Communicating Our Science to Our Customers:Drug Discovery in Five Simple Experiments

The complexities of modern drug discovery–an interdisciplinary process that often takes years and costs billions–can be extremely challenging to explain to a public audience. We present details of a 30 minute demonstrative lecture that uses well-known experiments to illustrate key concepts in drug discovery including synthesis, assay and metabolism

Development of a National Pain Management Competency Profile to Guide Entry-Level Physiotherapy Education in Canada

Background National strategies from North America call for substantive improvements in entry-level pain management education to help reduce the burden of chronic pain. Past work has generated a valuable set of interprofessional pain management competencies to guide the education of future health professionals. However, there has been very limited work that has explored the development of such competencies for individual professions in different regions. Developing profession-specific competencies tailored to the local context is a necessary first step to integrate them within local regulatory systems. Our group is working toward this goal within the context of entry-level physiotherapy (PT) programs across Canada. Aims This study aimed to create a consensus-based competency profile for pain management, specific to the Canadian PT context. Methods A modified Delphi design was used to achieve consensus across Canadian university-based and clinical pain educators. Results Representatives from 14 entry-level PT programs (93% of Canadian programs) and six clinical educators were recruited. After two rounds, a total of 15 competencies reached the predetermined endorsement threshold (75%). Most participants (85%) reported being “very satisfied” with the process. Conclusions This process achieved consensus on a novel pain management competency profile specific to the Canadian PT context. The resulting profile delineates the necessary abilities required by physiotherapists to manage pain upon entry to practice. Participants were very satisfied with the process. This study also contributes to the emerging literature on integrated research in pain management by profiling research methodology that can be used to inform related work in other health professions and regions

Development of a national pain management competency profile to guide entry-level physiotherapy education in Canada

Background National strategies from North America call for substantive improvements in entry-level pain management education to help reduce the burden of chronic pain. Past work has generated a valuable set of interprofessional pain management competencies to guide the education of future health professionals. However, there has been very limited work that has explored the development of such competencies for individual professions in different regions. Developing profession-specific competencies tailored to the local context is a necessary first step to integrate them within local regulatory systems. Our group is working toward this goal within the context of entry-level physiotherapy (PT) programs across Canada. Aims This study aimed to create a consensus-based competency profile for pain management, specific to the Canadian PT context. Methods A modified Delphi design was used to achieve consensus across Canadian university-based and clinical pain educators. Results Representatives from 14 entry-level PT programs (93% of Canadian programs) and six clinical educators were recruited. After two rounds, a total of 15 competencies reached the predetermined endorsement threshold (75%). Most participants (85%) reported being “very satisfied” with the process. Conclusions This process achieved consensus on a novel pain management competency profile specific to the Canadian PT context. The resulting profile delineates the necessary abilities required by physiotherapists to manage pain upon entry to practice. Participants were very satisfied with the process. This study also contributes to the emerging literature on integrated research in pain management by profiling research methodology that can be used to inform related work in other health professions and regions. RÉSUMÉ Contexte: Contexte: Les stratégies nationales nord-américaines préconisent des améliorations sensibles à la formation de base en matiére de prise en charge de la douleur afin de contribuer à la réduction du fardeau de la douleur chronique. Des travaux antérieurs ont généré un ensemble de compétences interprofessionnelles utile en matiére de prise en charge de la douleur afin de guider la formation des futurs professionnels de la santé. Cependant, trés peu de travaux ont porté sur l'acquisition de telles compétences pour des professions individuelles dans différentes régions. L’uisition de compétences spécifiques à une profession adaptées au contexte local est une première étape nécessaire pour leur intégration dans les systèmes réglementaires locaux. Notre groupe travaille à cet objectif dans le cadre de programmes de formation de base en physiothèrapie partout au Canada. Objectifs: Cette étude visait à créer un profil de compétences consensuel pour la prise en charge de la douleur, propre au contexte canadien de la physiothérapie. Méthodes: Un devis Delphi modifié a étè utilisé pour parvenir à un consensus parmi des formateurs en milieu universitaire et clinique en matière de douleur en milieu universitaire et clinique. Résultats: Des représentants de 14 programmes de formation de base en physiothérapie (93 % des programmes canadiens) et de six formateurs en milieu clinique ont été recrutés. Après deux tours, 15 compétences ont atteint le seuil d’approbation prédéterminé (75 %). La plupart des participants (85 %) ont déclaré être « très satisfaits »du processus. Conclusions: Ce processus a permis de dégager un consensus sur un nouveau profil de compétences en matiére de prise en charge de la douleur propre au contexte canadien de la physiothérapie. Ce profil délimite les habiletés requises des physiothérapeutes pour prendre en charge la douleur en début de pratique. Les participants ont été très satisfaits du processus. Cette étude contribue également à la littérature émergente sur la recherche intégrée en matière de prise en charge de la douleur en définissant une méthodologie de recherche qui peut être utilisée pour éclairer des travaux similaires dans d’autres professions de la santé et dans d’autres régions

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests