An Inhaled Galectin-3 Inhibitor in COVID-19 Pneumonitis (DEFINE): A Phase Ib/IIa Randomised Controlled Trial.

RATIONALE: High circulating galectin-3 is associated with poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19. We hypothesised that GB0139, a potent inhaled thiodigalactoside galectin-3 inhibitor with anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic actions, would be safely and effectively delivered in COVID-19 pneumonitis. OBJECTIVES: Primary outcomes were safety and tolerability of inhaled GB0139 as an add-on therapy for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonitis. METHODS: We present the findings of two arms of a phase Ib/IIa randomised controlled platform trial in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonitis. Patients received standard of care (SoC) or SoC plus 10 mg inhaled GB0139 twice daily for 48 hours, then once daily for up to 14 days or discharge. RESULTS: Data are reported from 41 patients, 20 of which were assigned randomly to receive GB0139. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: the GB0139 group experienced no treatment-related serious adverse events. Incidences of adverse events were similar between treatment arms (40 with GB0139+SoC vs 35 with SoC). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: plasma GB0139 was measurable in all patients after inhaled exposure, and demonstrated target engagement with decreased circulating galectin (overall treatment effect post-hoc ANCOVA over days 2-7: p=0.0099 vs SoC). Plasma biomarkers associated with inflammation, fibrosis, coagulopathy and major organ function were evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: In COVID pneumonitis, inhaled GB013 was well-tolerated, achieved clinically relevant plasma concentrations with target engagement. The data support larger clinical trials to determine clinical efficacy. Clinical trial registration available at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, ID: NCT04473053. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Effect of a test-and-treat approach to vitamin D supplementation on risk of all cause acute respiratory tract infection and covid-19: phase 3 randomised controlled trial (CORONAVIT).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of population level implementation of a test-and-treat approach to correction of suboptimal vitamin D status (25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) <75 nmol/L) on risk of all cause acute respiratory tract infection and covid 19. DESIGN: Phase 3 open label randomised controlled trial. SETTING: United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 6200 people aged ≥16 years who were not taking vitamin D supplements at baseline. INTERVENTIONS: Offer of a postal finger prick test of blood 25(OH)D concentration with provision of a six month supply of lower dose vitamin D (800 IU/day, n=1550) or higher dose vitamin D (3200 IU/day, n=1550) to those with blood 25(OH)D concentration <75 nmol/L, compared with no offer of testing or supplementation (n=3100). Follow-up was for six months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with at least one swab test or doctor confirmed acute respiratory tract infection of any cause. A secondary outcome was the proportion of participants with swab test confirmed covid-19. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals. The primary analysis was conducted by intention to treat. RESULTS: Of 3100 participants offered a vitamin D test, 2958 (95.4%) accepted and 2674 (86.3%) had 25(OH)D concentrations <75 nmol/L and received vitamin D supplements (n=1328 lower dose, n=1346 higher dose). Compared with 136/2949 (4.6%) participants in the no offer group, at least one acute respiratory tract infection of any cause occurred in 87/1515 (5.7%) in the lower dose group (odds ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.66) and 76/1515 (5.0%) in the higher dose group (1.09, 0.82 to 1.46). Compared with 78/2949 (2.6%) participants in the no offer group, 55/1515 (3.6%) developed covid-19 in the lower dose group (1.39, 0.98 to 1.97) and 45/1515 (3.0%) in the higher dose group (1.13, 0.78 to 1.63). CONCLUSIONS: Among people aged 16 years and older with a high baseline prevalence of suboptimal vitamin D status, implementation of a population level test-and-treat approach to vitamin D supplementation was not associated with a reduction in risk of all cause acute respiratory tract infection or covid-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04579640.

