Methods of a large prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point study comparing morning versus evening dosing in hypertensive patients: the Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study.

INTRODUCTION: Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) appears to be a better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than daytime BP. The BP lowering effects of most antihypertensive therapies are often greater in the first 12 h compared to the next 12 h. The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aims to establish whether evening dosing is more cardioprotective than morning dosing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The TIME study uses the prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point (PROBE) design. TIME recruits participants by advertising in the community, from primary and secondary care, and from databases of consented patients in the UK. Participants must be aged over 18 years, prescribed at least one antihypertensive drug taken once a day, and have a valid email address. After the participants have self-enrolled and consented on the secure TIME website (http://www.timestudy.co.uk) they are randomised to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or the evening. Participant follow-ups are conducted after 1 month and then every 3 months by automated email. The trial is expected to run for 5 years, randomising 10,269 participants, with average participant follow-up being 4 years. The primary end point is hospitalisation for the composite end point of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke (cerebrovascular accident; CVA) or any vascular death determined by record-linkage. Secondary end points are: each component of the primary end point, hospitalisation for non-fatal stroke, hospitalisation for non-fatal MI, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation or death from congestive heart failure. The primary outcome will be a comparison of time to first event comparing morning versus evening dosing using an intention-to-treat analysis. The sample size is calculated for a two-sided test to detect 20% superiority at 80% power. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: TIME has ethical approval in the UK, and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UKCRN17071; Pre-results.

Promoting public awareness of randomised clinical trials using the media: the 'Get Randomised' campaign.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT * Recruitment is key to the success of clinical trials. * Many clinical trials fail to achieve adequate recruitment. * Public understanding and engagement in clinical research could be improved. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS * 'Get Randomised' is the first campaign of its kind in the UK. * It is possible to improve public awareness of clinical research using the media. * Further work is needed to determine whether improved public awareness leads to increased participation in clinical research in the future. AIM To increase public awareness and understanding of clinical research in Scotland. METHODS A generic media campaign to raise public awareness of clinical research was launched in 2008. The 'Get Randomised' campaign was a Scotland-wide initiative led by the University of Dundee in collaboration with other Scottish universities. Television, radio and newspaper advertising showed leading clinical researchers, general practitioners and patients informing the public about the importance of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). 'Get Randomised' was the central message and interested individuals were directed to the http://www.getrandomised.org website for more information. To assess the impact of the campaign, cross-sectional surveys were conducted in representative samples of 1040 adults in Scotland prior to campaign launch and again 6 months later. RESULTS There was an improvement in public awareness of clinical trials following the campaign; 56.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 51.8, 61.6] of the sample recalled seeing or hearing advertising about RCTs following the campaign compared with 14.8% (10.8, 18.9) prior to the campaign launch (difference = 41.4%; 95% CI for difference 35.6, 48.3; P < 0.01). Of those who recalled the advertising, 49% felt that the main message was that people should take part more in medical research. However, on whether they would personally take part in a clinical trial if asked, there was little difference in response following the campaign ['yes' 31.3% (28.4, 34.1) prior; 30.4% (27.6, 33.2) following; difference =-0.9%; 95% CI for difference -4.8, 3.1%; P= 0.92]. CONCLUSIONS It is possible to raise public awareness of clinical research using the media, but further efforts may be required to influence individuals' decisions to take part in clinical research.