Helen Hickey

Influence of surgical resection and post-operative complications on survival following adjuvant treatment for pancreatic cancer in the ESPAC-1 randomized controlled trial.

Background/Aims: The influence of type of surgery and occurrence of post-operative complications on survival following adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer are uncertain. Methods: Cox proportional hazard modelling was used to investigate the influence of type of surgery and the presence of complications on survival in conjunction with clinico-pathological variables in the 550 patients of the ESPAC-1 adjuvant randomized controlled trial. Results: Standard Kausch-Whipple (KW) was performed in 282 (54%) patients, 186 (35%) had a pylorus-preserving (PP) KW, 39 (7%) had a distal pancreatectomy and 21 (4%) had a total pancreatectomy. Post-operative complications were reported in 140 (27%) patients. PP-KW patients survived longer with a median (95% CI) survival of 19.9 (17.3, 23.1) months compared to 14.8 (13.0, 16.7) for KW patients (χ2LR = 15.1, p < 0.001). KW patients were more likely however to have R1 margins (67 (24%) vs. 29 (16%), χ2 = 4.59, p = 0.032), poorly differentiated tumours (70 (26%) vs. 19 (10%), χ2 = 18.65, p < 0.001) and positive lymph nodes (165 (60%) vs. 81 (44%), χ2 = 11.32, p < 0.001). Post-operative complications did not significantly affect survival. Independent prognostic factors were tumour grade, nodal status and tumour size but not type of surgery or post-operative complications. There was a survival benefit for chemotherapy irrespective of the type of surgery or post-operative complications. Conclusions: The KW and PP-KW procedures did not significantly influence the hazard of death in the presence of tumour staging, demonstrating that ESPAC-1 surgeons showed good judgement in their choice of operation. Post-operative complications did not adversely affect the survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Communication about children's clinical trials as observed and experienced: qualitative study of parents and practitioners.

Background Recruiting children to clinical trials is perceived to be challenging. To identify ways to optimise recruitment and its conduct, we compared how parents and practitioners described their experiences of recruitment to clinical trials. Methods and Findings This qualitative study ran alongside four childrens clinical trials in 11 UK research sites. It compared analyses of semi-structured interviews with analyses of audio-recordings of practitioner-family dialogue during trial recruitment discussions. Parents from 59 families were interviewed; 41 had participated in audio-recorded recruitment discussions. 31 practitioners were interviewed. Parents said little in the recruitment discussions contributing a median 16% of the total dialogue and asking a median of one question. Despite this, parents reported a positive experience of the trial approach describing a sense of comfort and safety. Even if they declined or if the discussion took place at a difficult time, parents understood the need to approach them and spoke of the value of research. Some parents viewed participation as an ‘exciting’ opportunity. By contrast, practitioners often worried that approaching families about research burdened families. Some practitioners implied that recruiting to clinical trials was something which they found aversive. Many were also concerned about the amount of information they had to provide and believed this overwhelmed families. Whilst some practitioners thought the trial information leaflets were of little use to families, parents reported that they used and valued the leaflets. However, both parties agreed that the leaflets were too long and wanted them to be more reader-friendly. Conclusions Parents were more positive about being approached to enter their child into a clinical trial than practitioners anticipated. The concerns of some practitioners, that parents would be overburdened, were unfounded. Educating practitioners about how families perceive clinical trials and providing them with ‘moral’ support in approaching families may benefit paediatric research and, ultimately, patients.

The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise

BackgroundResearch into the methods used in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials is essential to ensure that effective methods are available and that clinical decisions made using results from trials are based on the best available evidence, which is reliable and robust.MethodsAn on-line Delphi survey of 48 UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken. During round one, CTU Directors were asked to identify important topics that require methodological research. During round two, their opinion about the level of importance of each topic was recorded, and during round three, they were asked to review the group’s average opinion and revise their previous opinion if appropriate. Direct reminders were sent to maximise the number of responses at each round. Results are summarised using descriptive methods.ResultsForty one (85%) CTU Directors responded to at least one round of the Delphi process: 25 (52%) responded in round one, 32 (67%) responded in round two, 24 (50%) responded in round three. There were only 12 (25%) who responded to all three rounds and 18 (38%) who responded to both rounds two and three. Consensus was achieved amongst CTU Directors that the top three priorities for trials methodological research were ‘Research into methods to boost recruitment in trials’ (considered the highest priority), ‘Methods to minimise attrition’ and ‘Choosing appropriate outcomes to measure’. Fifty other topics were included in the list of priorities and consensus was reached that two topics, ‘Radiotherapy study designs’ and ‘Low carbon trials’, were not priorities.ConclusionsThis priority setting exercise has identified the research topics felt to be most important to the key stakeholder group of Directors of UKCRC registered CTUs. The use of robust methodology to identify these priorities will help ensure that this work informs the trials methodological research agenda, with a focus on topics that will have most impact and relevance.

