Barriers and

facilitators to change in the organisation and delivery of endoscopy services in England and Wales: a focus group study. BMJ Open, 2(3), e001009-e001009. When uploading content they are required to comply with their publisher agreement and the SHERPA RoMEO database to judge whether or not it is copyright safe to add this version of the paper to this repository

Infliximab versus ciclosporin for steroid-resistant acute severe ulcerative colitis (CONSTRUCT):a mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial

Infliximab and ciclosporin are of similar efficacy in treating acute severe ulcerative colitis, but there has been no comparative evaluation of their relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.In this mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial, we recruited consenting patients aged 18 years or older at 52 district general and teaching hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales who had been admitted, unscheduled, with severe ulcerative colitis and failed to respond to intravenous hydrocortisone within about 5 days. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either infliximab (5 mg/kg intravenous infusion given over 2 h at baseline, and again at 2 weeks and 6 weeks after the first infusion) or ciclosporin (2 mg/kg per day by continuous infusion for up to 7 days, followed by twice-daily tablets delivering 5·5 mg/kg per day for 12 weeks). Randomisation used a web-based password-protected site, with a dynamic algorithm to generate allocations on request, thus protecting against investigator preference or other subversion, while ensuring that each trial group was balanced by centre, which was the only stratification used. Local investigators and participants were aware of the treatment allocated, but the chief investigator and analysts were masked. Analysis was by treatment allocated. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival-ie, the area under the curve (AUC) of scores from the Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaire (CUCQ) completed by participants at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, then every 6 months from 1 year to 3 years. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN22663589.Between June 17, 2010, and Feb 26, 2013, 270 patients were recruited. 135 patients were allocated to the infliximab group and 135 to the ciclosporin group. 121 (90%) patients in each group were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. There was no significant difference between groups in quality-adjusted survival (mean AUC 564·0 [SD 241·9] in the infliximab group vs 587·0 [226·2] in the ciclosporin group; mean adjusted difference 7·9 [95% CI -22·0 to 37·8]; p=0·603). Likewise, there were no significant differences between groups in the secondary outcomes of CUCQ scores, EQ-5D, or SF-6D scores; frequency of colectomy (55 [41%] of 135 patients in the infliximab group vs 65 [48%] of 135 patients in the ciclosporin group; p=0·223); or mean time to colectomy (811 [95% CI 707-912] days in the infliximab group vs 744 [638-850] days in the ciclosporin group; p=0·251). There were no differences in serious adverse reactions (16 reactions in 14 participants receiving infliximab vs ten in nine patients receiving ciclosporin); serious adverse events (21 in 16 patients vs 25 in 17 patients); or deaths (three in the infliximab group vs none in the ciclosporin group).There was no significant difference between ciclosporin and infliximab in clinical effectiveness.NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme

Bureaucracy stifles medical research in Britain: a tale of three trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent developments aiming to standardise and streamline processes of gaining the necessary approvals to carry out research in the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK), have resulted in lengthy and costly delays. The national UK governmental Department of Health’s Research Governance Framework (RGF) for Health and Social Care requires that appropriate checks be conducted before research involving human participants, their organs, tissues or data can commence in the NHS. As a result, medical research has been subjected to increased regulation and governance, with the requirement for approvals from numerous regulatory and monitoring bodies. In addition, the processes and outcomes of the attribution of costs in NHS research have caused additional difficulties for researchers. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate, through three trial case studies, the difficulties encountered during the set-up and recruitment phases of these trials, related to gaining the necessary ethical and governance approvals and applying for NHS costs to undertake and deliver the research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Empirical evidence about delays and difficulties related to regulation and governance of medical research was gathered during the period 2009–2010 from three UK randomised controlled trials with sites in England, Wales and Scotland (1. SAFER 2- an emergency care based trial of a protocol for paramedics to refer patients directly to community based falls services; 2. COnStRUCT- a trial of two drugs for acute ulcerative colitis; and 3. Family Links - a trial of a public health intervention, a 10 week community based parenting programme). Findings and recommendations were reported in response to a call for evidence from The Academy of Medical Sciences regarding difficulties encountered in conducting medical research arising from R&D governance and regulation, to inform national policy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Difficulties and delays in navigating and gaining the appropriate approvals and NHS costs required to undertake the research were encountered in all three trials, at various points in the bureaucratic processes of ethical and research and information governance approvals. Conduct of each of the three trials was delayed by at least 12 months, with costs increasing by 30 – 40%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Whilst the three trials encountered a variety of challenges, there were common issues. The processes for gaining approvals were overly complex and differed between sites and UK countries; guidance about processes was unclear; and information regarding how to define and claim NHS costs for undertaking the research was inconsistent. The competitive advantage of a publicly funded, open access health system for undertaking health services research and clinical trials within the UK has been outweighed in recent years by stifling bureaucratic structures and processes for governance of research. The recommendations of the Academy of Medical Sciences are welcomed, and the effects of their implementation are awaited with interest.</p> <p>Trial Registration numbers</p> <p>SAFER 2: ISRCTN 60481756; COnStRUCT: ISRCTN22663589; Family Links: ISRCTN 13929732</p

Glycine Inhibitory Dysfunction Turns Touch into Pain through PKCgamma Interneurons

Dynamic mechanical allodynia is a widespread and intractable symptom of neuropathic pain for which there is a lack of effective therapy. During tactile allodynia, activation of the sensory fibers which normally detect touch elicits pain. Here we provide a new behavioral investigation into the dynamic component of tactile allodynia that developed in rats after segmental removal of glycine inhibition. Using in vivo electrophysiological recordings, we show that in this condition innocuous mechanical stimuli could activate superficial dorsal horn nociceptive specific neurons. These neurons do not normally respond to touch. We anatomically show that the activation was mediated through a local circuit involving neurons expressing the gamma isoform of protein kinase C (PKCγ). Selective inhibition of PKCγ as well as selective blockade of glutamate NMDA receptors in the superficial dorsal horn prevented both activation of the circuit and allodynia. Thus, our data demonstrates that a normally inactive circuit in the dorsal horn can be recruited to convert touch into pain. It also provides evidence that glycine inhibitory dysfunction gates tactile input to nociceptive specific neurons through PKCγ-dependent activation of a local, excitatory, NMDA receptor-dependent, circuit. As a consequence of these findings, we suggest that pharmacological inhibition of PKCγ might provide a new tool for alleviating allodynia in the clinical setting

Method for aggregating the reporting of interventions in complex studies (MATRICS)

Background: The synthesis of findings from mixed methods studies can be difficult and complex, with many articles tending to report their results in parallel with little or no integration. Conclusions may be based on findings that disproportionally represent one aspect of the mixed methods design rather than using the findings of all the methods used in a balanced and robust manner (O’Cathain 2008). We have developed a Method for Aggregating The Reporting of Interventions in Complex Studies (MATRICS) in the context of a complex, multi-centre, mixed methods study to evaluate the modernisation of endoscopy services. Method: We listed the effects sought by the study (the aims and objectives), split according to effects on patients, on the NHS and on the rest of society and gave each a unique number. We then listed the methods used to explore those effects and gave each a unique letter. An alphanumeric code was devised to identify and link each effect with a method and vice versa. This code was applied to a comprehensive list of tabulated study findings so that each finding was linked with an effect and a method. All analogous findings were merged and the alphanumeric codes linked with those findings were listed alongside to illustrate that more than one aspect of the study reported that finding. All contradictory findings and their alphanumeric codes were listed separately but in adjacent rows in the table to indicate that different components of the study were not complementary in their findings. Discussion: The MATRICS allowed us to better synthesise and present a large number of findings, to illustrate all complementary findings across multiple research methods and to highlight where findings from different components of the study were contradictory. The MATRICS can be applied to other research on complex interventions using mixed methods with great effect

Infliximab versus ciclosporin for steroid-resistant acute severe ulcerative colitis (CONSTRUCT): a mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial

Infliximab and ciclosporin are of similar efficacy in treating acute severe ulcerative colitis, but there has been no comparative evaluation of their relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.In this mixed methods, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial, we recruited consenting patients aged 18 years or older at 52 district general and teaching hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales who had been admitted, unscheduled, with severe ulcerative colitis and failed to respond to intravenous hydrocortisone within about 5 days. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either infliximab (5 mg/kg intravenous infusion given over 2 h at baseline, and again at 2 weeks and 6 weeks after the first infusion) or ciclosporin (2 mg/kg per day by continuous infusion for up to 7 days, followed by twice-daily tablets delivering 5·5 mg/kg per day for 12 weeks). Randomisation used a web-based password-protected site, with a dynamic algorithm to generate allocations on request, thus protecting against investigator preference or other subversion, while ensuring that each trial group was balanced by centre, which was the only stratification used. Local investigators and participants were aware of the treatment allocated, but the chief investigator and analysts were masked. Analysis was by treatment allocated. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted survival-ie, the area under the curve (AUC) of scores from the Crohn's and Ulcerative Colitis Questionnaire (CUCQ) completed by participants at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, then every 6 months from 1 year to 3 years. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN22663589.Between June 17, 2010, and Feb 26, 2013, 270 patients were recruited. 135 patients were allocated to the infliximab group and 135 to the ciclosporin group. 121 (90%) patients in each group were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. There was no significant difference between groups in quality-adjusted survival (mean AUC 564·0 [SD 241·9] in the infliximab group vs 587·0 [226·2] in the ciclosporin group; mean adjusted difference 7·9 [95% CI -22·0 to 37·8]; p=0·603). Likewise, there were no significant differences between groups in the secondary outcomes of CUCQ scores, EQ-5D, or SF-6D scores; frequency of colectomy (55 [41%] of 135 patients in the infliximab group vs 65 [48%] of 135 patients in the ciclosporin group; p=0·223); or mean time to colectomy (811 [95% CI 707-912] days in the infliximab group vs 744 [638-850] days in the ciclosporin group; p=0·251). There were no differences in serious adverse reactions (16 reactions in 14 participants receiving infliximab vs ten in nine patients receiving ciclosporin); serious adverse events (21 in 16 patients vs 25 in 17 patients); or deaths (three in the infliximab group vs none in the ciclosporin group).There was no significant difference between ciclosporin and infliximab in clinical effectiveness.NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme