Search

Abstract Autologous stem‐cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard therapy for relapsed/refractory large B‐cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL), but many patients are either ineligible or unable to receive it. This retrospective study characterized outcomes in R/R LBCL, delineated by eligibility for, and receipt of, ASCT. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) and event‐free survival (EFS) for patients undergoing ASCT were 35.2 and 31.6 months (overall survival [OS] not reached). Median PFS, EFS, and OS were 4.3, 4.3, and 6.9 months for ineligible patients, and 2.7, 2.6, and 9.4 months for those eligible for but unable to receive ASCT. This highlights an unmet need for alternative therapies in patients unable to receive ASCT.

Understanding and modeling the trajectories of change in broad level interactions in food-energy-water systems is incomplete when it is undertaken by researchers in isolation from those who live and work in the systems. For models and outcomes to have validity they need to be subjected to sustained development and iteration with stakeholders. This requires a paradigm shift in our thinking of stakeholder engagement from viewing such engagement as an isolated activity or part of the data collection methods to thinking of engagement as a process of knowledge generation. That process hinges on building relationships and building trust, and also sustaining these as long-term relationships through multiple elements of research design and execution. Using the case-study of a mid-size river basin we demonstrate a co-production of knowledge process for food-energy-water systems. The findings highlight the multiple and different ways in which knowledge co-production can be transacted in food-energy-water systems while also generating solutions to the use and re-use of water, energy, and nutrients at the landscape level.

Finding effective and practical solutions to climate change challenges in food-energy-water systems requires the integration of experts in local/regional social and biophysical systems, and these are commonly local community members. In the Magic Valley, Idaho we investigated the tensions between water used for energy and to irrigate cropland for food production, as well as, strategies for protecting water quantity and quality. Incorporating stakeholders with long-standing expertise allows the development of solutions to these challenges that are locally and regionally practical and consistent with the values of the social system into which they are incorporated. We describe a stakeholder-driven process used in a case study in the Magic Valley that incorporated local experts to develop plausible future scenarios, identify drivers of change, vet impact and hydrological modeling and map areas of change. The process described allowed stakeholders to envision alternative futures in their region, leading to development of enhanced context and place-based solutions and an anticipated time line for adoption of those solutions. The solutions developed by the stakeholders have been applied across many geographic areas. The described process can also be applied across a broad range of geographic levels. Most importantly, stakeholders should be involved in anticipating solutions and solution timing to the differing challenges posed by each scenario.

Adaptation to environmental change has become a necessity and a norm for many Arctic communities. We examine whether the adaptive capacity varies in different communities in Alaska with contrasting ecologies and socio-economic systems using the Arctic Water Resources Vulnerability Index (AWRVI). We applied the index to six communities in three distinct regions of Alaska with respect to water resources: Nuiqsut in Northern Alaska, Cooper Landing, Sterling, Soldotna and Kenai in the Kenai River watershed of Southcentral Alaska and Juneau in Southeast Alaska. We modified the AWRVI tool to accommodate the breadth of physical and social conditions in these communities. Using the AWRVI, we measured the adaptive capacity of the communities, which reflect greater vulnerability in Nuiqsut in Northern Alaska due to limitations in water supply and greater surrounding development that could pollute water in their food-shed. The overall adaptive capacities of the two communities that are more mountainous, Cooper Landing and Juneau are similar, as are Sterling, Soldotna and Kenai’s, which are in flatter terrain along the Kenai River. However, the physical and social sub-indices of the communities in the Kenai River watershed and Juneau differ. We discuss actions each community could take to improve their respective capacity to respond to anticipated change. Keywords: Adaptive capacity, Resilience, Vulnerability, Water resource index

Congenital Morgagni hernia (CMH) is a rare congenital anomaly is typically diagnosed in childhood and on occasions in adults during work up of unexplained respiratory infections or gastrointestinal symptoms. The average age of laparoscopic repair of CMH was 3.3 years. We describe a newborn with fetal aberrant ductus venosus with progressive right ventricular dilation prompting early delivery. Post-natally, the baby had frequent episodes of cyanosis. Echocardiogram during distress showed compression of the inferior vena cava and of the right heart, with significant right to left shunt through patent foramen ovale. Infant underwent successful laparoscopic diaphragmatic hernia repair with resolution in her episodes of cyanosis. Keywords: Morgagni diaphragmatic hernia, Neonate, Cyanosis, Tamponade

An integrated dataset was developed that combined stakeholder perceptions of environmental change (precipitation, air temperature, water temperature, fish abundance, fish size, residential development) and comparable instrumented measures of environmental changes based on sensor records. All data were transformed to a common 3-point categorical scale to support statistical comparison of social and biophysical change for the same change variables. The integrated dataset is available on Mendeley (http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/cjfxg84bmx.1).

As pressure on the dairy industry to reduce its environmental impact increases, efficient recycling of manure nutrients through local cropping systems becomes crucial. The aim of this study was to calculate annual nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) budgets in six counties located in the Magic Valley, Idaho and estimate what distance manure would need to be transported to be in balance with crop nutrient demand given current dairy cattle populations and cropping systems. Our analysis suggests that crop N needs will not be met solely by manure, and synthetic fertilizer will need to be applied. However, to balance P with crop production, manure would need to be transported a minimum of 12.9 km from dairies and would have to replace synthetic fertilizer P on 91% of regional cropland. Education of producers and technical specialists would be necessary to improve the management of manure use in regional cropping systems. Technical solutions such as alternative diets for cattle and nutrient capture from manure streams will also likely be necessary to bring regional P into balance to protect environmental quality and improve the sustainability of the regional dairy industry.

Signalling proteins are key regulators of basic cell physiology and tissues morphogenesis. Whilst signalling proteins are paramount for the cell to function optimally, their down regulation or inhibition is also central to tune the cell and its environment. One process involved in this tuning mechanism is membrane budding, otherwise known as endocytosis. The origin of the physical force driving the budding process and endocytosis has been the subject of much controversy. After two decades the budding process is now well described and it is acknowledged that fundamental principles from soft matter physics are at play. This opens a new window for understanding gene regulations, pharmacokinetic and multi drug resistance in cancer. This review recalls the first steps that have led to a better understanding of cell biology through the use of physics and; how the use of physics has shed light in areas of cell biology, cancer and pharmacology. It is, therefore, not a review of the many enzymes involved in membrane vesiculation and membrane curvature; it is more of an historical account.

Background The concept of core outcome sets (COS) has been introduced in China for about 10 years. In recent years, some Chinese researchers also committed to developing COS, though the majority of COS are ongoing. However, there were more than 500 published COS for research in the COMET database by 2020. The extent of availability of COS for the top 25 diseases with the highest burden in China is unknown. In addition, the uptake of COS in clinical trials for these diseases is unknown, along with the knowledge, perceptions, and views of the clinical trialist community in China on the use of COS in relation to choosing outcomes for their research. Methods The main burden of disease in China will be identified. Then we will search the COMET database to identify if there are ongoing or completed relevant COS research A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. We will extract scopes of published eligible COS, including condition, population, interventions, and core outcomes. Then we will search the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry using disease names for each disease that has a published COS. We will assess the overlap in scope between clinical trials and COS. Then we will conduct an online survey and semi-structured interviews to identify the knowledge and perceptions of COS among primary investigators of included clinical trials. Discussion This research will fill in gaps between COS and the burden of disease in China. Understanding clinical trialists’knowledge and perceptions of COS may help dissemination and application of COS in the future. Trial registration This research is registered in Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2563.

