IntroductionNon-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common liver disease worldwide. Experimental and small clinical trials have demonstrated that angiotensin II blockers (ARB) may be anti-fibrotic in the liver. The aim of this randomised controlled trial was to assess whether treatment with Losartan for 96 weeks slowed, halted or reversed the progression of fibrosis in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH).MethodsDouble-blind randomised-controlled trial of Losartan 50 mg once a day versus placebo for 96 weeks in patients with histological evidence of NASH. The primary outcome for the study was change in histological fibrosis stage from pre-treatment to end-of-treatment.ResultsThe study planned to recruit 214 patients. However, recruitment was slower than expected, and after 45 patients were randomised (median age 55; 56% male; 60% diabetic; median fibrosis stage 2), enrolment was suspended. Thirty-two patients (15 losartan and 17 placebo) completed follow up period: one patient (6.7%) treated with losartan and 4 patients (23.5%) in the placebo group were “responders” (lower fibrosis stage at follow up compared with baseline). The major reason for slow recruitment was that 39% of potentially eligible patients were already taking an ARB or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), and 15% were taking other prohibited medications.ConclusionsDue to the widespread use of ACEI and ARB in patients with NASH this trial failed to recruit sufficient patients to determine whether losartan has anti-fibrotic effects in the liver.Trial registrationISRCTN 57849521

Background Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. Objectives To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. Design This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. Participants Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. Main outcome measures The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. Results Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. Limitations The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. Conclusions The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Heavy alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and extended hospital stay. Alcohol consumption therefore represents a modifiable risk factor for surgical outcomes. Brief behavioural interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption among increased risk and risky drinkers in other health-care settings and may offer a method of addressing preoperative alcohol consumption. Objectives To investigate the feasibility of introducing a screening process to assess adult preoperative drinking levels and to deliver a brief behavioural intervention adapted for the target population group. To conduct a two-arm (brief behavioural intervention plus standard preoperative care vs. standard preoperative care alone), multicentre, pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility of proceeding to a definitive trial. To conduct focus groups and a national web-based survey to establish current treatment as usual for alcohol screening and intervention in preoperative assessment. Design A single-centre, qualitative, feasibility study was followed by a multicentre, two-arm (brief behavioural intervention vs. treatment as usual), individually randomised controlled pilot trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. Focus groups and a quantitative survey were employed to characterise treatment as usual in preoperative assessment. Setting The feasibility study took place at a secondary care hospital in the north-east of England. The pilot trial was conducted at three large secondary care centres in the north-east of England. Participants Nine health-care professionals and 15 patients (mean age 70.5 years, 86.7% male) participated in the feasibility study. Eleven health-care professionals and 68 patients (mean age 66.2 years, 80.9% male) participated in the pilot randomised trial. An additional 19 health-care professionals were recruited to one of three focus groups, while 62 completed an electronic survey to characterise treatment as usual. Interventions The brief behavioural intervention comprised two sessions. The first session, delivered face to face in the preoperative assessment clinic, involved 5 minutes of structured brief advice followed by 15–20 minutes of behaviour change counselling, including goal-setting, problem-solving and identifying sources of social support. The second session, an optional booster, took place approximately 1 week before surgery and offered the opportunity to assess progress and boost self-efficacy. Main outcome measures Feasibility was assessed using rates of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The progression criteria for a definitive trial were recruitment of ≥ 40% of eligible patients and retention of ≥ 70% at 6-month follow-up. Acceptability was assessed using themes identified in qualitative data. Results The initial recruitment of eligible patients was low but improved with the optimisation of recruitment processes. The recruitment of eligible participants to the pilot trial (34%) fell short of the progression criteria but was mitigated by very high retention (96%) at the 6-month follow-up. Multimethod analyses identified the methods as acceptable to the patients and professionals involved and offers recommendations of ways to further improve recruitment. Conclusions The evidence supports the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of brief behavioural intervention in reducing preoperative alcohol consumption and for secondary outcomes of surgical complications if recommendations for further improvements are adopted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36257982. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 12. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

In a single-blind feasibility pilot randomised controlled trial design, brain injury (BI) participants were recruited from a community rehabilitation centre and randomised into goal-setting using the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS), and goal-setting as usual. Outcomes included the feasibility and acceptability of the VIA-IS, and its use in setting goals in a BI rehabilitation context, and whether it affected types of goals set (International Classification of Functioning (ICF)). Memory for goals two weeks later was measured, and a sample size calculated for a full-scale trial. Twenty-six BI participants were recruited, and randomised to the VIA-IS (n = 13) and control group (n = 13). Two dropped out of the VIA-IS condition, leaving a total n = 24. The majority (92%) of participants rated the VIA-IS as acceptable; both groups described the goal-setting process as 'easy'. VIA-IS feedback varied; over two thirds (73%) of VIA-IS participants used their VIA-IS results to set goals and described it as 'helpful'. There were no major differences in ICF categories between groups. A sample size of 66 would be required for a full-scale trial.A full-scale trial with multi-centre design appears warranted though might more clinically beneficial for difficult to engage BI clients.

Declaration of conflicting interest: None declared.Funding: This research received no specific grant support from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit. 2 AbstractIntroduction: This study evaluated the efficacy of a low-cost reminder system to support