Trauma informed participatory research: Reflections on co-producing a research proposal

This article discusses the development of a co-produced research proposal. The authors reflect on the process of this work and some of the challenges that were experienced by a team who had a mix of lived, clinical and academic experience of the research topic. We highlight the need to embed trauma informed principles into co-produced research and the ways in which doing so can support the development of co-produced work. As such, the article focuses on how we established safety, choice, collaboration, trustworthiness and empowerment during the process of developing the proposal. Within this we offer our reflection on some of the challenges we experienced and our learning from undertaking this work

Maintaining Clinical Freedom Whilst Achieving Value in Biologics Prescribing: An Integrated Cross-Specialty Consensus of UK Dermatologists, Rheumatologists and Gastroenterologists.

Funder: Janssen UKBACKGROUND: Biologics are now key drugs in the management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. However, the increasingly complex biologics environment and growing cost pressures in the UK have led to variability in drug commissioning and inequity of patient access across regions. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to provide consensus recommendations for enhancing the current situation in biologic prescribing in the UK by balancing clinical freedom with equitable distribution of biologics given the limited availability of resources. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used to reach integrated, cross-specialty consensus among dermatologists, rheumatologists and gastroenterologists practising within the English National Health Service (NHS). RESULTS: We describe the concepts of clinical freedom and clinical judgement and demonstrate how, together with patient choice, they can be exercised in the context of biologic prescribing in the NHS. We highlight that in England, local variations occur that are at odds with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance; these variably limit the degree to which clinicians can exercise clinical freedom and impact on equity of patient access to treatments. We define factors encompassing a drug's value and identify challenges to the measurement and interpretation of this concept, which can raise barriers to the freedom of clinical choice and appropriate prescribing decisions allowing practices of holistic and personalised medicine. Cross-specialty consensus recommendations on ensuring equitable access to biologics in the NHS while protecting appropriate and individualised drug selection for patients are provided. We have also provided strategies for improving physician-commissioner communication to harmonise equity of patient access to biologics across England and improve patient outcomes. Commentary from patient advisory groups indicates that they welcome our exploration that value does not equal cost and agree that there should be an emphasis on shared decision making, which requires the clinician to practice clinical freedom by aligning the patient's needs and preferences with available treatment choices. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus highlights the need to strike a balance between clinical freedom and short-term cost restrictions to support equitable resource distribution within the English NHS. Consideration of these recommendations may help to harmonise local, regional and national services and balance equity of patient access to biologic treatments with excellence in the NHS

Maintaining Clinical Freedom Whilst Achieving Value in Biologics Prescribing: An Integrated Cross-Specialty Consensus of UK Dermatologists, Rheumatologists and Gastroenterologists.

Funder: Janssen UKBACKGROUND: Biologics are now key drugs in the management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. However, the increasingly complex biologics environment and growing cost pressures in the UK have led to variability in drug commissioning and inequity of patient access across regions. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to provide consensus recommendations for enhancing the current situation in biologic prescribing in the UK by balancing clinical freedom with equitable distribution of biologics given the limited availability of resources. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used to reach integrated, cross-specialty consensus among dermatologists, rheumatologists and gastroenterologists practising within the English National Health Service (NHS). RESULTS: We describe the concepts of clinical freedom and clinical judgement and demonstrate how, together with patient choice, they can be exercised in the context of biologic prescribing in the NHS. We highlight that in England, local variations occur that are at odds with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance; these variably limit the degree to which clinicians can exercise clinical freedom and impact on equity of patient access to treatments. We define factors encompassing a drug's value and identify challenges to the measurement and interpretation of this concept, which can raise barriers to the freedom of clinical choice and appropriate prescribing decisions allowing practices of holistic and personalised medicine. Cross-specialty consensus recommendations on ensuring equitable access to biologics in the NHS while protecting appropriate and individualised drug selection for patients are provided. We have also provided strategies for improving physician-commissioner communication to harmonise equity of patient access to biologics across England and improve patient outcomes. Commentary from patient advisory groups indicates that they welcome our exploration that value does not equal cost and agree that there should be an emphasis on shared decision making, which requires the clinician to practice clinical freedom by aligning the patient's needs and preferences with available treatment choices. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus highlights the need to strike a balance between clinical freedom and short-term cost restrictions to support equitable resource distribution within the English NHS. Consideration of these recommendations may help to harmonise local, regional and national services and balance equity of patient access to biologic treatments with excellence in the NHS