Abstract Background Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. Methods The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. Results Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. Conclusions We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

Abstract Background Development and use of core outcome set(s) (COS) in research can reduce research wastage by ensuring that a minimum set of outcomes are always reported on. Neonatal morbidity and mortality are a big burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Research is continuously being undertaken to reduce this burden. Currently, there is no COS for neonatal research in LMICs but there exists one for neonatal research in high-income countries (HICs). Objectives To determine outcomes that are useful for neonatal care in Kenya to inform whether an existing COS should be adopted or adapted. To assess the feasibility of a routine data collection system to collect data of the agreed-on COS. Methods A review of existing literature on neonatal research in LMICs followed by a qualitative study of key stakeholders in neonatal care. To explore whether to adapt or adopt, in two hospitals, two focus group discussions with 6–8 parents/caregivers will be undertaken (one each in two hospitals). Key informant interviews will also be conducted with 6 health care providers in each of the hospitals. At the policy-making level, we will conduct 10 key informant interviews. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically. A consensus meeting will be undertaken with key stakeholders, who will be presented with an overview of the COS developed for HICs, key findings from the literature, and the qualitative study to determine context-appropriate COS. The agreed-on outcomes will be counterchecked against the case records in the two hospitals. The feasibility of collecting the outcomes on a routine electronic research database, the Clinical Information Network that collects standardized data at admission and discharge, will be explored. The congruence (or not) of the outcomes will be documented and be used to enrich the discussion and provide a snapshot of the feasibility of the health information system to collect routine data on the COS. Conclusions A COS for use in neonatal care in Kenya will help enhance outcome measurements and reporting not just in research but also in routine practice. This will enhance the comparability of interventions in trials and routine settings leading to reduced research wastage and likely improved quality of care. Additionally, the methodology used for this work can be adopted in other settings as a means of adopting or adapting an existing COS.

Background The concept of core outcome sets (COS) has been introduced in China for about 10 years. In recent years, some Chinese researchers also committed to developing COS, though the majority of COS are ongoing. However, there were more than 500 published COS for research in the COMET database by 2020. The extent of availability of COS for the top 25 diseases with the highest burden in China is unknown. In addition, the uptake of COS in clinical trials for these diseases is unknown, along with the knowledge, perceptions, and views of the clinical trialist community in China on the use of COS in relation to choosing outcomes for their research. Methods The main burden of disease in China will be identified. Then we will search the COMET database to identify if there are ongoing or completed relevant COS research A COS published since 2012 would be preferred to one published before 2012 for the analysis of COS uptake if one meets the eligibility criteria. We will extract scopes of published eligible COS, including condition, population, interventions, and core outcomes. Then we will search the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry using disease names for each disease that has a published COS. We will assess the overlap in scope between clinical trials and COS. Then we will conduct an online survey and semi-structured interviews to identify the knowledge and perceptions of COS among primary investigators of included clinical trials. Discussion This research will fill in gaps between COS and the burden of disease in China. Understanding clinical trialists’knowledge and perceptions of COS may help dissemination and application of COS in the future. Trial registration This research is registered in Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2563.

Core outcome set (COS) development and use enhances comparability of research findings. It may also enhance the translation of research into practice and reduce research waste. However, there is limited involvement of stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in COS development and use. In this study, we explored the experiences of researchers in COS development projects who included stakeholders from LMICs. Online survey conducted in English of 70 COS developers from HICs who had included LMIC stakeholders in the process of developing a COS, published before the end of 2019. Respondents were identified from the COMET database and sent a link to the survey via a personalised email. Quantitative data were analysed using simple descriptive statistics. Qualitative data analysis was based on qualitative content analysis. There were 37 respondents yielding a 53% overall response rate. Analysis was limited to the responses related to 29 COS developed in the years 2015 to 2019, to reduce the potential for recall bias for earlier COS. Most respondents 20/29 (69%) were researchers. Determining 'what to measure' was reported as the most common stage of inclusion of LMIC stakeholders. Respondents cited (24/29, 83%) their ongoing collaborations with LMIC stakeholders such as clinicians or researchers as their main rationale for including LMICs stakeholders and reported that translation of the Delphi into languages other than English may be useful to enhance wider stakeholder participation. Involvement of LMIC stakeholders only in the later stages of COS development, lack of adequate resources to support their involvement, and lack of networks and contacts were thought to limit fuller participation of stakeholders from LMICs. To improve the involvement of LMIC stakeholders in COS development and use, COS developers need to raise awareness on the utility of COS. The need for and feasibility of translation into multiple languages warrants further discussion.

Objectives The Bronchiolitis Endotracheal Surfactant Study (BESS) is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy of endo-tracheal surfactant therapy for critically ill infants with bronchiolitis. To explore acceptability of BESS, including approach to consent within a limited time frame, we explored parent and staff experiences of trial involvement in the first two bronchiolitis seasons to inform subsequent trial conduct.Design A mixed-method embedded study involving a site staff survey, questionnaires and interviews with parents approached about BESS.Setting Fourteen UK paediatric intensive care units.Participants Of the 179 parents of children approached to take part in BESS, 75 parents (of 69 children) took part in the embedded study. Of these, 55/69 (78%) completed a questionnaire, and 15/69 (21%) were interviewed. Thirty-eight staff completed a questionnaire.Results Parents and staff found the trial acceptable. All constructs of the Adapted Theoretical Framework of Acceptability were met. Parents viewed surfactant as being low risk and hoped their child’s participation would help others in the future. Although parents supported research without prior consent in studies of time critical interventions, they believed there was sufficient time to consider this trial. Parents recommended that prospective informed consent should continue to be sought for BESS. Many felt that the time between the consent process and intervention being administered took too long and should be ‘streamlined’ to avoid delays in administration of trial interventions. Staff described how the training and trial processes worked well, yet patients were missed due to lack of staff to deliver the intervention, particularly at weekends.Conclusion Parents and staff supported BESS trial and highlighted aspects of the protocol, which should be refined, including a streamlined informed consent process. Findings will be useful to inform proportionate approaches to consent in future paediatric trials where there is a short timeframe for consent discussions.Trial registration number ISRCTN11746266.

Introduction The Core Outcome Measures for Improving Care (COM-IC) project aims to deliver practical recommendations on the selection and implementation of a suite of core outcomes to measure the effectiveness of interventions for dementia care.Methods and analysis COM-IC embeds a participatory action approach to using the Alignment–Harmonisation–Results framework for measuring dementia care in Australia. Using this framework, suitable core outcome measures will be identified, analysed, implemented and audited. The methods for analysing each stage will be codesigned with stakeholders, through the conduit of a Stakeholder Reference Group including people living with dementia, formal and informal carers, aged care industry representatives, researchers, clinicians and policy actors. The codesigned evaluation methods consider two key factors: feasibility and acceptability. These considerations will be tested during a 6-month feasibility study embedded in aged care industry partner organisations.Ethics and dissemination COM-IC has received ethical approval from The University of Queensland (HREC 2021/HE001932). Results will be disseminated through networks established over the project, and in accordance with both the publication schedule and requests from the Stakeholder Reference Group. Full access to publications and reports will be made available through UQ eSpace (https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/), an open access repository hosted by The University of Queensland.

Background Core outcome sets (COS) represent agreed-upon sets of outcomes, which are the minimum that should be measured and reported in all trials in specific health areas. Use of COS can reduce outcome heterogeneity, selective outcome reporting, and research waste, and can facilitate evidence syntheses. Despite benefits of using COS, current use of COS in trials is low. COS use can be understood as a behaviour, in that it is something trialists do, or not do, adequately. The aim of this study is to identify strategies, informed by behaviour change theory, to increase COS use in trials. Methods The project will be conducted in two stages, informed by the behaviour change wheel (BCW). The BCW is a theoretically based framework that can be used to classify, identify, and develop behaviour change strategies. In Stage 1, barriers and enablers to COS use will be extracted from published studies that examined trialist’s use of COS. Barriers and facilitators will be mapped to the components of COM-B model (capability, opportunity, and motivation), which forms part of the BCW framework. Stage 2 will build on Stage 1 findings to identify and select intervention functions and behaviour change techniques to enhance COS use in trials. Discussion The findings of this study will provide an understanding of the behavioural factors that influence COS use in trials and what strategies might be used to target these factors to increase COS use in trials.

