A potential new tool for the toolbox: assessing gene drives for eradicating invasive rodent populations

Invasive rodents have significant negative impacts on island biodiversity. All but the smallest of rodent eradications currently rely on island-wide rodenticide applications. Although significant advances have been made in mitigating unintended impacts, rodent eradication on inhabited islands remains extremely challenging. Current tools restrict eradication eff orts to fewer than 15% of islands with critically endangered or endangered species threatened by invasive rodents. The Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents partnership is an interdisciplinary collaboration to develop and evaluate gene drive technology for eradicating invasive rodent populations on islands. Technological approaches currently being investigated include the production of multiple strains of Mus musculus with a modifi ed form of the native t-complex, or a CRISPR gene drive, carrying genes or mechanisms that determine sex. These systems have the potential to skew the sex ratio of off spring to approach 100% single-sex, which could result in population collapse. One goal proposed is to test the ability of constructs to spread and increase in frequency in M. musculus populations in biosecure, captive settings and undertake modelling to inform development and potential deployment of these systems. Structured ecologically-based risk assessments are proposed, along with social and cultural engagement to assess the acceptability of releasing a gene drive system. Work will be guided by an external ethics advisory board. Partners are from three countries with significant regulatory capacity (USA, Australia, New Zealand). Thus, we will seek data sharing agreements so that results from experiments may be used within all three countries and treat regulatory requirements as a minimum. Species-specific, scalable, and socially acceptable new eradication tools could produce substantial biodiversity benefits not possible with current technologies. Gene drive innovation may provide such a tool for invasive species management and be potentially transformative and worthy of exploring in an inclusive, responsible, and ethical manner

Antenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of imminent preterm birth in low-resource countries: the case for equipoise and the need for efficacy trials

The scientific basis for antenatal corticosteroids (ACS) for women at risk of preterm birth has rapidly changed in recent years. Two landmark trials—the Antenatal Corticosteroid Trial and the Antenatal Late Preterm Steroids Trial—have challenged the long-held assumptions on the comparative health benefits and harms regarding the use of ACS for preterm birth across all levels of care and contexts, including resource-limited settings. Researchers, clinicians, programme managers, policymakers and donors working in low-income and middle-income countries now face challenging questions of whether, where and how ACS can be used to optimise outcomes for both women and preterm newborns. In this article, we briefly present an appraisal of the current evidence around ACS, how these findings informed WHO’s current recommendations on ACS use, and the knowledge gaps that have emerged in the light of new trial evidence. Critical considerations in the generalisability of the available evidence demonstrate that a true state of clinical equipoise exists for this treatment option in low-resource settings. An expert group convened by WHO concluded that there is a clear need for more efficacy trials of ACS in these settings to inform clinical practice

REDUCE (Reviewing long-term antidepressant use by careful monitoring in everyday practice) internet and telephone support to people coming off long-term antidepressants: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Around one in ten adults take antidepressants for depression in England, and their long-term use is increasing. Some need them to prevent relapse, but 30-50% could possibly stop them without relapsing and avoid adverse effects and complications of long-term use. However, stopping is not always easy due to withdrawal symptoms and a fear of relapse of depression. When general practitioners review patients on long-term antidepressants and recommend to those who are suitable to stop the medication, only 6-8% are able to stop. The Reviewing long-term antidepressant use by careful monitoring in everyday practice (REDUCE) research programme aims to identify safe and cost-effective ways of helping patients taking long-term antidepressants taper off treatment when appropriate. METHODS: Design: REDUCE is a two-arm, 1:1 parallel group randomised controlled trial, with randomisation clustered by participating family practices. SETTING: England and north Wales. POPULATION: patients taking antidepressants for longer than 1 year for a first episode of depression or longer than 2 years for repeated episodes of depression who are no longer depressed and want to try to taper off their antidepressant use. INTERVENTION: provision of 'ADvisor' internet programmes to general practitioners or nurse practitioners and to patients designed to support antidepressant withdrawal, plus three patient telephone calls from a psychological wellbeing practitioner. The control arm receives usual care. Blinding of patients, practitioners and researchers is not possible in an open pragmatic trial, but statistical and health economic data analysts will remain blind to allocation. OUTCOME MEASURES: the primary outcome is self-reported nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire at 6 months for depressive symptoms. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: depressive symptoms at other follow-up time points, anxiety, discontinuation of antidepressants, social functioning, wellbeing, enablement, quality of life, satisfaction, and use of health services for costs. SAMPLE SIZE: 402 patients (201 intervention and 201 controls) from 134 general practices recruited over 15-18 months, and followed-up at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. A qualitative process evaluation will be conducted through interviews with 15-20 patients and 15-20 practitioners in each arm to explore why the interventions were effective or not, depending on the results. DISCUSSION: Helping patients reduce and stop antidepressants is often challenging for practitioners and time-consuming for very busy primary care practices. If REDUCE provides evidence showing that access to internet and telephone support enables more patients to stop treatment without increasing depression we will try to implement the intervention throughout the National Health Service, publishing practical guidance for professionals and advice for patients to follow, publicised through patient support groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN:12417565. Registered on 7 October 2019

How does study quality affect the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis?

