Search

Abstract KM3NeT is a research infrastructure located in the Mediterranean Sea, that will consist of two deep-sea Cherenkov neutrino detectors. With one detector (ARCA), the KM3NeT Collaboration aims at identifying and studying TeV–PeV astrophysical neutrino sources. With the other detector (ORCA), the neutrino mass ordering will be determined by studying GeV-scale atmospheric neutrino oscillations. The first KM3NeT detection units were deployed at the Italian and French sites between 2015 and 2017. In this paper, a description of the detector is presented, together with a summary of the procedures used to calibrate the detector in-situ. Finally, the measurement of the atmospheric muon flux between 2232–3386 m seawater depth is obtained.

Abstract Background Randomised trial protocols may incorporate interim analyses, with the potential to stop the study for futility if early data show insufficient promise of a treatment benefit. Previously, we have shown that this approach will theoretically lead to mis-estimation of the treatment effect. We now wished to ascertain the importance of this phenomenon in practice. Methods We reviewed the methods and results in a set of trials that had stopped for futility, identified through an extensive literature search. We recorded clinical areas, interventions, study design, outcomes, trial setting, sponsorship, planned and actual treatment effects, sample sizes; power; and if there was a data safety monitoring board, or a published protocol. We identified: if interim analyses were pre-specified, and how many analyses actually occurred; what pre-specified criteria might define futility; if a futility analysis formed the basis for stopping; who made the decision to stop; and the conditional power of each study, i.e. the probability of statistically significant results if the study were to continue to its complete sample size. Results We identified 52 eligible trials, covering many clinical areas. Most trials had multiple centres, tested drugs, and 40% were industry sponsored. There were 75% where at least one interim analysis was planned a priori; a majority had only one interim analysis, typically with about half the target total sample size. A majority of trials did not pre-define a stopping rule, and a variety of reasons were given for stopping. Few studies calculated and reported low conditional power to justify the early stop. When conditional power could be calculated, it was typically low, especially under the current trend hypothesis. However, under the original design hypothesis, a few studies had relatively high conditional power. Data collection often continued after the interim analysis. Conclusions Although other factors will typically be involved, we conclude that, from the perspective of conditional power, stopping early for futility was probably reasonable in most cases, but documentation of the basis for stopping was often missing or vague. Interpretation of truncated trials would be enhanced by improved reporting of stopping protocols, and of their actual execution.

Antecedentes: El período inmediato después del inicio del síndrome coronario agudo (SCA) representa un estadio crítico de la cardiopatía coronaria con un alto riesgo de eventos recurrentes y muertes. En los pacientes que presentan SCA los efectos a corto plazo del tratamiento precoz con estati-nas sobre resultados relevantes para el paciente son inciertos. Objetivos: Evaluar los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales de las estatinas administradas de forma precoz en pacientes con SCA a partir de ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA). Estrategia de búsqueda: Se hicieron búsquedas en CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE y CINAHL (hasta el 1 febrero 2010). No se aplicó ninguna restricción en cuanto al idioma. La búsqueda se complementó al establecer contacto con especialistas en el campo, examinar las listas de referencias de las revisiones y los artículos editoriales sobre el tema y al buscar en los registros de ensayos. Criterios de selección: ECA que compararon estatinas con placebo o atención habitual, iniciaron el tratamiento con estatina en el transcurso de los 14 días después del inicio del SCA, tuvieron un seguimiento de al menos 30 días e informaron al menos un resultado clínico. Obtención y análisis de los datos: Dos autores evaluaron de forma independiente la calidad de los estudios y extrajeron los datos. Con un modelo de efectos aleatorios, se agruparon los efectos del tratamiento y se calcularon los cocientes de riesgos (CR) para todos los resultados en los grupos de tratamiento y control. Resultados principales: Dieciocho estudios (14 303 pacientes) compararon el tratamiento precoz con estatina versus placebo o atención habitual en pacientes con SCA. En comparación con el placebo o la atención habitual, el tratamiento precoz con estatina no redujo el resultado primario combinado de muerte, infarto de miocardio (IM) no mortal y accidente cerebrovascular al mes (cociente de riesgos [cR] 0,93; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,80 a 1,08) ni a los cuatro meses (CR 0,93; IC del 95%: 0,81 a 1,06) de seguimiento. No hubo reducciones estadísticamente significativas en el riesgo de las estatinas para muerte total, IM total, accidente cerebrovascular total, muerte cardiovascular, procedimientos de revascularización e insuficiencia cardíaca aguda al mes ni a los cuatro meses, aunque hubo tendencias favorables relacionadas con el uso de las estatinas para cada una de estas variables de evaluación. La incidencia de episodios de angina inestable se redujo significativamente a los cuatro meses después del SCA (CR 0,76; IC del 95%: 0,59 a 0,96). Hubo nueve pacientes con miopatía (niveles elevados de creatinquinasa > 10 veces el límite superior de lo normal) en los pacientes tratados con estatina (0,13%) versus uno (0,015%) en los grupos control. La toxicidad muscular grave estuvo limitada principalmente a los pacientes tratados con simvastatina 80 mg. Conclusiones de los autores: Según las pruebas disponibles, el inicio del tratamiento con estatinas en el transcurso de 14 días después del SCA no reduce la muerte, el infarto de miocardio ni el accidente cerebrovascular hasta los cuatro meses, pero reduce la ocurrencia de angina inestable a los cuatro meses después del SCA.

It was recently suggested that "cosmologically coupled" black holes with masses that increase in proportion to the volume of the Universe might constitute the physical basis of dark energy. We take this claim at face value and discuss its potential astrophysical implications. We show that the gravitational wave emission in binary systems would be significantly enhanced so that the number of black hole mergers would exceed the observed rate by orders of magnitude, with typical masses much larger than those seen by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA network. Separately, if the mass growth happens at fixed angular momentum, the supermassive black holes in matter-deficient elliptical galaxies should be slowly rotating. Finally, cosmological coupling would stabilize small black holes against Hawking radiation-induced evaporation.

