Risk-proportionate clinical trial monitoring: an example approach from a non-commercial trials unit

Background Some level of monitoring is usually required during a clinical trial to protect the rights and safety of trial participants and to safeguard the quality and reliability of trial results. Although there is increasing support for the use of risk-proportionate approaches to achieve these aims, the variety of methods and lack of an empirical evidence base can present challenges for clinical trial practitioners. Methods This paper describes the monitoring methods and procedures that are utilised by a noncommercial clinical trials unit which coordinates a range of clinical trials across a variety of clinical areas with different associated risks. Results Monitoring activities and approaches should be selected to be proportionate to the risks identified within a trial. A risk-proportionate approach to monitoring is described giving details of methods that may be considered by clinical trial practitioners during the development of a trial monitoring plan. An example risk assessment and corresponding monitoring plan for a low risk (type A in the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) classification system) pediatric trial is provided for illustration. Conclusion We present ideas for developing a monitoring plan for a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product based on our experience. Alternative approaches may be relevant or preferable in other settings based on inherent risk

Research priorities in bronchiectasis:a consensus statement from the EMBARC Clinical Research Collaboration

Bronchiectasis is a disease of renewed interest in light of an increase in prevalence and increasing burden on international healthcare systems. There are no licensed therapies, and large gaps in knowledge in terms of epidemiology, pathophysiology and therapy. The European Multicentre Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (EMBARC) is a European Respiratory Society (ERS) Clinical Research Collaboration, funded by ERS to promote high-quality research in bronchiectasis. The objective of this consensus statement was to define research priorities in bronchiectasis. From 2014 to 2015, EMBARC used a modified Delphi process among European bronchiectasis experts to reach a consensus on 55 key research priorities in this field. During the same period, the European Lung Foundation collected 711 questionnaires from adult patients with bronchiectasis and their carers from 22 European countries reporting important research priorities from their perspective. This consensus statement reports recommendations for bronchiectasis research after integrating both physicians and patients priorities, as well as those uniquely identified by the two groups. Priorities identified in this consensus statement provide the clearest possible roadmap towards improving our understanding of the disease and the quality of care for patients with bronchiectasis

A public health emergency among young people.

While some countries have banned the use of e-cigarettes or vaping products altogether (eg, India), and others have strongly advised against their use (eg, Australia), in the UK, Public Health England (PHE) appears to be a lone voice in stating that vaping is 95% safer than smoking tobacco. Here we consider whether vaping can be considered safe; whether vaping is a means of smoking cessation or at least harm reduction; and the correct response to the spiralling epidemic of vaping in young people (<18 years)

Intravenous or oral antibiotic treatment in adults and children with cystic fibrosis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection: the TORPEDO-CF RCT

Background People with cystic fibrosis are susceptible to pulmonary infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This may become chronic and lead to increased mortality and morbidity. If treatment is commenced promptly, infection may be eradicated through prolonged antibiotic treatment. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of two eradication regimens. Design This was a Phase IV, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Setting Seventy UK and two Italian cystic fibrosis centres. Participants Participants were individuals with cystic fibrosis aged > 28 days old who had never had a P. aeruginosa infection or who had been infection free for 1 year. Interventions Fourteen days of intravenous ceftazidime and tobramycin or 3 months of oral ciprofloxacin. Inhaled colistimethate sodium was included in both regimens over 3 months. Consenting patients were randomly allocated to either treatment arm in a 1 : 1 ratio using simple block randomisation with random variable block length. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was eradication of P. aeruginosa at 3 months and remaining free of infection to 15 months. Secondary outcomes included time to reoccurrence, spirometry, anthropometrics, pulmonary exacerbations and hospitalisations. Primary analysis used intention to treat (powered for superiority). Safety analysis included patients who had received at least one dose of any of the study drugs. Cost-effectiveness analysis explored the cost per successful eradication and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Results Between 5 October 2010 and 27 January 2017, 286 patients were randomised: 137 patients to intravenous antibiotics and 149 patients to oral antibiotics. The numbers of participants achieving the primary outcome were 55 out of 125 (44%) in the intravenous group and 68 out of 130 (52%) in the oral group. Participants randomised to the intravenous group were less likely to achieve the primary outcome; although the difference between groups was not statistically significant, the clinically important difference that the trial aimed to detect was not contained within the confidence interval (relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.09; p = 0.184). Significantly fewer patients in the intravenous group (40/129, 31%) than in the oral group (61/136, 44.9%) were hospitalised in the 12 months following eradication treatment (relative risk 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 0.95; p = 0.02). There were no clinically important differences in other secondary outcomes. There were 32 serious adverse events in 24 participants [intravenous: 10/126 (7.9%); oral: 14/146 (9.6%)]. Oral therapy led to reductions in costs compared with intravenous therapy (–£5938.50, 95% confidence interval –£7190.30 to –£4686.70). Intravenous therapy usually necessitated hospital admission, which accounted for a large part of this cost. Limitations Only 15 out of the 286 participants recruited were adults – partly because of the smaller number of adult centres participating in the trial. The possibility that the trial participants may be different from the rest of the cystic fibrosis population and may have had a better clinical status, and so be more likely to agree to the uncertainty of trial participation, cannot be ruled out. Conclusions Intravenous antibiotics did not achieve sustained eradication of P. aeruginosa in a greater proportion of cystic fibrosis patients. Although there were fewer hospitalisations in the intravenous group during follow-up, this confers no advantage over the oral therapy group, as intravenous eradication frequently requires hospitalisation. These results do not support the use of intravenous antibiotics to eradicate P. aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. Future work Future research studies should combine long-term follow-up with regimens to reduce reoccurrence after eradication. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN02734162 and EudraCT 2009-012575-10. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

European Cystic Fibrosis Society standards of care: best practice guidelines

Specialised CF care has led to a dramatic improvement in survival in CF: in the last four decades, well above what was seen in the general population over the same period. With the implementation of newborn screening in many European countries, centres are increasingly caring for a cohort of patients who have minimal lung disease at diagnosis and therefore have the potential to enjoy an excellent quality of life and an even greater life expectancy than was seen previously. To allow high quality care to be delivered throughout Europe, a landmark document was published in 2005 that sets standards of care. Our current document builds on this work, setting standards for best practice in key aspects of CF care. The objective of our document is to give a broad overview of the standards expected for screening, diagnosis, pre-emptive treatment of lung disease, nutrition, complications, transplant/end of life care and psychological support. For comprehensive details of clinical care of CF, references to the most up to date European Consensus Statements, Guidelines or Position Papers are provided in Table 1. We hope that this best practice document will be useful to clinical teams both in countries where CF care is developing and those with established CF centres

ECFS best practice guidelines: the 2018 revision

Developments in managing CF continue to drive dramatic improvements in survival. As newborn screening rolls-out across Europe, CF centres are increasingly caring for cohorts of patients who have minimal lung disease on diagnosis. With the introduction of mutation-specific therapies and the prospect of truly personalised medicine, patients have the potential to enjoy good quality of life in adulthood with ever-increasing life expectancy. The landmark Standards of Care published in 2005 set out what high quality CF care is and how it can be delivered throughout Europe. This underwent a fundamental re-write in 2014, resulting in three documents; center framework, quality management and best practice guidelines. This document is a revision of the latter, updating standards for best practice in key aspects of CF care, in the context of a fast-moving and dynamic field. In continuing to give a broad overview of the standards expected for newborn screening, diagnosis, preventative treatment of lung disease, nutrition, complications, transplant/end of life care and psychological support, this consensus on best practice is expected to prove useful to clinical teams both in countries where CF care is developing and those with established CF centres. The document is an ECFS product and endorsed by the CF Network in ERN LUNG and CF Europe