Search

Background: There are controversies about the most effective treatment to eradicate first growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P aeruginosa) from the lower airways of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). UK guidelines recommend oral treatment, but some advocate intravenous (IV) treatment. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial comparing two treatment strategies to eradicate P aeruginosa in CF patients. Methods/Principal Findings: Two surveys were conducted. Survey [1] included clinicians who were responsible for the treatment of individuals with CF, to assess their clinical practice, opinions and numbers of potentially eligible patients. Survey [2] included adults and young people aged 13 years or more with CF and parents of children with CF aged less than 13 years, identified at six UK CF centres, who fulfilled eligibility criteria for the proposed clinical trial, to assess their views about the interventions and their willingness to participate in the trial. Generally clinicians treat first or new growth of P aeruginosa with oral antibiotics, but 90% reported that they would consider IV treatment of first isolation of P aeruginosa. 74% of clinicians would consider recruiting their patients and 45% of consumers would consider entry for themselves or their children into a trial comparing oral with intravenous antibiotics. The median rate per annum for first or new growths of P aeruginosa in adults was 3% (range 1% to 9%) and in children was 10% (range 3% to 23%). If the trial was conducted across the UK, with a consent rate of 45%, then the number of eligible patients per annum who would be willing to take part in a study would be approximately 41 adults and 203 children. Conclusions: This work demonstrates the importance of feasibility studies in preparation for multicentre clinical trials. It confirmed the uncertainty amongst clinicians and patients about the clinical question, enabled assessment of the number of potentially eligible patients, the proportion of patients and clinicians prepared to participate and aspects of trial design which might encourage this. It showed that a clinical trial was feasible, but only if patients were recruited from across United Kingdom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To investigate the cost effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate, compared with methotrexate alone, for the management of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Design A cost-utility analysis based on a clinical trial and decision analytic model. Participants Children and adolescents 2 to 18 years of age with persistently active uveitis associated with JIA, despite optimized methotrexate treatment for at least 12 weeks. Methods The SYCAMORE (Randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness, SafetY and Cost effectiveness of Adalimumab in combination with MethOtRExate for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis) trial (identifier, ISRCTN10065623) of methotrexate (up to 25 mg weekly) with or without fortnightly administered adalimumab (20 or 40 mg, according to body weight) provided data on resource use (based on patient self-report and electronic records) and health utilities (from the Health Utilities Index questionnaire). Surgical event rates and long-term outcomes were based on data from a 10-year longitudinal cohort. A Markov model was used to extrapolate the effects of treatment based on visual impairment. Main Outcome Measures Medical costs to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, utility of defined health states, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY. Results Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate resulted in additional costs of £39 316, with a 0.30 QALY gain compared with methotrexate alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £129 025 per QALY gained. The probability of cost effectiveness at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was less than 1%. Based on a threshold analysis, a price reduction of 84% would be necessary for adalimumab to be cost effective. Conclusions Adalimumab is clinically effective in uveitis associated with JIA; however, its cost effectiveness is not demonstrated compared with methotrexate alone in the United Kingdom setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 have caused widespread and catastrophic public health and economic impact, requiring governments to restrict societal activity to reduce the spread of the disease. The role of household transmission in the population spread of SARS-CoV-2, and of host immunity in limiting transmission, is poorly understood. This paper describes a protocol for a prospective observational study of a cohort of households in Liverpool City Region, UK, which addresses the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between household members and how immunological response to the infection changes over time., Methods and Analysis: Households in the Liverpool City Region, in which members have not previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a nucleic acid amplification test, are followed up for an initial period of 12 weeks. Participants are asked to provide weekly self-throat and nasal swabs and record their activity and presence of symptoms. Incidence of infection and household secondary attack rates of COVID-19 are measured. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 will be investigated against a range of demographic and behavioural variables. Blood and faecal samples are collected at several time points to evaluate immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and prevalence and risk factors for faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, respectively., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has received approval from the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee; REC Reference: 20/HRA/2297, IRAS Number: 283 464. Results will be disseminated through scientific conferences and peer-reviewed open access publications. A report of the findings will also be shared with participants. The study will quantify the scale and determinants of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, immunological responses before and during the different stages of infection will be analysed, adding to the understanding of the range of immunological response by infection severity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MW is funded under a grant from Astra Zeneca and University of Liverpool for an unrelated project., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: In the UK, juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common inflammatory disorder in childhood, affecting 10 : 100,000 children and young people aged < 16 years each year, with a population prevalence of around 1 : 1000. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis; however, there is currently a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used with various disease subtypes and severities of juvenile idiopathic arthritis., Objective: The main study objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis., Design: This was a mixed-methods study. Work packages included a literature review; qualitative interviews with children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their families; a questionnaire survey and screening log to establish current UK practice; a consensus meeting with health-care professionals, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and their families to establish the primary outcome; a feasibility study to pilot data capture and to collect data for future sample size calculations; and a final consensus meeting to establish the final protocol., Setting: The setting was rheumatology clinics across the UK., Participants: Children, young people and their families who attended clinics and health-care professionals took part in this mixed-methods study., Interventions: This study observed methods of prescribing corticosteroids across the UK., Main Outcome Measures: The main study outcomes were the acceptability of a future trial for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals, and the feasibility of delivering such a trial., Results: Qualitative interviews identified differences in the views of children, young people and their families on a randomised controlled trial and potential barriers to recruitment. A total of 297 participants were screened from 13 centres in just less than 6 months. In practice, all routes of corticosteroid administration were used, and in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection was the most common treatment. The questionnaire surveys showed the varying clinical practice across the UK, but established intra-articular corticosteroids as the treatment control for a future trial. The primary outcome of choice for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals was the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count. However, results from the feasibility study showed that, owing to missing blood test data, the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score should be used. The Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score are composite disease activity scoring systems for juvenile arthritis. Two final trial protocols were established for a future randomised controlled trial., Limitations: Fewer clinics were included in this feasibility study than originally planned, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions about these units to take part in future research., Conclusions: A definitive randomised controlled trial is likely to be feasible based on the findings from this study; however, important recommendations should be taken into account when planning such a trial., Future Work: This mixed-methods study has laid down the foundations to develop the evidence base in this area and conducting a randomised control trial to compare different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is likely to be feasible., Study Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16649996., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Athimalaipet V Ramanan has received speaker fees/honoraria/consulting fees from Abbvie Inc. (North Chicago, IL, USA), Union Chimique Belge (Brussels, Belgium), Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN, USA), Novartis (Basel, Switzerland), Roche Holding AG (Basel, Switzerland) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (New York, NY, USA). Paula R Williamson reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme outside the submitted work and involvement with a clinical trials unit funded by NIHR.

Routinely collected data about health in medical records, registries and hospital activity statistics is now routinely collected in an electronic form. The extent to which such sources of data are now being routinely accessed to deliver efficient clinical trials, is unclear. The aim of this study was to ascertain current practice amongst a United Kingdom (UK) cohort of recently funded and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in relation to sources and use of routinely collected outcome data. Recently funded and ongoing RCTs were identified for inclusion by searching the National Institute for Health Research journals library. Trials that have a protocol available were assessed for inclusion and those that use or plan to use routinely collected health data for at least one outcome were included. Routinely collected data sources and outcome information were extracted. A total of 279 studies were identified with 102 eligible for data extraction. An Electronic Health Record (EHR) was the sole source of outcome data for at least one outcome in 46 trials. The most frequent sources are Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS), with the most common outcome data to be extracted being on mortality, hospital admission, and health service resource use. Our study has found that around half of publicly funded trials in a UK cohort plan to collect outcome data from routinely collected data sources. This is much higher than the figure of 8% found in a cohort of 189 RCTs published since 2000, the majority of were carried out in North America (McCord et al ., 2019)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AJF is Chair of an NIHR HTA Funding Committee. CLG is Director of the Liverpool Clinical Trials Centre which receives NIHR Clinical Trials Unit support funding., (Copyright: © 2020 McKay AJ et al.)

Background: Children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are at risk of uveitis. The role of adalimumab (Humira ® ; AbbVie Inc., Ludwigshafen, Germany) in the management of uveitis in children needs to be determined., Objective: To compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) versus placebo with MTX alone, with regard to controlling disease activity in refractory uveitis associated with JIA., Design: This was a randomised (applying a ratio of 2 : 1 in favour of adalimumab), double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre parallel-group trial with an integrated economic evaluation. A central web-based system used computer-generated tables to allocate treatments. A cost-utility analysis based on visual acuity was conducted and a 10-year extrapolation by Markov modelling was also carried out., Setting: The setting was tertiary care centres throughout the UK., Participants: Patients aged 2-18 years inclusive, with persistently active JIA-associated uveitis (despite optimised MTX treatment for at least 12 weeks)., Interventions: All participants received a stable dose of MTX and either adalimumab (20 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing < 30 kg or 40 mg/0.8 ml for patients weighing ≥ 30 kg by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks based on body weight) or a placebo (0.8 ml as appropriate according to body weight by subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks) for up to 18 months. A follow-up appointment was arranged at 6 months., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome - time to treatment failure [multicomponent score as defined by set criteria based on the Standardisation of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) criteria]. Economic outcome - incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from the perspective of the NHS in England and Personal Social Services providers. Full details of secondary outcomes are provided in the study protocol., Results: A total of 90 participants were randomised (adalimumab, n  = 60; placebo, n  = 30). There were 14 (23%) treatment failures in the adalimumab group and 17 (57%) in the placebo group. The analysis of the data from the double-blind phase of the trial showed that the hazard risk (HR) of treatment failure was significantly reduced, by 75%, for participants in the adalimumab group (HR 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.51; p  < 0.0001 from log-rank test). The cost-effectiveness of adalimumab plus MTX was £129,025 per QALY gained. Adalimumab-treated participants had a much higher incidence of adverse and serious adverse events., Conclusions: Adalimumab in combination with MTX is safe and effective in the management of JIA-associated uveitis. However, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness is < 1% at the £30,000-per-QALY threshold., Future Work: A clinical trial is required to define the most effective time to stop therapy. Prognostic biomarkers of early and complete response should also be identified., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10065623 and European Clinical Trials Database number 2010-021141-41., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This trial was also funded by Arthritis Research UK (grant reference number 19612). Two strengths of adalimumab (20 mg/0.8 ml and 40 mg/0.8 ml) and a matching placebo were manufactured by AbbVie Inc. (the Marketing Authorisation holder) and supplied in bulk to the contracted distributor (Sharp Clinical Services, Crickhowell, UK) for distribution to trial centres., Competing Interests: Athimalaipet V Ramanan reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and Arthritis Research UK during the conduct of the study and others from AbbVie Inc. (Ludwigshafen, Germany) and the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, outside the submitted work. He has received speaker fees from AbbVie Inc. and lectured in symposia, sponsored by AbbVie Inc.. He has also been on an Advisory Board organised by AbbVie Inc. and has been supported by AbbVie Inc. to attend European and American Rheumatology Society meetings. Andrew D Dick reports other from data and revenue sharing outside the submitted work for consultancy work, paid to University of Bristol by AbbVie Inc., Ashley P Jones, Andrew McKay, Anna Rosala-Hallas, Ben Hardwick, Helen Hickey, Naomi Rainford, Graeme Hickey, Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona and Paula R Williamson report grants from the NIHR HTA programme and Arthritis Research UK during the conduct of the study, other from AbbVie Inc. and University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and personal fees from University of Liverpool, outside the submitted work. In addition, Paula R Williamson is the Director of the Clinical Trials Research Centre, which is the Clinical Trials Unit that managed the day-to-day running of this trial. Dyfrig Hughes and Patricia Woo report grants from the NIHR HTA programme and Arthritis Research UK during the conduct of the study and other from AbbVie Inc., outside the submitted work. Giovanna Culeddu and Eifiona Wood report grants from Arthritis Research UK during the conduct of the study. Sandrine Compeyrot-Lacassagne reports grants from the NIHR HTA programme and Arthritis Research UK during the conduct of the study, and grants and others from AbbVie Inc., outside the submitted work. Clive Edelsten reports grants from the NIHR HTA programme and Arthritis Research UK during the conduct of the study, and others and personal fees from AbbVie Inc., outside the submitted work. Michael W Beresford reports grants from the NIHR HTA programme and Arthritis Research UK during the conduct of the study and others from AbbVie Inc. and the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, outside the submitted work.