Effectively addressing both cognitive and affective dimensions of learning is one of the greatest obstacles to teaching race and racial justice in higher education. In this article, we first explore the need to integrate attention to cognitive and affective development, along with evidence-based strategies for doing so. We then provide a case study of an undergraduate sociology course on environmental justice in which the instructor intentionally adopted holistic pedagogical principles of teaching race. Analyzing student responses from a pre- and post- course survey, course assignments, and instructor observations of student participation, we find that both white students and students of color experienced significant growth in their cognitive and affective understanding of the complexities of race and work toward racial justice. However, results also show how challenging it can be to create the conditions for productive multiracial dialogues that produce extensive affective development, particularly interpersonal skills of racial reconciliation. Reflecting on the limitations of the case, we conclude that more holistic teaching approaches are necessary to develop both students’ cognitive and affective abilities to navigate race and work against racism, and we make suggestions for faculty development and administrative support.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines advocate a 10 to 14-day course of systemic glucocorticoid therapy in the management of COPD exacerbations. The optimal duration of therapy is unknown and glucocorticoids have serious adverse effects. The aim of this trial is to demonstrate non-inferiority of a five-day compared to a 14-day course of systemic glucocorticoids with respect to COPD outcome, thereby significantly reducing steroid exposure and side effects in patients with COPD exacerbations. METHODS:This is arandomised,placebo-controlled, non-inferiority multicentre trial. Patients with acute COPD exacerbation are randomised to receive 40 mg of prednisone-equivalent daily for 14 days (conventional arm) or glucocorticoid treatment for 5 days, followed by placebo for another 9 days (intervention arm). Follow-up is 180 days. The primary endpoint is time to next exacerbation. Secondary endpoints include cumulative glucocorticoid dose, time to open-label glucocorticoid therapy, glucocorticoid-associated side effects and complications, duration of hospital stay, death, change in FEV1, need for assisted ventilation, clinical outcome assessed by standardised questionnaires, and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. RESULTS: Mean age (± SD) of patients who finished the study was 70 ± 11 years. 12% had mild or moderate disease, whereas severe and very severe stages were found in 30 and 58%, respectively. At the time of inclusion, 20% of patients were under treatment with systemic glucocorticoids. CONCLUSIONS: If the strategy of significantly reducing cumulative exposure to glucocorticoids while taking advantage of their beneficial short-term effects proves to be successful, it will warrant a change in common glucocorticoid prescription practice, thereby improving the management of COPD.

Background: Conducting high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is challenging, time consuming, and resource intense. Academic investigators usually depend on scarce financial resources; however, current literature lacks systematically collected empirical data on the detailed resource use and costs of investigator-initiated RCTs., Methods: The aim of this study is to generate a database of detailed empirical resource use and cost data from 100 investigator-initiated RCTs in Switzerland, Germany, and the UK. Investigators enter their empirical costs data into an online data collection form, which is followed by a short interview and a detailed cost report. We plan to investigate cost patterns and cost drivers and examine planned versus actual RCT costs as well as explore different strata of costs across the planning, conduct, and finalization phases, in drug and non-drug trials, and across medical fields and countries., Discussion: This study will add detailed empirical data to the limited research on investigator-initiated RCT costs currently available. A study limitation will be that cost data will be retrospective and self-reported, which might be inaccurate depending on how costs were recorded., Trial Registration: Open Science Framework (OSF) https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QY2GU . Registered on June 4, 2021., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Conducting high-quality randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is challenging and resource intensive. Funders and academic investigators depend on limited financial resources and, therefore, need empirical data for optimal budget planning. However, current literature lacks detailed empirical data on resource use and costs of investigator-sponsored RCTs. The aim of this study is to systematically collect cost data from investigator-sponsored RCTs from Switzerland, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK)., Methods: Principal investigators were asked to share their RCT cost and resource use data and enter it into an online case report form. We assessed cost patterns, cost drivers, and specific cost items, examined costs by study phase (planning-, conduct-, and finalisation phase), compared planned with actual RCT costs, and explored differences in cost patterns across countries, medical fields, and intervention types., Results: We included 93 RCTs which were initiated in Switzerland (n=53; including 8 conducted in low- and lower middle-income countries), Germany (n=22), and the UK (n=18). The median total trial cost in our RCT sample was $645,824 [Interquartile range (IQR), $269,846 to $1,577,924]. The median proportion of the total costs spent for planning phase was 27.5% [IQR, 20.6 to 39.7%], for conduct phase 57.3% [IQR, 44.4%-66.3%], and for finalisation phase 12.7% [IQR, 8.5% to 19.3%] with little variation across countries. The items that contributed most to the total costs were protocol writing (7.2%; IQR 3.8% to 10.6%), data management (5.0%; IQR 2.2% to 8.1%) and follow up (4.5%; IQR 2.3% to 8.4%). Of the 66 RCTs with an available original budget, 46 (69.7%) exceeded the budget by over 50%. Use of routinely collected data to assess primary outcomes was independently associated with lower per patient- and lower total trial costs., Conclusions: Over a quarter of total trial costs were incurred in the planning phase, which is typically not fully funded. Two thirds of RCTs exceeded their budget by more than 50%. Investigators and funders should consider empirical cost data to improve budgeting and funding practices., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) is a pragmatic design approach that may overcome frequent challenges of traditional randomized trials such as slow recruitment, burdensome consent procedures, or limited external validity. This scoping review aims to identify all randomized controlled trials using the TwiCs design and to summarize their design characteristics, ways to obtain informed consent, output, reported challenges and mitigation strategies., Study Design and Setting: Systematic search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane, trial registries and citation tracking up to December 2022. TwiCs were defined as randomized trials embedded in a cohort with postrandomization consent for the intervention group and no specific postrandomization consent for the usual care control group. Information from identified TwiCs was extracted in duplicate from protocols, publications, and registry entries. We analyzed the information descriptively and qualitatively to highlight methodological challenges and solutions related to nonuptake of interventions and informed consent procedure., Results: We identified a total of 46 TwiCs conducted between 2005 and 2022 in 14 different countries by a handful of research groups. The most common medical fields were oncology (11/46; 24%), infectious diseases (8/46; 17%), and mental health (7/46; 15%). A typical TwiCs was investigator-initiated (46/46; 100%), publicly funded (36/46; 78%), and recruited outpatients (27/46; 59%). Excluding eight pilot trials, only 16/38 (42%) TwiCs adjusted their calculated sample size for nonuptake of the intervention, anticipating a median nonuptake of 25% (interquartile range 10%-32%) in the experimental arm. Seventeen TwiCs (45%) planned analyses to adjust effect estimates for nonuptake. Regarding informed consent, we observed three patterns: 1) three separate consents for cohort participation, randomization, and intervention (17/46; 37%); 2) combined consent for cohort participation and randomization and a separate intervention consent (10/46; 22%); and 3) consent only for cohort participation and intervention (randomization consent not mentioned; 19/46; 41%)., Conclusion: Existing TwiCs are globally scattered across a few research groups covering a wide range of medical fields and interventions. Despite the potential advantages, the number of TwiCs remains small. The variability in consent procedures and the possibility of substantial nonuptake of the intervention warrants further research to guide the planning, implementation, and analysis of TwiCs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Several coauthors (AA, CMS, HMV, CR, FC, FG, NDL, MB) are using the TwiCs design or are part of the academic TwiCs global network (https://www.twics.global). We declare no financial conflict of interest. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bivalent mRNA vaccines, designed to combat emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, incorporate ancestral strains and a new variant. Our study assessed the immune response in previously vaccinated individuals of the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) and the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study (STCS) following bivalent mRNA vaccination., Methods: Eligible SHCS and STCS participants received approved bivalent mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (mRNA-1273.214 or BA.1-adapted BNT162b2) within clinical routine. Blood samples were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months post vaccination. We analyzed the proportion of participants with anti-spike protein antibody response ≥1642 units/ml (indicating protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection), and in a subsample T-cell response (including mean concentrations), stratifying results by cohorts and population characteristics., Results: In SHCS participants, baseline anti-spike antibody concentrations ≥1642 were observed in 87% (96/112), reaching nearly 100% at follow-ups. Among STCS participants, 58% (35/60) had baseline antibodies ≥1642, increasing to 80% at 6 months. Except for lung transplant recipients, all participants showed a five-fold increase in geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks and a reduction by half at 6 months. At baseline, T-cell responses were positive in 96% (26/27) of SHCS participants and 36% (16/45) of STCS participants (moderate increase to 53% at 6 months). Few participants reported SARS-CoV-2 infections, side-effects, or serious adverse events., Conclusions: Bivalent mRNA vaccination elicited a robust humoral response in individuals with HIV or solid organ transplants, with delayed responses in lung transplant recipients. Despite a waning effect, antibody levels remained high at 6 months and adverse events were rare., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Arterial hypertension (aHT) is a major cause for premature morbidity and mortality. Control rates remain poor, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Task-shifting to lay village health workers (VHWs) and the use of digital clinical decision support systems may help to overcome the current aHT care cascade gaps. However, evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive VHW-led aHT care models, in which VHWs provide antihypertensive drug treatment and manage cardiovascular risk factors is scarce., Methods: Using the trials within the cohort (TwiCs) design, we are assessing the effectiveness of VHW-led aHT and cardiovascular risk management in two 1:1 cluster-randomized trials nested within the Community-Based chronic disease Care Lesotho (ComBaCaL) cohort study (NCT05596773). The ComBaCaL cohort study is maintained by trained VHWs and includes the consenting inhabitants of 103 randomly selected villages in rural Lesotho. After community-based aHT screening, adult, non-pregnant ComBaCaL cohort participants with uncontrolled aHT (blood pressure (BP) ≥ 140/90 mmHg) are enrolled in the aHT TwiC 1 and those with controlled aHT (BP < 140/90 mmHg) in the aHT TwiC 2. In intervention villages, VHWs offer lifestyle counseling, basic guideline-directed antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet treatment supported by a tablet-based decision support application to eligible participants. In control villages, participants are referred to a health facility for therapeutic management. The primary endpoint for both TwiCs is the proportion of participants with controlled BP levels (< 140/90 mmHg) 12 months after enrolment. We hypothesize that the intervention is superior regarding BP control rates in participants with uncontrolled BP (aHT TwiC 1) and non-inferior in participants with controlled BP at baseline (aHT TwiC 2)., Discussion: The TwiCs were launched on September 08, 2023. On May 20, 2024, 697 and 750 participants were enrolled in TwiC 1 and TwiC 2. To our knowledge, these TwiCs are the first trials to assess task-shifting of aHT care to VHWs at the community level, including the prescription of basic antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet medication in Africa. The ComBaCaL cohort and nested TwiCs are operating within the routine VHW program and countries with similar community health worker programs may benefit from the findings., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05684055. Registered on January 04, 2023., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions., Results: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring., Conclusion: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Platform trials have become increasingly common, and evidence is needed to determine how this trial design is actually applied in current research practice., Objective: To determine the characteristics, progression, and output of randomized platform trials., Evidence Review: In this systematic review of randomized platform trials, Medline, Embase, Scopus, trial registries, gray literature, and preprint servers were searched, and citation tracking was performed in July 2022. Investigators were contacted in February 2023 to confirm data accuracy and to provide updated information on the status of platform trial arms. Randomized platform trials were eligible if they explicitly planned to add or drop arms. Data were extracted in duplicate from protocols, publications, websites, and registry entries. For each platform trial, design features such as the use of a common control arm, use of nonconcurrent control data, statistical framework, adjustment for multiplicity, and use of additional adaptive design features were collected. Progression and output of each platform trial were determined by the recruitment status of individual arms, the number of arms added or dropped, and the availability of results for each intervention arm., Findings: The search identified 127 randomized platform trials with a total of 823 arms; most trials were conducted in the field of oncology (57 [44.9%]) and COVID-19 (45 [35.4%]). After a more than twofold increase in the initiation of new platform trials at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of platform trials has since declined. Platform trial features were often not reported (not reported: nonconcurrent control, 61 of 127 [48.0%]; multiplicity adjustment for arms, 98 of 127 [77.2%]; statistical framework, 37 of 127 [29.1%]). Adaptive design features were only used by half the studies (63 of 127 [49.6%]). Results were available for 65.2% of closed arms (230 of 353). Premature closure of platform trial arms due to recruitment problems was infrequent (5 of 353 [1.4%])., Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found that platform trials were initiated most frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic and declined thereafter. The reporting of platform features and the availability of results were insufficient. Premature arm closure for poor recruitment was rare.

