Protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled stand-alone feasibility trial to assess potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital hearing aids in patients with tinnitus and hearing loss (the HUSH trial)

Background: The most common management strategy for tinnitus provided in UK audiology clinics is education and advice. This may also be combined with some form of sound therapy (e.g. digital hearing aids). While education and advice is generally provided by all clinics, there is a marked variability in provision of hearing aids that depends very much on clinical decisions. A recent Cochrane review concluded a lack of evidence to support or refute hearing aid use as a routine intervention for people with tinnitus and hearing loss. This lack of evidence is reflected in the inconsistency of tinnitus management in the UK. The aim of the HUSH trial is to determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hearing aids for adults with tinnitus and hearing loss. Methods: This is a multicentre randomised controlled feasibility trial. Up to 100 adults, aged 18 and over, presenting to 5 UK audiology clinics with a complaint of tinnitus and measurable hearing loss are being randomised to receive either: i) education and advice (Treatment as usual), or ii) education and advice with digital hearing aids. Feasibility outcomes are being collected around recruitment, retention, patient and healthcare professional acceptability and clinical outcome assessment. Outcomes are being collected via postal questionnaire at 12 weeks post baseline. A nested interview study will supplement clinical and other outcome data, providing a detailed understanding of participants’ and audiologists’ experience of both tinnitus management and the research processes.Discussion: This feasibility trial will help us to (i) determine if it is feasible to conduct a multicentre RCT comparing treatment as usual and treatment as usual plus digital hearing aids, (ii) optimise the design of a future definitive, multicentre RCT, and (iii) inform which outcome(s) is/are relevant for patients. This work presents an important first step in determining the effectiveness of hearing aids as a tinnitus management strategy. Trial registration: ISRCTN1421841

Gentamicin, azithromycin and ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea; the relationship between antibiotic minimum inhibitory concentration and clinical outcome

© Crown copyright 2019. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between MIC and clinical outcome in a randomized controlled trial that compared gentamicin 240 mg plus azithromycin 1 g with ceftriaxone 500 mg plus azithromycin 1 g. MIC analysis was performed on Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates from all participants who were culture positive before they received treatment. METHODS: Viable gonococcal cultures were available from 279 participants, of whom 145 received ceftriaxone/azithromycin and 134 received gentamicin/azithromycin. Four participants (6 isolates) and 14 participants (17 isolates) did not clear infection in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin and gentamicin/azithromycin arms, respectively. MICs were determined by Etest on GC agar base with 1% Vitox. The geometric mean MICs of azithromycin, ceftriaxone and gentamicin were compared using logistic and linear regression according to treatment received and N. gonorrhoeae clearance. RESULTS: As the azithromycin MIC increased, gentamicin/azithromycin treatment was less effective than ceftriaxone/azithromycin at clearing N. gonorrhoeae. There was a higher geometric mean MIC of azithromycin for isolates from participants who had received gentamicin/azithromycin and did not clear infection compared with those who did clear infection [ratio 1.95 (95% CI 1.28-2.97)], but the use of categorical MIC breakpoints did not accurately predict the treatment response. The geometric mean MIC of azithromycin was higher in isolates from the pharynx compared with genital isolates. CONCLUSIONS: We found that categorical resistance to azithromycin or ceftriaxone in vitro, and higher gentamicin MICs in the absence of breakpoints, were poorly predictive of treatment failure

Desmopressin for reversal of Antiplatelet drugs in Stroke due to Haemorrhage (DASH): protocol for a phase II double-blind randomised controlled feasibility trial

