Evidence-based methods for induction of labor (IOL) are underutilized, increasing risk of prolonged induction, complications, and unnecessary costs. To address heterogeneity in response to quality improvement (QI) efforts, an adaptive implementation strategy can “step up” support to hospitals, moving from less to more intensive support to address inadequate hospital improvement. In a statewide network of hospitals, we developed an adaptive implementation strategy (AIS) with three hospital-level components: (1) BASE, delivered virtually, offers provider training, monthly hospital performance reports, technical assistance, and a participation incentive to hospitals (Intensity: Low); (2) LEAD (unit leaders), offers recurring virtual calls to support hospital QI leaders (Intensity: Moderate); and (3) TEAM (maternity clinician team), offers two in-person site visits with bedside maternity clinicians (Intensity: Very High). This study aims to build an optimized AIS that guides sequential decisions about which hospitals should receive BASE, LEAD, and TEAM to increase adherence to evidence-based IOL management at scale in a statewide quality collaborative. A clustered, sequential, multiple-assignment randomized trial design with at least 48 hospitals recruited from the Obstetrics Initiative, a perinatal collaborative quality initiative separately funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network. Evidence-based induction of labor (EB-IOL) includes (a) dual-agent cervical ripening and (b) early amniotomy. Hospitals will receive BASE for five months (Stage 1; Month 1–5). At Month 6, all hospitals are randomized to augment with LEAD vs. continue BASE only (Stage 2; Month 6–12). Hospitals not achieving Top Performer status (defined as ≥ 80

Background In February 2021, the UK Department of Health and Social Care sought evidence on the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccine co-administration to inform the 2021/2022 influenza vaccine policy. Co-administration could support vaccine uptake and reduce healthcare appointments. ComFluCOV was a randomised controlled trial designed to provide this evidence. This report outlines the methods used to deliver the trial in 6 months to answer an urgent public health question as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. Methods ComFluCOV was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care and was managed by the Bristol Trials Centre, a UK-registered clinical trials unit. It was classed as an Urgent Public Health trial which facilitated fast-track regulatory approvals. Trial materials and databases were developed using in-house templates and those used in other COVID-19 vaccine trials. Participants were recruited by advertising, and via a trial website. Electronic trial systems enabled daily review of participant data. Weekly virtual meetings were held with stakeholders and trial sites. Results ComFluCOV was delivered within 6 months from inception to reporting, and trial milestones to inform the Department of Health and Social Care policy were met. Set-up was achieved within 1 month. Regulators provided expedited reviews, with feedback ahead of submission. Recruitment took place at 12 sites. Over 380 site staff were trained. Overall, 679 participants were recruited in two months. The final report to the Department of Health and Social Care was submitted in September 2021, following a preliminary safety report in May 2021. Trial results have been published. Conclusion The rapid delivery of ComFluCOV was resource intensive. It was made possible in part due to a unique set of circumstances created by the pandemic situation including measures put in place to support urgent public health research and public support for COVID-19 vaccine research. Elements of the trial could be adopted to increase efficiency in ‘non-pandemic’ situations including working with a clinical trials unit to enable immediate mobilisation of a team of experienced researchers, greater sharing of resources between clinical trials units, use of electronic trial systems and virtual meetings. Trial registration ISRCTN14391248, submitted on 17/03/2021. Registered on 30/03/2021.

Background In early 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK called for research on the safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Co-administration of these vaccines would facilitate uptake and reduce the number of healthcare visits required. The ComFluCOV trial was designed to deliver the necessary evidence in time to inform the autumn (September–November) 2021 vaccination policy. This paper presents the statistical methodology applied to help successfully deliver the trial results in 6 months. Methods ComFluCOV was a parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial managed by the Bristol Trials Centre. Two study statisticians, supported by a senior statistician, worked together on all statistical tasks. Tools were developed to aid the pre-screening process. Automated data monitoring reports of clinic data and electronic diaries were produced daily and reviewed by the trial team and feedback provided to sites. Analyses were performed independently in parallel, and derivations and results of all outcomes were compared. Results Set-up was achieved in less than a month, and 679 participants were recruited over 8 weeks. A total of 537 [at least] daily reports outlining recruitment, protocol adherence, and data quality, and 695 daily reports of participant electronic diaries identifying any missed diary entries and adverse events were produced over a period of 16 weeks. A preliminary primary outcome analysis of validated data was reported to the Department of Health and Social Care in May 2021. The database was locked 6 weeks after the final participant follow-up and final analyses completed 3 weeks later. A pre-print publication was submitted within 14 days of the results being made available. The results were reported 6 months after first discussions about the trial. Conclusion The statistical methodologies implemented in ComFluCOV helped to deliver the study in the timescale set. Working in a new clinical area to tight timescales was challenging. Having two statisticians working together on the study provided a quality assurance process that enabled analyses to be completed efficiently and ensured data were interpreted correctly. Processes developed could be applied to other studies to maximise quality, reduce the risk of errors, and overall provide enhanced validation methods. Trial registration ISRCTN14391248, registered on 30 March 2021

