Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Hearing loss is a prevalent condition that impacts on social, mental and physical health, and has a significant economic burden. Hearing aids can improve the quality of life for those living with hearing loss; however, low and inconsistent use remains common. Within the National Health Service (NHS), follow-up care for new hearing aid users is highly variable and often lacks structure, which may contribute to low use. The FAMOUS trial investigates whether a structured care model for follow-up, combined with evidence-based behaviour change interventions, improves hearing aid use compared to usual care. Methods FAMOUS is a multi-centre, two-arm parallel-group cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT) with integral internal pilot, economic, and process evaluations. The trial involves 36 NHS audiology services and compares two types of follow-up for new adult hearing aid users: structured care, which includes personalised action plans, early monitoring, and routine follow-up at 6 weeks post-fitting, to usual care, which includes the offer of a follow-up 6–12 weeks after fitting. Recruitment is conducted through participating services over 3 months, with pseudo-anonymised routine data collected from electronic medical records of all patients who attend. Consent and outcomes are then collected from patients at 12 weeks post-fitting. For patients who provide consent to future contact, the primary outcome (self-reported daily hearing aid use) is collected at 12 months post-fitting. Secondary outcomes (quality-of-life (QoL), hearing-related disability, and economic measures) are collected at both timepoints. Qualitative interviews with a subset of patients and hearing professionals in the intervention arm will assess the acceptability and implementation of the intervention. Statistical analyses, including mixed-effects regression modelling, will be conducted under an intention-to-treat framework. Discussion FAMOUS addresses a critical evidence gap regarding the potential benefits of follow-up care for new hearing aid users. If the intervention is successful, it can be rolled out nationally using existing facilities with limited impact on resources, identified in the economic analysis, and would improve hearing aid use and quality of life for those living with hearing loss. Trial registration Prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 10589817. Date of registration: 01/09/2022.

IntroductionNicotine replacement therapy (NRT) helps pregnant women quit smoking. Usual National Health Service (NHS) cessation care in pregnancy starts only after women stop smoking and comprises behavioural support and NRT. NRT is stopped if women restart smoking. We hypothesised that NRT would have a bigger effect on cessation in pregnancy if used: (1) to reduce smoking before quitting (‘preloading’), (2) during brief smoking lapses after quitting and (3) to help those who cannot stop smoking, to reduce instead.Methods and analysisA two-arm parallel group, open-label, multicentre, assessor-blind randomised controlled trial. Participants are recruited at hospital antenatal clinics and other NHS settings throughout England and Wales or via social media advertising. Those enrolled are in antenatal care, <25 weeks’ gestation, smoke ≥5 daily cigarettes; accept referral for NHS stop smoking support and agree to set quit dates, try NRT and vape less than daily. Participants are randomised to: (1) usual care (UC) or (2) UC plus an intervention combining (1) NRT for preloading, (2) counselling to continue NRT during brief smoking lapses, and for those who cannot stop, (3) NRT to reduce smoking. The primary outcome is biochemically validated, smoking abstinence from 6 weeks after randomisation to 36 weeks gestation. Secondary outcomes include birth outcomes and cost per quality-adjusted life year. Questionnaires collect follow-up data augmented by medical record information. We anticipate quit rates of 10% and 15.9% in the control and intervention groups (OR=1.7). By recruiting 1430 participants, smoking, nicotine and pregnancy 3 should have 90% power (alpha=5%) to detect this effect. We will use the Economics of Smoking in Pregnancy model to estimate cost-effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was granted by the West Midlands—Coventry & Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 21/WM/0172; Protocol number 21001; IRAS Project ID: 291236). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated to the public, funders, relevant practice and policy representatives and other researchers.Trial registration numberISRCTN84798566.

ObjectiveCatheter-related sepsis (CRS) is a major complication with significant morbidity and mortality. Evidence is lacking regarding the most appropriate antiseptic for skin disinfection before percutaneous central venous catheter (PCVC) insertion in preterm neonates. To inform the feasibility and design of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of two antiseptic formulations, we conducted the Antiseptic Randomised Controlled Trial for Insertion of Catheters (ARCTIC) feasibility study to assess catheter colonisation, sepsis, and skin morbidity.DesignFeasibility RCT.SettingTwo UK tertiary-level neonatal intensive care units.PatientsPreterm infants born <34 weeks’ gestation scheduled to undergo PCVC insertion.InterventionsSkin disinfection with either 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-aqueous or 2% CHG-70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) before PCVC insertion and at removal.Primary outcomeProportion in the 2% CHG-70% IPA arm with a colonised catheter at removal.Main feasibility outcomesRates of: (1) CRS, catheter-associated sepsis (CAS), and CRS/CAS per 1,000 PCVC days; (2) recruitment and retention; (3) data completeness.Safety outcomesDaily skin morbidity scores recorded from catheter insertion until 48 hours post-removal.Results116 babies were randomised. Primary outcome incidence was 4.1% (95% confidence interval: 0.9% to 11.5%). Overall catheter colonisation rate was 5.2% (5/97); CRS 2.3/1000 catheter days; CAS 14.8/1000 catheter days. Recruitment, retention and data completeness were good. No major antiseptic-related skin injury was reported.ConclusionsA definitive comparative efficacy trial is feasible, but the very low catheter colonisation rate would make a large-scale RCT challenging due to the very large sample size required. ARCTIC provides preliminary reassurance supporting potential safe use of 2% CHG-70% IPA and 2% CHG-aqueous in preterm neonates.Trial registration number ISRCTN82571474.

Background In the UK, approximately 8% of live births are preterm (before 37 weeks gestation), more than 90% of whom are born between 30 and 36 weeks, forming the largest proportion of a neonatal units’ workload. Neonatologists are cautious in initiating full milk feeds for preterm infants due to fears of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). There is now evidence to dispute this fear. Small studies have shown that feeding preterm infants full milk feeds enterally from birth could result in a shorter length of hospital stay, which is important to parents, clinicians and NHS services without increasing the risk of NEC. This trial aims to investigate whether full milk feeds initiated in the first 24 h after birth reduces the length of hospital stay in comparison to introduction of gradual milk feeding with IV fluids or parenteral nutrition. Methods FEED1 is a multi-centre, open, parallel group, randomised, controlled superiority trial of full milk feeds initiated on the day of birth versus gradual milk feeds for infants born at 30 +0 to 32 +6 (inclusive) weeks gestation. Recruitment will take place in around 40 UK neonatal units. Mothers will be randomised 1:1 to full milk feeds, starting at 60 ml/kg day, or gradual feeds, as per usual local practice. Mother’s expressed breast milk will always be the first choice of milk, though will likely be supplemented with formula or donor breast milk in the first few days. Feeding data will be collected until full milk feeds are achieved (≥ 140 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days). The primary outcome is length of infant hospital stay. Additional data will be collected 6 weeks post-discharge. Follow-up at 2 years (corrected gestational age) is planned. The sample size is 2088 infants to detect a between group difference in length of stay of 2 days. Accounting for multiple births, this requires 1700 women to be recruited. Primary analysis will compare the length of hospital stay between groups, adjusting for minimisation variables and accounting for multiple births. Discussion This trial will provide high-quality evidence on feeding practices for preterm infants. Full milk feeds from day of birth could result in infants being discharged sooner. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN89654042 . Prospectively registered on 23 September 2019: ISRCTN is a primary registry of the WHO ICTRP network, and all items from the WHO Trial Registration dataset are included.

Purpose Up to 40% of the 56,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK undergo mastectomy. Seroma formation following surgery is common, may delay wound healing, and be uncomfortable or delay the start of adjuvant treatment. Multiple strategies to reduce seroma formation include surgical drains, flap fixation and external compression exist but evidence to support best practice is lacking. We aimed to survey UK breast surgeons to determine current practice to inform the feasibility of undertaking a future trial. Methods An online survey was developed and circulated to UK breast surgeons via professional and trainee associations and social media to explore current attitudes to drain use and management of post-operative seroma. Simple descriptive statistics were used to summarise the results. Results The majority of surgeons (82/97, 85%) reported using drains either routinely (38, 39%) or in certain circumstances (44, 45%). Other methods for reducing seroma such as flap fixation were less commonly used. Wide variation was reported in the assessment and management of post-operative seromas. Over half (47/91, 52%) of respondents felt there was some uncertainty about drain use after mastectomy and axillary surgery and two-thirds (59/91, 65%) felt that a trial evaluating the use of drains vs no drains after simple breast cancer surgery was needed. Conclusions There is a need for a large-scale UK-based RCT to determine if, when and in whom drains are necessary following mastectomy and axillary surgery. This work will inform the design and conduct of a future trial.

Introduction Adjudication of the primary outcome in randomised trials is thought to control misclassification. We investigated the amount of misclassification needed before adjudication changed the primary trial results. Patients (or materials) and methods: We included data from five randomised stroke trials. Differential misclassification was introduced for each primary outcome until the estimated treatment effect was altered. This was simulated 1000 times. We calculated the between-simulation mean proportion of participants that needed to be differentially misclassified to alter the treatment effect. In addition, we simulated hypothetical trials with a binary outcome and varying sample size (1000–10,000), overall event rate (10%–50%) and treatment effect (0.67–0.90). We introduced non-differential misclassification until the treatment effect was non-significant at 5% level. Results For the five trials, the range of unweighted kappa values were reduced from 0.89–0.97 to 0.65–0.85 before the treatment effect was altered. This corresponded to 2.1%–6% of participants misclassified differentially for trials with a binary outcome. For the hypothetical trials, those with a larger sample size, stronger treatment effect and overall event rate closer to 50% needed a higher proportion of events non-differentially misclassified before the treatment effect became non-significant. Discussion: We found that only a small amount of differential misclassification was required before adjudication altered the primary trial results, whereas a considerable proportion of participants needed to be misclassified non-differentially before adjudication changed trial conclusions. Given that differential misclassification should not occur in trials with sufficient blinding, these results suggest that central adjudication is of most use in studies with unblinded outcome assessment. Conclusion: For trials without adequate blinding, central adjudication is vital to control for differential misclassification. However, for large blinded trials, adjudication is of less importance and may not be necessary.