IntroductionIntracerebral haemorrhage can be devastating and is a common cause of death and disability worldwide. Pre-intracerebral haemorrhage antiplatelet drug use is associated with a 27% relative increase in one-month case fatality compared to patients not using antithrombotic drugs. We aim to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled testing the safety and efficacy of desmopressin for patients with antiplatelet-associated intracerebral haemorrhage.Methods and AnalysisWe aim to include 50 patients within 24 hours of spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage onset, associated with oral antiplatelet drug(s) use in at least the preceding seven days. Patients will be randomised (1:1) to receive intravenous desmopressin 20μg in 50 mls sodium chloride 0.9% infused over 20 minutes or matching placebo. We will mask participants, relatives and outcome assessors to treatment allocation. Feasibility outcomes include proportion of patients approached being randomised, number of patients receiving allocated treatment, rate of recruitment, and adherence to treatment and follow up. Secondary outcomes include change in intracerebral haemorrhage volume at 24 hours; hyponatraemia at 24 hours, length of hospital stay, discharge destination, early death less than 28 days, death or dependency at day 90, death up to day 90, serious adverse events (including thromboembolic events) up to day 90; disability (Barthel index, day 90), quality of life (EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D], day 90), cognition (telephone mini-mental state examination day 90), and health economic assessment (EQ-5D).Ethics and disseminationThe DASH trial received ethical approval from the East Midlands - Nottingham 2 research ethics committee (18/EM/0184). The DASH trial is funded by NIHR RfPB grant: PB-PG-0816-20011. Trial results will be published in a peer reviewed academic journal and disseminated through academic conferences and through patient stroke support groups. Reporting will be in compliance with CONSORT recommendations

Gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-ToG): a randomised non-inferiority trial

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Background: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection for which ceftriaxone is the current first-line treatment, but antimicrobial resistance is emerging. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone (both combined with azithromycin) for treatment of gonorrhoea. Methods: G-ToG was a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamicin to treatment with ceftriaxone for patients with gonorrhoea. The patients, treating physician, and assessing physician were masked to treatment but the treating nurse was not. The trial took place at 14 sexual health clinics in England. Adults aged 16–70 years were eligible for participation if they had a diagnosis of uncomplicated genital, pharyngeal, or rectal gonorrhoea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single intramuscular dose of either gentamicin 240 mg (gentamicin group) or ceftriaxone 500 mg (ceftriaxone group). All participants also received a single 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by clinic and performed using a secure web-based system. The primary outcome was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all initially infected sites, defined as a negative nucleic acid amplification test 2 weeks post treatment. Primary outcome analyses included only participants who had follow-up data, irrespective of the baseline visit N gonorrhoeae test result. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the risk difference. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN51783227. Findings: Of 1762 patients assessed, we enrolled 720 participants between Oct 7, 2014, and Nov 14, 2016, and randomly assigned 358 to gentamicin and 362 to ceftriaxone. Primary outcome data were available for 306 (85%) of 362 participants allocated to ceftriaxone and 292 (82%) of 358 participants allocated to gentamicin. At 2 weeks after treatment, infection had cleared for 299 (98%) of 306 participants in the ceftriaxone group compared with 267 (91%) of 292 participants in the gentamicin group (adjusted risk difference −6·4%, 95% CI −10·4% to −2·4%). Of the 328 participants who had a genital infection, 151 (98%) of 154 in the ceftriaxone group and 163 (94%) of 174 in the gentamicin group had clearance at follow-up (adjusted risk difference −4·4%, −8·7 to 0). For participants with a pharyngeal infection, a greater proportion receiving ceftriaxone had clearance at follow-up (108 [96%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 82 [80%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference −15·3%, −24·0 to −6·5). Similarly, a greater proportion of participants with rectal infection in the ceftriaxone group had clearance (134 [98%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 107 [90%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference −7·8%, −13·6 to −2·0). Thus, we did not find that a single dose of gentamicin 240 mg was non-inferior to a single dose of ceftriaxone 500 mg for the treatment of gonorrhoea, when both drugs were combined with a 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. The side-effect profiles were similar between groups, although severity of pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin (mean visual analogue pain score 36 of 100 in the gentamicin group vs 21 of 100 in the ceftriaxone group). Interpretation: Gentamicin is not appropriate as first-line treatment for gonorrhoea but remains potentially useful for patients with isolated genital infection, or for patients who are allergic or intolerant to ceftriaxone, or harbour a ceftriaxone-resistant isolate. Further research is required to identify and test new alternatives to ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea. Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research

