Search

Summary: After more than 120 hand‐upper extremity and 37 face transplant procedures performed worldwide, vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) now falls under the scope of organ transplant legislation in Europe and the United States. While in the USA, VCA has been considered as standard care since 2014, VCA in Europe is still performed through clinical research trials, except in United Kingdom. However, after two decades of favourable experience with upper extremity transplantation (UET), professionals in Europe are proposing hand allotransplantation as "controlled standard" care, as opposed to face transplantation (FT), which is still a challenging activity. The European Committee on Organ Transplantation (CD‐P‐TO) has elaborated a position paper to provide recommendations concerning regulatory aspects for UET and FT. It is aimed at Health Authorities in charge of the oversight – and coordination – of organ donation and transplantation, and at professional groups to help them manage such complex and costly programs dedicated to properly selected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stroke survivors with aphasia want to improve their everyday talking (discourse). In current UK practice, 90% of speech and language therapists believe discourse assessment and treatment is part of their role but are hampered by barriers in resources, time and expertise. There is a clinical need for well-articulated discourse assessment and treatments. LUNA is a multi-level treatment targeting words, sentences and discourse macrostructure in personal stories that addresses this clinical need. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of LUNA trial procedures in a randomised waitlist-controlled trial; and to evaluate preliminary efficacy. Methods: This paper reports a phase II, waitlist-controlled, proof-of-concept feasibility trial. Participants with chronic aphasia (n = 28) were recruited from the community and randomised to an Immediate (n = 14) or Delayed (n = 14) group. LUNA treatment was delivered twice weekly for 10 weeks via the videoconferencing technology, Zoom. Feasibility was assessed in terms of participant recruitment and retention, adherence, missing data, and treatment fidelity. Preliminary treatment efficacy was assessed in terms of between group differences in outcome measures relating to discourse, language, and psychosocial state. Results: The remote LUNA trial was feasible: 85% of those eligible consented to the trial; trial retention was 86%; 87% of treatment sessions were delivered as scheduled, and 79% of participants completed 80%+ of the treatment programme; data was missing only for participants who withdrew; treatment fidelity was high at 92% adherence; and only one clinical outcome measure demonstrated ceiling effects. ANCOVA analysis of the clinical outcome measures revealed group differences with medium and large effect sizes, indicating, improvements in the production of words, sentences, discourse macrostructure, overall language functioning (WAB-R), and psychosocial state (VAMS) following LUNA treatment. For most outcomes measured, similar treatment benefits were suggested in a secondary, non-parametric analysis. Conclusions: Large-scale evaluation of the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LUNA is warranted and supported by these findings. Trial registration: Clinical trials registration: NCT05847023 (clinical trials.gov). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thousands of clinical trials are conducted globally each year. Yet, little is known about their environmental impact. This paper presents the results of a high-level literature review of the carbon footprint of clinical trials. Five papers were identified and their contents summarised qualitatively. All papers were authored by UK researchers. Carbon footprint metrics from 14 trials were presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Emissions were broken down by three broadly defined clinical trial activities: operations, travel, and supplies. Recommen - dations for carbon reduction are discussed. The review showed a dearth of publications on greenhouse gas emissions generated by clinical trials. More work in this area is needed to achieve sustainable, low carbon clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for rapidly designing, initiating, and delivering therapeutic clinical trials. PRINCIPLE (Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses) is the UK national platform investigating repurposed therapies for COVID-19 treatment of older people in the community at high risk of complications. Standard methods of patient recruitment were failing to meet the required pace and scale of enrolment. This paper describes the development and appraisal of a near real-time, data-driven, ethical approach for enhancing recruitment in community care by contacting people with a recent COVID-19 positive test result from the central NHS Test and Trace service within approximately 24-48 h of their test result.Methods: A multi-disciplinary team was formed to solve the technical, ethical, public perception, logistical and information governance issues required to provide a near-real time (approximately within 24-48 h of receiving a positive test) feed of potential trial participants from test result data to the research team. PRINCIPLE was also given unique access to the Summary Care Record (SCR) to ensure safe prescribing, and to enable the trial team to quickly and safely bring consented patients into the trial. A survey of the public was used to understand public perceptions of the use of test data for this proposed methodology.Results: Prior to establishing the data service, PRINCIPLE registered on average 87 participants per week. This increased by up to 87 additional people registered per week from the test data, contributing to an increase from 1013 recruits to PRINCIPLE at the start of October 2020 to 2802 recruits by 20 December 2020. Whilst procedural caveats were identified by the public consultation, out of 2639 people contacted by PRINCIPLE following a positive test result, no one raised a concern about being approached.Conclusions: This paper describes a novel approach to using near-real time NHS operational data to recruit community-based patients within a few days of presentation with acute illness. This approach increased recruitment and reduced time between positive test and randomisation, allowing more rapid evaluation of treatments and increased safety for participants. End-to-end public and patient involvement in the design of the approach provided evidence to inform information governance decisions.Trial Registration: PRINCIPLE is funded by UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research. EudraCT number: 2020-001209-22 . 26/03/2020 ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN86534580 . 20/03/2020 REC number: 20/SC/058 IRAS number: 281958. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dysarthria after stroke is when speech intelligibility is impaired, and this occurs in half of all stroke survivors. Dysarthria often leads to social isolation, poor psychological well-being and can prevent return to work and social lives. Currently, a variety of outcome measures are used in clinical research and practice when monitoring recovery for people who have dysarthria. When research studies use different measures, it is impossible to compare results from trials and delays our understanding of effective clinical treatments. The aim of this study is to develop a core outcome set (COS) to agree what aspects of speech recovery should be measured for dysarthria after stroke (COS-Speech) in research and clinical practice. Methods: The COS-Speech study will include five steps: (1) development of a long list of possible outcome domains of speech that should be measured to guide the survey; (2) recruitment to the COS-Speech study of three key stakeholder groups in the UK and Australia: stroke survivors, communication researchers and speech and language therapists/pathologists; (3) two rounds of the Delphi survey process; (4) a consensus meeting to agree the speech outcomes to be measured and a follow-up consensus meeting to match existing instruments/measures (from parallel systematic review) to the agreed COS-Speech; (5) dissemination of COS-Speech. Discussion: There is currently no COS for dysarthria after stroke for research trials or clinical practice. The findings from this research study will be a minimum COS, for use in all dysarthria research studies and clinical practice looking at post-stroke recovery of speech. These findings will be widely disseminated using professional and patient networks, research and clinical forums as well as using a variety of academic papers, videos, accessible writing such as blogs and links on social media. Trial registration: COS-Speech is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, October 2021 https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1959. In addition, "A systematic review of the psychometric properties and clinical utility of instruments measuring dysarthria after stroke" will inform the consensus meeting to match measures to COS-Speech. The protocol for the systematic reviews registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022302998. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected how clinical trials are managed, both within existing portfolios and for the rapidly developed COVID-19 trials. Sponsors or delegated organisations responsible for monitoring trials have needed to consider and implement alternative ways of working due to the national infection risk necessitating restricted movement of staff and public, reduced clinical staff resource as research staff moved to clinical areas, and amended working arrangements for sponsor and sponsor delegates as staff moved to working from home.Organisations have often worked in isolation to fast track mitigations required for the conduct of clinical trials during the pandemic; this paper describes many of the learnings from a group of monitoring leads based in United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Unit (CTUs) within the UK.The UKCRC Monitoring Task and Finish Group, comprising monitoring leads from 9 CTUs, met repeatedly to identify how COVID-19 had affected clinical trial monitoring. Informed consent is included as a specific issue within this paper, as review of completed consent documentation is often required within trial monitoring plans (TMPs). Monitoring is defined as involving on-site monitoring, central monitoring or/and remote monitoring.Monitoring, required to protect the safety of the patients and the integrity of the trial and ensure the protocol is followed, is often best done by a combination of central, remote and on-site monitoring. However, if on-site monitoring is not possible, workable solutions can be found using only central or central and remote monitoring. eConsent, consent by a third person, or via remote means is plausible. Minimising datasets to the critical data reduces workload for sites and CTU staff. Home working caused by COVID-19 has made electronic trial master files (TMFs) more inviting. Allowing sites to book and attend protocol training at a time convenient to them has been successful and worth pursuing for trials with many sites in the future.The arrival of COVID-19 in the UK has forced consideration of and changes to how clinical trials are conducted in relation to monitoring. Some developed practices will be useful in other pandemics and others should be incorporated into regular use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The E-Freeze trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fresh versus frozen embryo transfer for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the E-Freeze trial.Methods and Design: E-Freeze is a two-arm parallel-group, multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial to determine if a policy of freezing embryos, followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer, results in a higher healthy baby rate when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation at fertility centres in the UK were randomised to either fresh or frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a live singleton baby born at term with an appropriate weight for gestation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the trial, including the analysis principles, definitions of outcomes, methods for primary analysis, pre-specified subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis. This plan was finalised prior to completion of recruitment to the trial.Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414 . Registered on 29 December 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical inactivity has been identified as a leading risk factor for premature mortality globally, and adolescents, in particular, have low physical activity levels. Schools have been identified as a setting to tackle physical inactivity. Economic evidence of school-based physical activity programmes is limited, and the costs of these programmes are not always collected in full. This paper describes a micro-costing and cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ secondary school-based programme as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). Micro-costing and cost-consequence analyses were conducted using bespoke cost diaries and questionnaires to collect programme delivery information. Outcomes for the cost-consequence analysis included health-related quality of life measured by the Child Health Utility-9D (CHU-9D), primary care General Practitioner (GP) and school-based (school nurse and school counsellor) service use as part of a cluster RCT of the ‘Girls Active’ programme. Overall, 1,752 secondary pupils were recruited and a complete case sample of 997 participants (Intervention n = 570, Control n = 427) was used for the cost-consequence analysis. The micro-costing analysis demonstrated that, depending upon how the programme was delivered, ‘Girls Active’ costs ranged from £1,054 (£2 per pupil, per school year) to £3,489 (£7 per pupil, per school year). The least costly option was to absorb ‘Girls Active’ strictly within curriculum hours. The analysis demonstrated no effect for the programme for the three main outcomes of interest (health-related quality of life, physical activity and service use).Micro-costing analyses demonstrated the costs of delivering the ‘Girls Active’ programme, addressing a gap in the United Kingdom (UK) literature regarding economic evidence from school-based physical activity programmes. This paper provides recommendations for those gathering cost and service use data in school settings to supplement validated and objective measures, furthering economic research in this field. Trial registration: -ISRCTN, . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Melanoma incidence has quadrupled since 1970 and melanoma is now the second most common cancer in individuals under 50. Targeted immunotherapies for melanoma now potentially enable long-term remission even in advanced melanoma, but these melanoma survivors require ongoing surveillance, with implications for NHS resources and significant social and psychological consequences for patients. Total skin self-examination (TSSE) can detect recurrence earlier and improve clinical outcomes but is underperformed in the UK. To support survivors, the Achieving Self-directed Integrated Cancer Aftercare (ASICA) intervention was developed to prompt and improve TSSE performance, with subsequent reporting of concerns and submission of skin photos to a Dermatology Nurse Practitioner (DNP). ASICA was delivered as a randomized pilot trial.Methods: This paper reports on process evaluation. Data on participants' demographics and the concerns they reported during the trial were tabulated and displayed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. We explored which participants used ASICA, and how frequently, to report any skin concerns. We also determined how the interactions had worked in terms of quality of skin photographs submitted, clinical assessments made by the DNP, and the assessments and decisions made for each concern. Finally, we explored significant events occurring during the trial. Data on participants' demographics and the concerns they reported during the trial were tabulated and displayed using SPSS. A semi-structured interview was undertaken with the DNP to gain perspective on the range of concerns presented and how they were resolved.Results: Of 121 recruited melanoma patients receiving ASICA for 12 months, 69 participants submitted a total of 123 reports detailing 189 separate skin-related concerns and including 188 skin photographs. Where participants fully complied with follow-up by the DNP, concerns were usually resolved remotely, but 19 (10.1%) were seen at a secondary care clinic and 14 (7.4%) referred to their GP. 49 (25.9%) of concerns were not completely resolved due to partial non-compliance with DNP follow-up.Conclusion: Melanoma patients randomized to the ASICA intervention were able to report skin-related concerns that could be resolved remotely through interaction with a DNP. Feasibility issues highlighted by ASICA will support further development and optimization of this digital tool.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov , NCT03328247 . Registered on 1 November 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to enhance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by facilitating recruitment and follow-up. Despite this, current EHR use is minimal in UK RCTs, in part due to ongoing concerns about the utility (reliability, completeness, accuracy) and accessibility of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to document the process, timelines and challenges of the application process to help improve the service both for the applicants and data holders.Methods: This is a qualitative paper providing a descriptive narrative from one UK clinical trials unit (MRC CTU at UCL) on the experience of two trial teams' application process to access data from three large English national datasets: National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) and NHS Digital to establish themes for discussion. The underpinning reason for applying for the data was to compare EHRs with data collected through case report forms in two RCTs, Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN 74358648) and PATCH (ISRCTN 70406718).Results: The Add-Aspirin trial, which had a pre-planned embedded sub-study to assess EHR, received data from NCRAS 13 months after the first application. In the PATCH trial, the decision to request data was made whilst the trial was recruiting. The study received data after 8 months from NICOR and 15 months for NHS Digital following final application submission. This concluded in May 2020. Prior to application submission, significant time and effort was needed particularly in relation to the PATCH trial where negotiations over consent and data linkage took many years.Conclusions: Our experience demonstrates that data access can be a prolonged and complex process. This is compounded if multiple data sources are required for the same project. This needs to be factored in when planning to use EHR within RCTs and is best considered prior to conception of the trial. Data holders and researchers are endeavouring to simplify and streamline the application process so that the potential of EHR can be realised for clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Trial oversight is important for trial governance and conduct. Patients and/or lay members of the public are increasingly included in trial oversight committees, influenced by international patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake PPI in trial oversight and tokenistic PPI remains an issue. This paper explores how PPI functions in existing trial oversight committees and provides recommendations to optimise PPI in future trials. This was part of a larger study investigating the role and function of oversight committees in trials facing challenges.Methods: Using an ethnographic study design, we observed oversight meetings of eight UK trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of their trial steering committees (TSCs) and trial management groups (TMGs) including public contributors, trial sponsors and funders. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken, with findings integrated to provide a multi-perspective account of how PPI functions in trial oversight.Results: Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled oversight group members, including three public contributors. PPI was reported as beneficial in trial oversight, with public members contributing a patient voice and fulfilling a patient advocacy role. However, public contributors were not always active at oversight meetings and were sometimes felt to have a tokenistic role, with trialists reporting a lack of understanding of how to undertake PPI in trial oversight. To optimise PPI in trial oversight, the following areas were highlighted: the importance of planning effective strategies to recruit public contributors; considering the level of oversight and stage(s) of trial to include PPI; support for public contributors by the trial team between and during oversight meetings.Conclusions: We present evidence-based recommendations to inform future PPI in trial oversight. Consideration should be given at trial design stage on how to recruit and involve public contributors within trial oversight, as well as support and mentorship for both public contributors and trialists (in how to undertake PPI effectively). Findings from this study further strengthen the evidence base on facilitating meaningful PPI within clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The incidence of chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is increasing. Although surgery remains the mainstay of management for symptomatic patients, uncertainty remains regarding the role of steroids. Hence, the Dex-CSDH trial was launched in the UK in 2015 aiming to determine whether, compared to placebo, dexamethasone can improve the 6-month functional outcome of patients with symptomatic CSDH by reducing the rate of surgical intervention and recurrence rate.Methods and Design: Dex-CSDH is a multi-centre, pragmatic, parallel group, double-blind, randomised trial assessing the clinical utility of a 2-week course of dexamethasone following a CSDH. Seven hundred fifty patients were randomised to either dexamethasone or placebo. The primary outcome is the modified Rankin Scale at 6 months which is dichotomised to favourable (a score of 0-3) versus unfavourable (a score of 4-6).Conclusions: This paper and the accompanying additional material describe the statistical analysis plan for the trial.Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN80782810. Registered on 7 November 2014. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN80782810. EudraCT, 2014-004948-35. Registered on 20 March 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Neurodevelopment is a key outcome for many childhood trials and observational studies. Clinically important decisions may rest on finding relatively small differences in neurodevelopment between groups receiving complex and costly interventions. Our purpose was to determine whether studies which measure neurodevelopment report the numbers, training, and auditing of assessors and, for multiple assessor studies, whether the results were adjusted and if so by which method?Method: Electronic searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. A study was eligible if it reported neurodevelopmental outcome in children resident in the UK, less than or equal to 18 years and was published between 2000 and 2015. Trials and observational studies were included.Results: Three hundred and seven full papers were reviewed: 52% of papers did not report the number of assessors used; 21% used a single assessor; and 27% used multiple assessors. Thirty-five per cent mentioned that assessors were trained in the use of the neurodevelopmental tool; 13% of assessors were audited; and only 1% of studies adjusted statistically for the number of assessors.Interpretation: At the very least, the quality of reporting the use of assessors in these research publications is poor, while at worst, the variability of assessors may mask the true relationship between an intervention/observation and neurodevelopmental outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials are typically conducted over a population within a defined time period in order to illuminate certain characteristics of a health issue or disease process. Cross-sectional studies provide a snapshot of these disease processes over a large number of people but do not allow us to model the temporal nature of disease, which is essential for modelling detailed prognostic predictions. Longitudinal studies, on the other hand, are used to explore how these processes develop over time in a number of people but can be expensive and time-consuming, and many studies only cover a relatively small window within the disease process. This paper explores the application of intelligent data analysis techniques for building reliable models of disease progression from both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. The aim is to learn disease 'trajectories' from cross-sectional data by building realistic trajectories from healthy patients to those with advanced disease. We focus on exploring whether we can 'calibrate' models learnt from these trajectories with real longitudinal data using Baum-Welch re-estimation so that the dynamic parameters reflect the true underlying processes more closely. We use Kullback-Leibler distance and Wilcoxon rank metrics to assess how calibration improves the models to better reflect the underlying dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is little published guidance as to the sample size required for a pilot or feasibility trial despite the fact that a sample size justification is a key element in the design of a trial. A sample size justification should give the minimum number of participants needed in order to meet the objectives of the trial. This paper seeks to describe the target sample sizes set for pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trials, currently running within the United Kingdom. Methods: Data were gathered from the United Kingdom Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) database using the search terms 'pilot' and 'feasibility'. From this search 513 studies were assessed for eligibility of which 79 met the inclusion criteria. Where the data summary on the UKCRN Database was incomplete, data were also gathered from: the International Standardised Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register; the clinicaltrials.gov website and the website of the funders. For 62 of the trials, it was necessary to contact members of the research team by email to ensure completeness. Results: Of the 79 trials analysed, 50 (63.3%) were labelled as pilot trials, 25 (31.6%) feasibility and 14 were described as both pilot and feasibility trials. The majority had two arms (n = 68, 86.1%) and the two most common endpoints were continuous (n = 45, 57.0%) and dichotomous (n = 31, 39.2%). Pilot trials were found to have a smaller sample size per arm (median = 30, range = 8 to 114 participants) than feasibility trials (median = 36, range = 10 to 300 participants). By type of endpoint, across feasibility and pilot trials, the median sample size per arm was 36 (range = 10 to 300 participants) for trials with a dichotomous endpoint and 30 (range = 8 to 114 participants) for trials with a continuous endpoint. Publicly funded pilot trials appear to be larger than industry funded pilot trials: median sample sizes of 33 (range = 15 to 114 participants) and 25 (range = 8 to 100 participants) respectively. Conclusion: All studies should have a sample size justification. Not all studies however need to have a sample size calculation. For pilot and feasibility trials, while a sample size justification is important, a formal sample size calculation may not be appropriate. The results in this paper describe the observed sample sizes in feasibility and pilot randomised controlled trials on the UKCRN Database. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The medicines regulatory environment is evolving rapidly in response to the changing environment. Advances in science and technology have led to a vast field of increasingly complicated pharmaceutical and medical device products; increasing globalization of the pharmaceutical industry, advances in digital technology and the internet, changing patient populations, and shifts in society also affect the regulatory environment. In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) regulates medicines, medical devices and blood products to protect and improve public health, and supports innovation through scientific research and development. It works closely with other bodies in a single medicines network across Europe and takes forward UK health priorities. This paper discusses the range of initiatives in the UK and across Europe to support innovation in medicines regulation. The MHRA leads a number of initiatives, such as the Innovation Office, which helps innovators to navigate the regulatory processes to progress their products or technologies; and simplification of the Clinical Trials Regulations and the Early Access to Medicines Scheme, to bring innovative medicines to patients faster. The Accelerated Access Review will identify reforms to accelerate access for National Health Service patients to innovative medicines and medical technologies. PRIME and Adaptive Pathways initiatives are joint endeavours within the European regulatory community. The MHRA runs spontaneous reporting schemes and works with INTERPOL to tackle counterfeiting and substandard products sold via the internet. The role of the regulator is changing rapidly, with new risk-proportionate, flexible approaches being introduced. International collaboration is a key element of the work of regulators, and is set to expand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In healthcare research the randomised controlled trial is seen as the gold standard because it ensures selection bias is minimised. However, there is uncertainty as to which is the most preferred method of randomisation in any given setting and to what extent more complex methods are actually being implemented in the field. Methods: In this paper we describe the results of a survey of UK academics and publicly funded researchers to examine the extent of the use of various methods of randomisation in clinical trials. Results: Trialists reported using simple randomisation, permuted blocks and stratification more often than more complex methods such as minimisation. Most trialists believed that simple randomisation is suitable for larger trials but there is a high probability of possible imbalance between treatment groups in small trials. It was thought that groups should be balanced at baseline to avoid imbalance and help face-validity. However, very few respondents considered that more complex methods offer any advantages. Conclusions: This paper demonstrates that for most UK trialists the preferred method of randomisation is using permuted blocks of varying random length within strata. This method eliminates the problem of predictability while maintaining balance across combinations of factors. If the number of prognostic factors is large, then minimisation can be used to provide treatment balance as well as balance over these factors. However, only those factors known to affect outcome should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PRINCE2, which stands for Projects in Controlled Environments, is a project management method covering the organisation, management, and control of projects and is widely used in both government and commercial IT and building projects in the UK. This paper describes the application of PRINCE2 to the management of large clinical trials (specifically, of a Phase III trial of a candidate microbicide to prevent vaginally acquired HIV infection). It reviews the challenge of ensuring that the project management tools add value to the project overall and are not perceived as an overly administrative burden. It reviews the requirement for high level summary reports for use by an executive committee and funding bodies, highlighting the reasons for taking this approach -- in particular, not only to manage the science, but to link expenditure to activities at geographically separate trial sites and to key performance indicators, and to provide tools for monitoring risks and possible re-alignment of budgets to reflect changing activities and outputs by collaborators. The paper considers the wider costs and benefits to researchers and funders of taking this approach and explores implications for research administrators and managers at institutions involved in large, complex collaborative research projects, whether clinical or not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, the author argues that the requirement to conduct randomised clinical trials to inform policy in cases where one wants to identify a cheaper alternative to known effective but expensive interventions raises an important ethical issue. This situation will eventually arise whenever there are resource constraints, and a policy decision has been made not to fund an intervention on cost effectiveness grounds. It has been thought that this is an issue only in extremely resource poor settings. This paper gives an example from the United Kingdom illustrating that this is also a problem faced by richer countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The LiGHT trial (Laser-1st versus Drops-1st for Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension Trial) is a multicentre randomised controlled trial of two treatment pathways for patients who are newly diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT). The main hypothesis for the trial is that lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) with selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) as the primary treatment ('Laser-1st') leads to a better health-related quality of life than for those started on IOP-lowering drops as their primary treatment ('Medicine-1st') and that this is associated with reduced costs and improved tolerability of treatment. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the study.Methods/design: The LiGHT trial is an unmasked, multi-centre randomised controlled trial. A total of 718 patients (359 per arm) are being randomised to two groups: medicine-first or laser-first treatment. Outcomes are recorded at baseline and at 6-month intervals up to 36 months. The primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 36 months measured using the EQ-5D-5L. The main secondary outcome is the Glaucoma Utility Index. We plan to analyse the patient outcome data according to the group to which the patient was originally assigned. Methods of statistical analysis are described, including the handling of missing data, the covariates used in the adjusted analyses and the planned sensitivity analyses.Trial Registration: The trial was registered with the ISRCTN register on 23/07/2012, number ISRCTN32038223 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Wound-edge protection devices (WEPDs) have been used in surgery for more than 40 years to reduce surgical site infection (SSI). No economic evaluation of WEPDs against any comparator has ever been conducted. The aim of the paper was to assess whether WEPDs are cost-effective in reducing SSI compared to standard care alone in the United Kingdom. Methods and Findings: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside the ROSSINI trial. The study perspective was that of the UK National Health Service and the time horizon was 30 days post-operatively. The study was conducted in 21 UK hospitals. 760 patients undergoing laparotomy were randomised to either WEPD or standard care and 735 were included in the primary analysis. The main economic outcome was cost-effectiveness based on incremental cost (£) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Patients in the WEPD arm accessed health care worth £5,420 on average and gained 0.02131 QALYs, compared to £5,130 and 0.02133 QALYs gained in the standard care arm. The WEPD strategy was more costly and equally effective compared to standard care, but there was significant uncertainty around incremental costs and QALYs. The findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: There is no evidence to suggest that WEPDs can be considered a cost effective device to reduce SSI. Their continued use is a waste of limited health care resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, and Diabetes Control and Complications Trial have shown that aggressive glucose control, especially early in the natural history of the disease, might result in a significant reduction of microvascular as well as macrovascular complications. However, more recent trials have increased the level of complexity of the relationship between 'tight glucose control/chronic complications', with several factors influencing the risk-to-benefit ratio to be considered, such as age, presence of established complications and diabetes duration. According to this strategy, a more intensive goal is desirable for young patients with no cardiovascular disease, whereas less stringent control is suitable for all people who are relatively late in the natural history of diabetic complications. Numerous calls for an individualized therapy have been proposed during the past years, but still debated is the level of glucose lowering necessary to reduce complications balanced by the risk and costs of the means used. The present paper briefly reviews the rationale and the clinical trials that support specific glycemic goals towards a 'tailored' approach for the management of hyperglycemia in diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is an urgent need for clinically effective and cost-effective methods to manage antisocial and criminal behaviour in adolescents. Youth conduct disorder is increasingly prevalent in the UK and is associated with a range of negative outcomes. Quantitative systematic reviews carried out for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have identified multisystemic therapy, an intensive, multimodal, home-based, family intervention for youth with serious antisocial behaviour, as one of the most promising interventions for reducing antisocial or offending behaviour and improving individual and family functioning. Previous international trials of multisystemic therapy have yielded mixed outcomes, and it is questionable to what extent positive US findings can be generalised to a wider UK mental health and juvenile justice context. This paper describes the protocol for the Systemic Therapy for At Risk Teens (START) trial, a multicentre UK-wide randomised controlled trial of multisystemic therapy in antisocial adolescents at high risk of out-of-home placement.Methods/design: The trial is being conducted at 10 sites across the UK. Seven hundred participants and their families will be recruited and randomised on a 1:1 basis to multisystemic therapy or management as usual. Treatments are offered over a period of 3 to 5 months, with follow-up to 18 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome is out-of-home placement at 18 months. Secondary outcomes include offending rates, total service and criminal justice sector costs, and participant well-being and educational outcomes. Data will be gathered from police computer records, the National Pupil Database, and interview and self-report measures administered to adolescents, parents and teachers. Outcomes will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, using a logistic regression with random effects for the primary outcome and Cox regressions and linear mixed-effects models for secondary outcomes depending on whether the outcome is time-to-event or continuous.Discussion: The START trial is a pragmatic national trial of sufficient size to evaluate multisystemic therapy, to inform policymakers, service commissioners, professionals, service users and their families about its potential in the UK. It will also provide data on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of usual services provided to youth with serious antisocial behaviour problems.Trial Registration: ISRCTN77132214. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent developments aiming to standardise and streamline processes of gaining the necessary approvals to carry out research in the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK), have resulted in lengthy and costly delays. The national UK governmental Department of Health's Research Governance Framework (RGF) for Health and Social Care requires that appropriate checks be conducted before research involving human participants, their organs, tissues or data can commence in the NHS. As a result, medical research has been subjected to increased regulation and governance, with the requirement for approvals from numerous regulatory and monitoring bodies. In addition, the processes and outcomes of the attribution of costs in NHS research have caused additional difficulties for researchers. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate, through three trial case studies, the difficulties encountered during the set-up and recruitment phases of these trials, related to gaining the necessary ethical and governance approvals and applying for NHS costs to undertake and deliver the research. Methods: Empirical evidence about delays and difficulties related to regulation and governance of medical research was gathered during the period 2009-2010 from three UK randomised controlled trials with sites in England, Wales and Scotland (1. SAFER 2-- an emergency care based trial of a protocol for paramedics to refer patients directly to community based falls services; 2. COnStRUCT-- a trial of two drugs for acute ulcerative colitis; and 3. Family Links -- a trial of a public health intervention, a 10 week community based parenting programme). Findings and recommendations were reported in response to a call for evidence from The Academy of Medical Sciences regarding difficulties encountered in conducting medical research arising from R&D governance and regulation, to inform national policy. Results: Difficulties and delays in navigating and gaining the appropriate approvals and NHS costs required to undertake the research were encountered in all three trials, at various points in the bureaucratic processes of ethical and research and information governance approvals. Conduct of each of the three trials was delayed by at least 12 months, with costs increasing by 30 - 40%. Conclusions: Whilst the three trials encountered a variety of challenges, there were common issues. The processes for gaining approvals were overly complex and differed between sites and UK countries; guidance about processes was unclear; and information regarding how to define and claim NHS costs for undertaking the research was inconsistent. The competitive advantage of a publicly funded, open access health system for undertaking health services research and clinical trials within the UK has been outweighed in recent years by stifling bureaucratic structures and processes for governance of research. The recommendations of the Academy of Medical Sciences are welcomed, and the effects of their implementation are awaited with interest. Trial Registration numbers: SAFER 2: ISRCTN 60481756; COnStRUCT: ISRCTN22663589; Family Links: ISRCTN 13929732. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although physical inactivity has been linked with numerous chronic health conditions and overall mortality, the majority of English adults report doing insufficient physical activity. To increase population physical activity levels, researchers have called for more community-level interventions. To evaluate these complex public health interventions, innovative study designs are required. This study protocol describes Devon Active Villages, a community-level intervention providing physical activity opportunities to 128 rural villages in southwest England, and the methods used to evaluate its effectiveness in increasing physical activity levels. Methods/Design: A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial will be used to evaluate whether Devon Active Villages leads to increased physical activity levels in rural communities. Community engagement will help tailor activity programmes for each village; communities will then be supported for a further twelve months. The intervention will be delivered over four periods, each lasting twelve weeks. Data collection consists of a postal survey of a random sample of adults aged 18 years and over, at baseline and after each of the four intervention periods. The questionnaire includes questions on participant demographics, physical activity behaviour, local environment characteristics, awareness of local activity programmes, and psychosocial factors. Based on detecting an increase in the proportion of people who meet physical activity guidelines (from 25% to 30%), at least ten respondents are needed from each of the 128 villages at each stage (80% power at the 5% level of significance). Anticipating a 20% response rate, 6,400 questionnaires will be sent out at each stage (i.e., 50 surveys to each village). Using data from all five periods, a comparison of study outcomes between intervention and control arms will be performed, allowing for time period (as a fixed effect) and the random effect induced by correlation of outcomes (clustering) within villages. Discussion: This paper describes the use of a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial to evaluate a complex, community-level physical activity intervention in an under-studied population of adults in rural communities in southwest England. The study addresses gaps in the current literature by providing new insights into physical activity levels in this population. Trial Registration Number: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37321160 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chimeric antigen receptor- (CAR-) based immunotherapy has been under development for almost 25 years, over which period it has progressed from a new but cumbersome technology to an emerging therapeutic modality for malignant disease. The approach involves the genetic engineering of fusion receptors (CARs) that couple the HLA-independent binding of cell surface target molecules to the delivery of a tailored activating signal to host immune cells. Engineered CARs are delivered most commonly to peripheral blood T cells using a range of vector systems, most commonly integrating viral vectors. Preclinical refinement of this approach has proceeded over several years to the point that clinical testing is now being undertaken at several centres, using increasingly sophisticated and therapeutically successful genetic payloads. This paper considers several aspects of the pre-clinical and clinical development of CAR-based immunotherapy and how this technology is acquiring an increasing niche in the treatment of both solid and haematological malignancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous research reviewed treatment success and whether the collective uncertainty principle is met in RCTs in the US National Cancer Institute portfolio. This paper classifies clinical trials funded by the UK HTA programme by results using the method applied to the US Cancer Institute trials, and compares the two portfolios.Methods: Data on all completed randomised controlled trials funded by the HTA programme 1993-2008 were extracted. Each trial's primary results was classified into six categories; 1) statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 2) statistically significant in favour of the control treatment 3) true negative, 4) truly inconclusive, 5) inconclusive in favour of new treatment or 6) inconclusive in favour of control treatment. Trials were classified by comparing the 95% confidence interval for the difference in primary outcome to the difference specified in the sample size calculation. The results were compared with Djulbegovic's analysis of NCI trials.Results: Data from 51 superiority trials were included, involving over 48,000 participants and a range of diseases and interventions. 85 primary comparisons were available because some trials had more than two randomised arms or had several primary outcomes. The new treatment had superior results (whether significant or not) in 61% of the comparisons (52/85 95% CI 49.9% to 71.6%). The results were conclusive in 46% of the comparisons (19% statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 5% statistically significant in favour of the control and 22% true negative). The results were classified as truly inconclusive (i.e. failed to answer the question asked) for 24% of comparisons (20/85). HTA trials included fewer truly inconclusive and statistically significant results and more results rated as true negative than NCI trials.Conclusions: The pattern of results in HTA trials is similar to that of the National Cancer Institute portfolio. Differences that existed were plausible given the differences in the types of trials -HTA trials are more pragmatic. The results indicate HTA trials are compatible with equipoise. This classification usefully summarises the results from clinical trials and enables comparisons of different portfolios of trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program funds trials that address issues of clinical and cost-effectiveness to meet the needs of the National Health Service (NHS). The objective of this review was to systematically assess the methods of resource use data collection and costing; and to produce a best practice guide for data capture within economic analyses alongside clinical trials. All 100 HTA-funded primary research papers published to June 2009 were reviewed for the health economic methods employed. Data were extracted and summarized by: health technology assessed, costing perspective adopted, evidence of planning and piloting, data collection method, frequency of data collection, and sources of unit cost data. Ninety-five studies were identified as having conducted an economic analysis, of which 85 recorded patient-level resource use. The review identified important differences in how data are collected. These included: a priori evidence of analysts having identified important cost drivers; the piloting and validation of patient-completed resource use questionnaires; choice of costing perspective; and frequency of data collection. Areas of commonality included: the extensive use of routine medical records and reliance on patient recall; and the use of standard sources of unit costs. Economic data collection is variable, even among a homogeneous selection of trials designed to meet the needs of a common organization (NHS). Areas for improvement have been identified, and based on our findings and related reviews and guidelines, a checklist is proposed for good practice relating to economic data collection within clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exploratory approaches for first-in-human clinical studies have evolved over the last few years and have stimulated the issuance of national regulatory guidances in some European countries as well as the United States. With the increasing implementation of these approaches and the recent preparation of a multiregional regulatory guidance (ICH M3 rev2), an exchange of experiences on the opportunities and challenges of exploratory clinical trials was desirable; thus, a workshop focusing on the use of this clinical approach was planned and conducted in Lisbon, Portugal, March 18–19, 2009 sponsored by the Portuguese Health Authority (INFARMED) and DIA. The structure of the workshop focused in three main areas. Regulatory representatives from Portugal, Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States formally reviewed their experiences. This was followed by a discussion on issues from an ethics review perspective as well as an insight to the opportunities in the area of biologics. The industry perspective was presented by representatives from Merck, Pfizer, J&J, Novartis, Speedel, AstraZeneca, GSK, and Roche. Finally, through break out sessions, issues were identified to be addressed moving forward. It is the purpose of this paper to report on the outcome of this workshop. Clin Trans Sci 2010; Volume #: 1–4 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cough is a common and distressing symptom in lung cancer patients. The clinical management of cough in lung cancer patients is suboptimal with limited high quality research evidence available. The aim of the present paper is to present a clinical guideline developed in the UK through scrutiny of the literature and expert opinion, in order to aid decision making in clinicians and highlight good practice. Methods: Two systematic reviews, one focusing on the management of cough in respiratory illness and one Cochrane review specifically on cancer, were conducted. Also, data from reviews, phase II trials and case studies were synthesized. A panel of experts in the field was also convened in an expert consensus meeting to make sense of the data and make clinical propositions. Results: A pyramid of cough management was developed, starting with the treatment of reversible causes of cough/specific pathology. Initial cough management should focus on peripherally acting and intermittent treatment; more resistant symptoms require the addition of (or replacement by) centrally acting and continuous treatment. The pyramid for the symptomatic management starts from the simpler and most practical regimens (demulcents, simple linctus) to weak opioids to morphine and methadone before considering less well-researched and experimental approaches. Conclusion: The clinical guidelines presented aim to provide a sensible clinical approach to the management of cough in lung cancer. High quality research in this field is urgently required to provide more evidence-based recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pharmaceuticals are not permitted on to the market unless they are granted regulatory approval. The regulatory process is, therefore, crucial in whether or not a drug is widely prescribed. Regulatory agencies have developed standards of performance that pharmaceuticals are supposed to meet before entering the market. Regulation of technologies is often discussed by reference to the precautionary principle. In contrast, this paper develops the concept of the 'permissive principle' as a way of understanding the departure of regulators' practices from standards of drug efficacy to which regulatory agencies themselves subscribe. By taking a case study of antidepressant regulation in the UK and the USA, the mechanisms of permissive regulatory practices are examined. An STS methodology of both spatial (international) and temporal comparisons of regulatory practices with regulatory standards is employed to identify the nature and extent of the permissive regulation. It is found that the permissive principle was adopted by drug regulators in the UK and the USA, but more so by the former than the latter. Evidently, permissive regulation, which favours the commercial interests of the drug manufacturer, but is contrary to the