Strengthening clinical cancer research in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND: In 1999, 270 000 cases of cancer were registered in the United Kingdom, placing a large burden on the NHS. Cancer outcome data in 1999 suggested that UK survival rates were poorer than most other European countries. In the same year, a Department of Health review noted that clinical trials accrual was poor (<3.5% of incident cases) and hypothesised that increasing research activity might improve outcomes and reduce the variability of outcomes across England. Thus, the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) was established to increase participation in cancer clinical research.METHODS: The NCRN was established in 2001 to provide a robust infrastructure for cancer clinical research and improvements in patient care. Remit of NCRN is to coordinate, support and deliver cancer clinical research through the provision of research support staff across England. The NCRN works closely with similar networks in Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland. A key aim of NCRN is to improve the speed of research and this was also assessed by comparing the speed of study delivery of a subset of cancer studies opening before and after NCRN was established.RESULTS: Patient recruitment increased through NCRN, with almost 32 000 (12% of annual incident cases) cancer patients being recruited each year. Study delivery has improved, with more studies meeting the recruitment target - 74% compared with 39% before NCRN was established.CONCLUSION: The coordinated approach to cancer clinical research has demonstrated increased accrual, wide participation and successful trial delivery, which should lead to improved outcomes and care. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 1529-1534. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.69 www.bjcancer.com Published online 1 March 2011 (C) 2011 Cancer Research U

Mechanisms of improved survival from intensive followup in colorectal cancer: a hypothesis

A meta-analysis of six randomised trials demonstrated that intensive followup in colorectal cancer was associated with an absolute reduction in all-cause 5-year mortality of 10% (95% confidence interval (CI): 4–16) – however, only two percent (95% CI: 0–5) was attributable to cure from salvage re-operations. We postulate that other factors, such as increased psychological well-being and/or altered lifestyle, and/or improved treatment of coincidental disease may contribute to the remaining lives saved, and form important future research questions

High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study

Objective: In 2001, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cancer Research Network (NCRN) was established, leading to a rapid increase in clinical research activity across the English NHS. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) as an example, we test the hypothesis that high, sustained hospital-level participation in interventional clinical trials improves outcomes for all CRC patients managed in those research-intensive hospitals. Design: Data for patients diagnosed with CRC in England in 2001-2008 (n=209,968) were linked with data on accrual to NCRN CRC studies (n=30,998). Hospital Trusts were categorised by the proportion of patients accrued to interventional studies annually. Multivariable models investigated the relationship between 30-day post-operative mortality and five-year survival and the level and duration of study participation. Results: Most of the Trusts achieving high participation were district general hospitals and the effects were not limited to cancer “centres of excellence”, although such centres do make substantial contributions. Patients treated in Trusts with high research participation (≥16%) in their year of diagnosis had lower post-operative mortality (p<0.001) and improved survival (p<0.001) after adjustment for casemix and hospital-level variables. The effects increased with sustained research participation, with a reduction in post-operative mortality of 1.5% (6.5% to 5%, p<2.2*10-6) and an improvement in survival (p<10 19; 5-year difference: 3.8% (41.0% to 44.8%)) comparing high participation for ≥4 years with 0 years. Conclusion: There is a strong independent association between survival and participation in interventional clinical studies for all CRC patients treated in the hospital, not only study participants. Improvement precedes and increases with the level and years of sustained participation

The effectiveness of the Austrian disease management programme for type 2 diabetes: a cluster-randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Disease management programmes (DMPs) are costly and impose additional work load on general practitioners (GPs). Data on their effectiveness are inconclusive. We therefore conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the Austrian DMP for diabetes mellitus type 2 on HbA1c and quality of care for adult patients in primary care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All GPs of Salzburg-province were invited to participate. After cluster-randomisation by district, all patients with diabetes type 2 were recruited consecutively from 7-11/2007. The DMP, consisting mainly of physician and patient education, standardised documentation and agreement on therapeutic goals, was implemented in the intervention group while the control group received usual care. We aimed to show superiority of the intervention regarding metabolic control and process quality. The primary outcome measure was a change in HbA1c after one year. Secondary outcomes were days in the hospital, blood pressure, lipids, body mass index (BMI), enrolment in patient education and regular guideline-adherent examination. Blinding was not possible.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>92 physicians recruited 1489 patients (649 intervention, 840 control). After 401 ± 47 days, 590 intervention-patients and 754 controls had complete data. In the intention to treat analysis (ITT) of all 1489 patients, HbA1c decreased 0.41% in the intervention group and 0.28% in controls. The difference of -0.13% (95% CI -0.24; -0.02) was significant at p = 0.026. Significance was lost in mixed models adjusted for baseline value and cluster-effects (adjusted mean difference -0.03 (95% CI -0.15; 0.09, p = 0.607). Of the secondary outcome measures, BMI and cholesterol were significantly reduced in the intervention group compared to controls in ITT after adjustments (-0.53 kg/m²; 95% CI -1.03;-0.02; p = 0.014 and -0.10 mmol/l; 95% CI -0.21; -0.003; p = 0.043). Additionally, more patients received patient education (49.5% vs. 20.1%, p < 0.0001), eye- (71.0% vs. 51.2%, p < 0.0001), foot examinations (73.8% vs. 45.1%, p < 0.0001), and regular HbA1c checks (44.1% vs. 36.0%, p < 0.01) in the intervention group.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Austrian DMP implemented by statutory health insurance improves process quality and enhances weight reduction, but does not significantly improve metabolic control for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Whether the small benefit seen in secondary outcome measures leads to better patient outcomes, remains unclear.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled trials Ltd., ISRCTN27414162.</p

