Does pain self-efficacy predict, moderate or mediate outcomes in people with chronic headache; an exploratory analysis of the CHESS trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic headache disorders are disabling. The CHESS trial studied the effects of a short non-pharmacological intervention of education with self-management support for people affected by migraine and/or tension type headache for at least 15 days per month for at least three months. There were no statistically significant effects on the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) at 12-months. However, we observed improvement in pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ) and short-term HIT-6. We explored the impact of the CHESS intervention on PSEQ, and subsequently, on the HIT-6 and chronic headache quality of life questionnaire (CH-QLQ) at four, eighth and 12 months. METHODS: We included all 736 participants from the CHESS trial. We used simple linear regression models to explore the change of HIT-6 and CH-QLQ with treatment and PSEQ at baseline (predictor analysis), and the interaction between treatment and baseline PSEQ (moderator analysis). We considered the change of PSEQ from baseline to four months as a mediator in the mediation analysis. RESULTS: Baseline PSEQ neither predicted nor moderated outcomes. The prediction effect on change of HIT-6 from baseline to 12 months was 0.01 (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.04) and the interaction (moderation) effect was -0.07 (95% CI, -0.15 to 0.002). However, the change of PSEQ from baseline to 4-month mediated the HIT-6 (baseline to 8-, and 12-month) and all components of CH-QLQ (baseline to 8-, and 12-month). The CHESS intervention improved the mediated variable, PSEQ, by 2.34 (95% CI, 0.484 to 4.187) units and this corresponds to an increase of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.45) units in HIT-6 at 12-months. The largest mediated effect was observed on the CH-QLQ Emotional Function, an increase of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.22 to 2.20). CONCLUSIONS: PSEQ was not an effective predictor of outcome. However, change of short-term PSEQ mediated all outcomes, albeit minimally. Future behavioural therapy for chronic headache may need to consider how to achieve larger, and more sustained increases level of self-efficacy than that achieved within the CHESS trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN79708100.

Cost-effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) vs Moderate Intensity Steady-State (MISS) Training in UK Cardiac Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared with moderate intensity steady-state (MISS) training in people with coronary artery disease (CAD) attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR). DESIGN: Secondary cost-effectiveness analysis of a prospective, assessor-blind, parallel group, multi-center RCT. SETTING: Six outpatient National Health Service cardiac rehabilitation centers in England and Wales, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 382 participants with CAD (N=382). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to twice-weekly usual care (n=195) or HIIT (n=187) for 8 weeks. Usual care was moderate intensity continuous exercise (60%-80% maximum capacity, MISS), while HIIT consisted of 10 × 1-minute intervals of vigorous exercise (>85% maximum capacity) interspersed with 1-minute periods of recovery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of the HIIT or MISS UK trial. Health related quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were estimated with health service resource use and intervention delivery costs. Cost-utility analysis measured the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Bootstrapping assessed the probability of HIIT being cost-effective according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold value (£20,000 per QALY). Missing data were imputed. Uncertainty was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Assumptions were tested using univariate/1-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: 124 (HIIT, n=59; MISS, n=65) participants completed questionnaires at baseline, 8 weeks, and 12 months. Mean combined health care use and delivery cost was £676 per participant for HIIT, and £653 for MISS. QALY changes were 0.003 and -0.013, respectively. For complete cases, the ICER was £1448 per QALY for HIIT compared with MISS. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability of HIIT being cost-effective was 96% (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: For people with CAD attending CR, HIIT was cost-effective compared with MISS. These findings are important to policy makers, commissioners, and service providers across the health care sector.

Optimising prediction of mortality, stroke, and major bleeding for patients with atrial fibrillation: validation of the GARFIELD-AF tool in UK primary care electronic records.

