PROPEL: implementation of an evidence based pelvic floor muscle training intervention for women with pelvic organ prolapse: a realist evaluation and outcomes study protocol

Abstract Background Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) is estimated to affect 41%–50% of women aged over 40. Findings from the multi-centre randomised controlled “Pelvic Organ Prolapse PhysiotherapY” (POPPY) trial showed that individualised pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) was effective in reducing symptoms of prolapse, improved quality of life and showed clear potential to be cost-effective. However, provision of PFMT for prolapse continues to vary across the UK, with limited numbers of women’s health physiotherapists specialising in its delivery. Implementation of this robust evidence from the POPPY trial will require attention to different models of delivery (e.g. staff skill mix) to fit with differing care environments. Methods A Realist Evaluation (RE) of implementation and outcomes of PFMT delivery in contrasting NHS settings will be conducted using multiple case study sites. Involving substantial local stakeholder engagement will permit a detailed exploration of how local sites make decisions on how to deliver PFMT and how these lead to service change. The RE will track how implementation is working; identify what influences outcomes; and, guided by the RE-AIM framework, will collect robust outcomes data. This will require mixed methods data collection and analysis. Qualitative data will be collected at four time-points across each site to understand local contexts and decisions regarding options for intervention delivery and to monitor implementation, uptake, adherence and outcomes. Patient outcome data will be collected at baseline, six months and one year follow-up for 120 women. Primary outcome will be the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS). An economic evaluation will assess the costs and benefits associated with different delivery models taking account of further health care resource use by the women. Cost data will be combined with the primary outcome in a cost effectiveness analysis, and the EQ-5D-5L data in a cost utility analysis for each of the different models of delivery. Discussion Study of the implementation of varying models of service delivery of PFMT across contrasting sites combined with outcomes data and a cost effectiveness analysis will provide insight into the implementation and value of different models of PFMT service delivery and the cost benefits to the NHS in the longer term

Early and empirical high-dose cryoprecipitate for hemorrhage after traumatic injury: The CRYOSTAT-2 randomized clinical trial

Critical bleeding is associated with a high mortality rate in patients with trauma. Hemorrhage is exacerbated by a complex derangement of coagulation, including an acute fibrinogen deficiency. Management is fibrinogen replacement with cryoprecipitate transfusions or fibrinogen concentrate, usually administered relatively late during hemorrhage. To assess whether survival could be improved by administering an early and empirical high dose of cryoprecipitate to all patients with trauma and bleeding that required activation of a major hemorrhage protocol. CRYOSTAT-2 was an interventional, randomized, open-label, parallel-group controlled, international, multicenter study. Patients were enrolled at 26 UK and US major trauma centers from August 2017 to November 2021. Eligible patients were injured adults requiring activation of the hospital's major hemorrhage protocol with evidence of active hemorrhage, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg at any time, and receiving at least 1 U of a blood component transfusion. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive standard care, which was the local major hemorrhage protocol (reviewed for guideline adherence), or cryoprecipitate, in which 3 pools of cryoprecipitate (6-g fibrinogen equivalent) were to be administered in addition to standard care within 90 minutes of randomization and 3 hours of injury. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days in the intention-to-treat population. Among 1604 eligible patients, 799 were randomized to the cryoprecipitate group and 805 to the standard care group. Missing primary outcome data occurred in 73 patients (principally due to withdrawal of consent) and 1531 (95%) were included in the primary analysis population. The median (IQR) age of participants was 39 (26-55) years, 1251 (79%) were men, median (IQR) Injury Severity Score was 29 (18-43), 36% had penetrating injury, and 33% had systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg at hospital arrival. All-cause 28-day mortality in the intention-to-treat population was 26.1% in the standard care group vs 25.3% in the cryoprecipitate group (odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.75-1.23]; P = .74). There was no difference in safety outcomes or incidence of thrombotic events in the standard care vs cryoprecipitate group (12.9% vs 12.7%). Among patients with trauma and bleeding who required activation of a major hemorrhage protocol, the addition of early and empirical high-dose cryoprecipitate to standard care did not improve all cause 28-day mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04704869; ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN14998314

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Plasma phosphorylated tau 217 and phosphorylated tau 181 as biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal lobar degeneration : a retrospective diagnostic performance study

