, CDM, KG, TI, BEB and WJC have nothing to declare. MRS reports grants and non-financial support from Astellas, grants from Clovis, grants and non-financial support from Janssen, grants and non-financial support from Novartis, grants and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants and non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees from Lilly Oncology, personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) describes the active involvement of patients and the public in the research process. Through PPI, patients and members of the public are increasingly involved in the design and conduct of clinical trials. PPI has been shown to improve the quality and relevance of research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical trials have been playing a vital role in helping us find ways to prevent and treat the infection and improve our understanding of the virus. It is important that patients and the public are actively involved in deciding how COVID-19 research is carried out. Unfortunately, Research Ethics Committees in the UK have seen far less PPI for COVID-19 research studies compared with research before the pandemic. A key reason for this is that research is being designed much faster than normal and researchers may feel they do not have time to properly involve patients and the public. In this paper, we share our experiences of PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. We show that it is possible to rapidly involve patients and the public in COVID-19 clinical trials. We also explain how the design of the clinical trial was changed in response to feedback from public contributors. Lastly, we discuss the wider learning from this process which might be useful for researchers planning PPI activities for COVID-19 clinical trials in the future., Background: Clinical trials are playing a critical role in the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the increasing recognition of the value of PPI in clinical trials, just 22% of the COVID-19 research proposals reviewed by Research Ethics Committees in the UK at the start of the pandemic reported PPI. There is a perception that PPI might result in delays in delivering research and therefore delays in obtaining important results. In this paper, we report our experience of rapid PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial., Methods: RAPID-19 is a COVID-19 clinical trial which was planned to be submitted for fast-track ethics review in the United Kingdom. During the development of the trial protocol, the PPI Panel at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Clinical Trials Unit was involved in the design of the study. The meeting with the PPI Panel lasted just over 1 h and was conducted by teleconference., Results: Although we only had a short period of time to explore the study with the PPI Panel, we were able to gain valuable insight into how the trial would be perceived by potential trial participants. Substantive changes were made to the trial to improve the acceptability of the research without compromising the study timelines. Having access to public contributors with relevant lived experience is an important resource for a Clinical Trials Unit and is critical for rapid PPI. The move to remote working due to lockdown required virtual discussions which helped to overcome some of the barriers to organising face-to-face meetings at short notice., Conclusions: PPI for clinical trials can be conducted in a time-efficient manner within the pressured environment of a pandemic. Involving PPI contributors at an early stage in protocol development maximised the opportunity to shape and influence the trial as well as limited potential delays which could occur if changes to the protocol had to be made at a later stage.

