Beta-blockers or Placebo for Primary Prophylaxis (BOPPP) of oesophageal varices: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Liver disease is within the top five causes of premature death in adults. Deaths caused by complications of cirrhosis continue to rise, whilst deaths related to other non-liver disease areas are declining. Portal hypertension is the primary sequelae of cirrhosis and is associated with the development of variceal haemorrhage, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and infection, collectively termed hepatic decompensation, which leads to hospitalisation and mortality. It remains uncertain whether administering a non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB), specifically carvedilol, at an earlier stage, i.e. when oesophageal varices are small, can prevent VH and reduce all-cause decompensation (ACD). METHODS/DESIGN: The BOPPP trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients aged 18 years or older with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices that have never bled will be recruited, subject to exclusion criteria. The trial aims to enrol 740 patients across 55 hospitals in the UK. Patients are allocated randomly on a 1:1 ratio to receive either carvedilol 6.25 mg (a NSBB) or a matched placebo, once or twice daily, for 36 months, to attain adequate power to determine the effectiveness of carvedilol in preventing or reducing ACD. The primary outcome is the time to first decompensating event. It is a composite primary outcome made up of variceal haemorrhage (VH, new or worsening ascites, new or worsening hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatorenal syndrome, an increase in Child-Pugh grade by 1 grade or MELD score by 5 points, and liver-related mortality. Secondary outcomes include progression to medium or large oesophageal varices, development of gastric, duodenal, or ectopic varices, participant quality of life, healthcare costs and transplant-free survival. DISCUSSION: The BOPPP trial aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of carvedilol in patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices to determine whether this non-selective beta-blocker can prevent or reduce hepatic decompensation. There is clinical equipoise on whether intervening in cirrhosis, at an earlier stage of portal hypertension, with NSBB therapy is beneficial. Should the trial yield a positive result, we anticipate that the administration and use of carvedilol will become widespread with pathways developed to standardise the administration of the medication in primary care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number: 19/YH/0015). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Participants will be informed of the results via the BOPPP website ( www.boppp-trial.org ) and partners in the British Liver Trust (BLT) organisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUDRACT reference number: 2018-002509-78. ISRCTN reference number: ISRCTN10324656. Registered on April 24 2019.

Superiority and cost-effectiveness of monthly extended-release buprenorphine versus daily standard of care medication: a pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background: Daily methadone maintenance or buprenorphine treatment is the standard-of-care (SoC) medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Subcutaneously injected, extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) may be more effective-but there has been no superiority evaluation. Methods: This pragmatic, parallel-group, open-label, multi-centre, effectiveness superiority randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at five National Health Service community-based treatment clinics in England and Scotland. Participants (adults aged ≥ 18 years; all meeting DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe OUD at admission to their current maintenance treatment episode) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive continued daily SoC (liquid methadone (usual dose range: 60-120 mg) or sublingual/transmucosal buprenorphine (usual dose range: 8-24 mg) for 24 weeks; or monthly BUP-XR (Sublocade;® two injections of 300 mg, then four maintenance injections of 100 mg or 300 mg, with maintenance dose selected by response and preference) for 24 weeks. In the intent-to-treat population (senior statistician blinded to blinded to treatment group allocation), and with a seven-day grace period after randomisation, the primary endpoint was the count of days abstinent from non-medical opioids between days 8-168 (i.e., weeks 2-24; range: 0-161 days). Safety was reported for the intention-to- treat population. Adopting a broad societal perspective inclusive of criminal justice, NHS and personal social service costs, a trial-based cost-utility analysis estimated the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of BUP-XR versus SoC at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The study was registered EudraCT (2018-004460-63) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05164549), and is completed. Findings: Between Aug 9, 2019 and Nov 2, 2021, 314 participants were randomly allocated to receive SoC (n = 156) or BUP-XR (n = 158). Participants were abstinent from opioids for an adjusted mean of 104.37 days (standard error [SE] 9.89; range: 0-161 days) in the SoC group and an adjusted mean of 123.43 days (SE 4.76; range: 24-161 days) in the BUP-XR group (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.33; p-value 0.004). The incidence of any adverse event was higher in the BUP-XR group than the SoC group (128 [81.0%] of 158 participants versus 67 [42.9%] of 156 participants, respectively-most commonly rapidly-resolving (mild-moderate range) pain from drug administration in the BUP-XR group (121 [26.9%] of 450 adverse events). There were 11 serious adverse events (7.0%) in the 158 participants in the BUP-XR group, and 18 serious adverse events (11.5%) in the 156 participants in the SoC group-none judged to be related to study treatment. The BUP-XR treatment group had a mean incremental cost of £1033 (95% central range [CR] -1189 to 3225) and was associated with a mean incremental QALY of 0.02 (95% CR 0.00-0.05), and an ICER of £47,540 (0.37 probability of being cost-effective at the £30,000/QALY gained willingness-to-pay threshold). However, BUP-XR dominated the SoC among participants who were rated more severe at study baseline, and among participants in maintenance treatment for more that 28 days at study enrolment. Interpretation: Evaluated against the daily oral SoC, monthly BUP-XR is clinically superior, delivering greater abstinence from opioids, and with a comparable safety profile. BUP-XR was not cost-effective in a base case cost-utility analysis using the societal perspective, but it was more effective and less costly (dominant) among participants with more severe OUD, or those whose current treatment episode was longer than 28 days. Further trials are needed to evaluate if BUP-XR is associated with better clinical and health economic outcomes over the longer term. Funding: Indivior.