Background Systematic annual screening for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy is established in several countries but is resource intensive. Personalised (individualised) medicine offers the opportunity to extend screening intervals for people at low risk of progression and to target high-risk groups. However, significant concern exists among all stakeholders around the safety of changing programmes. Evidence to guide decisions is limited, with, to the best of our knowledge, no randomised controlled trials to date. Objectives To develop an individualised approach to screening for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy and test its acceptability, safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness. To estimate the changing incidence of patient-centred outcomes. Design A risk calculation engine; a randomised controlled trial, including a within-trial cost-effectiveness study; a qualitative acceptability study; and an observational epidemiological cohort study were developed. A patient and public group was involved in design and interpretation. Setting A screening programme in an English health district of around 450,000 people. Participants People with diabetes aged ≥ 12 years registered with primary care practices in Liverpool. Interventions The risk calculation engine estimated each participant’s risk at each visit of progression to screen-positive diabetic retinopathy (individualised intervention group) and allocated their next appointment at 6, 12 or 24 months (high, medium or low risk, respectively). Main outcome measures The randomised controlled trial primary outcome was attendance at first follow-up assessing the safety of individualised compared with usual screening. Secondary outcomes were overall attendance, rates of screen-positive and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy, and measures of visual impairment. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were cost/quality-adjusted life year and incremental cost savings. Cohort study outcomes were rates of screen-positive diabetic retinopathy and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Data sources Local screening programme (retinopathy), primary care (demographic, clinical) and hospital outcomes. Methods A seven-person patient and public involvement group was recruited. Data were linked into a purpose-built dynamic data warehouse. In the risk assessment, the risk calculation engine used patient-embedded covariate data, a continuous Markov model, 5-year historical local population data, and most recent individual demographic, retina and clinical data to predict risk of future progression to screen-positive. The randomised controlled trial was a masked, two-arm, parallel assignment, equivalence randomised controlled trial, with an independent trials unit and 1 : 1 allocation to individualised screening (6, 12 or 24 months, determined by risk calculation engine at each visit) or annual screening (control). Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a within-trial analysis over a 2-year time horizon, including NHS and societal perspectives and costs directly observed within the randomised controlled trial. Acceptability was assessed by purposive sampling of 60 people with diabetes and 21 healthcare professionals with semistructured interviews analysed thematically; this was a constant comparative method until saturation. The cohort was an 11-year retrospective/prospective screening population data set. Results In the randomised controlled trial, 4534 participants were randomised: 2097 out of 2265 in the individualised arm (92.6%) and 2224 out of 2269 in the control arm (98.0%) remained after withdrawals. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent (individualised 83.6%, control 84.7%) (difference –1.0%, 95% confidence interval –3.2% to 1.2%). Sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection rates were non-inferior: individualised 1.4%, control 1.7% (difference –0.3%, 95% confidence interval –1.1% to 0.5%). In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the mean differences in complete-case quality-adjusted life years (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, and Health Utilities Index Mark 3) did not significantly differ from zero. Incremental cost savings per person not including treatment costs were from the NHS perspective £17.34 (confidence interval £17.02 to £17.67) and the societal perspective £23.11 (confidence interval £22.73 to £23.53). In the individualised arm, 43.2% fewer screening appointments were required. In terms of acceptability, changing to variable intervals was acceptable for the majority of people with diabetes and health-care professionals. Annual screening was perceived as unsustainable and an inefficient use of resources. Many people with diabetes and healthcare professionals expressed concerns that 2-year screening intervals may detect referable eye disease too late and might have a negative effect on perceptions about the importance of attendance and diabetes care. The 6-month interval was perceived positively. Among people with dementia, there was considerable misunderstanding about eye-related appointments and care. In the cohort study, the numbers of participants (total 28,384) rose over the 11 years (2006/7, n = 6637; 2016/17, n = 14,864). Annual incidences ranged as follows: screen-positive 4.4–10.6%, due to diabetic retinopathy 2.3–4.6% and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy 1.3–2.2%. The proportions of screen-positive fell steadily but sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy rates remained stable. Limitations Our findings apply to a single city-wide established English screening programme of mostly white people with diabetes. The cost-effectiveness analysis was over a short timeline for a long-standing disease; the study, however, was designed to test the safety and effectiveness of the screening regimen, not the cost-effectiveness of screening compared with no screening. Cohort data collection was partly retrospective: data were unavailable on people who had developed sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy or died prior to 2013. Conclusions Our randomised controlled trial can reassure stakeholders involved in diabetes care that extended intervals and personalised screening is feasible, where data linkage is possible, and can be safely introduced in established screening programmes with potential cost savings compared with annual screening. Rates of screen-positive diabetic retinopathy and sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy are low and show consistent falls over time. Involvement of patients in research is crucial to success. Future work Future work could include external validation with other programmes followed by scale-up of individualised screening outside a research setting and economic modelling beyond the 2-year time horizon. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN87561257. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary Diabetic retinopathy remains a leading cause of vision loss for people with diabetes. Annual photographic screening allows early detection and prompt treatment in many countries. A new approach is to vary how often this is undertaken at each visit, after calculating each person’s risk of progression; we have called this ‘individualised’ screening. We tested this variable-interval risk-based approach against annual screening in a randomised controlled trial of 4534 people in Liverpool. Six-, 12- or 24-month intervals represented high, medium and low risks, respectively, of becoming screen-positive by the next appointment. With our patient and public involvement group, we designed a computer-based risk-calculation system using personal information from screening, general practitioners and hospitals. Attendance rates at the next screening appointment were similar in the individualised (84%) and annual (control) (85%) groups. Similar amounts of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy were detected in the two arms (1.4% individualised, 1.7% control), with 43% fewer visits. In this study in a single geographical region, savings estimated to accrue to the NHS per person over 2 years were £17.34 and £23.11 for wider society, but estimates did not include treatment costs. During interviews, 60 people with diabetes and 21 healthcare professionals said that individualised screening would be acceptable because of increasing rates of diabetes and the chance to target high-risk people. Patients had anxieties about the reliability of the risk-calculation and restricting access, requesting opportunities for earlier screening if risks changed. Varying screening intervals based on a person’s own risk of progression appears feasible and safe. Low-risk people would be spared unnecessary appointments. Introducing an individualised approach could now move to wider testing and validation in other UK and international settings. The trial only ran for 2 years and was in a long-established programme with low rates of disease, so monitoring of attendance and retinopathy rates should be included as part of wider testing. Scientific summary Background Diabetic retinopathy remains the most common cause of visual impairment in working populations worldwide. Systematic annual screening to detect and treat sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) is established in several countries including the United Kingdom (UK) and has greatly improved the detection of treatable disease. With the rapid increase in the prevalence of diabetes, new approaches to screening are required. Risk stratification, personalised (individualised) medicine, and clinical bioinformatics offer opportunities to extend the screening interval for people at low risk of progression and to target those at high risk. However there is significant concern among people with diabetes, healthcare professionals and health commissioners in the UK around the safety and acceptability of changing an established and successful programme. To ensure that health care is available for all it is imperative that it is not only efficacious but cost-efficient, that is, it delivers care at an affordable cost for commissioners. Evidence to guide these decisions is very limited and there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Much of the data on prevalence and incidence of diabetic retinopathy and progression to more severe stages of disease come from the 1980s to 1990s and before the introduction of systematic screening and improvements in diabetes and blood pressure control. Data on the current progression rates in screening populations are limited and are reported variably. We conducted a programme of quantitative and qualitative research to develop and test the acceptability, safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an individualised approach to screening for STDR. To provide data for future planning of early detection programmes and the design of future research studies we designed a longitudinal observational cohort study of the population of people with diabetes in Liverpool. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and incidence of the stages in the natural history of diabetic retinopathy, namely screen-positive, sight-threatening and treatable disease, and visual impairment, all key patient-centred outcomes in the disease. Changes to the programme and their implications A number of changes to the programme occurred in the early years. A systematic review was published at around the time of the programme start. We used these data to design aspects of the study and conducted a literature review instead. Data for the cohort study proved not to be available on people who had died prior to programme start. We adopted a mixed retrospective and prospective analysis but this added some difficulty in interpreting the findings. In 2016 resources were repurposed from the cohort study to support recruitment of the RCT, which was behind schedule. The scope of the cohort study was narrowed to focus only on the data available from the screening programme, meaning that we were unable to complete data collection on the patient-centred outcomes after sight-threatening retinopathy had been confirmed, namely treatment and visual impairment. Recruitment of non-attenders proved beyond the resources available and was abandoned. Further research is needed to address these unanswered questions. Methods The programme included the development of a bespoke data warehouse, the development of a risk-calculation engine, a RCT, a within-trial cost-effectiveness study, a qualitative study of acceptability, and an observational cohort study. We recruited and fully embedded a seven-person patient and public involvement group which was maintained throughout the programme. The setting was the screening programme of a single English health district (clinical commissioning group). All people with diabetes aged 12 years and over registered with general practices in the Liverpool city area were invited by letter to participate in the research programme. Consent was through an opt-out process. A purpose-built dynamic data warehouse was developed to support all aspects of the programme including bespoke processes addressing inconsistency in routinely collected data, multiple data platforms and lack of technical manuals. Data on eligible participants were sourced from primary care (demographic, clinical), Liverpool Diabetes Eye Screening Programme (retinopathy) and hospital outcomes (true screen-positive, STDR). Data were cross referenced against opt-out records before further use within the programme. A risk-calculation engine was developed for the assessment of individual risk of progressing to screen-positive using patient-focused covariate selection, a continuous-time Markov model, 5-year historical local population data, and the most recent individual demographic, retina and clinical data. The risk-calculation engine was linked to the data warehouse. The Patient and Public Involvement group determined the risk criterion of

Background: Core outcome sets (COS) represent agreed-upon minimum outcomes that should be reported in all studies in a given topic area. Cochrane reviews are considered among the most rigorously conducted systematic reviews (SRs). In 2019, seven of the first 100 published Cochrane SRs (7%) cited a COS in relation to choosing outcomes. A relevant COS existed but was not mentioned (or cited) for 27 of the remaining 93 SRs (29%). Among Cochrane Review Group editors surveyed in 2019, 86% felt that COS should definitely/possibly be used in Cochrane SRs. As of September 2019, the Cochrane Handbook recommends that SR teams consult resources that host relevant COS when choosing outcomes for the SR. Objectives: (1) Examine the extent to which authors are currently considering COS to inform outcome choice in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs. (2) Understand author barriers and facilitators of using COS in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs. Methods: We will examine the extent to which all Cochrane SRs published in the last 3 months of 2022 and all Cochrane protocols published in 2022: (a) cited a COS, (b) searched for COS, and (c) reported outcome inconsistency among included studies and/or noted the need for COS. One investigator will extract information from SRs and protocols; a second extractor will verify all information, discussing discrepancies to achieve consensus. Using Jisc Online Surveys®, we will conduct an online survey of authors of all the included completed SRs and protocols to assess author awareness of COS and identify barriers and facilitators of using COS to inform outcome choice. Discussion: This study will provide key information regarding uptake of COS by Cochrane SR authors and the barriers and facilitators that they experience. Our findings will inform approaches to increasing awareness and uptake of COS in future SRs, both within and beyond Cochrane.

Harmonization of outcomes to be measured in clinical trials can reduce research waste and enhance research translation. One of the ways to standardize measurement is through development and use of core outcome sets (COS). There is limited involvement of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) stakeholders in COS development and use. This study explores the level of awareness and experiences of LMIC stakeholders in the development and use of COS. We conducted an online survey of LMIC stakeholders. Three existing COS (pre-eclampsia, COVID-19, palliative care) were presented as case scenarios, and respondents asked to state (with reason(s)) if they would or would not use the COS if they were working in that area. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Of 81 respondents, 26 had COS experience, 9 of whom had been involved in COS development. Personal research interests and prevalence of disease are key drivers for initiation/participation in a given COS project. Most respondents would use the COS for pre-eclampsia (18/26) and COVID-19 (19/26) since the development process included key stakeholders. More than half of the respondents were not sure or would not use the palliative care COS as they felt stakeholder engagement was limited and it was developed for a different resource setting. Respondents reported that use of COS can be limited by (i) feasibility of measuring the outcomes in the COS, (ii) knowledge on the usefulness and availability of COS and (iii) lack of wide stakeholder engagement in the COS development process including having patients and carers in the development process. To ensure the development and use of COS in LMICs, collaborations are essential in awareness raising on COS utility, training, and COS development. The COS also needs to be made accessible in locally understandable languages and feasible to measure in LMICs.

Abstract Background In contrast to typical measures employed to assess outcomes in healthcare such as mortality or recovery rates, it is difficult to define which specific outcomes of care are the most important in caring for dying individuals. Despite a variety of tools employed to assess different dimensions of palliative care, there is no consensus on a set of core outcomes to be measured in the last days of life. In order to optimise decision making in clinical practice and comparability of interventional studies, we aim to identify and propose a set of core outcomes for the care of the dying person. Methods Following the COMET initiative approach, the proposed study will proceed through four stages to develop a set of core outcomes: In stage 1, a systematic review of the literature will identify outcomes measured in existing peer reviewed literature, as well as outcomes derived through qualitative studies. Grey literature, will also be included. Stage 2 will allow for the identification and determination of patient and proxy defined outcomes of care at the end of life via quantitative and qualitative methods at an international level. In stage 3, from a list of salient outcomes identified through stages 1 and 2, international experts, family members, patients, and patient advocates will be asked to score the importance of the preselected outcomes through a Delphi process. Stage 4 consists of a face-to-face consensus meeting of international experts and patient/family representatives in order to define, endorse, and propose the final Core Outcomes Set. Discussion Core Outcome Sets aim at promoting uniform assessment of care outcomes in clinical practice as well as research. If consistently employed, a robust set of core outcomes for the end of life, and specifically for the dying phase, defined by relevant stakeholders, can ultimately be translated into best care for the dying person. Patient care will be improved by allowing clinicians to choose effective and meaningful treatments, and research impact will be improved by employing internationally agreed clinically relevant endpoints and enabling accurate comparison between studies in systematic reviews and/or in meta-analyses.

Abstract Background The Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) is an online supported self-management toolkit for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar designed to improve access to NICE recommended information and emotional support. Aims Our aim was to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACT including a Resource Directory (RD), versus RD-only. Methods A primarily online, observer-blind randomised controlled trial comparing REACT (including RD) with RD only (registration ISRCTN72019945 ). Participants were UK relatives aged > = 16, with high distress (assessed using the GHQ-28), and actively help-seeking, individually randomised, and assessed online. Primary outcome was relatives’ distress (GHQ-28) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were wellbeing, support, costs and user feedback. Results We recruited 800 relatives (REACT = 399; RD only = 401) with high distress at baseline (GHQ-28 REACT mean 40.3, SD 14.6; RD only mean 40.0, SD 14.0). Median time spent online on REACT was 50.8 min (IQR 12.4–172.1) versus 0.5 min (IQR 0–1.6) on RD only. Retention to primary follow-up (24 weeks) was 75% (REACT n = 292 (73.2%); RD-only n = 307 (76.6%)). Distress decreased in both groups by 24 weeks, with no significant difference between the two groups (− 1.39, 95% CI -3.60, 0.83, p = 0.22). Estimated cost of delivering REACT was £62.27 per person and users reported finding it safe, acceptable and convenient. There were no adverse events or reported side effects. Conclusions REACT is an inexpensive, acceptable, and safe way to deliver NICE-recommended support for relatives. However, for highly distressed relatives it is no more effective in reducing distress (GHQ-28) than a comprehensive online resource directory. Trial registration ISRCTN72019945 prospectively registered 19/11/2015.

Abstract Background A Core Outcomes Set (COS) is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical studies related to a specific condition. Using prostate cancer as a case study, we identified, summarized, and critically appraised published COS development studies and assessed the degree of overlap between them and selected real-world data (RWD) sources. Methods We conducted a scoping review of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database to identify all COS studies developed for prostate cancer. Several characteristics (i.e., study type, methods for consensus, type of participants, outcomes included in COS and corresponding measurement instruments, timing, and sources) were extracted from the studies; outcomes were classified according to a predefined 38-item taxonomy. The study methodology was assessed based on the recent COS-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. A ‘mapping’ exercise was conducted between the COS identified and RWD routinely collected in selected European countries. Results Eleven COS development studies published between 1995 and 2017 were retrieved, of which 8 were classified as ‘COS for clinical trials and clinical research’, 2 as ‘COS for practice’ and 1 as ‘COS patient reported outcomes’. Recommended outcomes were mainly categorized into ‘mortality and survival’ (17%), ‘outcomes related to neoplasm’ (18%), and ‘renal and urinary outcomes’ (13%) with no relevant differences among COS study types. The studies generally fulfilled the criteria for the COS-STAD ‘scope specification’ domain but not the ‘stakeholders involved’ and ‘consensus process’ domains. About 72% overlap existed between COS and linked administrative data sources, with important gaps. Linking with patient registries improved coverage (85%), but was sometimes limited to smaller follow-up patient groups. Conclusions This scoping review identified few COS development studies in prostate cancer, some quite dated and with a growing level of methodological quality over time. This study revealed promising overlap between COS and RWD sources, though with important limitations; linking established, national patient registries to administrative data provide the best means to additionally capture patient-reported and some clinical outcomes over time. Thus, increasing the combination of different data sources and the interoperability of systems to follow larger patient groups in RWD is required.

Rationale Clinical trials are the gold standard for testing interventions. COVID-19 has further raised their public profile and emphasised the need to deliver better, faster, more efficient trials for patient benefit. Considerable overlap exists between data required for trials and data already collected routinely in electronic healthcare records (EHRs). Opportunities exist to use these in innovative ways to decrease duplication of effort and speed trial recruitment, conduct and follow-up.Approach The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Health Data Research UK and Clinical Practice Research Datalink co-organised a national workshop to accelerate the agenda for ‘data-enabled clinical trials’. Showcasing successful examples and imagining future possibilities, the plenary talks, panel discussions, group discussions and case studies covered: design/feasibility; recruitment; conduct/follow-up; collecting benefits/harms; and analysis/interpretation.Reflection Some notable studies have successfully accessed and used EHR to identify potential recruits, support randomised trials, deliver interventions and supplement/replace trial-specific follow-up. Some outcome measures are already reliably collected; others, like safety, need detailed work to meet regulatory reporting requirements. There is a clear need for system interoperability and a ‘route map’ to identify and access the necessary datasets. Researchers running regulatory-facing trials must carefully consider how data quality and integrity would be assessed. An experience-sharing forum could stimulate wider adoption of EHR-based methods in trial design and execution.Discussion EHR offer opportunities to better plan clinical trials, assess patients and capture data more efficiently, reducing research waste and increasing focus on each trial’s specific challenges. The short-term emphasis should be on facilitating patient recruitment and for postmarketing authorisation trials where research-relevant outcome measures are readily collectable. Sharing of case studies is encouraged. The workshop directly informed NIHR’s funding call for ambitious data-enabled trials at scale. There is the opportunity for the UK to build upon existing data science capabilities to identify, recruit and monitor patients in trials at scale.

Introduction Sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) levels are reported to be inversely associated with diabetes risk. It is unknown whether diabetes prevention interventions increase SHBG and whether resultant changes in SHBG affect diabetes risk. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether intensive lifestyle intervention (ILS) or metformin changed circulating SHBG and if resultant changes influenced diabetes risk in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP).Research design and methods This is a secondary analysis from the DPP (1996–2001), a randomized trial of ILS or metformin versus placebo on diabetes risk over a mean follow-up of 3.2 years. The DPP was conducted across 27 academic study centers in the USA. Men, premenopausal and postmenopausal women without hormone use in the DPP were evaluated. The DPP included overweight/obese persons with elevated fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance. Main outcomes measures were changes in SHBG levels at 1 year and risk of diabetes over 3 years.Results ILS resulted in significantly higher increases (postmenopausal women: p

Abstract Background Bronchiolitis is an acute lower respiratory infection which predominantly affects young children. Treatment for bronchiolitis is limited to supportive therapy. Nasal oxygen therapy is part of routine care, and delivery now incorporates varying levels of non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure and/or high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy. Despite wide clinical use, there remains a lack of evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of these interventions. Furthermore, research in this field is hampered by the use of multiple outcome measures in current clinical trials. Methods/design This mixed methods study includes a systematic review of outcome measures, telephone interviews with parents, focus group workshops and a Delphi survey with healthcare professionals and parents. These methods will be used to identify and prioritise outcomes for inclusion in a core outcome set and to explore issues pertinent to the design of a future randomised controlled trial comparing different modes of oxygen therapy for bronchiolitis. UK hospitals will also be contacted and asked to complete a survey to provide an overview of current practice to enable assessment of capability and capacity to run a future clinical trial. Discussion This study will facilitate the design of a future clinical trial of non-invasive ventilation in children with bronchiolitis which is acceptable to important stakeholders. Furthermore, core outcome set development will improve standardisation, measurement and reporting of clinically important outcomes in bronchiolitis. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN75766048. Registered on 18 December 2017. This study was retrospectively registered in the ISRCTN Registry and on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database (15 September 2017).

Abstract Background Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect over 3% of the UK population at any time and is often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc (PID). Although the duration and severity of symptoms can vary, pain persisting beyond 6 weeks is unlikely to recover spontaneously and may require investigation and treatment. Currently, there is no specific care pathway for sciatica in the National Health Service (NHS), and no direct comparison exists between surgical microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI). The NERVES (NErve Root block VErsus Surgery) trial aims to address this by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical microdiscectomy and TFESI to treat sciatica secondary to a PID. Methods/design A total of 163 patients were recruited from NHS out-patient clinics across the UK and randomised to either microdiscectomy or TFESI. Adult patients (aged 16–65 years) with sciatic pain endured for between 6 weeks and 12 months are eligible if their symptoms have not been improved by at least one form of conservative (non-operative) treatment and they are willing to provide consent. Patients will be excluded if they present with neurological deficit or have had previous surgery at the same level. The primary outcome is patient-reported disability measured using the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks post randomisation and secondary outcomes include disability and pain scales using numerical pain ratings, modified Roland-Morris and Core Outcome Measures Index at 12-weekly intervals, and patient satisfaction at 54 weeks. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life (QOL) will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5 L and self-report cost data at 12-weekly intervals and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Adverse event data will be collected. Analysis will follow the principle of intention-to-treat. Discussion NERVES is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy to local anaesthetic and steroid administered via TFESI. The results of this research may facilitate the development of an evidence-based treatment strategy for patients with sciatica. Trial registration ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN04820368. Registered on 5 June 2014. EudraCT EudraCT2014–002751-25. Registered on 8 October 2014.

Abstract Background Existing data on physical rehabilitation interventions in critical illness are challenged by outcome heterogeneity that limits data synthesis and translation of research findings into clinical practice. This protocol describes the PRACTICE study to develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials of physical rehabilitation interventions delivered across the continuum of a patient’s recovery from the intensive care unit until reintegration in the community following hospital discharge. Methods Mixed methods will be used including: systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative literature; qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers; a modified Delphi consensus process with researcher, clinician and patient/caregiver stakeholder groups; and consensus meetings for ratification of findings, resolving uncertainty, or developing an action plan for COS implementation. Discussion The PRACTICE COS will inform relevant stakeholders about important outcomes regarding physical rehabilitation in critical illness, and may enhance the future design and conduct of trials in this area. Trial registration COMET database (www.comet-initiative.org/, Record ID 288, 01/03/13). PROSPERO database (CRD42014008908, CRD42017078549).

Abstract Background The key aim of the study is to establish an agreed standardised core outcome set (COS) for use when evaluating non-pharmacological health and social care interventions for people living at home with dementia. Methods/design Drawing on the guidance and approaches of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), this study uses a four-phase mixed-methods design:1Focus groups and interviews with key stakeholder groups (people living with dementia, care partners, relevant health and social care professionals, researchers and policymakers) and a review of the literature will be undertaken to build a long list of outcomes.2Two rounds of Delphi surveys will be used with key stakeholder groups. Statements for the Delphi surveys and participation processes will be developed and informed through substantial member involvement with people living with dementia and care partners. A consensus meeting will be convened with key participant groups to discuss the key findings and finalise the COS.3A systematic literature review will be undertaken to assess the properties of tools and instruments to assess components of the COS. Measurement properties, validity and reliability will be assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement (COSMIN) and COMET guidance.4A stated preference survey will elicit the preferences of key stakeholders for the outcomes identified as important to measure in the COS. Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use a modified Delphi process to involve people living with dementia as a participant group. Though the study is confined to collecting data in the United Kingdom, use of the COS by researchers will enhance the comparability of studies evaluating non-pharmacological and community-based interventions. Trial registration The study is registered on the COMET initiative, registered in 2014 at comet-initiative.org.

Abstract Background When a randomised trial is subject to deviations from randomised treatment, analysis according to intention-to-treat does not estimate two important quantities: relative treatment efficacy and effectiveness in a setting different from that in the trial. Even in trials of a predominantly pragmatic nature, there may be numerous reasons to consider the extent, and impact on analysis, of such deviations from protocol. Simple methods such as per-protocol or as-treated analyses, which exclude or censor patients on the basis of their adherence, usually introduce selection and confounding biases. However, there exist appropriate causal estimation methods which seek to overcome these inherent biases, but these methods remain relatively unfamiliar and are rarely implemented in trials. Methods This paper demonstrates when it may be of interest to look beyond intention-to-treat analysis for answers to alternative causal research questions through illustrative case studies. We seek to guide trialists on how to handle treatment changes in the design, conduct and planning the analysis of a trial; these changes may be planned or unplanned, and may or may not be permitted in the protocol. We highlight issues that must be considered at the trial planning stage relating to: the definition of nonadherence and the causal research question of interest, trial design, data collection, monitoring, statistical analysis and sample size. Results and conclusions During trial planning, trialists should define their causal research questions of interest, anticipate the likely extent of treatment changes and use these to inform trial design, including the extent of data collection and data monitoring. A series of concise recommendations is presented to guide trialists when considering undertaking causal analyses.

Abstract Background The failure to retain patients or collect primary-outcome data is a common challenge for trials and reduces the statistical power and potentially introduces bias into the analysis. Identifying strategies to minimise missing data was the second highest methodological research priority in a Delphi survey of the Directors of UK Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and is important to minimise waste in research. Our aim was to assess the current retention practices within the UK and priorities for future research to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to reduce attrition. Methods Seventy-five chief investigators of NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded trials starting between 2009 and 2012 were surveyed to elicit their awareness about causes of missing data within their trial and recommended practices for improving retention. Forty-seven CTUs registered within the UKCRC network were surveyed separately to identify approaches and strategies being used to mitigate missing data across trials. Responses from the current practice surveys were used to inform a subsequent two-round Delphi survey with registered CTUs. A consensus list of retention research strategies was produced and ranked by priority. Results Fifty out of seventy-five (67%) chief investigators and 33/47 (70%) registered CTUs completed the current practice surveys. Seventy-eight percent of trialists were aware of retention challenges and implemented strategies at trial design. Patient-initiated withdrawal was the most common cause of missing data. Registered CTUs routinely used newsletters, timeline of participant visits, and telephone reminders to mitigate missing data. Whilst 36 out of 59 strategies presented had been formally or informally evaluated, some frequently used strategies, such as site initiation training, have had no research to inform practice. Thirty-five registered CTUs (74%) participated in the Delphi survey. Research into the effectiveness of site initiation training, frequency of patient contact during a trial, the use of routinely collected data, the frequency and timing of reminders, triggered site training and the time needed to complete questionnaires was deemed critical. Research into the effectiveness of Christmas cards for site staff was not of critical importance. Conclusion The surveys of current practices demonstrates that a variety of strategies are being used to mitigate missing data but with little evidence to support their use. Six retention strategies were deemed critically important within the Delphi survey and should be a primary focus of future retention research.

Abstract Background Gastric cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Whilst surgery is the mainstay of curative treatment, it is associated with significant risks. Surgical strategies for treating gastric cancer should be based on evidence from systematic reviews of well-designed randomised controlled trials. However, inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes from these trials makes evidence synthesis unreliable. We present a protocol for an international consensus study to develop a standardised set of outcomes and measurement tools – a ‘core outcome set’ (COS) – to be used by all future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. The GASTROS study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials through an international consensus process of key stakeholders including health care professionals and patients. Methods The first of three stages in the study will identify a ‘long-list’ of potentially important outcomes to be prioritised. These will be extracted from a systematic review of relevant academic literature and patient interviews. Stage 2 will comprise an eDelphi survey which will consider the views of patients, nurse specialists and surgeons to prioritise the most important outcomes. A meeting of stakeholder representatives will ratify the COS. Stage 3 will focus on identifying appropriate instruments to measure the prioritised outcomes by means of quality assessment of available measurement instruments and stakeholder consultation. Discussion This study aims to standardise the reporting of outcomes in future trials examining therapeutic surgical interventions for gastric cancer. It is anticipated that standardisation of outcome reporting in these surgical effectiveness trials will enhance the evidence base for clinical practice. Highlighting outcomes of greatest importance to patients will ensure that their perspectives are central to research in this field.

Abstract Background Demands are increasingly being made for clinical trialists to actively share individual participant data (IPD) collected from clinical trials using responsible methods that protect the confidentiality and privacy of clinical trial participants. Clinical trialists, particularly those receiving public funding, are often concerned about the additional time and money that data-sharing activities will require, but few published empirical data are available to help inform these decisions. We sought to evaluate the activity and resources required to prepare anonymised IPD from a clinical trial in anticipation of a future data-sharing request. Methods Data from two UK publicly funded clinical trials were used for this exercise: 2437 participants with epilepsy recruited from 90 hospital outpatient clinics in the SANAD trial and 146 children with neuro-developmental problems recruited from 18 hospitals in the MENDS trial. We calculated the time and resources required to prepare each anonymised dataset and assemble a data pack ready for sharing. Results The older SANAD trial (published 2007) required 50 hours of staff time with a total estimated associated cost of £3185 whilst the more recently completed MENDS trial (published 2012) required 39.5 hours of staff time with total estimated associated cost of £2540. Conclusions Clinical trial researchers, funders and sponsors should consider appropriate resourcing and allow reasonable time for preparing IPD ready for subsequent sharing. This process would be most efficient if prospectively built into the standard operational design and conduct of a clinical trial. Further empirical examples exploring the resource requirements in other settings is recommended. Trial registration SANAD: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN38354748 . Registered on 25 April 2003. MENDS: EU Clinical Trials Register Eudract 2006-004025-28 . Registered on 16 May 2007. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry: ISRCTN05534585 /MREC 07/MRE08/43. Registered on 26 January 2007.

Introduction Cleft palate is among the most common birth abnormalities. The success of primary surgery in the early months of life is crucial for successful feeding, speech, hearing, dental development and facial growth. Over recent decades, age at palatal surgery in infancy has reduced. This has led to palatal closure in one-stage procedures being carried out around the age of 12 months, but in some cases as early as 6 months. The primary objective of the Timing Of Primary Surgery for Cleft Palate (TOPS)trial is to determine whether surgery for cleft palate performed at 6 or 12 months of age is most beneficial for speech outcomes.Methods and analysis Infants with a diagnosis of non-syndromic isolated cleft palate will be randomised to receive standardised primary surgery (Sommerlad technique) for closure of the cleft at either 6 months or 12 months, corrected for gestational age. The primary outcome will be perceived insufficient velopharyngeal function at 5 years of age. Secondary outcomes measured across 12 months, 3 years and 5 years will include growth, safety of the procedure, dentofacial development, speech, hearing level and middle ear function. Video and audio recordings of speech will be collected in a standardised age-appropriate manner and analysed independently by multiple speech and language therapists. The trial aims to recruit and follow-up 300 participants per arm. Data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle using a 5% significance level. All analyses will be prespecified within a full and detailed statistical analysis plan.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been sought in each participating country according to country-specific procedures. Trial results will be presented at conferences, published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated through relevant patient support groups.Trial registration number NCT00993551; Pre-results.

Background: Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) is the standard for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection treatment but can result in metabolic abnormalities, such as insulin resistance, dyslipidaemia and lipodystrophy, which can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Objective: The objective of the trial was to evaluate whether or not telmisartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist and a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ partial agonist, could reduce insulin resistance in HIV-positive individuals on cART, and affect blood and imaging biomarkers of cardiometabolic disease. Design: A Phase II, multicentre, randomised, open-labelled, dose-ranging trial of telmisartan over a period of 48 weeks with an adaptive design comprising two stages was used to identify the optimal dose of telmisartan. Participants were randomised to receive one of the three doses of telmisartan (20, 40 and 80 mg) or no intervention (control). Setting: Recruitment was from 19 HIV specialist centres in the UK. Participants: A total of 377 patients infected with HIV who met the prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. Interventions: 20-, 40- and 80-mg tablets of telmisartan. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was reduction in the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), a marker of insulin resistance, at 24 weeks. Secondary outcome measures were changes in plasma lipid profile; Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI) and revised QUICKI, alternative markers of insulin resistance, plasma adipokines (adiponectin, leptin, interleukin 8, tumour necrosis factor alpha, resistin); high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP); body fat redistribution, as measured by magnetic resonance imaging/proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy; changes in renal markers (albumin-to-creatinine ratio, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin); and tolerability to telmisartan. Results: At the interim analysis, 80 mg of telmisartan was taken forward into the second stage of the study. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment arms. There were no differences in HOMA-IR [0.007, standard error (SE) 0.106], QUICKI (0.001, SE 0.001) and revised QUICKI (0.002, SE 0.002) at 24 weeks between the telmisartan (80 mg; n = 106) and non-intervention (n = 105) arms. Longitudinal analysis over 48 weeks showed that there was no change in HOMA-IR, lipid or adipokine levels; however, but there were significant, but marginal, improvements in revised QUICKI [0.004, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.000 to 0.008] and plasma hs-CRP (–0.222, 95% CI –0.433 to –0.011) over 48 weeks. Substudies also showed a significant reduction in the liver fat content at 24 weeks (1.714, 95% CI –2.787 to –0.642; p = 0.005) and urinary albumin excretion at 48 weeks (–0.665, 95% CI –1.31 to –0.019; p = 0.04). There were no differences in serious adverse events between the telmisartan and control arms. Limitations: The patients had modest elevations of HOMA-IR at baseline, and our trial could have been under-powered to detect smaller improvements in insulin resistance over time. Conclusions: Using a novel adaptive design, we demonstrated that there was no significant effect of telmisartan (80 mg) on the primary outcome measure of HOMA-IR and some secondary outcomes (plasma lipids and adipokines). Telmisartan did lead to favourable, and biologically plausible, changes of the secondary longitudinal outcome measures: revised QUICKI, hs-CRP, hepatic fat accumulation and urinary albumin excretion. Taken collectively, our findings showed that telmisartan did not reduce insulin resistance in patients infected with HIV on antiretrovirals. Future work: The mechanistic basis of adipocyte regulation will be studied to allow for development of biomarkers and interventions. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51069819. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

Abstract The mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS) are a relatively uncommon group of inherited metabolic disorders, with significant negative implications for life span and aspects of quality of life. Their rarity means that producing evidence to guide best practice has often entailed assimilating findings from multiple studies. Core outcome sets (COS) are being increasingly used across medicine as a potential solution to the problems arising from heterogeneous reporting of outcomes in effectiveness studies. A COS is a recommended minimum set of outcomes that should be measured for a given condition in an effectiveness study, with the ultimate aim of increasing the value of clinical information by enabling meaningful comparison and combination of data from various sources. A systematic review identified 41 outcomes measured in published studies and ongoing and completed clinical trials, with individual outcomes being measured using a variety of measurement instruments/tools. This work represents the important initial steps in the development of COS for head, neck, and respiratory disorders in MPS type II, raising awareness of the extent of heterogeneity in outcome reporting and determining the scope of outcomes and corresponding instruments currently used. The next step will be to use the generated “longlist” of outcomes to develop an electronic Delphi prioritization exercise with the intention of reaching a consensus regarding the most important outcomes to measure in effectiveness studies for head, neck, and respiratory disease in MPS type II.

Objectives Adding, omitting or changing prespecified outcomes can result in bias because it increases the potential for unacknowledged or post hoc revisions of the planned analyses. Journals have adopted initiatives such as requiring the prospective registration of trials and the submission of study protocols to promote the transparency of reporting in clinical trials. The main objective of this feasibility study was to document the frequency and types of outcome discrepancy between prespecified outcomes in the protocol and reported outcomes in trials submitted to The BMJ.Methods A review of all 3156 articles submitted to The BMJ between 1 September 2013 and 30 June 2014. Trial registry entries, protocols and trial reports of randomised controlled trials published by The BMJ and a random sample of those rejected were reviewed. Editorial, peer reviewer comments and author responses were also examined to ascertain any reasons for discrepancies.Results In the study period, The BMJ received 311 trial manuscripts, 21 of which were subsequently published by the journal. In trials published by The BMJ, 27% (89/333) of the prespecified outcomes in the protocol were not reported in the submitted paper and 11% (31/275) of reported outcomes were not prespecified. In the sample of 21 trials rejected by The BMJ, 19% (63/335) of prespecified outcomes went unreported and 14% (45/317) of reported outcomes were not prespecified. None of the reasons provided by published authors were suggestive of outcome reporting bias as the reasons were unrelated to the results.Conclusions Mandating the prospective registration of a trial and requesting that a protocol be uploaded when submitting a trial article to a journal has the potential to promote transparency and safeguard the evidence base against outcome reporting biases as a result of outcome discrepancies. Further guidance is needed with regard to documenting reasons for outcome discrepancies.

Background: Cleft lip and palate are among the most common congenital malformations, with an incidence of around 1 in 700. Cleft palate (CP) results in impaired Eustachian tube function, and 90% of children with CP have otitis media with effusion (OME) histories. There are several approaches to management, including watchful waiting, the provision of hearing aids (HAs) and the insertion of ventilation tubes (VTs). However, the evidence underpinning these strategies is unclear and there is a need to determine which treatment is the most appropriate. Objectives: To identify the optimum study design, increase understanding of the impact of OME, determine the value of future research and develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future studies. Design: The management of Otitis Media with Effusion in children with cleft palate (mOMEnt) study had four key components: (i) a survey evaluation of current clinical practice in each cleft centre; (ii) economic modelling and value of information (VOI) analysis to determine if the extent of existing decision uncertainty justifies the cost of further research; (iii) qualitative research to capture patient and parent opinion regarding willingness to participate in a trial and important outcomes; and (iv) the development of a COS for use in future effectiveness trials of OME in children with CP. Setting: The survey was carried out by e-mail with cleft centres. The qualitative research interviews took place in patients’ homes. The COS was developed with health professionals and parents using a web-based Delphi exercise and a consensus meeting. Participants: Clinicians working in the UK cleft centres, and parents and patients affected by CP and identified through two cleft clinics in the UK, or through the Cleft Lip and Palate Association. Results: The clinician survey revealed that care was predominantly delivered via a ‘hub-and-spoke’ model; there was some uncertainty about treatment strategies; it is not current practice to insert VTs at the time of palate repair; centres were in a position to take part in a future study; and the response rate to the survey was not good, representing a potential concern about future co-operation. A COS reflecting the opinions of clinicians and parents was developed, which included nine core outcomes important to both health-care professionals and parents. The qualitative research suggested that a trial would have a 25% recruitment rate, and although hearing was a key outcome, this was likely to be due to its psychosocial consequences. The VOI analysis suggested that the current uncertainty justified the costs of future research. Conclusions: There exists significant uncertainty regarding the best management strategy for persistent OME in children with clefts, reflecting a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of individual treatments. It is feasible, cost-effective and of significance to clinicians and parents to undertake a trial examining the effectiveness of VTs and HAs for children with CP. However, in view of concerns about recruitment rate and engagement with the clinicians, we recommend that a trial with an internal pilot is considered. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. This study was part-funded by the Healing Foundation supported by the Vocational Training Charitable Trust who funded trial staff including the study co-ordinator, information systems developer, study statistician, administrator and supervisory staff.

BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is advocated in clinical trials yet evidence on how to optimise its impact is limited. We explored researchers' and PPI contributors' accounts of the impact of PPI within trials and factors likely to influence its impact.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors accessed through a cohort of randomised clinical trials. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews was informed by the principles of the constant comparative method, elements of content analysis and informant triangulation.ResultsWe interviewed 21 chief investigators, 10 trial managers and 17 PPI contributors from 28 trials. The accounts of informants within the same trials were largely in agreement. Over half the informants indicted PPI had made a difference within a trial, through contributions that influenced either an aspect of a trial, or how researchers thought about a trial. According to informants, the opportunity for PPI to make a difference was influenced by two main factors: whether chief investigators had goals and plans for PPI and the quality of the relationship between the research team and the PPI contributors. Early involvement of PPI contributors and including them in responsive (e.g. advisory groups) and managerial (e.g. trial management groups) roles were more likely to achieve impact compared to late involvement and oversight roles (e.g. trial steering committees).ConclusionThose seeking to enhance PPI in trials should develop goals for PPI at an early stage that fits the needs of the trial, plan PPI implementation in accordance with these goals, invest in developing good relationships between PPI contributors and researchers, and favour responsive and managerial roles for contributors in preference to oversight-only roles. These features could be used by research funders in judging PPI in trial grant applications and to inform policies to optimise PPI within trials.

