Guidance for the Conduct and Reporting of Clinical Trials of Breast Milk Substitutes

Question What is the best way to ensure the validity of clinical trials of breast milk substitutes while protecting trial participants? Findings Through a Delphi consensus project, guidance was developed to address issues specific to trials of breast milk substitutes assessing growth and tolerance, as well as trials of breast milk substitutes with other objectives. This consensus guidance summarizes best practice for the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of trials of breast milk substitutes. Meaning Use of this guidance, in conjunction with existing clinical trial regulations, should enhance the quality and validity of trials of breast milk substitutes, protect trial participants, and support the evidence base for infant nutrition recommendations. This consensus guidance summarizes best practice for the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of trials of breast milk substitutes. Importance Breast milk substitutes (BMS) are important nutritional products evaluated in clinical trials. Concerns have been raised about the risk of bias in BMS trials, the reliability of claims that arise from such trials, and the potential for BMS trials to undermine breastfeeding in trial participants. Existing clinical trial guidance does not fully address issues specific to BMS trials. Objectives To establish new methodological criteria to guide the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of BMS trials and to support clinical trialists designing and undertaking BMS trials, editors and peer reviewers assessing trial reports for publication, and regulators evaluating the safety, nutritional adequacy, and efficacy of BMS products. Design, Setting, and Participants A modified Delphi method was conducted, involving 3 rounds of anonymous questionnaires and a face-to-face consensus meeting between January 1 and October 24, 2018. Participants were 23 experts in BMS trials, BMS regulation, trial methods, breastfeeding support, infant feeding research, and medical publishing, and were affiliated with institutions across Europe, North America, and Australasia. Guidance development was supported by an industry consultation, analysis of methodological issues in a sample of published BMS trials, and consultations with BMS trial participants and a research ethics committee. Results An initial 73 criteria, derived from the literature, were sent to the experts. The final consensus guidance contains 54 essential criteria and 4 recommended criteria. An 18-point checklist summarizes the criteria that are specific to BMS trials. Key themes emphasized in the guidance are research integrity and transparency of reporting, supporting breastfeeding in trial participants, accurate description of trial interventions, and use of valid and meaningful outcome measures. Conclusions and Relevance Implementation of this guidance should enhance the quality and validity of BMS trials, protect BMS trial participants, and better inform the infant nutrition community about BMS products.Peer reviewe

Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

An in-depth comparison of latent HIV-1 reactivation in multiple cell model systems and resting CD4+ T cells from aviremic patients

The possibility of HIV-1 eradication has been limited by the existence of latently infected cellular reservoirs. Studies to examine control of HIV latency and potential reactivation have been hindered by the small numbers of latently infected cells found in vivo. Major conceptual leaps have been facilitated by the use of latently infected T cell lines and primary cells. However, notable differences exist among cell model systems. Furthermore, screening efforts in specific cell models have identified drug candidates for “anti-latency” therapy, which often fail to reactivate HIV uniformly across different models. Therefore, the activity of a given drug candidate, demonstrated in a particular cellular model, cannot reliably predict its activity in other cell model systems or in infected patient cells, tested ex vivo. This situation represents a critical knowledge gap that adversely affects our ability to identify promising treatment compounds and hinders the advancement of drug testing into relevant animal models and clinical trials. To begin to understand the biological characteristics that are inherent to each HIV-1 latency model, we compared the response properties of five primary T cell models, four J-Lat cell models and those obtained with a viral outgrowth assay using patient-derived infected cells. A panel of thirteen stimuli that are known to reactivate HIV by defined mechanisms of action was selected and tested in parallel in all models. Our results indicate that no single in vitro cell model alone is able to capture accurately the ex vivo response characteristics of latently infected T cells from patients. Most cell models demonstrated that sensitivity to HIV reactivation was skewed toward or against specific drug classes. Protein kinase C agonists and PHA reactivated latent HIV uniformly across models, although drugs in most other classes did not

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials

Introduction: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. Methods: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. Results: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. Discussion: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal