Noninvasive Evaluation of Portal Hypertension: Emerging Tools and Techniques

Portal hypertension is the main cause of complications in patients with cirrhosis. However, evaluating the development and progression of portal hypertension represents a challenge for clinicians. There has been considerable focus on the potential role of noninvasive markers of portal hypertension that could be used to stratify patients with respect to the stage of portal hypertension and to monitor disease progression or treatment response in a longitudinal manner without having to undertake repeated invasive assessment. The pathogenesis of portal hypertension is increasingly understood and emerging knowledge of the vascular processes that underpin portal hypertension has paved the way for exploring novel biomarkers of vascular injury, angiogenesis, and endothelial dysfunction. In this paper we focus on the pathogenesis of portal hypertension and potential non-invasive biomarkers with particular emphasis on serum analytes

Impact of COVID-19 on Obesity Management Services in the United Kingdom (The COMS-UK study)

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) has had a severe impact on all aspects of global healthcare delivery. This study aimed to investigate the nationwide impact of the pandemic on obesity management services in the UK in a questionnaire-based survey conducted of professionals involved in the delivery. A total of 168 clinicians took the survey; the majority of which maintained their usual clinical roles and were not redeployed except physicians and nurse specialists. Nearly all (97.8%) elective bariatric surgery was cancelled, 67.3% of units cancelled all multidisciplinary meeting activity, and the majority reduced clinics (69.6%). Most respondents anticipated that the services would recommence within 1–3 months. This study found that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on the services involved in the management of patients suffering from severe, complex obesity in the UK

Accrual and drop out in a primary prevention randomised controlled trial: qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recruitment and retention of participants are critical to the success of a randomised controlled trial. Gaining the views of potential trial participants who decline to enter a trial and of trial participants who stop the trial treatment is important and can help to improve study processes. Limited research on these issues has been conducted on healthy individuals recruited for prevention trials in the community.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured interviews with people who were eligible but had declined to participate in the Aspirin for Asymptomatic Atherosclerosis (AAA) trial (N = 11), and AAA trial participants who had stopped taking the trial medication (N = 11). A focus group with further participants who had stopped taking the trial medication (N = 6). (Total participants N = 28).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Explanations for declining to participate could be divided into two groups: the first group were characterised by a lack of necessity to participate and a tendency to prioritise other largely mundane problems. The second group's concern was with a high level of perceived risk from participating.</p> <p>Explanations for stopping trial medication fell into four categories: side effects attributed to the trial medication; starting on aspirin or medication contraindicating to aspirin; experiencing an outcome event, and changing one's mind.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These results indicate that when planning trials (especially in preventive medicine) particular attention should be given to designing appropriate recruitment materials and processes that fully inform potential recruits of the risks and benefits of participation.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN66587262</p

What Parents of Children Who Have Received Emergency Care Think about Deferring Consent in Randomised Trials of Emergency Treatments: Postal Survey

OBJECTIVE: To investigate parents' views about deferred consent to inform management of trial disclosure after a child's death. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to members of the Meningitis Research Foundation UK charity, whose child had suffered from bacterial meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia within the previous 5 years. Main outcome measures were acceptability of deferred consent; timing of requesting consent; and the management of disclosure of the trial after a child's death. RESULTS: 220 families were sent questionnaires of whom 63 (29%) were bereaved. 68 families responded (31%), of whom 19 (28%) were bereaved. The majority (67%) was willing for their child to be involved in the trial without the trial being explained to them beforehand; 70% wanted to be informed about the trial as soon as their child's condition had stabilised. In the event of a child's death before the trial could be discussed the majority of bereaved parents (66% 12/18) anticipated wanting to be told about the trial at some time. This compared with 37% (18/49) of non-bereaved families (p = 0.06). Parents' free text responses indicated that the word 'trial' held strongly negative connotations. A few parents regarded gaps in the evidence base about emergency treatments as indicating staff lacked expertise to care for a critically ill child. Bereaved parents' free text responses indicated the importance of individualised management of disclosure about a trial following a child's death. DISCUSSION: Deferred consent is acceptable to the majority of respondents. Parents whose children had recovered differed in their views compared to bereaved parents. Most bereaved parents would want to be informed about the trial in the aftermath of a child's death, although a minority strongly opposed such disclosure. Distinction should be drawn between the views of bereaved and non-bereaved parents when considering the acceptability of different consent processes

Financial considerations in the conduct of multi-centre randomised controlled trials: evidence from a qualitative study.

