Outcomes following early parenteral nutrition use in preterm neonates: Protocol for an observational study

Introduction Preterm babies are among the highest users of parenteral nutrition (PN) of any patient group, but there is wide variation in commencement, duration, and composition of PN and uncertainty around which groups will benefit from early introduction. Recent studies in critically unwell adults and children suggest that harms, specifically increased rates of nosocomial infection, outweigh the benefits of early administration of PN. In this study, we will describe early PN use in neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland. We will also evaluate if this is associated with differences in important neonatal outcomes in neonates born between 30+0 and 32+6 weeks+days gestation. Methods and analysis We will use routinely collected data from all neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland, available in the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD). We will describe clinical practice in relation to any use of PN during the first 7 postnatal days among neonates admitted to neonatal care between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2017. We will compare outcomes in neonates born between 30+0 and 32+6 weeks+days gestation who did or did not receive PN in the first week after birth using a propensity score-matched approach. The primary outcome will be survival to discharge home. Secondary outcomes will include components of the neonatal core outcome set: outcomes identified as important by former patients, parents, clinicians and researchers. Ethics and dissemination We have obtained UK National Research Ethics Committee approval for this study (Ref: 18/NI/0214). The results of this study will be presented at academic conferences; the UK charity Bliss will aid dissemination to former patients and parents

The importance of core outcome sets and developing one for neonatal care

It has been estimated that 85% of all clinical research is wasted. Suboptimal outcome selection is an important cause of waste because it leads to research that cannot be compared and may not be clinically relevant. A solution to this problem is the use of a core outcome set, a standardised set of outcomes recorded whenever research in a specific field is carried out. The methodology behind developing a core outcome set and how this is being applied in the Core Outcomes in Neonatology (COIN) project is described

Outcomes in relation to early parenteral nutrition use in preterm neonates born between 30 and 33 weeks gestation: a propensity score matched observational study

Objective To evaluate whether in preterm neonates parenteral nutrition use in the first seven postnatal days, compared with no parenteral nutrition use, is associated with differences in survival and other important morbidities. Randomised trials in critically ill older children show that harms, such as nosocomial infection, outweigh benefits of early parenteral nutrition administration; there is a paucity of similar data in neonates. Design Retrospective cohort study using propensity matching including 35 maternal, infant and organisational factors to minimise bias and confounding. Setting National, population-level clinical data obtained for all National Health Service neonatal units in England and Wales. Patients Preterm neonates born between 30+0 and 32+6 weeks+days . Interventions The exposure was parenteral nutrition administered in the first seven days of postnatal life; the comparator was no parenteral nutrition. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was survival to discharge from neonatal care. Secondary outcomes comprised the neonatal core outcome set. Results 16,292 neonates were compared in propensity score matched analyses. Compared with matched neonates not given parenteral nutrition in the first postnatal week, neonates who received parenteral nutrition had higher survival at discharge (absolute rate increase 0.91%; 95% CI 0.53% to 1.30%), but higher rates of necrotising enterocolitis (absolute rate increase 4.6%), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (absolute rate increase 3.9%), late-onset sepsis (absolute rate increase 1.5%) and need for surgical procedures (absolute rate increase 0.92%). Conclusions In neonates born between 30+0 and 32+6 weeks gestation, those given parenteral nutrition in the first postnatal week had a higher rate of survival but higher rates of important neonatal morbidities. Clinician equipoise in this area should be resolved by prospective, randomised trials

Inconsistent outcome reporting in large neonatal trials: a systematic review

ObjectiveInconsistent outcome selection and reporting in clinical trials are important sources of research waste; it is not known how common this problem is in neonatal trials. Our objective was to determine whether large clinical trials involving infants receiving neonatal care report a consistent set of outcomes, how composite outcomes are used and whether parents or former patients were involved in outcome selection.DesignA literature search of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE was conducted; randomised trials published between 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2017 and involving at least 100 infants in each arm were included. Outcomes and outcome measures were extracted and categorised by physiological system; reported former patient and parent involvement in outcome selection was extracted.ResultsSeventy-six trials involving 43 126 infants were identified; 216 different outcomes with 889 different outcome measures were reported. Outcome reporting covered all physiological systems but was variable between individual trials: only 67/76 (88%) of trials reported survival and 639 outcome measures were only reported in a single trial. Thirty-three composite outcomes were used in 41 trials. No trials reported former patient or parent involvement in outcome selection.ConclusionsInconsistent outcome reporting and a lack of parent and former patient involvement in outcome selection in neonatal clinical trials limits the ability of such trials to answer clinically meaningful questions. Developing and implementing a core outcome set for future neonatal trials, with input from all stakeholders, should address these issues.</jats:sec

National priority setting partnership using a Delphi consensus process to develop neonatal research questions suitable for practice-changing randomised trials in the UK

