Search

AIM: Until now, there has been no universally accepted and validated measure of breast cancer awareness. This study aimed to validate the new Breast Cancer Awareness Measure (BCAM) which assesses, using a self-complete questionnaire, knowledge of breast cancer symptoms and age-related risk, and frequency of breast checking. METHODS: We measured the psychometric properties of the BCAM in 1035 women attending the NHS Breast Screening Programme: acceptability was assessed using a feedback questionnaire (n=292); sensitivity to change after an intervention promoting breast cancer awareness (n=576), and test-retest reliability (n=167). We also assessed readability, and construct validity using the 'known-groups' method. RESULTS: The readability of the BCAM was high. Over 90% of women found it acceptable. The BCAM was sensitive to change: there was an increase in the proportion of women obtaining the full score for breast cancer awareness one month after receiving the intervention promoting breast cancer awareness; this was greater among those who received a more intensive version (less intensive version (booklet): 9.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.5-14.1%; more intensive version (interaction with health professional plus booklet): 30%, 95% CI: 23.4-36.6%). Test-retest reliability of the BCAM was moderate to good for most items. Cancer experts had higher levels of cancer awareness than non-medical academics (50% versus 6%, p=0.001), indicating good construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: The BCAM is a valid and robust measure of breast cancer awareness suitable for use in surveys of breast cancer awareness in the general population and to evaluate the impact of awareness-raising interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to explore women's views of the design of a large pragmatic cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial of the policy of offering a health professional-delivered intervention to promote early presentation with breast symptoms in older women and thereby improve survival, with a view to informing protocol development. The trial will recruit over 100,000 healthy women aged 67+, and outcome data will be collected on those who develop breast cancer. The scale of the trial and the need for long-term follow-up presented a number of design challenges in relation to obtaining consent, ascertaining and contacting participants who developed breast cancer, and collecting outcome data. Methods Qualitative study involving 69 women participating in 7 focus groups and 17 in-depth interviews. 15 women had a previous diagnosis of breast cancer and 54 did not. Results The women held strong views and had a good understanding of the rationale of the design of clinical trials. The women recognised that in a very large trial with long-term follow-up it was necessary to incorporate design features to make the trial feasible and efficient. Most strikingly, they supported the idea of opt-out consent and identifying women with breast cancer using routine datasets. Conclusions This model of user involvement engaged women well with the design challenges of the trial and led to improvements to the protocol. The study strengthens the case for user involvement, in particular through focus groups and in-depth interviews, in the design of trials.

Objective: Catheter-related sepsis (CRS) is a major complication with significant morbidity and mortality. Evidence is lacking regarding the most appropriate antiseptic for skin disinfection before percutaneous central venous catheter (PCVC) insertion in preterm neonates. To inform the feasibility and design of a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of two antiseptic formulations, we conducted the Antiseptic Randomised Controlled Trial for Insertion of Catheters (ARCTIC) feasibility study to assess catheter colonisation, sepsis, and skin morbidity., Design: Feasibility RCT., Setting: Two UK tertiary-level neonatal intensive care units., Patients: Preterm infants born <34 weeks' gestation scheduled to undergo PCVC insertion., Interventions: Skin disinfection with either 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG)-aqueous or 2% CHG-70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) before PCVC insertion and at removal., Primary Outcome: Proportion in the 2% CHG-70% IPA arm with a colonised catheter at removal., Main Feasibility Outcomes: Rates of: (1) CRS, catheter-associated sepsis (CAS), and CRS/CAS per 1,000 PCVC days; (2) recruitment and retention; (3) data completeness., Safety Outcomes: Daily skin morbidity scores recorded from catheter insertion until 48 hours post-removal., Results: 116 babies were randomised. Primary outcome incidence was 4.1% (95% confidence interval: 0.9% to 11.5%). Overall catheter colonisation rate was 5.2% (5/97); CRS 2.3/1000 catheter days; CAS 14.8/1000 catheter days. Recruitment, retention and data completeness were good. No major antiseptic-related skin injury was reported., Conclusions: A definitive comparative efficacy trial is feasible, but the very low catheter colonisation rate would make a large-scale RCT challenging due to the very large sample size required. ARCTIC provides preliminary reassurance supporting potential safe use of 2% CHG-70% IPA and 2% CHG-aqueous in preterm neonates., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN82571474., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Lumbar puncture is an essential tool for diagnosing meningitis. Neonatal lumbar puncture, although frequently performed, has low success rates (50-60%). Standard technique includes lying infants on their side and removing the stylet 'late', that is, after the needle is thought to have entered the cerebrospinal fluid. Modifications to this technique include holding infants in the sitting position and removing the stylet 'early', that is, following transection of the skin. To the best of our knowledge, modified techniques have not previously been tested in adequately powered trials., Objectives: The aim of the Neonatal Champagne Lumbar punctures Every time - An RCT (NeoCLEAR) trial was to compare two modifications to standard lumbar puncture technique, that is, use of the lying position rather than the sitting position and of 'early' rather than 'late' stylet removal, in terms of success rates and short-term clinical, resource and safety outcomes., Methods: This was a multicentre 2 × 2 factorial pragmatic non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Infants requiring lumbar puncture (with a working weight ≥ 1000 g and corrected gestational age from 27 +0 to 44 +0 weeks), and whose parents provided written consent, were randomised by web-based allocation to lumbar puncture (1) in the sitting or lying position and (2) with early or late stylet removal. The trial was powered to detect a 10% absolute risk difference in the primary outcome, that is, the percentage of infants with a successful lumbar puncture (cerebrospinal fluid containing < 10,000 red cells/mm 3 ). The primary outcome was analysed by modified intention to treat., Results: Of 1082 infants randomised (sitting with early stylet removal, n = 275; sitting with late stylet removal, n = 271; lying with early stylet removal, n = 274; lying with late stylet removal, n = 262), 1076 were followed up until discharge. Most infants were term born (950/1076, 88.3%) and were aged < 3 days (936/1076, 87.0%) with a working weight > 2.5 kg (971/1076, 90.2%). Baseline characteristics were balanced across groups. In terms of the primary outcome, the sitting position was significantly more successful than lying [346/543 (63.7%) vs. 307/533 (57.6%), adjusted risk ratio 1.10 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.21); p = 0.029; number needed to treat = 16 (95% confidence interval 9 to 134)]. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between early stylet removal and late stylet removal [338/545 (62.0%) vs. 315/531 (59.3%), adjusted risk ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.15); p = 0.447]. Resource consumption was similar in all groups, and all techniques were well tolerated and safe., Limitations: This trial predominantly recruited term-born infants who were < 3 days old, with working weights > 2.5 kg. The impact of practitioners' seniority and previous experience of different lumbar puncture techniques was not investigated. Limited data on resource use were captured, and parent/practitioner preferences were not assessed., Conclusion: Lumbar puncture success rate was higher with infants in the sitting position but was not affected by timing of stylet removal. Lumbar puncture is a safe, well-tolerated and simple technique without additional cost, and is easily learned and applied. The results support a paradigm shift towards sitting technique as the standard position for neonatal lumbar puncture, especially for term-born infants during the first 3 days of life., Future Work: The superiority of the sitting lumbar puncture technique should be tested in larger populations of premature infants, in those aged > 3 days and outside neonatal care settings. The effect of operators' previous practice and the impact on family experience also require further investigation, alongside in-depth analyses of healthcare resource utilisation. Future studies should also investigate other factors affecting lumbar puncture success, including further modifications to standard technique., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14040914 and as Integrated Research Application System registration 223737., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 15/188/106) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 27, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Treatments for alopecia areata (AA) have traditionally been prescribed off-label, and there has been no universal agreement on how to best manage the condition. Baricitinib is the first oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with severe AA. As a better understanding of the evidence supporting the management of AA in clinical practice is needed, we conducted a systematic literature review and subsequent narrative review to describe available evidence pertaining to the efficacy and tolerability of treatments currently recommended for adults with moderate-to-severe forms of AA. From 2557 identified records, a total of 53 records were retained for data extraction: 9 reported data from 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo, and 44 reported data from unique RCTs with no placebo arm, non-randomized trials, or observational studies. Across drug classes, data were reported heterogeneously, with little consistency of data collection or clinical endpoints used. The most robust evidence was for the JAK inhibitor class, in particular the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor baricitinib. Five RCTs (three for baricitinib) demonstrated a consistent benefit of JAK inhibitor therapy over placebo across various clinical outcomes in adult patients with at least 50% scalp hair loss. Overall, hair regrowth varied widely for the other drug classes and was generally low for patients with moderate-to-severe AA. Relapses were commonly observed during treatment and upon discontinuation. Adverse effects were generally consistent with the known safety profile of each intervention. The heterogeneity observed prevented the conduct of a network meta-analysis or an indirect comparison of different treatments. We found that the current management of patients with moderate-to-severe AA often relies on the use of treatments that have not been well evaluated in clinical trials. The most robust evidence identified supported the use of baricitinib, and other oral JAK inhibitors, in patients with severe AA., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Evidence suggests that neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase ( NTRK ) gene fusions in solid tumors are predictive biomarkers for targeted inhibition across a number of adult and pediatric tumor types. However, despite robust clinical response to tyrosine receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitors, the natural history and prognostic implications of NTRK fusions in solid tumors are poorly understood. It is important to evaluate their prognostic significance on survival to provide some context to the clinical effectiveness observed in clinical trials of TRK-targeted therapies., Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed to identify studies comparing the overall survival (OS) of patients with NTRK fusion-positive ( NTRK +) versus NTRK fusion-negative ( NTRK -) tumors. Five retrospective matched case-control studies published before 11 August 2022 were assessed for inclusion, and three were selected for the meta-analysis (sample size: 69 NTRK +, 444 NTRK -). Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies tool. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) was estimated using a Bayesian random-effects model., Results: In the meta-analysis, the median follow-up ranged from 2 to 14 years and the median OS was between 10.1 and 12.7 months (where reported). Comparing patients with tumors NTRK + and NTRK -, the pooled HR estimate for OS was 1.51 (95% credible interval, 1.01 to 2.29). The patients analyzed had no previous or current exposure to TRK inhibitors., Conclusion: In patients not treated with TRK inhibitor therapies, those with NTRK + solid tumors have a 50% increased risk of mortality within 10 years from diagnosis or the start of standard therapy compared with those with NTRK - status. Although this is the most robust estimate of the comparative survival rate to date, further studies are required to reduce uncertainty.

Background: Newborn infants are the highest-risk age group for bacterial meningitis. Lumbar punctures are therefore frequently performed in neonates, but success rates are low (50-60%). In Neonatal Champagne Lumbar punctures Every time-A Randomised Controlled Trial (NeoCLEAR), we sought to optimise infant lumbar puncture by evaluating two modifications to traditional technique: sitting position versus lying down and early stylet removal (stylet removal after transecting the subcutaneous tissue) versus late stylet removal., Methods: NeoCLEAR was an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, conducted in 21 UK neonatal and maternity units. Infants requiring lumbar puncture at 27 +0 to 44 +0 weeks corrected gestational age and weighing 1000 g or more were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to sitting position and early stylet removal, sitting position and late stylet removal, lying position and early stylet removal, or lying position and late stylet removal using a 24/7, web-based, secure, central randomisation system. Block randomisation was stratified within site by corrected gestational age (27 +0 to 31 +6 weeks, 32 +0 to 36 +6 weeks, 37 +0 to 40 +6 weeks, or 41 +0 to 44 +0 weeks), using variable block sizes of four and eight with equal frequency. Laboratory staff were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was successful first lumbar puncture, defined as obtaining a cerebrospinal fluid sample with a red blood cell count of less than 10 000 cells per μL. The primary and secondary (including safety) outcomes were analysed by the groups to which infants were assigned regardless of deviation from the protocol or allocation received, but with exclusion of infants who were withdrawn before data collection or who did not undergo lumbar puncture (modified intention-to-treat analysis). This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14040914., Findings: Between Aug 3, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 1082 infants were randomly assigned to sitting (n=546) or lying (n=536), and early (n=549) or late (n=533) stylet removal. 1076 infants were followed-up until discharge and included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. 961 (89%) infants were term, and 936 (87%) were younger than 3 days. Successful first lumbar puncture was more frequently observed in sitting than in lying position (346 [63·7%] of 543 vs 307 [57·6%] of 533; adjusted risk ratio 1·10 [95% CI 1·01 to 1·21], p=0·029; number needed to treat=16). Timing of stylet removal had no discernible effect on the primary outcome (338 [62·0%] of 545 infants in the early stylet removal group and 315 [59·3%] of 531 in the late stylet removal group had a successful first lumbar puncture; adjusted risk ratio 1·04 [95% CI 0·94-1·15], p=0·45). Sitting was associated with fewer desaturations than was lying (median lowest oxygen saturations during first lumbar puncture 93% [IQR 89-96] vs 90% [85-94]; median difference 3·0% [2·1-3·9], p<0·0001). One infant from the sitting plus late stylet removal group developed a scrotal haematoma 2 days after lumbar puncture, which was deemed to be possibly related to lumbar puncture., Interpretation: NeoCLEAR is the largest trial investigating paediatric lumbar puncture so far. Success rates were improved when sitting rather than lying. Sitting lumbar puncture is safe, cost neutral, and well tolerated. We predominantly recruited term neonates younger than 3 days; other populations warrant further study. Neonatal lumbar puncture is commonly performed worldwide; these results therefore strongly support the widespread adoption of sitting technique for neonatal lumbar puncture., Funding: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JLB, LL, EJ, PH, and MS report receipt of funding from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, outside the submitted work. MS reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Merck, Symvivo, Sanofi Pasteur, Seqirus, and VBI Vaccines, outside the submitted work. All funds have been paid to his institute, with no personal payments. EJ was a member of the NIHR-HTA General Board from 2016 to 2017, and the NIHR-HTA Commissioning Board from 2013 to 2016, but was not involved in decisions about funding this trial. PH is a member of the NIHR HTA Funding Committee (Commissioning Board), but was not involved in decisions about funding this trial. CCR reports speaker's bureau fees from Chiesi Pharmaceuticals Italy, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Existing guidelines recommend statisticians remain blinded to treatment allocation prior to the final analysis and that any interim analyses should be conducted by a separate team from the one undertaking the final analysis. However, there remains substantial variation in practice between UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) when it comes to blinding statisticians. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop guidance to advise CTUs on a risk-proportionate approach to blinding statisticians within clinical trials., Methods: This study employed a mixed methods approach involving three stages: (I) a quantitative study using a cohort of 200 studies (from a major UK funder published between 2016 and 2020) to assess the impact of blinding statisticians on the proportion of trials reporting a statistically significant finding for the primary outcome(s); (II) a qualitative study using focus groups to determine the perspectives of key stakeholders on the practice of blinding trial statisticians; and (III) combining the results of stages I and II, along with a stakeholder meeting, to develop guidance for UK CTUs., Results: After screening abstracts, 179 trials were included for review. The results of the primary analysis showed no evidence that involvement of an unblinded trial statistician was associated with the likelihood of statistically significant findings being reported, odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.13). Six focus groups were conducted, with 37 participants. The triangulation between stages I and II resulted in developing 40 provisional statements. These were rated independently by the stakeholder group prior to the meeting. Ten statements reached agreement with no agreement on 30 statements. At the meeting, various factors were identified that could influence the decision of blinding the statistician, including timing, study design, types of intervention and practicalities. Guidance including 21 recommendations/considerations was developed alongside a Risk Assessment Tool to provide CTUs with a framework for assessing the risks associated with blinding/not blinding statisticians and for identifying appropriate mitigation strategies., Conclusions: This is the first study to develop a guidance document to enhance the understanding of blinding statisticians and to provide a framework for the decision-making process. The key finding was that the decision to blind statisticians should be based on the benefits and risks associated with a particular trial., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia (i.e. at 34 +0 to 36 +6 weeks' gestation), the optimal delivery time is unclear because limitation of maternal-fetal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether or not planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of perinatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management, in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia., Methods: We undertook an individually randomised, triple non-masked controlled trial in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, with an embedded health economic evaluation, comparing planned delivery and expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. The co-primary maternal outcome was a maternal morbidity composite or recorded systolic blood pressure of ≥ 160 mmHg (superiority hypothesis). The co-primary short-term perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admission (non-inferiority hypothesis). Analyses were by intention to treat, with an additional per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The primary 2-year infant neurodevelopmental outcome was measured using the PARCA-R (Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised) composite score. The planned sample size of the trial was 900 women; the trial is now completed. We undertook two linked substudies., Results: Between 29 September 2014 and 10 December 2018, 901 women were recruited; 450 women [448 women (two withdrew consent) and 471 infants] were allocated to planned delivery and 451 women (451 women and 475 infants) were allocated to expectant management. The incidence of the co-primary maternal outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group [289 (65%) women] than in the expectant management group [338 (75%) women] (adjusted relative risk 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 0.94; p  = 0.0005). The incidence of the co-primary perinatal outcome was significantly higher in the planned delivery group [196 (42%) infants] than in the expectant management group [159 (34%) infants] (adjusted relative risk 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.47; p  = 0.0034), but indicators of neonatal morbidity were similar in both groups. At 2-year follow-up, the mean PARCA-R scores were 89.5 points (standard deviation 18.2 points) for the planned delivery group (290 infants) and 91.9 points (standard deviation 18.4 points) for the expectant management group (256 infants), both within the normal developmental range (adjusted mean difference -2.4 points, 95% confidence interval -5.4 to 0.5 points; non-inferiority p  = 0.147). Planned delivery was significantly cost-saving (-£2711, 95% confidence interval -£4840 to -£637) compared with expectant management. There were nine serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group., Conclusion: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, planned delivery reduces short-term maternal morbidity compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater short-term neonatal morbidity (such as need for respiratory support). At 2-year follow-up, around 60% of parents reported follow-up scores. Average infant development was within the normal range for both groups; the small between-group mean difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important. Planned delivery was significantly cost-saving to the health service. These findings should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision-making on timing of delivery., Limitations: Limitations of the trial include the challenges of finding a perinatal outcome that adequately represented the potential risks of both groups and a maternal outcome that reflects the multiorgan manifestations of pre-eclampsia. The incidences of maternal and perinatal primary outcomes were higher than anticipated on the basis of previous studies, but this did not limit interpretation of the analysis. The trial was limited by a higher loss to follow-up rate than expected, meaning that the extent and direction of bias in outcomes (between responders and non-responders) is uncertain. A longer follow-up period (e.g. up to 5 years) would have enabled us to provide further evidence on long-term infant outcomes, but this runs the risk of greater