Allowance for learning and clustering effects in the design and analysis of multicentre randomised trials: current practice and experiences

Meeting abstract from the 5th International Clinical Trials Methodology Conference (ICTMC 2019

National survey of feasibility of NIV trials for management of children with bronchiolitis.

Background: Bronchiolitis is a major cause of admission to hospital in children. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) support with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen is routinely used for infants in the UK with bronchiolitis. Objective: To establish UK paediatric practice regarding management of bronchiolitis, and to explore issues pertinent to the design of a potential future randomised controlled trial of NIV. Design: Screening logs were completed in hospitals in England capturing information on paediatric bronchiolitis admissions. An online national survey of clinical practice was disseminated to healthcare professionals (HCPs) across the UK to ascertain current management strategies. Results: Screening logs captured data on 393 infants from 8 hospitals. Reasons for admission were most commonly respiratory distress and/or poor fluid intake. Oxygen was administered for 54% of admissions. Respiratory (CPAP and HFNC) and non-respiratory support administered varied considerably. The national survey was completed by 111 HCPs from 76 hospitals. Data were obtained on criteria used to commence and wean NIV, responsibilities for altering NIV settings, minimum training requirements for staff managing a child on NIV, and numbers of trained staff. Most centres were interested in and capable of running a trial of NIV, even out of normal office hours. Conclusions: Respiratory and non-respiratory management of bronchiolitis in UK centres varies widely. A trial of HFNC oxygen therapy in this group of patients is feasible and HCPs would be willing to randomise patients into such a trial. Future work should focus on defining trial eligibility criteria

Methodological challenges in online trials: an update and insights from the REACT trial

There has been a growth in the number of web-based trials of web-based interventions, adding to an increasing evidence base for their feasibility and effectiveness. However, there are challenges associated with such trials, which researchers must address. This discussion paper follows the structure of the Down Your Drink trial methodology paper, providing an update from the literature for each key trial parameter (recruitment, registration eligibility checks, consent and participant withdrawal, randomization, engagement with a web-based intervention, retention, data quality and analysis, spamming, cybersquatting, patient and public involvement, and risk management and adverse events), along with our own recommendations based on designing the Relatives Education and Coping Toolkit randomized controlled trial for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder. The key recommendations outlined here are relevant for future web-based and hybrid trials and studies using iterative development and test models such as the Accelerated Creation-to-Sustainment model, both within general health research and specifically within mental health research for relatives. Researchers should continue to share lessons learned from conducting web-based trials of web-based interventions to benefit future studies

Predictors of myocardial fibrosis and response to anti-fibrotic therapy in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

AbstractMyocardial fibrosis, measured using magnetic resonance extracellular volume (ECV), associates with adverse outcome in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In the PIROUETTE (The Pirfenidone in Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction) trial, the novel anti-fibrotic agent pirfenidone reduced myocardial fibrosis. We sought to identify baseline characteristics that associate with myocardial fibrotic burden, the change in myocardial fibrosis over a year, and predict response to pirfenidone in patients with HFpEF. Amongst patients enrolled in the PIROUETTE trial (n = 107), linear regression models were used to assess the relationship between baseline variables and baseline myocardial ECV, with change in myocardial ECV adjusting for treatment allocation, and to identify variables that modified the pirfenidone treatment effect. Body mass index, left atrial reservoir strain, haemoglobin and aortic distensibility were associated with baseline ECV in stepwise modelling, and systolic blood pressure, and log N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide were associated with baseline ECV in clinically-guided modelling. QRS duration, left ventricular mass and presence of an infarct at baseline were associated with an increase in ECV from baseline to week 52. Whilst QRS duration, presence of an infarct, global longitudinal strain and left atrial strain modified the treatment effect of pirfenidone when considered individually, no variable modified treatment effect on multivariable modelling. Baseline characteristics were identified that associate with myocardial fibrosis and predict change in myocardial fibrosis. No variables that independently modify the treatment effect of pirfenidone were identified (PIROUETTE, NCT02932566).</jats:p

Which outcomes should be used in future bronchiolitis trials? Developing a bronchiolitis core outcome set using a systematic review, Delphi survey and a consensus workshop

