Lanark

Sepsis results from overwhelming reactions to microbial infections where the immune system initiates dysregulated responses that lead to remote organ dysfunction, shock and ultimately death. Sepsis remains a significant global issue - as well as direct mortality, survivors suffer long term reductions in patient centred outcomes, with reduced quality of life and functional status. Patients with hypotension and organ hypoperfusion as a result of sepsis have poorer outcomes by dysregulated inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, immune suppression, and organ dysfunction. Current guidelines highlight the importance of early fluid resuscitation, but the association of early fluid therapy with improved outcomes is unclear. In the resuscitation phase, current practice is to give intravenous (IV) fluid and intermittent vasopressor boluses if required, before, for some patients, continuous vasopressor infusion via a central venous line in Intensive Care (ICU). An alternative, early continuous peripheral vasopressor infusion (PVI) is not routine practice in the UK. Current practice in the UK is guided by NICE Sepsis guidance and the international Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) consensus recommendations. Both specify intravenous fluid administration as a central tenet of early resuscitation of patients with septic shock, with intravenous vasopressor administration recommended after intravenous fluid resuscitation. NICE recommend boluses of 500ml of crystalloid and "refer to critical care for review of management including need for central venous access and initiation of vasopressors". SSC recommend 30ml/kg crystalloid in first hour, followed by vasopressors to maintain MAP\>65. The current NICE fluid resuscitation guideline, November 2020, continues to emphasise 500ml boluses of crystalloid as usual care. A recent international survey of 100 critical care and EM physicians regarding intravenous fluid resuscitation practice, confirmed that an initial bolus of 1000ml of crystalloid, followed by 500ml boluses of crystalloid remained the most common management strategy for the initial treatment of septic shock. This persisted despite the lack of benefit demonstrated in three landmark trials of protocolised sepsis management. In recent years, there has been increasing acceptance of peripheral administration of norepinephrine, based on evidence of safety and efficacy. The Intensive Care Society published guidance on peripheral vasopressor infusion in November 2020. We have recently conducted a survey amongst ED and ICU clinicians in the UK regarding attitudes and current practice related to the use of intravenous peripheral vasopressors. Eighty two respondents provided the following answers 1. Experience of use of any intravenous vasopressor in ED was high (81%); 2. Exclusive PVI made up 23% of all vasopressor use in ED; 3. Norepinephrine (norepinephrine) was the most common vasopressor (54%); 4. Barriers to PVI were local protocols and an appropriate level of care in the destination ward for a patient on vasopressor infusion.