Personalised 3D printed respirators for healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Widespread issues in respirator availability and fit have been rendered acutely apparent by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study sought to determine whether personalized 3D printed respirators provide adequate filtration and function for healthcare workers through a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). Fifty healthcare workers recruited within NHS Lothian, Scotland, underwent 3D facial scanning or 3D photographic reconstruction to produce 3D printed personalized respirators. The primary outcome measure was quantitative fit-testing to FFP3 standard. Secondary measures included respirator comfort, wearing experience, and function instrument (R-COMFI) for tolerability, Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) for intelligibility, and viral decontamination on respirator material. Of the 50 participants, 44 passed the fit test with the customized respirator, not significantly different from the 38 with the control (p = 0.21). The customized respirator had significantly improved comfort over the control respirator in both simulated clinical conditions (p < 0.0001) and during longer wear (p < 0.0001). For speech intelligibility, both respirators performed equally. Standard NHS decontamination agents were able to eradicate 99.9% of viral infectivity from the 3D printed plastics tested. Personalized 3D printed respirators performed to the same level as control disposable FFP3 respirators, with clear communication and with increased comfort, wearing experience, and function. The materials used were easily decontaminated of viral infectivity and would be applicable for sustainable and reusable respirators.

Randomised controlled trial of intravenous nafamostat mesylate in COVID pneumonitis: Phase 1b/2a experimental study to investigate safety, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

BACKGROUND: Many repurposed drugs have progressed rapidly to Phase 2 and 3 trials in COVID19 without characterisation of Pharmacokinetics /Pharmacodynamics including safety data. One such drug is nafamostat mesylate. METHODS: We present the findings of a phase Ib/IIa open label, platform randomised controlled trial of intravenous nafamostat in hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonitis. Patients were assigned randomly to standard of care (SoC), nafamostat or an alternative therapy. Nafamostat was administered as an intravenous infusion at a dose of 0.2 mg/kg/h for a maximum of seven days. The analysis population included those who received any dose of the trial drug and all patients randomised to SoC. The primary outcomes of our trial were the safety and tolerability of intravenous nafamostat as an add on therapy for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 pneumonitis. FINDINGS: Data is reported from 42 patients, 21 of which were randomly assigned to receive intravenous nafamostat. 86% of nafamostat-treated patients experienced at least one AE compared to 57% of the SoC group. The nafamostat group were significantly more likely to experience at least one AE (posterior mean odds ratio 5.17, 95% credible interval (CI) 1.10 - 26.05) and developed significantly higher plasma creatinine levels (posterior mean difference 10.57 micromol/L, 95% CI 2.43-18.92). An average longer hospital stay was observed in nafamostat patients, alongside a lower rate of oxygen free days (rate ratio 0.55-95% CI 0.31-0.99, respectively). There were no other statistically significant differences in endpoints between nafamostat and SoC. PK data demonstrated that intravenous nafamostat was rapidly broken down to inactive metabolites. We observed no significant anticoagulant effects in thromboelastometry. INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19, we did not observe evidence of anti-inflammatory, anticoagulant or antiviral activity with intravenous nafamostat, and there were additional adverse events. FUNDING: DEFINE was funded by LifeArc (an independent medical research charity) under the STOPCOVID award to the University of Edinburgh. We also thank the Oxford University COVID-19 Research Response Fund (BRD00230).

Evaluation of new or repurposed treatments for COVID-19: protocol for the phase Ib/IIa DEFINE trial platform.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is a new viral-induced pneumonia caused by infection with a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. At present, there are few proven effective treatments. This early-phase experimental medicine protocol describes an overarching and adaptive trial designed to provide safety data in patients with COVID-19, pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) information and exploratory biological surrogates of efficacy, which may support further development and deployment of candidate therapies in larger scale trials of patients positive for COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Define is an ongoing exploratory multicentre-platform, open-label, randomised study. Patients positive for COVID-19 will be recruited from the following cohorts: (a) community cases; (b) hospitalised patients with evidence of COVID-19 pneumonitis; and (c) hospitalised patients requiring assisted ventilation. The cohort recruited from will be dependent on the experimental therapy, its route of administration and mechanism of action. Randomisation will be computer generated in a 1:1:n ratio. Twenty patients will be recruited per arm for the initial two arms. This is permitted to change as per the experimental therapy. The primary statistical analyses are concerned with the safety of candidate agents as add-on therapy to standard of care in patients with COVID-19. Secondary analysis will assess the following variables during treatment period: (1) the response of key exploratory biomarkers; (2) change in WHO ordinal scale and National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) score; (3) oxygen requirements; (4) viral load; (5) duration of hospital stay; (6) PK/PD; and (7) changes in key coagulation pathways. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Define trial platform and its initial two treatment and standard of care arms have received a favourable ethical opinion from Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (REC) (20/SS/0066), notice of acceptance from The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (EudraCT 2020-002230-32) and approval from the relevant National Health Service (NHS) Research and Development (R&D) departments (NHS Lothian and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde). Appropriate processes are in place in order to be able to consent adults with and without capacity while following the necessary COVID-19 safe procedures. Patients without capacity could be recruited via a legal representative. Witnessed electronic consent of participants or their legal representatives following consent discussions was established. The results of each study arm will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal as soon as the treatment arm has finished recruitment, data input is complete and any outstanding patient safety follow-ups have been completed. Depending on the results of these or future arms, data will be shared with larger clinical trial networks, including the Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy trial (RECOVERY), and to other partners for rapid roll-out in larger patient cohorts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14212905, NCT04473053.

Feasibility and design of a trial regarding the optimal mode of delivery for preterm birth: the CASSAVA multiple methods study.

BACKGROUND: Around 60,000 babies are born preterm (prior to 37 weeks' gestation) each year in the UK. There is little evidence on the optimal birth mode (vaginal or caesarean section). OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of the CASSAVA project was to determine if a trial to define the optimal mode of preterm birth could be carried out and, if so, determine what sort of trial could be conducted and how it could best be performed. We aimed to determine the specific groups of preterm women and babies for whom there are uncertainties about the best planned mode of birth, and if there would be willingness to recruit to, and participate in, a randomised trial to address some, but not all, of these uncertainties. This project was conducted in response to a Heath Technology Assessment programme commissioning call (17/22 'Mode of delivery for preterm infants'). METHODS: We conducted clinician and patient surveys (n = 224 and n = 379, respectively) to identify current practice and opinion, and a consensus survey and Delphi workshop (n = 76 and n = 22 participants, respectively) to inform the design of a hypothetical clinical trial. The protocol for this clinical trial/vignette was used in telephone interviews with clinicians (n = 24) and in focus groups with potential participants (n = 13). RESULTS: Planned sample size and data saturation was achieved for all groups except for focus groups with participants, as this had to be curtailed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and data saturation was not achieved. There was broad agreement from parents and health-care professionals that a trial is needed. The clinician survey demonstrated a variety of practice and opinion. The parent survey suggested that women and their families generally preferred vaginal birth at later gestations and caesarean section for preterm infants. The interactive workshop and Delphi consensus process confirmed the need for more evidence (hence the case for a trial) and provided rich information on what a future trial should entail. It was agreed that any trial should address the areas with most uncertainty, including the management of women at 26-32 weeks' gestation, with either spontaneous preterm labour (cephalic presentation) or where preterm birth was medically indicated. Clear themes around the challenges inherent in conducting any trial emerged, including the concept of equipoise itself. Specific issues were as follows: different clinicians and participants would be in equipoise for each clinical scenario, effective conduct of the trial would require appropriate resources and expertise within the hospital conducting the trial, potential participants would welcome information on the trial well before the onset of labour and minority ethnic groups would require tailored approaches. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of evidence and the variation of practice and opinion in this area, and having listened to clinicians and potential participants, we conclude that a trial should be conducted and the outlined challenges resolved. FUTURE WORK: The CASSAVA project could be used to inform the design of a randomised trial and indicates how such a trial could be carried out. Any future trial would benefit from a pilot with qualitative input and a study within a trial to inform optimal recruitment. LIMITATIONS: Certainty that a trial could be conducted can be determined only when it is attempted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12295730. 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. 25, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 60,000 babies are born preterm each year in the UK. We do not know what the safest mode of birth is for these babies. Birth options include a vaginal birth or a caesarean section (which involves an operation for the mother). Normally, the ideal way to find out what clinical options are best is to carry out a 'randomised trial' in which participants are allocated to a particular treatment group (in this case, vaginal birth or caesarean section) by chance. It is not clear if women who have their babies preterm would want to take part in such a trial or that the clinicians looking after the women would be happy to ask them to, as previous trials have failed to recruit sufficient participants. The purpose of the CASSAVA research project was to find out what people think is the best and safest method of delivering preterm babies, their views on doing a research trial and what sort of research trial could be carried out. We conducted a survey asking clinicians and women their views. We gathered clinicians and women together to discuss and agree the key questions for a trial to answer. We then developed a protocol (plan) for a possible trial. Using this trial protocol, we conducted telephone interviews with clinicians, asking them if they would be willing to be involved and if they would be willing to ask pregnant women to participate. We also conducted focus groups with women, using a vignette (storyboard) about a possible trial. We found that there is a lot of uncertainty about the best way for preterm babies to be born. Clinicians and women broadly agreed that it would be good to resolve this uncertainty through a trial. We were able to identify some areas of the greatest uncertainty where clinicians and women would consider participating in a study. We gained a lot of useful information about how we could best set up a trial and support clinicians and women to get involved.