Background: Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) testing might provide a current assessment of the genomic profile of advanced cancer, without the need to repeat tumour biopsy. We aimed to assess the accuracy of ctDNA testing in advanced breast cancer and the ability of ctDNA testing to select patients for mutation-directed therapy., Methods: We did an open-label, multicohort, phase 2a, platform trial of ctDNA testing in 18 UK hospitals. Participants were women (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed advanced breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Patients had completed at least one previous line of treatment for advanced breast cancer or relapsed within 12 months of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were recruited into four parallel treatment cohorts matched to mutations identified in ctDNA: cohort A comprised patients with ESR1 mutations (treated with intramuscular extended-dose fulvestrant 500 mg); cohort B comprised patients with HER2 mutations (treated with oral neratinib 240 mg, and if oestrogen receptor-positive with intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); cohort C comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-positive cancer (treated with oral capivasertib 400 mg plus intramuscular standard-dose fulvestrant); and cohort D comprised patients with AKT1 mutations and oestrogen receptor-negative cancer or PTEN mutation (treated with oral capivasertib 480 mg). Each cohort had a primary endpoint of confirmed objective response rate. For cohort A, 13 or more responses among 78 evaluable patients were required to infer activity and three or more among 16 were required for cohorts B, C, and D. Recruitment to all cohorts is complete and long-term follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03182634; the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2015-003735-36; and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN16945804., Findings: Between Dec 21, 2016, and April 26, 2019, 1051 patients registered for the study, with ctDNA results available for 1034 patients. Agreement between ctDNA digital PCR and targeted sequencing was 96-99% (n=800, kappa 0·89-0·93). Sensitivity of digital PCR ctDNA testing for mutations identified in tissue sequencing was 93% (95% CI 83-98) overall and 98% (87-100) with contemporaneous biopsies. In all cohorts, combined median follow-up was 14·4 months (IQR 7·0-23·7). Cohorts B and C met or exceeded the target number of responses, with five (25% [95% CI 9-49]) of 20 patients in cohort B and four (22% [6-48]) of 18 patients in cohort C having a response. Cohorts A and D did not reach the target number of responses, with six (8% [95% CI 3-17]) of 74 in cohort A and two (11% [1-33]) of 19 patients in cohort D having a response. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were raised gamma-glutamyltransferase (13 [16%] of 80 patients; cohort A); diarrhoea (four [25%] of 20; cohort B); fatigue (four [22%] of 18; cohort C); and rash (five [26%] of 19; cohort D). 17 serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients, and there was one treatment-related death caused by grade 4 dyspnoea (in cohort C)., Interpretation: ctDNA testing offers accurate, rapid genotyping that enables the selection of mutation-directed therapies for patients with breast cancer, with sufficient clinical validity for adoption into routine clinical practice. Our results demonstrate clinically relevant activity of targeted therapies against rare HER2 and AKT1 mutations, confirming these mutations could be targetable for breast cancer treatment., Funding: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, and Puma Biotechnology., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Alveolar soft-part sarcoma (ASPS) is a rare soft-tissue sarcoma that is unresponsive to chemotherapy. Cediranib, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, has shown substantial activity in ASPS in non-randomised studies. The Cediranib in Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma (CASPS) study was designed to discriminate the effect of cediranib from the intrinsically indolent nature of ASPS., Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 2 trial, we recruited participants from 12 hospitals in the UK (n=7), Spain (n=3), and Australia (n=2). Patients were eligible if they were aged 16 years or older; metastatic ASPS that had progressed in the previous 6 months; had an ECOG performance status of 0-1; life expectancy of more than 12 weeks; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Participants had to have no anti-cancer treatment within 4 weeks before trial entry, with exception of palliative radiotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1), with allocation by use of computer-generated random permuted blocks of six, to either cediranib (30 mg orally, once daily) or matching placebo tablets for 24 weeks. Treatment was supplied in number-coded bottles, masking participants and clinicians to assignment. Participants were unblinded at week 24 or sooner if they had progression defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1); those on placebo crossed over to cediranib and all participants continued on treatment until progression or death. The primary endpoint was percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters between baseline and week 24 or progression if sooner, assessed in the evaluable population (all randomly assigned participants who had a scan at week 24 [or sooner if they progressed] with target marker lesions measured). Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01337401; the European Clinical Trials database, number EudraCT2010-021163-33; and the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN63733470 recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing., Findings: Between July 15, 2011, and July 29, 2016, of 48 participants recruited, all were randomly assigned to cediranib (n=32) or placebo (n=16). 23 (48%) were female and the median age was 31 years (IQR 27-45). Median follow-up was 34·3 months (IQR 23·7-55·6) at the time of data cutoff for these analyses (April 11, 2018). Four participants in the cediranib group were not evaluable for the primary endpoint (one did not start treatment, and three did not have their scan at 24 weeks). Median percentage change in sum of target marker lesion diameters for the evaluable population was -8·3% (IQR -26·5 to 5·9) with cediranib versus 13·4% (IQR 1·1 to 21·3) with placebo (one-sided p=0·0010). The most common grade 3 adverse events on (blinded) cediranib were hypertension (six [19%] of 31) and diarrhoea (two [6%]). 15 serious adverse reactions in 12 patients were reported; 12 of these reactions occurred on open-label cediranib, and the most common symptoms were dehydration (n=2), vomiting (n=2), and proteinuria (n=2). One probable treatment-related death (intracranial haemorrhage) occurred 41 days after starting open-label cediranib in a patient who was assigned to placebo in the masked phase., Interpretation: Given the high incidence of metastatic disease and poor long-term prognosis of ASPS, together with the lack of efficacy of conventional chemotherapy, our finding of significant clinical activity with cediranib in this disease is an important step towards the goal of long-term disease control for these young patients. Future clinical trials in ASPS are also likely to involve immune checkpoint inhibitors., Funding: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: CDK4/6 inhibitors are used to treat estrogen receptor (ER)-positive metastatic breast cancer (BC) in combination with endocrine therapy. PALLET is a phase II randomized trial that evaluated the effects of combination palbociclib plus letrozole as neoadjuvant therapy., Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with ER-positive primary BC and tumors greater than or equal to 2.0 cm were randomly assigned 3:2:2:2 to letrozole (2.5 mg/d) for 14 weeks (A); letrozole for 2 weeks, then palbociclib plus letrozole to 14 weeks (B); palbociclib for 2 weeks, then palbociclib plus letrozole to 14 weeks (C); or palbociclib plus letrozole for 14 weeks. Palbociclib 125 mg/d was administered orally on a 21-days-on, 7-days-off schedule. Core-cut biopsies were taken at baseline and 2 and 14 weeks. Coprimary end points for letrozole versus palbociclib plus letrozole groups (A v B + C + D) were change in Ki-67 (protein encoded by the  MKI67 gene; immunohistochemistry) between baseline and 14 weeks and clinical response (ordinal and ultrasound) after 14 weeks. Complete cell-cycle arrest was defined as Ki-67 less than or equal to 2.7%. Apoptosis was characterized by cleaved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase., Results: Three hundred seven patients were recruited. Clinical response was not significantly different between palbociclib plus letrozole and letrozole groups ( P = .20; complete response + partial response, 54.3% v 49.5%), and progressive disease was 3.2% versus 5.4%, respectively. Median log-fold change in Ki-67 was greater with palbociclib plus letrozole compared with letrozole (-4.1 v -2.2; P < .001) in the 190 evaluable patients (61.9%), corresponding to a geometric mean change of -97.4% versus -88.5%. More patients on palbociclib plus letrozole achieved complete cell-cycle arrest (90% v 59%; P < .001). Median log-fold change (suppression) of cleaved poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase was greater with palbociclib plus letrozole versus letrozole (-0.80 v -0.42; P < .001). More patients had grade 3 or greater toxicity on palbociclib plus letrozole (49.8% v 17.0%; P < .001) mainly because of asymptomatic neutropenia., Conclusion: Adding palbociclib to letrozole significantly enhanced the suppression of malignant cell proliferation (Ki-67) in primary ER-positive BC, but did not increase the clinical response rate over 14 weeks, which was possibly related to a concurrent reduction in apoptosis.

Background: Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) are essential to the good conduct of many trials. Typically they comprise a small expert group which monitors safety, efficacy, progress and early outcome data as trials recruit. DMCs can recommend protocol revisions and early stopping of a trial. As DMC meetings usually consider unblinded interim data confidentially, their deliberations are seldom exposed to research scrutiny. Although there have been some case studies from trials from mixed specialties which offer insights into some of the common issues faced by DMCs, we have, however, little empirical information about the challenges faced within specific clinical settings., Methods: In-depth interviews with participants in the BRACELET Study on death and bereavement in neonatal intensive care trials produced qualitative accounts of experiences and views of a subgroup of 18 DMC members. These interviews explored views of DMC members in relation to the clinical context of neonatal intensive care and the conduct of neonatal intensive care trials., Results: Interviewees felt that an understanding of both the neonatal intensive care setting and population was crucial in a DMC. They considered the neonatal intensive care research population especially vulnerable, and that outcomes that included both death and severe disability raised particular challenges rarely faced in other settings. In exploring these key outcomes they were mindful of the need to meet high scientific standards and the needs of babies in the trials and their families. DMC members discussed particular difficulties around the composite outcome of death and severe disability, especially when mortality data were available long before data on longer term disability. While statistical stopping guidance is helpful, DMC members described decisions about stopping, revising or continuing a trial being informed by a wider set of considerations and discussions than a pre-set p value. These included potentially competing needs of current trial participants and future patients, and reflections on the nature of benefit and harm. Given their cognisance of the potential impact and consequences of the decisions made by DMCs in this setting of life, death, and disability, interviewees commonly used the imagery of bravery, and described DMCs either holding or losing their nerve., Conclusions: DMCs for trials in other fields may also face difficult ethical trade-offs in monitoring composite outcomes. The experience from this sample of DMC members suggest that for neonatal intensive care trials there are some very specific challenges seldom faced elsewhere. The vulnerability of the population, and the different timescales for essential data becoming available to inform decisions, presented particular challenges. We suggest that it is important to consider the challenges raised in other settings to better understand the complex work of these committees and to prepare future generations of DMC members., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Plain English Summary: Breast cancer is a diverse and varied disease. Recent research has shown that the collection of multiple biopsies before surgery can help researchers determine how the cancer is responding to treatment and can predict for long-term outcomes. However biopsies can be uncomfortable, and sometimes clinicians and research teams in hospitals may be reluctant to offer clinical trials requiring several biopsies to patients who have been recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU) oversees a large number of breast cancer clinical trials where multiple biopsies are required. ICR-CTSU recognises that patient advocates (patients who have previously had, or cared for someone with, cancer) are key members of the trial design group and should be involved in the clinical trial throughout its lifespan. Patient advocates can provide reassurance regarding the acceptability of trial designs involving multiple biopsies from a patient perspective. This paper summarises patient advocate involvement in ICR-CTSU breast cancer trials activity and how this has benefited our research., Abstract: The importance of collecting tissue samples in breast cancer has become increasingly recognised, as the diversity of the disease has become better known. It has been documented in recent research that tumours may change in response to treatment prior to surgery (the neoadjuvant treatment setting). The collection of sequential biopsies over time can identify changes within tumours and potentially predict how the tumour may respond to certain treatments. However, the acceptability of multiple biopsies amongst patients, clinicians and other research staff in hospitals is variable and recruitment into clinical trials requiring multiple biopsies may be challenging.The Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU) is responsible for a portfolio of breast cancer trials where multiple biopsies are key to the trial design. Patient advocate involvement has been essential in helping us to design and deliver complex and innovative cancer trials which require multiple invasive tissue biopsies, often without any direct benefit to the trial participants. The views expressed by patient advocates involved in ICR-CTSU trials supports the published evidence that patients are willing to donate additional tissue for research and that clinicians' concerns about approaching patients for trials involving multiple biopsies are often unfounded.Patient advocate involvement in ICR-CTSU trials activity takes various forms, from membership on protocol development groups and trial management groups, attendance at focus groups and forums, and presentations at trial development and launch meetings. This involvement has provided reassurance to research teams within the NHS and research ethics committees of the importance and acceptability of our trials from a patient perspective. Patient advocate involvement throughout the lifetime of our trials ensures that the patient remains central to our research considerations., Competing Interests: All clinical trials mentioned by name in this paper had full ethical review and approval, all patients that took part with the studies consented to do so. Further details: IMPACT was approved first by a national multicenter research ethical committee and subsequently by individual local research ethics committees; POETIC – South East Research Ethics Committee, 08/H1102/37; PALLET – London Fulham Research Ethics Committee, 14/LO/1291.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Purpose The Intergroup Exemestane Study, an investigator-led study of 4,724 postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer (clinical trial information: ISRCTN11883920), has previously demonstrated that a switch from adjuvant endocrine therapy after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen to exemestane was associated with clinically relevant improvements in efficacy. Here, we report the final efficacy analyses of this cohort. Patients and Methods Patients who remained disease free after 2 to 3 years of adjuvant tamoxifen were randomly assigned to continue tamoxifen or switch to exemestane to complete a total of 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. Given the large number of non-breast cancer-related deaths now reported, breast cancer-free survival (BCFS), with censorship of intercurrent deaths, was the primary survival end point of interest. Analyses focus on patients with estrogen receptor-positive or unknown tumors (n = 4,599). Results At the time of the data snapshot, median follow-up was 120 months. In the population that was estrogen receptor positive or had unknown estrogen receptor status, 1,111 BCFS events were observed with 508 (22.1%) of 2,294 patients in the exemestane group and 603 (26.2%) of 2,305 patients in the tamoxifen group. The data corresponded to an absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) at 10 years of 4.0% (95% CI, 1.2% to 6.7%), and the hazard ratio (HR) of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.92) favored exemestane. This difference remained in multivariable analysis that was adjusted for nodal status, prior use of hormone replacement therapy, and prior chemotherapy (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.90; P < .001). A modest improvement in overall survival was seen with exemestane; the absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) at 10 years in the population that was estrogen receptor positive or had unknown estrogen receptor status was 2.1% (95% CI, -0.5% to 4.6%), and the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.01; P = .08). For the intention-to-treat population, the absolute difference was 1.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 4.1%); the HR was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.03, P = .15). No statistically significant difference was observed in the proportion of patients who reported a fracture event in the post-treatment period. Conclusion The Intergroup Exemestane Study and contemporaneous studies have established that a strategy of switching to an aromatase inhibitor after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen can lead to sustained benefits in terms of reduction of disease recurrence and breast cancer mortality.

Background: Hope has therapeutic value because it enables people to cope with uncertainty about their future health. Indeed, hope, or therapeutic optimism (TO), is seen as an essential aspect of the provision and experience of medical care. The role of TO in clinical research has been briefly discussed, but the concept, and whether it can be transferred from care to research and from patients to clinicians, has not been fully investigated. The role played by TO in research emerged during interviews with staff involved in a peripartum trial. This paper unpacks the concept of TO in this setting and considers the role it may play in the wider delivery of clinical trials., Methods: The Got-it trial is a UK-based, randomised placebo-controlled trial that investigates the use of sublingual glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) spray to treat retained placenta. Qualitative data were collected in open-ended interviews with obstetricians, research and clinical midwives (n =27) involved in trial recruitment. Data were analysed using the method of constant comparison., Results: TO influenced staff engagement with Got-it at different points in the trial and in different ways. Prior knowledge of, and familiarity with, GTN meant that from the outset staff perceived the trial as low risk. TO facilitated staff involvement in the trial; staff who already understood GTN's effects were optimistic that it would work, and staff collaborated because they hoped that the trial would address what they identified as an important clinical need. TO could fluctuate over the course of the trial, and was sustained or undermined by unofficial observation of clinical outcomes and speculations about treatment allocation. Thus, TO appeared to be influenced by key situational factors: prior knowledge and experience, clinical need and observed participant outcomes., Conclusions: Situational TO plays a role in facilitating staff engagement with clinical research. TO may affect trial recruitment by enabling staff to sustain the levels of uncertainty, or individual equipoise, necessary to collaborate with research while also responding to patients' clinical needs. Staff may benefit from training to deal with fluctuations in TO., Trial Registration: ISCRTN88609453 . Registered on 26 March 2014.

Background: Recruiting and consenting women to peripartum trials can be challenging as the women concerned may be anxious, in pain, and exhausted; there may also be limited time for discussion and decision-making to occur. To address these potential difficulties, we undertook a qualitative evaluation of the internal pilot of a trial (Got-it) involving women who had a retained placenta (RP). We explored the experiences and views of women and staff about the information and consent pathway used within the pilot, in order to provide recommendations for use in future peripartum trials involving recruitment in emergency situations., Methods: In-depth interviews were undertaken with staff (n = 27) and participating women (n = 22). Interviews were analysed thematically. The accounts of women and staff were compared to identify differences and similarities in their views about recruitment and consent procedures., Results: Women and staff regarded recruitment as having been straightforward and facilitated by the use of simplified (verbal and written) summaries of trial information. Both parties, however, conveyed discordant views about whether fully informed consent had been obtained. These differences in perspectives appeared to arise from the different factors and considerations impinging on women and staff at the time of recruitment. While staff placed emphasis on promoting understanding in the emergency situation of RP by imparting information in clear and succinct ways, women highlighted the experiential realities of their pre- and post-birthing situations, and how these had led to quick decisions being made without full engagement with the potential risks of trial participation. To facilitate informed consent, women suggested that trial information should be given during the antenatal period, and, in doing so, articulated a rights-based discourse. Staff, however, voiced opposition to this approach by emphasising a duty of care to all pregnant women, and raising concerns about causing undue distress to the majority of individuals who would not subsequently develop a RP., Conclusions: By drawing upon the perspectives of women and staff involved in the same trial we have shown that they may operate within different experiential and ethical paradigms. In doing so, we argue for the potential benefits of drawing upon multiple perspectives when developing information and consent pathways used in future (peripartum) trials., Trial Registration: ISCRTN 88609453 .

Background: Researchers have seldom included bereaved parents in studies of participants' views of randomised controlled trials (RCTs); hence our understanding of the impact of trials is based on skewed and incomplete samples. Little is known about parental experiences of the death of a child subsequent to their enrolment in a trial or of provision made for this experience by clinicians and trial teams. The Bereavement and RAndomised ControlLEd Trials (BRACELET) study was funded to consider bereavement in the context of paediatric intensive care (PIC) and neonatal intensive care (NIC) trials., Design and Methods: The study comprised three interlinked components: a quantitative survey of RCT activity in UK paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), UK RCT recruitment and mortality rates, and provision for bereavement during 2002-6; a qualitative interview study involving 51 bereaved parents and 59 clinicians and trial team members associated with five neonatal trials; and a methodological study to inform future research., Results: Fifty RCTs were identified as having enrolled babies or children from 2002 to 2006. Approximately 50% of UK NICUs and PICUs (54 NICUs, six PICUs) participated in at least one of these trials. Collectively they enrolled over 3000 children. Most enrolled small numbers, the majority of participants being enrolled by a small group of academic medical units. The proportion of deaths following trial enrolment was 17% in NIC trials and 6% in PIC trials. The qualitative study showed that trial-related decisions were made in a range of circumstances, some after extremely preterm births, others after complicated term deliveries, often under time pressures and in escalating crises. Parents' interest in trials appeared to recede initially but could re-emerge over time. They often valued opportunities to engage with a trial and were interested in more contact and information than they actually received. Clinicians often saw NICU bereavement policies as meeting parental needs, and trial participation as being of relatively minor significance in bereavement. This view may result from the positioning of clinicians' encounters with parents only in the initial stages of grief when trials were not a priority. Trial teams used a range of bereavement strategies, from no further contact to a pioneering multipart follow-up package. Communication with bereaved parents was complicated by limited contact opportunities. Trial teams were obliged to work without knowing whether their communications were appreciated, were problematic, or even whether they were received by parents. The methodological component highlighted strategies for recruitment and data collection in this sensitive setting. Recruitment by unsupported postal contact generally failed and a more personal approach via clinicians was more effective, supplemented by publicity material distributed via trusted organisations., Conclusions: A co-ordinated response to bereavement is as much a part of the running of trials as recruitment, and needs to be considered at trial inception. BRACELET has demonstrated the value and feasibility of research with bereaved parents involved in NIC trials. In order to respond to bereavement in a fair and sensitive way, as well as to better inform the design of RCTs, it is crucial that we listen to bereaved parents and evaluate new methods for so doing. More research is therefore needed into the experiences of bereavement subsequent to trial enrolment, with study of bereavement strategies in NIC trials as they are introduced. In addition, future studies should determine whether parents and triallists in PIC trials (and trials in adults) face the same issues as in NIC trials. Careful studies are necessary to explore how feedback of trial results are received and understood by bereaved and non-bereaved parents, and how individual trial teams manage this situation. An additional research area for exploring experiences of parenting twins and higher-order births in trials arose from BRACELET. Developmental research should continue to explore means of involving a wider range of parents in future research, including via publicity and specialist websites. Finally, methodological research is needed to ensure that we have the tools to explore, with parents and other relatives, as partners in research, a range of trial-related topics, which might be challenging, as the information is complex or the focus is sensitive., Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