BackgroundThe Solidarity trial among COVID-19 inpatients has previously reported interim mortality analyses for four repurposed antiviral drugs. Lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon (IFN)-β1a were discontinued for futility but randomisation to remdesivir continued. Here, we report the final results of Solidarity and meta-analyses of mortality in all relevant trials to date.MethodsSolidarity enrolled consenting adults (aged ≥18 years) recently hospitalised with, in the view of their doctor, definite COVID-19 and no contraindication to any of the study drugs, regardless of any other patient characteristics. Participants were randomly allocated, in equal proportions between the locally available options, to receive whichever of the four study drugs (lopinavir, hydroxychloroquine, IFN-β1a, or remdesivir) were locally available at that time or no study drug (controls). All patients also received the local standard of care. No placebos were given. The protocol-specified primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, subdivided by disease severity. Secondary endpoints were progression to ventilation if not already ventilated, and time-to-discharge from hospital. Final log-rank and Kaplan-Meier analyses are presented for remdesivir, and are appended for all four study drugs. Meta-analyses give weighted averages of the mortality findings in this and all other randomised trials of these drugs among hospital inpatients. Solidarity is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN83971151, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04315948.FindingsBetween March 22, 2020, and Jan 29, 2021, 14 304 potentially eligible patients were recruited from 454 hospitals in 35 countries in all six WHO regions. After the exclusion of 83 (0·6%) patients with a refuted COVID-19 diagnosis or encrypted consent not entered into the database, Solidarity enrolled 14 221 patients, including 8275 randomly allocated (1:1) either to remdesivir (ten daily infusions, unless discharged earlier) or to its control (allocated no study drug although remdesivir was locally available). Compliance was high in both groups. Overall, 602 (14·5%) of 4146 patients assigned to remdesivir died versus 643 (15·6%) of 4129 assigned to control (mortality rate ratio [RR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·82–1·02], p=0·12). Of those already ventilated, 151 (42·1%) of 359 assigned to remdesivir died versus 134 (38·6%) of 347 assigned to control (RR 1·13 [0·89–1·42], p=0·32). Of those not ventilated but on oxygen, 14·6% assigned to remdesivir died versus 16·3% assigned to control (RR 0·87 [0·76–0·99], p=0·03). Of 1730 not on oxygen initially, 2·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 3·8% assigned to control (RR 0·76 [0·46–1·28], p=0·30). Combining all those not ventilated initially, 11·9% assigned to remdesivir died versus 13·5% assigned to control (RR 0·86 [0·76–0·98], p=0·02) and 14·1% versus 15·7% progressed to ventilation (RR 0·88 [0·77–1·00], p=0·04). The non-prespecified composite outcome of death or progression to ventilation occurred in 19·6% assigned to remdesivir versus 22·5% assigned to control (RR 0·84 [0·75–0·93], p=0·001). Allocation to daily remdesivir infusions (vs open-label control) delayed discharge by about 1 day during the 10-day treatment period. A meta-analysis of mortality in all randomised trials of remdesivir versus no remdesivir yielded similar findings.InterpretationRemdesivir has no significant effect on patients with COVID-19 who are already being ventilated. Among other hospitalised patients, it has a small effect against death or progression to ventilation (or both).FundingWHO.

