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.

The genes glutathione S-transferase M1 (GSTM1) (chromosome 1p13.3) and glutathione S-transferase T1 (GSTT1) (22q11.2) code for cytosolic enzymes glutathione S-transferase (GST)-mu and GST-theta, respectively, which are involved in phase 2 metabolism. Both genes may be deleted. There is geographic and ethnic variation in genotype frequencies for both genes. In developed countries, colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer. Colorectal cancer has been inconsistently associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in diet and tobacco. Because GST enzymes are involved in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon metabolism, it has been postulated that genotype may modify colorectal cancer risk associated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure. No consistent associations between GSTM1 or GSTT1 genotype and colorectal cancer have been observed. However, most studies have methodological limitations. Few have investigated gene-environment interactions. No interactions between GSTM1 or GSTT1 genotype and smoking and colorectal cancer risk have been reported. One polyp study suggests an interaction between GSTM1 genotype and smoking. Two studies suggest increased disease risk in subjects with high meat intake and GST nonnull genotype, contrary to the underlying hypothesis. One study suggests a strong inverse relation between colorectal adenomas and broccoli consumption, particularly in subjects who are GSTM1 null. These finding require confirmation. Methods for determining GSTM1 and GSTT1 genotype are well established. Population testing is not currently justified.

Our study is the largest population-based study providing UK normative data from the HADS. While our data confirm some of the normative data reported previously, subtle and important differences emerged, particularly at the upper end of the percentile scores. Due to the nature of our study design and the number of participants sampled, we believe that our data are likely to be more representative of the UK population than existing published normative values.

No abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for the clinical trial community, both in the rapid establishment of COVID-19 clinical trials and many existing non-COVID-19 studies either being temporarily paused (whether that is a complete pause or pause in some activities) and/or adapting their processes. Trial managers have played a key role in decision-making, undertaking risk assessments and adapting trial processes, working closely with other members of the research team. This article presents some of the ways in which trial management processes have been altered and the key role that trial managers have played. It has been born out of discussions between trial managers in the UK who are members of the UK Trial Managers’ Network (UKTMN), a national network of trial management professionals managing non-commercial trials. In these unprecedented times, clinical trials have faced many uncertainties and broad-ranging challenges encompassing a range of activities including prioritising patient safety amidst the pandemic, consenting and recruiting new participants into trials, data collection and management and intervention delivery. In many cases, recruitment has been paused whilst mitigations have been put in place to continue data collection. Innovative solutions have been implemented to ensure we continue, where possible, to deliver high-quality clinical trials. Technology has provided many solutions to these challenges, and trial managers have adapted to new ways of working whilst continuing to deliver their clinical trials. Trial management groups are now faced with new uncertainties around re-starting clinical trials, and it is unclear currently how this will go, though working together with sponsors, funders and site teams is clearly a priority. Clinical trial teams have worked together to ensure their trials have adapted quickly whilst ensuring participant safety is given utmost importance. There are clear examples where the trial community have come together to share experiences and expertise, and this should continue in the future to ensure the innovative practices developed become embedded in the design and conduct of clinical trials in the future.