attrition and increased expense., Future Work: We identified a number of further questions that could be prioritised through a formal scoping process, including uncertainties around disease-modifying interventions, prognostic factors, longer-term follow-up, the perspectives of women and their families, meta-analysis with other studies, effect of a similar intervention in other health-care settings, and clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other related policies around neonatal unit admission in late preterm birth., Trial Registration: The trial was prospectively registered as ISRCTN01879376., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in Health Technology Assessment . See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objective: We evaluated the best time to initiate delivery in late preterm pre-eclampsia in order to optimise long-term infant and maternal outcomes., Design: Parallel-group, non-masked, randomised controlled trial., Setting: Forty-six maternity units in the UK., Population: Women with pre-eclampsia between 34 +0 and 36 +6  weeks of gestation, without severe disease, were randomised to planned delivery or expectant management., Main Outcome Measures: Infant neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age, using the Parent Report of Children's Abilities - Revised (PARCA-R) composite score., Results: Between 29 September 2014 and 10 December 2018, 901 women were enrolled in the trial, with 450 women allocated to planned delivery and 451 women allocated to expectant management. At the 2-year follow-up, the intention-to-treat analysis population included 276 women (290 infants) allocated to planned delivery and 251 women (256 infants) allocated to expectant management. The mean composite standardised PARCA-R scores were 89.5 (SD 18.2) in the planned delivery group and 91.9 (SD 18.4) in the expectant management group, with an adjusted mean difference of -2.4 points (95% CI -5.4 to 0.5 points)., Conclusions: In infants of women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the average neurodevelopmental assessment at 2 years lies within the normal range, regardless of whether planned delivery or expectant management was pursued. With the lower than anticipated follow-up rate there was limited power to demonstrate that these scores did not differ, but the small between-group difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important., (© 2022 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: There is currently limited evidence on the costs associated with late preterm pre-eclampsia beyond antenatal care and post-natal discharge from hospital. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the 24-month cost-utility of planned delivery for women with late preterm pre-eclampsia at 34 +0 -36 +6 weeks' gestation compared to expectant management from an English National Health Service perspective using participant-level data from the PHOENIX trial., Methods: Women between 34 +0 and 36 +6 weeks' gestation in 46 maternity units in England and Wales were individually randomised to planned delivery or expectant management. Resource use was collected from hospital records between randomisation and primary hospital discharge following birth. Women were followed up at 6 months and 24 months following birth and self-reported resource use for themselves and their infant(s) covering the previous 6 months. Women completed the EQ-5D 5L at randomisation and follow-up., Results: A total of 450 women were randomised to planned delivery, 451 to expectant management: 187 and 170 women, respectively, had complete data at 24 months. Planned delivery resulted in a significantly lower mean cost per woman and infant(s) over 24 months (- £2711, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 4840 to - 637), with a mean incremental difference in QALYs of 0.019 (95% CI - 0.039 to 0.063). Short-term and 24-month infant costs were not significantly different between the intervention arms. There is a 99% probability that planned delivery is cost-effective at all thresholds below £37,000 per QALY gained., Conclusion: There is a high probability that planned delivery is cost-effective compared to expectant management. These results need to be considered alongside clinical outcomes and in the wider context of maternity care., Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN01879376. Registered 25 November 2013., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Optimal timing for neonatal stoma closure remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to establish current practice and illustrate multidisciplinary perspectives on timing of stoma closure using an online survey sent to all 27 UK neonatal surgical units, as part of a research programme to determine the feasibility of a clinical trial comparing 'early' and 'late' stoma closure. 166 responses from all 27 units demonstrated concordance of opinion in target time for closure (6 weeks most commonly stated across scenarios), although there was a high variability in practice. A sizeable proportion (41%) of respondents use weight, rather than time, to determine when to close a neonatal stoma. Thematic analysis of free text responses identified nine key themes influencing decision-making; most related to nutrition, growth and stoma complications. These data provide an overview of current practice that is critical to informing an acceptable trial design., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Blinding is an established approach in clinical trials which aims to minimise the risk of performance and detection bias. There is little empirical evidence to guide UK clinical trials units (CTUs) about the practice of blinding statisticians. Guidelines recommend that statisticians remain blinded to allocation prior to the final analysis. As these guidelines are not based on empirical evidence, this study undertook a qualitative investigation relating to when and how statisticians should be blinded in clinical trials., Methods: Data were collected through online focus groups with various stakeholders who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts., Results: Thirty-seven participants from 19 CTUs participated in one of six focus groups. Four main themes were identified, namely statistical models of work, factors affecting the decision to blind statisticians, benefits of blinding/not blinding statisticians and practicalities. Factors influencing the decision to blind the statistician included available resources, study design and types of intervention and outcomes and analysis. Although blinding of the statistician is perceived as a desirable mitigation against bias, there was uncertainty about the extent to which an unblinded statistician might impart bias. Instead, in most cases, the insight that the statistician offers was deemed more important to delivery of a trial than the risk of bias they may introduce if unblinded. Blinding of statisticians was only considered achievable with the appropriate resource and staffing, which were not always available. In many cases, a standard approach to blinding was therefore considered unrealistic and impractical; hence the need for a proportionate risk assessment approach identifying possible mitigations., Conclusions: There was wide variation in practice between UK CTUs regarding the blinding of trial statisticians. A risk assessment approach would enable CTUs to identify risks associated with unblinded statisticians conducting the final analysis and alternative mitigation strategies. The findings of this study will be used to design guidance and a tool to support this risk assessment process., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it., Objective: We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos., Design: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial., Setting: Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019., Participants: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years., Interventions: If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control)., Outcomes: The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores., Results: A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos ( n  = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth., Limitations: We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected., Conclusion: When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Study Question: Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos?, Summary Answer: This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby., What Is Known Already: The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos., Study Design, Size, Duration: A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness., Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization., Main Results and the Role of Chance: Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context., Limitations, Reasons for Caution: We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results., Wider Implications of the Findings: Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication., Study Funding/competing Interest(s): NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN: 61225414., Trial Registration Date: 29 December 2015., Date of First Patient’s Enrolment: 16 February 2016., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The combination of poverty, HIV and depression in the perinatal period represents a major public health challenge in many Southern African countries. In some areas, up to a third of HIV-positive women experience perinatal depression. Perinatal depression is associated with negative effects on parenting and key domains of child development including cognitive, behavioural and growth, especially in socio-economically disadvantaged communities. Several studies have documented the benefits of psychological interventions for perinatal depression in low- and middle-income countries, but none have evaluated an integrated psychological and parenting intervention for HIV-positive women using task-sharing. This randomised controlled trial aims to evaluate the effect of a home-based intervention, combining a psychological treatment for depression and a parenting programme for perinatally depressed HIV-positive women., Methods: This study is a cluster randomised controlled trial, consisting of 48-60 geospatial clusters. A total of 528 pregnant HIV-positive women aged ≥ 16 years who meet the criteria for depression on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS, score ≥ 9)) are recruited from antenatal clinics in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. The geospatial clusters are randomised on an allocation ratio of 1:1 to either the intervention or Enhanced Standard of Care (ESoC). The intervention group receives 10 home-based counselling sessions by a lay counsellor (4 antenatal and 6 postnatal sessions) and a booster session at 16 months. The intervention combines behavioural activation for depression with a parenting programme, adapted from the UNICEF/WHO Care for Child Development programme. The ESoC group receives two antenatal and two postnatal counselling support and advice telephone calls. In addition, measures have been taken to enhance the routine standard of care. The co-primary outcomes are child cognitive development at 24 months assessed on the cognitive subscale of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-Third Edition and maternal depression at 12 months measured by the EPDS., Analysis: The primary analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcomes will be analysed using mixed-effects linear regression., Discussion: If this treatment is successful, policymakers could use this model of mental healthcare delivered by lay counsellors within HIV treatment programmes to provide more comprehensive services for families affected by HIV., Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry # 11284870 (14/11/2017) and SANCTR DOH-27-102020-9097 (17/11/2017)., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Loss to follow-up resulting in missing outcomes compromises the validity of trial results by reducing statistical power, negatively affecting generalisability and undermining assumptions made at analysis, leading to potentially biased and misleading results. Evidence that incentives are effective at improving response rates exists, but there is little evidence regarding the best approach, especially in the field of perinatal medicine. The NIHR-funded SIFT trial follow-up of infants at 2 years of age provided an ideal opportunity to address this remaining uncertainty., Methods: Participants: parents of infants from participating neonatal units in the UK and Ireland followed up for SIFT (multicentre RCT investigating two speeds of feeding in babies with gestational age at birth < 32 weeks and/or birthweight < 1500 g)., Interventions: parents were randomly allocated to receive incentives (£15 gift voucher) before or after questionnaire return. The objective was to establish whether offering an unconditional incentive in advance or promising an incentive on completion of a questionnaire (conditional) improved the response rate in parents of premature babies. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate. Permuted block randomisation was performed (variable size blocks), stratified by SIFT allocation (slower/faster feeds) and single/multiple birth. Multiple births were given the same incentives allocation. Parents were unaware that they were in an incentives SWAT; SIFT office staff were not blinded to allocation., Results: Parents of 923 infants were randomised: 459 infants allocated to receive incentive before, 464 infants allocated to receive incentive after; analysis was by intention to treat. Allocation to the incentive before completion led to a significantly higher response rate, 83.0% (381/459) compared to the after-completion group, 76.1% (353/464); adjusted absolute difference of 6.8% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 12.0%). Giving an incentive in advance is the more costly approach, but the mean difference of ~£3 per infant is small given the higher return., Conclusions: An unconditional incentive in advance led to a significantly higher response rate compared to the promise of an incentive on completion. Against a backdrop of falling response rates to questionnaires, incentives can be an effective way to increase returns., Trial Registration: SIFT ( ISRCTN76463425 ). Registered on March 5, 2013.; SWAT registration (SWAT 69 available from http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/TheNorthernIrelandNetworkforTrialsMethodologyResearch/FileStore/Filetoupload,864297,en.pdf ). Registered on June 27, 2016., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The Baby-OSCAR trial is a multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled parallel group trial of early treatment of large patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) with ibuprofen in extremely preterm infants. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the short-term health outcomes of the Baby-OSCAR trial., Methods and Design: This is a randomised controlled trial to determine if early-targeted treatment of a large PDA with parenteral ibuprofen in extremely preterm babies improves short and long-term health and economic outcomes. Infants born between 23 +0 and 28 +6 weeks of gestation, confirmed by echocardiography as having a large PDA (with a diameter of at least 1.5 mm and unrestricted pulsatile PDA flow pattern), with parental informed consent, were randomly allocated to receive either ibuprofen or placebo within 72 h of birth. The primary outcome is a composite of death by 36 weeks' postmenstrual age or moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age., Results: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics will be described by randomised group. The primary analysis will be on the modified intention to treat (ITT) population. Counts and percentages will be presented for binary and categorical variables, and mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range will be presented for continuous variables. For binary outcomes, risk ratios and confidence intervals will be calculated using log binomial or Poisson regression with a robust variance estimator. Continuous outcomes will be analysed using linear regression models, or quantile regression models if skewed. Analyses will be adjusted for all minimisation factors where technically possible, and correlation between siblings from multiple births will be accounted for by nesting the clusters as a random effect. Both crude and adjusted effect estimates will be presented, with the primary inference based on the adjusted estimates. Ninety-five per cent confidence intervals will be used for all pre-specified outcome comparisons., Conclusion: This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for short-term health outcomes of the trial, including the analysis principles, definitions of important outcomes, methods for primary analysis, pre-specified subgroup analysis, and secondary analysis. The plan was finalised prior to completion of short-term follow-up., Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN84264977 . Registered on 15 September 2010.

Objective: Economic evaluation of computerised decision-support software intended to assist in the interpretation of a cardiotocography (CTG) during birth., Design: Individual patient level data from the INFANT study (an unmasked randomised controlled trial)., Setting: Maternity units in the UK and Ireland., Population: Singleton or twin pregnancy women of 35 weeks' gestation or more and receiving continuous electronic fetal monitoring during labour., Intervention: Computerised decision-support software., Methods: Cost-consequence analysis presenting costs and outcomes with a time horizon of 2 years from a government healthcare perspective. Unit cost data collected from a combination of primary and secondary sources., Main Outcome Measures: Primary clinical outcomes were (i) composite 'poor neonatal outcome' and (ii) developmental assessment at age 2 years in a subset of surviving children. Mean cost per mother and infant dyad from birth to hospital discharge, and from hospital discharge to 24 months follow-up. Maternal health-related quality of life was assessed at 12 and 24 months follow-up using the EuroQol three-level health-related quality of life instrument (EQ-5D-3L)., Results: Data were analysed for 46 042 women and 46 614 infants. No statistically significant differences were detected between trial arms in any of the primary clinical outcomes or maternal quality of life. No statistically significant differences in costs were detected in maternal or infant costs from trial entry to hospital discharge or overall from hospital discharge to 2-year follow-up., Conclusions: Decision-support software during labour is not associated with additional maternal or infant benefits and over a 2-year period the software did not lead to additional costs or savings to the National Health Service., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN98680152., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The question of whether to treat patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) early or wait until symptoms appear remains high on the research agenda for neonatal medicine. Around 7000 extremely preterm babies under 29 weeks' gestation are born in the UK every year. In 40% of cases the PDA will fail to close spontaneously, even by 4 months of age. Untreated PDA can be associated with several serious and life-threatening short and long-term complications. Reliable data to support clinical decisions about PDA treatment are needed to prevent serious complications in high risk babies, while minimising undue exposure of infants. With the availability of routine bedside echocardiography, babies with a large PDA can be diagnosed before they become symptomatic., Methods: This is a multicentre, masked, randomised, placebo-controlled parallel group trial to determine if early-targeted treatment of a large PDA with parenteral ibuprofen in extremely preterm babies (23 + 0 -28 + 6 weeks' gestation) improves short and long-term health and economic outcomes. With parental informed consent, extremely preterm babies (born between 23 + 0 -28 + 6 weeks' gestation) admitted to tertiary neonatal units are screened using echocardiography. Babies with a large PDA on echocardiography, defined by diameter of at least 1.5 mm and unrestricted pulsatile PDA flow pattern, are randomly allocated to either ibuprofen or placebo within 72 h of birth. The primary endpoint is the composite outcome of death by 36 weeks' postmenstrual age or moderate or severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 36 weeks postmenstrual age., Discussion: Prophylactic pharmacological treatment of all preterm babies unnecessarily exposes them to potentially serious side effects of drug treatment, when their PDA may have closed spontaneously. However, delaying treatment until babies become symptomatic could result in loss of treatment benefit as irreversible damage may have already been done. Targeted, early pharmacological treatment of PDA in asymptomatic babies has the potential to overcome the disadvantages of both prophylactic (overtreatment) and symptomatic approaches (potentially too late). This could result in improvements in the clinically important short-term clinical (mortality and moderate or severe BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age) and long-term health outcomes (moderate or severe neurodevelopment disability and respiratory morbidity) measured at 2 years corrected age., Trial Registration: ISRCTN84264977 . Date assigned: 15/09/2010.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death., Methods: In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the final results of this assessment., Results: A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.55)., Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been proposed as treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the basis of in vitro activity and data from uncontrolled studies and small, randomized trials., Methods: In this randomized, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned 1561 patients to receive hydroxychloroquine and 3155 to receive usual care. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality., Results: The enrollment of patients in the hydroxychloroquine group was closed on June 5, 2020, after an interim analysis determined that there was a lack of efficacy. Death within 28 days occurred in 421 patients (27.0%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and in 790 (25.0%) in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.23; P = 0.15). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. The results suggest that patients in the hydroxychloroquine group were less likely to be discharged from the hospital alive within 28 days than those in the usual-care group (59.6% vs. 62.9%; rate ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.98). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, those in the hydroxychloroquine group had a higher frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (30.7% vs. 26.9%; risk ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27). There was a small numerical excess of cardiac deaths (0.4 percentage points) but no difference in the incidence of new major cardiac arrhythmia among the patients who received hydroxychloroquine., Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with Covid-19, those who received hydroxychloroquine did not have a lower incidence of death at 28 days than those who received usual care. (Funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ISRCTN number, ISRCTN50189673; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two rates of enteral feed advancement (18 vs 30 mL/kg/day) in very preterm and very low birth weight infants., Design: Within-trial economic evaluation alongside a multicentre, two-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial (Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial)., Setting: 55 UK neonatal units from May 2013 to June 2015., Patients: Infants born <32 weeks' gestation or <1500 g, receiving less than 30 mL/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment. Infants with a known severe congenital anomaly, no realistic chance of survival, or unlikely to be traceable for follow-up, were ineligible., Interventions: When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, infants were randomised to receive daily increments in feed volume of 30 mL/kg (intervention) or 18 mL/kg (control)., Main Outcome Measure: Cost per additional survivor without moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age corrected for prematurity., Results: Average costs per infant were slightly higher for faster feeds compared with slower feeds (mean difference £267, 95% CI -6928 to 8117). Fewer infants achieved the principal outcome of survival without moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months in the faster feeds arm (802/1224 vs 848/1246). The stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis showed a likelihood of worse outcomes for faster feeds compared with slower feeds., Conclusions: The stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis shows faster feeds are broadly equivalent on cost grounds. However, in terms of outcomes at 24 months age (corrected for prematurity), faster feeds are harmful. Faster feeds should not be recommended on either cost or effectiveness grounds to achieve the primary outcome., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The E-Freeze trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of fresh versus frozen embryo transfer for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the E-Freeze trial., Methods and Design: E-Freeze is a two-arm parallel-group, multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial to determine if a policy of freezing embryos, followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer, results in a higher healthy baby rate when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation at fertility centres in the UK were randomised to either fresh or frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a live singleton baby born at term with an appropriate weight for gestation. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the trial, including the analysis principles, definitions of outcomes, methods for primary analysis, pre-specified subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis. This plan was finalised prior to completion of recruitment to the trial., Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414 . Registered on 29 December 2015.

Background: A nested case-control study is an efficient design that can be embedded within an existing cohort study or randomised trial. It has a number of advantages compared to the conventional case-control design, and has the potential to answer important research questions using untapped prospectively collected data., Methods: We demonstrate the utility of the matched nested case-control design by applying it to a secondary analysis of the Abnormal Doppler Enteral Prescription Trial. We investigated the role of milk feed type and changes in milk feed type in the development of necrotising enterocolitis in a group of 398 high risk growth-restricted preterm infants., Results: Using matching, we were able to generate a comparable sample of controls selected from the same population as the cases. In contrast to the standard case-control design, exposure status was ascertained prior to the outcome event occurring and the comparison between the cases and matched controls could be made at the point at which the event occurred. This enabled us to reliably investigate the temporal relationship between feed type and necrotising enterocolitis., Conclusions: A matched nested case-control study can be used to identify credible associations in a secondary analysis of clinical trial data where the exposure of interest was not randomised, and has several advantages over a standard case-control design. This method offers the potential to make reliable inferences in scenarios where it would be unethical or impractical to perform a randomised clinical trial.

Background: The neonatal period carries the highest risk of bacterial meningitis (~ 1 in 5000 births), bearing high mortality (~ 10%) and morbidity (20-50%) rates. Lumbar puncture (LP) remains essential to the diagnosis of meningitis. Though LP is a common procedure in neonates, success rates are lower (50-60%) than in other patient populations. None of the currently-practised neonatal LP techniques are supported by evidence from adequately-powered, randomised controlled trials (RCTs). NeoCLEAR aims to compare two modifications to the traditional technique which are free, accessible, and commonly practised: sitting (as opposed to lying) position, and 'early' (as opposed to 'late') stylet removal., Methods/design: Written parental informed consent permitting, infants in neonatal/maternity wards, of 27 + 0 to 44 + 0 weeks corrected gestational age and weighing ≥1000 g, who require an LP, will be randomly allocated to sitting or lying position, and to early or late stylet removal. The co-primary objectives are to compare success rates (the proportion of infants with cerebrospinal fluid red cell count < 10,000/mm 3 on first LP procedure) in 1020 infants between the two positions, and between the two methods of stylet removal. Secondary outcomes relate to LP procedures, complications, diagnoses of meningitis, duration of antibiotics and hospital stay. A modified intention-to-treat analysis will be conducted., Discussion: Two modifications to the traditional LP technique (sitting vs lying position; and early vs late stylet removal) will be simultaneously investigated in an efficient and appropriately-powered 2 × 2 factorial RCT design. Analysis will identify the optimal techniques (in terms of obtaining easily-interpretable cerebrospinal fluid), as well as the impact on infants, parents and healthcare systems whilst providing robust safety data. Using a pragmatic RCT design, all practitioners will be trained in all LP techniques, but there will inevitably be variation between unit practice guidelines and other aspects of individual care. An improved LP technique would result in: • Fewer uninterpretable samples, repeated attempts and procedures • Reduced distress for infants and families • Decreased antibiotic use and risk of antibiotic resistance • Reduced healthcare costs due to fewer procedures, reduced length of stay, shorter antibiotic courses, and minimised antibiotic-associated complications TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14040914. Date assigned: 26/06/2018.

Background: Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement., Objective: To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants., Design: This was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents., Setting: The setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015., Participants: The participants were infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment., Interventions: When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell's stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability., Results: The results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost-consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention., Limitations: The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered., Conclusions: No clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Jane Abbott, Janet Berrington, Elaine Boyle, Ursula Bowler, Jon Dorling, Nicholas Embleton, Kenny McCormick, William McGuire, Edmund Jaszczuk, Samantha Johnson, Madeleine Hurd, Oliver Hewer, Andrew King, Alison Leaf, Louise Linsell, Christopher Partlett, David Murray, Ben Stenson, Judith Rankin and Tracy Roberts report funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) for the trial. Jon Dorling, Janet Berrington, Elaine Boyle, Nicholas Embleton, Edmund Jaszczuk, Samantha Johnson, Andrew King, Louise Linsell, William McGuire, Christopher Partlett and Tracy Roberts report receipt of funding from NIHR, outside the submitted work. Jon Dorling reports grants from Nutrinia (Nazareth, Israel) outside the submitted work; specifically, he was funded for part of his salary to work as an expert advisor on a trial of enteral insulin. Furthermore, he was a member of the NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) General Board (2017–18) and the NIHR HTA Maternity, Newborn and Child Health Panel (2013–18). Elaine Boyle reports grants from the Medical Research Council and East Midlands Specialised Commissioning Group outside the submitted work. Janet Berrington reports grants and personal fees from Danone Early Life Nutrition (Paris, France) and grants from Prolacta Biosciences US (Duarte, CA, USA) outside the submitted work. Nicholas Embleton reports grants from Prolacta Biosciences US and Danone Early Life Nutrition and personal fees from Nestlé Nutrition Institute (Vevey, Switzerland), Baxter (Deerfield, IL, USA) and Fresenius Kabi (Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany) outside the submitted work. Samantha Johnson reports grants from Action Medical Research (Horsham, UK), EU Horizon 2020 (Brussels, Belguim), the Medical Research Council (London, UK), Sparks (London, UK) and the Nuffield Foundation (London, UK) outside the submitted work. William McGuire is a member of the NIHR HTA Commissioning Board (2013 to present) and the HTA and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Editorial Board (2012 to present). Edmund Juszczak was a member of the NIHR HTA General Board from 2016 to 2017 and the HTA funding committee (commissioning) from 2013 to 2016.

Background: Observational data have shown that slow advancement of enteral feeding volumes in preterm infants is associated with a reduced risk of necrotizing enterocolitis but an increased risk of late-onset sepsis. However, data from randomized trials are limited., Methods: We randomly assigned very preterm or very-low-birth-weight infants to daily milk increments of 30 ml per kilogram of body weight (faster increment) or 18 ml per kilogram (slower increment) until reaching full feeding volumes. The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months. Secondary outcomes included components of the primary outcome, confirmed or suspected late-onset sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis, and cerebral palsy., Results: Among 2804 infants who underwent randomization, the primary outcome could be assessed in 1224 (87.4%) assigned to the faster increment and 1246 (88.7%) assigned to the slower increment. Survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 of 1224 infants (65.5%) assigned to the faster increment and 848 of 1246 (68.1%) assigned to the slower increment (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.01; P = 0.16). Late-onset sepsis occurred in 414 of 1389 infants (29.8%) in the faster-increment group and 434 of 1397 (31.1%) in the slower-increment group (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.07). Necrotizing enterocolitis occurred in 70 of 1394 infants (5.0%) in the faster-increment group and 78 of 1399 (5.6%) in the slower-increment group (adjusted risk ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.16)., Conclusions: There was no significant difference in survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months in very preterm or very-low-birth-weight infants with a strategy of advancing milk feeding volumes in daily increments of 30 ml per kilogram as compared with 18 ml per kilogram. (Funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research; SIFT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN76463425.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objective: To assess if a computerised decision support system reliably identified abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) patterns in fetuses with adverse neonatal outcomes in the INFANT trial, and whether its use reduced substandard care., Design: Prospective cohort study within a randomised controlled trial., Setting: Twenty-four maternity units in the UK and Ireland., Population or Sample: A total of 46 614 labours between January 6 2010 and August 31 2013 in the INFANT trial., Methods: Panel review of intrapartum and neonatal care in infants with adverse outcome, and an assessment of the effectiveness of computerised interpretation of fetal heart rate in reducing substandard care. Descriptive analysis of other factors associated with adverse outcome., Main Outcome Measures: Incidence and detection rate of abnormal fetal heart rate patterns, other characteristics associated with perinatal adverse outcome, and frequency of substandard care., Results: Computer interpretation of FHR patterns was deemed to be completely valid in only 24 of 71 (33.8%) cases of adverse outcome. On a scale of 0-10 (completely invalid to completely valid), 28 cases (39.4%) had a score of 6 or less, mainly due to lack of recognition of decelerations (15 cases), or reduced variability (seven cases), or failure to recognise tachysystole (five cases). There were multiple associated factors that modified the clinical assessment of FHR patterns. There was substandard care in 45/71 cases (63%)., Conclusion: A significant proportion of abnormal fetal heart rate patterns were not detected accurately by computer analysis, and its use did not reduce the incidence of substandard care., Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 06.38.01)., Tweetable Abstract: Improved recognition of abnormal fetal heart rate patterns is insufficient to reduce the incidence of substandard care., (© 2018 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Background: The Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R) can be used to identify preterm born children at risk for developmental delay at age 24 months. However, standardised scores for assessing all children in the general population and quantifying development relative to the norm are unavailable, thus limiting the use of the questionnaire. We aimed to develop scores that are standardised by age and sex for the PARCA-R to assess children's cognitive and language development at age 24-27 months., Methods: Anonymised data from PARCA-R questionnaires that were completed by parents of 2-year-old children in three previous studies were obtained to form a standardisation sample that was representative of the UK general population. Anonymised data were obtained from three further studies to assess the external validity and clinical validity of the standardised scores. We used the lambda-mu-sigma (lambda for skewness, mu for median, sigma for the coefficient of variation) method to develop scores that are standardised by age and sex for three scales (non-verbal cognitive development, language development, and total parent report composite [PRC]) for children in four 1-month age bands, spanning age 23·5-27·5 months., Findings: We included 6402 children (mean age 25 months and 1 day [range 23 months and 16 days to 27 months and 15 days]) in the standardisation sample and 709 (mean age 24 months and 19 days [23 months and 16 days to 27 months and 15 days]) to test the external validity and 1456 (mean age 24 months and 8·5 days [23 months and 16 days to 27 months and 15 days]) to test the clinical validity of the standardised scores. For all PARCA-R scales, mean standardised scores approximated 100 (SD 15) in both sexes and all age groups. These scores were independent of socioeconomic status. Standardised scores were close to 100 (15) in the external validation sample, showing the validity of the scores. Standardised scores for the total PRC scale for children born very preterm (<32 weeks' gestation) were 0·47 SD lower on average than the normative mean, and for children with neonatal sepsis were 0·73 SD lower on average than the normative mean. These scores were equivalent to a standardised score of 93 (95% CI 91-94) for children born very preterm and 89 (88-91) for children with neonatal sepsis, thus showing clinical validity., Interpretation: The PARCA-R provides a norm-referenced, standardised assessment of cognitive and language development at 24-27 months of age. The questionnaire is available non-commercially in English with translations available in 14 other languages, thus providing clinicians and researchers with a cost-effective tool for assessing development and identifying children with delay., Funding: Action Medical Research (Ref: GN2580)., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sepsis is a leading cause of direct and indirect maternal death in both the UK and globally. All forms of operative delivery are associated with an increased risk of sepsis, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's guidance recommends the use of prophylactic antibiotics at all caesarean deliveries, based on substantial randomised controlled trial evidence of clinical effectiveness. A Cochrane review, updated in 2017 (Liabsuetrakul T, Choobun T, Peeyananjarassri K, Islam QM. Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 8 :CD004455), identified only one small previous trial of prophylactic antibiotics following operative vaginal birth (forceps or ventouse/vacuum extraction) and, given the small study size and extreme result, suggested that further robust evidence is needed., Objectives: To investigate whether or not a single dose of prophylactic antibiotic following operative vaginal birth is clinically effective for preventing confirmed or presumed maternal infection, and to investigate the associated impact on health-care costs., Design: A multicentre, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial., Setting: Twenty-seven maternity units in the UK., Participants: Women who had an operative vaginal birth at ≥ 36 weeks' gestation, who were not known to be allergic to penicillin or constituents of co-amoxiclav and who had no indication for ongoing antibiotics., Interventions: A single dose of intravenous co-amoxiclav (1 g of amoxicillin/200 mg of clavulanic acid) or placebo (sterile saline) allocated through sealed, sequentially numbered, indistinguishable packs., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome - confirmed or suspected infection within 6 weeks of giving birth. Secondary outcomes - severe sepsis, perineal wound infection, perineal pain, use of pain relief, hospital bed stay, hospital/general practitioner visits, need for additional perineal care, dyspareunia, ability to sit comfortably to feed the baby, maternal general health, breastfeeding, wound breakdown, occurrence of anaphylaxis and health-care costs., Results: Between March 2016 and June 2018, 3427 women were randomised: 1719 to the antibiotic arm and 1708 to the placebo arm. Seven women withdrew, leaving 1715 women in the antibiotic arm and 1705 in the placebo arm for analysis. Primary outcome data were available for 3225 out of 3420 women (94.3%). Women randomised to the antibiotic arm were significantly less likely to have confirmed or suspected infection within 6 weeks of giving birth (180/1619, 11%) than women randomised to the placebo arm (306/1606, 19%) (relative risk 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.69). Three serious adverse events were reported: one in the placebo arm and two in the antibiotic arm (one was thought to be causally related to the intervention)., Limitations: The follow-up rate achieved for most secondary outcomes was 76%., Conclusions: This trial has shown clear evidence of benefit of a single intravenous dose of prophylactic co-amoxiclav after operative vaginal birth. These results may lead to reconsideration of official policy/guidance. Further analysis of the mechanism of action of this single dose of antibiotic is needed to investigate whether earlier, pre-delivery or repeated administration could be more effective. Until these analyses are completed, there is no indication for administration of more than a single dose of prophylactic antibiotic, or for pre-delivery administration., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11166984., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 54. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Oliver Rivero-Arias, Ursula Bowler, Edmund Juszczak, Marian Knight, Louise Linsell and Julia Sanders report receipt of funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) outside the submitted work. Edmund Juszczak reports Clinical Trials Unit infrastructure support funding received from NIHR and active membership of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Commissioning Board and the HTA General Board while the study was being undertaken.

Background: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the optimal time to initiate delivery is unclear because limitation of maternal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of neonatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia., Methods: In this parallel-group, non-masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management (usual care) with individual randomisation in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia from 34 to less than 37 weeks' gestation and a singleton or dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy. The co-primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity or recorded systolic blood pressure of at least 160 mm Hg with a superiority hypothesis. The co-primary perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admission up to infant hospital discharge with a non-inferiority hypothesis (non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in incidence). Analyses were by intention to treat, together with a per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN01879376. The trial is closed to recruitment but follow-up is ongoing., Findings: Between Sept 29, 2014, and Dec 10, 2018, 901 women were recruited. 450 women (448 women and 471 infants analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 451 women (451 women and 475 infants analysed) to expectant management. The incidence of the co-primary maternal outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group (289 [65%] women) compared with the expectant management group (338 [75%] women; adjusted relative risk 0·86, 95% CI 0·79-0·94; p=0·0005). The incidence of the co-primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was significantly higher in the planned delivery group (196 [42%] infants) compared with the expectant management group (159 [34%] infants; 1·26, 1·08-1·47; p=0·0034). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were nine serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group., Interpretation: There is strong evidence to suggest that planned delivery reduces maternal morbidity and severe hypertension compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater neonatal morbidity. This trade-off should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision making on timing of delivery., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) is a potentially devastating neonatal disease. A temporal association between red cell transfusion and NEC is well described. Observational data suggest that withholding enteral feeds around red cell transfusions may reduce the risk of NEC but this has not been tested in randomised trials; current UK practice varies. Prevention of NEC is a research priority but no appropriately powered trials have addressed this question. The use of a simplified opt-out consent model and embedding trial processes within existing electronic patient record (EPR) systems provide opportunities to increase trial efficiency and recruitment., Methods and Analysis: We will undertake a randomised, controlled, multicentre, unblinded, pilot trial comparing two care pathways: continuing milk feeds (before, during and after red cell transfusions) and withholding milk feeds (for 4 hours before, during and for 4 hours after red cell transfusions), with infants randomly assigned with equal probability. We will use opt-out consent. A nested qualitative study will explore parent and health professional views. Infants will be eligible if born at <30+0 gestational weeks+days. Primary feasibility outcomes will be rate of recruitment, opt-out, retention, compliance, data completeness and data accuracy; clinical outcomes will include mortality and NEC. The trial will recruit in two neonatal networks in England for 9 months. Data collection will continue until all infants have reached 40+0 corrected gestational weeks or neonatal discharge. Participant identification and recruitment, randomisation and all trial data collection will be embedded within existing neonatal EPR systems (BadgerNet and BadgerEPR); outcome data will be extracted from routinely recorded data held in the National Neonatal Research Database., Ethics and Dissemination: This study holds Research Ethics Committee approval to use an opt-out approach to consent. Results will inform future EPR-embedded and data-enabled trials and will be disseminated through conferences, publications and parent-centred information., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN62501859; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, characterised by maternal pruritus and increased serum bile acid concentrations, is associated with increased rates of stillbirth, preterm birth, and neonatal unit admission. Ursodeoxycholic acid is widely used as a treatment without an adequate evidence base. We aimed to evaluate whether ursodeoxycholic acid reduces adverse perinatal outcomes in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy., Methods: We did a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial at 33 hospital maternity units in England and Wales. We recruited women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, who were aged 18 years or older and with a gestational age between 20 weeks and 40 weeks and 6 days, with a singleton or twin pregnancy and no known lethal fetal anomaly. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to ursodeoxycholic acid or placebo, given as two oral tablets a day at an equivalent dose of 500 mg twice a day. The dose could be increased or decreased at the clinician's discretion, to a maximum of four tablets and a minimum of one tablet a day. We recommended that treatment should be continued from enrolment until the infant's birth. The primary outcome was a composite of perinatal death (in-utero fetal death after randomisation or known neonatal death up to 7 days after birth), preterm delivery (<37 weeks' gestation), or neonatal unit admission for at least 4 h (from birth until hospital discharge). Each infant was counted once within this composite. All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, number 91918806., Findings: Between Dec 23, 2015, and Aug 7, 2018, 605 women were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive ursodeoxycholic acid (n=305) or placebo (n=300). The primary outcome analysis included 304 women and 322 infants in the ursodeoxycholic acid group, and 300 women and 318 infants in the placebo group (consent to use data was withdrawn for 1 woman and 2 infants). The primary composite outcome occurred in 74 (23%) of 322 infants in the ursodeoxycholic acid group and 85 (27%) of 318 infants in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·62-1·15]). Two serious adverse events were reported in the ursodeoxycholic acid group and six serious adverse events were reported in the placebo group; no serious adverse events were regarded as being related to treatment., Interpretation: Treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid does not reduce adverse perinatal outcomes in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Therefore, its routine use for this condition should be reconsidered., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Risk factors for maternal infection are clearly recognised, including caesarean section and operative vaginal birth. Antibiotic prophylaxis at caesarean section is widely recommended because there is clear systematic review evidence that it reduces incidence of maternal infection. Current WHO guidelines do not recommend routine antibiotic prophylaxis for women undergoing operative vaginal birth because of insufficient evidence of effectiveness. We aimed to investigate whether antibiotic prophylaxis prevented maternal infection after operative vaginal birth., Methods: In a blinded, randomised controlled trial done at 27 UK obstetric units, women (aged ≥16 years) were allocated to receive a single dose of intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid or placebo (saline) following operative vaginal birth at 36 weeks gestation or later. The primary outcome was confirmed or suspected maternal infection within 6 weeks of delivery defined by a new prescription of antibiotics for specific indications, confirmed systemic infection on culture, or endometritis. We did an intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 11166984, and is closed to accrual., Findings: Between March 13, 2016, and June 13, 2018, 3427 women were randomly assigned to treatment: 1719 to amoxicillin and clavulanic acid, and 1708 to placebo. Seven women withdrew, leaving 1715 in the amoxicillin and clavulanic acid group and 1705 in the placebo groups. Primary outcome data were missing for 195 (6%) women. Significantly fewer women allocated to amoxicillin and clavulanic acid had a confirmed or suspected infection (180 [11%] of 1619) than women allocated to placebo (306 [19%] of 1606; risk ratio 0·58, 95% CI 0·49-0·69; p<0·0001). One woman in the placebo group reported a skin rash and two women in the amoxicillin and clavulanic acid reported other allergic reactions, one of which was reported as a serious adverse event. Two other serious adverse events were reported, neither was considered causally related to the treatment., Interpretation: This trial shows benefit of a single dose of prophylactic antibiotic after operative vaginal birth and guidance from WHO and other national organisations should be changed to reflect this., Funding: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

To investigate trajectories of behavior, attention, social and emotional problems to early adulthood in extremely preterm survivors compared to a term-born comparison group. Longitudinal analysis of a prospective, population-based cohort of 315 surviving infants born < 26 completed weeks of gestation recruited at birth in 1995, from the UK/Republic of Ireland, and a term-born comparison group recruited at age 6. The parent-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire was completed at age 6, 11, 16 and 19 years. The Total Behavioral Difficulties Score was 4.81 points higher in extremely preterm individuals compared to their term-born peers over the period (95% CI 3.76-5.87, p < 0.001) and trajectories were stable in both groups. The impact of difficulties on home life, friendships, school or work and/or leisure activities was greater in the EPT group (RR 4.28, 95% CI 2.89-6.35, p < 0.001), and hyperactivity/inattention and peer problems accounted for the largest differences. A clinically significant behavioral screen at age 2.5 was associated with a higher Total Behavioral Difficulties Score from 6 years onwards in extremely preterm participants (Mean difference 6.90, 95% CI 5.01-8.70, p < 0.0.01), as was moderate/severe cognitive impairment at last assessment (Mean difference: 4.27, 95% CI 2.76-5.77, p < 0.001). Attention, social and emotional problems in extremely preterm individuals persist into early adulthood with significant impact on daily life. A positive behavioral screen in infancy and moderate/severe cognitive impairment are associated with early adult outcomes.