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the association of demographic and clinical characteristics, including HIV-specific parameters with the antibody response to a third dose of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccine in people with HIV-1 (PWH)., Design: Post hoc analysis of data collected during the observational extension of the COrona VaccinE tRiAL pLatform trial (COVERALL-2) nested into the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS)., Methods: Serological measurements were conducted on a total of 439 PWH who had received a third dose of either mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Antibody reactivity was assessed using the multifactorial ABCORA immunoassay that defines SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion and predicts neutralization activity. The association between log transformed antibody reactivity and various baseline factors, including vaccine type, demographics, immune and viral status, smoking status, comorbidities, infection history, and co-medication with chemotherapy and immunosuppressive drugs, was investigated using a multivariable linear regression model., Results: Antibody response to third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was significantly lower among PWH with CD4 + cell count less than 350 cells/μl [ratio of means 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.95]. Having a detectable HIV-1 viral load at least 50 copies/ml and being on concurrent chemotherapy was associated with an overall lower humoral immune response (ratio of means 0.75; 95% CI 0.57-1.00 and 0.34; 95% CI 0.22-0.52, respectively)., Conclusion: The study highlights the importance of optimal antiretroviral treatment for PWH, emphasizing the need for timely intervention to enhance the vaccine immunogenicity in this population. Moreover, it underscores the significance of sequential mRNA vaccination and provides important evidence for informing vaccine guidelines., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None declared.

Objectives: To investigate the impact of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic survey of meta-epidemiological studies examining the influence of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. We included only meta-epidemiological studies that either preserved the clustering of trials within meta-analyses (compared effect estimates between trials with and without the potential risk of bias element within each meta-analysis, then combined across meta-analyses; between-trial comparisons), or preserved the clustering of substudies within trials (compared effect estimates between substudies with and without the element, then combined across trials; within-trial comparisons). Separately for studies based on between- and within-trial comparisons, we extracted ratios of odds ratios (RORs) from each study and combined them using a random-effects model. We made overall inferences and assessed certainty of evidence based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, development, and Evaluation and Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses., Results: Forty-one meta-epidemiological studies (34 of between-, 7 of within-trial comparisons) proved eligible. Inadequate random sequence generation (ROR 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.97) and allocation concealment (ROR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97) probably lead to effect overestimation (moderate certainty). Lack of patients blinding probably overestimates effects for patient-reported outcomes (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.48; moderate certainty). Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in effect overestimation for subjective outcomes (ROR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; high certainty). The impact of patients or outcome assessors blinding on other outcomes, and the impact of blinding of health-care providers, data collectors, or data analysts, remain uncertain. Trials stopped early for benefit probably overestimate effects (moderate certainty). Trials with imbalanced cointerventions may overestimate effects, while trials with missing outcome data may underestimate effects (low certainty). Influence of baseline imbalance, compliance, selective reporting, and intention-to-treat analysis remain uncertain., Conclusion: Failure to ensure random sequence generation or adequate allocation concealment probably results in modest overestimates of effects. Lack of patients blinding probably leads to substantial overestimates of effects for patient-reported outcomes. Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in substantial effect overestimation for subjective outcomes. For other elements, though evidence for consistent systematic overestimate of effect remains limited, failure to implement these safeguards may still introduce important bias., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest SA, DB, PR, KFS, DZ, and GHG are coauthors of one or more meta-epidemiological studies that this systematic survey included. This work was supported by the Einstein Foundation Berlin as part of the Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research. The contents are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement by, the Einstein Foundation or the award jury. Authors do not have any personal financial interests or professional relationships related to the subject matter but not directly to this manuscript. There are no patents or copyrights licensed to the author(s) that are relevant to the work submitted for publication. No additional relationships or activities to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several trials and meta-analyses found a benefit of adjunct corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia with respect to short-term outcome, but there is uncertainty about longer-term health effects. Herein, we evaluated clinical outcomes at long term in patients participating in the STEP trial (Corticosteroid Treatment for Community-Acquired Pneumonia)., Methods: This predefined secondary analysis investigated 180-day outcomes in 785 adult patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia included in STEP, a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. The primary endpoint was time to death from any cause at 180 days verified by telephone interview. Additional secondary endpoints included pneumonia-related death, readmission, recurrent pneumonia, secondary infections, new hypertension, and new insulin dependence., Results: From the originally included 785 patients, 727 were available for intention-to-treat analysis at day 180. There was no difference between groups with respect to time to death from any cause (HR for corticosteroid use 1.15, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95, p = 0.601). Compared to placebo, corticosteroid-treated patients had significantly higher risks for recurrent pneumonia (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.12, p = 0.007), secondary infections (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.03, p = 0.003) and new insulin dependence (OR 8.