National priority setting partnership using a Delphi consensus process to develop neonatal research questions suitable for practice-changing randomised trials in the UK

BACKGROUND: The provision of neonatal care is variable and commonly lacks adequate evidence base; strategic development of methodologically robust clinical trials is needed to improve outcomes and maximise research resources. Historically, neonatal research topics have been selected by researchers; prioritisation processes involving wider stakeholder groups have generally identified research themes rather than specific questions amenable to interventional trials. OBJECTIVE: To involve stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers to identify and prioritise research questions suitable for answering in neonatal interventional trials in the UK. DESIGN: Research questions were submitted by stakeholders in population, intervention, comparison, outcome format through an online platform. Questions were reviewed by a representative steering group; duplicates and previously answered questions were removed. Eligible questions were entered into a three-round online Delphi survey for prioritisation by all stakeholder groups. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and eight respondents submitted research questions for consideration; 144 participants completed round one of the Delphi survey, 106 completed all three rounds. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-five research questions were submitted and after steering group review, 186 entered into the Delphi survey. The top five ranked research questions related to breast milk fortification, intact cord resuscitation, timing of surgical intervention in necrotising enterocolitis, therapeutic hypothermia for mild hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and non-invasive respiratory support. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified and prioritised research questions suitable for practice-changing interventional trials in neonatal medicine in the UK at the present time. Trials targeting these uncertainties have potential to reduce research waste and improve neonatal care

National priority setting partnership using a Delphi consensus process to develop neonatal research questions suitable for practice-changing randomised trials in the United Kingdom

Introduction: Methodologically robust clinical trials are required to improve neonatal care and reduce unwanted variations in practice. Previous neonatal research prioritisation processes have identified important research themes rather than specific research questions amenable to clinical trials. Practice-changing trials require well-defined research questions, commonly organised using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) structure. By narrowing the scope of research priorities to those which can be answered in clinical trials and by involving a wide range of different stakeholders, we aim to provide a robust and transparent process to identify and prioritise research questions answerable within the National Healthcare System to inform future practice-changing clinical trials. Methods and analysis: A steering group comprising parents, doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, researchers and representatives from key organisations (Neonatal Society, British Association of Perinatal Medicine, Neonatal Nurses Association and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health) was identified to oversee this project. We will invite submissions of research questions formatted using the PICO structure from the following stakeholder groups using an online questionnaire: parents, patients, healthcare professionals and academic researchers. Unanswered, non-duplicate research questions will be entered into a three-round eDelphi survey of all stakeholder groups. Research questions will be ranked by mean aggregate scores. Ethics and dissemination: The final list of prioritised research questions will be disseminated through traditional academic channels, directly to key stakeholder groups through representative organisations and on social media. The outcome of the project will be shared with key research organisations such as the National Institute for Health Research. Research ethics committee approval is not required

Recommendations for the design of therapeutic trials for neonatal seizures

Although seizures have a higher incidence in neonates than any other age group and are associated with significant mortality and neurodevelopmental disability, treatment is largely guided by physician preference and tradition, due to a lack of data from welldesigned clinical trials. There is increasing interest in conducting trials of novel drugs to treat neonatal seizures, but the unique characteristics of this disorder and patient population require special consideration with regard to trial design. The Critical Path Institute formed a global working group of experts and key stakeholders from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, regulatory agencies, neonatal nurse associations, and patient advocacy groups to develop consensus recommendations for design of clinical trials to treat neonatal seizures. The broad expertise and perspectives of this group were invaluable in developing recommendations addressing: (1) use of neonate-specific adaptive trial designs, (2) inclusion/exclusion criteria, (3) stratification and randomization, (4) statistical analysis, (5) safety monitoring, and (6) definitions of important outcomes. The guidelines are based on available literature and expert consensus, pharmacokinetic analyses, ethical considerations, and parental concerns. These recommendations will ultimately facilitate development of a Master Protocol and design of efficient and successful drug trials to improve the treatment and outcome for this highly vulnerable population

Neurodevelopmental outcome at 5 years of age after general anaesthesia or awake-regional anaesthesia in infancy (GAS)trial

Background: In laboratory animals, exposure to most general anaesthetics leads to neurotoxicity manifested by neuronal cell death and abnormal behaviour and cognition. Some large human cohort studies have shown an association between general anaesthesia at a young age and subsequent neurodevelopmental deficits, but these studies are prone to bias. Others have found no evidence for an association. We aimed to establish whether general anaesthesia in early infancy affects neurodevelopmental outcomes. Methods: In this international, assessor-masked, equivalence, randomised, controlled trial conducted at 28 hospitals in Australia, Italy, the USA, the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, we recruited infants of less than 60 weeks' postmenstrual age who were born at more than 26 weeks

A randomized trial of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for induction of labor vs dinoprostone vaginal insert

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor is a commonly performed obstetrical intervention. Vaginal prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) is a first-choice agent. Mechanical methods of induction are slower in achieving cervical ripening but have a lower risk of adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy, maternal and neonatal safety, and maternal satisfaction of a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator (Dilapan-S) with those of dinoprostone. STUDY DESIGN: This was an open-label superiority randomized controlled trial in 4 English hospitals. Eligible participants were women ≥16 years of age undergoing induction of labor for a singleton pregnancy at ≥37 weeks’ gestation with vertex presentation and intact membranes. The women were randomly assigned to receive either Dilapan-S or dinoprostone using a telephone randomization system minimized by hospital, parity, body mass index, and maternal age. The induction agent was replaced as required until the cervix was assessed as favorable for labor by the Bishop score. The primary outcome was failure to achieve vaginal delivery (ieor a cesarean delivery being performed). The secondary outcome measures included maternal and neonatal adverse events. Analysis was by intention-to-treat, adjusting for design variables where possible. RESULTS: Between December 19, 2017 and January 26, 2021, 674 women were randomized (337 to Dilapan-S, and 337 to dinoprostone). The trial did not reach its planned sample size of 860 participants because of restrictions on research during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome was missing for 2 women in the dinoprostone group. Failure to achieve vaginal delivery (or a cesarean delivery being performed) occurred in 126 women (37.4%) allocated to Dilapan-S and in 115 (34.3%) women allocated to dinoprostone (adjusted risk difference, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, −0.05 to 0.10). There were similar maternal and neonatal adverse events between the groups. CONCLUSION: Women undergoing induction of labor with Dilapan-S have similar rates of cesarean delivery and maternal and neonatal adverse events compared with dinoprostone

A randomized trial of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for induction of labor vs dinoprostone vaginal insert

Background: Induction of labor is a commonly performed obstetric intervention. Vaginal prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) is a first-choice agent. Mechanical methods of induction are slower to achieve cervical ripening but have a lower risk of adverse effects. Objective: To compare the efficacy, maternal and neonatal safety, and maternal satisfaction of a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator (Dilapan-S) with dinoprostone. Study Design: This was an open-label, superiority randomized controlled trial in four English hospitals. Eligible participants were women ≥ 16 years of age undergoing induction of labor for a singleton pregnancy, ≥ 37 weeks’ gestation with vertex presentation and intact membranes. Women were randomly assigned to receive Dilapan-S or dinoprostone using a telephone randomization system minimized by hospital, parity, BMI and maternal age. The induction agent was replaced as required until the cervix was assessed as favorable for labor by Bishop score. The primary outcome was failure to achieve vaginal delivery (i.e. Cesarean delivery). Secondary outcome measures included maternal and neonatal adverse events. Analysis was by intention-to-treat, adjusting for design variables where possible. Results: Between 19 December 2017 and 26 January 2021, 674 women were randomized (337 to Dilapan-S and 337 to dinoprostone). The trial did not reach its planned sample size of 860 due to restrictions on research during the Covid-19 pandemic. The primary outcome was missing for two women in the dinoprostone group. Failure to achieve vaginal delivery (Cesarean section) occurred in 126 women (37.4%) allocated to Dilapan-S, and 115 (34.3%) women allocated to dinoprostone (adjusted risk difference 0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.10). There were similar maternal and neonatal adverse events between the groups. Conclusion: Women undergoing induction of labor with Dilapan-S have similar rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal adverse events compared to dinoprostone

Protocol: A national priority setting partnership using a Delphi consensus process to develop neonatal research questions suitable for practice-changing randomised trials in the United Kingdom

Introduction. Methodologically robust clinical trials are required to improve neonatal care and reduce unwanted variations in practice. Previous neonatal research prioritisation processes have identified important research themes rather than specific research questions amenable to clinical trials. Practice-changing trials require well defined research questions, commonly organised using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) structure. By narrowing the scope of research priorities to those which can be answered in clinical trials and by involving a wide range of different stakeholders, we aim to provide a robust and transparent process to identify and prioritise research questions answerable within the NHS to inform future practice-changing clinical trials. Methods and Analysis. A steering group comprising parents, doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, researchers, and representatives from key organisations (Neonatal Society (NS), British Association of Perinatal Medicine (BAPM), Neonatal Nurses Association (NNA) and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH)) was identified to oversee this project. We will invite submissions of research questions formatted using the PICO structure from the following stakeholder groups using an online questionnaire: parents, patients, healthcare professionals and academic researchers. Unanswered, non-duplicate research questions will be entered into a three round eDelphi survey of all stakeholder groups. Research questions will be ranked by mean aggregate scores. Ethics and Dissemination. The final list of prioritised research questions will be disseminated through traditional academic channels, directly to key stakeholder groups through representative organisations and on social media. The outcome of the project will be shared with key research organisations such as the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Research ethics committee approval is not required. Registration Details. Not registered