BACKGROUND: The GARFIELD-AF tool is a novel risk tool that simultaneously assesses the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). AIM: To validate the GARFIELD-AF tool using UK primary care electronic records. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked with Hospital Episode Statistics data and Office for National Statistics mortality data. METHOD: Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) and calibration was evaluated using calibration-in-the-large regression and calibration plots. RESULTS: A total of 486 818 patients aged ≥18 years with incident diagnosis of non-valvular AF between 2 January 1998 and 31 July 2020 were included; 50.6% (n = 246 425/486 818) received anticoagulation at diagnosis The GARFIELD- AF models outperformed the CHA2DS2VASc and HAS-BLED scores in discrimination ability of death, stroke, and major bleeding at all the time points. The AUC for events at 1 year for the 2017 models were: death 0.747 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.744 to 0.751) versus 0.635 (95% CI = 0.631 to 0.639) for CHA2DS2VASc; stroke 0.666 (95% CI = 0.663 to 0.669) versus 0.625 (95% CI = 0.622 to 0.628) for CHA2DS2VASc; and major bleeding 0.602 (95% CI = 0.598 to 0.606) versus 0.558 (95% CI = 0.554 to 0.562) for HAS- BLED. Calibration between predicted and Kaplan- Meier observed events was inadequate with the GARFIELD-AF models. CONCLUSION: The GARFIELD-AF models were superior to the CHA2DS2VASc score for discriminating stroke and death and superior to the HAS-BLED score for discriminating major bleeding. The models consistently underpredicted the level of risk, suggesting that a recalibration is needed to optimise its use in the UK population.

Development of consensus-driven SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding trials: the DEFINE study.

BACKGROUND: Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE). METHODS: The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants' feedback. RESULTS: The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE (n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE (n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar. CONCLUSIONS: By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

High-intensity interval training in cardiac rehabilitation: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of international consensus regarding the prescription of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for people with coronary artery disease (CAD) attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR). AIMS: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of low-volume HIIT compared with moderate-intensity steady-state (MISS) exercise training for people with CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a multi-centre RCT, recruiting 382 patients from 6 outpatient CR centres. Participants were randomized to twice-weekly HIIT (n = 187) or MISS (n = 195) for 8 weeks. HIIT consisted of 10 × 1 min intervals of vigorous exercise (>85% maximum capacity) interspersed with 1 min periods of recovery. MISS was 20-40 min of moderate-intensity continuous exercise (60-80% maximum capacity). The primary outcome was the change in cardiorespiratory fitness [peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak)] at 8 week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular disease risk markers, cardiac structure and function, adverse events, and health-related quality of life. At 8 weeks, VO2peak improved more with HIIT (2.37 mL.kg-1.min-1; SD, 3.11) compared with MISS (1.32 mL.kg-1.min-1; SD, 2.66). After adjusting for age, sex, and study site, the difference between arms was 1.04 mL.kg-1.min-1 (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.69; P = 0.002). Only one serious adverse event was possibly related to HIIT. CONCLUSIONS: In stable CAD, low-volume HIIT improved cardiorespiratory fitness more than MISS by a clinically meaningful margin. Low-volume HIIT is a safe, well-tolerated, and clinically effective intervention that produces short-term improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness. It should be considered by all CR programmes as an adjunct or alternative to MISS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02784873. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02784873.

Cardiac rehabilitation exercise training can improve cardiorespiratory fitness and quality of life for people with coronary artery disease, but sometimes, it is not effective. The intensity of the exercise training may be important. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to test if moderate-intensity exercise or high-intensity exercise was better.High-intensity interval training was more effective than moderate-intensity exercise training for improving cardiorespiratory fitness in people with coronary artery disease attending cardiac rehabilitation.High-intensity interval training was safe and well tolerated.

Supportive Self-Management Program for People With Chronic Headaches and Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic headache disorders are a major cause of pain and disability. Education and supportive self-management approaches could reduce the burden of headache disability. We tested the effectiveness of a group educational and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic headaches. METHODS: This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were aged 18 years or older with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache, with or without medication overuse headache. We primarily recruited from general practices. Participants were assigned to either a 2-day group education and self-management program, a one-to-one nurse interview, and telephone support or to usual care plus relaxation material. The primary outcome was headache related-quality of life using the Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 at 12 months. The primary analysis used intention-to-treat principles for participants with migraine and both baseline and 12-month HIT-6 data. RESULTS: Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomized 736 participants. Because only 9 participants just had tension-type headache, our main analyses were on the 727 participants with migraine. Of them, 376 were allocated to the self-management intervention and 351 to usual care. Data from 586 (81%) participants were analyzed for primary outcome. There was no between-group difference in HIT-6 (adjusted mean difference = -0.3, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.67) or headache days (0.9, 95% CI -0.29 to 2.05) at 12 months. The Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study intervention generated incremental adjusted costs of £268 (95% CI, £176-£377) (USD383 [95% CI USD252-USD539]) and incremental adjusted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.031 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.063). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £8,617 (USD12,322) per QALY gained. DISCUSSION: These findings conclusively show a lack of benefit for quality of life or monthly headache days from a brief group education and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache with episodic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: Registered on the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN79708100 16th December 2015 doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN79708100. The first enrollment was April 24, 2017. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that a brief group education and self-management program does not increase the probability of improvement in headache-related quality of life in people with chronic migraine.

Protocol update for a randomised controlled feasibility trial of exercise rehabilitation for people with postural tachycardia syndrome: the PULSE study.

BACKGROUND: The PULSE (PostUraL tachycardia Syndrome Exercise) study is a randomised controlled trial assessing the feasibility of conducting a multicentre RCT testing supervised exercise rehabilitation with behavioural and motivational support, compared to best-practice usual care, for people with Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS). The original trial protocol was published in BMC Pilot & Feasibility Studies (accessible at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-020-00702-1 ). The PULSE intervention consists of (1) individual assessment; (2) 12-week, twice-weekly, supervised exercise training; (3) behavioural and motivational support; and (4) guided lifestyle physical activity. The control intervention is best-practice usual care with a single 30-min, one-to-one practitioner appointment, and general advice on safe and effective physical activity. Sixty-two people (aged 18-60 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of PoTS will be invited to enrol on a feasibility RCT with an embedded qualitative study. The primary outcome will be feasibility; process-related measures will include eligibility, recruitment, randomisation and withdrawal rates, along with indicators of exercise programme adherence and acceptability. Secondary physiological, clinical and health-related outcomes will be assessed. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, here we describe amendments to the trial protocol. METHODS: Restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic meant it was necessary to change the delivery of the PULSE and control interventions. These changes reflected the need to limit the risk of COVID-19 transmission in a clinical population, some of whom were at increased risk of contracting the virus and suffering serious illness. The major change was that the originally intended centre-based PULSE and control interventions would now be delivered remotely on-line. Subsequently, there were minor changes to the participant eligibility criteria. These decisions followed an on-line co-creation session with people affected by PoTS, and relevant public and professional stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: We present an update of the original trial protocol in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. No participants were recruited to the original protocol; thus, results will reflect the on-line delivery of the intervention. PULSE will be the first randomised trial to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive multi-centre RCT testing supervised on-line exercise rehabilitation with behavioural and motivational support, compared to best-practice usual care, for people with PoTS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45323485 registered on 7 April 2020.

REducing Colonoscopies in patients without significant bowEl DiseasE: the RECEDE Study - protocol for a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

INTRODUCTION: Demand for colonoscopies and CT colonography (CTC) is exceeding capacity in National Health Service Trusts. In many patients colonoscopies and CTCs show no significant bowel disease (SBD). Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) is being introduced to prioritise patients for colonoscopies but is insufficient to identify non-SBD patients meaning colonoscopy and CTC demand remains high. The REducing Colonoscopies in patients without significant bowEl DiseasE (RECEDE) study aims to test urine volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis alongside FIT to improve detection of SBD and to reduce the number of colonoscopies and CTCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluating whether stool FIT plus urine VOC compared with stool FIT alone improves detection of SBD in patients referred for colonoscopy or CTC due to persistent lower gastrointestinal symptoms. To ensure SBD is not missed, the dual test requires a high sensitivity, set at 97% with 95% CI width of 5%. Our assumption is that to achieve this sensitivity requires 200 participants with SBD. Further assuming 19% of all participants will have SBD and 55% of all participants will return both stool and urine samples we will recruit 1915 participants. The thresholds for FIT and VOC results diagnosing SBD have been pre-set. If either FIT or VOC exceeds the respective threshold, the participant will be classed as having suspected SBD. As an exploratory analysis we will be testing different thresholds. The reference comparator will be a complete colonoscopy or CTC. Secondary outcomes will look at optimising the FIT and VOC thresholds for SBD detection. An economic evaluation, using a denovo decision analytic model, will be carried out determine the costs, benefits and overall cost-effectiveness of FIT +VOC vs FIT followed by colonoscopy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained by Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (20/NW/0346). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RECEDE is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04516785 & ISRCTN14982373. This protocol was written and published before results of the trial were available.

Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective: To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions: Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.

Performance of the faecal immunochemical test for the detection of colorectal neoplasms and the role of proton pump inhibitors in their diagnostic accuracy.

AIM: The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is currently utilized in both symptomatic and screening populations, but little is known about factors that affect its performance. For example, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy has been purported to increase false negative rates. This has significant implications given the extent of PPI prescriptions. The aim of this work was to evaluate the performance of the FIT for the detection of colorectal neoplasms and the impact of PPI therapy on its diagnostic accuracy. METHOD: Symptomatic patients referred on the suspected cancer pathway and those on polyp surveillance between 2015 and 2019 were approached to participate. Estimates of the accuracy of FIT at different cut-off levels in diagnosing colorectal neoplasms were made. Logistic regression was used to assess the effect of PPIs on the FIT results. RESULTS: A total of 667 participants were eligible for the final analysis. At a cut-off of 10 µg/g faeces, the overall sensitivity and specificity of FIT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) was 0.85 (95% CI 0.71-0.94) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.78-0.84), respectively. For the detection of advanced neoplasia, the sensitivity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.58-0.79) and the specificity was 0.83 (95% CI 0.80-0.86). At higher thresholds, the sensitivity steadily declined whilst specificity increased. PPI therapy did not have a significant effect on performance of the FIT. CONCLUSION: FIT is a good rule-out test for the detection of CRC and advanced neoplasia at lower thresholds. PPI therapy does not appear to have an effect on its diagnostic performance.

Identification of subgroup effect with an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of three different types of therapist-delivered care in low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Proven treatments for low back pain, at best, only provide modest overall benefits. Matching people to treatments that are likely to be most effective for them may improve clinical outcomes and makes better use of health care resources. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of three types of therapist delivered interventions for low back pain (active physical, passive physical and psychological treatments). We applied two statistical methods (recursive partitioning and adaptive risk group refinement) to identify potential subgroups who might gain greater benefits from different treatments from our individual participant data meta-analysis. RESULTS: We pooled data from 19 randomised controlled trials, totalling 9328 participants. There were 5349 (57%) females with similar ratios of females in control and intervention arms. The average age was 49 years (standard deviation, SD, 14). Participants with greater psychological distress and physical disability gained most benefit in improving on the mental component scale (MCS) of SF-12/36 from passive physical treatment than non-active usual care (treatment effects, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, CI, 3.39 to 5.15). Recursive partitioning method found that participants with worse disability at baseline gained most benefit in improving the disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) outcome from psychological treatment than non-active usual care (treatment effects, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.31). Adaptive risk group refinement did not find any subgroup that would gain much treatment effect between psychological and non-active usual care. Neither statistical method identified any subgroups who would gain an additional benefit from active physical treatment compared to non-active usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Our methodological approaches worked well and may have applicability in other clinical areas. Passive physical treatments were most likely to help people who were younger with higher levels of disability and low levels of psychological distress. Psychological treatments were more likely to help those with severe disability. Despite this, the clinical importance of identifying these subgroups is limited. The sizes of sub-groups more likely to benefit and the additional effect sizes observed are small. Our analyses provide no evidence to support the use of sub-grouping for people with low back pain.

Protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial of exercise rehabilitation for people with postural tachycardia syndrome: the PULSE study.

BACKGROUND: Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is an autonomic nervous system disorder causing an abnormal cardiovascular response to upright posture. It affects around 0.2% of the population, most commonly women aged 13 to 50 years. POTS can be debilitating; prolonged episodes of pre-syncope and fatigue can severely affect activities of daily living and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Medical treatment is limited and not supported by randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence. Lifestyle interventions are first-line treatment, including increased fluid and salt intake, compression tights and isometric counter-pressure manoeuvres to prevent fainting. Observational studies and small RCTs suggest exercise training may improve symptoms and HRQoL in POTS, but evidence quality is low. METHODS: Sixty-two people (aged 18-40 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of POTS will be invited to enrol on a feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study. The primary outcome will be feasibility; process-related measures will include the number of people eligible, recruited, randomised and withdrawn, along with indicators of exercise programme adherence and acceptability. Secondary physiological, clinical and health-related outcomes including sub-maximal recumbent bike exercise test, active stand test and HRQoL will be measured at 4 and 7 months post-randomisation by researchers blinded to treatment allocation. The PostUraL tachycardia Syndrome Exercise (PULSE) intervention consists of (1) individual assessment; (2) 12-week, once to twice-weekly, supervised out-patient exercise training; (3) behavioural and motivational support; and (4) guided lifestyle physical activity. The control intervention will be best-practice usual care with a single 30-min, one-to-one practitioner appointment, and general advice on safe and effective physical activity. For the embedded qualitative study, participants (n = 10 intervention, n = 10 control) will be interviewed at baseline and 4 months post-randomisation to assess acceptability and the feasibility of progressing to a definitive trial. DISCUSSION: There is very little high-quality research investigating exercise rehabilitation for people with POTS. The PULSE study will be the first randomised trial to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive multicentre RCT testing supervised exercise rehabilitation with behavioural and motivational support, compared to best-practice usual care, for people with POTS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45323485 registered on 7 April 2020.

Usual care and a self-management support programme versus usual care and a relaxation programme for people living with chronic headache disorders: a randomised controlled trial protocol (CHESS).

INTRODUCTION: Chronic headaches are poorly diagnosed and managed and can be exacerbated by medication overuse. There is insufficient evidence on the non-pharmacological approaches to helping people living with chronic headaches. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management education support programme on top of usual care for patients with chronic headaches against a control of usual care and relaxation. The intervention is a 2-day group course based on education, personal reflection and a cognitive behavioural approach, plus a nurse-led one-to-one consultation and follow-up over 8 weeks. We aim to recruit 689 participants (356 to the intervention arm and 333 to the control) from primary care and self-referral in London and the Midlands. The trial is powered to show a difference of 2.0 points on the Headache Impact Test, a patient-reported outcome measure at 12 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include health related quality of life, self-efficacy, social activation and engagement, anxiety and depression and healthcare utilisation. Outcomes are being measured at 4, 8 and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial will provide data on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management support programme for chronic headaches. The results will inform commissioning of services and clinical practice. North West - Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee have approved the trial. The current protocol version is 3.6 date 7 March 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN79708100.

Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study (CHESS) - a mixed method feasibility study to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-management support programmes are effective in a range of chronic conditions however there is limited evidence for their use in the treatment of chronic headaches. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of four key aspects of a planned, future evaluative trial of a new education and self-management intervention for people with chronic headache: 1) recruiting people with chronic headache from primary care; 2) a telephone interview for the classification of chronic headaches; 3) the education and self-management intervention itself; and 4) the most appropriate patient reported outcomes (PROMS). METHODS: Participants were identified and recruited from general practices in the West Midlands of the UK. We developed a nurse-led chronic headache classification interview and assessed agreement with an interview with headache specialists. We developed and tested a group based education and self-management intervention to assess training and delivery receipt using observation, facilitator, and participant feedback. We explored the acceptability and relevance of PROMs using postal questionnaires, interviews and a smartphone app. RESULTS: Fourteen practices took part in the study and participant recruitment equated to 1.0/1000 registered patients. Challenges to recruitment were identified. We did 107 paired headache classification interviews. The level of agreement between nurse and doctor interviews was very good. We piloted the intervention in four groups with 18 participants. Qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators helped refine the intervention including shortening the overall intervention and increasing the facilitator training time. Participants completed 131 baseline questionnaires, measurement data quality, reliability and validity for headache-specific and generic measures was acceptable. CONCLUSION: This study indicated that recruiting people with chronic headache from primary care is feasible but challenging, our headache classification interview is fit for purpose, our study intervention is viable, and that our choice of outcome measures is acceptable to participants in a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN79708100. Registered 16th December 2015, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN79708100.

Development and validation of a telephone classification interview for common chronic headache disorders.

BACKGROUND: For a trial of supportive self-management for people with chronic headache we needed to develop and validate a telephone classification interview that can be used by a non-headache specialist to classify common chronic headache types in primary care. We aimed to specifically: exclude secondary headaches other than medication overuse, exclude primary headache disorders other than migraine and tension type headache (TTH), distinguish between chronic migraine and chronic TTH, and identify medication overuse headache. METHODS: We held a headache classification consensus conference to draw on evidence and expertise to inform the content of a logic model underpinning the classification interview. Nurses trained to use the logic model did telephone classification interviews with participants recruited from primary care. Doctors specialising in headache did a second validation interview. RESULTS: Twenty-six delegates attended the headache classification conference including headache specialist doctors, nurses and lay representatives (with chronic headache). We trained six nurses to do the classification interviews and completed 107 paired interviews, median days between interviews was 32 days (interquartile range 21-48 days). We measured level of agreement between the nurse and doctor interviews using proportion of concordance, simple kappa and prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK). Proportion of concordance of agreement between nurse and doctor interviews was 0.76, simple kappa coefficient κ 0.31 (95% CI, 0.09 to 0.52), and PABAK 0.51 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.68), a moderate agreement. In a sensitivity test following review of headache characteristics recorded, concordance was 0.91, κ = 0.53 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.79), and PABAK = 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.92), a very good agreement. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated a new evidence-based telephone classification interview that can be used by a non-headache specialist to classify common chronic headache types in primary care.

Recent advances in methodology for clinical trials in small populations: the InSPiRe project.

Where there are a limited number of patients, such as in a rare disease, clinical trials in these small populations present several challenges, including statistical issues. This led to an EU FP7 call for proposals in 2013. One of the three projects funded was the Innovative Methodology for Small Populations Research (InSPiRe) project. This paper summarizes the main results of the project, which was completed in 2017.The InSPiRe project has led to development of novel statistical methodology for clinical trials in small populations in four areas. We have explored new decision-making methods for small population clinical trials using a Bayesian decision-theoretic framework to compare costs with potential benefits, developed approaches for targeted treatment trials, enabling simultaneous identification of subgroups and confirmation of treatment effect for these patients, worked on early phase clinical trial design and on extrapolation from adult to pediatric studies, developing methods to enable use of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data, and also developed improved robust meta-analysis methods for a small number of trials to support the planning, analysis and interpretation of a trial as well as enabling extrapolation between patient groups. In addition to scientific publications, we have contributed to regulatory guidance and produced free software in order to facilitate implementation of the novel methods.

Value of information methods to design a clinical trial in a small population to optimise a health economic utility function.

BACKGROUND: Most confirmatory randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) are designed with specified power, usually 80% or 90%, for a hypothesis test conducted at a given significance level, usually 2.5% for a one-sided test. Approval of the experimental treatment by regulatory agencies is then based on the result of such a significance test with other information to balance the risk of adverse events against the benefit of the treatment to future patients. In the setting of a rare disease, recruiting sufficient patients to achieve conventional error rates for clinically reasonable effect sizes may be infeasible, suggesting that the decision-making process should reflect the size of the target population. METHODS: We considered the use of a decision-theoretic value of information (VOI) method to obtain the optimal sample size and significance level for confirmatory RCTs in a range of settings. We assume the decision maker represents society. For simplicity we assume the primary endpoint to be normally distributed with unknown mean following some normal prior distribution representing information on the anticipated effectiveness of the therapy available before the trial. The method is illustrated by an application in an RCT in haemophilia A. We explicitly specify the utility in terms of improvement in primary outcome and compare this with the costs of treating patients, both financial and in terms of potential harm, during the trial and in the future. RESULTS: The optimal sample size for the clinical trial decreases as the size of the population decreases. For non-zero cost of treating future patients, either monetary or in terms of potential harmful effects, stronger evidence is required for approval as the population size increases, though this is not the case if the costs of treating future patients are ignored. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-theoretic VOI methods offer a flexible approach with both type I error rate and power (or equivalently trial sample size) depending on the size of the future population for whom the treatment under investigation is intended. This might be particularly suitable for small populations when there is considerable information about the patient population.

Approaches to sample size calculation for clinical trials in rare diseases.

