Dataset Information

Protocol for a prospective double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled feasibility trial of octreotide infusion during liver transplantation.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Liver transplantation is a complex operation that can provide significant improvements in quality of life and survival to the recipients. However, serious complications are common and include major haemorrhage, hypotension and renal failure. Blood transfusion and the development of acute kidney injury lead to both short-term and long-term poor patient outcomes, including an increased risk of death, graft failure, length of stay and reduced quality of life. Octreotide may reduce the incidence of renal dysfunction, perioperative haemorrhage and enhance intraoperative blood pressure. However, octreotide does have risks, including resistant bradycardia, hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia and QT prolongation. Hence, a randomised controlled trial of octreotide during liver transplantation is needed to determine the cost-efficacy and safety of its use; this study represents a feasibility study prior to this trial.

Methods and analysis

We describe a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled feasibility study of continuous infusion of octreotide during liver transplantation surgery. We will recruit 30 adult patients at two liver transplant centres. A blinded infusion during surgery will be administered in a 2:1 ratio of octreotide:placebo. The primary outcomes will determine the feasibility of this study design. These include the recruitment ratio, correct administration of blinded study intervention, adverse event rates, patient and clinician enrolment refusal and completion of data collection. Secondary outcome measures of efficacy and safety will help shape future trials by assessing potential primary outcome measures and monitoring safety end points. No formal statistical tests are planned. This manuscript represents study protocol number 1.3, dated 2 June 2021.

Ethics and dissemination

This study has received Research Ethics Committee approval. The main study outcomes will be submitted to an open-access journal.

Trial sponsor

The Joint Research Office, University College London, UK.Neither the sponsor nor the funder have any role in study design, collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the study report or the decision to submit the report for publication.

Trial registration

The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04941911) with recruitment due to start in August 2021 with anticipated completion in July 2022.

Clinical trials unit

Surgical and Interventional Group, Division of Surgery & Interventional Science, University College London.

SUBMITTER: Fabes J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8640665 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction Recruitment to perioperative randomised controlled trials is known to be challenging. Qualitative methods offer insight into barriers and enablers to participation. This is a substudy within a feasibility randomised controlled trial of octreotide infusion during liver transplantation at two National Health Service hospitals, which will evaluate patient and staff experiences of trial processes. By sharing formative understanding from these methods with the trials team we aim to improve staff–patient interactions and hence recruitment rates. Methods and analysis This prospective mixed-methods study will comprise two workstreams. First, after consent to the randomised controlled trial is sought, all patients will be invited to complete a questionnaire to explore their perceptions of the information given to them and motivating factors that influenced their decision to consent or not. Questionnaires will be analysed using descriptive statistics and framework analysis. If the recruitment:approach ratio drops below a predetermined ratio or if there are any specific recruitment concerns from the trials team, a second workstream involving mixed-methods fieldwork will be implemented. This will involve audiorecording of recruitment consultations and a follow-up semistructured interview to explore patients’ perception of their decision-making regarding recruitment. Semistructured interviews will also be conducted with the recruitment team to establish their views about the trial, barriers to recruitment and ways to overcome them. Recruitment consultations will be analysed using Q-QAT methodology and interviews will be analysed using framework analysis. Findings from both workstreams will be formatively fed back to the trials team to enable iterative improvement to recruitment processes. Ethics and dissemination Approval has been granted by Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (ref 20/NW/0071), the Health Research Authority and the local Research and Development offices. A manuscript detailing the summative findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04941911.