The use of liquid formulation pentoxifylline and vitamin E in both established and as a prophylaxis for dental extractions "at risk" of osteoradionecrosis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaws remains one of the most debilitating complications of radiotherapy (RT) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). Liquid pentoxifylline and vitamin E (PVe) presents an alternative formulation to tablets for patients with dysphagia or enteric feeding. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of using a liquid formulation of PVe for both established ORN and as a prophylaxis to avoid its occurrence after dental extractions. A secondary objective was to determine patient-reported side effects in relation to the liquid formulation of PVe. STUDY DESIGN: The clinical records of 111 patients with HNC who were prescribed liquid PVe were reviewed retrospectively (66 with established ORN and 45 as prophylaxis before an invasive dental procedure). RESULTS: In established ORN, 44% healed, and 41% were stable. In the prophylaxis group, 96% of surgical sites healed completely, with 4% (n = 2) developing ORN. Most patients (89%) were able to tolerate liquid PVe. Of the 11% (n = 12) who could not tolerate this regime, the most commonly reported side effect was gastric irritation (n = 5/12), whereas no more than 1 patient reported dizziness, malaise, and bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective review suggests that liquid PVe is efficacious for both established ORN and as a prophylaxis. Side effects reported were similar to those recognized for the tablet formulation.

The effect of combined ß-lactoglobulin supplementation and resistance exercise training prior to limb immobilisation on muscle protein synthesis rates in healthy young adults: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The decline in skeletal muscle mass experienced following a short-term period (days to weeks) of muscle disuse is mediated by impaired rates of muscle protein synthesis (MPS). Previous RCTs of exercise or nutrition prehabilitation interventions designed to mitigate disuse-induced muscle atrophy have reported limited efficacy. Hence, the aim of this study is to investigate the impact of a complex prehabilitation intervention that combines ß-lactoglobulin (a novel milk protein with a high leucine content) supplementation with resistance exercise training on disuse-induced changes in free-living integrated rates of MPS in healthy, young adults. METHODS/DESIGN: To address this aim, we will recruit 24 healthy young (18-45 years) males and females to conduct a parallel, double-blind, 2-arm, randomised placebo-controlled trial. The intervention group will combine a 7-day structured resistance exercise training programme with thrice daily dietary supplementation with 23 g of ß-lactoglobulin. The placebo group will combine the same training programme with an energy-matched carbohydrate (dextrose) control. The study protocol will last 16 days for each participant. Day 1 will be a familiarisation session and days 2-4 will be the baseline period. Days 5-11 represent the 'prehabilitation period' whereby participants will combine resistance training with their assigned dietary supplementation regimen. Days 12-16 represent the muscle disuse-induced 'immobilisation period' whereby participants will have a single leg immobilised in a brace and continue their assigned dietary supplementation regimen only (i.e. no resistance training). The primary endpoint of this study is the measurement of free-living integrated rates of MPS using deuterium oxide tracer methodology. Measurements of MPS will be calculated at baseline, over the 7-day prehabilitation period and over the 5-day immobilisation period separately. Secondary endpoints include measurements of muscle mass and strength that will be collected on days 4 (baseline), 11 (end of prehabilitation) and 16 (end of immobilisation). DISCUSSION: This novel study will establish the impact of a bimodal prehabilitation strategy that combines ß-lactoglobulin supplementation and resistance exercise training in modulating MPS following a short-term period of muscle disuse. If successful, this complex intervention may be translated to clinical practice with application to patients scheduled to undergo, for example, hip or knee replacement surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05496452. Registered on August 10, 2022. PROTOCOL VERSION: 16-12-2022/1.

The HAVEN study-hydroxychloroquine in ANCA vasculitis evaluation-a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial: study protocol and statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Patients with non-severe ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) are often prescribed immunosuppressive medications that are associated with severe side effects and a reduced quality of life. There is an unmet need for safer effective treatments for these patients. Hydroxychloroquine is being explored due to its effect in similar autoimmune conditions such as systemic lupus erythematosus. METHODS: Double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre trial recruiting 76 patients across 20 sites. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to hydroxychloroquine or placebo in addition to standard of care immunosuppressive therapies over the course of 52 weeks. A phase II selection design will be used to determine hdroxychloroquine's efficacy, using prednisolone dosage and Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score as a measure of disease activity. Secondary outcomes will explore other elements of AAV progression, including disease flares and time to remission. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to explore Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for patients with AAV. If effective, the need for immunosuppressive treatments such as prednisolone could be reduced. Hydroxychloroquine is safer, cheaper and has fewer adverse effects than conventional immunosuppressive treatments. This could improve patient outcomes while saving money for the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN79334891. Registered 07 June 2021. EudraCT: 2018-001268-40. Registered 13 September 2019. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT04316494. Registered 20 March 2020.