We discuss 3 alternative approaches to sample size calculation: traditional sample size calculation based on power to show a statistically significant effect, sample size calculation based on assurance, and sample size based on a decision-theoretic approach. These approaches are compared head-to-head for clinical trial situations in rare diseases. Specifically, we consider 3 case studies of rare diseases (Lyell disease, adult-onset Still disease, and cystic fibrosis) with the aim to plan the sample size for an upcoming clinical trial. We outline in detail the reasonable choice of parameters for these approaches for each of the 3 case studies and calculate sample sizes. We stress that the influence of the input parameters needs to be investigated in all approaches and recommend investigating different sample size approaches before deciding finally on the trial size. Highly influencing for the sample size are choice of treatment effect parameter in all approaches and the parameter for the additional cost of the new treatment in the decision-theoretic approach. These should therefore be discussed extensively.

Decision-theoretic designs for a series of trials with correlated treatment effects using the Sarmanov multivariate beta-binomial distribution.

The motivation for the work in this article is the setting in which a number of treatments are available for evaluation in phase II clinical trials and where it may be infeasible to try them concurrently because the intended population is small. This paper introduces an extension of previous work on decision-theoretic designs for a series of phase II trials. The program encompasses a series of sequential phase II trials with interim decision making and a single two-arm phase III trial. The design is based on a hybrid approach where the final analysis of the phase III data is based on a classical frequentist hypothesis test, whereas the trials are designed using a Bayesian decision-theoretic approach in which the unknown treatment effect is assumed to follow a known prior distribution. In addition, as treatments are intended for the same population it is not unrealistic to consider treatment effects to be correlated. Thus, the prior distribution will reflect this. Data from a randomized trial of severe arthritis of the hip are used to test the application of the design. We show that the design on average requires fewer patients in phase II than when the correlation is ignored. Correspondingly, the time required to recommend an efficacious treatment for phase III is quicker.

Does the low prevalence affect the sample size of interventional clinical trials of rare diseases? An analysis of data from the aggregate analysis of clinicaltrials.gov.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are typically designed using the classical frequentist framework to constrain type I and II error rates. Sample sizes required in such designs typically range from hundreds to thousands of patients which can be challenging for rare diseases. It has been shown that rare disease trials have smaller sample sizes than non-rare disease trials. Indeed some orphan drugs were approved by the European Medicines Agency based on studies with as few as 12 patients. However, some studies supporting marketing authorisation included several hundred patients. In this work, we explore the relationship between disease prevalence and other factors and the size of interventional phase 2 and 3 rare disease trials conducted in the US and/or EU. We downloaded all clinical trials from Aggregate Analysis of ClinialTrials.gov (AACT) and identified rare disease trials by cross-referencing MeSH terms in AACT with the list from Orphadata. We examined the effects of prevalence and phase of study in a multiple linear regression model adjusting for other statistically significant trial characteristics. RESULTS: Of 186941 ClinicalTrials.gov trials only 1567 (0.8%) studied a single rare condition with prevalence information from Orphadata. There were 19 (1.2%) trials studying disease with prevalence <1/1,000,000, 126 (8.0%) trials with 1-9/1,000,000, 791 (50.5%) trials with 1-9/100,000 and 631 (40.3%) trials with 1-5/10,000. Of the 1567 trials, 1160 (74%) were phase 2 trials. The fitted mean sample size for the rarest disease (prevalence <1/1,000,000) in phase 2 trials was the lowest (mean, 15.7; 95% CI, 8.7-28.1) but were similar across all the other prevalence classes; mean, 26.2 (16.1-42.6), 33.8 (22.1-51.7) and 35.6 (23.3-54.3) for prevalence 1-9/1,000,000, 1-9/100,000 and 1-5/10,000, respectively. Fitted mean size of phase 3 trials of rarer diseases, <1/1,000,000 (19.2, 6.9-53.2) and 1-9/1,000,000 (33.1, 18.6-58.9), were similar to those in phase 2 but were statistically significant lower than the slightly less rare diseases, 1-9/100,000 (75.3, 48.2-117.6) and 1-5/10,000 (77.7, 49.6-121.8), trials. CONCLUSIONS: We found that prevalence was associated with the size of phase 3 trials with trials of rarer diseases noticeably smaller than the less rare diseases trials where phase 3 rarer disease (prevalence <1/100,000) trials were more similar in size to those for phase 2 but were larger than those for phase 2 in the less rare disease (prevalence ≥1/100,000) trials.