Introduction: Catheter-related sepsis is one of the most dangerous complications of neonatal intensive care and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Use of catheter-care 'bundles' has reduced the incidence of catheter-related sepsis, although individual components have not been well studied. Better evidence is needed to guide selection of the most appropriate antiseptic solution for skin disinfection in preterm neonates. This study will inform the feasibility and design of the first randomised controlled trial to examine the safety and efficacy of alcohol-based versus aqueous-based chlorhexidine antiseptic formulations for skin disinfection prior to percutaneous central venous catheterisation in preterm neonates. The antiseptics to be compared are 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) aqueous and 2% CHG in 70% isopropyl alcohol., Methods and Analysis: The Antiseptic Randomised Controlled Trial for Insertion of Catheters (ARCTIC) is a two-centre randomised-controlled feasibility trial. At least 100 preterm infants born at <34 weeks' gestation and due to undergo percutaneous insertion of a central venous catheter will be randomly allocated to receive prior skin disinfection with one of the two antiseptic solutions. Outcomes include: i) recruitment and retention rates; ii) completeness of data collection; iii) numbers of enrolled infants meeting case definitions for definite catheter-related sepsis, catheter-associated sepsis and catheter colonisation and iv) safety outcomes of skin morbidity scores recorded daily from catheter insertion until 48 hours post removal. The key feasibility metrics will be reported as proportions with 95% CIs. Estimated prevalence of catheter colonisation will allow calculation of sample size for the large-scale trial. The data will inform whether it will be feasible to progress to a large-scale trial., Ethics and Dissemination: ARCTIC has been approved by the National Health Service Health Research Authority National Research Ethics Service Committee East of England (Cambridge South) (IRAS ID 163868), was adopted onto the National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network portfolio (CPMS ID 19899) and is registered with an International Standard Randomised Control Trials Number (ISRCTN: 82571474; Pre-results) and European Clinical Trials Database number 2015-000874-36. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications and sharing of the findings with parents via the support of Bliss baby charity., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN82571474; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy disorder, characterised by hypertension and multisystem complications in the mother. The adverse outcomes of pre-eclampsia include severe hypertension, stroke, renal and hepatic injury, haemorrhage, fetal growth restriction and even death. The optimal time to instigate delivery to prevent morbidity when pre-eclampsia occurs between 34 and 37 weeks' gestation, without increasing problems related to infant immaturity or complications, remains unclear., Methods/design: The PHOENIX trial is a non-masked, randomised controlled trial, comparing planned early delivery (with initiation of delivery within 48 h of randomisation) with usual care (expectant management) in women with pre-eclampsia between 34 + 0 and 36 + 6 weeks' gestation. The primary objectives of the trial are to determine if planned delivery reduces adverse maternal outcomes, without increasing the short-term harm to infants (composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admissions up to infant hospital discharge) or impacting long-term infant neurodevelopmental status at 2 years corrected age (Parent Report of Cognitive Abilities-Revised)., Discussion: Current practice in the UK at the time of trial commencement for management of pre-eclampsia varies by gestation. Previous trials have shown that in women with pre-eclampsia after 37 weeks of gestion, delivery is initiated, as maternal complications are reduced without increasing fetal risks. Prior to 34 weeks of gestation, usual management aims to prolong pregnancy for fetal benefit, unless severe complications occur, necessitating preterm delivery. This trial aims to address the uncertainty for women where the balance of benefits and risks of delivery compared to expectant management are uncertain. Previous trials in this area have been undertaken, but have not provided a definitive answer, and the research question remains active. The results of this trial are expected to influence clinical practice internationally, through direct adoption and by incorporation into guidelines in countries with similar settings., Trial Registration: ISRCTN01879376 . Registered on 25 November 2013.

Background: Infections acquired in hospital are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants. Several small trials have suggested that supplementing the enteral diet of very preterm infants with lactoferrin, an antimicrobial protein processed from cow's milk, prevents infections and associated complications., Objective: To determine whether or not enteral supplementation with bovine lactoferrin (The Tatua Cooperative Dairy Company Ltd, Morrinsville, New Zealand) reduces the risk of late-onset infection (acquired > 72 hours after birth) and other morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants., Design: Randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Randomisation was via a web-based portal and used an algorithm that minimised for recruitment site, weeks of gestation, sex and single versus multiple births., Setting: UK neonatal units between May 2014 and September 2017., Participants: Infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation and aged < 72 hours at trial enrolment., Interventions: Eligible infants were allocated individually (1 : 1 ratio) to receive enteral bovine lactoferrin (150 mg/kg/day; maximum 300 mg/day) or sucrose (British Sugar, Peterborough, UK) placebo (same dose) once daily from trial entry until a postmenstrual age of 34 weeks. Parents, caregivers and outcome assessors were unaware of group assignment., Outcomes: Primary outcome - microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset infection. Secondary outcomes - microbiologically confirmed infection; all-cause mortality; severe necrotising enterocolitis (NEC); retinopathy of prematurity (ROP); bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD); a composite of infection, NEC, ROP, BPD and mortality; days of receipt of antimicrobials until 34 weeks' postmenstrual age; length of stay in hospital; and length of stay in intensive care, high-dependency and special-care settings., Results: Of 2203 enrolled infants, primary outcome data were available for 2182 infants (99%). In the intervention group, 316 out of 1093 (28.9%) infants acquired a late-onset infection versus 334 out of 1089 (30.7%) infants in the control group [adjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.04]. There were no significant differences in any secondary outcomes: microbiologically confirmed infection (RR 1.05, 99% CI 0.87 to 1.26), mortality (RR 1.05, 99% CI 0.66 to 1.68), NEC (RR 1.13, 99% CI 0.68 to 1.89), ROP (RR 0.89, 99% CI 0.62 to 1.28), BPD (RR 1.01, 99% CI 0.90 to 1.13), or a composite of infection, NEC, ROP, BPD and mortality (RR 1.01, 99% CI 0.94 to 1.08). There were no differences in the number of days of receipt of antimicrobials, length of stay in hospital, or length of stay in intensive care, high-dependency or special-care settings. There were 16 reports of serious adverse events for infants in the lactoferrin group and 10 for infants in the sucrose group., Conclusions: Enteral supplementation with bovine lactoferrin does not reduce the incidence of infection, mortality or other morbidity in very preterm infants., Future Work: Increase the precision of the estimates of effect on rarer secondary outcomes by combining the data in a meta-analysis with data from other trials. A mechanistic study is being conducted in a subgroup of trial participants to explore whether or not lactoferrin supplementation affects the intestinal microbiome and metabolite profile of very preterm infants., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88261002., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 22, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This trial was also sponsored by the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. The funder provided advice and support and monitored study progress but did not have a role in study design or data collection, analysis and interpretation., Competing Interests: Since November 2013, Edmund Juszczak has been a member of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) General Funding Committee and HTA Commissioning Funding Committee. William McGuire is a member of the NIHR HTA Commissioning Board and the NIHR HTA and Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Editorial Board. Jon Dorling is a member of the NIHR HTA General Board (from 2017) and the Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health Panel (from 2013). Nicholas Embleton reports grants from Prolacta Biosciences Inc. (Duarte, CA, USA), grants from Danone Nutricia Early Life Nutrition (Paris, France), personal fees from Nestlé Nutrition Institute (Vevey, Switzerland) and personal fees from Baxter Healthcare Ltd (Newbury, UK) outside the submitted work.

Background: Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) is the most common liver disorder specific to pregnancy and presents with maternal pruritus, raised concentrations of serum bile acids and abnormal liver function tests. ICP is associated with increased rates of spontaneous and iatrogenic preterm labour, fetal hypoxia, meconium-stained amniotic fluid and intrauterine death. Some clinicians treat ICP with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) to improve maternal pruritus and biochemical abnormalities. However, there are currently no data to support the use of UDCA to improve pregnancy outcome as none of the trials performed to date have been powered to address this question., Methods: The PITCHES trial is a triple-masked, placebo-controlled randomised trial, to evaluate UDCA versus placebo in women with ICP between 20 + 0 to 40 + 6 weeks' gestation. The primary objective of the trial is to determine if UDCA treatment of women with ICP between 20 + 0 and 40 + 6 weeks' gestation reduces the primary perinatal outcome: a composite of perinatal death (as defined by in utero fetal death after randomisation or known neonatal death up to 7 days) or preterm delivery (less than 37 weeks' gestation) or neonatal unit admission for at least 4 h (from infant delivery until hospital discharge). The secondary objectives of the trial are (1) to investigate the effect of UDCA on other short-term outcomes for both mother and infant and (2) to assess the impact of UDCA on health care resource use, in terms of the total number of nights for mother and infant, together with level of care., Discussion: Current practice in the UK at the time of trial commencement for the treatment of ICP is inconsistent, with some units routinely prescribing UDCA, others prescribing very little and the remainder offering it variably. Our previous pilot trial of UDCA in women with ICP demonstrated that the trial would be feasible, and the research question remains active and unanswered. Results are highly likely to influence clinical practice, through direct management and impact on national and international guidelines., Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN91918806 . Prospectively registered on 27 August 2015.