SAFE, a new therapeutic intervention for families of children with autism: a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial of Systemic Autism-related Family Enabling (SAFE), an intervention for families of children with autism. DESIGN: A randomised, controlled, multicentred feasibility study. SETTING: Participants were identified from three National Health Service (NHS) diagnosing centres in Plymouth and Cornwall and a community pathway. PARTICIPANTS: 34 families of a child with a diagnosis of autism severity level 1 or 2 between 3 and 16 years. Four families were lost to follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: SAFE is a manualised five-session family therapy-based intervention delivered over 16 weeks and designed for families of children with autism. SAFE involves families attending five 3-hour sessions led by systemic practitioners. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The proposed primary outcome measure was the Systemic CORE 15 (SCORE-15). Proposed secondary outcome measures: Patient Health Questionnaire-Somatic Anxiety Depressive Symptoms, the Coding of Attachment-Related Parenting for use with children with Autism, the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL), the Reflective Functioning Questionnaire (RFQ) and the Caregiving Helplessness Questionnaire. Outcome measures were collected at baseline and 24 weeks post randomisation. RESULTS: All primary caregivers retained in the study completed the SCORE-15 at both time points. 34 of the target of 36 families were recruited and 88% of families were retained. Training for therapists was effective. Feedback revealed willingness to undergo randomisation. There was 100% attendance at appropriate sessions for core family members. The SCORE-15 showed reduction in scores for families receiving SAFE compared with controls suggesting positive change. Qualitative data also revealed that families found the study acceptable and families receiving SAFE experienced positive change. Feedback indicated that the SCORE-15 should be retained as a primary measure in a future trial, but secondary measures should be reduced. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that a larger trial of SAFE is feasible. Findings suggest that SAFE can address current gaps in recommended care, can be confidently delivered by NHS staff and has potential as a beneficial treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISCTRN83964946 and IRAS213527.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of teen online problem-solving for adolescents who have survived an acquired brain injury in the UK: protocol for a randomised, controlled feasibility study (TOPS-UK).

INTRODUCTION: Paediatric acquired brain injury is a leading cause of mortality in children in the UK. Improved treatment during the acute phase has led to increased survival rates, although with life-long morbidity in terms of social and emotional functioning. This is the protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative study and feasibility economic evaluation. If feasible, a later definitive trial will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an online intervention to enhance problem solving ability versus treatment as usual. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Twenty-five adolescents and their families identified by primary or secondary care clinicians at participating UK National Health Service Trusts will be recruited and individually randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive the online intervention or treatment as usual. Participants will be followed up by online questionnaires 17 weeks after randomisation to capture acceptability of the study and intervention and resource use data. Qualitative interviews will capture participants' and clinicians' experiences of the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been granted ethical approval by the South West-Exeter Research Ethics Committee (ref 17/SW/0083). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and will inform the design of a larger trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10906069.

SAFE, a new therapeutic intervention for families of children with autism: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Incidence of autistic traits, mental health problems, stress and poor coping is high among family members of children with autism. These problems are coupled with challenging behaviour among children with autism. Current treatment for these families is disjointed and costly. The need for whole family support is supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations, developments regarding children's service provision, research and requests by families of children with autism. Despite evidence that family therapies can provide benefits to these families, efficacy has not been subject to a randomised controlled trial. Systemic Autism-related Family Enabling (SAFE) is a new family therapy intervention designed specifically for families of children with autism. We aim to establish the feasibility of running a fully powered randomised controlled trial to evaluate SAFE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Families of children with autism aged 3-16 years will be invited to participate. Consenting participants will be randomised 2:1 to either SAFE+support as usual or support as usual alone. The proposed primary outcome measure for the main trial will be the Systemic CORE 15. Participants will also complete proposed secondary outcome measures, indexing changes in child behaviour, child-parent attachment, anxiety and depression. Generic health economic outcome measures (EuroQol 5 dimensions and Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions) will also provide data on the feasibility of cost-effectiveness analysis. Questionnaires will be completed at baseline and 32 weeks post-allocation. Data on ability to identify, recruit, randomise, retain and collect data from families, acceptability of outcome measures, adherence of therapists and families to the intervention, appropriateness of resource use questionnaires and effectiveness of training will be collected for feasibility analysis. Qualitative data will also explore acceptability of SAFE and reasons for declining and withdrawing from the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The current trial protocol received ethical approval from the South West-Exeter Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/SW/0192). The findings of the trial will be disseminated in collaboration with our Family Consultation Group and other partners. Findings will be shared locally, nationally and internationally through events, conferences and published papers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCTRN83964946 (Pre-results) IRAS 213527.

INSoles To Ease Pressure (INSTEP) Study: a multicentre, randomised controlled feasibility study to compare the effectiveness of a novel instant optimised insole with a standard insole for people with diabetic neuropathy: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Foot ulceration is a multifactorial complication of diabetes. Therapeutic insoles and footwear are frequently used to reduce elevated tissue pressures associated with risk of foot ulceration. A novel protocol using in-shoe pressure measurement technology to provide an instant optimised insole and house shoe solution has been developed, with the aim of reducing foot ulceration. AIM: This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of a novel instant optimised insole with a standard insole for people with diabetic neuropathy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a participant and assessor blinded, randomised, multicentre parallel group feasibility trial with embedded qualitative study. Seventy-six participants will be recruited from three podiatry clinics and randomised to an optimised insole plus usual care (intervention group) or standard insole plus usual care (control group) using a minimisation by randomisation procedure by study centre and previous ulcer status. Assessment visits and data collection will be at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. Feasibility and acceptability of the trial procedures will be determined in terms of recruitment and retention rates, data completion rates, intervention adherence and effectiveness of the blinding.Assessment of the appropriateness and performance of outcome measures will inform selection of the primary and secondary outcomes and sample size estimate for the anticipated definitive randomised controlled trial. Clinical outcomes include incidence of plantar foot ulceration and change in peak plantar pressure. Twelve participants (four from each centre) and three treating podiatrists (one from each centre) will be interviewed to explore their experiences of receiving and delivering the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the South-West Exeter Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, public platforms and academic publications. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16011830; Pre-results.

Novel use of tranexamic acid to reduce the need for Nasal Packing in Epistaxis (NoPac) randomised controlled trial: research protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) with epistaxis uncontrolled by subsequent simple first aid measures or application of topical vasoconstrictors will typically undergo anterior nasal packing. Packing is effective, but can be extremely painful and unpleasant and patients usually need hospital admission. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is a cheap, safe, readily available antifibrinolytic agent known to be beneficial in a variety of clinical settings where uncontrolled bleeding may be a problem. Anecdotal evidence suggests that topical TXA may be of value in persistent epistaxis; however, further evaluation is required. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, controlled trial comparing the use of topical intranasal TXA with indistinguishable placebo in adults presenting to UK EDs with persistent atraumatic epistaxis. Follow-up is at 1 week by structured telephone review. The primary outcome measure is the subsequent need for anterior nasal packing in the ED. Key secondary outcomes include the need for hospital admission, blood transfusion and/or further treatment for epistaxis during the index ED attendance. Recruiting 450 patients will provide 90% power to demonstrate an absolute reduction in packing rate from 95% to 85%. An improvement of this magnitude would be of significant benefit to patients and healthcare providers and justify a change to standard practice. Given the low cost of TXA and its short administration time, a full economic evaluation is not being undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the South West-Bristol Research Ethics Committee (reference 17/SW/0010). We aim to publish the findings in a high impact, international peer-reviewed journal. Results will also be shared with the Hereditary Haemorrhagic Telangiectasia foundation and telangiectasia UK for dissemination through appropriate related forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN34153772 and EudraCT No: 2016-001530-10.

Trial of intraoperative cell salvage versus transfusion in ovarian cancer (TIC TOC): protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynaecological cancer, with more than 7000 new cases registered in the UK in 2014. In patients suitable for surgery, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidance for treatment recommends surgical resection of all macroscopic tumour, followed by chemotherapy. The surgical procedure can be extensive and associated with substantial blood loss which is conventionally replaced with a donor blood transfusion. While often necessary and lifesaving, the use of donor blood is associated with increased risks of complications and adverse surgical outcomes. Intraoperative cell salvage (ICS) is a blood conservation strategy in which red cells collected from blood lost during surgery are returned to the patient thus minimising the use of donor blood. This is the protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative study and feasibility economic evaluation. If feasible, a later definitive trial will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ICS reinfusion versus donor blood transfusion in ovarian cancer surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Sixty adult women scheduled for primary or interval ovarian cancer surgery at participating UK National Health Service Trusts will be recruited and individually randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive ICS reinfusion or donor blood (as required) during surgery. Participants will be followed up by telephone at 30 days postoperatively for adverse events monitoring and by postal questionnaire at 6 weeks and 3 monthly thereafter, to capture quality of life and resource use data. Qualitative interviews will capture participants' and clinicians' experiences of the study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been granted ethical approval by the South West-Exeter Research Ethics Committee (ref: 16/SW/0256). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and will inform the design of a larger trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN19517317.

Randomised controlled trial of the Limit of Detection of Troponin and ECG Discharge (LoDED) strategy versus usual care in adult patients with chest pain attending the emergency department: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Observational data suggest a single high-sensitivity troponin blood test taken at emergency department (ED) presentation could be used to rule out major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in 10%-60% of ED patients with chest pain. This is done using an 'undetectable' cut-off (the Limit of Detection: LoD). We combined the LoD cut-off with ECG findings to create the LoDED strategy. We aim to establish whether the LoDED strategy works under real-life conditions, when compared with existing strategies, in a way that is cost-effective and acceptable to patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a parallel-group pragmatic randomised controlled trial across UK EDs. Adults presenting to ED with suspected cardiac chest pain will be randomised 1:1. Existing rule-out strategies in current use across study centres, using serial high-sensitivity troponin testing, will be compared with the LoDED strategy. The primary outcome is successful early discharge (discharge from hospital within 4 hours of arrival) without MACE occurring within 30 days. Secondary outcomes include initial length of hospital stay; comparative costs; patient satisfaction and acceptability to patients. To detect a 9% difference between the early discharge rates (assuming an 8% rate in the standard care group) with 90% power, 594 patients need to be recruited, assuming a 95% follow-up rate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Frenchay Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/SW/0038). Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Lay summaries will be made available to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86184521; Pre-results.