Extended-release pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorder (EXPO): protocol for an open-label randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of injectable buprenorphine versus sublingual tablet buprenorphine and oral liquid methadone.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual tablet buprenorphine (BUP-SL) and oral liquid methadone (MET) are the daily, standard-of-care (SOC) opioid agonist treatment medications for opioid use disorder (OUD). A sizable proportion of the OUD treatment population is not exposed to sufficient treatment to attain the desired clinical benefit. Two promising therapeutic technologies address this deficit: long-acting injectable buprenorphine and personalised psychosocial interventions (PSI). This study will determine (A) the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness - monthly injectable, extended-release (BUP-XR) in a head-to-head comparison with BUP-SL and MET, and (B) the effectiveness of BUP-XR with adjunctive PSI versus BUP-SL and MET with PSI. Safety, retention, craving, substance use, quality-adjusted life years, social functioning, and subjective recovery from OUD will be also evaluated. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, superiority RCT, with a qualitative (mixed-methods) evaluation. The study population is adults. The setting is five National Health Service community treatment centres in England and Scotland. At each centre, participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to BUP-XR or SOC. At the London study co-ordinating centre, there will also be allocation of participants to BUP-XR with PSI or SOC with PSI. With 24 weeks of study treatment, the primary outcome is days of abstinence from non-medical opioids during study weeks 2-24 combined with up to 12 urine drug screen tests for opioids. For 90% power (alpha, 5%; 15% inflation for attrition), 304 participants are needed for the BUP-XR versus SOC comparison. With the same planning parameters, 300 participants are needed for the BUP-XR and PSI versus SOC and PSI comparison. Statistical and health economic analysis plans will be published before data-lock on the Open Science Framework. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is the first evaluation of injectable BUP-XR versus the SOC medications BUP-SL and MET, with personalised PSI. If there is evidence for the superiority of BUP-XR over SOC medication, study findings will have substantial implications for OUD clinical practice and treatment policy in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials register 2018-004460-63.

Learning from COVID-19 related trial adaptations to inform efficient trial design-a sequential mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical trial procedures were often undertaken in-person prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in adaptations to these procedures to enable trials to continue. The aim of this study was to understand whether the adaptations made to clinical trials by UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) during the pandemic have the potential to improve the efficiency of trials post-pandemic. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study, initially involving an online survey administered to all registered UK CTUs to identify studies that had made adaptations due to the pandemic. Representatives from selected studies were qualitatively interviewed to explore the adaptations made and their potential to improve the efficiency of future trials. A literature review was undertaken to locate published evidence concerning the investigated adaptations. The findings from the interviews were reviewed by a group of CTU and patient representatives within a workshop, where discussions focused on the potential of the adaptations to improve the efficiency of future trials. RESULTS: Forty studies were identified by the survey. Fourteen studies were selected and fifteen CTU staff were interviewed about the adaptations. The workshop included 15 CTU and 3 patient representatives. Adaptations were not seen as leading to direct efficiency savings for CTUs. However, three adaptations may have the potential to directly improve efficiencies for trial sites and participants beyond the pandemic: a split remote-first eligibility assessment, recruitment outside the NHS via a charity, and remote consent. There was a lack of published evidence to support the former two adaptations, however, remote consent is widely supported in the literature. Other identified adaptations may benefit by improving flexibility for the participant. Barriers to using these adaptations include the impact on scientific validity, limitations in the role of the CTU, and participant's access to technology. CONCLUSIONS: Three adaptations (a split remote-first eligibility assessment, recruitment outside the NHS via a charity, and remote consent) have the potential to improve clinical trials but only one (remote consent) is supported by evidence. These adaptations could be tested in future co-ordinated 'studies within a trial' (SWAT).

Dispensing-label errors in hospital: types and potential causes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the potential causes of dispensing-label errors at a hospital. METHODS: The study took place at a 1200-bed NHS Foundation Trust with two main pharmacy dispensaries (one manual and one automated). Face-to-face interviews were conducted with staff involved in label-generation errors to obtain in-depth understanding of dispensing-label errors. Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and analysed with the aid of Nvivo into themes. KEY FINDINGS: Factors suggested as causing label-generation errors were illegible handwriting, lack of knowledge, hurrying through tasks, distractions, interruptions and the use of past medical records in generating labels. Self-checking every stage of the labelling process was suggested as the key to detecting and preventing errors. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the vulnerability of the label-generation process to errors, with potential causes linked to organisational, environmental, task, team and individual factors.