No abstract

BackgroundMany funding bodies require researchers to actively involve service users in research to improve relevance, accountability and quality. Current guidance to researchers mainly discusses general principles. Formal guidance about how to involve service users operationally in the conduct of trials is lacking. We aimed to develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) to support researchers to involve service users in trials and rigorous studies.MethodsResearchers with experience of involving service users and service users who were contributing to trials collaborated with the West Wales Organisation for Rigorous Trials in Health, a registered clinical trials unit, to develop the SOP. Drafts were prepared in a Task and Finish Group, reviewed by all co-authors and amendments made.ResultsWe articulated core principles, which defined equality of service users with all other research team members and collaborative processes underpinning the SOP, plus guidance on how to achieve these. We developed a framework for involving service users in research that defined minimum levels of collaboration plus additional consultation and decision-making opportunities. We recommended service users be involved throughout the life of a trial, including planning and development, data collection, analysis and dissemination, and listed tasks for collaboration. We listed people responsible for involving service users in studies and promoting an inclusive culture. We advocate actively involving service users as early as possible in the research process, with a minimum of two on all formal trial groups and committees. We propose that researchers protect at least 1% of their total research budget as a minimum resource to involve service users and allow enough time to facilitate active involvement.ConclusionsThis SOP provides guidance to researchers to involve service users successfully in developing and conducting clinical trials and creating a culture of actively involving service users in research at all stages. The UK Clinical Research Collaboration should encourage clinical trials units actively to involve service users and research funders should provide sufficient funds and time for this in research grants.

Objective To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost utility of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with multiple daily injection (MDI) regimens during the first year following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children and young people. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, open label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Setting 15 paediatric National Health Service (NHS) diabetes services in England and Wales. The study opened to recruitment in May 2011 and closed in January 2017. Participants Patients aged between 7 months and 15 years, with a new diagnosis of type 1 diabetes were eligible to participate. Patients who had a sibling with the disease, and those who took drug treatments or had additional diagnoses that could have affected glycaemic control were ineligible. Interventions Participants were randomised, stratified by age and treating centre, to start treatment with CSII or MDI within 14 days of diagnosis. Starting doses of aspart (CSII and MDI) and glargine or detemir (MDI) were calculated according to weight and age, and titrated according to blood glucose measurements and according to local clinical practice. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was glycaemic control (as measured by glycated haemoglobin; HbA1c) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were percentage of patients in each treatment arm with HbA1c within the national target range, incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, change in height and body mass index (as measured by standard deviation scores), insulin requirements (units/kg/day), partial remission rate (insulin dose adjusted HbA1c <9), paediatric quality of life inventory score, and cost utility based on the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained from an NHS costing perspective. Results 294 participants were randomised and 293 included in intention to treat analyses (CSI, n=144; MDI, n=149). At 12 months, mean HbA1c was comparable with clinically unimportant differences between CSII and MDI participants (60.9 mmol/mol v 58.5 mmol/mol, mean difference 2.4 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval −0.4 to 5.3), P=0.09). Achievement of HbA1c lower than 58 mmol/mol was low among the two groups (66/143 (46%) CSII participants v 78/142 (55%) MDI participants; relative risk 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.06)). Incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were low in both groups. Fifty four non-serious and 14 serious adverse events were reported during CSII treatment, and 17 non-serious and eight serious adverse events during MDI treatment. Parents (but not children) reported superior PedsQL scores for those patients treated with CSII compared to those treated with MDI. CSII was more expensive than MDI by £1863 (€2179; $2474; 95% confidence interval £1620 to £2137) per patient, with no additional QALY gains (difference −0.006 (95% confidence interval −0.031 to 0.018)). Conclusion During the first year following type 1 diabetes diagnosis, no clinical benefit of CSII over MDI was identified in children and young people in the UK setting, and treatment with either regimen was suboptimal in achieving HbA1c thresholds. CSII was not cost effective. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29255275 ; European Clinical Trials Database 2010-023792-25.

Background The PIROUETTE (PIRfenidOne in patients with heart failUre and preserved lEfT venTricular Ejection fraction) trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the anti-fibrotic pirfenidone in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and myocardial fibrosis. HFpEF is a diverse syndrome associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Myocardial fibrosis is a key pathophysiological mechanism of HFpEF and myocardial fibrotic burden is strongly and independently associated with adverse outcome. Pirfenidone is an oral anti-fibrotic agent, without haemodynamic effect, that leads to regression of myocardial fibrosis in preclinical models. It has proven clinical effectiveness in pulmonary fibrosis. Methods The PIROUETTE trial is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of 52 weeks of treatment with pirfenidone in patients with chronic HFpEF (symptoms and signs of heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 45%, elevated natriuretic peptides [BNP ≥ 100 pg/ml or NT-proBNP ≥ 300 pg/ml; or BNP ≥ 300 pg/ml or NT-proBNP ≥ 900 pg/ml if in atrial fibrillation]) and myocardial fibrosis (extracellular matrix (ECM) volume ≥ 27% measured using cardiovascular magnetic resonance). The primary outcome measure is change in myocardial ECM volume. A sub-study will investigate the relationship between myocardial fibrosis and myocardial energetics, and the impact of pirfenidone, using 31 phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Discussion PIROUETTE will determine whether pirfenidone is superior to placebo in relation to regression of myocardial fibrosis and improvement in myocardial energetics in patients with HFpEF and myocardial fibrosis (NCT02932566). Clinical Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02932566) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02932566 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10557-019-06876-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.