Nipple sparing versus skin sparing mastectomy: a systematic review protocol.

Introduction Breast cancer has a lifetime incidence of one in eight women. Over the past three decades there has been a move towards breast conservation and a focus on aesthetic outcomes while maintaining oncological safety. For some patients, mastectomy is the preferred option. There is growing interest in the potential use of nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM). However, oncological safety remains unproven, and the benefits and indications have not been clearly identified. The objective of this systematic review will be to determine the safety and efficacy of NSM as compared with skin sparing mastectomy (SSM).Methods and analysis All original comparative studies including; randomised controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies involving women undergoing either NSM or SSM for breast cancer will be included. Outcomes are primary-relating to oncological outcomes and secondary-relating to clinical, aesthetic, patient reported and quality of life outcomes. A comprehensive electronic literature search, designed by a search specialist, will be undertaken. Grey literature searches will also be conducted. Eligibility assessment will occur in two stages; title and abstract screening and then full text assessment. Each step will be conducted by two trained teams acting independently. Data will then be extracted and stored in a database with standardised extraction fields to facilitate easy and consistent data entry. Data analysis will be undertaken to explore the relationship between NSM or SSM and preselected outcomes, heterogeneity will be assessed using the Cochrane tests.Ethics and dissemination This systematic review requires no ethical approval. It will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It will also be presented at national and international conferences. Updates of the review will be conducted to inform and guide healthcare practice and policy

Computerised interpretation of fetal heart rate during labour (INFANT): a randomised controlled trial

Background. Continuous electronic fetal heart-rate monitoring is widely used during labour, and computerised interpretation could increase its usefulness. We aimed to establish whether the addition of decision-support software to assist in the interpretation of cardiotocographs affected the number of poor neonatal outcomes. Methods. In this unmasked randomised controlled trial, we recruited women in labour aged 16 years or older having continuous electronic fetal monitoring, with a singleton or twin pregnancy, and at 35 weeks’ gestation or more at 24 maternity units in the UK and Ireland. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to decision support with the INFANT system or no decision support via a computer-generated stratified block randomisation schedule. The primary outcomes were poor neonatal outcome (intrapartum stillbirth or early neonatal death excluding lethal congenital anomalies, or neonatal encephalopathy, admission to the neonatal unit within 24 h for ≥48 h with evidence of feeding difficulties, respiratory illness, or encephalopathy with evidence of compromise at birth), and developmental assessment at age 2 years in a subset of surviving children. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is completed and is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number 98680152. Findings. Between Jan 6, 2010, and Aug 31, 2013, 47062 women were randomly assigned (23515 in the decision-support group and 23547 in the no-decision-support group) and 46042 were analysed (22987 in the decision-support group and 23055 in the no-decision-support group). We noted no difference in the incidence of poor neonatal outcome between the groups—172 (0·7%) babies in the decision-support group compared with 171 (0·7%) babies in the no-decision-support group (adjusted risk ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·82–1·25). At 2 years, no significant differences were noted in terms of developmental assessment. Interpretation. Use of computerised interpretation of cardiotocographs in women who have continuous electronic fetal monitoring in labour does not improve clinical outcomes for mothers or babies

Quality standards for the management of alcohol-related liver disease: consensus recommendations from the British Association for the Study of the Liver and British Society of Gastroenterology ARLD special interest group

Objective Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) is the most common cause of liver-related ill health and liver-related deaths in the UK, and deaths from ALD have doubled in the last decade. The management of ALD requires treatment of both liver disease and alcohol use; this necessitates effective and constructive multidisciplinary working. To support this, we have developed quality standard recommendations for the management of ALD, based on evidence and consensus expert opinion, with the aim of improving patient care. Design A multidisciplinary group of experts from the British Association for the Study of the Liver and British Society of Gastroenterology ALD Special Interest Group developed the quality standards, with input from the British Liver Trust and patient representatives. Results The standards cover three broad themes: the recognition and diagnosis of people with ALD in primary care and the liver outpatient clinic; the management of acutely decompensated ALD including acute alcoholrelated hepatitis and the posthospital care of people with advanced liver disease due to ALD. Draft quality standards were initially developed by smaller working groups and then an anonymous modified Delphi voting process was conducted by the entire group to assess the level of agreement with each statement. Statements were included when agreement was 85% or greater. Twenty-four quality standards were produced from this process which support best practice. From the final list of statements, a smaller number of auditable key performance indicators were selected to allow services to benchmark their practice and an audit tool provided. Conclusion It is hoped that services will review their practice against these recommendations and key performance indicators and institute service development where needed to improve the care of patients with ALD