What parents of children who have received emergency care think about deferring consent in randomised trials of emergency treatments: postal survey.

Objective To investigate parents’ views about deferred consent to inform management of trial disclosure after a child’s death. Methods A postal questionnaire survey was sent to members of the Meningitis Research Foundation UK charity, whose child had suffered from bacterial meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia within the previous 5 years. Main outcome measures were acceptability of deferred consent; timing of requesting consent; and the management of disclosure of the trial after a child’s death. Results 220 families were sent questionnaires of whom 63 (29%) were bereaved. 68 families responded (31%), of whom 19 (28%) were bereaved. The majority (67%) was willing for their child to be involved in the trial without the trial being explained to them beforehand; 70% wanted to be informed about the trial as soon as their child’s condition had stabilised. In the event of a child’s death before the trial could be discussed the majority of bereaved parents (66% 12/18) anticipated wanting to be told about the trial at some time. This compared with 37% (18/49) of non-bereaved families (p = 0.06). Parents’ free text responses indicated that the word ‘trial’ held strongly negative connotations. A few parents regarded gaps in the evidence base about emergency treatments as indicating staff lacked expertise to care for a critically ill child. Bereaved parents’ free text responses indicated the importance of individualised management of disclosure about a trial following a child’s death. Discussion Deferred consent is acceptable to the majority of respondents. Parents whose children had recovered differed in their views compared to bereaved parents. Most bereaved parents would want to be informed about the trial in the aftermath of a child’s death, although a minority strongly opposed such disclosure. Distinction should be drawn between the views of bereaved and non-bereaved parents when considering the acceptability of different consent processes.

Adalimumab plus Methotrexate for Uveitis in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

BACKGROUND Adalimumab, a fully human anti–tumor necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody, is effective in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). We tested the efficacy of adalimumab in the treatment of JIA‐associated uveitis. METHODS In this multicenter, double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of adalimumab in children and adolescents 2 years of age or older who had active JIA‐associated uveitis. Patients who were taking a stable dose of methotrexate were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either adalimumab (at a dose of 20 mg or 40 mg, according to body weight) or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks. Patients continued the trial regimen until treatment failure or until 18 months had elapsed. They were followed for up to 2 years after randomization. The primary end point was the time to treatment failure, defined according to a multicomponent intraocular inflammation score that was based on the Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature criteria. RESULTS The prespecified stopping criteria were met after the enrollment of 90 of 114 patients. We observed 16 treatment failures in 60 patients (27%) in the adalimumab group versus 18 treatment failures in 30 patients (60%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12 to 0.49; P<0.0001 [the prespecified stopping boundary]). Adverse events were reported more frequently in patients receiving adalimumab than in those receiving placebo (10.07 events per patient‐year [95% CI, 9.26 to 10.89] vs. 6.51 events per patient‐year [95% CI, 5.26 to 7.77]), as were serious adverse events (0.29 events per patient‐year [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.43] vs. 0.19 events per patient‐year [95% CI, 0.00 to 0.40]). CONCLUSIONS Adalimumab therapy controlled inflammation and was associated with a lower rate of treatment failure than placebo among children and adolescents with active JIA‐associated uveitis who were taking a stable dose of methotrexate. Patients who received adalimumab had a much higher incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events than those who received placebo. (Funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme and Arthritis Research UK; SYCAMORE EudraCT number, 2010–021141–41.)

