Methods of a large prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point study comparing morning versus evening dosing in hypertensive patients:the Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study

Introduction: Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) appears to be a better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than daytime BP. The BP lowering effects of most antihypertensive therapies are often greater in the first 12 h compared to the next 12 h. The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aims to establish whether evening dosing is more cardioprotective than morning dosing. Methods and analysis: The TIME study uses the prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point (PROBE) design. TIME recruits participants by advertising in the community, from primary and secondary care, and from databases of consented patients in the UK. Participants must be aged over 18 years, prescribed at least one antihypertensive drug taken once a day, and have a valid email address. After the participants have self-enrolled and consented on the secure TIME website (http://www.timestudy.co.uk) they are randomised to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or the evening. Participant follow-ups are conducted after 1 month and then every 3 months by automated email. The trial is expected to run for 5 years, randomising 10 269 participants, with average participant follow-up being 4 years. The primary end point is hospitalisation for the composite end point of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke (cerebrovascular accident; CVA) or any vascular death determined by record-linkage. Secondary end points are: each component of the primary end point, hospitalisation for non-fatal stroke, hospitalisation for non-fatal MI, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation or death from congestive heart failure. The primary outcome will be a comparison of time to first event comparing morning versus evening dosing using an intention-to-treat analysis. The sample size is calculated for a two-sided test to detect 20% superiority at 80% power. Ethics and dissemination: TIME has ethical approval in the UK, and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number: UKCRN17071; Pre-results

Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0.

PURPOSE: Defining a study population and creating an analytic dataset from longitudinal healthcare databases involves many decisions. Our objective was to catalogue scientific decisions underpinning study execution that should be reported to facilitate replication and enable assessment of validity of studies conducted in large healthcare databases. METHODS: We reviewed key investigator decisions required to operate a sample of macros and software tools designed to create and analyze analytic cohorts from longitudinal streams of healthcare data. A panel of academic, regulatory, and industry experts in healthcare database analytics discussed and added to this list. CONCLUSION: Evidence generated from large healthcare encounter and reimbursement databases is increasingly being sought by decision-makers. Varied terminology is used around the world for the same concepts. Agreeing on terminology and which parameters from a large catalogue are the most essential to report for replicable research would improve transparency and facilitate assessment of validity. At a minimum, reporting for a database study should provide clarity regarding operational definitions for key temporal anchors and their relation to each other when creating the analytic dataset, accompanied by an attrition table and a design diagram. A substantial improvement in reproducibility, rigor and confidence in real world evidence generated from healthcare databases could be achieved with greater transparency about operational study parameters used to create analytic datasets from longitudinal healthcare databases

Real-World Evidence: What It Is and What It Can Tell Us According to the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) Special Interest Group (SIG)

On December 8, 2016, the New England Journal of Medicine published a sounding board on Real World Evidence (RWE)1 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) leadership. While the value of RWE based on nonrandomized observational studies was appreciated, such as for hypothesis generating, safety, and measuring quality in healthcare delivery, the authors expressed concerns on the quality of data sources and the ability of methodologies to control for confounding. In response, we offer a few considerations regarding these concerns

Armonizzazione delle aliquote IVA: un'utilizzazione del modello di microsimulazione delle imposte indirette dell'ISPE

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Biblioteca Centrale - P.le Aldo Moro, 7, Rome / CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle RichercheSIGLEITItal

La ristrutturazione dell'industria farmaceutica italiana

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR). Biblioteca Centrale / CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle RichercheSIGLEITItal

La legge finanziaria 1992 e la politica dei redditi

SIGLEITItal

Riordino del prelievo fiscale e parafiscale: riflessi sul costo del lavoro per le imprese operanti nel Mezzogiorno

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Biblioteca Centrale - P.le Aldo Moro, 7, Rome / CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle RichercheSIGLEITItal

Capitale umano e crescita economica

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR). Biblioteca Centrale / CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle RichercheSIGLEITItal

Alcuni problemi di regolazione del servizio telefonico in Italia

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche - Biblioteca Centrale - P.le Aldo Moro, 7, Rome / CNR - Consiglio Nazionale delle RichercheSIGLEITItal