Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework

We describe a framework for defining pilot and feasibility studies focusing on studies conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial. To develop the framework, we undertook a Delphi survey; ran an open meeting at a trial methodology conference; conducted a review of definitions outside the health research context; consulted experts at an international consensus meeting; and reviewed 27 empirical pilot or feasibility studies. We initially adopted mutually exclusive definitions of pilot and feasibility studies. However, some Delphi survey respondents and the majority of open meeting attendees disagreed with the idea of mutually exclusive definitions. Their viewpoint was supported by definitions outside the health research context, the use of the terms ‘pilot’ and ‘feasibility’ in the literature, and participants at the international consensus meeting. In our framework, pilot studies are a subset of feasibility studies, rather than the two being mutually exclusive. A feasibility study asks whether something can be done, should we proceed with it, and if so, how. A pilot study asks the same questions but also has a specific design feature: in a pilot study a future study, or part of a future study, is conducted on a smaller scale. We suggest that to facilitate their identification, these studies should be clearly identified using the terms ‘feasibility’ or ‘pilot’ as appropriate. This should include feasibility studies that are largely qualitative; we found these difficult to identify in electronic searches because researchers rarely used the term ‘feasibility’ in the title or abstract of such studies. Investigators should also report appropriate objectives and methods related to feasibility; and give clear confirmation that their study is in preparation for a future randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effect of an intervention

Non-invasive cardiac imaging techniques and vascular tools for the assessment of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Cardiovascular disease is the major cause of mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus. The criteria for the selection of those asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes who should undergo cardiac screening and the therapeutic consequences of screening remain controversial. Non-invasive techniques as markers of atherosclerosis and myocardial ischaemia may aid risk stratification and the implementation of tailored therapy for the patient with type 2 diabetes. In the present article we review the literature on the implementation of non-invasive vascular tools and cardiac imaging techniques in this patient group. The value of these techniques as endpoints in clinical trials and as risk estimators in asymptomatic diabetic patients is discussed. Carotid intima–media thickness, arterial stiffness and flow-mediated dilation are abnormal long before the onset of type 2 diabetes. These vascular tools are therefore most likely to be useful for the identification of ‘at risk’ patients during the early stages of atherosclerotic disease. The additional value of these tools in risk stratification and tailored therapy in type 2 diabetes remains to be proven. Cardiac imaging techniques are more justified in individuals with a strong clinical suspicion of advanced coronary heart disease (CHD). Asymptomatic myocardial ischaemia can be detected by stress echocardiography and myocardial perfusion imaging. The more recently developed non-invasive multi-slice computed tomography angiography is recommended for exclusion of CHD, and can therefore be used to screen asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes, but has the associated disadvantages of high radiation exposure and costs. Therefore, we propose an algorithm for the screening of asymptomatic diabetic patients, the first step of which consists of coronary artery calcium score assessment and exercise ECG

Thirty-day mortality after hip fractures: has anything changed?

Bone density insufficiency is the main cause for significant musculoskeletal trauma in the elderly population following low-energy falls. Hip fractures, in particular, represent an important public health concern taking into account the complicated needs of the patients due to their medical comorbidities as well as their rehabilitation and social demands. The annual cost for the care of these patients is estimated at around 2 billion pounds (£) in the UK and is ever growing. An increased early and late mortality rate is also recognised in these injuries together with significant adversities for the patients. Lately, in order to improve the outcomes of this special cohort of patients, fast-track care pathways and government initiatives have been implemented. It appears that these measures have contributed in a steady year-by-year reduction of the 30-day mortality rates. Whether we have currently reached a plateau or whether an ongoing reduction in mortality rates will continue to be observed is yet to be seen

Phosphorylation of Nicastrin by SGK1 Leads to Its Degradation through Lysosomal and Proteasomal Pathways

The gamma-secretase complex is involved in the intramembranous proteolysis of a variety of substrates, including the amyloid precursor protein and the Notch receptor. Nicastrin (NCT) is an essential component of the gamma-secretase complex and functions as a receptor for gamma-secretase substrates. In this study, we determined that serum- and glucocorticoid-induced protein kinase 1 (SGK1) markedly reduced the protein stability of NCT. The SGK1 kinase activity was decisive for NCT degradation and endogenous SGK1 inhibited gamma-secretase activity. SGK1 downregulates NCT protein levels via proteasomal and lysosomal pathways. Furthermore, SGK1 directly bound to and phosphorylated NCT on Ser437, thereby promoting protein degradation. Collectively, our findings indicate that SGK1 is a gamma-secretase regulator presumably effective through phosphorylation and degradation of NCT

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials [on behalf of the PAFS consensus group*]

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a guideline designed to improve the transparency and quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this article we present an extension to that statement for randomised pilot and feasibility trials conducted in advance of a future definitive RCT. The checklist applies to any randomised study in which a future definitive RCT, or part of it, is conducted on a smaller scale, regardless of its design (eg, cluster, factorial, crossover) or the terms used by authors to describe the study (eg, pilot, feasibility, trial, study). The extension does not directly apply to internal pilot studies built into the design of a main trial, non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies, or phase II studies, but these studies all have some similarities to randomised pilot and feasibility studies and so many of the principles might also apply. The development of the extension was motivated by the growing number of studies described as feasibility or pilot studies and by research that has identified weaknesses in their reporting and conduct. We followed recommended good practice to develop the extension, including carrying out a Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting and research team meetings, and piloting the checklist. The aims and objectives of pilot and feasibility randomised studies differ from those of other randomised trials. Consequently, although much of the information to be reported in these trials is similar to those in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effectiveness and efficacy, there are some key differences in the type of information and in the appropriate interpretation of standard CONSORT reporting items. We have retained some of the original CONSORT statement items, but most have been adapted, some removed, and new items added. The new items cover how participants were identified and consent obtained; if applicable, the prespecified criteria used to judge whether or how to proceed with a future definitive RCT; if relevant, other important unintended consequences; implications for progression from pilot to future definitive RCT, including any proposed amendments; and ethical approval or approval by a research review committee confirmed with a reference number. This article includes the 26 item checklist, a separate checklist for the abstract, a template for a CONSORT flowchart for these studies, and an explanation of the changes made and supporting examples. We believe that routine use of this proposed extension to the CONSORT statement will result in improvements in the reporting of pilot trials. Editor’s note: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal websites

Dissimilar impact of type 2 diabetes on cardiovascular outcomes according to age categories: a nationwide population study from Hungary

BACKGROUND: The excess risks of mortality and cardiovascular morbidity among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is well known. In this nationwide study, we assessed risks of mortality and cardiovascular events comparing patients with T2DM and matched controls. METHODS: We identified patients with T2DM in a retrospective cohort study using the database of the National Health Insurance Fund between 1 January 2010 and 31 December, 2013. Controls were randomly included and matched according to age, gender, and zip code of residence. Patients were divided into subgroups according to age decades for outcome analyses. RESULTS: During the mean follow-up period of 2.3 years, 152,678 patients with T2DM and 305,356 matched controls were included. Patients with T2DM showed significantly higher risk for all-cause mortality (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.22-1.29, p < 0.0001), myocardial infarction (HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.69-1.94, p < 0.0001) and stroke (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.35-1.46, p < 0.0001) compared to matched controls. The higher risk associated with T2DM for mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke differed significantly between age groups (pinteraction < 0.05 for all outcomes) with significantly higher risk observed in younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality is significantly higher in patients with T2DM. Notably, the relative hazard increases with decreasing age suggesting that younger patients with T2DM should receive more attention for cardiovascular prevention