Search

Abstract Randomized controlled trials are considered the “gold standard” for evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention. However, large-scale, cluster-randomized trials are complex and costly to implement. The generation of accurate, reliable, and high-quality data is essential to ensure the validity and generalizability of findings. Robust quality assurance and quality control procedures are important to optimize and validate the quality, accuracy, and reliability of trial data. To date, few studies have reported on study procedures to assess and optimize data integrity during the implementation of large cluster-randomized trials. The dearth of literature on these methods of trial implementation may contribute to questions about the quality of data collected in clinical trials. Trial protocols should consider the inclusion of quality assurance indicators and targets for implementation. Publishing quality assurance and control measures implemented in clinical trials should increase public trust in the findings from such studies. In this manuscript, we describe the development and implementation of internal and external quality assurance and control procedures and metrics in the Pneumococcal Vaccine Schedules trial currently ongoing in rural Gambia. This manuscript focuses on procedures and metrics to optimize trial implementation and validate clinical, laboratory, and field data. We used a mixture of procedure repetition, supervisory visits, checklists, data cleaning and verification methods and used the metrics to drive process improvement in all domains.

Abstract Background Elimination of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV) requires infant immunoprophylaxis and antiviral prophylaxis for pregnant women with high viral loads. Since real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), a gold standard for assessing antiviral eligibility, is neither accessible nor affordable for women living in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) detecting alternative HBV markers may be needed. To inform future development of the target product profile (TPP) for RDTs to identify highly viremic women, we used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and elicited preference and trade-off of healthcare workers (HCW) in Africa between the following four attributes of fictional RDTs: price, time-to-result, diagnostic sensitivity, and specificity. Methods Through an online questionnaire survey, we asked participants to indicate their preferred test from a set of two RDTs in seven choice tasks with varying levels of the four attributes. We used mixed multinomial logit models to quantify the utility gain or loss generated by each attribute. We attempted to define minimal and optimal criteria for test attributes that can satisfy ≥ 70% and ≥ 90% of HCWs, respectively, as an alternative to RT-PCR. Results A total of 555 HCWs from 41 African countries participated. Increases in sensitivity and specificity generated significant utility and increases in cost and time-to-result generated significant disutility. The size of the coefficients for the highest attribute levels relative to the reference levels were in the following order: sensitivity (β = 3.749), cost (β = -2.550), specificity (β = 1.134), and time-to-result (β = -0.284). Doctors cared most about test sensitivity, while public health practitioners cared about cost and midwives about time-to-result. For an RDT with 95% specificity, costing 1 US$, and yielding results in 20 min, the minimally acceptable test sensitivity would be 82.5% and the optimally acceptable sensitivity would be 87.5%. Conclusions African HCWs would prefer an RDT with the following order of priority: higher sensitivity, lower cost, higher specificity, and shorter time-to-result. The development and optimization of RDTs that can meet the criteria are urgently needed to scale up the prevention of HBV mother-to-child transmission in LMICs.

Introduction Clinically diagnosed pneumonia in children is a leading cause of paediatric hospitalisation and mortality. The aetiology is usually bacterial or viral, but malaria can cause a syndrome indistinguishable from clinical pneumonia. There is no method with high sensitivity to detect a bacterial infection in these patients and, as result, antibiotics are frequently overprescribed. Conversely, unrecognised concomitant bacterial infection in patients with malarial infections occur with omission of antibiotic therapy from patients with bacterial infections. Previously, we identified two combinations of blood proteins with 96% sensitivity and 86% specificity for detecting bacterial disease. The current project aimed to validate and improve these combinations by evaluating additional biomarkers in paediatric patients with clinical pneumonia. Our goal was to describe combinations of a limited number of proteins with high sensitivity and specificity for bacterial infection to be incorporated in future point-of-care tests. Furthermore, we seek to explore signatures to prognosticate clinical pneumonia.Methods and analysis Patients (n=900) aged 2–59 months presenting with clinical pneumonia at two Gambian hospitals will be enrolled and classified according to criteria for definitive bacterial aetiology (based on microbiological tests and chest radiographs). We will measure proteins at admission using Luminex-based immunoassays in 90 children with definitive and 160 with probable bacterial aetiology, and 160 children classified according to the prognosis of their disease. Previously identified diagnostic signatures will be assessed through accuracy measures. Moreover, we will seek new diagnostic and prognostic signatures through machine learning methods, including support vector machine, penalised regression and classification trees.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been obtained from the Gambia Government/Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia Joint Ethics Committee (protocol 1616) and the institutional review board of Boston University Medical Centre (STUDY00000958). Study results will be disseminated to the staff of the study hospitals, in scientific seminars and meetings, and in publications.Trial registration number H-38462.