Conectar
In 2022, the WHO conditionally recommended the use of treatment decision algorithms (TDAs) for treatment decision-making in children
Within the Decide-TB project (PACT ID: PACTR202407866544155, 23 July 2024), we aim to generate an individual-participant dataset (IPD) from prospective TB diagnostic accuracy cohorts (RaPaed-TB, UMOYA and two cohorts from TB-Speed). Using the IPD, we aim to: (1) assess the diagnostic accuracy of published TDAs using a set of consensus case definitions produced by the National Institute of Health as reference standard (confirmed and unconfirmed vs unlikely TB); (2) evaluate the added value of novel tools (including biomarkers and artificial intelligence-interpreted radiology) in the existing TDAs; (3) generate an artificial population, modelling the target population of children eligible for WHO-endorsed TDAs presenting at primary and secondary healthcare levels and assess the diagnostic accuracy of published TDAs and (4) identify clinical predictors of radiological disease severity in children from the study population of children with presumptive TB.
This study will externally validate the first data-driven WHO TDAs in a large, well-characterised and diverse paediatric IPD derived from four large paediatric cohorts of children investigated for TB. The study has received ethical clearance for sharing secondary deidentified data from the ethics committees of the parent studies (RaPaed-TB, UMOYA and TB Speed) and as the aims of this study were part of the parent studies’ protocols, a separate approval was not necessary. Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at local, regional and international scientific meetings and conferences. This database will serve as a catalyst for the assessment of the inclusion of novel tools and the generation of an artificial population to simulate the impact of novel diagnostic pathways for TB in children at lower levels of healthcare. TDAs have the potential to close the diagnostic gap in childhood TB. Further finetuning of the currently available algorithms will facilitate this and improve access to care.
If clinical trials measure and report the outcomes included in core outcome sets (COS) for a given condition/disease as a minimum, this has the potential to improve comparability between trials and prevent research waste. Until now, the uptake of the Bronchiectasis and Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) COS has not been assessed.
This study assessed the uptake of Bronchiectasis and HS COS using a review of trial registries, with entries taken from ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform. This uptake assessment provides valuable information to inform COS refinement and uncover areas lacking uptake to inform further dissemination requirements.
For each trial, the outcomes included in the trial registry entry were extracted and compared with those included in the corresponding Bronchiectasis or HS COS. The Bronchiectasis COS consists of 18 outcomes, and the HS COS, 6.
Of the trials registered after both COS were developed in 2018, 63% (12/19) of HS trials planned to measure the full COS, whereas for Bronchiectasis, 0% (0/24) of trials planned to measure the full COS. However, of the five priority outcomes to be measured for Bronchiectasis, 4% (1/24) of trials planned to measure all five outcomes.
Both COS publications’ focus was to reach consensus on what outcomes should be measured. Despite both publications referring to the Core outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Handbook, which discusses the importance of COS dissemination, implementation plans were not included in either publication.
The results suggest that uptake of the HS COS is relatively good, despite yearly fluctuations, whereas for Bronchiectasis, COS uptake is limited. Further research into standardised measurement tools for HS is expected to increase uptake. The focus for Bronchiectasis, however, will be to refine the COS for feasible application in clinical trials. Future COS development publications should use all resources from the COMET initiative to ensure feasible dissemination of the COS.
To design and develop a novel co-produced intervention tool aimed at facilitating discussions that lung cancer nurses have with lung cancer patients about clinical trial opportunities; and promote trial recruitment.
A multi-phase qualitative focus group (phase 1) and co-production (phase 2) study.
The rigorous design and content of the intervention tool was informed by qualitative data from seven focus groups with lung cancer healthcare professionals (n = 38) and patients and their carers (n = 22) to establish barriers and facilitators to clinical trial participation. Data collection took place across England and Scotland between October and December 2023. Findings from a previously published systematic review were also incorporated to inform intervention tool design. The tool was developed through an extended co-production workshop comprising lung cancer nurses (n = 7), lung cancer patients (n = 2) and health researchers (n = 4). The COM-B model of behavioural change underpinned both phases of the project to guide tool development.
Phase 1 focus groups identified the need for a tool to provide basic trial information to patients, and to support lung cancer nurses in discussing trials with patients, thus improving nurses' knowledge, confidence, and awareness of trials. The phase 2 coproduction workshop identified that the tool should consist of two elements: a patient-facing information pamphlet and a large poster for nurses to assist them in discussing trial opportunities.
The study results demonstrate how nurses can be supported to discuss clinical trial opportunities with patients, with the potential to increase long-term recruitment to clinical trials.
Lung cancer nurses often lack confidence to support patients to make informed choices about trial enrolment. By addressing this issue, participation in lung cancer clinical trials can be significantly improved to benefit patient outcomes and trial participation rates.
The tool has the potential to be used across a range of different cancer settings and sites to increase recruitment to clinical trials.
The COREQ checklist was utilised to ensure that robust processes were followed and reported on.
Patients and members of the public were involved in all study processes and contributed to the study design, interpretation of the data, and intervention design. Their contributions included reviewing focus group topic guides, reviewing data analysis, the co-production of the intervention tool, and co-authoring this paper, ensuring the research addressed the needs and priorities of lung cancer patients when making an informed choice about clinical trial participation.
To determine whether an enhanced community rehabilitation intervention (the Fracture in the Elderly Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation (FEMuR) intervention) was more effective than usual National Health Service care, following surgical repair of hip fracture, in terms of the recovery of activities of daily living (ADLs).
Definitive, pragmatic, multisite, parallel-group, two-armed, superiority randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation ratio.
Participant recruitment in 13 hospitals across England and Wales, with the FEMuR intervention delivered in the community.
Patients aged over 60 years, with mental capacity, recovering from surgical treatment for hip fracture and living in their own home prior to fracture.
Usual rehabilitation care (control) was compared with usual rehabilitation care plus the FEMuR intervention, which comprised a patient-held workbook and goal-setting diary to improve self-efficacy, and six additional therapy sessions delivered in-person in the community, or remotely during COVID-19 restrictions (intervention), to increase the practice of exercise and ADL.
Primary outcome was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Falls Self-Efficacy-International scale, hip pain intensity, fear of falling, grip strength and Short Physical Performance Battery. Outcomes were collected by research assistants in participants’ homes, whenever possible, but had to be collected remotely during COVID-19 restrictions.
In total, 205 participants were randomised (n=104 experimental; n=101 control). Trial processes were adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. There were 20 deaths, 34 withdrawals and three lost to follow-up. At 52 weeks, there was no significant difference in NEADL score between the FEMuR intervention and control groups. Joint modelling analysis testing for difference in longitudinal outcome adjusted for missing values also found no significant difference with a mean difference of 0.1 (95% CI –1.1, 1.3). There were no significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses, examining the impact of COVID-19 restrictions, produced similar results. A median of 4.5 extra rehabilitation sessions were delivered to the FEMuR intervention group, with a median of two sessions delivered in-person. Instrumental variable regression did not find any effect of the amount of rehabilitation on the main outcome. There were 53 unrelated serious adverse events (SAEs) including 11 deaths in the control group: 41 SAEs including nine deaths in the FEMuR intervention group.
The FEMuR intervention was not more effective than usual rehabilitation care. The trial was severely impacted by COVID-19. Possible reasons for lack of effect included limited intervention fidelity (fewer sessions than planned and remote delivery), lack of usual levels of support from health professionals and families, and change in recovery beliefs and behaviours during the pandemic.
FreshRSS 