Objectives The objective of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future clinical trials in bronchiolitis. We wanted to find out which outcomes are important to healthcare professionals (HCPs) and to parents and which outcomes should be prioritised for use in future clinical trials. Design and setting The study used a systematic review, workshops and interviews, a Delphi survey and a final consensus workshop. Results Thirteen parents and 45 HCPs took part in 5 workshops; 15 other parents were also separately interviewed. Fifty-six items were identified from the systematic review, workshops and interviews. Rounds one and two of the Delphi survey involved 299 and 194 participants, respectively. Sixteen outcomes met the criteria for inclusion within the COS. The consensus meeting was attended by 10 participants, with representation from all three stakeholder groups. Nine outcomes were added, totalling 25 outcomes to be included in the COS. Conclusion We have developed the first parent and HCP consensus on a COS for bronchiolitis in a hospital setting. The use of this COS will ensure outcomes in future bronchiolitis trials are important and relevant, and will enable the trial results to be compared and combined

Which outcomes should be used in future bronchiolitis trials? Developing a bronchiolitis core outcome set using a systematic review, Delphi survey and a consensus workshop

Objectives The objective of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future clinical trials in bronchiolitis. We wanted to find out which outcomes are important to healthcare professionals (HCPs) and to parents and which outcomes should be prioritised for use in future clinical trials.Design and setting The study used a systematic review, workshops and interviews, a Delphi survey and a final consensus workshop.Results Thirteen parents and 45 HCPs took part in 5 workshops; 15 other parents were also separately interviewed. Fifty-six items were identified from the systematic review, workshops and interviews. Rounds one and two of the Delphi survey involved 299 and 194 participants, respectively. Sixteen outcomes met the criteria for inclusion within the COS. The consensus meeting was attended by 10 participants, with representation from all three stakeholder groups. Nine outcomes were added, totalling 25 outcomes to be included in the COS.Conclusion We have developed the first parent and HCP consensus on a COS for bronchiolitis in a hospital setting. The use of this COS will ensure outcomes in future bronchiolitis trials are important and relevant, and will enable the trial results to be compared and combined

The Problem Management Plus psychosocial intervention for distressed and functionally impaired asylum seekers and refugees: the PROSPER feasibility RCT

Background The prevalence of psychological morbidity among asylum seekers and refugees is high, but these groups encounter extensive barriers to accessing health and social care. The aim of the PROSPER study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial in the UK of Problem Management Plus (PM+), an evidence-based psychosocial intervention delivered by lay therapists for distressed and functionally impaired asylum seekers and refugees. Design We undertook a feasibility study of PM+, which included a pilot study of the design features of a future definitive randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. The feasibility study involved the adaptation of PM+ based on evidence drawn from literature synthesis and local stakeholder engagement, and a two-stage training procedure for lay therapists. These were followed by a pilot trial designed to assess the feasibility of conducting a three-arm randomised controlled trial of five 90-minute sessions of PM+, delivered individually or in groups, with 105 participants randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to individual PM+, group PM+ or a control intervention. Primary health outcomes were anxiety and depressive symptoms at 3 months; other outcomes included post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, quality of life, progress with identified goals and service use. Findings We demonstrated that the form and content of PM+ could be adapted to meet the needs of asylum seekers and refugees. Twelve people with lived experience of the asylum process were successfully trained as lay therapists to deliver this targeted, low-intensity psychosocial intervention in local asylum seeker and refugee communities. The pilot trial was affected by governance issues. It began in December 2019 and was cut short by the COVID-19 pandemic. We were not able to complete recruitment and follow-up as planned; 11 out of 105 (10%) participants were recruited to the pilot trial (individual PM+, n = 4; group PM+, n = 3; control, n = 4); 8 out of 11 participants were followed up at 13 weeks and 7 out of 11 participants were followed up at 26 weeks. (Preliminary data were gathered on recruitment and retention, intervention fidelity and acceptability of study measures, including service use measures.) Limitations Protracted delays due to governance issues, followed by the COVID-19 pandemic, meant that we were unable to complete the pilot trial or to provide evidence regarding the feasibility of group PM+. The complexities of working with multiple languages and cultural groups were noted. There were mixed views on how successful PM+ might prove, and we had insufficient evidence to provide clear conclusions. Future work Future research could explore how technology can be used to improve the acceptability, feasibility, efficacy and potential cost-effectiveness of scalable mental health interventions and well-being support for distressed asylum seekers and refugees. The use of mobile phone and/or app-based forms of support may help to increase asylum seekers’ and refugees’ willingness to engage in research of this type. Conclusions Although it was not possible to specify the parameters for a full randomised controlled trial of PM+ for asylum seekers and refugees in the UK, our findings offer guidance on strategies that may be of value in future studies of this nature. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN15214107. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