The British antibiotic and silver-impregnated catheters for ventriculoperitoneal shunts multi-centre randomised controlled trial (the BASICS trial): study protocol

BackgroundInsertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt (VPS) for the treatment of hydrocephalus is one of the most common neurosurgical procedures in the UK, but failures caused by infection occur in approximately 8% of primary cases. VPS infection is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality and its management results in substantial cost to the health service. Antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and clindamycin) and silver-impregnated VPS have been developed to reduce infection rates. Whilst there is some evidence showing that such devices may lead to a reduction in VPS infection, there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support their routine use.Methods/designOverall, 1,200 patients will be recruited from 17 regional neurosurgical units in the UK and Ireland. Patients of any age undergoing insertion of their first VPS are eligible. Patients with previous indwelling VPS, active and on-going cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or peritoneal infection, multiloculated hydrocephalus requiring multiple VPS or neuroendoscopy, and ventriculoatrial or ventriculopleural shunt planned will be excluded. Patients will be randomised 1:1:1 to either standard silicone (comparator), antibiotic-impregnated, or silver-impregnated VPS. The primary outcome measure is time to VPS infection. Secondary outcome measures include time to VPS failure of any cause, reason for VPS failure (infection, mechanical failure, or patient failure), types of bacterial VPS infection (organism type and antibiotic resistance), and incremental cost per VPS failure averted.DiscussionThe British antibiotic and silver-impregnated catheters for ventriculoperitoneal shunts multi-centre randomised controlled trial (the BASICS trial) is the first multi-centre RCT designed to determine whether antibiotic or silver-impregnated VPS reduce early shunt infection compared to standard silicone VPS. The results of this study will be used to inform current neurosurgical practice and may potentially benefit patients undergoing shunt surgery in the future.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number:ISRCTN49474281.

Doing challenging research studies in a patient-centred way: a qualitative study to inform a randomised controlled trial in the paediatric emergency care setting

Objective To inform the design of a randomised controlled trial (called EcLiPSE) to improve the treatment of children with convulsive status epilepticus (CSE). EcLiPSE requires the use of a controversial deferred consent process. Design Qualitative interview and focus group study. Setting 8 UK support groups for parents of children who have chronic or acute health conditions and experience of paediatric emergency care. Participants 17 parents, of whom 11 participated in telephone interviews (10 mothers, 1 father) and 6 in a focus group (5 mothers, 1 father). 6 parents (35%) were bereaved and 7 (41%) had children who had experienced seizures, including CSE. Results Most parents had not heard of deferred consent, yet they supported its use to enable the progress of emergency care research providing a childs safety was not compromised by the research. Parents were reassured by tailored explanation, which focused their attention on aspects of EcLiPSE that addressed their priorities and concerns. These aspects included the safety of the interventions under investigation and how both EcLiPSE interventions are used in routine clinical practice. Parents made recommendations about the appropriate timing of a recruitment discussion, the need to individualise approaches to recruiting bereaved parents and the use of clear written information. Conclusions Our study provided information to help ensure that a challenging trial was patient centred in its design. We will use our findings to help EcLiPSE practitioners to: discuss potentially threatening trial safety information with parents, use open-ended questions and prompts to identify their priorities and concerns and clarify related aspects of written trial information to assist understanding and decision-making.

A patient and public involvement (PPI) toolkit for meaningful and flexible involvement in clinical trials - a work in progress.

Plain Language SummaryFunders of research are increasingly requiring researchers to involve patients and the public in their research. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research can potentially help researchers make sure that the design of their research is relevant, that it is participant friendly and ethically sound. Using and sharing PPI resources can benefit those involved in undertaking PPI, but existing PPI resources are not used consistently and this can lead to duplication of effort. This paper describes how we are developing a toolkit to support clinical trials teams in a clinical trials unit. The toolkit will provide a key ‘off the shelf’ resource to support trial teams with limited resources, in undertaking PPI. Key activities in further developing and maintaining the toolkit are to:● listen to the views and experience of both research teams and patient and public contributors who use the tools;● modify the tools based on our experience of using them;● identify the need for future tools;● update the toolkit based on any newly identified resources that come to light;● raise awareness of the toolkit and● work in collaboration with others to either develop or test out PPI resources in order to reduce duplication of work in PPI.AbstractBackground Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly a funder requirement due to the potential benefits in the design of relevant, participant friendly, ethically sound research. The use and sharing of resources can benefit PPI, but available resources are not consistently used leading to duplication of effort. This paper describes a developing toolkit to support clinical trials teams to undertake effective and meaningful PPI. Methods The first phase in developing the toolkit was to describe which PPI activities should be considered in the pathway of a clinical trial and at what stage these activities should take place. This pathway was informed through review of the type and timing of PPI activities within trials coordinated by the Clinical Trials Research Centre and previously described areas of potential PPI impact in trials.In the second phase, key websites around PPI and identification of resources opportunistically, e.g. in conversation with other trialists or social media, were used to identify resources. Tools were developed where gaps existed. Results A flowchart was developed describing PPI activities that should be considered in the clinical trial pathway and the point at which these activities should happen. Three toolkit domains were identified: planning PPI; supporting PPI; recording and evaluating PPI. Four main activities and corresponding tools were identified under the planning for PPI: developing a plan; identifying patient and public contributors; allocating appropriate costs; and managing expectations. In supporting PPI, tools were developed to review participant information sheets. These tools, which require a summary of potential trial participant characteristics and circumstances help to clarify requirements and expectations of PPI review. For recording and evaluating PPI, the planned PPI interventions should be monitored in terms of impact, and a tool to monitor public contributor experience is in development. Conclusions This toolkit provides a developing ‘off the shelf’ resource to support trial teams with limited resources in undertaking PPI. Key activities in further developing and maintaining the toolkit are to: listen to the views and experience of both research teams and public contributors using the tools, to identify the need for future tools, to modify tools based on experience of their use; to update the toolkit based on any newly identified resources that come to light; to raise awareness of the toolkit and to work in collaboration with others to both develop and test out PPI resources in order to reduce duplication of work in PPI.

Elicitation of Expert Prior Opinion: Application to the MYPAN Trial in Childhood Polyarteritis Nodosa

Objectives Definitive sample sizes for clinical trials in rare diseases are usually infeasible. Bayesian methodology can be used to maximise what is learnt from clinical trials in these circumstances. We elicited expert prior opinion for a future Bayesian randomised controlled trial for a rare inflammatory paediatric disease, polyarteritis nodosa (MYPAN, Mycophenolate mofetil for polyarteritis nodosa). Methods A Bayesian prior elicitation meeting was convened. Opinion was sought on the probability that a patient in the MYPAN trial treated with cyclophosphamide would achieve disease remission within 6-months, and on the relative efficacies of mycophenolate mofetil and cyclophosphamide. Expert opinion was combined with previously unseen data from a recently completed randomised controlled trial in ANCA associated vasculitis. Results A pan-European group of fifteen experts participated in the elicitation meeting. Consensus expert prior opinion was that the most likely rates of disease remission within 6 months on cyclophosphamide or mycophenolate mofetil were 74% and 71%, respectively. This prior opinion will now be taken forward and will be modified to formulate a Bayesian posterior opinion once the MYPAN trial data from 40 patients randomised 1:1 to either CYC or MMF become available. Conclusions We suggest that the methodological template we propose could be applied to trial design for other rare diseases.

Feasibility study to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial to eradicate Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in individuals with Cystic Fibrosis

BackgroundThere are controversies about the most effective treatment to eradicate first growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P aeruginosa) from the lower airways of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). UK guidelines recommend oral treatment, but some advocate intravenous (IV) treatment. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial comparing two treatment strategies to eradicate P aeruginosa in CF patients.Methods/Principal FindingsTwo surveys were conducted. Survey [1] included clinicians who were responsible for the treatment of individuals with CF, to assess their clinical practice, opinions and numbers of potentially eligible patients. Survey [2] included adults and young people aged 13 years or more with CF and parents of children with CF aged less than 13 years, identified at six UK CF centres, who fulfilled eligibility criteria for the proposed clinical trial, to assess their views about the interventions and their willingness to participate in the trial. Generally clinicians treat first or new growth of P aeruginosa with oral antibiotics, but 90% reported that they would consider IV treatment of first isolation of P aeruginosa. 74% of clinicians would consider recruiting their patients and 45% of consumers would consider entry for themselves or their children into a trial comparing oral with intravenous antibiotics. The median rate per annum for first or new growths of P aeruginosa in adults was 3% (range 1% to 9%) and in children was 10% (range 3% to 23%). If the trial was conducted across the UK, with a consent rate of 45%, then the number of eligible patients per annum who would be willing to take part in a study would be approximately 41 adults and 203 children.ConclusionsThis work demonstrates the importance of feasibility studies in preparation for multicentre clinical trials. It confirmed the uncertainty amongst clinicians and patients about the clinical question, enabled assessment of the number of potentially eligible patients, the proportion of patients and clinicians prepared to participate and aspects of trial design which might encourage this. It showed that a clinical trial was feasible, but only if patients were recruited from across United Kingdom.