Development of the Liverpool Adverse Drug Reaction Avoidability Assessment Tool

Aim To develop and test a new tool to assess the avoidability of adverse drug reactions that is suitable for use in paediatrics but which is also applicable to a variety of other settings. Methods The study involved multiple phases. Preliminary work involved using the Hallas scale and a modification of the existing Hallas scale, to assess two different sets of adverse drug reaction (ADR) case reports. Phase 1 defined, modified and refined a new tool using multidisciplinary teams. Phase 2 involved the assessment of 50 ADR case reports from a prospective study of paediatric inpatients by individual assessors. Phase 3 compared assessments with the new tool for individuals and groups in comparison to the ‘gold standard’ (the avoidability outcome set by a panel of senior investigators: an experienced clinical pharmacologist, paediatrician and pharmacist). Main Outcome Measures Inter-rater reliability (IRR), measure of disagreement and utilization of avoidability categories. Results Preliminary work—Pilot phase: results for the original Hallas cases were fair and pairwise kappa scores ranged from 0.21 to 0.36. Results for the modified Hallas cases were poor, pairwise kappa scores ranged from 0.06 to 0.16. Phase 1: on initial use of the new tool, agreement between the two multidisciplinary groups was found on 13/20 cases with a kappa score of 0.29 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.62). Phase 2: the assessment of 50 ADR case reports by six individual reviewers yielded pairwise kappa scores ranging from poor to good 0.12 to 0.75 and percentage exact agreement (%EA) ranged from 52–90%. Phase 3: Percentage exact agreement ranged from 35–70%. Overall, individuals had better agreement with the ‘gold standard’. Conclusion Avoidability assessment is feasible but needs careful attention to methods. The Liverpool ADR avoidability assessment tool showed mixed IRR. We have developed and validated a method for assessing the avoidability of ADRs that is transparent, more objective than previous methods and that can be used by individuals or groups

Centre selection for clinical trials and the generalisability of results: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The rationale for centre selection in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often unclear but may have important implications for the generalisability of trial results. The aims of this study were to evaluate the factors which currently influence centre selection in RCTs and consider how generalisability considerations inform current and optimal practice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mixed methods approach consisting of a systematic review and meta-summary of centre selection criteria reported in RCT protocols funded by the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) initiated between January 2005-January 2012; and an online survey on the topic of current and optimal centre selection, distributed to professionals in the 48 UK Clinical Trials Units and 10 NIHR Research Design Services. The survey design was informed by the systematic review and by two focus groups conducted with trialists at the Birmingham Centre for Clinical Trials. 129 trial protocols were included in the systematic review, with a total target sample size in excess of 317,000 participants. The meta-summary identified 53 unique centre selection criteria. 78 protocols (60%) provided at least one criterion for centre selection, but only 31 (24%) protocols explicitly acknowledged generalisability. This is consistent with the survey findings (n = 70), where less than a third of participants reported generalisability as a key driver of centre selection in current practice. This contrasts with trialists' views on optimal practice, where generalisability in terms of clinical practice, population characteristics and economic results were prime considerations for 60% (n = 42), 57% (n = 40) and 46% (n = 32) of respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Centres are rarely enrolled in RCTs with an explicit view to external validity, although trialists acknowledge that incorporating generalisability in centre selection should ideally be more prominent. There is a need to operationalize 'generalisability' and incorporate it at the design stage of RCTs so that results are readily transferable to 'real world' practice

Results and Outcome Reporting In ClinicalTrials.gov, What Makes it Happen?

At the end of the past century there were multiple concerns regarding lack of transparency in the conduct of clinical trials as well as some ethical and scientific issues affecting the trials' design and reporting. In 2000 ClinicalTrials.gov data repository was developed and deployed to serve public and scientific communities with valid data on clinical trials. Later in order to increase deposited data completeness and transparency of medical research a set of restrains had been imposed making the results deposition compulsory for multiple cases.We investigated efficiency of the results deposition and outcome reporting as well as what factors make positive impact on providing information of interest and what makes it more difficult, whether efficiency depends on what kind of institution was a trial sponsor. Data from the ClinicalTrials.gov repository has been classified based on what kind of institution a trial sponsor was. The odds ratio was calculated for results and outcome reporting by different sponsors' class.As of 01/01/2012 118,602 clinical trials data deposits were made to the depository. They came from 9068 different sources. 35344 (29.8%) of them are assigned as FDA regulated and 25151 (21.2%) as Section 801 controlled substances. Despite multiple regulatory requirements, only about 35% of trials had clinical study results deposited, the maximum 55.56% of trials with the results, was observed for trials completed in 2008.The most positive impact on depositing results, the imposed restrains made for hospitals and clinics. Health care companies showed much higher efficiency than other investigated classes both in higher fraction of trials with results and in providing at least one outcome for their trials. They also more often than others deposit results when it is not strictly required, particularly, in the case of non-interventional studies

The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the empirical research

Background: Conducting clinical trials with pre-term or sick infants is important if care for this population is to be underpinned by sound evidence. Yet approaching parents at this difficult time raises challenges for the obtaining of valid informed consent to such research. This study asked: what light does the empirical literature cast on an ethically defensible approach to the obtaining of informed consent in perinatal clinical trials? Methods: A systematic search identified 49 studies. Analysis began by applying philosophical frameworks which were then refined in light of the concepts emerging from empirical studies to present a coherent picture of a broad literature. Results: Between them, studies addressed the attitudes of both parents and clinicians concerning consent in neonatal trials; the validity of the consent process in the neonatal research context; and different possible methods of obtaining consent. Conclusions: Despite a variety of opinions among parents and clinicians there is a strongly and widely held view that it is important that parents do give or decline consent for neonatal participation in trials. However, none of the range of existing consent processes reviewed by the research is satisfactory. A significant gap is evaluation of the widespread practice of emergency ‘assent’, in which parents assent or refuse their baby’s participation as best they can during the emergency and later give full consent to ongoing participation and follow-up. Emergency assent has not been evaluated for its acceptability, how such a process would deal with bad outcomes such as neonatal death between assent and consent, or the extent to which late parental refusal might bias results. This review of a large number of empirical papers, while not making fundamental changes, has refined and developed the conceptual framework from philosophy for examining informed consent in this context

The QUOTE Study - Qualitative Understanding of Trial Experience

This thesis presents the QUOTE (Qualitative Understanding of Trial Experience) Study. The study explored women's views and experiences of participating in a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial - The Magpie Trial. The Magpie Trial was designed to test the hypothesis that in women with p're-eclampsia treatment with magnesium sulphate reduces the risk of eclampsia, and so improves outcome. Wqmen recruited to the Magpie Trial all had sufficiently severe pre-eclampsia to warrant consideration of magnesium sulphate for seizure prophylaxis. They were therefore being recruited at a time when they were likely to be having intensive monitoring, and there was often concern about their health and that of the baby. At present little is known about the experiences of pregnant women recruited to trials, especially when in potentially' life-threatening situations. Issues regarding the randomisation of pregnant women to trials have been identified as needing special consideration