Project description:BackgroundRecurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is associated with the loss of endometrial mesenchymal stem-like progenitor cells (eMSC). DPP4 inhibitors may increase homing and engraftment of bone marrow-derived cells to sites of tissue injury. Here, we evaluated the effect of the DPP4 inhibitor sitagliptin on eMSC in women with RPL, determined the impact on endometrial decidualization, and assessed the feasibility of a full-scale clinical trial.MethodsA double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled feasibility trial on women aged 18 to 42 years with a history of 3 or more miscarriages, regular menstrual cycles, and no contraindications to sitagliptin. Thirty-eight subjects were randomised to either 100 mg sitagliptin daily for 3 consecutive cycles or identical placebo capsules. Computer generated, permuted block randomisation was used to allocate treatment packs. Colony forming unit (CFU) assays were used to quantify eMSC in midluteal endometrial biopsies. The primary outcome measure was CFU counts. Secondary outcome measures were endometrial thickness, study acceptability, and first pregnancy outcome within 12 months following the study. Tissue samples were subjected to explorative investigations.FindingsCFU counts following sitagliptin were higher compared to placebo only when adjusted for baseline CFU counts and age (RR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.32-1.75, P<0.01). The change in CFU count was 1.68 in the sitagliptin group and 1.08 in the placebo group. Trial recruitment, acceptability, and drug compliance were high. There were no serious adverse events. Explorative investigations showed that sitagliptin inhibits the expression of DIO2, a marker gene of senescent decidual cells.InterpretationSitagliptin increases eMSCs and decreases decidual senescence. A large-scale clinical trial evaluating the impact of preconception sitagliptin treatment on pregnancy outcome in RPL is feasible and warranted.FundingTommy's Baby Charity.Clinical trial registrationEU Clinical Trials Register no. 2016-001120-54.

Project description:ObjectivesRandomised controlled trial of the effect of a perineural infusion of levobupivacaine on moderate/severe phantom limb pain 6 months after major lower limb amputation.SettingSingle-centre, UK university hospital.ParticipantsNinety patients undergoing above-knee and below-knee amputation for chronic limb threatening ischaemia under general anaesthesia. Exclusion criteria were patients having surgery under neuraxial anaesthesia; inability to operate a patient-controlled analgesia device or complete a Visual Analogue Scale; amputation for trauma or malignancy; or contraindication to levobupivacaine.InterventionsEither levobupivacaine 0.125% or saline 0.9% (10 mL bolus, infusion of 8 mL/hour for 96 hours) via a sciatic or posterior tibial nerve sheath catheter placed under direct vision during surgery.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was the presence of phantom limb pain, residual limb pain and phantom limb sensations up to 6 months after amputation. Secondary outcome measures included early postoperative pain and morphine requirements after surgery.ResultsData from 81 participants were analysed; 6-month follow-up data were available for 62 patients. Pain and morphine requirements varied widely before and after amputation in both groups. The incidences of moderate/severe phantom limb pain, residual limb pain and phantom limb sensations were low from 6 weeks with no significant differences between groups in phantom limb pain at rest (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.14, p=0.394) or movement (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.21, p=0.425) at 6 months. Early postoperative pain scores were low in both groups with no between-group differences in residual limb pain or phantom limb sensations (rest or movement) at any time point. High postoperative morphine consumption was associated with worsening phantom limb pain both at rest (-17.51, 95% CI -24.29 to -10.74; p<0.001) and on movement (-18.54, 95% CI -25.58 to -11.49; p<0.001). The incidence of adverse effects related to the study was low in both groups: postoperative nausea, vomiting and sedation scores were similar, and there were no features of local anaesthetic toxicity.ConclusionsLong-term phantom limb pain, residual limb pain and phantom limb sensations were not reduced significantly by perineural infusion of levobupivacaine, although the study was underpowered to show significant differences in the primary outcome. The incidence of phantom limb pain was lower than previously reported, possibly attributable to frequent assessment and early intervention to identify and treat postoperative pain when it occurred. There were large variations in postoperative pain scores, high requirements for analgesics before and after surgery and some problems maintaining recruitment and long -term follow-up. Knowledge of these potential problems should inform future research in this group of patients. Further work should investigate the association between perioperative morphine requirements and late phantom limb pain.Trial registration numbersEudraCT 2007-000619-27; ISRCTN68691928.