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 69.62, p = 0.041). There was no difference regarding pneumonia-related death, readmission and new hypertension., Conclusions: In patients with community-acquired pneumonia, corticosteroid use was associated with an increased risk for recurrent pneumonia, secondary infections and new insulin dependence at 180 days. Currently, it is uncertain whether these long-term adverse effects outweigh the short-term effects of corticosteroids in moderate CAP., Trial Registration: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT00973154 before the recruitment of the first patient. First posted: September 9, 2009. Last update posted: April 21, 2015., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: After basic immunization with 2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses, only a small proportion of patients who are severely immunocompromised generate a sufficient antibody response. Hence, we assessed the additional benefit of a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with different levels of immunosuppression., Methods: In this observational extension of the COVERALL trial (Corona Vaccine Trial Platform), we recruited patients from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study (ie, lung and kidney transplant recipients). We collected blood samples before and 8 weeks after the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with either mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants showing an antibody response (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S test; threshold ≥100 U/mL) 8 weeks after the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We also compared the proportion of patients who reached the primary outcome from basic immunization (the first and second vaccines) to the third vaccination., Results: Nearly all participants (97.2% [95% CI, 95.9%-98.6%], 564/580) had an antibody response. This response was comparable between mRNA-1273 (96.1% [95% CI, 93.7%-98.6%], 245/255) and BNT162b2 (98.2% [95% CI, 96.7%-99.6%], 319/325). Stratification by cohort showed that 99.8% (502/503) of people living with HIV and 80.5% (62/77) of recipients of solid organ transplants achieved the primary endpoint. The proportion of patients with an antibody response in solid organ transplant recipients improved from the second vaccination (22.7%, 15/66) to the third (80.5%, 62/77)., Conclusions: People living with HIV had a high antibody response. The third vaccine increased the proportion of solid organ transplant recipients with an antibody response. Clinical Trials Registration.  NCT04805125 (ClinicalTrials.gov)., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. H. C. B. has received, in the 36 months prior to the submission of this manuscript, grants, support for traveling, consultancy fees, and honorarium from Gilead, BMS, ViiV Healthcare, Roche, and Pfizer that were not related to this project. He served as the president of the Association contre le HIV et autres infections transmissibles from 2007 to June 2022. In this function, he received support for the Swiss HIV Cohort Study from ViiV Healthcare, Gilead, BMS, and MSD. A. T. received a consultant fee from Roche and unrestricted research funding from Gilead and Roche not related to this study. D. L. B. received honoraria for advisory boards from Gilead, MSD, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and ViiV outside of the study. H. F. G., outside of this study, reports grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the SHCS; unrestricted research grants from Gilead Sciences and the Yvonne Jacob Foundation; and personal fees from consulting, advisory boards, or data safety monitoring boards for Merck, Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, GSK, and Novartis. H. F. G.’s institution received money for participation in the following clinical COVID-19 studies: 540-7773/5774 (Gilead), TICO (ACTIV-3, INSIGHT/National Institutes of Health), and Morningsky (Roche). A. R. reports support to his institution for advisory boards and/or travel grants from MSD, Gilead Sciences, and Pfizer and an investigator-initiated trial grant from Gilead Sciences; all remuneration went to his home institution and not to A. R. personally, and all remuneration was provided outside the submitted work. A. T., outside of this study, reports SARS-CoV-2 serology grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, the SHCS, and an unrestricted research grant from Gilead Sciences. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) poses a growing public health burden, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Task-shifting to lay village health workers (VHWs) and the use of digital clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are promising approaches to tackle the current T2D care gap in LMICs. However, evidence on the effectiveness of lay worker-led T2D care models, in which VHWs initiate and monitor drug treatment in addition to community-based screening and referral services, is lacking., Methods: We are conducting a cluster-randomized trial nested within the Community-Based Chronic Disease Care Lesotho (ComBaCaL) cohort study (NCT05596773) using the trial within cohort (TwiC) design to assess the effectiveness of a VHW-led, CDSS-assisted T2D care model in rural Lesotho. Participants are non-pregnant members of the ComBaCaL cohort study with T2D. The ComBaCaL cohort study is conducted in approximately 100 villages in two rural districts in Lesotho and is managed by trained and supervised VHWs. In intervention villages, VHWs offer a community-based T2D care package including lifestyle counselling, first-line oral antidiabetic, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet treatment guided by a tablet-based CDSS to participants who are clinically eligible, as well as treatment support to participants who prefer or clinically require facility-based T2D care. In control clusters, all participants will be referred to a health facility for T2D management. The primary endpoint is the mean glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 12 months after enrolment. Secondary endpoints include the 10-year risk for cardiovascular events estimated using the World Health Organization risk prediction tool., Discussion: The trial was launched on May 13, 2023, and has enrolled 226 participants at the date of submission (October 6, 2023). To our knowledge, the trial is the first to assess task-shifting of T2D care to VHWs at the community level, including the prescription of first-line antidiabetic, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet medication in sub-Saharan Africa, and will thus provide the missing evidence on the effectiveness of such a T2D care model in this setting. The study is operating within the established Lesotho VHW programme. Similar community health worker programmes which exist across sub-Saharan Africa may benefit from the findings., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05743387. Registered on February 24 2023., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: Benefit or harm of higher positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is controversial. We aimed to assess the impact of higher levels of PEEP in patients with ARDS under a Bayesian framework. Design: Systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing higher to lower PEEP in adult patients with ARDS. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1996 to 1 March 2020. Review methods: We extracted data from high quality randomised clinical trials comparing higher to lower levels of PEEP in adult patients, using low tidal volume in both arms, and conducted a Bayesian meta-analysis using aggregate data from these studies. Results : Eight clinical trials including 3703 patients (n = 1833 for higher PEEP, n = 1870 for lower PEEP) were included. Under a minimally informative prior, the posterior probability of benefit with higher PEEP was 65% (relative risk, 0.97 [95% credible interval, 0.78-1.14]). In patients with moderate-to- severe ARDS, the posterior probability of benefit with higher PEEP was 77% (relative risk, 0.94 [95% credible interval, 0.77-1.13]). Down-weighting studies that employed a maximum recruitment strategy by 100% increased the posterior probability of benefit to 92% under a minimally informative prior. Conclusions: The probability of benefit or harm from routine use of higher PEEP for patients with ARDS ranges from 27% to 86%, and from 14% to 73% depending on one's prior, suggesting continued uncertainty and equipoise regarding the benefit of PEEP If data from trials using a maximum recruitment strategy is discounted to some extent because of uncertainty over the appropriateness of this approach, the available evidence suggests that higher PEEP could be beneficial for moderate-to-severe ARDS. However, well powered randomised clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings., Competing Interests: Ary Serpa Neto has received personal fees from Dräger outside of the submitted work. Marcelo Gama de Abreu has received grants and personal fees from Drägerwerk and GlaxoSmithKline, and personal fees from GE Healthcare outside of the submitted work. Ewan Goligher has received travel reimbursement and speaker honoraria from Getinge outside of the submitted work., (© 2021 College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand.)

Introduction: Although interest in including non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is growing, estimates of effectiveness obtained from NRSIs are vulnerable to greater bias than RCTs. The objectives of this study are to: (1) explore how NRSIs can be integrated into a meta-analysis of RCTs; (2) assess concordance of the evidence from non-randomised and randomised trials and explore factors associated with agreement; and (3) investigate the impact on estimates of pooled bodies of evidence when NRSIs are included., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a systematic survey of 210 systematic reviews that include both RCTs and NRSIs, published from 2017 to 2022. We will randomly select reviews, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by Core vs non-Core clinical journals, as defined by the National Library of Medicine. Teams of paired reviewers will independently determine eligibility and abstract data using standardised, pilot-tested forms. The concordance of the evidence will be assessed by exploring agreement in the relative effect reported by NRSIs and RCT addressing the same clinical question, defined as similarity of the population, intervention/exposure, control and outcomes. We will conduct univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the association of prespecified study characteristics with agreement in the estimates between NRSIs and RCTs. We will calculate the ratio of the relative effect estimate from NRSIs over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% CI. We will use a bias-corrected meta-analysis model to investigate the influence on pooled estimates when NRSIs are included in the evidence synthesis., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval is not required. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and condensed summaries for clinicians, health policymakers and guideline developers regarding the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of meta-analysis that integrate RCTs and NRSIs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To update previous Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance by addressing inconsistencies and interpreting subgroup analyses., Study Design and Setting: Using an iterative process, we consulted with members of the GRADE working group through multiple rounds of written feedback and discussions at GRADE working group meetings., Results: The guidance complements previous guidance with clarification in two areas: (1) assessing inconsistency and (2) assessing the credibility of possible effect modifiers that might explain inconsistency. Specifically, the guidance clarifies that inconsistency refers to variability in results, not in study characteristics; that inconsistency assessment for binary outcomes requires consideration of both relative and absolute effects; how to decide between narrower and broader questions in systematic reviews and guidelines; that, with the same evidence, ratings of inconsistency may differ depending on the target of certainty rating; and how GRADE inconsistency ratings relate to a statistical measure of inconsistency I 2 depending on the context in which one views results. The second part of the guidance illustrates, based on a worked example, the use of the instrument to assess the credibility of effect modification analyses. The guidance explains the stepwise process of moving from a subgroup analysis to assessing the credibility of effect modification and, if found credible, to subgroup-specific effect estimates and GRADE certainty ratings., Conclusion: This updated guidance addresses specific conceptual and practical issues that systematic review authors frequently face when considering the degree of inconsistency in estimates of treatment effects across studies., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Numerous studies have shown that adherence to reporting guidelines is suboptimal., Objective: To evaluate whether asking peer reviewers to check if specific reporting guideline items were adequately reported would improve adherence to reporting guidelines in published articles., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two parallel-group, superiority randomized trials were performed using manuscripts submitted to 7 biomedical journals (5 from the BMJ Publishing Group and 2 from the Public Library of Science) as the unit of randomization, with peer reviewers allocated to the intervention or control group., Interventions: The first trial (CONSORT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented randomized clinical trial (RCT) results and reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline, and the second trial (SPIRIT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented RCT protocols and reported following the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline. The CONSORT-PR trial included manuscripts that described RCT primary results (submitted July 2019 to July 2021). The SPIRIT-PR trial included manuscripts that contained RCT protocols (submitted June 2020 to May 2021). Manuscripts in both trials were randomized (1:1) to the intervention or control group; the control group received usual journal practice. In the intervention group of both trials, peer reviewers received an email from the journal that asked them to check whether the 10 most important and poorly reported CONSORT (for CONSORT-PR) or SPIRIT (for SPIRIT-PR) items were adequately reported in the manuscript. Peer reviewers and authors were not informed of the purpose of the study, and outcome assessors were blinded., Main Outcomes and Measures: The difference in the mean proportion of adequately reported 10 CONSORT or SPIRIT items between the intervention and control groups in published articles., Results: In the CONSORT-PR trial, 510 manuscripts were randomized. Of those, 243 were published (122 in the intervention group and 121 in the control group). A mean proportion of 69.3% (95% CI, 66.0%-72.7%) of the 10 CONSORT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 66.6% (95% CI, 62.5%-70.7%) in the control group (mean difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -2.6% to 8.0%). In the SPIRIT-PR trial, of the 244 randomized manuscripts, 178 were published (90 in the intervention group and 88 in the control group). A mean proportion of 46.1% (95% CI, 41.8%-50.4%) of the 10 SPIRIT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 45.6% (95% CI, 41.7% to 49.4%) in the control group (mean difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.2% to 6.3%)., Conclusions and Relevance: These 2 randomized trials found that it was not useful to implement the tested intervention to increase reporting completeness in published articles. Other interventions should be assessed and considered in the future., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT05820971 (CONSORT-PR) and NCT05820984 (SPIRIT-PR).

Background: Interpretation of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir in patients treated in hospital for COVID-19 is conflicting. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of remdesivir compared with placebo or usual care in these patients, and whether treatment effects differed between prespecified patient subgroups., Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and preprint servers from Jan 1, 2020, until April 11, 2022, for RCTs of remdesivir in adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and contacted the authors of eligible trials to request individual patient data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. We used multivariable hierarchical regression-adjusting for respiratory support, age, and enrollment period-to investigate effect modifiers. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021257134., Findings: Our search identified 857 records, yielding nine RCTs eligible for inclusion. Of these nine eligible RCTs, individual data were provided for eight, covering 10 480 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (99% of such patients included in such RCTs worldwide) recruited between Feb 6, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Within 28 days of randomisation, 662 (12·5%) of 5317 patients assigned to remdesivir and 706 (14·1%) of 5005 patients assigned to no remdesivir died (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·78-1·00, p=0·045). We found evidence for a credible subgroup effect according to respiratory support at baseline (p interaction =0·019). Of patients who were ventilated-including those who received high-flow oxygen-253 (30·0%) of 844 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 241 (28·5%) of 846 patients assigned to no remdesivir (aOR 1·10 [0·88-1·38]; low-certainty evidence). Of patients who received no oxygen or low-flow oxygen, 409 (9·1%) of 4473 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 465 (11·2%) of 4159 patients assigned to no remdesivir (0·80 [0·70-0·93]; high-certainty evidence). No credible subgroup effect was found for time to start of remdesivir after symptom onset, age, presence of comorbidities, enrolment period, or corticosteroid use. Remdesivir did not increase the frequency of severe or serious adverse events., Interpretation: This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that remdesivir reduced mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who required no or conventional oxygen support, but was underpowered to evaluate patients who were ventilated when receiving remdesivir. The effect size of remdesivir in patients with more respiratory support or acquired immunity and the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir remain to be further elucidated., Funding: EU-RESPONSE., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DC reports an HIV grant from Janssen and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and Pfizer for lectures outside of the submitted work. MBr and BS report an unrestricted grant from Moderna for a study outside of the submitted work. TCL reports salary support from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec Santé. MH reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences and Pfizer for lectures outside of the submitted work, and congress and travel fees from Pfizer and Gilead Sciences. ICO reports funding from BerGenBio for a study outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the academic setting have limited resources for clinical trial management and monitoring. Inefficient conduct of trials was identified as an important source of waste even in well-designed studies. Thoroughly identifying trial-specific risks to enable focussing of monitoring and management efforts on these critical areas during trial conduct may allow for the timely initiation of corrective action and to improve the efficiency of trial conduct. We developed a risk-tailored approach with an initial risk assessment of an individual trial that informs the compilation of monitoring and management procedures in a trial dashboard., Methods: We performed a literature review to identify risk indicators and trial monitoring approaches followed by a contextual analysis involving local, national and international stakeholders. Based on this work we developed a risk-tailored management approach with integrated monitoring for RCTs and including a visualizing trial dashboard. We piloted the approach and refined it in an iterative process based on feedback from stakeholders and performed formal user testing with investigators and staff of two clinical trials., Results: The developed risk assessment comprises four domains (patient safety and rights, overall trial management, intervention management, trial data). An accompanying manual provides rationales and detailed instructions for the risk assessment. We programmed two trial dashboards tailored to one medical and one surgical RCT to manage identified trial risks based on daily exports of accumulating trial data. We made the code for a generic dashboard available on GitHub that can be adapted to individual trials., Conclusions: The presented trial management approach with integrated monitoring enables user-friendly, continuous checking of critical elements of trial conduct to support trial teams in the academic setting. Further work is needed in order to show effectiveness of the dashboard in terms of safe trial conduct and successful completion of clinical trials., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Extension of the COVERALL (COrona VaccinE tRiAL pLatform) randomized trial showed noninferiority in antibody response of the third dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine (95.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 91.9%-98.7%]) compared to Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine (98.1% [95% CI, 95.9%-100.0%]) in individuals with different levels of immunosuppression (difference, -2.8% [95% CI, -6.8% to 1.3%])., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. B. S. and M. B. received a research grant from Moderna for the conduct of this study. H. C. B. has received in the 36 months prior to the submission of this manuscript grants, support for traveling, consultancy fees and honorarium from Gilead, BMS, ViiV Healthcare, Roche, and Pfizer that were not related to this project. He served as the president of the Association contre le HIV et autres infections transmissibles until June 2022. In this function he has received support for the SHCS from ViiV Healthcare, Gilead, BMS, and MSD. I. A. A. has received honoraria from MSD, Sanofi, and travel grant from Gilead Sciences and is supported by a research grant from the Promedica Foundation (all not related to this study). A. T. received a consultant fee from Roche and has received unrestricted research funding from Gilead and Roche not related to this study. D. L. B. received honoraria for advisory boards from the companies Gilead, MSD, and ViiV outside of the study. H. F. G., outside of this study, reports grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the SHCS; unrestricted research grants from Gilead Sciences, Roche, and Yvonne Jacob Foundation; and personal fees from consulting or advisory boards or data and safety monitoring boards for Merck, Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Mepha, and Sandoz. H. F. G.'s institution received money for participation in the following clinical COVID-19 studies: 540-7773/5774 (Gilead), TICO (ACTIV-3, INSIGHT/NIH), and the Morningsky study (Roche). N. J. M. received honoraria for advisory boards from the companies Pfizer and Takeda outside of the study. A. R. reports support to his institution for advisory boards and/or travel grants from MSD, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Moderna, and an investigator-initiated trial grant from Gilead Sciences. All remuneration went to his home institution and not to A. R. personally, and all remuneration was provided outside the submitted work. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Importance: Improving methodological quality is a priority in the health research community. Finding appropriate methods guidance can be challenging due to heterogeneous terminology, poor indexing in medical databases, and variation in formats. The Library of Guidance for Health Scientists (LIGHTS) is a new searchable database for methods guidance articles., Observations: Journal articles that aim to provide guidance for performing (including planning, design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation), reporting, and assessing the quality of health-related research involving humans or human populations (ie, excluding basic and animal research) are eligible for LIGHTS. A team of health researchers, information specialists, and methodologists continuously identifies and manually indexes eligible guidance documents. The search strategy includes focused searches of specific journals, specialized databases, and suggestions from researchers. A current limitation is that a keyword-based search of MEDLINE (and other general databases) and manual screening of records were not feasible because of the large number of hits (n = 915 523). As of September 20, 2022, LIGHTS included 1246 articles (336 reporting guidelines, 80 quality assessment tools, and 830 other methods guidance articles). The LIGHTS website provides a user-oriented search interface including filters for study type, specific methodological topic, research context, guidance type, and development process of the guidance. Automated matching of alternative methodological expressions (eg, enter loss to follow-up and find articles indexed with missing data) enhances search queries., Conclusions and Relevance: LIGHTS is a peer-supported initiative that is intended to increase access to and use of methods guidance relevant to health researchers, statisticians, methods consultants, methods developers, ethics boards, peer reviewers, journal editors, and funding bodies.

Objective: The registration of clinical trials is required by law in Switzerland. We investigated (1) the proportion of registered and prospectively registered clinical trials, (2) the availability of results for ethically approved trial protocols, (3) factors associated with increased registration, and (4) reasons for non-registration., Design and Setting: We included all clinical trials with mandatory prospective registration, which were approved by the ethics committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020., Methods: We extracted relevant trial characteristics from the Swiss Business Administration System for Ethics Committees and systematically searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and primary trial registries for corresponding registry entries. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between trial characteristics and registration. We qualitatively assessed reasons for non-registration of trials through an email questionnaire for trial investigators., Results: Of 473 included clinical trials, 432 (91%) were registered at all and 326 (69%) were prospectively registered. While the percentages of registration and prospective registration of investigator-sponsored trials increased from 85 to 93% and from 59 to 70% over 5 years, respectively, industry-sponsored trials consistently remained at a high level of prospective registration (92 to 100%). Trials with multiple centres, higher risk category, or methodological support from the local clinical trials unit were independently associated with increased registration rates. Of 103 clinical trials completed before August 2020, results were available for 70% of industry-sponsored trials and 45% of investigator-sponsored trials as peer-reviewed journal publications or in trial registries. Most common reasons for non-registration provided by investigators were lack of time or resources (53%), lack of knowledge (22%), and lack of reminders by the ethics committee (36%)., Conclusions: In Northwestern and Central Switzerland about 10% of clinical trials remained unregistered despite the obligation by law. More support for investigators and stricter enforcement by regulators are needed to improve the transparency of investigator-sponsored trials in particular., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Baricitinib has shown efficacy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but no placebo-controlled trials have focused specifically on severe/critical COVID, including vaccinated participants., Methods: Bari-SolidAct is a phase-3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, enrolling participants from June 3, 2021 to March 7, 2022, stopped prematurely for external evidence. Patients with severe/critical COVID-19 were randomised to Baricitinib 4 mg once daily or placebo, added to standard of care. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 60 days. Participants were remotely followed to day 90 for safety and patient related outcome measures., Results: Two hundred ninety-nine patients were screened, 284 randomised, and 275 received study drug or placebo and were included in the modified intent-to-treat analyses (139 receiving baricitinib and 136 placebo). Median age was 60 (IQR 49-69) years, 77% were male and 35% had received at least one dose of SARS-CoV2 vaccine. There were 21 deaths at day 60 in each group, 15.1% in the baricitinib group and 15.4% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference and 95% CI - 0.1% [- 8·3 to 8·0]). In sensitivity analysis censoring observations after drug discontinuation or rescue therapy (tocilizumab/increased steroid dose), proportions of death were 5.8% versus 8.8% (- 3.2% [- 9.0 to 2.7]), respectively. There were 148 serious adverse events in 46 participants (33.1%) receiving baricitinib and 155 in 51 participants (37.5%) receiving placebo. In subgroup analyses, there was a potential interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on 60-day mortality. In a subsequent post hoc analysis there was a significant interaction between vaccination status and treatment allocation on the occurrence of serious adverse events, with more respiratory complications and severe infections in vaccinated participants treated with baricitinib. Vaccinated participants were on average 11 years older, with more comorbidities., Conclusion: This clinical trial was prematurely stopped for external evidence and therefore underpowered to conclude on a potential survival benefit of baricitinib in severe/critical COVID-19. We observed a possible safety signal in vaccinated participants, who were older with more comorbidities. Although based on a post-hoc analysis, these findings warrant further investigation in other trials and real-world studies. Trial registration Bari-SolidAct is registered at NCT04891133 (registered May 18, 2021) and EUClinicalTrials.eu ( 2022-500385-99-00 )., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: HRQoL is an indicator of individuals' perception of their overall health, including social and environmental aspects. As a multidimensional concept, HRQoL can be influenced by a multitude of factors. Studies of HRQoL and factors associated with it among home-dwelling older adults have often been limited to inpatient settings or to a sub-population with a chronic disease. Studying HRQoL and its correlating factors among this population, by providing an ecological lens on factors beyond the individual level, can provide a better understanding of the construct and the role of the environment on how they perceive their HRQoL. Thus, we aimed to assess the HRQoL and investigate the correlates of HRQOL among home-dwelling older adults, guided by the levels of the ecological model., Methods: This is a cross-sectional population survey conducted in 2019 in Canton Basel-Landschaft, in northwestern Switzerland, and includes a sample of 8786 home-dwelling older adults aged 75 and above. We assessed HRQoL by using the EQ-index and the EQ-VAS. The influence of independent variables at the macro, meso and micro level on HRQoL was tested using Tobit multiple linear regression modelling., Results: We found that having a better socio-economic status as denoted by higher income, having supplementary insurance and a higher level of education were all associated with a better HRQoL among home-dwelling older adults. Furthermore, being engaged in social activities was also related to an improved HRQoL. On the other hand, older age, female gender, presence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy as well as social isolation and loneliness were found to all have a negative impact on HRQoL., Conclusions: Understanding factors related to HRQoL by using an ecological lens can help identify factors beyond the individual level that impact the HRQoL of home-dwelling older adults. Our study emphasises the importance of social determinants of health and potential disparities that exists, encouraging policymakers to focus on policies to reduce socio-economic disparities using a life-course approach, which consequently could also impact HRQoL in later stages of life., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Evaluations of integrated care models for home-dwelling frail older adults have shown inconclusive results on health and service outcomes. However, limited research has focused on the implementation of integrated care models. Applying implementation science methods may facilitate uptake of integrated care models, thus generating positive outcomes e.g., reduced hospital admissions. This paper describes the protocol to assess the feasibility of an integrated care model (featuring a four-step comprehensive geriatric assessment: screening, a multi-dimensional assessment, a coordinated individualized care plan and follow-up) designed for a new community-based center for home-dwelling older adults in Switzerland. The study includes the following objectives: 1) to assess implementation by a) monitoring respondents to the outreach strategies and describing the Center's visitors; b) assessing implementation outcomes related to the care model (i.e., adoption, acceptability, feasibility, fidelity) and implementation processes related to collaboration; and 2) assessing implementation costs., Methods: For objective 1a, we will use a descriptive design to assess respondents to the outreach strategies and describe the Center's visitors. We will use a parallel convergent mixed methods design for objective 1b. Implementation outcomes data will be collected from meetings with the Center's staff, interviews with older adults and their informal caregivers, and reviewing older adults' health records at the Center. Implementation processes related to collaboration will be assessed through a questionnaire to external collaborators (e.g., GPs) towards the end of the study. For objective 2, implementation costs will be calculated using time-driven activity-based costing methods. Data collection is anticipated to occur over approximately six months., Discussion: This study of a contextually adapted integrated care model will inform adaptations to the outreach strategies, care model and implementation strategies in one community center, prior to evaluating the care model effectiveness and potentially scaling out the intervention., Trial Registration: Feasibility study registration ID with clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05302310; registration ID with BMC: ISRCTN12324618., Competing Interests: Unrelated to the current work, LZ consults for Novartis and MB received unrestricted grants from Moderna. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

This work aims to assess the performance of two post-arrest (out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, OHCA, and cardiac arrest hospital prognosis, CAHP) and one pre-arrest (good outcome following attempted resuscitation, GO-FAR) prediction model for the prognostication of neurological outcome after cardiac arrest in a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Medline, and Web of Science Core Collection from November 2006 to December 2021, and by forward citation tracking of key score publications. The search identified 1'021 records, of which 25 studies with a total of 124'168 patients were included in the review. A random-effects meta-analysis of C-statistics and overall calibration (total observed vs. expected [O:E] ratio) was conducted. Discriminatory performance was good for the OHCA (summary C-statistic: 0.83 [95% CI 0.81-0.85], 16 cohorts) and CAHP score (summary C-statistic: 0.84 [95% CI 0.82-0.87], 14 cohorts) and acceptable for the GO-FAR score (summary C-statistic: 0.78 [95% CI 0.72-0.84], five cohorts). Overall calibration was good for the OHCA (total O:E ratio: 0.78 [95% CI 0.67-0.92], nine cohorts) and the CAHP score (total O:E ratio: 0.78 [95% CI 0.72-0.84], nine cohorts) with an overestimation of poor outcome. Overall calibration of the GO-FAR score was poor with an underestimation of good outcome (total O:E ratio: 1.62 [95% CI 1.28-2.04], five cohorts). Two post-arrest scores showed good prognostic accuracy for predicting neurological outcome after cardiac arrest and may support early discussions about goals-of-care and therapeutic planning on the intensive care unit. A pre-arrest score showed acceptable prognostic accuracy and may support code status discussions., (© 2022. The Author(s).)