The methodology for developing a prospective meta-analysis in the family planning community

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is a collaborative research design in which individual sites perform randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pool the data for meta-analysis. Members of the PMA collaboration agree upon specific research interventions and outcome measures, ideally before initiation but at least prior to any individual trial publishing results. This allows for uniform reporting of primary and secondary outcomes. With this approach, heterogeneity among trials contributing data for the final meta-analysis is minimized while each site maintains the freedom to design a specific trial. This paper describes the process of creating a PMA collaboration to evaluate the impact of misoprostol on ease of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion in nulliparous women.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>After the principal investigator developed a preliminary PMA protocol, he identified potential collaborating investigators at other sites. One site already had a trial underway and another site was in the planning stages of a trial meeting PMA requirements. Investigators at six sites joined the PMA collaborative. Each site committed to enroll subjects to meet a pre-determined total sample size. A final common research plan and site responsibilities were developed and agreed upon through email and face-to-face meetings. Each site committed to contribute individual patient data to the PMA collaboration, and these data will be analyzed and prepared as a multi-site publication. Individual sites retain the ability to analyze and publish their site's independent findings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All six sites have obtained Institutional Review Board approval and each has obtained individual funding to meet the needs of that site's study. Sites have shared resources including study protocols and consents to decrease costs and improve study flow. This PMA protocol is registered with the Cochrane Collaboration and data will be analyzed according to Cochrane standards for meta-analysis.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>PMA is a novel research method that improves meta-analysis by including several study sites, establishing uniform reporting of specific outcomes, and yet allowing some independence on the part of individual sites with respect to the conduct of research. The inclusion of several sites increases statistical power to address important clinical questions. Compared to multi-center trials, PMA methodology encourages collaboration, aids in the development of new investigators, decreases study costs, and decreases time to publication.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00613366">NCT00613366</a>, <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00886834">NCT00886834</a>, <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01001897">NCT01001897</a>, <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01147497">NCT01147497</a> and <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01307111">NCT01307111</a></p

Gabapentin as an adjunct for pain management during dilation and evacuation: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy of preoperative gabapentin among patients undergoing dilation and evacuation (D&E) with moderate sedation. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial among patients undergoing same-day D&E at 14 to 19 weeks gestation under moderate sedation. We randomized participants 1:1 to gabapentin 600 mg or placebo after cervical preparation at least 1 hour prior to D&E. We assessed pain using a 100-mm visual analog scale before, during, and after the procedure. The primary outcome was postoperative recall of maximum procedural pain with a 13-mm a priori threshold for clinical significance. We standardized initial fentanyl and midazolam dosing. We assessed satisfaction with pain control, nausea, and vomiting via Likert scales and anxiety using a validated instrument. RESULTS: We enrolled 126 participants and randomized 61 to gabapentin and 65 to placebo, with study medication administered a mean of 211 (SD 64) minutes preoperatively. Recall of maximum pain was 41 mm for gabapentin and 49 mm for placebo (p = 0.24). Gabapentin resulted in reduced pain during uterine aspiration (56 vs 71 mm, p= 0.003) compared to placebo, but not for any other time points. The gabapentin group had higher satisfaction (78% vs 65% very or somewhat satisfied, p= 0.01). Median fentanyl dose was lower in the gabapentin group (75 vs 100 mcg, p = 0.005). Midazolam dose, nausea, vomiting, and anxiety did not differ between groups. No serious adverse events occurred in the gabapentin group. Sedation reversal was not required. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of gabapentin to moderate sedation during D&E did not result in lower maximum recalled procedural pain. Gabapentin resulted in reduced intra-operative pain during uterine aspiration and increased satisfaction with pain control. IMPLICATIONS: Gabapentin reduces intraoperative pain and improves satisfaction with pain management when administered prior to second-trimester surgical abortion and may be considered as an adjunct to intravenous sedation. Moderate sedation may impair assessment and recall of pain. Additional research is needed to identify the most effective pain management regimens for D&E

Integrating HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis into Family Planning Care: A RE-AIM Framework Evaluation.

We aimed to systematically evaluate the feasibility of integrating HIV prevention services, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), into a family planning setting in a high-prevalence community. We used the RE-AIM Framework (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) to evaluate the integration of HIV prevention services into a family planning clinic over 6 months. Before the integration, PrEP was not offered. We implemented a staff training program on HIV PrEP. We determined the proportion of women presenting to the clinic who were screened, eligible for, and initiated PrEP through chart review. We assessed staff comfort with PrEP pre- and post-integration. We compared planned and actual implementation, interviewed staff to determine barriers and facilitators, and tracked systems adaptations. We assessed maintenance of PrEP after the study concluded. There were 640 clinical encounters for 515 patients; the rate of HIV counseling and PrEP screening was 50%. The rate was 10% in month 1 and peaked to 65% in month 3. Nearly all screened patients were eligible for PrEP (98.4%) and 15 patients (6%) initiated PrEP. Staff knowledge and comfort discussing PrEP improved after education. Facilitators included partnering with local experts, continuing education, clinical tools for providers, and patient education materials. Barriers included competing priorities during clinical encounters, limited woman-centered patient education materials, and insurance-related barriers. Embedding HIV prevention services in the family planning setting was feasible in this pilot. The proportion of women screened for PrEP rapidly increased. In this high HIV prevalence community, nearly all screened women were eligible and 6% initiated PrEP