Recruitment to randomised trials : Strategies for Trial Enrolment and Participation Study. The STEPS study

Objectives: To identify factors associated with good and poor recruitment to multicentre trials. Data sources: Part A: database of trials started in or after 1994 and were due to end before 2003 held by the Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programmes. Part B: interviews with people playing a wide range of roles within four trials that their funders identified as ‘exemplars’. Part C: a large multicentre trial (the CRASH trial) of treatment for head injury. Review methods: The study used a number of different perspectives (‘multiple lenses’), and three components. Part A: an epidemiological review of a cohort of trials. Part B: case studies of trials that appeared to have particularly interesting lessons for recruitment. Part C: a single, in-depth case study to examine the feasibility of applying a businessorientated analytical framework as a reference model in future trials. Results: In the 114 trials found in Part A, less than one-third recruited their original target within the time originally specified, and around one-third had extensions. Factors observed more often in trials that recruited successfully were: having a dedicated trial manager, being a cancer or drug trial, and having interventions only available inside the trial. The most commonly reported strategies to improve recruitment were newsletters and mailshots, but it was not possible to assess whether they were causally linked to changes in recruitment. The analyses in Part B suggested that successful trials were those addressing clinically important questions at a timely point. The investigators were held in high esteem by the interviewees, and the trials were firmly grounded in existing clinical practices, so that the trial processes were not alien to clinical collaborators, and the results could be easily applicable to future practice. The interviewees considered that the needs of patients were well served by participation in the trials. Clinical collaborators particularly appreciated clear delineation of roles, which released them from much of the workload associated with trial participation. There was a strong feeling from interviewees that they were proud to be part of a successful team. This pride fed into further success. Good groundwork and excellent communications across many levels of complex trial structures were considered to be extremely important, including training components for learning about trial interventions and processes, and team building. All four trials had faced recruitment problems, and extra insights into the working of trials were afforded by strategies invoked to address them. The process of the case study in Part C was able to draw attention to a body of research and practice in a different discipline (academic business studies). It generated a reference model derived from a combination of business theory and work within CRASH. This enabled identification of weaker managerial components within CRASH, and initiatives to strengthen them. Although it is not clear, even within CRASH, whether the initiatives that follow from developing and applying the model will be effective in increasing recruitment or other aspects of the success of the trial, the reference model could provide a template, with potential for those managing other trials to use or adapt it, especially at foundation stages. The model derived from this project could also be used as a diagnostic tool if trials have difficulties and hence as a basis for deciding what type of remedial action to take. It may also be useful for auditing the progress of trials, such as during external review. Conclusions: While not producing sufficiently definitive results to make strong recommendations, the work here suggests that future trials should consider the different needs at different phases in the life of trials, and place greater emphasis on ‘conduct’ (the process of actually doing trials). This implies learning lessons from successful trialists and trial managers, with better training for issues relating to trial conduct. The complexity of large trials means that unanticipated difficulties are highly likely at some time in every trial. Part B suggested that successful trials were those flexible and robust enough to adapt to unexpected issues. Arguably, the trialists should also expect agility from funders within a proactive approach to monitoring ongoing trials. Further research into different recruitment patterns (including ‘failures’) may help to clarify whether the patterns seen in the ‘exemplar’ trials differ or are similar. The reference model from Part C needs to be further considered in other similar and different trials to assess its robustness. These and other strategies aimed at increasing recruitment and making trials more successful need to be formally evaluated for their effectiveness in a range of trials.Not peer reviewedPublisher PD

Evaluation of the feasibility, diagnostic yield, and clinical utility of rapid genome sequencing in infantile epilepsy (Gene-STEPS): an international, multicentre, pilot cohort study

BACKGROUND: Most neonatal and infantile-onset epilepsies have presumed genetic aetiologies, and early genetic diagnoses have the potential to inform clinical management and improve outcomes. We therefore aimed to determine the feasibility, diagnostic yield, and clinical utility of rapid genome sequencing in this population. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicentre, cohort study (Gene-STEPS), which is a pilot study of the International Precision Child Health Partnership (IPCHiP). IPCHiP is a consortium of four paediatric centres with tertiary-level subspecialty services in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA. We recruited infants with new-onset epilepsy or complex febrile seizures from IPCHiP centres, who were younger than 12 months at seizure onset. We excluded infants with simple febrile seizures, acute provoked seizures, known acquired cause, or known genetic cause. Blood samples were collected from probands and available biological parents. Clinical data were collected from medical records, treating clinicians, and parents. Trio genome sequencing was done when both parents were available, and duo or singleton genome sequencing was done when one or neither parent was available. Site-specific protocols were used for DNA extraction and library preparation. Rapid genome sequencing and analysis was done at clinically accredited laboratories, and results were returned to families. We analysed summary statistics for cohort demographic and clinical characteristics and the timing, diagnostic yield, and clinical impact of rapid genome sequencing. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2021, and Aug 31, 2022, we enrolled 100 infants with new-onset epilepsy, of whom 41 (41%) were girls and 59 (59%) were boys. Median age of seizure onset was 128 days (IQR 46-192). For 43 (43% [binomial distribution 95% CI 33-53]) of 100 infants, we identified genetic diagnoses, with a median time from seizure onset to rapid genome sequencing result of 37 days (IQR 25-59). Genetic diagnosis was associated with neonatal seizure onset versus infantile seizure onset (14 [74%] of 19 vs 29 [36%] of 81; p=0·0027), referral setting (12 [71%] of 17 for intensive care, 19 [44%] of 43 non-intensive care inpatient, and 12 [28%] of 40 outpatient; p=0·0178), and epilepsy syndrome (13 [87%] of 15 for self-limited epilepsies, 18 [35%] of 51 for developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, 12 [35%] of 34 for other syndromes; p=0·001). Rapid genome sequencing revealed genetic heterogeneity, with 34 unique genes or genomic regions implicated. Genetic diagnoses had immediate clinical utility, informing treatment (24 [56%] of 43), additional evaluation (28 [65%]), prognosis (37 [86%]), and recurrence risk counselling (all cases). INTERPRETATION: Our findings support the feasibility of implementation of rapid genome sequencing in the clinical care of infants with new-onset epilepsy. Longitudinal follow-up is needed to further assess the role of rapid genetic diagnosis in improving clinical, quality-of-life, and economic outcomes. FUNDING: American Academy of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital Children's Rare Disease Cohorts Initiative, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Epilepsy Canada, Feiga Bresver Academic Foundation, Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity, Medical Research Council, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute for Health and Care Research Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, One8 Foundation, Ontario Brain Institute, Robinson Family Initiative for Transformational Research, The Royal Children's Hospital Foundation, University of Toronto McLaughlin Centre

