Search

ABSTRACT Introduction Methodological and ethical arguments support the involvement of individuals with lived experience in research to reduce engagement barriers and ensure those directly affected by studies contribute to knowledge generation. However, there is limited evidence on the impact of including researchers with lived experience of serving a prison or community sentence in clinical trials. This qualitative study aimed to explore the value of involving researchers with lived experience of the criminal justice system as data collectors in the Mentalization for Offending Adult Males (MOAM), a multisite RCT conducted in the National Probation Service in England and Wales. Methods Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 30 trial participants and 17 key stakeholders, either in person or via telephone. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Findings Five themes emerged for trial participants and 11 for key stakeholders. For some, lived experience researchers helped overcome engagement barriers by fostering common ground with participants who were serving a prison or community sentence during recruitment. Participants reported that the involvement of lived experience researchers enhanced the study by facilitating knowledge transfer in certain instances. However, their inclusion did not eliminate all barriers and, for some participants, introduced new challenges to engagement. Conclusion Forensic lived experience researchers bridged the gap by fostering trust between data collectors and participants. Future studies should ensure that lived experience researchers receive adequate clinical supervision to support their role. The adopted methodology challenged assumptions about knowledge generation and stereotypes associated with being an ex‐offender, benefiting both lived experience and traditional researchers. Patient or Public Contribution The study was developed in collaboration with User Voice (charity number: 1136047), who contributed to the study's design and conduct. The service user organisation co‐designed the interview schedule and directed the protocol for participant payments, emphasising a consistent approach to avoid tokenism and ensure equal recognition of all contributions. The dissemination plan was developed in partnership with individuals with lived experience of the criminal justice system.

Abstract In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency consulted on proposals “to improve and strengthen the UK clinical trials legislation to help us make the UK the best place to research and develop safe and innovative medicines”. The purpose of the consultation was to help finalise the proposals and contribute to the drafting of secondary legislation. We discussed these proposals as members of the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, which is jointly funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Two topics arose frequently in the discussion: the emphasis on legislation, and the absence of questions on data sharing. It is our opinion that the proposals rely heavily on legislation to change practice. However, clinical trials are heterogeneous, and as a result some trials will struggle to comply with all of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, adaptive design clinical trials are even more heterogeneous than their non-adaptive counterparts, and face more challenges. Consequently, it is possible that increased legislation could have a greater negative impact on adaptive designs than non-adaptive designs. Overall, we are sceptical that the introduction of legislation will achieve the desired outcomes, with some exceptions. Meanwhile the topic of data sharing — making anonymised individual-level clinical trial data available to other investigators for further use — is entirely absent from the proposals and the consultation in general. However, as an aspect of the wider concept of open science and reproducible research, data sharing is an increasingly important aspect of clinical trials. The benefits of data sharing include faster innovation, improved surveillance of drug safety and effectiveness and decreasing participant exposure to unnecessary risk. There are already a number of UK-focused documents that discuss and encourage data sharing, for example, the Concordat on Open Research Data and the Medical Research Council’s Data Sharing Policy. We strongly suggest that data sharing should be the norm rather than the exception, and hope that the forthcoming proposals on clinical trials invite discussion on this important topic.

Introduction Severe Graves’ disease is a life-changing condition with poor outcomes from currently available treatments. It is caused by directly pathogenic thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor-stimulating antibodies (TRAb), which are secreted from plasma cells. The human anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab was developed to target plasma cells which express high levels of CD38, and is currently licensed for treatment of the plasma cell malignancy, myeloma. However, it can also deplete benign plasma cells with the potential to reduce TRAb and alter the natural history of severe Graves’ disease. This study aims to establish proof of concept that daratumumab has efficacy in patients with severe Graves’ disease and will provide important data to inform a choice of dosing regimen for subsequent trials.Methods and analysis The Graves-PCD trial aims to determine if daratumumab modulates the humoral immune response in patients with severe Graves’ disease, and if so, over what time period, and to find an optimal dose. It is a single-blinded, randomised, dose-finding, adaptive trial using four different doses of daratumumab or placebo in 30 adult patients. Part 1 of the trial is dose-finding and, following an interim analysis, in part 2, the remaining patients will be randomised between the chosen dose(s) from the interim analysis or placebo. The primary outcome is the percentage change in serum TRAb from baseline to 12 weeks.Ethics and dissemination The trial received a favourable ethical opinion from London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (reference 21/LO/0449). The results of this trial will be disseminated at international meetings, in the peer-reviewed literature and through partner patient group newsletters and presentations at patient education events.Trial registration number ISRCTN81162400.

Objectives Analysis of routinely collected electronic health data is a key tool for long-term condition research and practice for hospitalised patients. This requires accurate and complete ascertainment of a broad range of diagnoses, something not always recorded on an admission document at a single point in time. This study aimed to ascertain how far back in time electronic hospital records need to be interrogated to capture long-term condition diagnoses.Design Retrospective observational study of routinely collected hospital electronic health record data.Setting Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (UK)-linked data held by the PIONEER acute care data hub.Participants Patients whose first recorded admission for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation (n=560) or acute stroke (n=2142) was between January and December 2018 and who had a minimum of 10 years of data prior to the index date.Outcome measures We identified the most common International Classification of Diseases version 10-coded diagnoses received by patients with COPD and acute stroke separately. For each diagnosis, we derived the number of patients with the diagnosis recorded at least once over the full 10-year lookback period, and then compared this with shorter lookback periods from 1 year to 9 years prior to the index admission.Results Seven of the top 10 most common diagnoses in the COPD dataset reached >90% completeness by 6 years of lookback. Atrial fibrillation and diabetes were >90% coded with 2–3 years of lookback, but hypertension and asthma completeness continued to rise all the way out to 10 years of lookback. For stroke, 4 of the top 10 reached 90% completeness by 5 years of lookback; angina pectoris was >90% coded at 7 years and previous transient ischaemic attack completeness continued to rise out to 10 years of lookback.Conclusion A 7-year lookback captures most, but not all, common diagnoses. Lookback duration should be tailored to the conditions being studied.

Abstract Background Sequential B cell-targeted immunotherapy with BAFF antagonism (belimumab) and B cell depletion (rituximab) may enhance B cell targeting in ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) through several mechanisms. Methods Study design: COMBIVAS is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to assess the mechanistic effects of sequential therapy of belimumab and rituximab in patients with active PR3 AAV. The recruitment target is 30 patients who meet the criteria for inclusion in the per-protocol analysis. Thirty-six participants have been randomised to one of the two treatment groups in a 1:1 ratio: either rituximab plus belimumab or rituximab plus placebo (both groups with the same tapering corticosteroid regimen), and recruitment is now closed (final patient enrolled April 2021). For each patient, the trial will last for 2 years comprising a 12-month treatment period followed by a 12-month follow-up period. Participants: Participants have been recruited from five of seven UK trial sites. Eligibility criteria were age ≥ 18 years and a diagnosis of AAV with active disease (newly diagnosed or relapsing disease), along with a concurrent positive test for PR3 ANCA by ELISA. Interventions: Rituximab 1000 mg was administered by intravenous infusions on day 8 and day 22. Weekly subcutaneous injections of 200 mg belimumab or placebo were initiated a week before rituximab on day 1 and then weekly through to week 51. All participants received a relatively low prednisolone (20 mg/day) starting dose from day 1 followed by a protocol-specified corticosteroid taper aiming for complete cessation by 3 months. Outcomes: The primary endpoint of this study is time to PR3 ANCA negativity. Key secondary outcomes include change from baseline in naïve, transitional, memory, plasmablast B cell subsets (by flow cytometry) in the blood at months 3, 12, 18 and 24; time to clinical remission; time to relapse; and incidence of serious adverse events. Exploratory biomarker assessments include assessment of B cell receptor clonality, B cell and T cell functional assays, whole blood transcriptomic analysis and urinary lymphocyte and proteomic analysis. Inguinal lymph node and nasal mucosal biopsies have been performed on a subgroup of patients at baseline and month 3. Discussion This experimental medicine study provides a unique opportunity to gain detailed insights into the immunological mechanisms of belimumab-rituximab sequential therapy across multiple body compartments in the setting of AAV. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03967925. Registered on May 30, 2019.

Introduction Bronchiectasis is a long-term lung condition, with dilated bronchi, chronic inflammation, chronic infection and acute exacerbations. Recurrent exacerbations are associated with poorer clinical outcomes such as increased severity of lung disease, further exacerbations, hospitalisations, reduced quality of life and increased risk of death. Despite an increasing prevalence of bronchiectasis, there is a critical lack of high-quality studies into the disease and no treatments specifically approved for its treatment. This trial aims to establish whether inhaled dual bronchodilators (long acting beta agonist (LABA) and long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)) taken as either a stand-alone therapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) reduce the number of exacerbations of bronchiectasis requiring treatment with antibiotics during a 12 month treatment period.Methods This is a multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and embedded economic evaluation. 600 adult patients (≥18 years) with CT confirmed bronchiectasis will be recruited and randomised to either inhaled dual therapy (LABA+LAMA), triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+ICS) or matched placebo, in a 2:2:1 ratio (respectively). The primary outcome is the number of protocol defined exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics during the 12 month treatment period.Ethics and dissemination Favourable ethical opinion was received from the North East—Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/NE/0020). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, at national and international conferences, in the NIHR Health Technology Assessments journal and to participants and the public (using lay language).Trial registration number ISRCTN15988757.

Summary: Background: Iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is the leading cause of years lost to disability in most sub-Saharan African countries and is especially common in young children. The IHAT-GUT trial assessed the efficacy and safety of a novel nano iron supplement, which is a dietary ferritin analogue termed iron hydroxide adipate tartrate (IHAT), for the treatment of IDA in children under 3 years of age. Methods: In this single-country, randomised, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority Phase II study in The Gambia, children 6–35 months with IDA (7≤Hb

Abstract Background Window-of-opportunity trials, evaluating the engagement of drugs with their biological target in the time period between diagnosis and standard-of-care treatment, can help prioritise promising new systemic treatments for later-phase clinical trials. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the 7th commonest solid cancer in the UK, exhibits targets for multiple new systemic anti-cancer agents including DNA damage response inhibitors, agents targeting vascular pathways and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Here we present the trial protocol for the WIndow-of-opportunity clinical trial platform for evaluation of novel treatment strategies in REnal cell cancer (WIRE). Methods WIRE is a Phase II, multi-arm, multi-centre, non-randomised, proof-of-mechanism (single and combination investigational medicinal product [IMP]), platform trial using a Bayesian adaptive design. The Bayesian adaptive design leverages outcome information from initial participants during pre-specified interim analyses to determine and minimise the number of participants required to demonstrate efficacy or futility. Patients with biopsy-proven, surgically resectable, cT1b+, cN0–1, cM0–1 clear cell RCC and no contraindications to the IMPs are eligible to participate. Participants undergo diagnostic staging CT and renal mass biopsy followed by treatment in one of the treatment arms for at least 14 days. Initially, the trial includes five treatment arms with cediranib, cediranib + olaparib, olaparib, durvalumab and durvalumab + olaparib. Participants undergo a multiparametric MRI before and after treatment. Vascularised and de-vascularised tissue is collected at surgery. A ≥ 30% increase in CD8+ T-cells on immunohistochemistry between the screening and nephrectomy is the primary endpoint for durvalumab-containing arms. Meanwhile, a reduction in tumour vascular permeability measured by K trans on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI by ≥30% is the primary endpoint for other arms. Secondary outcomes include adverse events and tumour size change. Exploratory outcomes include biomarkers of drug mechanism and treatment effects in blood, urine, tissue and imaging. Discussion WIRE is the first trial using a window-of-opportunity design to demonstrate pharmacological activity of novel single and combination treatments in RCC in the pre-surgical space. It will provide rationale for prioritising promising treatments for later phase trials and support the development of new biomarkers of treatment effect with its extensive translational agenda. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03741426 / EudraCT: 2018–003056-21 .

Abstract Objectives The primary objective of MATIS is to determine the efficacy of ruxolitinib (RUX) or fostamatinib (FOS) compared to standard of care (SOC) with respect to reducing the proportion of hospitalised patients progressing from mild or moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Secondary objectives, at 14 and 28 days, are to: Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce mortality Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for invasive ventilation or ECMO Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for non-invasive ventilation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the proportion of participants suffering significant oxygen desaturation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for renal replacement therapy Determine the efficacy of RUX and FOS to reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism Determine the efficacy of RUX and FOS to reduce the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia [graded by a 9-point modified WHO Ordinal Scale* Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce systemic inflammation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to the incidence of renal impairment Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce duration of hospital stay Evaluate the safety of RUX and FOS for treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. Trial design A multi-arm, multi-stage (3-arm parallel-group, 2-stage) randomised controlled trial that allocates participants 1:1:1 and tests for superiority in experimental arms versus standard of care. Participants Patients will be recruited while inpatients during hospitalisation for COVID-19 in multiple centres throughout the UK including Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. INCLUSION: Patients age ≥ 18 years at screening Patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, defined as Grade 3 or 4 severity by the WHO COVID-19 Ordinal Scale Patients meeting criteria: Hospitalization AND SARS-CoV2 infection (clinically suspected or laboratory confirmed) AND Radiological change consistent with COVID-19 disease CRP ≥ 30mg/L at any time point Informed consent from patient or personal or professional representative Agreement to abstain from sexual intercourse or use contraception that is >99% effective for all participants of childbearing potential for 42 days after the last dose of study drug. For male participants, agreement to abstain from sperm donation for 42 days after the last dose of study drug. EXCLUSION: Requiring either invasive or non-invasive ventilation including CPAP or high flow nasal oxygen at any point after hospital admission but before baseline, not related to a pre-existing condition (e.g., obstructive sleep apnoea) Grade ≥ 5 severity on the modified WHO COVID-19 Ordinal Scale, i.e. SpO2 < 90% on ≥ 60% inspired oxygen by facemask at baseline; non-invasive ventilation; or invasive mechanical ventilation In the opinion of the investigator, progression to death is inevitable within the next 24 hours, irrespective of the provision of therapy Known severe allergic reactions to the investigational agents Child-Pugh B or C grade hepatic dysfunction Use of drugs within the preceding 14 days that are known to interact with any study treatment (FOS or RUX), as listed in the Summary of Product Characteristics Pregnant or breastfeeding Any medical condition or concomitant medication that in the opinion of the investigator would compromise subjects’ safety or compliance with study procedures. Any medical condition which in the opinion of the principal investigator would compromise the scientific integrity of the study Non-English speakers will be able to join the study. If participants are unable to understand verbal or written information in English, then hospital translation services will be requested at the participating site for the participant where possible. Intervention and comparator RUXOLITINIB (RUX) (14 days): An oral selective and potent inhibitor of Janus Associated Kinases (JAK1 and JAK2) and cell proliferation (Verstovek, 2010). It is approved for the treatment of disease-related splenomegaly or constitutional symptoms in myelofibrosis, polycythaemia vera and graft-versus-host-disease. RUX will be administered orally 10mg bd Day 1-7 and 5mg bd Day 8-14. FOSTAMATINIB (FOS) (14 days): An oral spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of thrombocytopenia in adult participants with chronic immune thrombocytopenia. FOS will be administered orally 150mg bd Day 1-7 and 100mg bd Day 8-14. Please see protocol for recommended dose modifications where required. COMPARATOR (Standard of Care, SOC): experimental arms will be compared to participants receiving standard of care. It is accepted that SOC may change during a rapidly evolving pandemic. Co-enrolment to other trials and rescue therapy, either pre- or post-randomisation, is permitted and will be accounted for in the statistical analysis. Main outcomes Pairwise comparison (RUX vs SOC and FOS vs SOC) of the proportion of participants diagnosed with severe COVID-19 pneumonia within 14 days. Severe COVID-19 pneumonia is defined by a score ≥ 5 on a modified WHO COVID-19 Ordinal Scale, comprising the following indicators of disease severity: Death OR Requirement for invasive ventilation OR Requirement for non-invasive ventilation including CPAP or high flow oxygen OR O2 saturation < 90% on ≥60% inspired oxygen Randomisation Participants will be allocated to interventions using a central web-based randomisation service that generates random sequences using random permuted blocks (1:1:1), with stratification by age (