SPIKE-1: A Randomised Phase II/III trial in a community setting, assessing use of camostat in reducing the clinical progression of COVID-19 by blocking SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein-initiated membrane fusion.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of camostat to prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Secondary objectives include assessment of the ability of camostat to reduce the requirement for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related hospital admission and to reduce the requirement for supplementary oxygen and ventilation as treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection, to evaluate overall mortality related to COVID-19 and to evaluate the efficacy of camostat by effect on clinical improvement. Research objectives include to assess change in COVID-19 symptom severity, to evaluate the ability of camostat to reduce viral load throughout duration of illness as well as translational research on host and viral genomics, serum antibody production, COVID-19 diagnostics, and validation of laboratory testing methods and biomarkers. TRIAL DESIGN: SPIKE-1 is a randomised, multicentre, prospective, open label, community-based clinical trial. Eligible patients will be randomised 1:1 to the camostat treatment arm and control arm (best supportive care). The trial is designed to include a pilot phase recruiting up to 50 patients in each arm. An initial review at the end of the pilot phase will allow assessment of available data and inform the requirement for any protocol adaptations to include refinement of eligibility criteria to enrich the patient population and sample size calculations. Up to 289 additional patients will be randomised in the continuation phase of the trial. A formal interim analysis will be performed once 50% of the maximum sample size has been recruited PARTICIPANTS: The trial will recruit adults (≥ 18 years) who score moderate to very high risk according to COVID-age risk calculation, with typical symptoms of COVID-19 infection as per Public Health England guidance or equivalent organisations in the UK, Health Protection Scotland, Public Health Wales, Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland) and with evidence of current COVID-19 infection from a validated assay. The trial is being conducted in the UK and patients are recruited through primary care and hospital settings. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Eligible patients with be randomised to receive either camostat tablets, 200 mg four times daily (qds) for 14 days (treatment arm) or best supportive care (control arm). MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary outcome measure: the rate of hospital admissions requiring supplemental oxygen. Secondary outcome measures include: the rate of COVID-19 related hospital admission in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection; the number of supplementary oxygen-free days and ventilator-free days measured at 28 days from randomisation; the rate of mortality related to COVID-19 one year from randomisation; the time to worst point on the nine-point category ordinal scale (recommended by the World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019)) or deterioration of two points or more, within 28 days from randomisation. Research outcomes include the assessment of change in COVID-19 symptom severity on days 1-14 as measured by (1) time to apyrexia (maintained for 48 hrs) by daily self-assessment of temperature, time to improvement (by two points) in peripheral oxygenation saturation defined by daily self-assessment of fingertip peripheral oxygenation saturation levels, (3) assessment of COVID-19 symptoms using the Flu-iiQ questionnaire (determined by app recording and/or daily video call (or phone) consultation and (4) assessment of functional score (where possible) at screening, day 7 and 14. The ability of camostat to reduce viral load throughout duration of illness will be assessed by (1) change in respiratory (oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR) log10 viral load from baseline to Days 7 and 14, (2) change in respiratory (saliva RT-PCR) log10 viral load from baseline to Days 1-14 and (3) change in upper respiratory viral shedding at Day 1 -14 measured as time to clearance of nasal SARS-CoV-2, defined as 2 consecutive negative swabs by qPCR. Additional translational research outcomes include assessment of host and viral genomics, serum antibody production and COVID-19 diagnostics at baseline and on Days 7 and 14. RANDOMISATION: Eligible patients will be randomised using an interactive web response system (IWRS) in a 1:1 ratio to one of two arms: (1) treatment arm or (2) control arm. BLINDING (MASKING): The trial is open-label. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The trial is designed to include a pilot and a continuation phase. Up to 100 patients (randomised 1:1 treatment and control arm) will be recruited in the pilot phase and a maximum of 289 patients (randomised 1:1 treatment and control) will be recruited as part of the continuation phase. The total number of patients recruited will not exceed 389. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version number v3 25 September 2020. Trial opened to recruitment on 04 August 2020. The authors anticipate recruitment to be completed by October 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2020-002110-41; 18 June 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04455815 ; 02 July 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). Unpublished PK data provided under confidentiality agreement to the trial Sponsor has been removed from the background section of the protocol to allow for publication of the trial protocol. In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Realising the full potential of data-enabled trials in the UK: a call for action.