Background: Fetal survival is severely compromised when the amniotic membrane ruptures between 16 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. Reduced amniotic fluid levels are associated with poor lung development, whereas adequate levels lead to better perinatal outcomes. Restoring amniotic fluid by means of ultrasound-guided amnioinfusion (AI) may be of benefit in improving perinatal and long-term outcomes in children of pregnancies with this condition. Objective: The AI in preterm premature rupture of membranes (AMIPROM) pilot study was conducted to assess the feasibility of recruitment, the methods for conduct and the retention through to long-term follow-up of participants with very early rupture of amniotic membranes (between 16 and 24 weeks of pregnancy). It was also performed to assess outcomes and collect data to inform a larger, more definitive, clinical trial. Design: A prospective, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. A computer-generated random sequence using a 1 : 1 ratio was used. Randomisation was stratified for pregnancies in which the amniotic membrane ruptured between 16+0 and 19+6 weeks’ gestation and 20+0 and 24+0 weeks’ gestation. The randomisation sequence was generated in blocks of four. Telephone randomisation and intention-to-treat analysis were used. Setting: Four UK hospital-based fetal medicine units – Liverpool Women’s NHS Trust, St. Mary’s Hospital, Manchester, Birmingham Women’s NHS Foundation Trust and Wirral University Hospitals Trust. Participants: Women with confirmed preterm prelabour rupture of membranes between 16+0 and 24+0 weeks’ gestation. Women with multiple pregnancies, resultant fetal abnormalities or obstetric indication for immediate delivery were excluded. Interventions: Participants were randomly allocated to either serial weekly transabdominal AI or expectant management (Exp) until 37 weeks of pregnancy, if the deepest pool of amniotic fluid was

BackgroundAdequate sedation is crucial to the management of children requiring assisted ventilation on Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU). The evidence-base of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area is small and a trial was planned to compare midazolam and clonidine, two sedatives widely used within PICUs neither of which being licensed for that use. The application to obtain a Clinical Trials Authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) required a dossier summarising the safety profiles of each drug and the pharmacovigilance plan for the trial needed to be determined by this information. A systematic review was undertaken to identify reports relating to the safety of each drug.Methodology/principal findingsThe Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) were obtained for each sedative. The MHRA were requested to provide reports relating to the use of each drug as a sedative in children under the age of 16. Medline was searched to identify RCTs, controlled clinical trials, observational studies, case reports and series. 288 abstracts were identified for midazolam and 16 for clonidine with full texts obtained for 80 and 6 articles respectively. Thirty-three studies provided data for midazolam and two for clonidine. The majority of data has come from observational studies and case reports. The MHRA provided details of 10 and 3 reports of suspected adverse drug reactions.Conclusions/significanceNo adverse reactions were identified in addition to those specified within the SmPC for the licensed use of the drugs. Based on this information and the wide spread use of both sedatives in routine practice the pharmacovigilance plan was restricted to adverse reactions. The Clinical Trials Authorisation was granted based on the data presented in the SmPC and the pharmacovigilance plan within the clinical trial protocol restricting collection and reporting to adverse reactions.

Adverse drug reactions in children are an important public health problem. We have undertaken a systematic review of observational studies in children in three settings: causing admission to hospital, occurring during hospital stay and occurring in the community. We were particularly interested in understanding how ADRs might be better detected, assessed and avoided.We searched nineteen electronic databases using a comprehensive search strategy. In total, 102 studies were included. The primary outcome was any clinical event described as an adverse drug reaction to one or more drugs. Additional information relating to the ADR was collected: associated drug classification; clinical presentation; associated risk factors; methods used for assessing causality, severity, and avoidability. Seventy one percent (72/102) of studies assessed causality, and thirty four percent (34/102) performed a severity assessment. Only nineteen studies (19%) assessed avoidability. Incidence rates for ADRs causing hospital admission ranged from 0.4% to 10.3% of all children (pooled estimate of 2.9% (2.6%, 3.1%)) and from 0.6% to 16.8% of all children exposed to a drug during hospital stay. Anti-infectives and anti-epileptics were the most frequently reported therapeutic class associated with ADRs in children admitted to hospital (17 studies; 12 studies respectively) and children in hospital (24 studies; 14 studies respectively), while anti-infectives and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were frequently reported as associated with ADRs in outpatient children (13 studies; 6 studies respectively). Fourteen studies reported rates ranging from 7%-98% of ADRs being either definitely/possibly avoidable.There is extensive literature which investigates ADRs in children. Although these studies provide estimates of incidence in different settings and some indication of the therapeutic classes most frequently associated with ADRs, further work is needed to address how such ADRs may be prevented.

To investigate parents' views about deferred consent to inform management of trial disclosure after a child's death.A postal questionnaire survey was sent to members of the Meningitis Research Foundation UK charity, whose child had suffered from bacterial meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia within the previous 5 years. Main outcome measures were acceptability of deferred consent; timing of requesting consent; and the management of disclosure of the trial after a child's death.220 families were sent questionnaires of whom 63 (29%) were bereaved. 68 families responded (31%), of whom 19 (28%) were bereaved. The majority (67%) was willing for their child to be involved in the trial without the trial being explained to them beforehand; 70% wanted to be informed about the trial as soon as their child's condition had stabilised. In the event of a child's death before the trial could be discussed the majority of bereaved parents (66% 12/18) anticipated wanting to be told about the trial at some time. This compared with 37% (18/49) of non-bereaved families (p = 0.06). Parents' free text responses indicated that the word 'trial' held strongly negative connotations. A few parents regarded gaps in the evidence base about emergency treatments as indicating staff lacked expertise to care for a critically ill child. Bereaved parents' free text responses indicated the importance of individualised management of disclosure about a trial following a child's death.Deferred consent is acceptable to the majority of respondents. Parents whose children had recovered differed in their views compared to bereaved parents. Most bereaved parents would want to be informed about the trial in the aftermath of a child's death, although a minority strongly opposed such disclosure. Distinction should be drawn between the views of bereaved and non-bereaved parents when considering the acceptability of different consent processes.

BACKGROUND: The indirect comparison of two interventions can be valuable in many situations. However, the quality of an indirect comparison will depend on several factors including the chosen methodology and validity of underlying assumptions. Published indirect comparisons are increasingly more common in the medical literature, but as yet, there are no published recommendations of how they should be reported. Our aim is to systematically review the quality of published indirect comparisons to add to existing empirical data suggesting that improvements can be made when reporting and applying indirect comparisons. METHODOLOGY/FINDINGS: Reviews applying statistical methods to indirectly compare the clinical effectiveness of two interventions using randomised controlled trials were eligible. We searched (1966-2008) Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, The Cochrane library, and Medline. Full review publications were assessed for eligibility. Specific criteria to assess quality were developed and applied. Forty-three reviews were included. Adequate methodology was used to calculate the indirect comparison in 41 reviews. Nineteen reviews assessed the similarity assumption using sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, or meta-regression. Eleven reviews compared trial-level characteristics. Twenty-four reviews assessed statistical homogeneity. Twelve reviews investigated causes of heterogeneity. Seventeen reviews included direct and indirect evidence for the same comparison; six reviews assessed consistency. One review combined both evidence types. Twenty-five reviews urged caution in interpretation of results, and 24 reviews indicated when results were from indirect evidence by stating this term with the result. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that the underlying assumptions are not routinely explored or reported when undertaking indirect comparisons. We recommend, therefore, that the quality of indirect comparisons should be improved, in particular, by assessing assumptions and reporting the assessment methods applied. We propose that the quality criteria applied in this article may provide a basis to help review authors carry out indirect comparisons and to aid appropriate interpretation.