Search

Introduction: Acne is one of the most common inflammatory skin diseases worldwide and can have significant psychosocial impact and cause permanent scarring. Spironolactone, a potassium-sparing diuretic, has antiandrogenic properties, potentially reducing sebum production and hyperkeratinisation in acne-prone follicles. Dermatologists have prescribed spironolactone for acne in women for over 30 years, but robust clinical study data are lacking. This study seeks to evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women., Methods and Analysis: Women (≥18 years) with persistent facial acne requiring systemic therapy are randomised to receive one tablet per day of 50 mg spironolactone or a matched placebo until week 6, increasing to up to two tablets per day (total of 100 mg spironolactone or matched placebo) until week 24, along with usual topical therapy if desired. Study treatment stops at week 24; participants are informed of their treatment allocation and enter an unblinded observational follow-up period for up to 6 months (up to week 52 after baseline). Primary outcome is the Acne-specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) symptom subscale score at week 12. Secondary outcomes include Acne-QoL total and subscales; participant acne self-assessment recorded on a 6-point Likert scale at 6, 12, 24 weeks and up to 52 weeks; Investigator's Global Assessment at weeks 6 and 12; cost and cost effectiveness are assessed over 24 weeks. Aiming to detect a group difference of 2 points on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale (SD 5.8, effect size 0.35), allowing for 20% loss to follow-up, gives a sample size of 398 participants., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol was approved by Wales Research Ethics Committee (18/WA/0420). Follow-up to be completed in early 2022. Findings will be disseminated to participants, peer-reviewed journals, networks and patient groups, on social media, on the study website and the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit website to maximise impact., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN12892056;Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Innovations resulting from research have both national and global impact, so selecting the most promising research studies to fund is crucial. Peer review of research funding applications is part of the selection process, and requires considerable resources. This study aimed to elicit stakeholder opinions about which factors contribute to and influence effective peer review of funding applications to the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and to identify possible minor improvements to current processes and any major changes or potential innovations to achieve a more efficient peer review process., Design: Qualitative interviews with 30 stakeholders involved in the peer review process., Participants: Participants were drawn from three NIHR coordinating centres and represented four types of stakeholders: board members with responsibility for making funding decisions, applicants, external peer reviewers and NIHR staff., Methods: All interviews were conducted by telephone apart from three that were face to face with NIHR staff. Data were analysed using a thematic template method., Results: The responses from NIHR staff, board members and reviewers differed from those received from applicants. The first three groups focused on how well the process of peer review did or did not function. The applicants mentioned these points but in addition often reflected on how their personal application was assessed. Process improvements suggested included: developing a more proportionate review process; providing greater guidance, feedback, training, acknowledgement or incentives for peer reviewers; reducing the time commitment and amount of paperwork; and asking reviewers to comment on the importance, strengths and weaknesses of applications and flaws which are potentially 'fixable'., Conclusions: Overall, participants were supportive of the need for peer review in evaluating applications for research funding. This study revealed which parts of the process are working well and are valued, and barriers, difficulties and potential areas for improvement and development., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All of the authors were employed by the University of Southampton to work at least part time for the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC) at the time when the study was conducted., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To assess the time to publication of primary research and evidence syntheses funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme published as a monograph in Health Technology Assessment and as a journal article in the wider biomedical literature., Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Primary research and evidence synthesis projects funded by the HTA Programme were included in the cohort if they were registered in the NIHR research programmes database and was planned to submit the draft final report for publication in Health Technology Assessment on or before 9 December 2011., Main Outcome Measures: The median time to publication and publication at 30 months in Health Technology Assessment and in an external journal were determined by searching the NIHR research programmes database and HTA Programme website., Results: Of 458 included projects, 184 (40.2%) were primary research projects and 274 (59.8%) were evidence syntheses. A total of 155 primary research projects had a completion date; the median time to publication was 23 months (26.5 and 35.5 months to publish a monograph and to publish in an external journal, respectively) and 69% were published within 30 months. The median time to publication of HTA-funded trials (n=126) was 24 months and 67.5% were published within 30 months. Among the evidence syntheses with a protocol online date (n=223), the median time to publication was 25.5 months (28 months to publication as a monograph), but only 44.4% of evidence synthesis projects were published in an external journal. 65% of evidence synthesis studies had been published within 30.0 months., Conclusions: Research funded by the HTA Programme publishes promptly. The importance of Health Technology Assessment was highlighted as the median time to publication was 9 months shorter for a monograph than an external journal article.