RATIONALE: Clinical trials are the gold standard for testing interventions. COVID-19 has further raised their public profile and emphasised the need to deliver better, faster, more efficient trials for patient benefit. Considerable overlap exists between data required for trials and data already collected routinely in electronic healthcare records (EHRs). Opportunities exist to use these in innovative ways to decrease duplication of effort and speed trial recruitment, conduct and follow-up. APPROACH: The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Health Data Research UK and Clinical Practice Research Datalink co-organised a national workshop to accelerate the agenda for 'data-enabled clinical trials'. Showcasing successful examples and imagining future possibilities, the plenary talks, panel discussions, group discussions and case studies covered: design/feasibility; recruitment; conduct/follow-up; collecting benefits/harms; and analysis/interpretation. REFLECTION: Some notable studies have successfully accessed and used EHR to identify potential recruits, support randomised trials, deliver interventions and supplement/replace trial-specific follow-up. Some outcome measures are already reliably collected; others, like safety, need detailed work to meet regulatory reporting requirements. There is a clear need for system interoperability and a 'route map' to identify and access the necessary datasets. Researchers running regulatory-facing trials must carefully consider how data quality and integrity would be assessed. An experience-sharing forum could stimulate wider adoption of EHR-based methods in trial design and execution. DISCUSSION: EHR offer opportunities to better plan clinical trials, assess patients and capture data more efficiently, reducing research waste and increasing focus on each trial's specific challenges. The short-term emphasis should be on facilitating patient recruitment and for postmarketing authorisation trials where research-relevant outcome measures are readily collectable. Sharing of case studies is encouraged. The workshop directly informed NIHR's funding call for ambitious data-enabled trials at scale. There is the opportunity for the UK to build upon existing data science capabilities to identify, recruit and monitor patients in trials at scale.

Examining the effectiveness of different dental recall strategies on maintenance of optimum oral health: the INTERVAL dental recalls randomised controlled trial.

