Using a theory-informed approach to explore patient and staff perspectives on factors that influence clinical trial recruitment for patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices

Limitations in real-world telemonitoring applicability in gastroenterology and hepatology: a systematic review

Objective

Telemonitoring has the potential to improve healthcare delivery. While the field continues to develop, ensuring interventions are accessible across disease populations is essential for successful clinical translation. This systematic review of telemonitoring aims to understand the generalisability of study findings in the distinctly different patient cohorts of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and decompensated cirrhosis, focusing on differences in sociodemographic characteristics.

Design/method

Relevant studies were identified by searching Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases from 2013 to January 2024. A narrative review was conducted.

Results

27 studies with 3806 patients were included. IBD-based studies predominated (n=23, 85%) with four (15%) studies in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. All studies were undertaken in high-income economies. While age and gender were documented in most studies, only 11% documented ethnicity, 33% documented socioeconomic status and 33% documented education status. Substance misuse with alcohol, smoking or other illicit drugs was documented in 7%. Multiple languages were available in 15% of studies. There was significant heterogeneity in endpoints used across studies investigating interventions in both patient cohorts.

Conclusions

This systematic review demonstrates the lack of reporting in critical demographic domains with significant heterogeneity in study design and endpoints across both disease processes. This potentially limits the use of telemonitoring outside of a trial setting. To improve real-world implementation and reduce the impact of health inequalities, it is critical that a consensus is reached for minimum reporting standards for telemedicine interventions.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42024497369.

Beta-blockers or Placebo for Primary Prophylaxis (BOPPP) of oesophageal varices: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Liver disease is within the top five causes of premature death in adults. Deaths caused by complications of cirrhosis continue to rise, whilst deaths related to other non-liver disease areas are declining. Portal hypertension is the primary sequelae of cirrhosis and is associated with the development of variceal haemorrhage, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy and infection, collectively termed hepatic decompensation, which leads to hospitalisation and mortality. It remains uncertain whether administering a non-selective beta-blocker (NSBB), specifically carvedilol, at an earlier stage, i.e. when oesophageal varices are small, can prevent VH and reduce all-cause decompensation (ACD).

METHODS/DESIGN

The BOPPP trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, triple-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients aged 18 years or older with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices that have never bled will be recruited, subject to exclusion criteria. The trial aims to enrol 740 patients across 55 hospitals in the UK. Patients are allocated randomly on a 1:1 ratio to receive either carvedilol 6.25 mg (a NSBB) or a matched placebo, once or twice daily, for 36 months, to attain adequate power to determine the effectiveness of carvedilol in preventing or reducing ACD. The primary outcome is the time to first decompensating event. It is a composite primary outcome made up of variceal haemorrhage (VH, new or worsening ascites, new or worsening hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatorenal syndrome, an increase in Child-Pugh grade by 1 grade or MELD score by 5 points, and liver-related mortality. Secondary outcomes include progression to medium or large oesophageal varices, development of gastric, duodenal, or ectopic varices, participant quality of life, healthcare costs and transplant-free survival.

DISCUSSION

The BOPPP trial aims to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of carvedilol in patients with cirrhosis and small oesophageal varices to determine whether this non-selective beta-blocker can prevent or reduce hepatic decompensation. There is clinical equipoise on whether intervening in cirrhosis, at an earlier stage of portal hypertension, with NSBB therapy is beneficial. Should the trial yield a positive result, we anticipate that the administration and use of carvedilol will become widespread with pathways developed to standardise the administration of the medication in primary care.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial has been approved by the National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (REC) (reference number: 19/YH/0015). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Participants will be informed of the results via the BOPPP website ( www.boppp-trial.org ) and partners in the British Liver Trust (BLT) organisation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EUDRACT reference number: 2018-002509-78. ISRCTN reference number: ISRCTN10324656. Registered on April 24 2019.

Palliative clinical trials in advanced chronic liver disease: Challenges and opportunities

Patients with advanced chronic liver disease have a complex symptom burden and many are not candidates for curative therapy. Despite this, provision of palliative interventions remains woefully inadequate, with an insufficient evidence base being a contributory factor. Designing and conducting palliative interventional trials in advanced chronic liver disease remains challenging for a multitude of reasons. In this manuscript we review past and ongoing palliative interventional trials. We identify barriers and facilitators and offer guidance on addressing these challenges. We hope that this will reduce the inequity in palliative care provision in advanced chronic liver disease.

Factors that influence the feasibility and implementation of a complex intervention to improve the treatment of peripheral arterial disease in primary and secondary care: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to examine the feasibility and implementation of a complex intervention to improve the care of patients with peripheral arterial disease (the LEGS intervention) from the perspective of patients, general practitioners and secondary care clinicians.

DESIGN

A qualitative study involving semistructured individual interviews with patients and providers to gain an understanding of the feasibility of the LEGS intervention as well the barriers and facilitators to implementation in secondary and primary care.

SETTING

Primary and secondary care settings across two National Health Service Trusts.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with (1) patients who had received the intervention (n=11), (2) secondary care clinicians responsible for delivering the intervention (n=8) and (3) general practitioners (n=6).

ANALYSIS

Data were initially analysed using inductive descriptive thematic analysis. The consolidated framework for implementation research was then used as a matrix to explore patterns in the data and to map connections between the three participant groups. Lastly, interpretive analysis allowed for refining, and a final coding frame was developed.

RESULTS

Four overarching themes were identified: (1) the potential to make a difference, (2) a solution to address the gap in no man's land, (3), prioritising and making it happen and (4) personalised information and supportive conversations for taking on the advice. The impetus for prioritising and delivering the intervention was further driven by its flexibility and adaptability to be tailored to the individual and to the environment.

CONCLUSIONS

The LEGS intervention can be tailored for use at early and late stages of peripheral arterial disease, provides an opportunity to meet patient needs and can be used to promote shared working across the primary-secondary care interface.

General practitioner perspectives on factors that influence implementation of secondary care-initiated treatment in primary care: Exploring implementation beyond the context of a clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The Beta-blockers Or Placebo for Primary Prophylaxis of oesophageal varices (BOPPP) trial is a 3-year phase IV, multi-centre clinical trial of investigational medicinal product (CTIMP) that aims to determine the effectiveness of carvedilol in the prevention of variceal bleeding for small oesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis. Early engagement of General Practitioners (GPs) in conversations about delivery of a potentially effective secondary care-initiated treatment in primary care provides insights for future implementation. The aim of this study was to understand the implementation of trial findings by exploring i) GP perspectives on factors that influence implementation beyond the context of the trial and ii) how dose titration and ongoing treatment with carvedilol is best delivered in primary care.

METHODS

This qualitative study was embedded within the BOPPP trial and was conducted alongside site opening. GP participants were purposively sampled and recruited from ten Clinical Commissioning Groups in England and three Health Boards across Wales. Semi-structured telephone individual interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 23) working in England and Wales. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Five overarching themes were identified: i) primary care is best placed for oversight, ii) a shared approach led by secondary care, iii) empower the patient to take responsibility, iv) the need to go above and beyond and v) develop practice guidance. The focus on prevention, attention to holistic care, and existing and often long-standing relationships with patients provides an impetus for GP oversight. GPs spoke about the value of partnership working with secondary care and of prioritising patient-centred care and involving patients in taking responsibility for their own health. An agreed pathway of care, clear communication, and specific, accessible guidance on how to implement the proposed treatment strategy safely and effectively are important determinants in the success of implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings for implementing secondary care-initiated treatment in primary care are important to the specifics of the BOPPP trial but can also go some way in informing wider learning for other trials where work is shared across the primary-secondary care interface, and where findings will impact the primary care workload. We propose a systems research perspective for addressing implementation of CTIMP findings at the outset of research. The value of early stakeholder involvement is highlighted, and the need to consider complexity in terms of the interaction between the intervention and the context in which it is implemented is acknowledged.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN10324656.