Showing papers in "Trials in 2018"

Treatment of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome with a combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and interferon-β1b (MIRACLE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract: It had been more than 5 years since the first case of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus infection (MERS-CoV) was recorded, but no specific treatment has been investigated in randomized clinical trials. Results from in vitro and animal studies suggest that a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon-β1b (IFN-β1b) may be effective against MERS-CoV. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of treatment with a combination of lopinavir/ritonavir and recombinant IFN-β1b provided with standard supportive care, compared to treatment with placebo provided with standard supportive care in patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS requiring hospital admission. The protocol is prepared in accordance with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guidelines. Hospitalized adult patients with laboratory-confirmed MERS will be enrolled in this recursive, two-stage, group sequential, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized controlled trial. The trial is initially designed to include 2 two-stage components. The first two-stage component is designed to adjust sample size and determine futility stopping, but not efficacy stopping. The second two-stage component is designed to determine efficacy stopping and possibly readjustment of sample size. The primary outcome is 90-day mortality. This will be the first randomized controlled trial of a potential treatment for MERS. The study is sponsored by King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Enrollment for this study began in November 2016, and has enrolled thirteen patients as of Jan 24-2018. ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02845843. Registered on 27 July 2016.

CONSORT-SPI 2018 Explanation and Elaboration:: guidance for reporting social and psychological intervention trials

Abstract: The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement was developed to help biomedical researchers report randomised controlled trials (RCTs) transparently. We have developed an extension to the CONSORT 2010 Statement for social and psychological interventions (CONSORT-SPI 2018) to help behavioural and social scientists report these studies transparently. Following a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines, we conducted an online Delphi process to prioritise the list of potential items for the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist identified from the systematic review. Of 384 international participants, 321 (84%) participated in both rating rounds. We then held a consensus meeting of 31 scientists, journal editors, and research funders (March 2014) to finalise the content of the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist and flow diagram. CONSORT-SPI 2018 extends 9 items (14 including sub-items) from the CONSORT 2010 checklist, adds a new item (with 3 sub-items) related to stakeholder involvement in trials, and modifies the CONSORT 2010 flow diagram. This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document is a user manual to enhance understanding of CONSORT-SPI 2018. It discusses the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and provides examples of complete and transparent reporting. The CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension, this E&E document, and the CONSORT website ( www.consort-statement.org ) are helpful resources for improving the reporting of social and psychological intervention RCTs.

Reporting randomised trials of social and psychological interventions: the CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension.

Abstract: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are used to evaluate social and psychological interventions and inform policy decisions about them. Accurate, complete, and transparent reports of social and psychological intervention RCTs are essential for understanding their design, conduct, results, and the implications of the findings. However, the reporting of RCTs of social and psychological interventions remains suboptimal. The CONSORT Statement has improved the reporting of RCTs in biomedicine. A similar high-quality guideline is needed for the behavioural and social sciences. Our objective was to develop an official extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Statement (CONSORT 2010) for reporting RCTs of social and psychological interventions: CONSORT-SPI 2018. We followed best practices in developing the reporting guideline extension. First, we conducted a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines. We then conducted an online Delphi process including 384 international participants. In March 2014, we held a 3-day consensus meeting of 31 experts to determine the content of a checklist specifically targeting social and psychological intervention RCTs. Experts discussed previous research and methodological issues of particular relevance to social and psychological intervention RCTs. They then voted on proposed modifications or extensions of items from CONSORT 2010. The CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist extends 9 of the 25 items from CONSORT 2010: background and objectives, trial design, participants, interventions, statistical methods, participant flow, baseline data, outcomes and estimation, and funding. In addition, participants added a new item related to stakeholder involvement, and they modified aspects of the flow diagram related to participant recruitment and retention. Authors should use CONSORT-SPI 2018 to improve reporting of their social and psychological intervention RCTs. Journals should revise editorial policies and procedures to require use of reporting guidelines by authors and peer reviewers to produce manuscripts that allow readers to appraise study quality, evaluate the applicability of findings to their contexts, and replicate effective interventions.

Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)?

Abstract: Randomised trials are a central component of all evidence-informed health care systems and the evidence coming from them helps to support health care users, health professionals and others to make more informed decisions about treatment. The evidence available to trialists to support decisions on design, conduct and reporting of randomised trials is, however, sparse. Trial Forge is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision-making and in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. This guidance document provides a brief definition of SWATs, an explanation of why they are important and some practical 'top tips' that come from existing experience of doing SWATs. We hope the guidance will be useful to trialists, methodologists, funders, approvals agencies and others in making clear what a SWAT is, as well as what is involved in doing one.

Routinely collected data for randomized trials: promises, barriers, and implications

Abstract: Routinely collected health data (RCD) are increasingly used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This can provide three major benefits: increasing value through better feasibility (reducing costs, time, and resources), expanding the research agenda (performing trials for research questions otherwise not amenable to trials), and offering novel design and data collection options (e.g., point-of-care trials and other designs directly embedded in routine care). However, numerous hurdles and barriers must be considered pertaining to regulatory, ethical, and data aspects, as well as the costs of setting up the RCD infrastructure. Methodological considerations may be different from those in traditional RCTs: RCD are often collected by individuals not involved in the study and who are therefore blinded to the allocation of trial participants. Another consideration is that RCD trials may lead to greater misclassification biases or dilution effects, although these may be offset by randomization and larger sample sizes. Finally, valuable insights into external validity may be provided when using RCD because it allows pragmatic trials to be performed. We provide an overview of the promises, challenges, and potential barriers, methodological implications, and research needs regarding RCD for RCTs. RCD have substantial potential for improving the conduct and reducing the costs of RCTs, but a multidisciplinary approach is essential to address emerging practical barriers and methodological implications. Future research should be directed toward such issues and specifically focus on data quality validation, alternative research designs and how they affect outcome assessment, and aspects of reporting and transparency.

DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: A key step in the design of a RCT is the estimation of the number of participants needed in the study. The most common approach is to specify a target difference between the treatments for the primary outcome and then calculate the required sample size. The sample size is chosen to ensure that the trial will have a high probability (adequate statistical power) of detecting a target difference between the treatments should one exist. The sample size has many implications for the conduct and interpretation of the study. Despite the critical role that the target difference has in the design of a RCT, the way in which it is determined has received little attention. In this article, we summarise the key considerations and messages from new guidance for researchers and funders on specifying the target difference, and undertaking and reporting a RCT sample size calculation. This article on choosing the target difference for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation has been dual published in the BMJ and BMC Trials journals The DELTA2 (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project comprised five major components: systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2); a Delphi study (stage 3); a two-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4); and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5). The key messages from the DELTA2 guidance on determining the target difference and sample size calculation for a randomised caontrolled trial are presented. Recommendations for the subsequent reporting of the sample size calculation are also provided.

Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership – the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study

Abstract: Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology. This partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop. A total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was “How can randomised trials become part of routine care and best utilise current clinical care pathways?” The top 10 research questions can be viewed at www.priorityresearch.ie . The prioritised questions call for a collective focus on normalising trials as part of clinical care, enhancing communication, addressing barriers, enablers and motivators around participation and exploring greater public involvement in the research process.

Fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials: an integrated scientific and ethical approach

Abstract: Since pregnant women are severely underrepresented in clinical research, many take the position that the exclusion of pregnant women from research must be justified unless there are compelling “scientific reasons” for their exclusion. However, it is questionable whether this approach renders research with pregnant women fair. This paper analyzes and evaluates when research with pregnant women can be considered as fair and what constitutes scientific reasons for exclusion. Conceptual ethical and methodological analysis and evaluation of fair inclusion. Fair inclusion of pregnant women means (1) that pregnant women who are eligible are not excluded solely for being pregnant and (2) that the research interests of pregnant women are prioritized, meaning that they ought to receive substantially more attention. Fairness does not imply that pregnant women should be included in virtually every research project, as including only a few pregnant women in a population consisting only of women will not help to determine the effectiveness and safety of a treatment in pregnant women. Separate trials in pregnant women may be preferable once we assume, or know, that effects of interventions in pregnant women differ from the effects in other subpopulations, or when we assume, or know, that there are no differences. In the latter case, it may be preferable to conduct post-marketing studies or establish registries. If there is no conclusive evidence indicating either differences or equivalence of effects between pregnant and non-pregnant women, yet it seems unlikely that major differences or exact equivalence exist, the inclusion of pregnant women should be sufficient. Depending on the research question, this boils down to representativeness in terms of the proportion of pregnant and non-pregnant women, or to oversampling pregnant women. Fair inclusion of pregnant women in research implies that separate trials in pregnant women should be promoted. Inclusion of pregnant women has to be realized at the earliest phases of the research process. In addition to researchers and research ethics committees, scientific advisory councils, funders, drug regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, journal editors and others have a joint responsibility to further develop the evidence base for drug use in pregnant women.

Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise

Abstract: Methodological research into the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials is essential to optimise the process. UK specialists in the field have established a set of top priorities in aid of this research. These priorities, however, may not be reflected in the needs of similar research in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) with different healthcare provision, resources and research infrastructure. The aim of the study was to identify the top priorities for methodological research in LMICs to inform further research and ultimately to improve clinical trials in these regions. An online, two-round survey was conducted from December 2016 to April 2017 amongst researchers and methodologists working on trials in LMICs. The first round required participants to suggest between three and six topics which they felt were priorities for trial methodological research in LMICs. The second round invited participants to grade the importance of a compulsory list of topics suggested by four or more individuals, and an optional list of the remaining topics. Rounds 1 and 2 were completed by 412 and 314 participants, respectively. A wide spread of years of experience, discipline, current country of residence, origin of trials training and area of involvement in trials was reported. The topics deemed most important for methodological research were: choosing appropriate outcomes to measure and training of research staff. By presenting these top priorities we have the foundations of a global health trials methodological research agenda which we hope will foster future research in specific areas in order to increase and improve trials in LMICs.

Tailored axillary surgery with or without axillary lymph node dissection followed by radiotherapy in patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer (TAXIS): study protocol for a multicenter, randomized phase-III trial.

Abstract: Complete lymph node removal through conventional axillary dissection (ALND) has been standard treatment for breast cancer patients for almost a century. In the 1990s, however, and in parallel with the advent of the sentinel lymph node (SLN) procedure, ALND came under increasing scrutiny due to its association with significant patient morbidity. Several studies have since provided evidence to suggest omission of ALND, often in favor of axillary radiation, in selected clinically node-negative, SLN-positive patients, thus supporting the current trend in clinical practice. Clinically node-positive patients, by contrast, continue to undergo ALND in many cases, if only for the lack of studies re-assessing the indication for ALND in these patients. Hence, there is a need for a clinical trial to evaluate the optimal treatment for clinically node-positive breast cancer patients in terms of surgery and radiotherapy. The TAXIS trial is designed to fill this gap by examining in particular the value of tailored axillary surgery (TAS), a new technique for selectively removing positive lymph nodes. In this international, multicenter, phase-III, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial (RCT), including 34 study sites from four different countries, we plan to randomize 1500 patients to either receive TAS followed by ALND and regional nodal irradiation excluding the dissected axilla, or receive TAS followed by regional nodal irradiation including the full axilla. All patients undergo adjuvant whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery and chest-wall irradiation after mastectomy. The main objective of the trial is to test the hypothesis that treatment with TAS and axillary radiotherapy is non-inferior to ALND in terms of disease-free survival of clinically node-positive breast cancer patients in the era of effective systemic therapy and extended regional nodal irradiation. The trial was activated on 31 July 2018 and the first patient was randomized on 7 August 2018. Designed to test the hypothesis that TAS is non-inferior to ALND in terms of curing patients and preventing recurrences, yet is significantly superior in reducing patient morbidity, this trial may establish a new worldwide treatment standard in breast cancer surgery. If found to be non-inferior to standard treatment, TAS may significantly contribute to reduce morbidity in breast cancer patients by avoiding surgical overtreatment. ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03513614. Registered on 1 May 2018. www.kofam.ch , ID: NCT03513614 . Registered on 17 June 2018. EudraCT No.: 2018–000372-14.

Exploring and adjusting for potential learning effects in ROLARR: a randomised controlled trial comparing robotic-assisted vs. standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection

Abstract: Commonly in surgical randomised controlled trials (RCT) the experimental treatment is a relatively new technique which the surgeons may still be learning, while the control is a well-established standard. This can lead to biased comparisons between treatments. In this paper we discuss the implementation of approaches for addressing this issue in the ROLARR trial, and points of consideration for future surgical trials. ROLARR was an international, randomised, parallel-group trial comparing robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was conversion to open surgery (binary). A surgeon inclusion criterion mandating a minimum level of experience in each technique was incorporated. Additionally, surgeon self-reported data were collected periodically throughout the trial to capture the level of experience of every participating surgeon. Multi-level logistic regression adjusting for operating surgeon as a random effect is used to estimate the odds ratio for conversion to open surgery between the treatment groups. We present and contrast the results from the primary analysis, which did not account for learning effects, and a sensitivity analysis which did. The primary analysis yields an estimated odds ratio (robotic/laparoscopic) of 0.614 (95% CI 0.311, 1.211; p = 0.16), providing insufficient evidence to conclude superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic in terms of the risk of conversion to open. The sensitivity analysis reveals that while participating surgeons in ROLARR were expert at laparoscopic surgery, some, if not all, were still learning robotic surgery. The treatment-effect odds ratio decreases by a factor of 0.341 (95% CI 0.121, 0.960; p = 0.042) per unit increase in log-number of previous robotic operations performed by the operating surgeon. The odds ratio for a patient whose operating surgeon has the mean experience level in ROLARR – 152.46 previous laparoscopic, 67.93 previous robotic operations – is 0.40 (95% CI 0.168, 0.953; p = 0.039). In this paper we have demonstrated the implementation of approaches for accounting for learning in a practical example of a surgery RCT analysis. The results demonstrate the value of implementing such approaches, since we have shown that without them the ROLARR analysis would indeed have been confounded by the learning effects. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry, ID: ISRCTN80500123. Registered on 27 May 2010.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (LEOPARD-2): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract: Data from observational studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is superior to open pancreatoduodenectomy regarding intraoperative blood loss, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay, without increasing total costs. However, several case-matched studies failed to demonstrate superiority of MIPD, and large registry studies from the USA even suggested increased mortality for MIPDs performed in low-volume (<10 MIPDs annually) centers. Randomized controlled multicenter trials are lacking but clearly required. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIPD compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy, even in an enhanced recovery setting. LEOPARD-2 is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, phase 2/3, superiority trial in centers that completed the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group LAELAPS-2 training program for laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy or LAELAPS-3 training program for robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and have performed ≥ 20 MIPDs. A total of 136 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant, or malignant disease will be randomly assigned to undergo minimally invasive or open pancreatoduodenectomy in an enhanced recovery setting. After the first 40 patients (phase 2), the data safety monitoring board will assess safety outcomes (not blinded for treatment allocation) and decide on continuation to phase 3. Patients from phase 2 will then be included in phase 3. The primary outcome measure is time (days) to functional recovery. All patients will be blinded for the surgical approach, at least until postoperative day 5, but preferably until functional recovery has been attained. Secondary outcome measures are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life, and costs. The LEOPARD-2 trial is designed to assess whether MIPD reduces time to functional recovery, as compared with open pancreatoduodenectomy in an enhanced recovery setting. Netherlands Trial Register, NTR5689 . Registered on 2 March 2016.

A cluster randomised controlled trial of the Wellbeing in Secondary Education (WISE) Project - an intervention to improve the mental health support and training available to secondary school teachers: protocol for an integrated process evaluation.

Abstract: Secondary school teachers have low levels of wellbeing and high levels of depression compared with the general population. Teachers are in a key position to support students, but poor mental health may be a barrier to doing so effectively. The Wellbeing in Secondary Education (WISE) project is a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention to improve the mental health support and training available to secondary school teachers through delivery of the training package Mental Health First Aid and a staff peer support service. We will conduct a process evaluation as part of the WISE trial to support the interpretation of trial outcomes and refine intervention theory. The domains assessed will be: the extent to which the hypothesised mechanisms of change are activated; system level influences on these mechanisms; programme differentiation and usual practice; intervention implementation, including any adaptations; intervention acceptability; and intervention sustainability. Research questions will be addressed via quantitative and qualitative methods. All study schools (n = 25) will provide process evaluation data, with more detailed focus group, interview and observation data being collected from a subsample of case study schools (4 intervention and 4 control). Mechanisms of change, as outlined in a logic model, will be measured via teacher and student surveys and focus groups. School context will be explored via audits of school practice that relate to mental health and wellbeing, combined with stakeholder interviews and focus groups. Implementation of the training and peer support service will be assessed via training observations, training participant evaluation forms, focus groups with participants, interviews with trainers and peer support service users, and peer supporter logs recording help provided. Acceptability and sustainability will be examined via interviews with funders, head teachers, trainers and peer support services users, and focus groups with training participants. The process evaluation embedded within the WISE cluster RCT will illuminate how and why the intervention was effective, ineffective or conferred iatrogenic effects. It will contribute to the refinement of the theory underpinning the intervention, and will help to inform any future implementation. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN95909211 registered on 24 March 2016.

The AWED trial (Applying Wolbachia to Eliminate Dengue) to assess the efficacy of Wolbachia-infected mosquito deployments to reduce dengue incidence in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Abstract: Dengue and other arboviruses transmitted by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, including Zika and chikungunya, present an increasing public health challenge in tropical regions. Current vector control strategies have failed to curb disease transmission, but continue to be employed despite the absence of robust evidence for their effectiveness or optimal implementation. The World Mosquito Program has developed a novel approach to arbovirus control using Ae. aegypti stably transfected with Wolbachia bacterium, with a significantly reduced ability to transmit dengue, Zika and chikungunya in laboratory experiments. Modelling predicts this will translate to local elimination of dengue in most epidemiological settings. This study protocol describes the first trial to measure the efficacy of Wolbachia in reducing dengue virus transmission in the field. The study is a parallel, two-arm, non-blinded cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in a single site in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The aim is to determine whether large-scale deployment of Wolbachia-infected Ae. aegypti mosquitoes leads to a measurable reduction in dengue incidence in treated versus untreated areas. The primary endpoint is symptomatic, virologically confirmed dengue virus infection of any severity. The 26 km2 study area was subdivided into 24 contiguous clusters, allocated randomly 1:1 to receive Wolbachia deployments or no intervention. We use a novel epidemiological study design, the cluster-randomised test-negative design trial, in which dengue cases and arbovirus-negative controls are sampled concurrently from among febrile patients presenting to a network of primary care clinics, with case or control status classified retrospectively based on the results of laboratory diagnostic testing. Efficacy is estimated from the odds ratio of Wolbachia exposure distribution (probability of living in a Wolbachia-treated area) among virologically confirmed dengue cases compared to test-negative controls. A secondary per-protocol analysis allows for individual Wolbachia exposure levels to be assessed to account for movements outside the cluster and the heterogeneity in local Wolbachia prevalence among treated clusters. The findings from this study will provide the first experimental evidence for the efficacy of Wolbachia in reducing dengue incidence. Together with observational evidence that is accumulating from pragmatic deployments of Wolbachia in other field sites, this will provide valuable data to estimate the effectiveness of this novel approach to arbovirus control, inform future cost-effectiveness estimates, and guide plans for large-scale deployments in other endemic settings. ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03055585 . Registered on 14 February 2017.

Improving physical activity, pain and function in patients waiting for hip and knee arthroplasty by combining targeted exercise training with behaviour change counselling: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Osteoarthritis often results in prolonged periods of reduced physical activity and is associated with adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. Exercise interventions for patients on the waiting list for arthroplasty can reduce the risk of long-term adverse outcomes by increasing activity levels. However, uptake and ongoing positive rates of physical activity in this population are low and the impact of pre-operative behaviour counselling on exercise is not known. The exercise and behaviour change counselling (ENHANCE) trial is a two-arm assessor-blind randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a 12-week exercise intervention designed to improve long-term physical activity and functional abilities for people awaiting arthroplasty. Participants on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty are recruited from one clinical site in Australia. After collection of baseline data, participants are randomised to either an intervention or control group. The control group receive usual care, as recommended by evidence-based guidelines. The intervention group receive an individualised programme of exercises and counselling sessions. The 12-week exercise programme integrates multiple elements, including up to five in-person counselling sessions, supported by written materials. Participants are encouraged to seek social support among their friends and self-monitor their physical activity. The primary outcome is physical activity (daily step count and percentage of day spent in sedentary activities). Secondary outcomes include pain ratings, physical function, psychosocial factors and changes in clinical markers linked with potential common chronic diseases (diabetes and cardiovascular disease). All outcomes are assessed at baseline and 26 weeks later and again at 26 weeks post-surgery. This study seeks to address a significant gap in current osteoarthritis management practice by providing evidence for the effectiveness of an exercise programme combined with behaviour counselling for adults waiting for hip and knee arthroplasty. Theory-driven evidence-based strategies that can improve an individual’s exercise self-efficacy and self-management capacity could have a significant impact on the development of secondary chronic disease in this population. Information gained from this study will contribute to the evidence base on the management of adults waiting for hip and knee arthroplasty. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000357358 . Registered on 8 March 2017.