BACKGROUND: The provision of neonatal care is variable and commonly lacks adequate evidence base; strategic development of methodologically robust clinical trials is needed to improve outcomes and maximise research resources. Historically, neonatal research topics have been selected by researchers; prioritisation processes involving wider stakeholder groups have generally identified research themes rather than specific questions amenable to interventional trials. OBJECTIVE: To involve stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers to identify and prioritise research questions suitable for answering in neonatal interventional trials in the UK. DESIGN: Research questions were submitted by stakeholders in population, intervention, comparison, outcome format through an online platform. Questions were reviewed by a representative steering group; duplicates and previously answered questions were removed. Eligible questions were entered into a three-round online Delphi survey for prioritisation by all stakeholder groups. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and eight respondents submitted research questions for consideration; 144 participants completed round one of the Delphi survey, 106 completed all three rounds. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-five research questions were submitted and after steering group review, 186 entered into the Delphi survey. The top five ranked research questions related to breast milk fortification, intact cord resuscitation, timing of surgical intervention in necrotising enterocolitis, therapeutic hypothermia for mild hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy and non-invasive respiratory support. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified and prioritised research questions suitable for practice-changing interventional trials in neonatal medicine in the UK at the present time. Trials targeting these uncertainties have potential to reduce research waste and improve neonatal care

Parent, patient and clinician perceptions of outcomes during and following neonatal care: a systematic review of qualitative research

ObjectiveMultiple outcomes can be measured in infants that receive neonatal care. It is unknown whether outcomes of importance to parents and patients differ from those of health professionals. Our objective was to systematically map neonatal care outcomes discussed in qualitative research by patients, parents and healthcare professionals and test whether the frequency with which outcomes are discussed differs between groups.DesignSystematic review of qualitative literature. The following databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ASSIA from 1997 to 2017. Publications describing qualitative data relating to neonatal care outcomes, reported by former patients, parents or healthcare professionals, were included. Narrative text was analysed and outcomes grouped thematically by organ system. Permutation testing was applied to assess an association between the outcomes identified and stakeholder group.ResultsSixty-two papers containing the views of over 4100 stakeholders were identified; 146 discrete outcomes were discussed; 58 outcomes related to organ systems and 88 to other more global domains. Permutation testing provides evidence that parents, former patients and health professionals reported outcomes with different frequencies (p=0.037).ConclusionsParents, patients and health professionals focus on different outcomes when discussing their experience of neonatal care. A wide range of neonatal care outcomes are reported in qualitative research; many are global outcomes relating to the overall status of the infant. The views of former patients and parents should be taken into consideration when designing research; the development of a core outcomes set for neonatal research will facilitate this.</jats:sec

Epidemiological Interactions between Urogenital and Intestinal Human Schistosomiasis in the Context of Praziquantel Treatment across Three West African Countries

© 2015 Knowles et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The attached file is the published version of the article

Core outcomes in neonatology: Development of a core outcome set for neonatal research

Background Neonatal research evaluates many different outcomes using multiple measures. This can prevent synthesis of trial results in meta-analyses and selected outcomes may not be relevant to former patients, parents and health professionals. Objective To define a core outcome set (COS) for research involving infants receiving neonatal care in a high income setting. Design Outcomes reported in neonatal trials and qualitative studies were systematically reviewed. Stakeholders were recruited for a three-round international Delphi survey. A consensus meeting was held to confirm the final COS, based upon the survey results. Participants Four hundred and fourteen former patients, parents, healthcare professionals and researchers took part in the eDelphi survey; 173 completed all 3 rounds. Sixteen stakeholders participated in the consensus meeting. Results The literature reviews identified 104 outcomes; these were included in round one. Participants proposed ten additional outcomes; 114 outcomes were scored in round two and three. Round one scores showed different stakeholder groups prioritised contrasting outcomes. Twelve outcomes were included in the final COS: survival, sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis, brain injury on imaging, general gross motor ability, general cognitive ability, quality of life, adverse events, visual impairment/blindness, hearing impairment /deafness, retinopathy of prematurity and chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia. 6 Conclusions and relevance A COS for clinical trials and other research studies involving infants receiving neonatal care in a high-income setting has been identified. This COS for neonatology will help standardise outcome selection in clinical trials and ensure these are relevant to those most affected by neonatal care

Risks and benefits of bisphosphonates

Bone is the most common site for metastasis in cancer and is of particular clinical importance in breast and prostate cancers due to the prevalence of these diseases. Bone metastases result in considerable morbidity and complex demands on health care resources, affecting quality of life and independence over years rather than months. The bisphosphonates have been shown to reduce skeletal morbidity in multiple myeloma as well as a wide range of solid tumours affecting bone by 30–50%. Quite appropriately, these agents are increasingly used alongside anticancer treatments to prevent skeletal complications and relieve bone pain