In an evaluation of a new health technology, a pilot trial may be undertaken prior to a trial that makes a definitive assessment of benefit. The objective of pilot studies is to provide sufficient evidence that a larger definitive trial can be undertaken and, at times, to provide a preliminary assessment of benefit.

In an individually randomised controlled trial where the treatment is delivered by a health professional it seems likely that the effectiveness of the treatment, independent of any treatment effect, could depend on the skill, training or even enthusiasm of the health professional delivering it. This may then lead to a potential clustering of the outcomes for patients treated by the same health professional, but similar clustering may not occur in the control arm. Using four case studies, we aim to provide practical guidance and recommendations for the analysis of trials with some element of clustering in one arm. Five approaches to the analysis of outcomes from an individually randomised controlled trial with clustering in one arm are identified in the literature. Some of these methods are applied to four case studies of completed randomised controlled trials with clustering in one arm with sample sizes ranging from 56 to 539. Results are obtained using the statistical packages R and Stata and summarised using a forest plot. The intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) for each of the case studies was small (<0.05) indicating little dependence on the outcomes related to cluster allocations. All models fitted produced similar results, including the simplest approach of ignoring clustering for the case studies considered. A partially clustered approach, modelling the clustering in just one arm, most accurately represents the trial design and provides valid results. Modelling homogeneous variances between the clustered and unclustered arm is adequate in scenarios similar to the case studies considered. We recommend treating each participant in the unclustered arm as a single cluster. This approach is simple to implement in R and Stata and is recommended for the analysis of trials with clustering in one arm only. However, the case studies considered had small ICC values, limiting the generalisability of these results.

The prevalence of depression in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) is high; however, symptoms common to both conditions makes measurement difficult. There is no high quality overview of validation studies to guide the choice of depression inventory for this population. A systematic review of studies validating the use of generic depression inventories in people with MS was conducted using MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Studies validating the use of depression inventories in PwMS and published in English were included; validation studies of tests for cognitive function and general mental health were excluded. Eligible studies were then quality assessed using the COSMIN checklist and findings synthesised narratively by instrument and validity domain. Twenty-one studies (N = 5,991 PwMS) evaluating 12 instruments were included in the review. Risk of bias varied greatly between instrument and validity domain. The review of validation studies was constrained by poor quality reporting and outcome reporting bias. Well-conducted evaluations of some instruments are unavailable for some validity domains. This systematic review provides an evidence base for trade-offs in the selection of an instrument for assessing self-reported symptoms of depression in research or clinical practice involving people with MS. We make detailed and specific recommendations for where further research is needed. PROSPERO CRD42014010597

Background: 5%–10% children and young people (CYP) experience specific phobias that impact daily functioning. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is recommended but has limitations. One Session Treatment (OST), a briefer alternative incorporating CBT principles, has demonstrated efficacy. The Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT) investigated the non‐inferiority of OST compared to multi‐session CBT for treating specific phobias in CYP. Methods: ASPECT was a pragmatic, multi‐center, non‐inferiority randomized controlled trial in 26 CAMHS sites, three voluntary agency services, and one university‐based CYP well‐being service. CYP aged 7–16 years with specific phobia were randomized to receive OST or CBT. Clinical non‐inferiority and a nested cost‐effectiveness evaluation was assessed 6‐months post‐randomization using the Behavioural Avoidance Task (BAT). Secondary outcome measures included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety Depression Scale, goal‐based outcome measure, and EQ‐5DY and CHU‐9D, collected blind at baseline and six‐months. Results: 268 CYPs were randomized to OST ( n = 134) or CBT ( n = 134). Mean BAT scores at 6 months were similar across groups in both intention‐to‐treat (ITT) and per‐protocol (PP) populations (CBT: 7.1 (ITT, n = 76), 7.4 (PP, n = 57), OST: 7.4 (ITT, n = 73), 7.6 (PP, n = 56), on the standardized scale‐adjusted mean difference for CBT compared to OST ‐0.123, 95% CI −0.449 to 0.202 (ITT), mean difference −0.204, 95% CI −0.579 to 0.171 (PP)). These findings were wholly below the standardized non‐inferiority limit of 0.4, suggesting that OST is non‐inferior to CBT. No between‐group differences were found on secondary outcomes. OST marginally decreased mean service use costs and maintained similar mean Quality Adjusted Life Years compared to CBT. Conclusions: One Session Treatment has similar clinical effectiveness to CBT for specific phobias in CYP and may be a cost‐saving alternative.

Intestinal inflammation in Crohn’s disease (CD) is caused by mucosal immune system reactivity to luminal antigen and results in debilitating symptoms, reduced quality of life, impaired work productivity and significant health care costs. Not all patients respond to conventional and biologic therapies, with chronic inflammation ensuing. Although surgical resection may be required, disease frequently returns and surgery may not be an option, or may be declined. Case reports suggest potential benefit after haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) for patients with refractory CD. The ASTIC trial asked whether HSCT could cure CD. Few patients achieved the primary endpoint of clinical remission for 3 months, off all medication with no evidence of active disease, and there were a high number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs), including one patient death. However, beneficial effects were observed in some aspects of disease activity. The ASTIClite trial will investigate these potential benefits and safety using a lower intensity regimen than ASTIC. Ninety-nine participants will be recruited from secondary care IBD centres in the UK into a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT, ASTIClite) and an observational follow-up, and randomised to autologous HSCT versus standard care (ratio 2:1). The primary endpoint is treatment success at week 48, defined as mucosal healing without surgery or death. Secondary endpoints relating to efficacy, safety and mechanistic analyses will be evaluated at week 8, 14, 24, 32, 40 and 48. Long-term safety of the low intensity HSCT regimen forms the primary endpoint for the EBMT follow-up study and will be assessed annually for 4–7 years. ASTIClite will compare HSCTlite with standard care with respect to safety, efficacy and quality of life, and capture outcomes allowing findings to be generalised to current clinical practice in the UK. It will also provide significant mechanistic insights into the immunological consequences of HSCTlite and its impact on treatment outcomes. The observational follow-up will provide information, which is currently unavailable for this population. The ASTIClite RCT was registered on 31st October 2017 ( ISRCTN17160440 ) and the EBMT follow-up study on 19th January 2018 ( ISRCTN31981313 ).

Recruiting isolated older adults to clinical trials is complex, time-consuming and difficult. Previous studies have suggested querying existing databases to identify appropriate potential participants. We aim to compare recruitment techniques (general practitioner (GP) mail-outs, community engagement and clinician referrals) used in three randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies assessing the feasibility or effectiveness of two preventative interventions in isolated older adults (the Lifestyle Matters and Putting Life In Years interventions). During the three studies (the Lifestyle Matters feasibility study, the Lifestyle Matters RCT, the Putting Life In Years RCT) data were collected about how participants were recruited. The number of letters sent by GP surgeries for each study was recorded. In the Lifestyle Matters RCT, we qualitatively interviewed participants and intervention facilitators at 6 months post randomisation to seek their thoughts on the recruitment process. Referrals were planned to be the main source of recruitment in the Lifestyle Matters feasibility study, but due to a lack of engagement from district nurses, community engagement was the main source of recruitment. District nurse referrals and community engagement were also utilised in the Lifestyle Matters and Putting Life In Years RCTs; both mechanisms yielded few participants. GP mail-outs were the main source of recruitment in both the RCTs, but of those contacted, recruiting yield was low (< 3%). Facilitators of the Lifestyle Matters intervention questioned whether the most appropriate individuals had been recruited. Participants recommended that direct contact with health professionals would be the most beneficial way to recruit. Recruitment to the Lifestyle Matters RCT did not mirror recruitment to the feasibility study of the same intervention. Direct district nurse referrals were not effective at recruiting participants. The majority of participants were recruited via GP mail-outs, which may have led to isolated individuals not being recruited to the trials. Further research is required into alternative recruitment techniques, including respondent-driven sampling plus mechanisms which will promote health care professionals to recruit vulnerable populations to research. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN28645428 (Putting Life In Years RCT). Registered on 11 April 2012; International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN67209155 (Lifestyle Matters RCT). Registered on 22 March 2012; ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT03054311 (Lifestyle Matters feasibility study). Registered retrospectively on 19 January 2017.