Maximising recruitment to a randomised controlled trial for chronic rhinosinusitis using qualitative research methods: the MACRO conversation study

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the ‘gold standard’ of medical evidence; however, recruitment can be challenging. The MACRO trial is a NIHR-funded RCT for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) addressing the challenge of comparing surgery, antibiotics and placebo. The embedded MACRO conversation study (MCS) used qualitative research techniques pioneered by the University of Bristol QuinteT team to explore recruitment issues during the pilot phase, to maximise recruitment in the main trial. Methods: Setting: Five outpatient Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) departments recruiting for the pilot phase of the MACRO trial (ISRCTN Number: 36962030, prospectively registered 17 October 2018). We conducted a thematic analysis of telephone interviews with 18 recruiters and 19 patients and 61 audio-recordings of recruitment conversations. We reviewed screening and recruitment data and mapped patient pathways at participating sites. We presented preliminary findings to individual site teams. Group discussions enabled further exploration of issues, evolving strategies and potential solutions. Findings were reported back to the funder and used together with recruitment data to justify progression to the main trial. Results: Recruitment in the MACRO pilot trial began slowly but accelerated in time to progress successfully to the main trial. Research nurse involvement was pivotal to successful recruitment. Engaging the wider network of clinical colleagues emerged as an important factor, ensuring the patient pathway through primary and secondary care did not inadvertently affect trial eligibility. The most common reason for patients declining participation was treatment preference. Good patient-clinician relationships engendered trust and supported patient decision-making. Overall, trial involvement appeared clearly presented by recruiters, possibly influenced by pre-trial training. The weakest area of understanding for patients appeared to be trial medications. A clear presentation of medical and surgical treatment options, together with checking patient understanding, had the potential to allay patient concerns. Conclusion: The MACRO conversation study contributed to the learning process of optimising recruitment by helping to identify and address recruitment issues. Although some issues were trial-specific, others have applicability to many clinical trial situations. Using qualitative research techniques to identify/explore barriers and facilitators to recruitment may be valuable during the pilot phase of many RCTs including those with complex designs

Expert panel process to optimise the design of a randomised controlled trial in chronic rhinosinusitis (the MACRO programme).

BACKGROUND: MACRO (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic RhinOsinusitis) is an NIHR-funded programme of work designed to establish best practice for adults with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The 7-year programme comprises three consecutive workstreams, designed to explore NHS care pathways through analysis of primary and secondary data sources, and to undertake a randomised controlled trial to evaluate a longer-term course of macrolide antibiotics and endoscopic sinus surgery for patients with CRS. A number of outstanding elements still required clarification at the funding stage. This paper reports an expert panel review process designed to agree and finalise the MACRO trial design, ensuring relevance to patients and clinicians whilst maximising trial recruitment and retention. METHODS: An expert panel, consisting of the MACRO Programme Management Group, independent advisors, and patient contributors, was convened to review current evidence and the mixed-method data collected as part of the programme, and reach agreement on MACRO trial design. Specifically, agreement was sought for selection of macrolide antibiotic, use of orally administered steroids, inclusion of CRS phenotypes (with/without nasal polyps), and overall trial design. RESULTS: A 12-week course of clarithromycin was agreed as the main trial comparator due to its increasing use as a first- and second-line treatment for patients with CRS, and the perceived need to establish its role in CRS management. Orally administered steroids will be used as a rescue medication during the trial, rather than routinely either pre or post trial randomisation, to limit any potential effects on surgical outcomes and better reflect current UK prescribing habits. Both CRS phenotypes will be included in a single trial to ensure that the MACRO trial is both pragmatic and generalisable to primary care. A modified, three-arm trial design was agreed after intense discussions and further exploratory work. Inclusion criteria were amended to ensure that the patients recruited would be considered eligible for the treatment offered in the trial due to having already received appropriate medical therapy as deemed suitable by their ENT surgeon. A proposed 6-week run-in period prior to randomisation was removed due to the new criteria prior to randomisation. CONCLUSION: The expert panel review process resulted in agreement on key elements and an optimal design for the MACRO trial, considered most likely to be successful in terms of both recruitment potential and ability to establish best management of patients with CRS

Clarithromycin and endoscopic sinus surgery for adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps: study protocol for the MACRO randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common source of ill health; 11% of UK adults reported CRS symptoms in a worldwide population study. Guidelines are conflicting regarding whether antibiotics should be included in primary medical management, reflecting the lack of evidence in systematic reviews. Insufficient evidence to inform the role of surgery contributes to a fivefold variation in UK intervention rates. The objective of this trial is to establish the comparative effectiveness of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) or a prolonged course of antibiotics (clarithromycin) in adult patients with CRS in terms of symptomatic improvement and costs to the National Health Service compared with standard medical care (intranasal medication) at 6 months. METHODS/DESIGN: A three-arm parallel-group trial will be conducted with patients who remain symptomatic after receiving appropriate medical therapy (either in primary or secondary care). They will be randomised to receive: (1) intranasal medication plus ESS, (2) intranasal medication plus clarithromycin (250 mg) or (3) intranasal medication plus a placebo. Intranasal medication (current standard medical care) is defined as a spray or drops of intranasal corticosteroids and saline irrigations. The primary outcome measure is the SNOT-22 questionnaire, which assesses disease-specific health-related quality of life. The study sample size is 600. Principal analyses will be according to the randomised groups irrespective of compliance. The trial will be conducted in at least 16 secondary or tertiary care centres with an internal pilot at six sites for 6 months. DISCUSSION: The potential cardiovascular side effects of macrolide antibiotics have been recently highlighted. The effectiveness of antibiotics will be established through this trial, which may help to reduce unnecessary usage and potential morbidity. If ESS is shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective, the trial may encourage earlier intervention. In contrast, if it is shown to be ineffective, then there should be a significant reduction in surgery rates. The trial results will feed into the other components of the MACRO research programme to establish best practice for the management of adults with CRS and design the ideal patient pathway across primary and secondary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN36962030 . Registered on 17 October 2018

Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer:the PART feasibility RCT

Background Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Objectives To assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture. Design We carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation. Setting Five NHS hospitals in England. Participants Men with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa. Interventions Radical prostatectomy compared with HIFU. Primary outcome measure The randomisation of 80 men. Secondary outcome measures Findings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods. Results Eighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and ‘tips’ documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the return rate of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire pack was 90.5%. Centres with specific long-standing expertise in offering HIFU as a routine NHS treatment option had lower recruitment rates (Basingstoke and Southampton) – with University College Hospital failing to enrol any participants – than centres offering HIFU in the trial context only. Conclusions Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing PA with radical treatments of the prostate is feasible. The QRI provided insights into the complexities of recruiting to this surgical trial and has highlighted a number of key lessons that are likely to be important if the study progresses to a main trial. A full RCT comparing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes between radical treatments and PA is now warranted