A Framework for Multi-Omic Prediction of Treatment Response to Biologic Therapy for Psoriasis.

Biologic therapies have shown high efficacy in psoriasis, but individual response varies and is poorly understood. To inform biomarker discovery in the Psoriasis Stratification to Optimise Relevant Therapy (i.e., PSORT) study, we evaluated a comprehensive array of omics platforms across three time points and multiple tissues in a pilot investigation of 10 patients with severe psoriasis, treated with the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, etanercept. We used RNA sequencing to analyze mRNA and small RNA transcriptome in blood, lesional and nonlesional skin, and the SOMAscan platform to investigate the serum proteome. Using an integrative systems biology approach, we identified signals of treatment response in genes and pathways associated with TNF signaling, psoriasis pathology, and the major histocompatibility complex region. We found association between clinical response and TNF-regulated genes in blood and skin. Using a combination of differential expression testing, upstream regulator analysis, clustering techniques, and predictive modeling, we show that baseline samples are indicative of patient response to biologic therapies, including signals in blood, which have traditionally been considered unreliable for inference in dermatology. In conclusion, our pilot study provides both an analytical framework and empirical basis to estimate power for larger studies, specifically the ongoing PSORT study, which we show as powered for biomarker discovery and patient stratification

The prescription and monitoring of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: British Society for Rheumatology guideline scope

Lay Summary: What does this mean for patients? A revised guideline, produced by the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR), will provide up-to-date information about the safe prescribing and monitoring of the effects of non-biologic (or conventional synthetic) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). This guideline will be used by healthcare professionals, people living with autoimmune rheumatic diseases and other interested parties, such as patient groups and charities. DMARDs are a group of drugs prescribed to people with autoimmune rheumatic diseases. The main aims of these drugs are to control symptoms and reduce or prevent long-term progression of the disease. Biologic drugs and Janus kinase inhibitors—sometimes referred to as biologic DMARDs and targeted synthetic DMARDs, respectively—are excluded from this guideline. This article outlines the scope of the revised guideline for DMARD safety, which will be updated to include new information and is being extended to include children and young people. Guideline revisions will be undertaken by a working group of adult and paediatric and adolescent rheumatologists, other healthcare professionals and people living with autoimmune rheumatic disease. The guideline will be developed using the methods and processes outlined in the BSR document ‘Creating clinical guidelines: our protocol’

Recent cadmium exposure among male partners may affect oocyte fertilization during in vitro fertilization (IVF)

We recently reported evidence suggesting associations between urine cadmium concentrations, reflecting long-term exposure, measured in 25 female patients (relative risk = 1.41, P = 0.412) and 15 of their male partners (relative risk = 0.19, P = 0.097) and oocyte fertilization in vitro. Blood cadmium concentrations reflect more recent exposure. We here incorporate those measures into our prior data set and employ multivariable log-binomial regression models to generate hypotheses concerning the relative effects of long-term and recent cadmium exposure on oocyte fertilization in vitro. No association is indicated for blood cadmium from women and oocyte fertilization, adjusted for urine cadmium and creatinine, blood lead and mercury, age, race/ethnicity and cigarette smoking (relative risk = 0.88, P = 0.828). However, we suggest an inverse adjusted association between blood cadmium from men and oocyte fertilization (relative risk = 0.66, P = 0.143). These results suggest that consideration of long-term and recent exposures are both important for assessing the effect of partner cadmium levels on oocyte fertilization in vitro