Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Lucy McParland is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Lucy McParland.


The Lancet | 2014

Effect of tight control of inflammation in early psoriatic arthritis (TICOPA): a UK multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Laura C. Coates; Anna R. Moverley; Lucy McParland; Sarah Brown; Nuria Navarro-Coy; John L O'Dwyer; David M Meads; Paul Emery; Philip G. Conaghan; Philip S. Helliwell

BACKGROUND Early intervention and tight control of inflammation optimise outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis but these approaches have not yet been studied in psoriatic arthritis. We aimed to assess the effect of tight control on early psoriatic arthritis using a treat-to-target approach. METHODS For this open-label multicentre randomised controlled trial, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with early psoriatic arthritis (<24 months symptom duration), who had not previously received treatment with any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, were enrolled from eight secondary care rheumatology centres in the UK. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tight control (with review every 4 weeks and with escalation of treatment if minimal disease activity criteria not met) or standard care (standard therapy according to the treating clinician, with review every 12 weeks) for 48 weeks. Randomisation was done by minimisation incorporating a random element, to ensure treatment groups were balanced for randomising centre and pattern of arthritis (oligoarticular vs polyarticular). The randomisation procedure was done through a central 24-h automated telephone system based at the Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research (Leeds, UK). This was an open-label study in which patients and clinicians were aware of treatment group assignment. Clinical outcomes were recorded by a masked assessor every 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% (ACR20) response at 48 weeks, analysed by intention to treat with multiple imputation for missing ACR components. Cost-effectiveness was also assessed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01106079, and the ISCRCTN registry, number ISCRCTN30147736. FINDINGS Between May 28, 2008, and March 21, 2012, 206 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive tight control (n=101) or standard care (n=105). In the intention-to-treat patient population, the odds of achieving an ACR20 response at 48 weeks were higher in the tight control group than in the standard care group (odds ratio 1·91, 95% CI 1·03-3·55; p=0·0392). Serious adverse events were reported by 20 (10%) patients (25 events in 14 [14%] patients in the tight control group and eight events in six [6%] patients in the standard care group) during the course of the study. No unexpected serious adverse events or deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION Tight control of psoriatic arthritis disease activity through a treat-to-target approach significantly improves joint outcomes for newly diagnosed patients, with no unexpected serious adverse events reported. FUNDING Arthritis Research UK and Pfizer.


Bone | 2011

Skeletal complications and survival in renal cancer patients with bone metastases.

Emma Woodward; Satinder Jagdev; Lucy McParland; Katy Clark; Walter Gregory; Alex Newsham; Suzanne Rogerson; Kate Hayward; Peter Selby; Janet E. Brown

Skeletal metastases occur in around one third of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Skeletal involvement is commonly an aggressive, lytic process which causes substantial morbidity through skeletal complications and occurrence of skeletal related events (SREs). However, compared with bone metastases in breast and prostate cancer, there is a paucity of data relating to the demographics of bone metastases in RCC and their sequelae in terms of SREs and survival. The study population included all patients (N=803) with advanced or metastatic RCC treated in a tertiary centre serving a regional population of 2.6 million between 1998 and 2007. Demographic and survival data and information relating to metastatic disease were extracted from electronic records. Thirty-two percent (N=254) of the study population presented with (N=131) or later developed (N=123) bone metastases and 83% of these (N=210) also developed metastases elsewhere. The mean number of SREs experienced by the bone metastatic patients over the course of their disease was 2.4 and only 37 patients experienced no SRE. A high proportion of patients (80%) received radiotherapy for bone pain and there was a surprising and strikingly high incidence of spinal cord/nerve root compression, which was experienced by 28% patients. Although bisphosphonate use increased following the availability of zoledronic acid in 2004, approximately 50% patients with bone metastases did not receive bisphosphonate treatment. The skeletal morbidity rate (number of SREs per patient years at risk) was 1.0 and 1.4 for patients who received or did not receive bisphosphonates, respectively. The median survival following diagnosis of RCC was similar in patients who developed bone metastases (20.4 months) and those who did not (20.9 months). Median survival from diagnosis of metastases was 13.3 months for those who never developed bone metastases, 10.6 months for those who presented with them, 19.6 months for those who developed them later and 22.6 months for patients who had bone only metastases. This is the largest study to date focusing specifically on skeletal complications in RCC. A striking finding was the high incidence of spinal cord/nerve root compression and more research into this area is needed. Clearer, internationally accepted guidelines are recommended for the management of this patient group.


BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | 2013

The TICOPA protocol (TIght COntrol of Psoriatic Arthritis): a randomised controlled trial to compare intensive management versus standard care in early psoriatic arthritis.

Laura C. Coates; Nuria Navarro-Coy; Sarah Brown; Lucy McParland; Howard Collier; Emma Skinner; Jennifer Law; Anna R. Moverley; Sue Pavitt; Claire Hulme; Paul Emery; Philip G. Conaghan; Philip S. Helliwell

BackgroundPsoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is estimated to occur in 10-15% of people with psoriasis and accounts for 13% of people attending early arthritis clinics. With an increasing awareness of the poor outcomes associated with PsA and the availability of new effective, but costly, treatments, there is an urgent need to research the optimal treatment for patients with PsA. The aim of the TICOPA study is to establish whether, in treatment naive early PsA patients, “tight control” intensive management with protocol driven therapies and pre-defined objective targets for treatment can improve clinical outcome compared to standard care alone.Methods/designTICOPA is a UK multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, parallel group trial of 206 patients with early PsA. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either standard care (12 weekly review) or intensive management (4 weekly review) for a period of 48 weeks. Patients assigned to the intensive management group will follow a strict treatment protocol whereby dose continuation/escalation is determined through the objective assessment of the minimal disease activity (MDA) criteria. Patients assigned to the standard care group will have treatment prescribed as felt appropriate by the treating clinician, with no set protocol. The primary objective of the trial is to compare intensive management with standard care in terms of the proportion of patients achieving an ACR 20 response at 48 weeks post-randomisation, in order to determine whether intensive management has superior clinical efficacy. Key secondary outcomes include ACR 50 and 70, PASI 75 and X-ray Van der Heijde score at 48 weeks post-randomisation along with cost-effectiveness at 12, 24 and 28 weeks.DiscussionThe TICOPA trial will provide direct evidence as to whether the use of early and intensive treatment in PsA in routine clinical care leads to an improvement in patients’ disease activity and a reduction in radiological joint damage.Trial registrationISRCTN30147736, NCT01106079


BMC Cancer | 2012

The STAR trial protocol: a randomised multi-stage phase II/III study of Sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/metastatic Renal Cancer

Fiona Collinson; Walter Gregory; Christopher McCabe; Helen Howard; Catherine Lowe; DrBarbara Potrata; Sandy Tubeuf; Pat Hanlon; Lucy McParland; Tze M. Wah; Peter Selby; Jenny Hewison; Julia Brown; Janet E. Brown

BackgroundOver recent years a number of novel therapies have shown promise in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Internationally the standard of care of first-line therapy is sunitinib™, after a clear survival benefit was demonstrated over interferon-α. Convention dictates that sunitinib is continued until evidence of disease progression, assuming tolerability, although there is no evidence that this approach is superior to intermittent periods of treatment. The purpose of the STAR trial is to compare the standard treatment strategy (conventional continuation strategy, CCS) with a novel drug free interval strategy (DFIS) which includes planned treatment breaks.Methods/DesignThe STAR trial is an NIHR HTA-funded UK pragmatic randomised phase II/III clinical trial in the first-line treatment of advanced RCC. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either a sunitinib CCS or a DFIS. The overall aim of the trial is to determine whether a DFIS is non-inferior, in terms of 2-year overall survival (OS) and quality adjusted life years (QALY) (averaged over treatment and follow up), compared to a CCS. The QALY primary endpoint was selected to assess whether any detriment in terms of OS could be balanced with improvements in quality of life (QoL). This is a complex trial with a number of design challenges, and to address these issues a feasibility stage is incorporated into the trial design. Predetermined recruitment (stage A) and efficacy (stage B) intermediary endpoints must be met to allow continuation to the overall phase III trial (stage C). An integral qualitative patient preference and understanding study will occur alongside the feasibility stage to investigate patients’ feelings regarding participation or non-participation in the trial.DiscussionThe optimal duration of continuing sunitinib in advanced RCC is unknown. Novel targeted therapies do not always have the same constraints to treatment duration as standard chemotherapeutic agents and currently there are no randomised data comparing different treatment durations. Incorporating planned treatment breaks has the potential to improve QoL and cost effectiveness, hopefully without significant detriment on OS, as has been demonstrated in other cancer types with other treatments.Trial RegistrationControlled-trials.com ISRCTN 06473203


Leukemia | 2017

Results of the randomized phase IIB ARCTIC trial of low-dose rituximab in previously untreated CLL

Dena R. Howard; Talha Munir; Lucy McParland; Andy C. Rawstron; Donald Milligan; Anna Schuh; Anna Hockaday; David Allsup; S Marshall; Andrew S Duncombe; J L O'Dwyer; Alison Smith; R Longo; Abraham M. Varghese; Peter Hillmen

ARCTIC was a multicenter, randomized-controlled, open, phase IIB non-inferiority trial in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Conventional frontline therapy in fit patients is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). The trial hypothesized that including mitoxantrone with low-dose rituximab (FCM-miniR) would be non-inferior to FCR. A total of 200 patients were recruited to assess the primary end point of complete remission (CR) rates according to IWCLL criteria. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, safety and cost-effectiveness. The trial closed following a pre-planned interim analysis. At final analysis, CR rates were 76 FCR vs 55% FCM-miniR (adjusted odds ratio: 0.37; 95% confidence interval: 0.19–0.73). MRD-negativity rates were 54 FCR vs 44% FCM-miniR. More participants experienced serious adverse reactions with FCM-miniR (49%) compared to FCR (41%). There are no significant differences between the treatment groups for PFS and OS. FCM-miniR is not expected to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon. In summary, FCM-miniR is less well tolerated than FCR with an inferior response and MRD-negativity rate and increased toxicity, and will not be taken forward into a confirmatory trial. The trial demonstrated that oral FCR yields high response rates compared to historical series with intravenous chemotherapy.


Arthritis Care and Research | 2018

Cost-Effectiveness of Tight Control of Inflammation in Early Psoriatic Arthritis: Economic Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

John L O'Dwyer; David M Meads; Claire Hulme; Lucy McParland; Sarah Brown; Laura C. Coates; Anna R. Moverley; Paul Emery; Philip G. Conaghan; Philip S. Helliwell

Treat‐to‐target approaches have proved to be effective in rheumatoid arthritis, but have not been studied in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This study was undertaken to examine the cost‐effectiveness of tight control (TC) of inflammation in early PsA compared to standard care.


Leukemia | 2017

Results of the randomized phase IIB ADMIRE trial of FCR with or without mitoxantrone in previously untreated CLL.

Talha Munir; Dena R. Howard; Lucy McParland; C Pocock; Andy C. Rawstron; Anna Hockaday; Abraham M. Varghese; Michael R. Hamblin; Adrian Bloor; Andrew R. Pettitt; Christopher Fegan; J Blundell; John G. Gribben; David Phillips; Peter Hillmen

ADMIRE was a multicenter, randomized-controlled, open, phase IIB superiority trial in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Conventional front-line therapy in fit patients is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). Initial evidence from non-randomized phase II trials suggested that the addition of mitoxantrone to FCR (FCM-R) improved remission rates. Two hundred and fifteen patients were recruited to assess the primary end point of complete remission (CR) rates according to International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia criteria. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and safety. At final analysis, CR rates were 69.8 FCR vs 69.3% FCM-R (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.53–1.79), P=0.932). MRD-negativity rates were 59.3 FCR vs 50.5% FCM-R (adjusted OR: 0.70; 95% CI: (0.39–1.26), P=0.231). During treatment, 60.0% (n=129) of participants received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as secondary prophylaxis for neutropenia, a lower proportion on FCR compared with FCM-R (56.1 vs 63.9%). The toxicity of both regimens was acceptable. There are no significant differences between the treatment groups for PFS and OS. The trial demonstrated that the addition of mitoxantrone to FCR did not increase the depth of response. Oral FCR was well tolerated and resulted in impressive responses in terms of CR rates and MRD negativity compared with historical series with intravenous chemotherapy.


