Development of the Knee Quality of Life (KQoL-26) 26-item questionnaire: data quality, reliability, validity and responsiveness

Background This article describes the development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire, the KQoL-26, that is based on the views of patients with a suspected ligamentous or meniscal injury of the knee that assesses the impact of their knee problem on the quality of their lives. Methods Patient interviews and focus groups were used to derive questionnaire content. The instrument was assessed for data quality, reliability, validity, and responsiveness using data from a randomised trial and patient survey about general practitioners' use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for patients with a suspected ligamentous or meniscal injury. Results Interview and focus group data produced a 40-item questionnaire designed for self-completion. 559 trial patients and 323 survey patients responded to the questionnaire. Following principal components analysis and Rasch analysis, 26 items were found to contribute to three scales of knee-related quality of life: physical functioning, activity limitations, and emotional functioning. Item-total correlations ranged from 0.60–0.82. Cronbach's alpha and test retest reliability estimates were 0.91–0.94 and 0.80–0.93 respectively. Hypothesised correlations with the Lysholm Knee Scale, EQ-5D, SF-36 and knee symptom questions were evidence for construct validity. The instrument produced highly significant change scores for 65 trial patients indicating that their knee was a little or somewhat better at six months. The new instrument had higher effect sizes (range 0.86–1.13) and responsiveness statistics (range 1.50–2.13) than the EQ-5D and SF-36. Conclusion The KQoL-26 has good evidence for internal reliability, test-retest reliability, validity and responsiveness, and is recommended for use in randomised trials and other evaluative studies of patients with a suspected ligamentous or meniscal injury

The Association between Supraphysiologic Arterial Oxygen Levels and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients. A Multicenter Observational Cohort Study.

Rationale: There is conflicting evidence on harm related to exposure to supraphysiologic PaO2 (hyperoxemia) in critically ill patients.Objectives: To examine the association between longitudinal exposure to hyperoxemia and mortality in patients admitted to ICUs in five United Kingdom university hospitals.Methods: A retrospective cohort of ICU admissions between January 31, 2014, and December 31, 2018, from the National Institute of Health Research Critical Care Health Informatics Collaborative was studied. Multivariable logistic regression modeled death in ICU by exposure to hyperoxemia.Measurements and Main Results: Subsets with oxygen exposure windows of 0 to 1, 0 to 3, 0 to 5, and 0 to 7 days were evaluated, capturing 19,515, 10,525, 6,360, and 4,296 patients, respectively. Hyperoxemia dose was defined as the area between the PaO2 time curve and a boundary of 13.3 kPa (100 mm Hg) divided by the hours of potential exposure (24, 72, 120, or 168 h). An association was found between exposure to hyperoxemia and ICU mortality for exposure windows of 0 to 1 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% compatibility interval [CI], 0.95-1.38; P = 0.15), 0 to 3 days (OR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.04-1.74; P = 0.02), 0 to 5 days (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.07-2.13; P = 0.02), and 0 to 7 days (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.11-2.72; P = 0.02). However, a dose-response relationship was not observed. There was no evidence to support a differential effect between hyperoxemia and either a respiratory diagnosis or mechanical ventilation.Conclusions: An association between hyperoxemia and mortality was observed in our large, unselected multicenter cohort. The absence of a dose-response relationship weakens causal interpretation. Further experimental research is warranted to elucidate this important question

Critical Care Health Informatics Collaborative (CCHIC): Data, tools and methods for reproducible research: A multi-centre UK intensive care database.

OBJECTIVE: To build and curate a linkable multi-centre database of high resolution longitudinal electronic health records (EHR) from adult Intensive Care Units (ICU). To develop a set of open-source tools to make these data 'research ready' while protecting patient's privacy with a particular focus on anonymisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a scalable EHR processing pipeline for extracting, linking, normalising and curating and anonymising EHR data. Patient and public involvement was sought from the outset, and approval to hold these data was granted by the NHS Health Research Authority's Confidentiality Advisory Group (CAG). The data are held in a certified Data Safe Haven. We followed sustainable software development principles throughout, and defined and populated a common data model that links to other clinical areas. RESULTS: Longitudinal EHR data were loaded into the CCHIC database from eleven adult ICUs at 5 UK teaching hospitals. From January 2014 to January 2017, this amounted to 21,930 and admissions (18,074 unique patients). Typical admissions have 70 data-items pertaining to admission and discharge, and a median of 1030 (IQR 481-2335) time-varying measures. Training datasets were made available through virtual machine images emulating the data processing environment. An open source R package, cleanEHR, was developed and released that transforms the data into a square table readily analysable by most statistical packages. A simple language agnostic configuration file will allow the user to select and clean variables, and impute missing data. An audit trail makes clear the provenance of the data at all times. DISCUSSION: Making health care data available for research is problematic. CCHIC is a unique multi-centre longitudinal and linkable resource that prioritises patient privacy through the highest standards of data security, but also provides tools to clean, organise, and anonymise the data. We believe the development of such tools are essential if we are to meet the twin requirements of respecting patient privacy and working for patient benefit. CONCLUSION: The CCHIC database is now in use by health care researchers from academia and industry. The 'research ready' suite of data preparation tools have facilitated access, and linkage to national databases of secondary care is underway.NIH

Staff training to improve participant recruitment into surgical randomised controlled trials : A feasibility study within a trial (SWAT) across four host trials simultaneously

The PROMoting THE Use of SWATs (PROMETHEUS) programme was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) [grant number MR/R013748/1]. The DISC host trial is funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme (Grant Ref: 15/102/04). IntAct is funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership (Grant Ref: 14/150/62). The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the CSO in Scotland and Health and Care Research Wales and the HSC R&D Division, Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland. PROFHER-2 is funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme (Grant Ref: 16/73/03). START: REACTS is funded by the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Co-ordinating Centre (NETSCC); Grant Codes: 16/61/18. The development of the training intervention was funded by the MRC Network of Hubs for Trials Methodology Research (MR/L004933/1- R53) and supported by the MRC ConDuCT-II Hub (Collaboration and innovation for Difficult and Complex randomized controlled Trials In Invasive procedures - MR/K025643/1). The online version of the training intervention was funded by the NIHR and is hosted on the NIHR Learn platform (https://learn.nihr.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=385). It is based on the face-to face GRANULE training course funded by the Bowel Disease Research Foundation in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, University of Bristol and former MRC ConDuCT-II Hub. This work was part-funded by the Wellcome Trust [ref: 204829] through the Centre for Future Health (CFH) at the University of York. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the MRC or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the article.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Appraisal of literature reviews on end-of-life care for minority ethnic groups in the UK and a critical comparison with policy recommendations from the UK end-of-life care strategy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence of low end-of-life (EoL) care service use by minority ethnic groups in the UK has given rise to a body of research and a number of reviews of the literature. This article aims to review and evaluate literature reviews on minority ethnic groups and EoL care in the UK and assess their suitability as an evidence base for policy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Systematic review. Searches were carried out in thirteen electronic databases, eight journals, reference lists, and grey literature. Reviews were included if they concerned minority ethnic groups and EoL care in the UK. Reviews were graded for quality and key themes identified.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirteen reviews (2001-2009) met inclusion criteria. Seven took a systematic approach, of which four scored highly for methodological quality (a mean score of six, median seven). The majority of systematic reviews were therefore of a reasonable methodological quality. Most reviews were restricted by ethnic group, aspect of EoL care, or were broader reviews which reported relevant findings. Six key themes were identified.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A number of reviews were systematic and scored highly for methodological quality. These reviews provide a good reflection of the primary evidence and could be used to inform policy. The complexity and inter-relatedness of factors leading to low service use was recognised and reflected in reviews' recommendations for service improvement. Recommendations made in the UK End-of-Life Care Strategy were limited in comparison, and the Strategy's evidence base concerning minority ethnic groups was found to be narrow. Future policy should be embedded strongly in the evidence base to reflect the current literature and minimise bias.</p

Staff training to improve participant recruitment into surgical randomised controlled trials : a feasibility Study Within A Trial (SWAT) across four host randomised controlled trials simultaneously

Objective To test the feasibility of undertaking a simultaneous Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to train staff who recruit participants into surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs), by assessing key uncertainties around recruitment, randomisation, intervention delivery and data collection. Study design and setting Twelve surgical RCTs were eligible. Interested sites (clusters) were randomised 1:1, with recruiting staff (surgeons and nurses) offered training or no training. The primary outcome was the feasibility of recruiting sites across multiple surgical trials simultaneously. Secondary outcomes included numbers/types of staff enrolled, attendance at training, training acceptability, confidence in recruiting and participant recruitment rates six months later. Results Four RCTs (33%) comprising 91 sites participated. Of these, 29 sites agreed to participate (32%) and were randomised to intervention (15 sites, 29 staff) or control (14 sites, 29 staff). Research nurses attended and found the training to be acceptable; no surgeons attended. In the intervention group, there was evidence of increased confidence when pre and post training scores were compared (mean difference in change 1.42; 95% CI 0.56, 2.27; p = 0.002) – there was no effect on recruitment rate. Conclusion It was feasible to randomise sites across four surgical RCTs in a simultaneous SWAT design. However, as small numbers of trials and sites participated, and no surgeons attended training, strategies to improve these aspects are needed for future evaluations. Trial registration ISRCTN registry: DISC (ISRCTN18254597), registered on 4th April 2017; PROFHER 2 (ISRCTN76296703), registered on 5th April 2018; IntAct (ISRCTN13334746), registered on 10th April 2017; and START:REACTS (ISRCTN17825590), registered on 5th March 2018. The training SWAT has been submitted to the MRC SWAT repository (SWAT111) Keywords: Randomised controlled trial (RCT), Study Within A Trial (SWAT), recruitment, staff training, professional education, feasibility study, surgical trial

Genetic mechanisms of critical illness in COVID-19.

Host-mediated lung inflammation is present1, and drives mortality2, in the critical illness caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Host genetic variants associated with critical illness may identify mechanistic targets for therapeutic development3. Here we report the results of the GenOMICC (Genetics Of Mortality In Critical Care) genome-wide association study in 2,244 critically ill patients with COVID-19 from 208 UK intensive care units. We have identified and replicated the following new genome-wide significant associations: on chromosome 12q24.13 (rs10735079, P = 1.65 × 10-8) in a gene cluster that encodes antiviral restriction enzyme activators (OAS1, OAS2 and OAS3); on chromosome 19p13.2 (rs74956615, P = 2.3 × 10-8) near the gene that encodes tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2); on chromosome 19p13.3 (rs2109069, P = 3.98 ×  10-12) within the gene that encodes dipeptidyl peptidase 9 (DPP9); and on chromosome 21q22.1 (rs2236757, P = 4.99 × 10-8) in the interferon receptor gene IFNAR2. We identified potential targets for repurposing of licensed medications: using Mendelian randomization, we found evidence that low expression of IFNAR2, or high expression of TYK2, are associated with life-threatening disease; and transcriptome-wide association in lung tissue revealed that high expression of the monocyte-macrophage chemotactic receptor CCR2 is associated with severe COVID-19. Our results identify robust genetic signals relating to key host antiviral defence mechanisms and mediators of inflammatory organ damage in COVID-19. Both mechanisms may be amenable to targeted treatment with existing drugs. However, large-scale randomized clinical trials will be essential before any change to clinical practice