National Coordinating Centre for Research Methodology; Medical Research Council, UK Department of Health; Chief Scientist OfficeNot peer reviewedPublisher PD

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

Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, in which drugs are the mainstay of treatment and drugs trials are commonplace. Understanding why patients might or might not opt to participate in epilepsy drug trials is therefore of some importance, particularly at a time of rapid drug development and testing; and the findings may also have wider applicability. This study examined the role of patient perceptions in the decision-making process about recruitment to an RCT (the SANAD Trial) that compared different antiepileptic drug treatments for the management of new-onset seizures and epilepsy. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 23 patients recruited from four study centres. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed; the transcripts were analysed thematically using a qualitative data analysis package. RESULTS: Of the nineteen informants who agreed to participate in SANAD, none agreed for purely altruistic reasons. The four informants who declined all did so for very specific reasons of self-interest. Informants' perceptions of the nature of the trial, of the drugs subject to trial, and of their own involvement were all highly influential in their decision-making. Informants either perceived the trial as potentially beneficial or unlikely to be harmful, and so agreed to participate; or as potentially harmful or unlikely to be beneficial and so declined to participate. CONCLUSION: Most patients applied 'weak altruism', while maintaining self-interest. An emphasis on the safety and equivalence of treatments allowed some patients to be indifferent to the question of involvement. There was evidence that some participants were subject to 'therapeutic misconceptions'. The findings highlight the individual nature of trials but nonetheless raise some generic issues in relation to their design and conduct

A thematic analysis of factors influencing recruitment to maternal and perinatal trials

Background: Recruitment of eligible participants remains one of the biggest challenges to successful completion of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Only one third of trials recruit on time, often requiring a lengthy extension to the recruitment period. We identified factors influencing recruitment success and potentially effective recruitment strategies. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1966 to December Week 2, 2006, the Cochrane Library Methodology Register in December 2006, and hand searched reference lists for studies of any design which focused on recruitment to maternal/perinatal trials, or if no studies of maternal or perinatal research could be identified, other areas of healthcare. Studies of nurses' and midwives' attitudes to research were included as none specifically about trials were located. We synthesised the data narratively, using a basic thematic analysis, with themes derived from the literature and after discussion between the authors. Results: Around half of the included papers (29/53) were specific to maternal and perinatal healthcare. Only one study was identified which focused on factors for maternal and perinatal clinicians and only seven studies considered recruitment strategies specific to perinatal research. Themes included: participant assessment of risk; recruitment process; participant understanding of research; patient characteristics; clinician attitudes to research and trials; protocol issues; and institutional or organisational issues. While no reliable evidence base for strategies to enhance recruitment was identified in any of the review studies, four maternal/perinatal primary studies suggest that specialised recruitment staff, mass mailings, physician referrals and strategies targeting minority women may increase recruitment. However these findings may only be applicable to the particular trials and settings studied. Conclusion: Although factors reported by both participants and clinicians which influence recruitment were quite consistent across the included studies, studies comparing different recruitment strategies were largely missing. Trials of different recruitment strategies could be embedded in large multicentre RCTs, with strategies tailored to the factors specific to the trial and institution.Rebecca L Tooher, Philippa F Middleton and Caroline A Crowthe

"Did the trial kill the intervention?" experiences from the development, implementation and evaluation of a complex intervention

Background: The development, implementation and evaluation of any new health intervention is complex. This paper uses experiences from the design, implementation and evaluation of a rehabilitation programme to shed light on, and prompt discussion around, some of the complexities involved in such an undertaking. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 trial participants and five members of staff at the conclusion of a trial evaluating a rehabilitation programme aimed at promoting recovery after stem cell transplantation. Results: This study identified a number of challenges relating to the development and evaluation of complex interventions. The difficulty of providing a standardised intervention that was acceptable to patients was highlighted in the participant interviews. Trial participants and some members of staff found the concept of equipoise and randomisation challenging and there was discord between the psychosocial nature of the intervention and the predominant bio-medical culture in which the research took place. Conclusions: A lack of scientific evidence as to the efficacy of an intervention does not preclude staff and patients holding strong views about the benefits of an intervention. The evaluation of complex interventions should, where possible, facilitate not restrict that complexity. Within the local environment where the trial is conducted, acquiescence from those in positions of authority is insufficient; commitment to the trial is required