scholarly journals Feasibility of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting: the LaCeS feasibility trial protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deena Harji ◽  
Helen Marshall ◽  
Katie Gordon ◽  
Hannah Crow ◽  
Victoria Hiley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Acute Setting ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAcute colorectal surgery forms a significant proportion of emergency admissions within the National Health Service. There is limited evidence to suggest minimally invasive surgery may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients. Consequently, there is a need to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the acute colorectal setting. However,emergency colorectal surgical trials have previously been difficult to conduct due to issues surrounding recruitment and equipoise. The LaCeS (randomised controlled trial of Laparoscopic versus open Colorectal Surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive, phase III trial of laparoscopic versus open acute colorectal resection.Methods and analysisThe LaCeS feasibility trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive eitherlaparoscopic or open surgery. The trial aims to recruit at least 66 patients from five acute general surgical units across the UK. Patients over the age of 18 with a diagnosis of acute colorectal pathology requiring resection on clinical and radiological/endoscopic investigations, with a National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death classification of urgent will be considered eligible for participation. The primary outcome is recruitment. Secondary outcomes include assessing the safety profile of laparoscopic surgery using intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, conversion rates and patient-safety indicators as surrogate markers. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes will also be reported. The trial will contain an embedded qualitative study to assess clinician and patient acceptability of trial processes.Ethics and disseminationThe LaCeS feasibility trial is approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber, Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 15/ YH/0542). The results from the trial will be presented at national and international colorectal conferences and will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN15681041; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Effect of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in the phase III, randomised controlled trial: OPAL Beyond

RMD Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e000808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vibeke Strand ◽  
Kurt de Vlam ◽  
Jose A Covarrubias-Cobos ◽  
Philip J Mease ◽  
Dafna D Gladman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Tumour Necrosis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Eq Vas ◽  
Necrosis Factor

ObjectivesTofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated in patients with PsA with inadequate responses to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) in a 6-month, phase III randomised controlled trial (OPAL Beyond [NCT01882439]).MethodsPatients (N=394) received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or placebo (advancing to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily at month 3). Least squares mean changes from baseline and percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences and scores ≥normative values were determined in Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Patient Global Joint and Skin Assessment (PGJS), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-level (EQ-5D-3L), EQ-VAS and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL). Nominal p values are without multiple comparison adjustments.ResultsAt month 3, PtGA, Pain, PGJS, SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS), physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP), vitality and social functioning (SF) domains, FACIT-Fatigue Total score, EQ-5D-3L pain/discomfort, EQ-VAS and ASQoL scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (role physical [RP] with 10 mg twice daily only; p≤0.05). Patients reporting improvements ≥MCID (%) in PtGA, PGJS, Pain, ASQoL and SF-36v2 PCS, PF, RP, BP, SF (both tofacitinib doses) exceeded placebo (p≤0.05).ConclusionTNFi-IR patients with PsA receiving tofacitinib reported statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo over 3 months, which were maintained to month 6. Despite lower baseline scores, these improvements were similar to the csDMARD-IR TNFi-naive OPAL Broaden trial.

scholarly journals Feasibility of 3-month melatonin supplementation for brain oxidative stress and sleep in mild cognitive impairment: protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e041500
Author(s):  
Zoe Menczel Schrire ◽  
Craig L Phillips ◽  
Shantel L Duffy ◽  
Nathaniel S Marshall ◽  
Loren Mowszowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oxidative Stress ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Brain Oxidative Stress ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionMelatonin has multiple proposed therapeutic benefits including antioxidant properties, synchronisation of the circadian system and lowering of blood pressure. In this protocol, we outline a randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility, acceptability and tolerability of higher dose (25 mg) melatonin to target brain oxidative stress and sleep disturbance in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).Methods and analysisThe study design is a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial. Forty individuals with MCI will be recruited from the Healthy Brain Ageing Clinic, University of Sydney and from the community, and randomised to receive either 25 mg oral melatonin or placebo nightly for 12 weeks. The primary outcomes are feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of intervention and adherence to trial medication at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include the effect of melatonin on brain oxidative stress as measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy, blood pressure, blood biomarkers, mood, cognition and sleep. Outcomes will be collected at 6 and 12 weeks. The results of this feasibility trial will inform a future conclusive randomised controlled trial to specifically test the efficacy of melatonin on modifiable risk factors of dementia, as well as cognition and brain function. This will be the first trial to investigate the effect of melatonin in the population with MCI in this way, with the future aim of using this approach to reduce progression to dementia.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has been approved by the Sydney Local Health District Ethics Committee (X18-0077). This randomised controlled trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol published in the registry, the International Conference for Harmonisation on Good Clinical Practice and all other applicable regulatory requirements. The findings of the trial will be disseminated via conferences, publications and media, as applicable. Participants will be informed of results of the study at the conclusion of the trial. Eligible authors will include investigators who are involved in the conception and design of the study, the conduct of the trial, the analysis of the results, and reporting and presentation of study findings.Trial registration numberAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTRN 12619000876190).Protocol versionV.8 15 October 2020.

scholarly journals Long-term outcomes of two-stage, immediate and delayed breast reconstruction with polyurethane-covered versus textured implants: protocol of a prospective, multicentre randomised controlled trial (TIPI trial)

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e044219
Author(s):  
J X Harmeling ◽  
Kevin Peter Cinca ◽  
Eleni-Rosalina Andrinopoulou ◽  
Eveline M L Corten ◽  
M A Mureau
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Capsular Contracture ◽  
Tissue Expander ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionTwo-stage implant-based breast reconstruction is the most commonly performed postmastectomy reconstructive technique. During the first stage, a tissue expander creates a sufficiently large pocket for the definite breast implant placed in the second stage. Capsular contracture is a common long-term complication associated with implant-based breast reconstruction, causing functional complaints and often requiring reoperation. The exact aetiology is still unknown, but a relationship between the outer surface of the implant and the probability of developing capsular contracture has been suggested. The purpose of this study is to determine whether polyurethane-covered implants result in a different capsular contracture rate than textured implants.Methods and analysisThe Textured Implants versus Polyurethane-covered Implants (TIPI) trial is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation rate and a follow-up of 10 years. A total of 321 breasts of female adults undergoing a two-stage breast reconstruction will be enrolled. The primary outcome is capsular contracture at 10-year follow-up which is graded with the modified Baker classification. It is analysed with survival analysis using a frailty model for clustered interval-censored data, with both an intention-to-treat and per-protocol approach. Secondary outcomes are other complication rates, surgical revision rate, patient satisfaction and quality of life and user-friendliness. Outcomes are measured 2 weeks, 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10 years postoperatively. Interim analysis is performed when 1-year, 3-year and 5-year follow-up is completed.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has been reviewed and approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam (MEC-2018-126) and locally by each participating centre. Written informed consent will be obtained from each study participant. The results will be disseminated by publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registrationNTR7265.

scholarly journals Hughes Abdominal Repair Trial (HART)—abdominal wall closure techniques to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias: feasibility trial for a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e017235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhiannon L Harries ◽  
Julie Cornish ◽  
David Bosanquet ◽  
Buddug Rees ◽  
James Horwood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Abdominal Wall Closure ◽  
Incisional Hernias ◽  
Mass Closure ◽  
Monitoring Committee ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesIncisional hernias are common complications of midline abdominal closure. The ‘Hughes Repair’ combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. There is evidence to suggest this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared Hughes repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation. This paper aims to test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a comparison of abdominal wall closure methods following midline incisional surgery for colorectal cancer, in preparation to a definitive randomised controlled trial.Design and settingA feasibility trial (with 1:1 randomisation) conducted perioperatively during colorectal cancer surgery.ParticipantsPatients undergoing midline incisional surgery for resection of colorectal cancer.InterventionsComparison of two suture techniques (Hughes repair or standard mass closure) for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer.Primary and secondary outcomesA 30-patient feasibility trial assessed recruitment, randomisation, deliverability and early safety of the surgical techniques used.ResultsA total of 30 patients were randomised from 43 patients recruited and consented, over a 5-month period. 14 and 16 patients were randomised to arms A and B, respectively. There was one superficial surgical site infection (SSI) and two organ space SSIs reported in arm A, and two superficial SSIs and one complete wound dehiscence in arm B. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions reported in either arm. Independent data monitoring committee found no early safety concerns.ConclusionsThe feasibility trial found no early safety concerns and demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to patients. Progression to the pilot and main phases of the trial has now commenced following approval by the independent data monitoring committee.Trial registration numberISRCTN 25616490.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document