Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop

Background Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit–risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials. Objectives The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit–risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting. Methods A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019). Results We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit–risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit–risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit–risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit–risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results. Conclusions These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit–risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit–risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made. Limitations This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit–risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop

Background Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit–risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials. Objectives The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit–risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting. Methods A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019). Results We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit–risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit–risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit–risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit–risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results. Conclusions These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit–risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit–risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made. Limitations This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit–risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method. Study registration The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882. Funding Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council–National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme

Planet, Vol. 2, Nos. 3, 5-11, 1982, Queensland Institute of Technology Union magazine

QIT Student Union newspaper "The Planet

Haemorrhoidal artery ligation versus rubber band ligation for the management of symptomatic second-degree and third-degree haemorrhoids (HubBLe): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimum surgical intervention for low-grade haemorrhoids is unknown. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) has been proposed as an efficacious, safe therapy while rubber band ligation (RBL) is a commonly used outpatient treatment. We compared recurrence after HAL versus RBL in patients with grade II-III haemorrhoids. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial included patients from 17 acute UK NHS trusts. We screened patients aged 18 years or older presenting with grade II-III haemorrhoids. We excluded patients who had previously received any haemorrhoid surgery, more than one injection treatment for haemorrhoids, or more than one RBL procedure within 3 years before recruitment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either RBL or HAL with Doppler. Randomisation was computer-generated and stratified by centre with blocks of random sizes. Allocation concealment was achieved using a web-based system. The study was open-label with no masking of participants, clinicians, or research staff. The primary outcome was recurrence at 1 year, derived from the patient's self-reported assessment in combination with resource use from their general practitioner and hospital records. Recurrence was analysed in patients who had undergone one of the interventions and been followed up for at least 1 year. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN41394716. FINDINGS: From Sept 9, 2012, to May 6, 2014, of 969 patients screened, 185 were randomly assigned to the HAL group and 187 to the RBL group. Of these participants, 337 had primary outcome data (176 in the RBL group and 161 in the HAL group). At 1 year post-procedure, 87 (49%) of 176 patients in the RBL group and 48 (30%) of 161 patients in the HAL group had haemorrhoid recurrence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2·23, 95% CI 1·42-3·51; p=0·0005). The main reason for this difference was the number of extra procedures required to achieve improvement (57 [32%] participants in the RBL group and 23 [14%] participants in the HAL group had a subsequent procedure for haemorrhoids). The mean pain 1 day after procedure was 3·4 (SD 2·8) in the RBL group and 4·6 (2·8) in the HAL group (difference -1·2, 95% CI -1·8 to -0·5; p=0·0002); at day 7 the scores were 1·6 (2·3) in the RBL group and 3·1 (2·4) in the HAL group (difference -1·5, -2·0 to -1·0; p<0·0001). Pain scores did not differ between groups at 21 days and 6 weeks. 15 individuals reported serious adverse events requiring hospital admission. One patient in the RBL group had a pre-existing rectal tumour. Of the remaining 14 serious adverse events, 12 (7%) were among participants treated with HAL and two (1%) were in those treated with RBL. Six patients had pain (one treated with RBL, five treated with HAL), three had bleeding not requiring transfusion (one treated with RBL, two treated with HAL), two in the HAL group had urinary retention, two in the HAL group had vasovagal upset, and one in the HAL group had possible sepsis (treated with antibiotics). INTERPRETATION: Although recurrence after HAL was lower than a single RBL, HAL was more painful than RBL. The difference in recurrence was due to the need for repeat bandings in the RBL group. Patients (and health commissioners) might prefer such a course of RBL to the more invasive HAL. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme

What is the purpose of clinical trial monitoring?

Background: The sources of information on clinical trial monitoring do not give information in an accessible language and do not give detailed guidance. In order to enable communication and to build clinical trial monitoring tools on a strong easily communicated foundation, we identified the need to define monitoring in accessible language. Methods: In a three-step process, the material from sources that describe clinical trial monitoring were synthesised into principles of monitoring. A poll regarding their applicability was run at a UK national academic clinical trials monitoring meeting. Results: The process derived 5 key principles of monitoring: keeping participants safe and respecting their rights, having data we can trust, making sure the trial is being run as it was meant to be, improving the way the trial is run and preventing problems before they happen. Conclusion: From the many sources mentioning monitoring of clinical trials, the purpose of monitoring can be summarised simply as 5 principles. These principles, given in accessible language, should form a firm basis for discussion of monitoring of clinical trials