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of different frequencies of dental recall over a four-year period.Design A multi-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded clinical outcome assessment. Participants were randomised to receive a dental check-up at six-monthly, 24-monthly or risk-based recall intervals. A two-strata trial design was used, with participants randomised within the 24-month stratum if the recruiting dentist considered them clinically suitable. Participants ineligible for 24-month recall were randomised to a risk-based or six-month recall interval.Setting UK primary dental care.Participants Practices providing NHS care and adults who had received regular dental check-ups.Main outcome measures The percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing, oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), cost-effectiveness.Results In total, 2,372 participants were recruited from 51 dental practices. Of those, 648 were eligible for the 24-month recall stratum and 1,724 participants were ineligible. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the mean percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing between intervention arms in any comparison. For those eligible for 24-month recall stratum: the 24-month versus six-month group had an adjusted mean difference of -0.91%, 95% CI (-5.02%, 3.20%); the 24-month group versus risk-based group had an adjusted mean difference of 0.07%, 95% CI (-3.99%, 4.12%). For the overall sample, the risk-based versus six-month adjusted mean difference was 0.78%, 95% CI (-1.17%, 2.72%). There was no evidence of a difference in OHRQoL (0-56 scale, higher score for poorer OHRQoL) between intervention arms in any comparison. For the overall sample, the risk-based versus six-month effect size was -0.35, 95% CI (-1.02, 0.32). There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful difference between the groups in any comparison in either eligibility stratum for any of the secondary clinical or patient-reported outcomes.Conclusion Over a four-year period, we found no evidence of a difference in oral health for participants allocated to a six-month or a risk-based recall interval, nor between a 24-month, six-month or risk-based recall interval for participants eligible for a 24-month recall. However, patients greatly value and are willing to pay for frequent dental check-ups.

Laparoscopic treatment of isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis for managing chronic pelvic pain in women: study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial (ESPriT1).

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis (where endometrial-like tissue is found outside the uterus) affects ~ 176 million women worldwide and can lead to debilitating pelvic pain. Three subtypes of endometriosis exist, with ~ 80% of women having superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE). Endometriosis is diagnosed by laparoscopy and, if SPE is found, gynaecologists usually remove it surgically. However, many women get limited pain relief from surgical removal of SPE. We plan to undertake a future large trial where women who have only SPE found at initial laparoscopy are randomly allocated to have surgical removal (excision or ablation) of SPE, or not. Ultimately, we want to determine whether surgical removal improves overall symptoms and quality of life, or whether surgery is of no benefit, exacerbates symptoms, or even causes harm. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to determine what proportion of women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy will agree to randomisation. The secondary objectives are to determine if there are differences in key prognostic parameters between eligible women that agree to be randomised and those that decline; how many women having laparoscopy for investigation of chronic pelvic pain are eligible for the trial; the range of treatment effects and variability in outcomes and the most acceptable methods of recruitment, randomisation and assessment tools. METHODS: We will recruit up to 90 women with suspected SPE undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy over a 9-month recruitment period in four Scottish hospitals and randomise them 1:1 to either diagnostic laparoscopy alone (with a sham port to achieve blinding of the allocation) or surgical removal of endometriosis. Baseline characteristics, e.g. age, index of social deprivation, ethnicity, and intensity/duration of pain will be collected. Participants will be followed up by online questionnaires assessing pain, physical and emotional function at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. DISCUSSION: Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of surgery for endometriosis may be challenging because of preconceived ideas about treatment success amongst patients and clinicians. We have designed this study to assess feasibility of recruitment and to inform the design of our future definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincicalTrials.gov, NCT04081532 STATUS: Recruiting.

How to deal with a temporary suspension and restarting your trial: our experiences and lessons learnt.

Whilst the issues around early termination of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented in the literature, trials can also be temporarily suspended with the real prospect that they may subsequently restart. There is little guidance in the literature as to how to manage such a temporary suspension. In this paper, we describe the temporary suspension of a trial within our clinical trials unit because of concerns over the safety of transvaginal synthetic mesh implants. We also describe the challenges, considerations, and lessons learnt during the suspension that we are now applying in the current COVID-19 pandemic which has led to activities in many RCTs across the world undergoing a temporary suspension.There were three key phases within the temporary suspension: the decision to suspend, implementation of the suspension, and restarting. Each of these phases presented individual challenges which are discussed within this paper, along with the lessons learnt. There were obvious challenges around recruitment, delivery of the intervention, and follow-up. Additional challenges included communication between stakeholders, evolving risk assessment, updates to trial protocol and associated paperwork, maintaining site engagement, data-analysis, and workload within the trial team and Sponsor organisation.Based on our experience of managing a temporary suspension, we developed an action plan and guidance (see Additional File 1) for managing a significant trial event, such as a temporary suspension. We have used this document to help us manage the suspension of activities within our portfolio of trials during the current COVID-19 pandemic.