Journal of bone oncology | 2017

Complications of bone metastases from malignant melanoma

Jamal Zekri; Maria Marples; Dominic Taylor; Kiran Kandukurti; Lucy McParland; Janet E. Brown

Introduction Metastatic bone disease (MBD) carries significant morbidity for patients with cancer. MBD from malignant melanoma (MM) is understudied. We examined the characteristics, morbidity, management and outcome of MBD in patients with MM. Methods Patients with metastatic MM managed at two referral cancer centres in England were identified. Those with bone metastases (BMs) were selected. Patient and disease characteristics including skeletal related events (SREs) were extracted from medical records. The Kaplan Meier method was used to calculate median survival. Results Five hundred and eighteen patients with metastatic MM were managed between years 2000 and 2008. Eighty nine (17.2%) patients had BMs and are the subject of this study. Median age at diagnosis was 53 years and 55% were males. BMs were identified at the time of diagnosis of metastatic disease in 68.5% patients. Sixty-six (74.2%) had multiple bone lesions and 80.9% had axial skeleton involvement. One hundred and twenty nine skeletal related events occurred in 59 (66.3%) patients (50 radiotherapy, 28 hypercalcaemia, 20 bone fractures, 18 spinal cord compression and 13 orthopaedic surgery). The annual skeletal morbidity rate was 2.5. Median survival from diagnosis of BMs was 17.3 weeks and was 5.6 weeks from the first episode of hypercalcaemia. Conclusion MBD affects a clinically important proportion (17.2%) of patients with metastatic MM. It carries a substantial morbidity and mortality exceeding that caused by BMs from breast and prostate cancer. These patients should receive the currently licensed bone modifying agents and should be included in clinical trials addressing MBD.


Trials | 2017

GA101 (obinutuzumab) monocLonal Antibody as Consolidation Therapy In CLL (GALACTIC) trial: study protocol for a phase II/III randomised controlled trial

Jamie B. Oughton; Laura Collett; Dena R. Howard; Anna Hockaday; Talha Munir; Kathryn McMahon; Lucy McParland; Claire Dimbleby; David Phillips; Andy C. Rawstron; Peter Hillmen

BackgroundChronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common adult leukaemia. Achieving minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in CLL is an independent predictor of survival even with a variety of different treatment approaches and regardless of the line of therapy.Methods/designGA101 (obinutuzumab) monocLonal Antibody as Consolidation Therapy In CLL (GALACTIC) is a seamless phase II/III, multi-centre, randomised, controlled, open, parallel-group trial for patients with CLL who have recently responded to chemotherapy. Participants will be randomised to receive either obinutuzumab (GA-101) consolidation or no treatment (as is standard). The phase II trial will assess safety and short-term efficacy in order to advise on continuation to a phase III trial. The primary objective for phase III is to assess the effect of consolidation therapy on progression-free survival (PFS). One hundred eighty-eight participants are planned to be recruited from forty research centres in the United Kingdom.DiscussionThere is evidence that achieving MRD eradication with alemtuzumab consolidation is associated with improvements in survival and time to progression. This trial will assess whether obinutuzumab is safe in a consolidation setting and effective at eradicating MRD and improving PFS.Trial registrationISRCTN, 64035629. Registered on 12 January 2015.EudraCT, 2014-000880-42. Registered on 12 November 2014.


Pilot and Feasibility Studies | 2016

Erratum to: The SABRTooth feasibility trial protocol: a study to determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a phase III randomised controlled trial comparing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection

M. Snee; Lucy McParland; Fiona Collinson; C. M. Lowe; A. Striha; David R Baldwin; Babu Naidu; D. Sebag-Montefiore; Walter Gregory; Janine C Bestall; Jenny Hewison; S. Hinsley; K. Franks

Collaboration


Dive into the Lucy McParland's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Andy C. Rawstron

St James's University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Talha Munir

St James's University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Peter Hillmen

St James's University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Abraham M. Varghese

St James's University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David Phillips

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge