Improving clinical trial interpretation with ACCEPT analyses

Inhaled Nitric Oxide ReDuce postoperatIve pulmoNAry complicaTions in patiEnts with recent COVID-19 infection (INORDINATE): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A history of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported to be associated with an increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Even mild PPCs can elevate the rates of early postoperative mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and prolong the length of ICU and/or hospital stays. Consequently, it is crucial to develop perioperative management strategies that can mitigate these increased risks in surgical patients who have recently been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Accumulating evidence suggests that nitric oxide (NO) inhalation might be effective in treating COVID-19. NO functions in COVID-19 by promoting vasodilation, anticoagulation, anti-inflammatory and antiviral effects. Therefore, our study hypothesises that the perioperative use of NO can effectively reduce PPCs in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

A prospective, double-blind, single-centre, randomised controlled trial is proposed. The trial aims to include participants who are planning to undergo surgery with general anaesthesia and have been recently infected with SARS-CoV-2 (within 7 weeks). Stratified allocation of eligible patients will be performed at a 1:1 ratio based on the predicted risk of PPCs using the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia risk index and the time interval between infection and surgery.The primary outcome of the study will be the presence of PPCs within the first 7 days following surgery, including respiratory infection, respiratory failure, pleural effusion, atelectasis, pneumothorax, bronchospasm and aspiration pneumonitis. The primary outcome will be reported as counts (percentage) and will be compared using a two-proportion χ2 test. The common effect across all primary components will be estimated using a multiple generalised linear model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial is approved by the Institutional Review Board of Xijing Hospital (KY20232058-F1). The findings, including positive, negative and inconclusive results, will be published in scientific journals with peer-review processes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05721144.

Safety and efficacy of whole-body chlorhexidine gluconate cleansing with or without emollient in hospitalised neonates (NeoCHG): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, factorial pilot trial

Background

Healthcare-associated infections account for substantial neonatal in-hospital mortality. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) whole body skin application could reduce sepsis by lowering bacterial colonisation density, although safety and optimal application regimen is unclear. Emollients, including sunflower oil, may independently improve skin condition, thereby reducing sepsis. We aimed to inform which concentration and frequency of CHG, with or without emollient, would best balance safety and the surrogate marker of efficacy of reduction in bacterial colonisation, to be taken forward in a future pragmatic trial evaluating clinical outcomes of sepsis and mortality.

Methods

In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, factorial pilot trial, neonates in two hospital sites (South Africa, Bangladesh) aged 1-6 days with gestational age ≥ 28 weeks and birthweight 1000-1999 g were randomly assigned in a factorial design stratified by site to three different concentrations of CHG (0.5%, 1%, and 2%), with or without emollient (sunflower oil) applied on working days vs alternate working days. A control arm received neither product. Caregivers were unblinded although laboratory staff were blinded to randomisation Co-primary outcomes were safety (change in neonatal skin condition score incorporating dryness, erythema, and skin breakdown) and efficacy in reducing bacterial colonisation density (change in total skin bacterial log10 CFU from randomisation to day-3 and day-8). The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN 69836999.

Findings

Between Apr 12 2021 and Jan 18 2022, 208 infants were randomised and 198 were included in the final analysis. Skin condition scores were low with mean 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 208) at baseline, 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 199) at day 3 and 0.1 (sd = 0.3; N = 189) at day 8, with no evidence of differences between concentration (1% CHG vs 0.5% estimate = -0.3, 95% CI = (-1.2, 0.6), p = 0.55. 2% CHG vs 0.5% CHG estimate = 0.5 (-0.4, 1.4), p = 0.30), increasing frequency (estimate = -0.4; 95% CI = (-1.1, 0.4), p = 0.33), emollient (estimate = -0.5, (-1.2, 0.3), p = 0.23) or with control (estimate = -0.9, (-2.3, 0.4), p = 0.18). Mean log10 CFU was 4.9 (sd = 3.0; N = 208) at baseline, 6.3 (sd = 3.1; N = 198) at day 3 and 8.4 (sd = 2.6; N = 183) with no evidence of differences between concentration (1% CHG vs 0.5% estimate = -0.4; 95% CI = (-1.1, 0.23); p = 0.23. 2% CHG vs 0.5% CHG estimate = 0.0 (-0.6, 0.6), p = 0.96), with increasing frequency (estimate = -0.4; 95% CI = (-0.9, 0.2); p = 0.17), with emollient (estimate = 0.4, 95% CI = (-0.2, 0.9); p = 0.18) or with control (estimate = -0.2, 95% CI = (-1.3, 0.9); p = 0.73). By day-8, overall 158/183 (86%) of neonates were colonised with Enterobacterales, and 72/183 (39%) and 69/183 (9%) with Klebsiella spp resistant to third-generation cephalosporin and carbapenems, respectively. There were no CHG-related SAEs, emollient-related SAEs, grade 3 or 4 skin scores or grade 3 or 4 hypothermias.

Interpretation

In this pilot trial of CHG with or without sunflower oil, no safety issues were identified, and further trials examining clinical outcomes are warranted. The relatively late start application of emollient, at a mean of 3.8 days of life, may have reduced the impact of the intervention although no subgroup effects were detected. There was no clear evidence in favour of a specific concentration of chlorhexidine, and there was rapid colonisation with Enterobacterales with frequent antimicrobial resistance, regardless of skin application regimen.

Funding

The MRC Joint Applied Global Health award, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP), MRC Clinical Trials Unit core funding (UKRI) and St. George's, University of London.

Non-randomised feasibility study of training workshops for Talking Therapies service high-intensity therapists to optimise depression and anxiety outcomes for individuals with co-morbid personality difficulties: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

The NHS Talking Therapies for Anxiety and Depression programme ('TTad'; formerly Improving Access to Psychological Therapies 'IAPT') delivers high-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) to over 200,000 individuals each year for common mental health problems like depression and anxiety. More than half of these individuals experience comorbid personality difficulties, who show poorer treatment outcomes. TTad therapists report feeling unskilled to work with clients with personality difficulties, and enhancing the training of TTad therapists may lead to improved treatment outcomes for individuals presenting with secondary personality difficulties alongside depression and anxiety.

METHODS

This is a pre-post non-randomised mixed-method feasibility study, exploring the feasibility and acceptability of a 1-day training workshop for high-intensity (HI) CBT therapists. The workshop is focused on understanding and assessing personality difficulties and adapting HICBT treatments for anxiety and depression to accommodate client needs. The feasibility and acceptability of the workshop and the evaluation procedures will be investigated. It will be examined to what extent the workshop provision leads to improvements in therapist skills and confidence and explored to what extent the training has the potential to enhance clinical outcomes for this client group.

DISCUSSION

This feasibility study will provide data on the acceptability and feasibility of delivering brief therapist training to adapt usual HICBT to optimise care for individuals with secondary personality difficulties seeking treatment in TTad services for a primary problem of depression and/or anxiety. The study will also evaluate proof of concept that such an approach has the potential to improve clinical outcomes for those with secondary personality difficulties and report any possible harms identified. The study will inform the design of a future randomised controlled trial designed to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the training.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN81104604 . Submitted on 6th June 2022. Registration date: 3rd January 2023.

Practical approaches to Bayesian sample size determination in non-inferiority trials with binary outcomes

Bayesian analysis of a non-inferiority trial is advantageous in allowing direct probability statements to be made about the relative treatment difference rather than relying on an arbitrary and often poorly justified non-inferiority margin. When the primary analysis will be Bayesian, a Bayesian approach to sample size determination will often be appropriate for consistency with the analysis. We demonstrate three Bayesian approaches to choosing sample size for non-inferiority trials with binary outcomes and review their advantages and disadvantages. First, we present a predictive power approach for determining sample size using the probability that the trial will produce a convincing result in the final analysis. Next, we determine sample size by considering the expected posterior probability of non-inferiority in the trial. Finally, we demonstrate a precision-based approach. We apply these methods to a non-inferiority trial in antiretroviral therapy for treatment of HIV-infected children. A predictive power approach would be most accessible in practical settings, because it is analogous to the standard frequentist approach. Sample sizes are larger than with frequentist calculations unless an informative analysis prior is specified, because appropriate allowance is made for uncertainty in the assumed design parameters, ignored in frequentist calculations. An expected posterior probability approach will lead to a smaller sample size and is appropriate when the focus is on estimating posterior probability rather than on testing. A precision-based approach would be useful when sample size is restricted by limits on recruitment or costs, but it would be difficult to decide on sample size using this approach alone.

Interface - A New Series from NEJM Evidence

Interface - A New Series from NEJM Evidence A major motivation for the launch of NEJM Evidence was a belief that understanding the nuances of study design and execution is key to assessing how the results of a study can, or cannot, influence clinical practice. A corollary is that maximizing clinical utility should be the major focus of study design. It is now widely appreciated that these goals are not optimally achieved solely by relying on binary interpretation of P values in traditional randomized controlled trials.1.