Background Concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines could reduce burden on health-care systems. We aimed to assess the safety of concomitant administration of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial, adults in receipt of a single dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 were enrolled at 12 UK sites and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive concomitant administration of either an age-appropriate influenza vaccine or placebo alongside their second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. 3 weeks later the group who received placebo received the influenza vaccine, and vice versa. Participants were followed up for 6 weeks. The influenza vaccines were three seasonal, inactivated vaccines (trivalent, MF59C adjuvanted or a cellular or recombinant quadrivalent vaccine). Participants and investigators were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was one or more participant-reported solicited systemic reactions in the 7 days after first trial vaccination(s), with a difference of less than 25% considered non-inferior. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Local and unsolicited systemic reactions and humoral responses were also assessed. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14391248. Findings Between April 1 and June 26, 2021, 679 participants were recruited to one of six cohorts, as follows: 129 ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 139 BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 146 ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 79 BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 128 ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine, and 58 BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine. 340 participants were assigned to concomitant administration of influenza and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by placebo at day 21, and 339 participants were randomly assigned to concomitant administration of placebo and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by influenza vaccine at day 21. Non-inferiority was indicated in four cohorts, as follows: ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (risk difference for influenza vaccine minus placebo -1.29%, 95% CI -14.7 to 12.1), BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (6.17%, -6.27 to 18.6), BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine (-12.9%, -34.2 to 8.37), and ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (2.53%, -13.3 to 18.3). In the other two cohorts, the upper limit of the 95% CI exceeded the 0.25 non-inferiority margin (ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine 10.3%, -5.44 to 26.0; BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine 6.75%, -11.8 to 25.3). Most systemic reactions to vaccination were mild or moderate. Rates of local and unsolicited systemic reactions were similar between the randomly assigned groups. One serious adverse event, hospitalisation with severe headache, was considered related to the trial intervention. Immune responses were not adversely affected. Interpretation Concomitant vaccination with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine raises no safety concerns and preserves antibody responses to both vaccines. Concomitant vaccination with both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines over the next immunisation season should reduce the burden on health-care services for vaccine delivery, allowing for timely vaccine administration and protection from COVID-19 and influenza for those in need. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Background: Concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines would reduce burden on healthcare systems. We assess the safety of concomitant administration. Methods: Adults in receipt of a single dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 were enrolled at 12 UK sites and randomised 1:1 to receive concomitant administration of either age-appropriate influenza or placebo alongside second COVID-19 vaccine. Three weeks later the group who received placebo received the influenza vaccine, and vice versa. Participants were followed to six weeks. The influenza vaccines were three seasonal, inactivated vaccines (trivalent, MF59C adjuvanted (aTIV) or a cellular or recombinant quadrivalent vaccine (QIVc/QIVr)). Participants and investigators were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was one or more participant-reported solicited systemic reaction in the seven days after first trial vaccination(s), with a difference of <25% considered non-inferior. Local and unsolicited systemic reactions and humoral responses were also assessed (ISRCTN14391248). Findings: Between 1st April and 26th June 2021, 679 participants were recruited to one of six cohorts: (129 ChAdOx1/QIVc; 139 BNT162b2/QIVc; 146 ChAdOx1/aTIV; 79 BNT162b2/aTIV; 128 ChAdOx1/QIVr; 58 BNT162b2/QIVr). Overall, 340 participants were randomised to concomitant administration of influenza and COVID-19 vaccine and 339 were randomised to placebo and COVID-19 vaccine. Non-inferiority was indicated in four cohorts; ChAdOx1/QIVc: risk difference (influenza vaccine minus placebo) -1·29% (95% confidence interval (CI) ‑14·7%, 12·1%); BNT162b2/QIVc: 6·17% (‑6·27%, 18·6%); BNT162b2/aTIV: -12·9% (‑34·2%, 8·37%); ChAdOx1/QIVr: 2·53% (‑13·3%, 18·3%). In two cohorts the upper limit of the 95%CI exceeded 25%; ChAdOx1/aTIV: 10·3% (‑5·44%, 26·0%) and BNT162b2/QIVr: 6·75% (‑11·8%, 25·3%). Most reactions were mild or moderate. Rates of local and unsolicited systemic reactions were similar between randomised groups. One serious adverse event, hospitalisation with severe headache, was considered related to the trial intervention. Immune responses were not adversely affected. Interpretation: Concomitant vaccination raises no safety concerns and preserves the immune response to both vaccines.Clinical Trial Registration Details: The trial is registered (ISRCTN14391248)Funding Information: The trial is commissioned and funded by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This research was supported by the Vaccine Task Force (VTF) and NIHR Policy Research Programme (PR-R17-0916-22001, NIHR203243).Declaration of Interest: RL reports grants from National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of the trial, and grants from Elizabeth Blackwell Institute, AstraZeneca, Janssen and Valneva outside the submitted work. CR reports grants from National Institute for Health Research, during the conduct of the trial. JSN-V-T reports he is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. AF reports grants from Pfizer during the conduct of the trial, and grants from Elizabeth Blackwell Institute, Gates Foundation, Sanofi Pasteur, VBI Vaccines, Pfizer, Janssen, GSK, MedImmune, Novavax and Valneva outside the submitted work. Between May 2015 and May 2019 AF was President of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases which, during this period, received sponsorship from GSK for its annual congress. He currently serves as chief investigator on the Valneva (Covid-19) vaccine phase 1/2 and 2/3 studies .He also serves as co-investigator on the Janssen (Covid-19) vaccine 2 dose phase 3 study. He does advisory work related to vaccines for the UK government, the World Health Organisation and several companies developing vaccines. He also leads clinical trials of vaccines funded by the UK government, charities and vaccine manufacturers. He receives no personal remuneration or benefits in kind for any of this work apart from his salary via the University of Bristol from the Higher Education Funding Council and the NHS. He is a member of the UK Department of Health's Joint Committee on Vaccination, Chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts in which capacity he attends SAGE. AM reports grants from National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of the trial, and grants from AstraZeneca, Janssen and Valneva outside the submitted work. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Pfizer, Janssen, Medimmune and MCM. The views in this paper are those of its authors and not necessarily those of the DHSC.Ethical Approval Statement: Approvals were received from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (EudraCT number 2021-001124-18) and the South-Central Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (21/SC/0100).

Background As a registered clinical trials unit we develop customised databases to collect and store study data and manage clinical trials; these databases need rigorous testing to ensure they function as intended, that data validation is implemented correctly and that study data extracts are complete and accurate. We describe how, with statistical involvement, the testing has been streamlined and the timelines reduced.