Introduction Skeletal muscle dysfunction is central to both sarcopenia and physical frailty, which are associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes including falls and fractures, longer hospital stays, dependency and the need for care. Resistance training may prevent and treat sarcopenia and physical frailty, but not everyone can or wants to exercise. Finding alternatives is critical to alleviate the burden of adverse outcomes associated with sarcopenia and physical frailty. This trial will provide proof-of-concept evidence as to whether metformin can improve physical performance in older people with sarcopenia and physical prefrailty or frailty.Methods and analysis MET-PREVENT is a parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept trial. Trial participants can participate from their own homes, including completing informed consent and screening assessments. Eligible participants with low grip strength or prolonged sit-to-stand time together with slow walk speed will be randomised to either oral metformin hydrochloride 500 mg tablets or matched placebo, taken three times a day for 4 months. The recruitment target is 80 participants from two secondary care hospitals in Newcastle and Gateshead, UK. Local primary care practices will act as participant identification centres. Randomisation will be performed using a web-based minimisation system with a random element, balancing on sex and baseline walk speed. Participants will be followed up for 4 months post-randomisation, with outcomes collected at baseline and 4 months. The primary outcome measure is the four metre walk speed at the 4-month follow-up visit.Ethics and dissemination The trial has been approved by the Liverpool NHS Research Ethics Committee (20/NW/0470), the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (EudraCT 2020-004023-16) and the UK Health Research Authority (IRAS 275219). Results will be made available to participants, their families, patients with sarcopenia, the public, regional and national clinical teams, and the international scientific community.Trial registration number ISRCTN29932357.

Abstract Background Platform trials improve the efficiency of the drug development process through flexible features such as adding and dropping arms as evidence emerges. The benefits and practical challenges of implementing novel trial designs have been discussed widely in the literature, yet less consideration has been given to the statistical implications of adding arms. Main We explain different statistical considerations that arise from allowing new research interventions to be added in for ongoing studies. We present recent methodology development on addressing these issues and illustrate design and analysis approaches that might be enhanced to provide robust inference from platform trials. We also discuss the implication of changing the control arm, how patient eligibility for different arms may complicate the trial design and analysis, and how operational bias may arise when revealing some results of the trials. Lastly, we comment on the appropriateness and the application of platform trials in phase II and phase III settings, as well as publicly versus industry-funded trials. Conclusion Platform trials provide great opportunities for improving the efficiency of evaluating interventions. Although several statistical issues are present, there are a range of methods available that allow robust and efficient design and analysis of these trials.

Abstract Background Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), although associated with very significant health and social burden, is an under-researched mental disorder for which clinically effective and cost-effective treatment methods are urgently needed. No intervention has been established for prevention or as the treatment of choice for this disorder. Mentalization-based treatment (MBT) is a psychotherapeutic treatment that has shown some promising preliminary results for reducing personality disorder symptomatology by specifically targeting the ability to recognize and understand the mental states of oneself and others, an ability that is compromised in people with ASPD. This paper describes the protocol of a multi-site RCT designed to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MBT for reducing aggression and alleviating the wider symptoms of ASPD in male offenders subject to probation supervision who fulfil diagnostic criteria for ASPD. Methods Three hundred and two participants recruited from a pool of offenders subject to statutory supervision by the National Probation Service at 13 sites across the UK will be randomized on a 1:1 basis to 12 months of probation plus MBT or standard probation as usual, with follow-up to 24 months post-randomization. The primary outcome is frequency of aggressive antisocial behaviour as assessed by the Overt Aggression Scale – Modified. Secondary outcomes include violence, offending rates, alcohol use, drug use, mental health status, quality of life, and total service use costs. Data will be gathered from police and criminal justice databases, NHS record linkage, and interviews and self-report measures administered to participants. Primary analysis will be on an intent-to-treat basis; per-protocol analysis will be undertaken as secondary analysis. The primary outcome will be analysed using hierarchical mixed-effects linear regression. Secondary outcomes will be analysed using mixed-effects linear regression, mixed-effects logistic regression, and mixed-effects Poisson models for secondary outcomes depending on whether the outcome is continuous, binary, or count data. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis will be undertaken. Discussion This definitive, national, multi-site trial is of sufficient size to evaluate MBT to inform policymakers, service commissioners, clinicians, and service users about its potential to treat offenders with ASPD and the likely impact on the population at risk. Trial registration ISRCTN 32309003 . Registered on 8 April 2016.

Abstract Background Participants in clinical research studies often do not reflect the populations for which healthcare interventions are needed or will be used. Enhancing representation of under-served groups in clinical research is important to ensure that research findings are widely applicable. We describe a multicomponent workstream project to improve representation of under-served groups in clinical trials. Methods The project comprised three main strands: (1) a targeted scoping review of literature to identify previous work characterising under-served groups and barriers to inclusion, (2) surveys of professional stakeholders and participant representative groups involved in research delivery to refine these initial findings and identify examples of innovation and good practice and (3) a series of workshops bringing together key stakeholders from funding, design, delivery and participant groups to reach consensus on definitions, barriers and a strategic roadmap for future work. The work was commissioned by the UK National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. Output from these strands was integrated by a steering committee to generate a series of goals, workstream plans and a strategic roadmap for future development work in this area. Results ‘Under-served groups’ was identified and agreed by the stakeholder group as the preferred term. Three-quarters of stakeholders felt that a clear definition of under-served groups did not currently exist; definition was challenging and context-specific, but exemplar groups (e.g. those with language barriers or mental illness) were identified as under-served. Barriers to successful inclusion of under-served groups could be clustered into communication between research teams and participant groups; how trials are designed and delivered, differing agendas of research teams and participant groups; and lack of trust in the research process. Four key goals for future work were identified: building long-term relationships with under-served groups, developing training resources to improve design and delivery of trials for under-served groups, developing infrastructure and systems to support this work and working with funders, regulators and other stakeholders to remove barriers to inclusion. Conclusions The work of the INCLUDE group over the next 12 months will build on these findings by generating resources customised for different under-served groups to improve the representativeness of trial populations.

Abstract Background Platform trials allow adding new experimental treatments to an on-going trial. This feature is attractive to practitioners due to improved efficiency. Nevertheless, the operating characteristics of a trial that adds arms have not been well-studied. One controversy is whether just the concurrent control data (i.e. of patients who are recruited after a new arm is added) should be used in the analysis of the newly added treatment(s), or all control data (i.e. non-concurrent and concurrent). Methods We investigate the benefits and drawbacks of using non-concurrent control data within a two-stage setting. We perform simulation studies to explore the impact of a linear and a step trend on the inference of the trial. We compare several analysis approaches when one includes all the control data or only concurrent control data in the analysis of the newly added treatment. Results When there is a positive trend and all the control data are used, the marginal power of rejecting the corresponding hypothesis and the type one error rate can be higher than the nominal value. A model-based approach adjusting for a stage effect is equivalent to using concurrent control data; an adjustment with a linear term may not guarantee valid inference when there is a non-linear trend. Conclusions If strict error rate control is required then non-concurrent control data should not be used; otherwise it may be beneficial if the trend is sufficiently small. On the other hand, the root mean squared error of the estimated treatment effect can be improved through using non-concurrent control data.

Abstract Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised. This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process. The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites. “To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well” Douglas G Altman

Abstract Background Clinical trials and other studies commonly assess the effectiveness of an intervention through the use of responder-based endpoints. These classify patients based on whether they meet a number of criteria which often involve continuous variables categorised as being above or below a threshold. The proportion of patients who are responders is estimated and, where relevant, compared between groups. An alternative method called the augmented binary method keeps the definition of the endpoint the same but utilises information contained within the continuous component to increase the power considerably (equivalent to increasing the sample size by > 30%). In this article we summarise the method and investigate the variety of clinical conditions that use endpoints to which it could be applied. Methods We reviewed a database of core outcome sets (COSs) that covered physiological and mortality trial endpoints recommended for collection in clinical trials of different disorders. We identified responder-based endpoints where the augmented binary method would be useful for increasing power. Results Out of the 287 COSs reviewed, we identified 67 new clinical areas where endpoints were used that would be more efficiently analysed using the augmented binary method. Clinical areas that had particularly high numbers were rheumatology (11 clinical disorders identified), non-solid tumour oncology (10 identified), neurology (9 identified) and cardiovascular (8 identified). Conclusions The augmented binary method can potentially provide large benefits in a vast array of clinical areas. Further methodological development is needed to account for some types of endpoints.

Background: DTI is sensitive to white matter (WM) microstructural damage and has been suggested as a surrogate marker for phase 2 clinical trials in cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). The study’s objective is to establish the best way to analyse the diffusion-weighted imaging data in SVD for this purpose. The ideal method would be sensitive to change and predict dementia conversion, but also straightforward to implement and ideally automated. As part of the OPTIMAL collaboration, we evaluated five different DTI analysis strategies across six different cohorts with differing SVD severity. Methods: Those 5 strategies were: (1) conventional mean diffusivity WM histogram measure (MD median), (2) a principal component-derived measure based on conventional WM histogram measures (PC1), (3) peak width skeletonized mean diffusivity (PSMD), (4) diffusion tensor image segmentation θ (DSEG θ) and (5) a WM measure of global network efficiency (Geff). The association between each measure and cognitive function was tested using a linear regression model adjusted by clinical markers. Changes in the imaging measures over time were determined. In three cohort studies, repeated imaging data together with data on incident dementia were available. The association between the baseline measure, change measure and incident dementia conversion was examined using Cox proportional-hazard regression or logistic regression models. Sample size estimates for a hypothetical clinical trial were furthermore computed for each DTI analysis strategy. Results: There was a consistent cross-sectional association between the imaging measures and impaired cognitive function across all cohorts. All baseline measures predicted dementia conversion in severe SVD. In mild SVD, PC1, PSMD and Geff predicted dementia conversion. In MCI, all markers except Geff predicted dementia conversion. Baseline DTI was significantly different in patients converting to vascular dementia than to Alzheimer’ s disease. Significant change in all measures was associated with dementia conversion in severe but not in mild SVD. The automatic and semi-automatic measures PSMD and DSEG θ required the lowest minimum sample sizes for a hypothetical clinical trial in single-centre sporadic SVD cohorts. Conclusion: DTI parameters obtained from all analysis methods predicted dementia, and there was no clear winner amongst the different analysis strategies. The fully automated analysis provided by PSMD offers advantages particularly for large datasets.

Abstract Background Frailty is the loss of ability to withstand a physiological stressor and is associated with multiple adverse outcomes in older people. Trials to prevent or ameliorate frailty are in their infancy. A range of different outcome measures have been proposed, but current measures require either large sample sizes, long follow-up, or do not directly measure the construct of frailty. Methods We propose a composite outcome for frailty prevention trials, comprising progression to the frail state, death, or being too unwell to continue in a trial. To determine likely event rates, we used data from the English Longitudinal Study for Ageing, collected 4 years apart. We calculated transition rates between non-frail, prefrail, frail or loss to follow up due to death or illness. We used Markov state transition models to interpolate one- and two-year transition rates and performed sample size calculations for a range of differences in transition rates using simple and composite outcomes. Results The frailty category was calculable for 4650 individuals at baseline (2226 non-frail, 1907 prefrail, 517 frail); at follow up, 1282 were non-frail, 1108 were prefrail, 318 were frail and 1936 had dropped out or were unable to complete all tests for frailty. Transition probabilities for those prefrail at baseline, measured at wave 4 were respectively 0.176, 0.286, 0.096 and 0.442 to non-frail, prefrail, frail and dead/dropped out. Interpolated transition probabilities were 0.159, 0.494, 0.113 and 0.234 at two years, and 0.108, 0.688, 0.087 and 0.117 at one year. Required sample sizes for a two-year outcome in a two-arm trial were between 1040 and 7242 for transition from prefrailty to frailty alone, 246 to 1630 for transition to the composite measure, and 76 to 354 using the composite measure with an ordinal logistic regression approach. Conclusion Use of a composite outcome for frailty trials offers reduced sample sizes and could ameliorate the effect of high loss to follow up inherent in such trials due to death and illness.

Background: The Systemic Therapy for At Risk Teens (START) trial is a randomised controlled trial of multisystemic therapy (MST) compared with management as usual (MAU). The present study reports on long-term follow-up of the trial (to 60 months). Objectives: The primary objective was to compare MST and MAU for the proportion of young people in each group with criminal convictions up to 60 months post baseline. Secondary outcomes included group comparisons of psychological and behavioural factors. An economic analysis was carried out to determine the cost-effectiveness of MST compared with MAU. Two qualitative studies were conducted to better understand the subjective experiences of the participants. Design: Primary outcomes (collected up to 60 months) were collected using a centralised police database. Secondary outcomes were evaluated using self-report questionnaires completed by both young people and parents or carers at the 24-, 36- and 48-month follow-ups. Research assistants were blind to treatment allocation. Setting: Participants were recruited from participating MST sites in nine areas of England. Secondary outcomes were typically collected within the family home. Participants: A total of 684 families were recruited into the START trial and allocated randomly to a treatment group. Of these, 487 remained in the second phase of the trial. Young people were aged, on average, 13.8 years at baseline, with 63% male and 37% female. Interventions: MST is a manualised programme for young people exhibiting antisocial behaviour and their families that uses principles from cognitive–behavioural and family therapy to provide an individualised approach. MAU content was not prespecified, but consisted of the standard care offered to young people who met eligibility for the trial. Main outcome measures: Young people’s offending was evaluated using the Police National Computer. Secondary measures included validated self-report measures completed by both the young person and their parent or carer. The economic evaluation took a broad perspective and outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years and offending. Results: No significant differences were found in the proportion of offending between the groups (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.26; p = 0.78). No differences were found between the groups on secondary outcome measures, with a few exceptions that did not hold up consistently across the follow-up period. The economic analysis did not find evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of MST compared with MAU. Outcomes from the qualitative studies suggest that families mostly felt positive about MST, and that MST was associated with greater maturity in young men. Limitations: Some intended evaluations were not possible to deliver. Selective attrition may have influenced the nature of the sample size. It is also unclear how representative the MAU services were of reality. Future research: Recommendations are made for the evaluation of MST in populations with more severe behavioural problems, as well as for identifying and testing new moderators. Conclusions: The results of the second phase of the START trial do not support the long-term superiority of MST to MAU, but elements of the intervention may be adapted successfully. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77132214 and London South-East REC registration number 09/H1102/55. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Introduction Diabetes affects more than 425 million people worldwide with a lifetime risk of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) of up to 25%. Management includes wound debridement, wound dressings, offloading, treatment of infection and ischaemia, optimising glycaemic control; use of advanced adjuvant therapies is limited by high cost and lack of robust evidence.Methods and analysis A multicentre, seamless phase II/III, open, parallel group, multi-arm multi-stage randomised controlled trial in patients with a hard-to-heal DFU, with blinded outcome assessment. A maximum of 447 participants will be randomised (245 participants in phase II and 202 participants in phase III). The phase II primary objective will determine the efficacy of treatment strategies including hydrosurgical debridement ± decellularised dermal allograft, or the combination with negative pressure wound therapy, as an adjunct to treatment as usual (TAU), compared with TAU alone, with patients randomised in a 1:1:1:2 allocation. The outcome is achieving at least 50% reduction in index ulcer area at 4 weeks post randomisation.The phase III primary objective will determine whether one treatment strategy, continued from phase II, reduces time to healing of the index ulcer compared with TAU alone, with participants randomised in a 1:1 allocation. Secondary objectives will compare healing status of the index ulcer, infection rate, reulceration, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and incidence of adverse events over 52 weeks post randomisation. Phase II and phase III primary endpoint analysis will be conducted using a mixed-effects logistic regression model and Cox proportional hazards regression, respectively. A within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken; the primary economic analysis will be a cost-utility analysis presenting ICERs for each treatment strategy in rank order of effectiveness, with effects expressed as quality-adjusted life years.The trial has predefined progression criteria for the selection of one treatment strategy into phase III based on efficacy, safety and costs at 4 weeks.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been granted by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee; approved 26 April 2017; (REC reference: 17/YH/0055). There is planned publication of a monograph in National Institute for Health Research journals and main trial results and associated papers in high-impact peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number ISRCTN64926597; registered on 6 June 2017

Abstract Background Adequate reporting of adaptive designs (ADs) maximises their potential benefits in the conduct of clinical trials. Transparent reporting can help address some obstacles and concerns relating to the use of ADs. Currently, there are deficiencies in the reporting of AD trials. To overcome this, we have developed a consensus-driven extension to the CONSORT statement for randomised trials using an AD. This paper describes the processes and methods used to develop this extension rather than detailed explanation of the guideline. Methods We developed the guideline in seven overlapping stages:1)Building on prior research to inform the need for a guideline;2)A scoping literature review to inform future stages;3)Drafting the first checklist version involving an External Expert Panel;4)A two-round Delphi process involving international, multidisciplinary, and cross-sector key stakeholders;5)A consensus meeting to advise which reporting items to retain through voting, and to discuss the structure of what to include in the supporting explanation and elaboration (E&E) document;6)Refining and finalising the checklist; and7)Writing-up and dissemination of the E&E document. The CONSORT Executive Group oversaw the entire development process. Results Delphi survey response rates were 94/143 (66%), 114/156 (73%), and 79/143 (55%) in rounds 1, 2, and across both rounds, respectively. Twenty-seven delegates from Europe, the USA, and Asia attended the consensus meeting. The main checklist has seven new and nine modified items and six unchanged items with expanded E&E text to clarify further considerations for ADs. The abstract checklist has one new and one modified item together with an unchanged item with expanded E&E text. The E&E document will describe the scope of the guideline, the definition of an AD, and some types of ADs and trial adaptations and explain each reporting item in detail including case studies. Conclusions We hope that making the development processes, methods, and all supporting information that aided decision-making transparent will enhance the acceptability and quick uptake of the guideline. This will also help other groups when developing similar CONSORT extensions. The guideline is applicable to all randomised trials with an AD and contains minimum reporting requirements.

Abstract Background Youth in general and college life in particular are characterized by new educational, vocational, and interpersonal challenges, opportunities, and substantial stress. It is estimated that 30–50% of university students meet criteria for some mental disorder, especially depression, in any given year. The university has traditionally provided many channels to promote students’ mental health, but until now only a minority have sought such help, possibly owing to lack of time and/or to stigma related to mental illness. Smartphone-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) shows promise for its accessibility and effectiveness. However, its most effective components and for whom it is more (or less) effective are not known. Methods/design Based on the multiphase optimization strategy framework, this study is a parallel-group, multicenter, open, fully factorial trial examining five smartphone-delivered CBT components (self-monitoring, cognitive restructuring, behavioral activation, assertion training, and problem solving) among university students with elevated distress, defined as scoring 5 or more on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). The primary outcome is change in PHQ-9 scores from baseline to week 8. We will estimate specific efficacy of the five components and their interactions through the mixed-effects repeated-measures analysis and propose the most effective and efficacious combinations of components. Effect modification by selected baseline characteristics will be examined in exploratory analyses. Discussion The highly efficient experimental design will allow identification of the most effective components and the most efficient combinations thereof among the five components of smartphone CBT for university students. Pragmatically, the findings will help make the most efficacious CBT package accessible to a large number of distressed university students at reduced cost; theoretically, they will shed light on the underlying mechanisms of CBT and help further advance CBT for depression. Trial registration UMIN, CTR-000031307. Registered on February 14, 2018.

Background: Iron deficiency and its associated anaemia (IDA) are the leading forms of micronutrient malnutrition worldwide. Here we describe the rationale and design of the first clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of an innovative nano iron supplement, iron hydroxide adipate tartrate (IHAT), for the treatment of IDA in young children (IHAT-GUT trial). Oral iron is often ineffective due to poor absorption and/or gastrointestinal adverse effects. IHAT is novel since it is effectively absorbed whilst remaining nanoparticulate in the gut, therefore should enable supplementation with fewer symptoms. Methods: IHAT-GUT is a three-arm, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial conducted in Gambian children 6-35 months of age. The intervention consists of a 12-week supplementation with either IHAT, ferrous sulphate (both at doses bioequivalent to 12.5 mg Fe/day) or placebo. The trial aims to include 705 children with IDA who will be randomly assigned (1:1:1) to each arm. The primary objectives are to test non-inferiority of IHAT in relation to ferrous sulphate at treating IDA, and to test superiority of IHAT in relation to ferrous sulphate and non-inferiority in relation to placebo in terms of diarrhoea incidence and prevalence. Secondary objectives are mechanistic assessments, to test whether IHAT reduces the burden of enteric pathogens, morbidity, and intestinal inflammation, and that it does not cause detrimental changes to the gut microbiome, particularly in relation to Lactobacillaceae, Bifidobacteriaceae and Enterobacteriaceae. Discussion: This trial will test the hypothesis that supplementation with IHAT eliminates iron deficiency and improves haemoglobin levels without inducing gastrointestinal adverse effects. If shown to be the case, this would open the possibility for further testing and use of IHAT as a novel iron source for micronutrient intervention strategies in resource-poor countries, with the ultimate aim to help reduce the IDA global burden. Registration: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02941081).

A group-sequential clinical trial design is one in which interim analyses of the data are conducted after groups of patients are recruited. After each interim analysis, the trial may stop early if the evidence so far shows the new treatment is particularly effective or ineffective. Such designs are ethical and cost-effective, and so are of great interest in practice. An optimal group-sequential design is one which controls the type-I error rate and power at a specified level, but minimizes the expected sample size of the trial when the true treatment effect is equal to some specified value. Searching for an optimal group- sequential design is a significant computational challenge because of the high number of parameters. In this paper the R package OptGS is described. Package OptGS searches for near-optimal and balanced (i.e., one which balances more than one optimality criterion) group-sequential designs for randomized controlled trials with normally distributed outcomes. Package OptGS uses a two-parameter family of functions to determine the stopping boundaries, which improves the speed of the search process whilst still allow- ing flexibility in the possible shape of stopping boundaries. The resulting package allows optimal designs to be found in a matter of seconds much faster than a previous approach.

Background: People with an intellectual (learning) disability (ID) and epilepsy have an increased seizure frequency, higher frequencies of multiple antiepileptic drug (AED) use and side effects, higher treatment costs, higher mortality rates and more behavioural problems than the rest of the population with epilepsy. The introduction of nurse-led care may lead to improvements in outcome for those with an ID and epilepsy; however, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial. Objective: To determine whether or not ID nurses, using a competency framework developed to optimise nurse management of epilepsy in people with an ID, can cost-effectively improve clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in the management of epilepsy compared with treatment as usual. Design: Cluster-randomised two-arm trial. Setting: Community-based secondary care delivered by members of community ID teams. Participants: Participants were adults aged 18–65 years with an ID and epilepsy under the care of a community ID team and had had at least one seizure in the 6 months before the trial. Interventions: The experimental intervention was the Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework. This provides guidelines describing a structure and goals to support the delivery of epilepsy care and management by ID-trained nurses. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the seizure severity scale from the Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life questionnaire. Measures of mood, behaviour, AED side effects and carer strain were also collected. A cost–utility analysis was undertaken along with a qualitative examination of carers’ views of participants’ epilepsy management. Results: In total, 312 individuals were recruited into the study from 17 research clusters. Using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for baseline individual-level and cluster-level variables there was no significant difference in seizure severity score between the two arms. Altogether, 238 complete cases were included in the non-imputed primary analysis. Analyses of the secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences between arms. A planned subgroup analysis identified a significant interaction between treatment arm and level of ID. There was a suggestion in those with mild to moderate ID that the competency framework may be associated with a small reduction in concerns over seizure severity (standard error 2.005, 95% confidence interval –0.554 to 7.307; p = 0.092). However, neither subgroup showed a significant intervention effect individually. Family members’ perceptions of nurses’ management depended on the professional status of the nurses, regardless of trial arm. Economic analysis suggested that the competency framework intervention was likely to be cost-effective, primarily because of a reduction in the costs of supporting participants compared with treatment as usual. Limitations: The intervention could not be delivered blinded. Treatment as usual varied widely between the research sites. Conclusions: Overall, for adults with an ID and epilepsy, the framework conferred no clinical benefit compared with usual treatment. The economic analysis suggested that there may be a role for the framework in enhancing the cost-effectiveness of support for people with epilepsy and an ID. Future research could explore the specific value of the competency framework for those with a mild to moderate ID and the potential for greater long-term benefits arising from the continuing professional development element of the framework. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96895428. Funding: This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.