A web-based, peer-supported self-management intervention to reduce distress in relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder:the REACT RCT

BACKGROUND: Relatives caring for people with severe mental health problems find information and emotional support hard to access. Online support for self-management offers a potential solution. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an online supported self-management tool for relatives: the Relatives' Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT). DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a primarily online (UK), single-blind, randomised controlled trial, comparing REACT plus a resource directory and treatment as usual with the resource directory and treatment as usual only, by measuring user distress and other well-being measures at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 800 relatives of people with severe mental health problems across the UK took part; relatives who were aged ≥ 16 years, were experiencing high levels of distress, had access to the internet and were actively seeking help were recruited. INTERVENTION: REACT comprised 12 psychoeducation modules, peer support through a group forum, confidential messaging and a comprehensive resource directory of national support. Trained relatives moderated the forum and responded to messages. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome was the level of participants' distress, as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-28 items. RESULTS: Various online and offline strategies, including social media, directed potential participants to the website. Participants were randomised to one of two arms: REACT plus the resource directory (n = 399) or the resource directory only (n = 401). Retention at 24 weeks was 75% (REACT arm, n = 292; resource directory-only arm, n = 307). The mean scores for the General Health Questionnaire-28 items reduced substantially across both arms over 24 weeks, from 40.2 (standard deviation 14.3) to 30.5 (standard deviation 15.6), with no significant difference between arms (mean difference -1.39, 95% confidence interval -3.60 to 0.83; p = 0.22). At 12 weeks, the General Health Questionnaire-28 items scores were lower in the REACT arm than in the resource directory-only arm (-2.08, 95% confidence interval -4.14 to -0.03; p = 0.027), but this finding is likely to be of limited clinical significance. Accounting for missing data, which were associated with higher distress in the REACT arm (0.33, 95% confidence interval -0.27 to 0.93; p = 0.279), in a longitudinal model, there was no significant difference between arms over 24 weeks (-0.56, 95% confidence interval -2.34 to 1.22; p = 0.51). REACT cost £142.95 per participant to design and deliver (£62.27 for delivery only), compared with £0.84 for the resource directory only. A health economic analysis of NHS, health and Personal Social Services outcomes found that REACT has higher costs (£286.77), slightly better General Health Questionnaire-28 items scores (incremental General Health Questionnaire-28 items score adjusted for baseline, age and gender: -1.152, 95% confidence interval -3.370 to 1.065) and slightly lower quality-adjusted life-year gains than the resource directory only; none of these differences was statistically significant. The median time spent online was 50.8 minutes (interquartile range 12.4-172.1 minutes) for REACT, with no significant association with outcome. Participants reported finding REACT a safe, confidential environment (96%) and reported feeling supported by the forum (89%) and the REACT supporters (86%). No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: The sample comprised predominantly white British females, 25% of participants were lost to follow-up and dropout in the REACT arm was not random. CONCLUSIONS: An online self-management support toolkit with a moderated group forum is acceptable to relatives and, compared with face-to-face programmes, offers inexpensive, safe delivery of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended support to engage relatives as peers in care delivery. However, currently, REACT plus the resource directory is no more effective at reducing relatives' distress than the resource directory only. FUTURE WORK: Further research in improving the effectiveness of online carer support interventions is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72019945. 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. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Relatives of people with severe mental health problems need better access to information and emotional support. The Relatives’ Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) is a website designed to do this. It includes lots of information presented in text and video, an online forum for relatives to share knowledge and experience, a messaging system where they can ask questions in confidence and a comprehensive directory of contact details for national organisations offering relevant support. Trained relatives support the forum and messaging. In the UK, we recruited 800 relatives of people with severe mental health problems: all were aged ≥ 16 years, had high levels of distress, had access to the internet and wanted help. We divided them into two equal groups: one group received REACT (including the resource directory), whereas the other group received the resource directory only. To ensure that there were no differences between groups at the start, relatives were allocated to the two groups randomly, so they had an equal chance of being in either group. We followed up with both groups at 12 and 24 weeks, and received data from approximately three-quarters of the participants. This trial found that REACT was acceptable, safe and inexpensive to deliver (£62.27 per relative), compared with face-to-face interventions, and that relatives using it felt well supported. However, once we accounted for missing data (relatives who dropped out of the trial or did not complete the follow-up questionnaires), there were no significant differences between the groups. There was no evidence that REACT increased relatives’ quality of life or saved money for the NHS