Beyond maternal death: improving the quality of maternal care through national studies of ‘near-miss’ maternal morbidity

Knight M, Acosta C, Brocklehurst P, Cheshire A, Fitzpatrick K, Hinton L, Jokinen M, Kemp B, Kurinczuk JJ, Lewis G, Lindquist A, Locock L, Nair M, Patel N, Quigley M, Ridge D, Rivero-Arias O, Sellers S, Shah A on behalf of the UKNeS coapplicant group. Background Studies of maternal mortality have been shown to result in important improvements to women’s health. It is now recognised that in countries such as the UK, where maternal deaths are rare, the study of near-miss severe maternal morbidity provides additional information to aid disease prevention, treatment and service provision. Objectives To (1) estimate the incidence of specific near-miss morbidities; (2) assess the contribution of existing risk factors to incidence; (3) describe different interventions and their impact on outcomes and costs; (4) identify any groups in which outcomes differ; (5) investigate factors associated with maternal death; (6) compare an external confidential enquiry or a local review approach for investigating quality of care for affected women; and (7) assess the longer-term impacts. Methods Mixed quantitative and qualitative methods including primary national observational studies, database analyses, surveys and case studies overseen by a user advisory group. Setting Maternity units in all four countries of the UK. Participants Women with near-miss maternal morbidities, their partners and comparison women without severe morbidity. Main outcome measures The incidence, risk factors, management and outcomes of uterine rupture, placenta accreta, haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, severe sepsis, amniotic fluid embolism and pregnancy at advanced maternal age (≥ 48 years at completion of pregnancy); factors associated with progression from severe morbidity to death; associations between severe maternal morbidity and ethnicity and socioeconomic status; lessons for care identified by local and external review; economic evaluation of interventions for management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH); women’s experiences of near-miss maternal morbidity; long-term outcomes; and models of maternity care commissioned through experience-led and standard approaches. Results Women and their partners reported long-term impacts of near-miss maternal morbidities on their physical and mental health. Older maternal age and caesarean delivery are associated with severe maternal morbidity in both current and future pregnancies. Antibiotic prescription for pregnant or postpartum women with suspected infection does not necessarily prevent progression to severe sepsis, which may be rapidly progressive. Delay in delivery, of up to 48 hours, may be safely undertaken in women with HELLP syndrome in whom there is no fetal compromise. Uterine compression sutures are a cost-effective second-line therapy for PPH. Medical comorbidities are associated with a fivefold increase in the odds of maternal death from direct pregnancy complications. External reviews identified more specific clinical messages for care than local reviews. Experience-led commissioning may be used as a way to commission maternity services. Limitations This programme used observational studies, some with limited sample size, and the possibility of uncontrolled confounding cannot be excluded. Conclusions Implementation of the findings of this research could prevent both future severe pregnancy complications as well as improving the outcome of pregnancy for women. One of the clearest findings relates to the population of women with other medical and mental health problems in pregnancy and their risk of severe morbidity. Further research into models of pre-pregnancy, pregnancy and postnatal care is clearly needed

Comparison of cancer survival trends in the United States of adolescents and young adults with those in children and older adults.

BackgroundWith prior reports indicating a lack of progress in survival improvement in older adolescents and young adults (AYAs) aged 15 to 39 years with cancer compared with both younger and older patients with cancer, the current analysis provides an update of survival trends of cancers among AYAs, children, and older adults.MethodsData from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for 13 regions were used to ascertain survival trends of the 34 most frequent cancers diagnosed in AYAs compared with children and older adults.ResultsAs of 2002 through 2006, the 5-year relative survival rate for all invasive cancers in AYAs was 82.5% (standard error, 0.2%). In AYAs, 14 cancers demonstrated evidence of a statistically significant improvement in their 5-year relative survival since 1992. Survival improved less in AYAs than in children for acute myeloid leukemia and medulloblastoma. Fourteen cancers had survival improvements that were found to be less in AYAs compared with older adults, including hepatic carcinoma, acute myeloid leukemia, high-grade astrocytoma, acute lymphocytic leukemia, pancreatic carcinoma, low-grade astrocytoma, gastric carcinoma, renal carcinoma, cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx, Hodgkin lymphoma, ovarian cancer, fibromatous sarcoma, other soft tissue sarcoma, and thyroid carcinoma.ConclusionsImprovements in the survival of several cancer types that occur frequently in AYAs are encouraging. However, survival does not appear to be improving to the same extent in AYAs as in children or older adults for several cancers. Further investment in exploring the distinct biology of tumors in this age group, and of their hosts, must be a priority in AYA oncology