The alleviating specific phobias in children trial : Challenges and solutions to implementing a randomized controlled trial in clinical services

In 2015, The Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT) was commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of multi-session Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for specific phobias in children and young people (CYP) (aged 7–16), with a briefer variant called One Session Treatment (OST). From 2016 to 2020, ASPECT recruited n = 274 CYP with specific phobias and their families from across England, including 26 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) centres, three voluntary sector centers and one University-based wellbeing service. Whilst the trial successfully reached its recruitment target, the challenges experienced in its delivery highlight the difficulties of embedding child and adolescent research into clinical settings and routine practice. Using ASPECT as a case in point, this paper explores these challenges and provides important insights and considerations of potential benefit to others conducting research within the field of child and adolescent mental health

Effective interventions to increase representation of under-served groups in randomised trials in UK and Ireland: a scoping literature review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

Background: Participants in clinical trials often do not reflect the populations that could benefit from the treatments being investigated. There are known barriers to trial participation for under-served groups, but limited evidence on strategies to alleviate these barriers to improve representation. This scoping review aimed to identify effective interventions and design features that improve the representation `of under-served groups in trials, focusing on the UK and Ireland. Methods: We included methodological research studies that reported interventions to improve representation of ethnic minority groups, socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, older people, or those with impaired capacity to consent to randomised controlled trials, conducted in the UK and Ireland, published between 2000–2021. Systematic searches were conducted in November 2021 and data were independently extracted by two authors and narratively synthesised. Results: Seven studies were included: one randomised controlled study embedded in five trials, one mixed-methods study, and five studies reporting ‘lessons learnt’ from one trial. We categorised the 47 reported interventions or strategies into nine broad themes: Recruitment sites, recruitment settings, community engagement, and communication with participants, incentives, inclusion criteria, flexibility, patient documentation, and the consent process. Only 28/47 interventions were evaluated, 23 of which were comparison of recruitment pathways. The randomised study found that a £100 incentive mentioned in the invitation letter increased positive responses overall across drug trials in cardiovascular disease and hypertension, but not for older people or those living in the most deprived areas. Invitation letters via GPs and working with communities were reported as successful recruitment pathways in recruiting different under-served populations. Conclusions: Interventions aiming to improve the recruitment of under-served groups in the UK and Ireland were reported across seven papers, but their effectiveness was rarely rigorously evaluated. Included studies were context specific. Using a variety of recruitment methods is likely to help achieve a more diverse cohort

Locating and building knowledges outside of the academy : approaches to engaged teaching at the University of Sheffield

This article draws on three case studies, which illuminate a number of practical, ethical and intellectual issues that arise from engaged teaching activities within the curriculum. Projects from the disciplines of Architecture, English and Journalism Studies illustrate the possibilities offered by learning and teaching projects which emphasise public facing, co-produced knowledge as central components. It is argued that such approaches enable dynamic forms of learning to emerge, which work to expand the parameters of subject-specific knowledge while enabling the development of citizenship attributes and employability skills amongst students in ways that deepen, rather than dilute, intellectual rigour. The article locates these practical pedagogical reflections within theoretical frameworks offered by those working (largely in North America* on publicly engaged approaches to scholarship and seeks to draw connections with contemporary developments in learning and teaching in the UK. Keywords: civic university; engaged teaching; engaged scholarship; co-productio

Trial Forge Guidance 3: randomised trials and how to recruit and retain individuals from ethnic minority groups- practical guidance to support better practice

Randomised trials, especially those intended to directly inform clinical practice and policy, should be designed to reflect all those who could benefit from the intervention under test should it prove effective. This does not always happen. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) INCLUDE project identified many groups in the UK that are under-served by trials, including ethnic minorities. This guidance document presents four key recommendations for designing and running trials that include the ethnic groups needed by the trial. These are (1) ensure eligibility criteria and recruitment pathway do not limit participation in ways you do not intend, (2) ensure your trial materials are developed with inclusion in mind, (3) ensure staff are culturally competent and (4) build trusting partnerships with community organisations that work with ethnic minority groups. Each recommendation comes with best practice advice, public contributor testimonials, examples of the inclusion problem tackled by the recommendation, or strategies to mitigate the problem, as well as a collection of resources to support implementation of the recommendations. We encourage trial teams to follow the recommendations and, where possible, evaluate the strategies they use to implement them. Finally, while our primary audience is those designing, running and reporting trials, we hope funders, grant reviewers and approvals agencies may also find our guidance useful

Costs and staffing resource requirements for adaptive clinical trials: quantitative and qualitative results from the Costing Adaptive Trials project.

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