interests of patients, may penetrate to the heart of regulatory science. On the other hand, permissive regulation of specific drugs should not be regarded as an inevitable result of marketing strategies and concomitant networks deployed by powerful pharmaceutical companies, because the extent of permissive regulation may vary according to the intra-institutional normative commitments of regulators to uphold their technical standards against the commercial interests of the manufacturer. Likely sociological factors that can account for such permissive regulatory practices are 'corporate bias', secrecy and excessive regulatory trust in the pharmaceutical industry in the UK, political expediency and ideological capture in the USA, combined in both countries with some regulatory deference to the clinical autonomy of the psychiatry profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Magpie Trial, a randomised trial comparing magnesium sulphate with placebo for women with pre-eclampsia. This paper describes methods used for follow up in the UK, and presents additional data collected. Methods: In the UK 774 women and their 827 children were included; excluded were women discharged without a surviving child and families who opted out. General practitioners were sent a questionnaire when the child was around 18 months old. When the child was two years, or older, questionnaires asking about the health of the women and children were posted to families. A sample of families was offered a home visit, during which the child was assessed using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. Results: Of the women, 12 were lost to follow up and three died. Of the children, 12 were lost to follow up, 5 were excluded and 19 died. General practitioners returned 688/759 (91%) questionnaires, as did 619/759 (82%) women. Responses were largely comparable. 32 women had serious morbidity potentially related to pre-eclampsia. 30% of children were reported to have been admitted to hospital. There were no clear differences between the randomised groups in the child's behaviour, women's fertility or use of health service resources. Conclusion: Data presented here provide further reassurance about the longer term safety of magnesium sulphate when used for women with pre-eclampsia. Postal questionnaires in the UK to assess the longer term health and wellbeing of women and children recruited to trials are feasible, and can achieve a high response rate. Responses from families and general practitioners were comparable Trial registration: Trial registration number of the Magpie Trial [ISRCTN86938761] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To date, no school-based intervention has been proven to be effective in preventing adolescent smoking, despite continuing concern about smoking levels amongst young people in the United Kingdom. Although formal teacher-led smoking prevention interventions are considered unlikely to be effective, peer-led approaches to reducing smoking have been proposed as potentially valuable. Methods/design: ASSIST (A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial) is a comprehensive, large-scale evaluation to rigorously test whether peer supporters in Year 8 (age 11-12) can be recruited and trained to effect a reduction in smoking uptake among their fellow students. The evaluation is employing a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) design with secondary school as the unit of randomisation, and is being undertaken in 59 schools in South East Wales and the West of England. Embedded within the trial are an economic evaluation of the intervention costs, a process evaluation to provide detailed information on how the intervention was delivered and received, and an analysis of social networks to consider whether such a peer group intervention could work amongst schoolchildren in this age group. Schools were randomised to either continue with normal smoking education (n = 29 schools, 5562 students), or to do so and additionally receive the ASSIST intervention (n = 30 schools, 5481 students). No schools withdrew once the trial had started, and the intervention was successfully implemented in all 30 schools, with excellent participation rates from the peer supporters. The primary outcome is regular (weekly) smoking, validated by salivary cotinine, and this outcome has been obtained for 94.4%, 91.0% and 95.6% of eligible students at baseline, immediate post-intervention, and one-year follow-up respectively. Discussion: Comprehensive evaluations of complex public health interventions of this scale and nature are rare in the United Kingdom. This paper demonstrates the feasibility of conducting cluster RCTs of complex public health interventions in schools, and how the rigour of such designs can be maximised both by thorough implementation of the protocol and by broadening the scope of questions addressed in the trial by including additional evaluative components. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Local review of research by ethics committees in the UK has long been held to be an important right of the local research ethics committee and, even with the introduction of the European Clinical Trials Directive, the governance arrangements for research ethics committees continue to allow for local review of multicentre studies. There is no requirement for local review in either the European Union directive or in the guidelines on good clinical practice, and there is little evidence of it anywhere else in Europe. The idea that there can be "local", as opposed to "central" ethical issues in research is an interesting one, which raises important issues about the nature of research ethics and ethical review. The aim of this paper is to argue that there are no such things as local issues in research ethics, and suggest that those questions currently addressed as local issues properly belong within the research governance framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK Children's Cancer Study Group (UKCCSG), established in 1977, provides a highly organised structure for both service provision and research, and represents the model to which the adult cancer community is currently aspiring. Since childhood cancer is so rare, it is both essential and feasible for the vast majority of children to be referred into the network of specialist centres, and also for the maximum number of children to be recruited into national and international clinical trials. Over the last 30-40 years there have been major advances in treatment, such that now approximately 70% of children diagnosed with cancer will be cured of their disease. The conduct of clinical trials in this patient population does, however, raise a number of specific issues and these are discussed in the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although most health professionals accept that randomization in clinical trials is important there is evidence that patients may not understand randomization and may not accept its validity. A study in North Staffordshire Great Britain has shown that, while most people understand randomization, many do not accept it. The participants were 130 students at five further education and leisure courses. They varied in age from 18 to 70 years and in occupation from unskilled to professional. The methods were selection by computer with no information about individuals, toss of a coin, drawing paper slips out of a hat, individual choice, and alternate allocation in turn.

This paper argues for more randomised controlled trials in educational research. Educational researchers have largely abandoned the methodology they helped to pioneer. This gold-standard methodology should be more widely used as it is an appropriate and robust research technique. Without subjecting curriculum innovations to a RCT then potentially harmful educational initiatives could be visited upon the nation's children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]