National priority setting partnership using a Delphi consensus process to develop neonatal research questions suitable for practice-changing randomised trials in the UK

Background: the provision of neonatal care is variable and commonly lacks adequate evidence base; strategic development of methodologically robust clinical trials is needed to improve outcomes and maximise research resources. Historically, neonatal research topics have been selected by researchers; prioritisation processes involving wider stakeholder groups have generally identified research themes rather than specific questions amenable to interventional trials.Objective: to involve stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers to identify and prioritise research questions suitable for answering in neonatal interventional trials in the UK.Design: research questions were submitted by stakeholders in population, intervention, comparison, outcome format through an online platform. Questions were reviewed by a representative steering group; duplicates and previously answered questions were removed. Eligible questions were entered into a three-round online Delphi survey for prioritisation by all stakeholder groups.Participants: one hundred and eight respondents submitted research questions for consideration; 144 participants completed round one of the Delphi survey, 106 completed all three rounds.Results: two hundred and sixty-five research questions were submitted and after steering group review, 186 entered into the Delphi survey. The top five ranked research questions related to breast milk fortification, intact cord resuscitation, timing of surgical intervention in necrotising enterocolitis, therapeutic hypothermia for mild hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and non-invasive respiratory support.Conclusions: we have identified and prioritised research questions suitable for practice-changing interventional trials in neonatal medicine in the UK at the present time. Trials targeting these uncertainties have potential to reduce research waste and improve neonatal care. </p

National priority setting partnership using a Delphi consensus process to develop neonatal research questions suitable for practice-changing randomised trials in the United Kingdom

Introduction: methodologically robust clinical trials are required to improve neonatal care and reduce unwanted variations in practice. Previous neonatal research prioritisation processes have identified important research themes rather than specific research questions amenable to clinical trials. Practice-changing trials require well-defined research questions, commonly organised using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) structure. By narrowing the scope of research priorities to those which can be answered in clinical trials and by involving a wide range of different stakeholders, we aim to provide a robust and transparent process to identify and prioritise research questions answerable within the National Healthcare System to inform future practice-changing clinical trials.Methods and analysis: a steering group comprising parents, doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, researchers and representatives from key organisations (Neonatal Society, British Association of Perinatal Medicine, Neonatal Nurses Association and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health) was identified to oversee this project. We will invite submissions of research questions formatted using the PICO structure from the following stakeholder groups using an online questionnaire: parents, patients, healthcare professionals and academic researchers. Unanswered, non-duplicate research questions will be entered into a three-round eDelphi survey of all stakeholder groups. Research questions will be ranked by mean aggregate scores.Ethics and dissemination: the final list of prioritised research questions will be disseminated through traditional academic channels, directly to key stakeholder groups through representative organisations and on social media. The outcome of the project will be shared with key research organisations such as the National Institute for Health Research. Research ethics committee approval is not required

National priority setting partnership using a Delphi consensus process to develop neonatal research questions suitable for practice-changing randomised trials in the UK

Background The provision of neonatal care is variable and commonly lacks adequate evidence base; strategic development of methodologically robust clinical trials is needed to improve outcomes and maximise research resources. Historically, neonatal research topics have been selected by researchers; prioritisation processes involving wider stakeholder groups have generally identified research themes rather than specific questions amenable to interventional trials. Objective To involve stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers to identify and prioritise research questions suitable for answering in neonatal interventional trials in the UK. Design Research questions were submitted by stakeholders in population, intervention, comparison, outcome format through an online platform. Questions were reviewed by a representative steering group; duplicates and previously answered questions were removed. Eligible questions were entered into a three-round online Delphi survey for prioritisation by all stakeholder groups. Participants One hundred and eight respondents submitted research questions for consideration; 144 participants completed round one of the Delphi survey, 106 completed all three rounds. Results Two hundred and sixty-five research questions were submitted and after steering group review, 186 entered into the Delphi survey. The top five ranked research questions related to breast milk fortification, intact cord resuscitation, timing of surgical intervention in necrotising enterocolitis, therapeutic hypothermia for mild hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and non-invasive respiratory support. Conclusions We have identified and prioritised research questions suitable for practice-changing interventional trials in neonatal medicine in the UK at the present time. Trials targeting these uncertainties have potential to reduce research waste and improve neonatal care.</p