Update of a clinical prediction model for serious bacterial infections in preschool children by adding a host-protein-based assay: A diagnostic study

__Objective__ To determine whether updating a diagnostic prediction model by adding a combination assay (tumour necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand, interferon γinduced protein-10 and C reactive protein (CRP)) can accurately identify children with pneumonia or other serious bacterial infections (SBIs). __Design__ Observational double-blind diagnostic study. __Setting__ Two hospitals in Israel and four hospitals in the Netherlands. __Patients__ 591 children, aged 1-60 months, presenting with lower respiratory tract infections or fever without source. 96 of them had SBIs. The original Feverkidstool, a polytomous logistic regression model including clinical variables and CRP, was recalibrated and thereafter updated by using the assay. __Main outcome measures__ Pneumonia, other SBIs or no SBI. __Results__ The recalibrated original Feverkidstool discriminated well between SBIs and viral infections, with a c-statistic for pneumonia of 0.84 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.92) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.86) for other SBIs. The discriminatory ability increased when CRP was replaced by the combination assay; c-statistic for pneumonia increased to 0.89 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.96) and for other SBIs to 0.91 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.94). This updated Feverkidstool improved diagnosis of SBIs mainly in children with low-modera

Low dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm labour - the APRIL study: A multicenter randomized placebo controlled trial

Background: Preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks of gestation) is a major problem in obstetrics and affects an estimated 15 million pregnancies worldwide annually. A history of previous preterm birth is the strongest risk factor for preterm birth, and recurrent spontaneous preterm birth affects more than 2.5 million pregnancies each year. A recent meta-analysis showed possible benefits of the use of low dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth. We will assess the (cost-)effectiveness of low dose aspirin in comparison with placebo in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm birth in a randomized clinical trial. Methods/design: Women with a singleton pregnancy and a history of spontaneous preterm birth in a singleton pregnancy (22-37 weeks of gestation) will be asked to participate in a multicenter, randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled trial. Women will be randomized to low dose aspirin (80 mg once daily) or placebo, initiated from 8 to 16 weeks up to maximal 36 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome measure will be preterm birth, defined as birth at a gestational age (GA) < 37 weeks. Secondary outcomes will be a composite of adverse neonatal outcome and maternal outcomes, including subgroups of prematurity, as well as intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and costs from a healthcare perspective. Preterm birth will be analyzed as a group, as well as separately for spontaneous or indicated onset. Analysis will be performed by intention to treat. In total, 406 pregnant women have to be randomized to show a reduction of 35% in preterm birth from 36 to 23%. If aspirin is effective in preventing preterm birth, we expect that there will be cost savings, because of the low costs of aspirin. To evaluate this, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing preventive treatment with aspirin with placebo. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence as to whether or not low dose aspirin is (cost-) effective in reducing recurrence of spontaneous preterm birth. Trial registration: Clinical trial registration number of the Dutch Trial Register: NTR 5675. EudraCT-registration number: 2015-003220-31

Thyroid-stimulating hormone and free thyroxine fail to predict the severity and clinical course of hyperemesis gravidarum : A prospective cohort study

Funding information: This prospective cohort study was supported by a research grant from North West Hospital Group, Alkmaar, the Netherlands (Grant number: 2013T085) and by a research grant from the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development (AR&D) Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands (Project number: 23346). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Dr. J.P. Bestwick (employed at Queen Mary University of London, London, UK) and Professor Dr. J.H. Lazarus (employed at Cardiff School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK) for providing TSH medians from their study in the UK. Dr. J.P. Bestwick and Professor Dr. Lazarus have nothing to disclose.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Evaluation of low-dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent spontaneous preterm labour (the APRIL study) : A multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

Funding: MdB, LV, TN, BM, MO and CdG received funding from ZonMw, The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (grant number 836041006). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

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

SUGAR-DIP trial: Oral medication strategy versus insulin for diabetes in pregnancy, study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

Introduction In women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM. Methods The SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

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

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

Detailed statistical analysis plan for the Dutch STRIDER (Sildenafil TheRapy In Dismal prognosis Early-onset fetal growth Restriction) randomised clinical trial on sildenafil versus placebo for pregnant women with severe early onset fetal growth restriction

Objective The objective of the Dutch Sildenafil therapy in dismal prognosis early onset fetal growth restriction (STRIDER) randomised clinical trial is to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of sildenafil versus placebo on fetal and neonatal mortality in pregnant women with severe early-onset fetal growth restriction. The objective of this detailed statistical analysis plan is to minimize the risks of selective reporting and data-driven analysis. Setting The setting is 10 tertiary care hospitals and one secondary care hospital in The Netherlands. Participants The participants will be 360 pregnant women with severe early-onset fetal growth restriction. Interventions The intervention is sildenafil 25 mg or placebo orally three times a day. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome is a composite of death or major neonatal morbidity assessed at hospital discharge. The secondary outcomes are neurodevelopmental impairment; mean scores of the Bayley III cognitive and motor assessment; the proportion of patients experiencing either preeclampsia or haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; pulsatility index of uterine arteries, umbilical artery, and middle cerebral artery; birthweight; and gestational age at either delivery or intra-uterine death. Results A detailed statistical analysis is presented, including pre-defined exploratory outcomes and planned subgroup analyses. One interim analysis after 180 patients had completed the study was planned and a strategy to minimise the risks of type I errors due to repetitive testing is presented. During review of this manuscript the interim analysis was performed by the Data Safety Monitoring Board and early stopping of the trial was recommended. Final analyses will be conducted independently by two statistically qualified persons following the present plan. Conclusion This pre-specified statistical analysis plan was written and submitted without knowledge of the unblinded data and updated after stopping of the trial at interim analysis