Background: Early research in adults admitted to intensive care suggested that tight control of blood glucose during acute illness can be associated with reductions in mortality, length of hospital stay and complications such as infection and renal failure. Prior to our study, it was unclear whether or not children could also benefit from tight control of blood glucose during critical illness., Objectives: This study aimed to determine if controlling blood glucose using insulin in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) reduces mortality and morbidity and is cost-effective, whether or not admission follows cardiac surgery., Design: Randomised open two-arm parallel group superiority design with central randomisation with minimisation. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. Following random allocation, care givers and outcome assessors were no longer blind to allocation., Setting: The setting was 13 English PICUs., Participants: Patients who met the following criteria were eligible for inclusion: ≥ 36 weeks corrected gestational age; ≤ 16 years; in the PICU following injury, following major surgery or with critical illness; anticipated treatment > 12 hours; arterial line; mechanical ventilation; and vasoactive drugs. Exclusion criteria were as follows: diabetes mellitus; inborn error of metabolism; treatment withdrawal considered; in the PICU > 5 consecutive days; and already in CHiP (Control of Hyperglycaemia in Paediatric intensive care)., Intervention: The intervention was tight glycaemic control (TGC): insulin by intravenous infusion titrated to maintain blood glucose between 4.0 and 7.0 mmol/l., Conventional Management (cm): This consisted of insulin by intravenous infusion only if blood glucose exceeded 12.0 mmol/l on two samples at least 30 minutes apart; insulin was stopped when blood glucose fell below 10.0 mmol/l., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free from mechanical ventilation within 30 days of trial entry (VFD-30). The secondary outcomes comprised clinical and economic outcomes at 30 days and 12 months and lifetime cost-effectiveness, which included costs per quality-adjusted life-year., Results: CHiP recruited from May 2008 to September 2011. In total, 19,924 children were screened and 1369 eligible patients were randomised (TGC, 694; CM, 675), 60% of whom were in the cardiac surgery stratum. The randomised groups were comparable at trial entry. More children in the TGC than in the CM arm received insulin (66% vs. 16%). The mean VFD-30 was 23 [mean difference 0.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.42 to 1.14]. The effect did not differ among prespecified subgroups. Hypoglycaemia occurred significantly more often in the TGC than in the CM arm (moderate, 12.5% vs. 3.1%; severe, 7.3% vs. 1.5%). Mean 30-day costs were similar between arms, but mean 12-month costs were lower in the TGC than in CM arm (incremental costs -£3620, 95% CI -£7743 to £502). For the non-cardiac surgery stratum, mean costs were lower in the TGC than in the CM arm (incremental cost -£9865, 95% CI -£18,558 to -£1172), but, in the cardiac surgery stratum, the costs were similar between the arms (incremental cost £133, 95% CI -£3568 to £3833). Lifetime incremental net benefits were positive overall (£3346, 95% CI -£11,203 to £17,894), but close to zero for the cardiac surgery stratum (-£919, 95% CI -£16,661 to £14,823). For the non-cardiac surgery stratum, the incremental net benefits were high (£11,322, 95% CI -£15,791 to £38,615). The probability that TGC is cost-effective is relatively high for the non-cardiac surgery stratum, but, for the cardiac surgery subgroup, the probability that TGC is cost-effective is around 0.5. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to a range of alternative assumptions., Conclusions: CHiP found no differences in the clinical or cost-effectiveness of TGC compared with CM overall, or for prespecified subgroups. A higher proportion of the TGC arm had hypoglycaemia. This study did not provide any evidence to suggest that PICUs should stop providing CM for children admitted to PICUs following cardiac surgery. For the subgroup not admitted for cardiac surgery, TGC reduced average costs at 12 months and is likely to be cost-effective. Further research is required to refine the TGC protocol to minimise the risk of hypoglycaemic episodes and assess the long-term health benefits of TGC., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61735247., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Evidence from the USA suggests that the home-based Family Nurse Partnership program (FNP), extending from early pregnancy until infants are 24 months, can reduce the risk of child abuse and neglect throughout childhood. FNP is now widely available in the UK. A new variant, Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) offers similar content but in a group context and for a shorter time, until infants are 12 months old. Each group comprises 8 to 12 women with similar expected delivery dates and their partners. Its implementation has been established but there is no evidence of its effectiveness., Methods/design: The study comprises a multi-site randomized controlled trial designed to identify the benefits of gFNP compared to standard care. Participants (not eligible for FNP) must be either aged < 20 years at their last menstrual period (LMP) with one or more previous live births, or aged 20 to 24 at LMP with low educational qualifications and no previous live births. 'Low educational qualifications' is defined as not having both Maths and English Language GCSE at grade C or higher or, if they have both, no more than four in total at grade C or higher. Exclusions are: under 20 years and previously received home-based FNP and, in either age group, severe psychotic mental illness or not able to communicate in English. Consenting women are randomly allocated (minimized by site and maternal age group) when between 10 and 16 weeks pregnant to either to the 44 session gFNP program or to standard care after the collection of baseline information. Researchers are blind to group assignment.The primary outcomes at 12 months are child abuse potential based on the revised Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory and parent/infant interaction coded using the CARE Index based on a video-taped interaction. Secondary outcomes are maternal depression, parenting stress, health related quality of life, social support, and use of services., Discussion: This is the first study of the effectiveness of gFNP in the UK. Results should inform decision-making about its delivery alongside universal services, potentially enabling a wider range of families to benefit from the FNP curriculum and approach to supporting parenting., Trial Registration: ISRCTN78814904.

Objective: to explore how severe postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and its management is experienced by women and their partners, and how they later view events., Design: interpretive phenomenological qualitative study with semi-structured interviews., Setting: in-depth interviews were conducted in participants' homes and focused on experiences of PPH in hospital and post-discharge., Participants: nine women who had experienced severe PPH and six partners., Findings: this study demonstrates the stressful and emotional nature of severe PPH and extends the literature by considering partners' perspectives. Women and men had different experiences and information needs, but interviewees often shared a common desire for help to understand past events. A dominant theme of communication difficulties, and two subthemes, disempowerment and information-deprivation arose strongly from the data. Communication difficulties were understandable during the emergency but were frustrating and upsetting in postpartum care and the longer term., Conclusions and Implications for Practice: research is needed to develop better communication and supportive strategies, which might avoid the sense of disempowerment in this potentially vulnerable population. Different information and support needs for women and men should be considered whatever policies are implemented., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: to explore women's and their partners' views of recruitment to emergency trials in severe postpartum haemorrhage (PPH)., Design: interview-based qualitative study. In semi-structured in-depth interviews, five recruitment options for a PPH trial in an emergency context were considered., Setting: interviews were carried out in participants' homes., Participants: nine women who had experienced a severe PPH and six partners., Findings: interviewees rejected three options; decision-making by women prior to delivery, and by partners and legal representatives at the time of the emergency. Preferred options were women making antenatal decisions about trial entry themselves, followed by doctors making decisions at the time of the emergency., Conclusions and Implications for Practice: recruitment options involving women and their partners at the time of an emergency were rejected. Antenatal decision-making raises logistical and ethical considerations for emergency trial teams. Further research is needed to address the possibility of antenatal decisions for emergency trials and to develop and assess supportive post-enrolment recruitment and information strategies which take into account the stressful context of clinical emergencies such as PPH., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate parents' views about deferred consent to inform management of trial disclosure after a child's death., Methods: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to members of the Meningitis Research Foundation UK charity, whose child had suffered from bacterial meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia within the previous 5 years. Main outcome measures were acceptability of deferred consent; timing of requesting consent; and the management of disclosure of the trial after a child's death., Results: 220 families were sent questionnaires of whom 63 (29%) were bereaved. 68 families responded (31%), of whom 19 (28%) were bereaved. The majority (67%) was willing for their child to be involved in the trial without the trial being explained to them beforehand; 70% wanted to be informed about the trial as soon as their child's condition had stabilised. In the event of a child's death before the trial could be discussed the majority of bereaved parents (66% 12/18) anticipated wanting to be told about the trial at some time. This compared with 37% (18/49) of non-bereaved families (p = 0.06). Parents' free text responses indicated that the word 'trial' held strongly negative connotations. A few parents regarded gaps in the evidence base about emergency treatments as indicating staff lacked expertise to care for a critically ill child. Bereaved parents' free text responses indicated the importance of individualised management of disclosure about a trial following a child's death., Discussion: Deferred consent is acceptable to the majority of respondents. Parents whose children had recovered differed in their views compared to bereaved parents. Most bereaved parents would want to be informed about the trial in the aftermath of a child's death, although a minority strongly opposed such disclosure. Distinction should be drawn between the views of bereaved and non-bereaved parents when considering the acceptability of different consent processes.

Background: The subject of death and bereavement in the context of randomised controlled trials in neonatal or paediatric intensive care is under-researched. The objectives of this phase of the Bereavement and RAndomised ControlLEd Trials (BRACELET) Study were to determine trial activity in UK neonatal and paediatric intensive care (2002-06); numbers of deaths before hospital discharge; and variation in mortality across intensive care units and trials and to determine whether bereavement support policies were available within trials. These are essential prerequisites to considering the implications of future policies and practice subsequent to bereavement following a child's enrollment in a trial., Methods: The units survey involved neonatal units providing level 2 or 3 care, and paediatric units providing level II care or above; the trials survey involved trials where allocation was randomized and interventions were delivered to intensive care patients, or to parents but designed to affect patient outcomes., Results: Information was available from 191/220 (87%) neonatal units (149 level 2 or 3 care); and 28/32 (88%) paediatric units. 90/177 (51%) eligible responding units participated in one or more trial (76 neonatal, 14 paediatric) and 54 neonatal units and 6 paediatric units witnessed at least one death. 50 trials were identified (36 neonatal, 14 paediatric). 3,137 babies were enrolled in neonatal trials, 210 children in paediatric trials. Deaths ranged 0-278 (median [IQR interquartile range] 2 [1, 14.5]) per neonatal trial, 0-4 (median [IQR] 1 [0, 2.5]) per paediatric trial. 534 (16%) participants died post-enrollment: 522 (17%) in neonatal trials, 12 (6%) in paediatric trials. Trial participants ranged 1-236 (median [IQR] 21.5 [8, 39.8]) per neonatal unit, 1-53 (median [IQR] 11.5 [2.3, 33.8]) per paediatric unit. Deaths ranged 0-37 (median [IQR] 3.5 [0.3, 8.8]) per neonatal unit, 0-7 (median [IQR] 0.5 [0, 1.8]) per paediatric unit. Three trials had a formal policy for responding to bereavement., Conclusions: A substantial number of deaths after trial enrollment were identified, distributed over many trials and units. Few trial teams had responses to bereavement in place. Those with the largest numbers of deaths might be best placed to collaborate in developing and assessing responses to bereavement.

Background: There is increasing evidence that tight blood glucose (BG) control improves outcomes in critically ill adults. Children show similar hyperglycaemic responses to surgery or critical illness. However it is not known whether tight control will benefit children given maturational differences and different disease spectrum., Methods/design: The study is an randomised open trial with two parallel groups to assess whether, for children undergoing intensive care in the UK aged

Purpose: To conduct meta-analyses of randomized trials of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) compared with tamoxifen either as initial monotherapy (cohort 1) or after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen (cohort 2)., Materials and Methods: Data submitted to the Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group were used in separate meta-analyses of two cohorts. Primary analyses involve postmenopausal women with tumors reported to be estrogen receptor positive. Log-rank P values are two-sided., Results: Cohort 1 comprised 9,856 patients with a mean of 5.8 years of follow-up. At 5 years, AI therapy was associated with an absolute 2.9% (SE = 0.7%) decrease in recurrence (9.6% for AI v 12.6% for tamoxifen; 2P < .00001) and a nonsignificant absolute 1.1% (SE = 0.5%) decrease in breast cancer mortality (4.8% for AI v 5.9% for tamoxifen; 2P = .1). Cohort 2 comprised 9,015 patients with a mean of 3.9 years of follow-up. At 3 years from treatment divergence (ie, approximately 5 years after starting hormonal treatment), AI therapy was associated with an absolute 3.1% (SE = 0.6%) decrease in recurrence (5.0% for AI v 8.1% for tamoxifen since divergence; 2P < .00001) and an absolute 0.7% (SE = 0.3%) decrease in breast cancer mortality (1.7% for AI v 2.4% for tamoxifen since divergence; 2P = .02). There was no convincing heterogeneity in the proportional recurrence reduction with respect to age, nodal status, tumor grade, or progesterone receptor status and no indication of an increase in nonbreast deaths with AIs in either cohort. CONCLUSION AIs produce significantly lower recurrence rates compared with tamoxifen, either as initial monotherapy or after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen. Additional follow-up will provide clearer information on long-term survival.

The provision of bereavement care is an important part of neonatal intensive care. This systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions to support families and facilitate emotional adjustment following the death of a baby suggests that, while these are largely appreciated by parents who have participated in research, there has been little rigorous evaluation of their effectiveness. This review reflects on possible reasons for this; for example: NICU-led bereavement care is changing, the effectiveness of bereavement care is difficult to measure, concepts of effectiveness are not static, and ethical concerns complicate experimental research. Bereavement interventions are compassion-led and generally considered to be beneficial. New research questions and new methodological challenges are discussed with reference to two examples of evolving practice: bereavement photography and the use of ritual. Future research using innovative and sensitive RCTs and consensus amongst relevant stakeholders is suggested.

Background: Publicly funded clinical trials require a substantial commitment of time and money. To ensure that sufficient numbers of patients are recruited it is essential that they address important questions in a rigorous manner and are managed well, adopting effective marketing strategies., Methods: Using methods of analysis drawn from management studies, this paper presents a structured assessment framework or reference model, derived from a case analysis of the MRC's CRASH trial, of 12 factors that may affect the success of the marketing and sales activities associated with clinical trials., Results: The case study demonstrates that trials need various categories of people to buy in - hence, to be successful, trialists must embrace marketing strategies to some extent., Conclusion: The performance of future clinical trials could be enhanced if trialists routinely considered these factors.

Background: Tamoxifen preserves bone in postmenopausal women, but non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors accelerate bone loss and increase fracture risk. We aimed to study the effect on bone health in a subgroup of women included in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES), a large randomised trial that compared the switch to the steroidal aromatase inhibitor exemestane with continuation of tamoxifen in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer., Methods: Results were analysed from 206 evaluable patients from the IES, in which postmenopausal women with histologically confirmed and completely resected unilateral breast cancer (that was oestrogen-receptor positive or of unknown status), who were disease-free after 2-3 years of treatment with tamoxifen were randomised to continue oral tamoxifen 20 mg/day or switch to oral exemestane 25 mg/day to complete a total of 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. The primary endpoint was change in bone-mineral density (BMD) assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. Changes in biochemical markers of bone turnover were also analysed in this substudy, and the incidence of fractures in the entire study reported. The IES is registered on the Current Controlled Trials website ., Findings: Within 6 months of switching to exemestane, BMD was lowered by 0.051 g/cm(3) (2.7%; 95% CI 2.0-3.4; p<0.0001) at the lumbar spine and 0.025 g/cm(3) (1.4%; 0.8-1.9; p<0.0001) at the hip compared with baseline. BMD decreases were only 1.0% (0.4-1.7; p=0.002) and 0.8% (0.3-1.4; p=0.003) in year 2 at the lumbar spine and hip, respectively. No patient with BMD in the normal range at trial entry developed osteoporosis. Bone resorption and formation markers increased at all time points in women receiving exemestane (p<0.001). With a median follow-up in all IES participants (n=4274) of 58 months, 162 (7%) and 115 (5%) patients in the exemestane and tamoxifen groups, respectively, had fractures (odds ratio 1.45 [1.13-1.87]; p=0.003)., Interpretation: These results indicate that the increase in survival shown previously with the IES switch strategy is achieved at the expense of some detriment to skeletal health, so the risk-benefit ratio to women needs to be individually assessed.

Background: Qualitative methods are increasingly used to study the process of clinical trials and patients understanding of the rationale for trials, randomisation and reasons for taking part or refusing. Patients' understandings are inevitably influenced by the recruiting clinician's understanding of the trial, yet relatively little qualitative work has explored clinicians' perceptions and understandings of trials. This study interviewed surgeons shortly after the multi-centre, pragmatic RCT in which they had participated had been completed., Methods: We used in-depth interviews with surgeons who participated in the Spine Stabilisation Trial (a pragmatic RCT) to explore their understanding of the trial purpose and how this understanding had influenced their recruitment procedures and interpretation of the results. A purposive sample of eleven participating surgeons was chosen from 8 of the 15 UK trial centres., Results: Although the surgeons thought that the trial was addressing an important question there was little agreement about what this question was: although it was a trial of 'equivalent' treatments, some thought that it was a trial of surgery, others a trial of rehabilitation and others that it was exploring what to do with patients in whom all other treatment options had been unsuccessful. The surgeons we interviewed were not aware of the rationale for the pragmatic inclusion criteria and nearly all were completely baffled about the meaning of 'equipoise'. Misunderstandings about the entry criteria were an important source of confusion about the results and led to reluctance to apply the results to their own practice., Conclusion: The study suggests several lessons for the conduct of future multi-centre trials. Recruiting surgeons (and other clinicians) may not be familiar with the rationale for pragmatic designs and may need to be regularly reminded about the purpose during the study. Reassurance may be necessary that a pragmatic design is not considered a design fault. We conclude that it does matter if clinicians do not understand the rationale for the trial if, as we have shown here, their perception of the trial aims and methods adversely affects who they recruit; if their views affect what the patients are told; and if they mistakenly view the results as unscientific, unreliable and ultimately irrelevant to their practice.

Background: Securing and managing finances for multicentre randomised controlled trials is a highly complex activity which is rarely considered in the research literature. This paper describes the process of financial negotiation and the impact of financial considerations in four UK multicentre trials. These trials had met, or were on schedule to meet, recruitment targets agreed with their public-sector funders. The trials were considered within a larger study examining factors which might be associated with trial recruitment (STEPS)., Methods: In-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted in 2003-04 with 45 individuals with various responsibilities to one of the four trials. Interviewees were recruited through purposive and then snowball sampling. Interview transcripts were analysed with the assistance of the qualitative package Atlas-ti., Results: The data suggest that the UK system of dividing funds into research, treatment and NHS support costs brought the trial teams into complicated negotiations with multiple funders. The divisions were somewhat malleable and the funding system was used differently in each trial. The fact that all funders had the potential to influence and shape the trials considered here was an important issue as the perspectives of applicants and funders could diverge. The extent and range of industry involvement in non-industry-led trials was striking. Three broad periods of financial work (foundation, maintenance, and resourcing completion) were identified. From development to completion of a trial, the trialists had to be resourceful and flexible, adapting to changing internal and external circumstances. In each period, trialists and collaborators could face changing costs and challenges. Each trial extended the recruitment period; three required funding extensions from MRC or HTA., Conclusion: This study highlights complex financial aspects of planning and conducting trials, especially where multiple funders are involved. Recognition of the importance of financial stability and of the need for appropriate training in this area should be paralleled by further similar research with a broader range of trials, aimed at understanding and facilitating the conduct of clinical research.

For some perinatal trials, parents can be asked to make important decisions about trial participation within limited timeframes in highly stressful circumstances. This qualitative study explores the pace of decision-making for 78 parents associated with one or more of four such trials in the UK. The themes associated with rapid decisions were concern for their baby, reactions to staff, and perceptions of the benefits and risks associated with the trial. Those who took longer to decide whether or not to participate often described similar emotions to those who made rapid decisions, but their slower decisions were because more time was available, they wanted further discussion or they found the decision particularly difficult. The majority of those who made rapid decisions felt that there were no risks associated with the trial in question, in contrast to the majority of those who made slower decisions who felt there were risks. The parents did not appear to view rapid decisions as problematic. Although there was evidence of parental vulnerability in each trial context, they largely felt that they acted swiftly and responsibly in the best interests of their child in accordance with the timeframes that were set for them.

Background: A commonly reported problem with the conduct of multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is that recruitment is often slower or more difficult than expected, with many trials failing to reach their planned sample size within the timescale and funding originally envisaged. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may have been associated with good and poor recruitment in a cohort of multicentre trials funded by two public bodies: the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme., Methods: The cohort of trials was identified from the administrative databases held by the two funding bodies. 114 trials that recruited participants between 1994 and 2002 met the inclusion criteria. The full scientific applications and subsequent trial reports submitted by the trial teams to the funders provided the principal data sources. Associations between trial characteristics and recruitment success were tested using the Chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test where appropriate., Results: Less than a third (31%) of the trials achieved their original recruitment target and half (53%) were awarded an extension. The proportion achieving targets did not appear to improve over time. The overall start to recruitment was delayed in 47 (41%) trials and early recruitment problems were identified in 77 (63%) trials. The inter-relationship between trial features and recruitment success was complex. A variety of strategies were employed to try to increase recruitment, but their success could not be assessed., Conclusion: Recruitment problems are complex and challenging. Many of the trials in the cohort experienced recruitment difficulties. Trials often required extended recruitment periods (sometimes supported by additional funds). While this is of continuing concern, success in addressing the trial question may be more important than recruitment alone.

Purpose: To compare and describe the quality of life (QOL) of women allocated to tamoxifen or exemestane within the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES)., Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer who were disease free after 2 to 3 years were randomly assigned to switch from tamoxifen to exemestane or continue with tamoxifen until 5 years of treatment were completed. A subset of IES centers participated in a QOL substudy. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) and endocrine subscale (ES) were administered before random assignment and at predefined follow-up times. The primary end point was the FACT-B composite Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Secondary end points included total FACT-B+ES score, total ES score, and severity of individual endocrine symptoms. This analysis reports QOL up to 24 months., Results: Five hundred eighty-two patients from eight countries were enrolled onto the substudy. Completion and return of questionnaires was excellent, with 85% available for analysis. QOL was generally good and stable over 2 years, with no clinically meaningful differences found between groups in TOI or ES. Prevalence of severe endocrine symptoms at trial entry was high for vasomotor complaints and sexual problems, which persisted for both groups during the study. No significant differences between groups were seen for any endocrine symptoms apart from vaginal discharge, which was more pronounced with tamoxifen (P < .001)., Conclusion: The switch from tamoxifen to exemestane neither increased nor decreased endocrine symptoms present after 2 to 3 years of tamoxifen; the switch also did not initiate significant reports of new symptoms. Results indicate that the clinical benefits of exemestane over tamoxifen are achieved without significant detrimental effect on QOL.

Background: Tamoxifen, taken for five years, is the standard adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal women with primary, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Despite this treatment, however, some patients have a relapse., Methods: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial to test whether, after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy, switching to exemestane was more effective than continuing tamoxifen therapy for the remainder of the five years of treatment. The primary end point was disease-free survival., Results: Of the 4742 patients enrolled, 2362 were randomly assigned to switch to exemestane, and 2380 to continue to receive tamoxifen. After a median follow-up of 30.6 months, 449 first events (local or metastatic recurrence, contralateral breast cancer, or death) were reported--183 in the exemestane group and 266 in the tamoxifen group. The unadjusted hazard ratio in the exemestane group as compared with the tamoxifen group was 0.68 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.82; P<0.001 by the log-rank test), representing a 32 percent reduction in risk and corresponding to an absolute benefit in terms of disease-free survival of 4.7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 2.6 to 6.8) at three years after randomization. Overall survival was not significantly different in the two groups, with 93 deaths occurring in the exemestane group and 106 in the tamoxifen group. Severe toxic effects of exemestane were rare. Contralateral breast cancer occurred in 20 patients in the tamoxifen group and 9 in the exemestane group (P=0.04)., Conclusions: Exemestane therapy after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with the standard five years of tamoxifen treatment., (Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Background: It is considered to be a fundamental ethical premise of human experimentation, that it should be carried out only where the effects of an intervention are unclear. The point at which it is considered that there is insufficient scientific and medical evidence to clearly state the superiority of an intervention has been termed equipoise. This concept has been the subject of much recent impassioned debate but little empirical research about the views of people involved in recruitment to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and none in the particularly emotive area of neonatal intensive care., Methods: Thirty neonatologists recruiting into one or both of two neonatal RCTs in five centres in England were interviewed using a semi-structured schedule to explore their involvement in randomised trials. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. Equipoise was one among a range of topics covered. Concepts relating to equipoise were identified by close reading of the entire interviews. Themes emerging from the data were noted in their contexts then discussed between the co-authors. Interviewees also completed a brief questionnaire about their demographic background, and their experience of research and RCTs., Results: Almost all the neonatologists used the concept of equipoise [using words and phrases such as uncertainty, lack of knowledge (or ignorance), strengths of views, and balancing of pros and cons] in their interview and, for most of them, equipoise seemed to be a useful term. They explored ideas about equipoise at the individual and community levels, and some linked equipoise with notions of the responsibility that should be exercised by the scientific and professional communities. They differed in the importance they gave to individual equipoise, and in how they reacted to threats to equipoise. Feelings of doubt about a trial and disturbed equipoise were more often expressed by more junior doctors., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the concept of equipoise goes beyond the idea of uncertainty. In part this is because it includes the balancing of benefit and harm; this balancing is part of a professional obligation and requires engagement with 'expert' knowledge. Equipoise could therefore be seen as 'active' or 'responsible' uncertainty. Elucidation of this difficult concept may help to facilitate recruitment for both clinicians and parents in future trials and thereby help to find answers to important clinical questions.

This article presents the Cambridge Worry Scale (CWS), a content-based measure for assessing worries, and discusses its psychometric properties based on a longitudinal study of 1,207 pregnant women. Principal components analysis revealed a four-factor structure of women's concerns during pregnancy: socio-medical, own health, socio-economic and relational. The measure demonstrated good reliability and validity. Total CWS scores were strongly associated with state and trait anxiety (convergent validity) but also had significant and unique predictive value for mood outcomes (discriminant validity). The CWS discriminated better between women with different reproductive histories than measures of state and trait anxiety. We conclude that the CWS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing the extent and content of worries in specific situations.