Patient acceptability of home monitoring for neovascular age-related macular degeneration reactivation:a qualitative study

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is a chronic, progressive condition and the commonest cause of visual disability in older adults. This study formed part of a diagnostic test accuracy study to quantify the ability of three index home monitoring (HM) tests (one paper-based and two digital tests) to identify reactivation in nAMD. The aim of this qualitative research was to investigate patients’ or participants’ views about acceptability and explore adherence to weekly HM. Semi-structured interviews were held with 78/297 participants (26%), with close family members (n = 11) and with healthcare professionals involved in training participants in HM procedures (n = 9) (n = 98 in total). A directed thematic analytical approach was applied to the data using a deductive and inductive coding framework informed by theories of technology acceptance. Five themes emerged related to: 1. The role of HM; 2. Suitability of procedures and instruments; 3. Experience of HM; 4. Feasibility of HM in usual practice; and 5. Impediments to patient acceptability of HM. Various factors influenced acceptability including a patient’s understanding about the purpose of monitoring. While initial training and ongoing support were regarded as essential for overcoming unfamiliarity with use of digital technology, patients viewed HM as relatively straightforward and non-burdensome. There is a need for further research about how use of performance feedback, level of support and nature of tailoring might facilitate further the implementation of routinely conducted HM. Home monitoring was acceptable to patients and they recognised its potential to reduce clinic visits during non-active treatment phases. Findings have implications for implementation of digital HM in the care of older people with nAMD and other long-term conditions

Adalimumab vs placebo as add-on to Standard Therapy for autoimmune Uveitis: Tolerability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness-a protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ASTUTE trial).

IntroductionAdalimumab is an effective treatment for autoimmune non-infectious uveitis (ANIU), but it is currently only funded for a minority of patients with ANIU in the UK as it is restricted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. Ophthalmologists believe that adalimumab may be effective in a wider range of patients. The Adalimumab vs placebo as add-on to Standard Therapy for autoimmune Uveitis: Tolerability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (ASTUTE) trial will recruit patients with ANIU who do and do not meet funding criteria and will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab versus placebo as an add-on therapy to standard care.Methods and analysisThe ASTUTE trial is a multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, pragmatic randomised controlled trial with a 16-week treatment run-in (TRI). At the end of the TRI, only responders will be randomised (1:1) to 40 mg adalimumab or placebo (both are the study investigational medicinal product) self-administered fortnightly by subcutaneous injection. The target sample size is 174 randomised participants. The primary outcome is time to treatment failure (TF), a composite of signs indicative of active ANIU. Secondary outcomes include individual TF components, retinal morphology, adverse events, health-related quality of life, patient-reported side effects and visual function, best-corrected visual acuity, employment status and resource use. In the event of TF, open-label drug treatment will be restarted as per TRI for 16 weeks, and if a participant responds again, allocation will be switched without unmasking and treatment with investigational medicinal product restarted.Ethics and disseminationThe trial received Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval from South Central - Oxford B REC in June 2020. The findings will be presented at international meetings, by peer-reviewed publications and through patient organisations and newsletters to patients, where available.Trial registrationISRCTN31474800. Registered 14 April 2020

Development of a standardised set of metrics for monitoring site performance in multicentre randomised trials: a Delphi study

BackgroundSite performance is key to the success of large multicentre randomised trials. A standardised set of clear and accessible summaries of site performance could facilitate the timely identification and resolution of potential problems, minimising their impact.The aim of this study was to identify and agree a core set of key performance metrics for managing multicentre randomised trials.MethodsWe used a mixed methods approach to identify potential metrics and to achieve consensus about the final set, adapting methods that are recommended by the COMET Initiative for developing core outcome sets in health care.We used performance metrics identified from our systematic search and focus groups to create an online Delphi survey. We invited respondents to score each metric for inclusion in the final core set, over three survey rounds. Metrics scored as critical by ≥70% and unimportant by 50% of participants voting for inclusion were retained.ResultsRound 1 of the Delphi survey presented 28 performance metrics, and a further six were added in round 2. Of 294 UK-based stakeholders who registered for the Delphi survey, 211 completed all three rounds.At the consensus meeting, 17 metrics were discussed and voted on: 15 metrics were retained following survey round 3, plus two others that were preferred by consensus meeting participants. Consensus was reached on a final core set of eight performance metrics in three domains: (1) recruitment and retention, (2) data quality and (3) protocol compliance. A simple tool for visual reporting of the metrics is available from the Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit website.ConclusionsWe have established a core set of metrics for measuring the performance of sites in multicentre randomised trials. These metrics could improve trial conduct by enabling researchers to identify and address problems before trials are adversely affected. Future work could evaluate the effectiveness of using the metrics and reporting tool