Parkinson’s disease mouse models in translational research

Animal models with high predictive power are a prerequisite for translational research. The closer the similarity of a model to Parkinson’s disease (PD), the higher is the predictive value for clinical trials. An ideal PD model should present behavioral signs and pathology that resemble the human disease. The increasing understanding of PD stratification and etiology, however, complicates the choice of adequate animal models for preclinical studies. An ultimate mouse model, relevant to address all PD-related questions, is yet to be developed. However, many of the existing models are useful in answering specific questions. An appropriate model should be chosen after considering both the context of the research and the model properties. This review addresses the validity, strengths, and limitations of current PD mouse models for translational research

The many meanings of evidence: a comparative analysis of the forms and roles of evidence within three health policy processes in Cambodia

Background Discussions within the health community routinely emphasise the importance of evidence in informing policy formulation and implementation. Much of the support for the evidence-based policy movement draws from concern that policy decisions are often based on inadequate engagement with high-quality evidence. In many such discussions, evidence is treated as differing only in quality, and assumed to improve decisions if it can only be used more. In contrast, political science scholars have described this as an overly simplistic view of the policy-making process, noting that research ‘use’ can mean a variety of things and rely on nuanced aspects of political systems. An approach more in recognition of how policy-making systems operate in practice can be to consider how institutions and ideas influence which pieces of evidence appear to be relevant for, and are used within, different policy processes. Methods Drawing on in-depth interviews undertaken in 2015/16 with key health sector stakeholders in Cambodia, we investigate the evidence perceived to be relevant to policy decisions for three contrasting health policy examples – tobacco control, HIV/AIDS and performance-based salary incentives. These cases allow us to examine the ways that policy relevant evidence may differ given the framing of the issue and the broader institutional context in which evidence is considered. Results The three health issues show few similarities in how pieces of evidence were used in various aspects of policy-making, despite all being discussed within a broad policy environment in which evidence-based policymaking is rhetorically championed. Instead, we find that evidence use can be better understood by mapping how these health policy issues differ in terms of the issue characteristics, and also in terms of the stakeholders structurally established as having dominant influence for each issue. Both of these have important implications for evidence use. Contrasting concerns of key stakeholders meant that evidence related to differing issues could be understood in terms of how it was policy relevant. The stakeholders involved, however, could further be seen to possess differing logics about how to go about achieving their various outcomes – logics that could further help explain the differences seen in evidence utilisation. Conclusion A comparative approach reiterates that evidence is not a uniform concept for which more is obviously better, but rather illustrates how different constructions and pieces of evidence become relevant in relation to the features of specific health policy decisions. An institutional approach that considers the structural position of stakeholders with differing core goals or objectives, as well as their logics related to evidence utilisation, can further help to understand some of the complexities of evidence use in health policymaking

General anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England: a prospective, multi-centre observational study

There are no current descriptions of general anaesthesia characteristics for obstetric surgery, despite recent changes to patient baseline characteristics and airway management guidelines. This analysis of data from the direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients' (DREAMY) study of accidental awareness during obstetric anaesthesia aimed to describe practice for obstetric general anaesthesia in England and compare with earlier surveys and best-practice recommendations. Consenting patients who received general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals from May 2017 to August 2018 were included. Baseline characteristics, airway management, anaesthetic techniques and major complications were collected. Descriptive analysis, binary logistic regression modelling and comparisons with earlier data were conducted. Data were collected from 3117 procedures, including 2554 (81.9%) caesarean deliveries. Thiopental was the induction drug in 1649 (52.9%) patients, compared with propofol in 1419 (45.5%). Suxamethonium was the neuromuscular blocking drug for tracheal intubation in 2631 (86.1%), compared with rocuronium in 367 (11.8%). Difficult tracheal intubation was reported in 1 in 19 (95%CI 1 in 16-22) and failed intubation in 1 in 312 (95%CI 1 in 169-667). Obese patients were over-represented compared with national baselines and associated with difficult, but not failed intubation. There was more evidence of change in practice for induction drugs (increased use of propofol) than neuromuscular blocking drugs (suxamethonium remains the most popular). There was evidence of improvement in practice, with increased monitoring and reversal of neuromuscular blockade (although this remains suboptimal). Despite a high risk of difficult intubation in this population, videolaryngoscopy was rarely used (1.9%)

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research