Does HAART Efficacy Translate to Effectiveness? Evidence for a Trial Effect

Background: Patients who participate in clinical trials may experience better clinical outcomes than patients who initiate similar therapy within clinical care (trial effect), but no published studies have evaluated a trial effect in HIV clinical trials. Methods: To examine a trial effect we compared virologic suppression (VS) among patients who initiated HAART in a clinical trial versus in routine clinical care. VS was defined as a plasma HIV RNA #400 copies/ml at six months after HAART initiation and was assessed within strata of early (1996–99) or current (2000–06) HAART periods. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated using binomial models. Results: Of 738 persons initiating HAART, 30.6 % were women, 61.7 % were black, 30 % initiated therapy in a clinical trial and 67 % (n = 496) had an evaluable six month HIV RNA result. HAART regimens differed between the early and current periods (p,0.001); unboosted PI regimens (55.6%) were more common in the early and NNRTI regimens (46.4%) were more common in the current period. Overall, 78 % (95%CI 74, 82%) of patients achieved VS and trial participants were 16 % more likely to achieve VS (unadjusted RR 1.16, 95%CI 1.06, 1.27). Comparing trial to non-trial participants, VS differed by study period. In the early period, trial participants initiating HAART were significantly more likely to achieve VS than non-trial participants (adjusted RR 1.33; 95%CI 1.15, 1.54), but not in the current period (adjusted RR 0.98; 95%CI 0.87, 1.11). Conclusions: A clear clinical trial effect on suppression of HIV replication was observed in the early HAART period but not i

Plastic pollution transcends marine protected area boundaries in the eastern tropical and south-eastern Pacific

This is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordData availability: Our dataset is fully available within the Supplementary Information.The Eastern Tropical and South-Eastern Pacific region is of global biodiversity importance. At COP26, the governments of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Ecuador committed to the expansion of existing MPAs to create a new Mega MPA, safeguarding the Eastern Tropical Pacific Marine Corridor. It offers a profound step forward in conservation efforts but is not specifically designed to protect against the more diffuse anthropogenic threats, such as plastic pollution. We combine published data with our own unpublished records to assess the abundance and distribution of plastic pollution in the region. Macro- and microplastic concentrations varied markedly and were not significantly different when comparing areas inside and outside existing MPA boundaries. These findings highlight the diffuse and complex nature of plastic pollution and its ubiquitous presence across MPA boundaries. Understanding the sources and drivers of plastic pollution in the region is key to developing effective solutions.UK Global Challenges Resource Fund (GCRF)Galapagos Conservation Trus

Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England from April to November, 2020: results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey

Background: Decisions about the continued need for control measures to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and risk factors for testing positive. Existing surveillance systems are generally not based on population samples and are not longitudinal in design. Methods: Samples were collected from individuals aged 2 years and older living in private households in England that were randomly selected from address lists and previous Office for National Statistics surveys in repeated crosssectional household surveys with additional serial sampling and longitudinal follow-up. Participants completed a questionnaire and did nose and throat self-swabs. The percentage of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was estimated over time by use of dynamic multilevel regression and poststratification, to account for potential residual non-representativeness. Potential changes in risk factors for testing positive over time were also assessed. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21086382. Findings: Between April 26 and Nov 1, 2020, results were available from 1 191 170 samples from 280327 individuals; 5231 samples were positive overall, from 3923 individuals. The percentage of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 changed substantially over time, with an initial decrease between April 26 and June 28, 2020, from 0·40% (95% credible interval 0·29–0·54) to 0·06% (0·04–0·07), followed by low levels during July and August, 2020, before substantial increases at the end of August, 2020, with percentages testing positive above 1% from the end of October, 2020. Having a patient facing role and working outside your home were important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the end of the first wave (April 26 to June 28, 2020), but not in the second wave (from the end of August to Nov 1, 2020). Age (young adults, particularly those aged 17–24 years) was an important initial driver of increased positivity rates in the second wave. For example, the estimated percentage of individuals testing positive was more than six times higher in those aged 17–24 years than in those aged 70 years or older at the end of September, 2020. A substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms around their positive test (45–68%, dependent on calendar time. Interpretation: Important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 varied substantially between the part of the first wave that was captured by the study (April to June, 2020) and the first part of the second wave of increased positivity rates (end of August to Nov 1, 2020), and a substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be important for managing the COVID-19 pandemic moving forwards