Ambulance-delivered transdermal glyceryl trinitrate versus sham for ultra-acute stroke: rationale, design and protocol for the Rapid Intervention with Glyceryl trinitrate in Hypertensive stroke Trial-2 (RIGHT-2) trial (ISRCTN26986053)

Rationale: Vascular nitric oxide levels are low in acute stroke and donors such as glyceryl trinitrate have shown promise when administered very early after stroke. Potential mechanisms of action include augmentation of cerebral reperfusion, thrombolysis and thrombectomy, lowering blood pressure, and cytoprotection. Aim: To test the safety and efficacy of four days of transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (5 mg/day) versus sham in patients with ultra-acute presumed stroke who are recruited by paramedics prior to hospital presentation. Sample size estimates: The sample size of 850 patients will allow a shift in the modified Rankin Scale with odds ratio 0.70 (glyceryl trinitrate versus sham, ordinal logistic regression) to be detected with 90% power at 5% significance (two-sided). Design: The Rapid Intervention with Glyceryl trinitrate in Hypertensive stroke Trial-2 (RIGHT-2) is a multicentre UK prospective randomized sham-controlled outcome-blinded parallel-group trial in 850 patients with ultra-acute (4 h of onset) FAST-positive presumed stroke and systolic blood pressure 120 mmHg who present to the ambulance service following a 999 emergency call. Data collection is performed via a secure internet site with real-time data validation. Study outcomes: The primary outcome is the modified Rankin Scale measured centrally by telephone at 90 days and masked to treatment. Secondary outcomes include: blood pressure, impairment, recurrence, dysphagia, neuroimaging markers of the acute lesion including vessel patency, discharge disposition, length of stay, death, cognition, quality of life, and mood. Neuroimaging and serious adverse events are adjudicated blinded to treatment. Discussion: RIGHT-2 has recruited more than 500 participants from seven UK ambulance services. Status: Trial is ongoing. Funding: British Heart Foundation. Registration: ISRCTN26986053

Home interventions and light therapy for treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo Trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Vitiligo is a condition resulting in white patches on the skin. People with vitiligo can suffer from low self-esteem, psychological disturbance and diminished quality of life. Vitiligo is often poorly managed, partly due to lack of high quality evidence to inform clinical care. We describe here a large, independent, randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the comparative effectiveness of potent topical corticosteroid, home-based hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B-light (NB-UVB) or combination of the two, for the management of vitiligo. Methods and Analysis The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial is a multi-centre, three-arm, parallel group, pragmatic, placebo-controlled RCT. 516 adults and children with actively spreading, but limited, vitiligo are randomised (1:1:1) to one of three groups: mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus dummy NB-UVB light, vehicle ointment plus NB-UVB light, or mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus NB-UVB light. Treatment of up to three patches of vitiligo is continued for up to 9 months with clinic visits at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months and four post treatment questionnaires. The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial assesses outcomes included in the vitiligo core outcome set and places emphasis on participants’ views of treatment success. The primary outcome is proportion of participants achieving treatment success (patient-rated Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) for a target patch of vitiligo at 9 months with further independent blinded assessment using digital images of the target lesion before and after treatment. Secondary outcomes include time to onset of treatment response, treatment success by body region, percentage repigmentation, quality of life, time-burden of treatment, maintenance of response, safety, and within-trial cost effectiveness. Ethics and Dissemination Approvals were granted by East Midlands–Derby Research Ethics Committee (14/EM/1173) and the MHRA (EudraCT 2014-003473-42). The trial was registered 8th January 2015 ISRCTN (17160087). Results will be published in full as open access in the NIHR Journal library and elsewhere

Intravaginal lactic acid gel versus oral metronidazole for treating women with recurrent bacterial vaginosis : the VITA randomised controlled trial

Background: Bacterial vaginosis is a common and distressing condition for women. Short-term antibiotic treatment is usually clinically effective, but recurrence is common. We assessed the effectiveness of intravaginal lactic acid gel versus oral metronidazole for treating recurrent bacterial vaginosis. Methods: We undertook an open-label, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in nineteen UK sexual health clinics and a university health centre. Women aged ≥ 16 years, with current bacterial vaginosis symptoms and a preceding history of bacterial vaginosis, were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a web-based minimisation algorithm, to 400 mg twice daily oral metronidazole tablets or 5 ml once daily intravaginal lactic acid gel, for 7 days. Masking of participants was not possible. The primary outcome was participant-reported resolution of symptoms within 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included time to first recurrence of symptoms, number of recurrences and repeat treatments over 6 months and side effects. Results: Five hundred and eighteen participants were randomised before the trial was advised to stop recruiting by the Data Monitoring Committee. Primary outcome data were available for 79% (204/259) allocated to metronidazole and 79% (205/259) allocated to lactic acid gel. Resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms within 2 weeks was reported in 70% (143/204) receiving metronidazole versus 47% (97/205) receiving lactic acid gel (adjusted risk difference -23·2%; 95% confidence interval -32.3 to -14·0%). In those participants who had initial resolution and for whom 6 month data were available, 51 of 72 (71%) women in the metronidazole group and 32 of 46 women (70%) in the lactic acid gel group had recurrence of symptoms, with median times to first recurrence of 92 and 126 days, respectively. Reported side effects were more common following metronidazole than lactic acid gel (nausea 32% vs. 8%; taste changes 18% vs. 1%; diarrhoea 20% vs. 6%, respectively). Conclusions: Metronidazole was more effective than lactic acid gel for short-term resolution of bacterial vaginosis symptoms, but recurrence is common following both treatments. Lactic acid gel was associated with fewer reported side effects. Trial registration: ISRCTN14161293, prospectively registered on 18th September 2017

Investigating the effect of independent blinded digital image assessment on the STOP GAP trial

Background Blinding is the process of keeping treatment assignment hidden and is used to minimise the possibility of bias. Trials at high risk of bias have been shown to report larger treatment effects than low risk studies. In dermatology, one popular method of blinding is to have independent outcome assessors who are unaware of treatment allocation assessing the end point using digital photographs. However, this can be complex, expensive and time-consuming. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of blinded and unblinded outcome assessment on the results of the STOP GAP trial. Methods The STOP GAP trial compared prednisolone to ciclosporin in treating pyoderma gangrenosum. Participants’ lesions were measured at baseline and 6 weeks to calculate the primary outcome, speed of healing. Independent blinded assessors obtained measurements from digital photographs using specialist software. In addition, unblinded treating clinicians estimated lesion area by measuring length and width. The primary outcome was determined using blinded measurements where available, otherwise unblinded measurements were used (method referred to as trial measurements). In this study, agreement between the trial and unblinded measurements was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The STOP GAP primary analysis was repeated using unblinded measurements only. We introduced differential and non-differential error in unblinded measurements and investigated the effect on the STOP GAP primary analysis. Results 86 (80%) of the 108 patients were assessed using digital images. Agreement between trial and unblinded measurements was excellent (ICC=0.92 at baseline; 0.83 at 6 weeks). There was no evidence that the results of the trial primary analysis differed according to how the primary outcome was assessed (p-value for homogeneity = 1.00). Conclusions Blinded digital image assessment in STOP GAP did not meaningfully alter trial conclusions compared with unblinded assessment. However, as the process brought added accuracy and credibility to the trial it was considered worthwhile. These findings question the usefulness of digital image assessment in a trial with an objective outcome and where bias is not expected to be excessive. Further research should investigate if there are alternative, less complex ways of incorporating blinding in clinical trials