Evaluation of interventions for informed consent for randomised controlled trials (ELICIT) : protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey

Acknowledgements This work was supported by personal fellowship award (to KG) from the Medical Research Council’s Strategic Skills Methodology programme. The Health Services Research Unit is supported by a core grant from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates. PW is funded by a UK Medical Research Council Hub for Trials Methodology Research Network grant G0800792. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Chief Scientist Office, MRC or the Department of Health.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Using the Delphi Technique to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials: Recommendations for the Future Based on a Systematic Review of Existing Studies

Ian Sinha and colleagues advise that when using the Delphi process to develop core outcome sets for clinical trials, patients and clinicians be involved, researchers and facilitators avoid imposing their views on participants, and attrition of participants be minimized

The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials

BACKGROUND: A systematic review, with or without a meta-analysis, should be undertaken to determine if the research question of interest has already been answered before a new trial begins. There has been limited research on how systematic reviews are used within the design of new trials, the aims of this study were to investigate how systematic reviews of earlier trials are used in the planning and design of new randomised trials. METHODS: Documentation from the application process for all randomised trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) between 2006 and 2008 were obtained. This included the: commissioning brief (if appropriate), outline application, minutes of the Board meeting in which the outline application was discussed, full application, detailed project description, referee comments, investigator response to referee comments, Board minutes on the full application and the trial protocol. Data were extracted on references to systematic reviews and how any such reviews had been used in the planning and design of the trial. RESULTS: 50 randomised trials were funded by NIHR HTA during this period and documentation was available for 48 of these. The cohort was predominately individually randomised parallel trials aiming to detect superiority between two treatments for a single primary outcome. 37 trials (77.1%) referenced a systematic review within the application and 20 of these (i.e. 41.7% of the total) used information contained in the systematic review in the design or planning of the new trial. The main areas in which systematic reviews were used were in the selection or definition of an outcome to be measured in the trial (7 of 37, 18.9%), the sample size calculation (7, 18.9%), the duration of follow up (8, 21.6%) and the approach to describing adverse events (9, 24.3%). Boards did not comment on the presence/absence or use of systematic reviews in any application. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews were referenced in most funded applications but just over half of these used the review to inform the design. There is an expectation from funders that applicants will use a systematic review to justify the need for a new trial but no expectation regarding further use of a systematic review to aid planning and design of the trial. Guidelines for applicants and funders should be developed to promote the use of systematic reviews in the design and planning of randomised trials, to optimise delivery of new studies informed by the most up-to-date evidence base and to minimise waste in research

Individual patient data meta-analysis : Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing pregnancy loss in women

BACKGROUND: Cervical cerclage is a surgical procedure involving suturing the cervix with a purse type stitch to keep it closed during pregnancy. This procedure has been used widely in the management of pregnancies considered at high risk of preterm delivery. Several observational studies into the efficacy of cervical cerclage have claimed high rates of successful pregnancy outcome in women with a poor obstetric history attributed to cervical incompetence. However, a recent aggregate data Cochrane review found no such conclusive evidence from seven included randomised studies. Current data suggests that cervical cerclage is likely to benefit women considered to be 'at very high risk' of a second trimester miscarriage due to a cervical factor, however identifying such women remains elusive and many women may be treated unnecessarily. Undertaking an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of the studies will allow us to investigate whether treatment is more effective in particular subgroups. Such an analysis will also provide a more powerful analysis of the predictors of preterm delivery and pregnancy loss, including ultrasound measurement of cervical length, and will allow a more complete analysis of 'time to event' outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The analysis will include data from randomised trials comparing the intervention of elective cerclage versus no cerclage or bedrest to prevent miscarriage or pre-term labour. A specific list of data will be requested for each trial, including demographic and obstetric history data. The primary outcomes of interest will be neonatal mortality/morbidity. Attention will also be given to secondary outcomes such as time from randomisation to delivery, preterm delivery before 32 weeks and maternal morbidity. An intention to treat analysis will be performed, with attention paid to assessing clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Multilevel models with patients and trials as the two levels will be explored to investigate treatment effect on various outcomes. Patient-level covariates will be incorporated into the models in an attempt to account for statistical heterogeneity as well as to investigate interactions with treatment effect. DISCUSSION: Predictive models generated from our analysis should lead to more effective counselling of women at risk and a more cost effective use of cerclage

New mutations at the imprinted Gnas cluster show gene dosage effects of Gsα in postnatal growth and implicate XLαs in bone and fat metabolism, but not in suckling

The imprinted Gnas cluster is involved in obesity, energy metabolism, feeding behavior, and viability. Relative contribution of paternally expressed proteins XLαs, XLN1, and ALEX or a double dose of maternally expressed Gsα to phenotype has not been established. In this study, we have generated two new mutants (Ex1A-T-CON and Ex1A-T) at the Gnas cluster. Paternal inheritance of Ex1A-T-CON leads to loss of imprinting of Gsα, resulting in preweaning growth retardation followed by catch-up growth. Paternal inheritance of Ex1A-T leads to loss of imprinting of Gsα and loss of expression of XLαs and XLN1. These mice have severe preweaning growth retardation and incomplete catch-up growth. They are fully viable probably because suckling is unimpaired, unlike mutants in which the expression of all the known paternally expressed Gnasxl proteins (XLαs, XLN1 and ALEX) is compromised. We suggest that loss of ALEX is most likely responsible for the suckling defects previously observed. In adults, paternal inheritance of Ex1A-T results in an increased metabolic rate and reductions in fat mass, leptin, and bone mineral density attributable to loss of XLαs. This is, to our knowledge, the first report describing a role for XLαs in bone metabolism. We propose that XLαs is involved in the regulation of bone and adipocyte metabolism

Development of a standardised set of metrics for monitoring site performance in multicentre randomised trials : a Delphi study

Funding This study was supported by an NIHR Clinical Trials Unit Support Funding grant for supporting efficient and innovative delivery of NIHR research. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, receives core funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The study was not registered. Availability of data and materials The data generated or analysed during the current study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files). Additional information is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Cost-effectiveness analysis of adalimumab for the treatment of uveitis associated with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

Purpose To investigate the cost effectiveness of adalimumab in combination with methotrexate, compared with methotrexate alone, for the management of uveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Design A cost-utility analysis based on a clinical trial and decision analytic model. Participants Children and adolescents 2 to 18 years of age with persistently active uveitis associated with JIA, despite optimized methotrexate treatment for at least 12 weeks. Methods The SYCAMORE (Randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness, SafetY and Cost effectiveness of Adalimumab in combination with MethOtRExate for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis) trial (identifier, ISRCTN10065623) of methotrexate (up to 25 mg weekly) with or without fortnightly administered adalimumab (20 or 40 mg, according to body weight) provided data on resource use (based on patient self-report and electronic records) and health utilities (from the Health Utilities Index questionnaire). Surgical event rates and long-term outcomes were based on data from a 10-year longitudinal cohort. A Markov model was used to extrapolate the effects of treatment based on visual impairment. Main Outcome Measures Medical costs to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom, utility of defined health states, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost per QALY. Results Adalimumab in combination with methotrexate resulted in additional costs of £39 316, with a 0.30 QALY gain compared with methotrexate alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £129 025 per QALY gained. The probability of cost effectiveness at a threshold of £30 000 per QALY was less than 1%. Based on a threshold analysis, a price reduction of 84% would be necessary for adalimumab to be cost effective. Conclusions Adalimumab is clinically effective in uveitis associated with JIA; however, its cost effectiveness is not demonstrated compared with methotrexate alone in the United Kingdom setting