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.

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 7 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 7 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03767634.

Inconsistent outcome reporting in large neonatal trials: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Inconsistent 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. DESIGN: A 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. RESULTS: Seventy-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. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent 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.

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 on the survey results. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and fourteen former patients, parents, healthcare professionals and researchers took part in the eDelphi survey; 173 completed all three rounds. Sixteen stakeholders participated in the consensus meeting. RESULTS: The literature reviews identified 104 outcomes; these were included in round 1. Participants proposed 10 additional outcomes; 114 outcomes were scored in rounds 2 and 3. Round 1 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. 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.