Abused and neglected children are at extremely high lifetime risk of psychiatric disorder placing a huge burden on health/social care services and society. Virtually all 92,000 children adopted or fostered in the UK have suffered abuse or neglect, therefore risking profoundly negative outcomes in important areas of development including problematic social relationships, academic underachievement and involvement in crime. These disadvantages can lead to negative spirals of poor health and social inequality. Early intervention can greatly improve their life chances, yet there are no adequate psychosocial treatment strategies or care pathways to address the needs of maltreated children. Psychiatric problems of maltreated children are characterised by complexity. They have experienced extreme environmental risk and are at higher genetic risk than peers. Many also struggle to develop and maintain healthy family relationships. Neurodevelopmental disorders such as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Autism often co-exist with disorders arising from the abuse and neglect such as Conduct Disorder, Attachment Disorders and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with devastating consequences for lifelong mental health and development. To reflect this complexity, research team uses the overarching term Maltreatment-Associated Psychiatric Problems (MAPP). The proposed project is a three-phase development and exploratory trial of Clinical and cost-effectiveness of Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP) for abused and neglected children with MAPP and their parents compared to Service as Usual (SAU). The data will be collected in 3 phase trial, through a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods. Phase 1 Months 1-9 (9 months) The first phase will focus on intervention and context optimisation that will take place in 3 sites, each representing one of the UK DDP service delivery contexts: NHS, Social Services and Private Practice. The research questions will be addressed through 24-36 qualitative interviews, and focus groups as well as review meetings at each site, with practitioners and managers involved in delivery of DDP and SAU. The research team will require input from the services practitioners and managers but also Young Peoples' Advisory Groups (YPAG) and Patient, Public, Commissioner Involvement (PPCI) groups. Phase 2 Months 10-26 (17 months) To examine the research questions, and minimise bias, the proposed design is a single-blind randomised controlled trial, with two-groups. The aim of this phase will be to respond to research questions such as what are recruitment and retention rates over 6 months; are the trial assessments and interventions acceptable to parents and professionals; are there functional data collection systems enabling future cost effectiveness analysis. This phase will also assess fidelity to the DDP model and whether the care pathways to CAMHS are maintained throughout. The research team will aim to recruit around 60 families. The potential participants will be identified and approached by their usual service provider. The usual service research administrator will ensure eligible families receive the study participant information leaflet to learn about the study. Once the interest of the family to take part in the trial is confirmed, a research nurse will contact interested families 24 hours later, to discuss the study further and seek consent. Families that confirm their willingness to participate will be invited for two study visits one at baseline, shortly after joining study and second visit after 12 months. On completion of the baseline data collection, consenting families will be individually randomised 1:1 to DDP or SAU, stratified by site. Individuals who consent to take part will have an equal chance of being randomised to either group. One group will be included in the DDP intervention. The second group will take part in the Services as Usual. The research assistant with responsibility for collecting the data will not know which group participants have been allocated to until the end of the study. The intervention will be delivered by the participant's usual health care team. Beside the randomised controlled trial, the data will be collected through qualitative research activities to explore social context supporting/hindering child mental health, optimising the contexts of, and processes for, DDP delivery. Process evaluation Qualitative work in phase 2 has three main aims: 1. To keep abreast of issues and themes uncovered in Phase 1 in the three feasibility trial sites, to ensure ongoing compliance with guidelines for safe DDP delivery and to explore the social context supporting/hindering child mental health in each site including drivers and barriers to optimal DDP/SAU delivery. 6-10 interviews/focus groups will be conducted with therapists, managers and families across the sites. 2. To explore the same topics from Phase 1 in the seven putative Phase 3 trial sites - optimising the contexts of, and processes for, DDP delivery in those sites and examining compliance with the DDP delivery guidelines established in Phase 1. 18-26 interviews/focus groups will be conducted across the sites. 3. To allow selection of 2-4 additional sites for Phase 3. The number of additional sites required for Phase 3 will be decided based on Phase 2 conversion rates from eligible to consented families and on statistical power considerations based on the standard deviation, in Phase 2, of our principle outcome measure. Phase 2 will also adopt case study methodology to focus more specifically on the impact of DDP and SAU. The research team will learn through a more in-depth investigation (individual interviews) about participant experience of DDP/SAU and of journeys through service landscapes from the perspectives of the family, therapists, and other key stakeholders involved in the treatment of and care pathways. A small selection of families (2-3 families) will be invited to take part. Phase 3 Months 27-53 (27 month RCT; (6 month analysis/write-up). The third phase will continue as a single-blind individually randomised controlled superiority definitive trial. The aim of this phase will be to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of DDP for improving child mental health, compared to SAU. The principle outcome will be child's mental health at 12 months post randomisation. The research team will aim to recruit additional 180 families, including phase 2. The study population, interventions, randomisation, data collection, measures, model fidelity and procedures will be as described for Phase 2 unless findings from the process evaluation suggest modifications. Qualitative evaluation (process evaluation) will continue at the same intensity as Phase 2, with a similar number of interviews/focus groups (24-36 across all sites), to explore delivery drivers/barriers in each service context. The case studies will continue, involving a further 10-12 interviews, to track development over time. The PPCI group and YPAG will have a crucial role in the Process Evaluation, during this phase, in reviewing the qualitative findings with the Process Evaluation Team (PET) and considering how these findings pragmatically feed into future service delivery. Whether or not DDP is eventually found to be cost-effective over services as usual, the process evaluation will yield important information about how mental health services can be safely delivered for maltreated children in different services contexts (i.e. NHS CAMHS, Social Care and Private Practice).

Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia (WM) is a rare type of slow growing lymphoma. It develops when white blood cells grow abnormally. Typically a disease of the elderly, the median age of presentation is \>70 years and the current treatment for WM is unsatisfactory, with incomplete responses and inevitable recurrence. Therefore there is a need to find alternative treatments that are more effective, leading to lasting responses and improved quality of life. The RAINBOW study is a phase 2-3 trial assessing 'chemotherapy free' treatment as primary therapy for WM which can potentially improve response outcome, durability and importantly, reduce toxicity for WM patients. This approach will be done using the drug Ibrutinib, which in combination with rituximab (RI) will be the experimental arm. As there is no agreed standard on first-line therapy for WM, the control arm is the current treatment based on the most recently published clinical trial results. The control arm consists of rituximab, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (DCR), and is widely recommended by international consensus as appropriate treatment for first-line therapy for WM. In this study, 148 adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with treatment naïve WM will be randomised on a 1:1 ratio to either the treatment or control arm. Randomised treatment lasts for a maximum of 6 cycles and response will be assessed following 3 cycles of treatment and completion of randomised treatment at approximately 24 weeks after commencing treatment. RI patients may then have up to 5 years of Ibrutinib monotherapy. Patients will be seen regularly during treatment and then every 3 months for 5 years after treatment discontinuation. Patients will enter annual follow up for survival until the end of trial (including progressed patients). The study will be conducted at NHS hospitals and is expected to last 9 years and 6 months.