Diagnostic Accuracy of Infection Markers to Diagnose Infections in Neonates and Children Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

BACKGROUND Infections represent one of the most common complications in patients managed on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) and are associated with poorer outcomes. Clinical signs of infection in patients on ECMO are non-specific. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of Procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP) and White cell count (WCC) to diagnose infection on ECMO. METHODS Retrospective single center observational study including neonates and children <18 years treated with ECMO in 2015 and 2016. Daily data on PCT, CRP and WCC were assessed in relation to microbiologically confirmed, and clinically suspected infection on ECMO using operating characteristics (ROC) curves. RESULTS Sixty-five ECMO runs in 58 patients were assessed. CRP had the best accuracy with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.79 (95%-CI 0.66-0.92) to diagnose confirmed infection and an AUC of 0.72 (0.61-0.84) to diagnose confirmed and suspected infection. Abnormal WCC performed slightly worse with an AUC of 0.70 (0.59-0.81) for confirmed and AUC of 0.66 (0.57-0.75) for confirmed and suspected infections. PCT was non-discriminatory. CONCLUSION The diagnosis of infections acquired during ECMO remains challenging. Larger prospective studies are needed that also include novel infection markers to improve recognition of infection in patients on ECMO

The landscape of COVID-19 trials in Australia

This perspective explores the landscape of COVID-19 trials recruiting in Australia using trial registry data. We identified 56 trials addressing treatment and prevention of COVID-19, and 12 trials addressing indirect effects of the pandemic. Whilst there was substantial innovation in drug development and digital health, the potential of innovation in methodology, such as adaptive trials, remains largely untapped. Data sharing intentions were low, sample sizes were too small to detect differences in clinical outcomes, such as mortality, and lack of core outcome collection precludes evidence synthesis. Infrastructure for innovation would support coordination of research efforts, and reduce research waste

Systematic review and network meta-analysis with individual participant data on cord management at preterm birth (iCOMP): study protocol

Introduction Timing of cord clamping and other cord management strategies may improve outcomes at preterm birth. However, it is unclear whether benefits apply to all preterm subgroups. Previous and current trials compare various policies, including time-based or physiology-based deferred cord clamping, and cord milking. Individual participant data (IPD) enable exploration of different strategies within subgroups. Network meta-analysis (NMA) enables comparison and ranking of all available interventions using a combination of direct and indirect comparisons. Objectives (1) To evaluate the effectiveness of cord management strategies for preterm infants on neonatal mortality and morbidity overall and for different participant characteristics using IPD meta-analysis. (2) To evaluate and rank the effect of different cord management strategies for preterm births on mortality and other key outcomes using NMA. Methods and analysis Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, clinical trial registries, and other sources for all ongoing and completed randomised controlled trials comparing cord management strategies at preterm birth (before 37 weeks’ gestation) have been completed up to 13 February 2019, but will be updated regularly to include additional trials. IPD will be sought for all trials; aggregate summary data will be included where IPD are unavailable. First, deferred clamping and cord milking will be compared with immediate clamping in pairwise IPD meta-analyses. The primary outcome will be death prior to hospital discharge. Effect differences will be explored for prespecified participant subgroups. Second, all identified cord management strategies will be compared and ranked in an IPD NMA for the primary outcome and the key secondary outcomes. Treatment effect differences by participant characteristics will be identified. Inconsistency and heterogeneity will be explored. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval for this project has been granted by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2018/886). Results will be relevant to clinicians, guideline developers and policy-makers, and will be disseminated via publications, presentations and media releases

Latest update of the clinical trials landscape in Australia (2006 – 2020)

The latest update of the clinical trials landscape in Australia (2006 – 2020) uses trial registration data to gain an understanding of the clinical trials occurring in Australia. This report is an update of the original report covering 2006-2015 and includes new data from 2016 to 2020. These data are sourced from the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and US-based ClinicalTrials.gov registry. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive outline of the key characteristics of clinical trials over time. Reporting on clinical trial activity is a crucial step in understanding where improvements may be needed in the clinical trials sector. This report can be used as a reference point when promoting Australian clinical trial activity at national or international forums. It is intended to be used by all those working in or with clinical trials including clinical trial investigators, researchers, funders, industry, policymakers, trial participants and the public. Previous reports analysing trial activity in Australia have helped to identify research gaps and prioritise funding schemes and to inform the design of new national infrastructure that facilitates clinical trial data sharing. We hope this updated report will be of similar use and help to inform the health research agenda in government and industry

Latest update of the clinical trials landscape in Australia (2006 – 2020)

The latest update of the clinical trials landscape in Australia (2006 – 2020) uses trial registration data to gain an understanding of the clinical trials occurring in Australia. This report is an update of the original report covering 2006-2015 and includes new data from 2016 to 2020. These data are sourced from the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and US-based ClinicalTrials.gov registry. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive outline of the key characteristics of clinical trials over time. Reporting on clinical trial activity is a crucial step in understanding where improvements may be needed in the clinical trials sector. This report can be used as a reference point when promoting Australian clinical trial activity at national or international forums. It is intended to be used by all those working in or with clinical trials including clinical trial investigators, researchers, funders, industry, policymakers, trial participants and the public. Previous reports analysing trial activity in Australia have helped to identify research gaps and prioritise funding schemes and to inform the design of new national infrastructure that facilitates clinical trial data sharing. We hope this updated report will be of similar use and help to inform the health research agenda in government and industry

The AEDUCATE Collaboration. Comprehensive antenatal education birth preparation programmes to reduce the rates of caesarean section in nulliparous women. Protocol for an individual participant data prospective meta-analysis

Introduction: Rates of medical interventions in normal labour and birth are increasing. This prospective meta-analysis (PMA) proposes to assess whether the addition of a comprehensive multicomponent birth preparation programme reduces caesarean section (CS) in nulliparous women compared with standard hospital care. Additionally, do participant characteristics, intervention components or hospital characteristics modify the effectiveness of the programme? Methods and analysis: Population: women with singleton vertex pregnancies, no planned caesarean section (CS) or epidural. Intervention: in addition to hospital-based standard care, a comprehensive antenatal education programme that includes multiple components for birth preparation, addressing the three objectives: preparing women and their birth partner/support person for childbirth through education on physiological/hormonal birth (knowledge and understanding); building women’s confidence through psychological preparation (positive mindset) and support their ability to birth without pain relief using evidence-based tools (tools and techniques). The intervention could occur in a hospital-based or community setting. Comparator: standard care alone in hospital-based maternity units. Outcomes: Primary: CS. Secondary: epidural analgesia, mode of birth, perineal trauma, postpartum haemorrhage, newborn resuscitation, psychosocial well-being. Subgroup analysis: parity, model of care, maternal risk status, maternal education, maternal socio-economic status, intervention components. Study design: An individual participant data (IPD) prospective meta-analysis (PMA) of randomised controlled trials, including cluster design. Each trial is conducted independently but share core protocol elements to contribute data to the PMA. Participating trials are deemed eligible for the PMA if their results are not yet known outside their Data Monitoring Committees. Ethics and dissemination: Participants in the individual trials will consent to participation, with respective trials receiving ethical approval by their local Human Research Ethics Committees. Individual datasets remain the property of trialists, and can be published prior to the publication of final PMA results. The overall data for meta-analysis will be held, analysed and published by the collaborative group, led by the Cochrane PMA group. Trial registration number: CRD42020103857

Refining the Choosing Health Infant feeding for Infant Health intervention and implementation strategy: Re-CHErIsH Study Protocol

BackgroundChildhood obesity is a significant global public health challenge, with significant adverse effects on both mental and physical health outcomes. During the period from birth to one-year, modifiable caregiver behaviours, such as what, how and when infants are fed, can influence obesity development and prevention. The Choosing Healthy Eating for Infant Health (CHErIsH) intervention was developed to support healthy infant feeding practices to prevent childhood obesity in the first year. A feasibility study examined acceptability and feasibility of the CHErIsH intervention in primary care and identified key challenges and possible areas for refinement of the intervention and trial processes. The current project aims to refine delivery of the CHErIsH intervention and trial processes to maximise the likelihood of successful future implementation and evaluation.MethodsThis study will utilise a mixed-methods approach and will be conducted in three phases. In Phase 1 potential refinements to the CHErIsH intervention delivery and trial processes will be developed from a review of the feasibility study findings and input from the multidisciplinary team. An online mixed-methods survey will be conducted in Phase 2 to evaluate caregiver attitudes about the proposed refinements from Phase 1. Participants will be pregnant women, their partners, and/or parents/primary caregivers of infants up to 2-years of age, based in Ireland. Participants will be recruited using convenience and snowball sampling. In Phase 3 a stakeholder consensus meeting, using the nominal group technique, will be conducted to agree the refined intervention and trial processes. Stakeholders will include healthcare professionals, researchers, policymakers, and parents/caregivers, who will discuss and rate refinements in terms of preference.ConclusionsFindings from this study will address uncertainties in the intervention delivery and trial processes of the CHErIsH intervention, with the potential to maximise the likelihood of successful future implementation and evaluation of a primary-care based obesity prevention intervention

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions

This research is funded by the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit programme (NIHR203568). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.Peer reviewe

Factors influencing use and choice of Core Outcome Sets and outcome measurement instruments in trials of interventions to prevent childhood obesity: A survey protocol

BackgroundTwo core outcome sets for childhood obesity prevention have been developed; standardised sets of outcome measurement instruments for these core outcome sets are currently being developed. Core outcome sets and standardised measurement sets can reduce heterogeneity and improve evidence syntheses for trials of interventions to prevent childhood obesity and/or interventions to improve child health behaviours related to childhood obesity. Such benefits are only realised if core outcome sets and standardised measurement sets are used in trials. The aims of this study are 1) to examine trialists’ awareness and attitudes towards the two existing core outcome sets and factors influencing their use; 2) to explore the characteristics of outcome measurement instruments that trialists currently use; and 3) to better understand how trialists choose outcome measurement instruments and the factors that influence those choices.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey will be conducted with researchers involved in the design and/or conduct of trials of interventions to prevent childhood obesity and/or to improve child health behaviours related to childhood obesity, in children aged 0 to 5 years (trialists). Trialists will be recruited using purposive sampling, and will complete a 22-item survey examining trialist characteristics, awareness of the existing core outcome sets, factors influencing use of the existing core outcome sets, characteristics of measurement instruments, how trialists choose measurement instruments, and factors influencing choice of measurement instrument. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively; responses to open-ended questions will be analysed using qualitative content analysis.ConclusionsFindings from this study will inform approaches to maximising use of core outcome sets and standardised measurement sets for childhood obesity prevention. Use of standardised approaches to what and how outcomes are measured in this area will reduce heterogeneity and research waste and enhance evidence syntheses to better determine intervention effects