Art therapy is associated with sustained improvement in cognitive function in the elderly with mild neurocognitive disorder: findings from a pilot randomized controlled trial for art therapy and music reminiscence activity versus usual care

Abstract: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a phase in cognitive decline when it is still possible to intervene to reverse the decline. Cognitive stimulation delivered through psychosocial interventions provides both psychological intervention and social stimulation to improve cognition. A pilot open-label parallel-arms randomized controlled trial was undertaken to examine the effects of art therapy (AT) and music reminiscence activity (MRA) compared to the control, on the primary outcome of neurocognitive domain assessments in elderly people with MCI. Community-living elderly people with MCI (Petersen’s criteria), assessed for study eligibility, were randomized using a web-based system with equal allocation to two intervention arms: AT (guided viewing of art pieces and production of visual arts) and MRA (listening, and recalling memories related to music) and a control arm (standard care without any intervention). Interventions were led by trained therapists weekly for 3 months, then fortnightly for 6 months. Neurocognitive domains (mean of memory, attention, and visuo-spatial abilities standardized scores), psychological wellbeing (subsyndromal depression and anxiety) and telomere length as a biological marker of cellular ageing, were assessed by intervention-blinded assessors at baseline, 3 months and 9 months. In total, 250 people were screened and 68 were randomized and included in the analysis. In the AT arm, neurocognitive domains improved compared to the control arm at 3 months (mean difference (d) = 0.40; 90% CI 0.126, 0.679) and were sustained at 9 months (d = 0.31; 90% CI 0.068, 0.548). There was some improvement in depression and anxiety at 3 and 9 months and in telomere length at 9 months, but this was not significant. Similar improvements were observed in the MRA arm over the control arm, but they were not significant. There were no intervention-related adverse effects. Art therapy delivered by trained staff as “art as therapy” and “art psychotherapy” may have been the significant contributor to cognitive improvements. The findings support cognitive stimulation for elderly people with cognitive decline and signal the need for larger studies and further investigation of carefully designed psycho-social interventions for this group. Clinical Trials.gov, NCT02854085 . Registered on 7 July 2016.

Achieving optimal technology and behavioral uptake of single and combined interventions of water, sanitation hygiene and nutrition, in an efficacy trial (WASH benefits) in rural Bangladesh

Abstract: Uptake matters for evaluating the health impact of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions. Many large-scale WASH interventions have been plagued by low uptake. For the WASH Benefits Bangladesh efficacy trial, high uptake was a prerequisite. We assessed the degree of technology and behavioral uptake among participants in the trial, as part of a three-paper series on WASH Benefits Intervention Delivery and Performance. This study is a cluster randomized trial comprised of geographically matched clusters among four districts in rural Bangladesh. We randomly allocated 720 clusters of 5551 pregnant women to individual or combined water, sanitation, handwashing, and nutrition interventions, or a control group. Behavioral objectives included; drinking chlorine-treated, safely stored water; use of a hygienic latrine and safe feces disposal at the compound level; handwashing with soap at key times; and age-appropriate nutrition behaviors (pregnancy to 24 months) including a lipid-based nutrition supplement (LNS). Enabling technologies and behavior change were promoted by trained local community health workers through periodic household visits. To monitor technology and behavioral uptake, we conducted surveys and spot checks in 30–35 households per intervention arm per month, over a 20-month period, and structured observations in 324 intervention and 108 control households, approximately 15 months after interventions commenced. In the sanitation arms, observed adult use of a hygienic latrine was high (94–97% of events) while child sanitation practices were moderate (37–54%). In the handwashing arms, handwashing with soap was more common after toilet use (67–74%) than nonintervention arms (18–40%), and after cleaning a child’s anus (61–72%), but was still low before food handling. In the water intervention arms, more than 65% of mothers and index children were observed drinking chlorine-treated water from a safe container. Reported LNS feeding was > 80% in nutrition arms. There was little difference in uptake between single and combined intervention arms. Rigorous implementation of interventions deployed at large scale in the context of an efficacy trial achieved high levels of technology and behavioral uptake in individual and combined WASH and nutrition intervention households. Further work should assess how to achieve similar uptake levels under programmatic conditions. WASH Benefits Bangladesh: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT01590095 . Registered on April 30, 2012.

Anti-inflammatory treatment of depression: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of vortioxetine augmented with celecoxib or placebo

Abstract: In patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), antidepressant response and remission rates are low, highlighting the need for new treatment approaches. Recently, the abundant literature linking inflammatory processes and depressive symptoms have led to the hypothesis that selecting treatment for MDD based on the patient’s inflammatory status could be a promising strategy to improve outcomes in patients suffering from MDD. The aim of the randomised control trial we propose is to investigate the antidepressant efficacy of the combined treatment of MDD with antidepressant medication plus anti-inflammatory medication in individuals with raised inflammation levels. For the first time, this study will prospectively test the efficacy of an antidepressant plus anti-inflammatory augmentation based on baseline inflammatory maker levels in MDD using a randomised controlled trial design. This study proposes to measure blood C-reactive protein (CRP) levels before the initiation of treatment in 200 participants with MDD. Study participants are then assigned into one of two study strata: either into the ‘Depression with inflammation’ stratum (CRP levels > 3 mg/L); or into the ‘Depression without inflammation’ stratum (CRP levels ≤ 3 mg/L). Within each of the two study strata, participants randomly receive either antidepressant medication alone (vortioxetine) plus anti-inflammatory medication (celecoxib) or vortioxetine plus placebo for six weeks. At the end of the treatment period, participants have the opportunity to continue vortioxetine alone for a six-month post-trial period. Clinical outcomes are measured at baseline, fortnightly during the treatment period and at the three-month and six-month post-trial visits. The primary outcome is change in MADRS score, with a primary endpoint of a score reduction by 50% from baseline to six weeks (end of augmentation treatment with celecoxib). Secondary clinical outcomes are changes in the cognitive dimensions of depression (cognitive function, emotion processing and social cognition). Biological outcome measures (levels of CRP and other inflammatory markers) are measured at baseline, after six weeks of treatment and at the six-month post-trial visit. The current study will generate novel evidence for biomarker-based personalised antidepressant treatment selection based on patient inflammatory status before treatment. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12617000527369p . Registered on 11 April 2017.

Survey indicated that core outcome set development is increasingly including patients, being conducted internationally and using Delphi surveys

Abstract: In the original publication [1] the abbreviation for Core outcome sets (COS) was pluralized unnecessarily throughout the next.

CONFIRM: a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial investigating the effect of nivolumab in patients with relapsed mesothelioma: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Mesothelioma is an incurable, apoptosis-resistant cancer caused in most cases by previous exposure to asbestos and is increasing in incidence. It represents a growing health burden but remains under-researched, with limited treatment options. Early promising signals of activity relating to both PD-L1- and PD-1-targeted treatment in mesothelioma implicate a dependency of mesothelioma on this immune checkpoint. There is a need to evaluate checkpoint inhibitors in patients with relapsed mesothelioma where treatment options are limited. The addition of 12 months of nivolumab (anti-PD1 antibody) to standard practice will be conducted in the UK using a randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial (the Cancer Research UK CONFIRM trial). A total of 336 patients with pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma who have received at least two prior lines of therapy will be recruited from UK secondary care sites. Patients will be randomised 2:1 (nivolumab:placebo), stratified according to epithelioid/non-epithelioid, to receive either 240 mg nivolumab monotherapy or saline placebo as a 30-min intravenous infusion. Treatment will be for up to 12 months. We will determine whether the use of nivolumab increases overall survival (the primary efficacy endpoint). Secondary endpoints will include progression-free survival, objective response rate, toxicity, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle using a Cox regression analysis for the primary endpoint (and for other time-to-event endpoints). The outcome of this trial will provide evidence of the potential benefit of the use of nivolumab in the treatment of relapsed mesothelioma. If found to be clinically effective, safe and cost-effective it is likely to become the new standard of care in the UK. EudraCT Number: 2016–003111-35 (entered on 21 July 2016); ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03063450 . Registered on 24 February 2017.

Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and implications for outcome integrity: a cross-sectional analysis of trials published in high-impact specialty society journals.

Abstract: Registration of clinical trials is critical for promoting transparency and integrity in medical research; however, trials must be registered in a prospective fashion to deter unaccounted protocol modifications or selection of alternate outcomes that may enhance favorability of reported findings. We assessed adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and identified the frequency of registrations occurring after potential observation of primary outcome data among trials published in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. Additionally, we examined whether trials that are unregistered or registered after potential observation of primary outcome data were more likely to report favorable findings. We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 50 most recently published clinical trials that reported primary results in each of the ten highest-impact US medical specialty society journals between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the proportions of trials that were: registered; registered retrospectively; registered retrospectively potentially after initial ascertainment of primary outcomes; and reporting favorable findings, overall and stratified by journal and trial characteristics. Chi-squared analyses were performed to assess differences in registration by journal and trial characteristics. We reviewed 6869 original research reports published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 to identify a total of 486 trials across 472 publications. Of these 486 trials, 47 (10%) were unregistered. Among 439 registered trials, 340 (77%) were registered prospectively and 99 (23%) retrospectively. Sixty-seven (68%) of these 99 retrospectively registered trials, or 15% of all 439 registered trials, were registered after potential observation of primary outcome data ascertained among participants enrolled at inception. Industry-funded trials, those with enrollment sites in the US, as well as those assessing FDA-regulated interventions each had lower rates of retrospective registration. Unregistered trials were more likely to report favorable findings than were registered trials (89% vs. 64%; relative risk (RR) = 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.20–1.58; p = 0.004), irrespective of registration timing. Adherence to the ICMJE’s prospective registration policy remains sub-standard, even in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. These journals frequently published unregistered trials and trials registered after potential observation of primary outcome data.

Comparing dedicated and designated models of integrating mental health into chronic disease care: Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Abstract: In low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), it is uncertain whether a “dedicated” approach to integrating mental health care (wherein a community health worker (CHW) has the sole responsibility of delivering mental health care) or a “designated” approach (wherein a CHW provides this service in addition to usual responsibilities) is most effective and cost-effective. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two models of service integration relative to treatment as usual (TAU) for improving mental health and chronic disease outcomes among patients with HIV or diabetes. This is a cluster randomised trial. We will randomise 24 primary health care facilities in the Western Cape Province of South Africa to one of three study arms. Within each cluster, we will recruit 25 patients from HIV and 25 from diabetes services for a total sample of 1200 participants. Eligible patients will be aged 18 years or older, take medication for HIV or diabetes, and screen positive on the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test for hazardous/harmful alcohol use or depression on the Centre for Epidemiology Scale on Depression. Participants recruited in clinics assigned to the designated or dedicated approach will receive three sessions of motivational interviewing and problem-solving therapy, while those recruited at TAU-assigned clinics will be referred for further assessment. Participants will complete an interviewer-administered questionnaire at baseline, and at 6 and 12 months post-enrolment to assess change in self-reported outcomes. At these end points, we will test HIV RNA viral load for participants with HIV and HbA1c levels for participants with diabetes. Primary outcomes are reductions in self-reported hazardous/harmful alcohol use and risk of depression. Secondary outcomes are improvements in adherence to chronic disease treatment, biomarkers of chronic disease outcomes, and health-related quality of life. Mixed-effect linear regression models will model the effect of the interventions on primary and secondary outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of each approach will be assessed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Study findings will guide decision-making around how best to integrate mental health counselling into chronic disease care in a LMIC setting. Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, Trial registration number: ACTR201610001825403 . Registered 17 October 2016.

Superiority and non-inferiority: two sides of the same coin?

Abstract: The classification of phase 3 trials as superiority or non-inferiority has become routine, and it is widely accepted that there are important differences between the two types of trial in their design, analysis and interpretation There is a clear rationale for the superiority/non-inferiority framework in the context of regulatory trials The focus of our article is non-regulatory trials with a public health objective First, using two examples from infectious disease research, we show that the classification of superiority or non-inferiority trials is not always straightforward Second, we show that several arguments for different approaches to the design, analysis and interpretation of superiority and non-inferiority trials are unconvincing when examined in detail We consider, in particular, the calculation of sample size (and the choice of delta or the non-inferiority margin), intention-to-treat versus per-protocol analyses, and one-sided versus two-sided confidence intervals We argue that the superiority/non-inferiority framework is not just unnecessary but can have a detrimental effect, being a barrier to clear scientific thought and communication In particular, it places undue emphasis on tests for significance or non-inferiority at the expense of estimation We emphasise that these concerns apply to phase 3 non-regulatory trials in general, not just to those where the classification of the trial as superiority or non-inferiority is ambiguous Guidelines and statistical practice should abandon the sharp division between superiority and non-inferiority phase 3 non-regulatory trials and be more closely aligned to the clinical and public health questions that motivate the trial

7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for critically ill patients with bloodstream infection: a pilot randomized clinical trial.

Abstract: Shorter-duration antibiotic treatment is sufficient for a range of bacterial infections, but has not been adequately studied for bloodstream infections. Our systematic review, survey, and observational study indicated equipoise for a trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment for bloodstream infections; a pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) was a necessary next step to assess feasibility of a larger trial. We conducted an open, pilot RCT of antibiotic treatment duration among critically ill patients with bloodstream infection across 11 intensive care units (ICUs). Antibiotic selection, dosing and route were at the discretion of the treating team; patients were randomized 1:1 to intervention arms consisting of two fixed durations of treatment – 7 versus 14 days. We recruited adults with a positive blood culture yielding pathogenic bacteria identified while in ICU. We excluded patients with severe immunosuppression, foci of infection with an established requirement for prolonged treatment, single cultures with potential contaminants, or cultures yielding Staphylococcus aureus or fungi. The primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate and adherence to treatment duration protocol. Secondary outcomes included 90-day, ICU and hospital mortality, relapse of bacteremia, lengths of stay, mechanical ventilation and vasopressor duration, antibiotic-free days, Clostridium difficile, antibiotic adverse events, and secondary infection with antimicrobial-resistant organisms. We successfully achieved our target sample size (n = 115) and average recruitment rate of 1 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.3–1.5) patient/ICU/month. Adherence to treatment duration was achieved in 89/115 (77%) patients. Adherence differed by underlying source of infection: 26/31 (84%) lung; 18/29 (62%) intra-abdominal; 20/26 (77%) urinary tract; 8/9 (89%) vascular-catheter; 4/4 (100%) skin/soft tissue; 2/4 (50%) other; and 11/12 (92%) unknown sources. Patients experienced a median (IQR) 14 (8–17) antibiotic-free days (of the 28 days after blood culture collection). Antimicrobial-related adverse events included hepatitis in 1 (1%) patient, Clostridium difficile infection in 4 (4%), and secondary infection with highly resistant microorganisms in 10 (9%). Ascertainment was complete for all study outcomes in ICU, in hospital and at 90 days. It is feasible to conduct a RCT to determine whether 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment is associated with comparable 90-day survival. ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier: NCT02261506 . Registered on 26 September 2014.

Patient-centered recruitment and retention for a randomized controlled study

Abstract: Recruitment and retention strategies for patient-centered outcomes research are evolving and research on the subject is limited. In this work, we present a conceptual model of patient-centered recruitment and retention, and describe the recruitment and retention activities and related challenges in a patient-centered comparative effectiveness trial. This is a multicenter, longitudinal randomized controlled trial in localized prostate cancer patients. We recruited 743 participants from three sites over 15 months period (January 2014 to March 2015), and followed them for 24 months. At site 1, of the 773 eligible participants, 551 (72%) were enrolled. At site 2, 34 participants were eligible and 23 (68%) enrolled. Of the 434 eligible participants at site 3, 169 (39%) enrolled. We observed that strategies related to the concepts of trust (e.g., physician involvement, ensuring protection of information), communication (e.g., brochures and pamphlets in physicians’ offices, continued contact during regular clinic visits and calling/emailing assessment), attitude (e.g., emphasizing the altruistic value of research, positive attitude of providers and research staff), and expectations (e.g., full disclosure of study requirements and time commitment, update letters) facilitated successful patient recruitment and retention. A stakeholders’ advisory board provided important input for the recruitment and retention activities. Active engagement, reminders at the offices, and personalized update letters helped retention during follow-up. Usefulness of telephone recruitment was site specific and, at one site, the time requirement for telephone recruitment was a challenge. We have presented multilevel strategies for successful recruitment and retention in a clinical trial using a patient-centered approach. Our strategies were flexible to accommodate site-level requirements. These strategies as well as the challenges can aid recruitment and retention efforts of future large-scale, patient-centered research studies. Clinicaltrials.gov , ID: NCT02032550 . Registered on 22 November 2013.

Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework

Abstract: Research has shown that recruitment to trials is a process that stretches from identifying potentially eligible patients, through eligibility assessment, to obtaining informed consent. The length and complexity of this pathway means that many patients do not have the opportunity to consider participation. This article presents the development of a simple framework to document, understand and improve the process of trial recruitment. Eight RCTs integrated a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) into the main trial, feasibility or pilot study. Part of the QRI required mapping the patient recruitment pathway using trial-specific screening and recruitment logs. A content analysis compared the logs to identify aspects of the recruitment pathway and process that were useful in monitoring and improving recruitment. Findings were synthesised to develop an optimised simple framework that can be used in a wide range of RCTs. The eight trials recorded basic information about patients screened for trial participation and randomisation outcome. Three trials systematically recorded reasons why an individual was not enrolled in the trial, and further details why they were not eligible or approached, or declined randomisation. A framework to facilitate clearer recording of the recruitment process and reasons for non-participation was developed: SEAR – Screening, to identify potentially eligible trial participants; Eligibility, assessed against the trial protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria; Approach, the provision of oral and written information and invitation to participate in the trial, and Randomised or not, with the outcome of randomisation or treatment received. The SEAR framework encourages the collection of information to identify recruitment obstacles and facilitate improvements to the recruitment process. SEAR can be adapted to monitor recruitment to most RCTs, but is likely to add most value in trials where recruitment problems are anticipated or evident. Further work to test it more widely is recommended.

Dexamethasone for adult patients with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma (Dex-CSDH) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: After publication of the original article [1], the authors notified that that one of the BNTRC institutional collaborator names was misspelled.

Promoting public access to clinical trial protocols: challenges and recommendations.

Abstract: Recognizing the value of promoting public access to clinical trial protocols, Trials pioneered the way for their publication over a decade ago. However, despite major advances in the public accessibility of information about trial methods and results, protocol sharing remains relatively rare. Protocol sharing facilitates the critical appraisal of clinical trials and helps to identify and deter the selective reporting of outcomes and analyses. Challenges to the routine availability of high quality trial protocols include the gaps in incentives and adherence mechanisms, limited venues for sharing the original and final protocol versions, and the need for mechanisms to ensure transparent and complete protocol content. We propose recommendations for addressing key challenges to protocol sharing in order to promote routine public access to protocols for the benefit of patients and other users of evidence from clinical trials.

Leucine and ACE inhibitors as therapies for sarcopenia (LACE trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Abstract: Sarcopenia (the age-related loss of muscle mass and function) is a major contributor to loss of mobility, falls, loss of independence, morbidity and mortality in older people. Although resistance training is effective in preventing and reversing sarcopenia, many older people are sedentary and either cannot or do not want to exercise. This trial examines the efficacy of supplementation with the amino acid leucine and/or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition to potentially improve muscle mass and function in people with sarcopenia. Promising preliminary data exist from small studies for both interventions, but neither has yet been tested in adequately powered randomised trials in patients with sarcopenia. Leucine and ACE inhibitors in sarcopenia (LACE) is a multicentre, masked, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial randomised trial evaluating the efficacy of leucine and perindopril (angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)) in patients with sarcopenia. The trial will recruit 440 patients from primary and secondary care services across the UK. Male and female patients aged 70 years and over with sarcopenia as defined by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia (based on low total skeletal muscle mass on bioimpedance analysis and either low gait speed or low handgrip strength) will be eligible for participation. Participants will be excluded if they have a contraindication to, or are already taking, an ACEi, angiotensin receptor blocker or leucine. The primary clinical outcome for the trial is the between-group difference in the Short Physical Performance Battery score at all points between baseline and 12 months. Secondary outcomes include appendicular muscle mass measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, muscle strength, activities of daily living, quality of life, activity using pedometer step counts and falls. Participants, clinical teams, outcomes assessors and trial analysts are masked to treatment allocation. A panel of biomarkers including microRNAs, neurohormones, genetic polymorphisms and markers of inflammation relevant to muscle pathophysiology will be measured to explore predictors of response and further elucidate mechanisms underlying sarcopenia. Participants will receive a total of 12 months of either perindopril or placebo and either leucine or placebo. The results will provide the first robust test of the overall clinical and cost-effectiveness of these novel therapies for older patients with sarcopenia. ISRCTN, ISRCTN90094835 . Registered on 18 February 2015.

'Recruitment, recruitment, recruitment' - the need for more focus on retention: a qualitative study of five trials

Abstract: Loss to follow-up (attrition) is a frequent problem in clinical trials and can introduce bias or reduce power. So, understanding retention issues and strategies to address these are important. As part of a multi-method project, this qualitative study aimed to explore retention strategies used by trial teams and factors which may influence strategy adoption. A purposive sample of active trials was selected from the UK NIHR HTA portfolio of ongoing trials in 2014/2015. Semi-structured interviews with several trial team members from each trial and supplementary interviews with experienced trial managers explored strategies in collecting clinical outcome data and retaining participants. Interview data were analysed thematically using techniques of constant comparison. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews with trial team members including chief investigators, trial managers, nurses and research administrators revealed strategies used to enhance retention. Some were recognised methods and planned from trial outset whilst others were implemented more responsively. Interviewees placed great value on fostering positive relationships with trial participants to enhance retention. However, these strategies took time which was not always appreciated by the wider trial team or funding bodies. The national focus on recruitment targets in networks posed a challenge to staff and was deemed detrimental to retention. The ‘moral compass’ of individual researchers relied on their own beliefs and values and research experience and the factors affected their confidence to pursue participant data during follow-up. The role of trial staff and their underlying behaviours influence retention practices and, combined with emphasis on recruitment targets, can be detrimental to motivation and retention activities. There is a need to consider how to train and support trial staff involved in retention practices and recognition of retention from funding bodies and oversight organisations.