Background: The use of systematic literature review to inform evidence based practice in diagnostics is rapidly expanding. Although the primary diagnostic literature is extensive, studies are often of low methodological quality or poorly reported. There has been no rigorously evaluated, evidence based tool to assess the methodological quality of diagnostic studies. The primary objective of this study was to determine the extent to which variations in the quality of primary studies impact the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis and whether this differs with diagnostic test type. A secondary objective was to contribute to the evaluation of QUADAS, an evidence-based tool for the assessment of quality in diagnostic accuracy studies. Methods: This study was conducted as part of large systematic review of tests used in the diagnosis and further investigation of urinary tract infection (UTI) in children. All studies included in this review were assessed using QUADAS, an evidence-based tool for the assessment of quality in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. The impact of individual components of QUADAS on a summary measure of diagnostic accuracy was investigated using regression analysis. The review divided the diagnosis and further investigation of UTI into the following three clinical stages: diagnosis of UTI, localisation of infection, and further investigation of the UTI. Each stage used different types of diagnostic test, which were considered to involve different quality concerns. Results: Many of the studies included in our review were poorly reported. The proportion of QUADAS items fulfilled was similar for studies in different sections of the review. However, as might be expected, the individual items fulfilled differed between the three clinical stages. Regression analysis found that different items showed a strong association with test performance for the different tests evaluated. These differences were observed both within and between the three clinical stages assessed by the review. The results of regression analyses were also affected by whether or not a weighting (by sample size) was applied. Our analysis was severely limited by the completeness of reporting and the differences between the index tests evaluated and the reference standards used to confirm diagnoses in the primary studies. Few tests were evaluated by sufficient studies to allow meaningful use of meta-analytic pooling and investigation of heterogeneity. This meant that further analysis to investigate heterogeneity could only be undertaken using a subset of studies, and that the findings are open to various interpretations. Conclusion: Further work is needed to investigate the influence of methodological quality on the results of diagnostic meta-analyses. Large data sets of well-reported primary studies are needed to address this question. Without significant improvements in the completeness of reporting of primary studies, progress in this area will be limited

Increasing capacity for the treatment of common musculoskeletal problems: A non-inferiority RCT and economic analysis of corticosteroid injection for shoulder pain comparing a physiotherapist and orthopaedic surgeon

Background Role substitution is a strategy employed to assist health services manage the growing demand for musculoskeletal care. Corticosteroid injection is a common treatment in this population but the efficacy of its prescription and delivery by physiotherapists has not been established against orthopaedic standards. This paper investigates whether corticosteroid injection given by a physiotherapist for shoulder pain is as clinically and cost effective as that from an orthopaedic surgeon. Methods A double blind non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted in an Australian public hospital orthopaedic outpatient service, from January 2013 to June 2014. Adults with a General Practitioner referral to Orthopaedics for shoulder pain received subacromial corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection prescribed and delivered independently by a physiotherapist or a consultant orthopaedic surgeon. The main outcome measure was total Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score at baseline, six and 12 weeks, applying a non-inferiority margin of 15 points. Secondary outcomes tested for superiority included pain, shoulder movement, perceived improvement, adverse events, satisfaction, quality of life and costs. Results 278 participants were independently assessed by the physiotherapist and the orthopaedic surgeon, with 64 randomised (physiotherapist 33, orthopaedic surgeon 31). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Non-inferiority of injection by the physiotherapist was declared from total SPADI scores at 6 and 12 weeks (upper limit of the 95% one-sided confidence interval 13.34 and 7.17 at 6 and 12 weeks, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between groups on any outcome measures at 6 or 12 weeks. From the perspective of the health funder, the physiotherapist was less expensive. Conclusions Corticosteroid injection for shoulder pain, provided by a suitably qualified physiotherapist is at least as clinically effective, and less expensive, compared with similar care delivered by an orthopaedic surgeon. Policy makers and service providers should consider implementing this model of care

Clinical effectiveness of usual care with or without antidepressant medication for primary care patients with minor or mild-major depression: a randomized equivalence trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Minor and mild-major depression are highly prevalent in primary care. There is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of antidepressants in the treatment of minor and mild-major depression. We compared the effectiveness of usual primary care treatment, with or without antidepressants, in minor and mild-major depression.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A pragmatic patient-randomized equivalence trial with 52 weeks follow-up was conducted in The Netherlands. In total, 59 primary care physicians (PCPs) recruited and treated 181 adult patients with minor or mild-major depression. Patients were randomized to four consultations within 3 months of usual care plus antidepressants (UCandAD) or usual care alone (UCnoAD). The Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was used to assess changes in severity of depressive symptoms. The predefined equivalence margin was set at five points. Multilevel analysis was used to analyze the data. Secondary outcome measures were the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients received on average 3.0 (SD 1.4) 15-min consultations within 3 months with (n = 85) or without paroxetine (n = 96). Equivalence of UCandAD and UCnoAD was demonstrated in the intention-to-treat analyses as well as the per-protocol analysis after 6 weeks, but not at 13, 26 and 52 weeks follow-up. No statistical differences in effectiveness between treatment groups were found in the intention-to-treat analysis. No differences in the physical and mental functioning (SF-36) were found between the treatment groups. Patients allocated to UCandAD were slightly more satisfied with their treatment at 13 weeks follow-up (but not at 52 weeks follow-up) than patients allocated to UCnoAD. Preliminary analyses suggested that subgroups such as patients with mild-major (instead of a minor) depression might benefit from antidepressant treatment. Patients who were assigned to their preferred treatment (in particular to UCnoAD) were more often compliant and had better clinical outcomes.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>UCandAD was as effective as UCnoAD over the first 6 weeks, but not at 13, 26, and 52 weeks. However, superiority of either treatment could not be demonstrated either. The question whether antidepressants add any clinical effect to usual care remains unresolved. We recommend future studies to look for subgroups of patients who may benefit from antidepressants.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Dutch Trial Registry ISRCN03007807.</p

Study protocol for a non-inferiority trial of cytisine versus nicotine replacement therapy in people motivated to stop smoking

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smokers need effective support to maximise the chances of successful quit attempts. Current smoking cessation medications, such as nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, nortriptyline or varenicline, have been shown to be effective in clinical trials but are underused by smokers attempting to quit due to adverse effects, contraindications, low acceptability and/or high cost. Cytisine is a low-cost, plant-based alkaloid that has been sold as a smoking cessation aid in Eastern Europe for 50 years. A systematic review of trial evidence suggests that cytisine has a positive impact on both short- and long-term abstinence rates compared to placebo. However, the quality of the evidence is poor and insufficient for licensing purposes in many Western countries. A large, well-conducted placebo-controlled trial (n = 740) of cytisine for smoking cessation has recently been published and confirms the findings of earlier studies, with 12-month continuous abstinence rates of 8.4% in the cytisine group compared to 2.4% in the placebo group (Relative risk = 3.4, 95% confidence intervals 1.7-7.1). No research has yet been undertaken to determine the effectiveness of cytisine relative to that of NRT.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>A single-blind, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial has been designed to determine whether cytisine is at least as effective as NRT in assisting smokers to remain abstinent for at least one month. Participants (n = 1,310) will be recruited through the national telephone-based Quitline service in New Zealand and randomised to receive a standard 25-day course of cytisine tablets (Tabex^®) or usual care (eight weeks of NRT patch and/or gum or lozenge). Participants in both study arms will also receive a behavioural support programme comprising an average of three follow-up telephone calls delivered over an eight-week period by Quitline. The primary outcome is continuous abstinence from smoking at one month, defined as not smoking more than five cigarettes since quit date. Outcome data will also be collected at one week, two months and six months post-quit date.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Cytisine appears to be effective compared with placebo, and given its (current) relative low cost may be an acceptable smoking cessation treatment for smokers, particularly those in low- and middle-income countries. Cytisine's 'natural' product status may also increase its acceptability and use among certain groups of smokers, such as indigenous people, smokers in countries where the use of natural medicines is widespread (e.g. China, India), and in those people who do not want to use NRT or anti-depressants to help them quit smoking. However it is important to ascertain the effectiveness of cytisine compared with that of existing cessation treatments.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (<a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12610000590066.aspx">ACTRN12610000590066</a>)</p