Background: Plasma tau phosphorylated at threonine 217 (p-tau217) and plasma tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau181) are associated with Alzheimer's disease tau pathology. We compared the diagnostic value of both biomarkers in cognitively unimpaired participants and patients with a clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease syndromes, or frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) syndromes. Methods: In this retrospective multicohort diagnostic performance study, we analysed plasma samples, obtained from patients aged 18–99 years old who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease syndromes (Alzheimer's disease dementia, logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia, or posterior cortical atrophy), FTLD syndromes (corticobasal syndrome, progressive supranuclear palsy, behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, non-fluent variant primary progressive aphasia, or semantic variant primary progressive aphasia), or mild cognitive impairment; the participants were from the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Memory and Aging Center, San Francisco, CA, USA, and the Advancing Research and Treatment for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration Consortium (ARTFL; 17 sites in the USA and two in Canada). Participants from both cohorts were carefully characterised, including assessments of CSF p-tau181, amyloid-PET or tau-PET (or both), and clinical and cognitive evaluations. Plasma p-tau181 and p-tau217 were measured using electrochemiluminescence-based assays, which differed only in the biotinylated antibody epitope specificity. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were used to determine diagnostic accuracy of both plasma markers using clinical diagnosis, neuropathological findings, and amyloid-PET and tau-PET measures as gold standards. Difference between two area under the curve (AUC) analyses were tested with the Delong test. Findings: Data were collected from 593 participants (443 from UCSF and 150 from ARTFL, mean age 64 years [SD 13], 294 [50%] women) between July 1 and Nov 30, 2020. Plasma p-tau217 and p-tau181 were correlated (r=0·90, p<0·0001). Both p-tau217 and p-tau181 concentrations were increased in people with Alzheimer's disease syndromes (n=75, mean age 65 years [SD 10]) relative to cognitively unimpaired controls (n=118, mean age 61 years [SD 18]; AUC=0·98 [95% CI 0·95–1·00] for p-tau217, AUC=0·97 [0·94–0·99] for p-tau181; pdiff=0·31) and in pathology-confirmed Alzheimer's disease (n=15, mean age 73 years [SD 12]) versus pathologically confirmed FTLD (n=68, mean age 67 years [SD 8]; AUC=0·96 [0·92–1·00] for p-tau217, AUC=0·91 [0·82–1·00] for p-tau181; pdiff=0·22). P-tau217 outperformed p-tau181 in differentiating patients with Alzheimer's disease syndromes (n=75) from those with FTLD syndromes (n=274, mean age 67 years [SD 9]; AUC=0·93 [0·91–0·96] for p-tau217, AUC=0·91 [0·88–0·94] for p-tau181; pdiff=0·01). P-tau217 was a stronger indicator of amyloid-PET positivity (n=146, AUC=0·91 [0·88–0·94]) than was p-tau181 (n=214, AUC=0·89 [0·86–0·93]; pdiff=0·049). Tau-PET binding in the temporal cortex was more strongly associated with p-tau217 than p-tau181 (r=0·80 vs r=0·72; pdiff<0·0001, n=230). Interpretation: Both p-tau217 and p-tau181 had excellent diagnostic performance for differentiating patients with Alzheimer's disease syndromes from other neurodegenerative disorders. There was some evidence in favour of p-tau217 compared with p-tau181 for differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease syndromes versus FTLD syndromes, as an indication of amyloid-PET-positivity, and for stronger correlations with tau-PET signal. Pending replication in independent, diverse, and older cohorts, plasma p-tau217 and p-tau181 could be useful screening tools to identify individuals with underlying amyloid and Alzheimer's disease tau pathology. Funding: US National Institutes of Health, State of California Department of Health Services, Rainwater Charitable Foundation, Michael J Fox foundation, Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration, Alzheimer's Association

Comparative performances of machine learning methods for classifying Crohn Disease patients using genome-wide genotyping data

Abstract: Crohn Disease (CD) is a complex genetic disorder for which more than 140 genes have been identified using genome wide association studies (GWAS). However, the genetic architecture of the trait remains largely unknown. The recent development of machine learning (ML) approaches incited us to apply them to classify healthy and diseased people according to their genomic information. The Immunochip dataset containing 18,227 CD patients and 34,050 healthy controls enrolled and genotyped by the international Inflammatory Bowel Disease genetic consortium (IIBDGC) has been re-analyzed using a set of ML methods: penalized logistic regression (LR), gradient boosted trees (GBT) and artificial neural networks (NN). The main score used to compare the methods was the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) statistics. The impact of quality control (QC), imputing and coding methods on LR results showed that QC methods and imputation of missing genotypes may artificially increase the scores. At the opposite, neither the patient/control ratio nor marker preselection or coding strategies significantly affected the results. LR methods, including Lasso, Ridge and ElasticNet provided similar results with a maximum AUC of 0.80. GBT methods like XGBoost, LightGBM and CatBoost, together with dense NN with one or more hidden layers, provided similar AUC values, suggesting limited epistatic effects in the genetic architecture of the trait. ML methods detected near all the genetic variants previously identified by GWAS among the best predictors plus additional predictors with lower effects. The robustness and complementarity of the different methods are also studied. Compared to LR, non-linear models such as GBT or NN may provide robust complementary approaches to identify and classify genetic markers