Project description:BackgroundThis analysis aims to evaluate health-related quality of life (HrQoL) (primary outcome for this analysis), nausea and vomiting, and pain in patients with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction (IMBO) due to cancer or its treatments randomised to standardised therapies plus octreotide or placebo over a maximum of 72 h in a double-blind clinical trial.MethodsAdults with IMBO and vomiting recruited through 12 services spanning inpatient, consultative and community settings in Australia were randomised to subcutaneous octreotide infusion or saline. HrQoL was measured at baseline and treatment cessation (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL). Mean within-group paired differences between baseline and post-treatment scores were analysed using Wilcoxon Signed Rank test and between group differences estimated using linear mixed models, adjusted for baseline score, sex, age, time, and study arm.ResultsOne hundred six of the 112 randomised participants were included in the analysis (n = 52 octreotide, n = 54 placebo); 6 participants were excluded due to major protocol violations. Mean baseline HrQoL scores were low (octreotide 22.1, 95% CI 14.3, 29.9; placebo 31.5, 95% CI 22.3, 40.7). There was no statistically significant within-group improvement in the mean HrQoL scores in the octreotide (p = 0.21) or placebo groups (p = 0.78), although both groups reported reductions in mean nausea and vomiting (octreotide p < 0.01; placebo p = 0.02) and pain scores (octreotide p < 0.01; placebo p = 0.03). Although no statistically significant difference in changes in HrQoL scores between octreotide and placebo were seen, an adequately powered study is required to fully assess any differences in HrQoL scores.ConclusionThe HrQoL of patients with IMBO and vomiting is poor. Further research to formally evaluate the effects of standard therapies for IMBO is therefore warranted.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12608000211369 (date registered 18/04/2008).

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of varenicline (a licensed cigarette smoking cessation aid) in helping users of smokeless tobacco to quit.DesignDouble blind, placebo controlled, parallel group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.SettingMedical clinics (mostly primary care) in Norway and Sweden.ParticipantsMen and women aged ≥18 who used smokeless tobacco at least eight times a day, with no abstinence period over three months within one year before screening, who wanted to quit all tobacco use. Participants were excluded if they used any other form of tobacco (except smokeless tobacco) or medication to stop smoking within three months of screening or had any pre-existing medical or psychiatric condition.InterventionsVarenicline 1 mg twice daily (titrated during the first week) or placebo for 12 weeks, with 14 weeks' follow-up after treatment.Main outcome measuresThe primary end point was the four week continuous abstinence rate at the end of treatment (weeks 9-12) confirmed with cotinine concentration. A secondary end point was continuous abstinence rate for weeks 9-26. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated.Results431 participants (213 varenicline; 218 placebo) were randomised and received at least one dose of study drug. Participants' demographics and baseline use of smokeless tobacco were similar (89% (189) and 90% (196), respectively, were men; mean age in both groups was 43.9; participants used smokeless tobacco products about 15 times a day, and about 80% first used smokeless tobacco within 30 minutes after awakening). Continuous abstinence rate at week 9-12 was higher in the varenicline group than the placebo group (59% (125) v 39% (85); relative risk 1.60, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 1.87, P<0.001; risk difference 20%; number needed to treat 5). The advantage of varenicline over placebo persisted through 14 weeks of follow-up (continuous abstinence rate at week 9-26 was 45% (95) v 34% (73); relative risk 1.42, 1.08 to 1.79, P=0.012; risk difference 11%; number needed to treat 9). The most common adverse events in the varenicline group compared with the placebo group were nausea (35% (74) v 6% (14)), fatigue (10% (22) v 7% (15)), headache (10% (22) v 9% (20)), and sleep disorder (10% (22) v 7% (15)). Few adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment (9% (19) and 4% (9), respectively), and serious adverse events occurred in two (1%) and three (1%) participants, respectively.ConclusionVarenicline can help people to give up smokeless tobacco and has an acceptable safety profile. The response rate in the placebo group in this study was high, suggesting a population less resistant to treatment than smokers.Trial registrationNCT00717093.