Deferred cord clamping, cord milking, and immediate cord clamping at preterm birth: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Umbilical cord clamping strategies at preterm birth have the potential to affect important health outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of deferred cord clamping, umbilical cord milking, and immediate cord clamping in reducing neonatal mortality and morbidity at preterm birth. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis. We searched medical databases and trial registries (from database inception until Feb 24, 2022; updated June 6, 2023) for randomised controlled trials comparing deferred (also known as delayed) cord clamping, cord milking, and immediate cord clamping for preterm births (<37 weeks' gestation). Quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised trials were excluded. Authors of eligible studies were invited to join the iCOMP collaboration and share individual participant data. All data were checked, harmonised, re-coded, and assessed for risk of bias following prespecified criteria. The primary outcome was death before hospital discharge. We performed intention-to-treat one-stage individual participant data meta-analyses accounting for heterogeneity to examine treatment effects overall and in prespecified subgroup analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019136640. FINDINGS: We identified 2369 records, of which 48 randomised trials provided individual participant data and were eligible for our primary analysis. We included individual participant data on 6367 infants (3303 [55%] male, 2667 [45%] female, two intersex, and 395 missing data). Deferred cord clamping, compared with immediate cord clamping, reduced death before discharge (odds ratio [OR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·51-0·91], high-certainty evidence, 20 studies, n=3260, 232 deaths). For umbilical cord milking compared with immediate cord clamping, no clear evidence was found of a difference in death before discharge (OR 0·73 [0·44-1·20], low certainty, 18 studies, n=1561, 74 deaths). Similarly, for umbilical cord milking compared with deferred cord clamping, no clear evidence was found of a difference in death before discharge (0·95 [0·59-1·53], low certainty, 12 studies, n=1303, 93 deaths). We found no evidence of subgroup differences for the primary outcome, including by gestational age, type of delivery, multiple birth, study year, and perinatal mortality. INTERPRETATION: This study provides high-certainty evidence that deferred cord clamping, compared with immediate cord clamping, reduces death before discharge in preterm infants. This effect appears to be consistent across several participant-level and trial-level subgroups. These results will inform international treatment recommendations. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Short, medium, and long deferral of umbilical cord clamping compared with umbilical cord milking and immediate clamping at preterm birth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis with individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Deferred (also known as delayed) cord clamping can improve survival of infants born preterm (before 37 weeks of gestation), but the optimal duration of deferral remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the effectiveness of umbilical cord clamping strategies with different timings of clamping or with cord milking for preterm infants. METHODS: We searched medical databases and trial registries from inception until Feb 24, 2022 (updated June 6, 2023) for randomised controlled trials comparing cord clamping strategies for preterm infants. Individual participant data were harmonised and assessed for risk of bias and quality. Interventions were grouped into immediate clamping, short deferral (≥15 s to <45 s), medium deferral (≥45 s to <120 s), long deferral (≥120 s), and intact cord milking. The primary outcome was death before hospital discharge. We calculated one-stage, intention-to-treat Bayesian random-effects individual participant data network meta-analysis. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019136640. FINDINGS: We included individual participant data from 47 trials with 6094 participants. Of all interventions, long deferral reduced death before discharge the most (compared with immediate clamping; odds ratio 0·31 [95% credibility interval] 0·11-0·80; moderate certainty). The risk of bias was low for 10 (33%) of 30 trials, 14 (47%) had some concerns, and 6 (20%) were rated as having a high risk of bias. Heterogeneity was low, with no indication of inconsistency. INTERPRETATION: This study found that long deferral of clamping leads to reduced odds of death before discharge in preterm infants. In infants assessed as requiring immediate resuscitation, this finding might only be generalisable if there are provisions for such care with the cord intact. These results are based on thoroughly cleaned and checked individual participant data and can inform future guidelines and practice. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Prevalence and risk factors for milk allergy overdiagnosis in the BEEP trial cohort.

BACKGROUND: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) overdiagnosis in young children appears to be increasing and has not been well characterised. We used a clinical trial population to characterise CMA overdiagnosis and identify individual-level and primary care practice-level risk factors. METHODS: We analysed data from 1394 children born in England in 2014-2016 (BEEP trial, ISRCTN21528841). Participants underwent formal CMA diagnosis at ≤2 years. CMA overdiagnosis was defined in three separate ways: parent-reported milk reaction; primary care record of milk hypersensitivity symptoms; and primary care record of low-allergy formula prescription. RESULTS: CMA was formally diagnosed in 19 (1.4%) participants. CMA overdiagnosis was common: 16.1% had parent-reported cow's milk hypersensitivity, 11.3% primary care recorded milk hypersensitivity and 8.7% had low-allergy formula prescription. Symptoms attributed to cow's milk hypersensitivity in participants without CMA were commonly gastrointestinal and reported from a median age of 49 days. Low-allergy formula prescriptions in participants without CMA lasted a median of 10 months (interquartile range 1, 16); the estimated volume consumed was a median of 272 litres (26, 448). Risk factors for CMA overdiagnosis were high practice-based low-allergy formula prescribing in the previous year and maternal report of antibiotic prescription during pregnancy. Exclusive formula feeding from birth was associated with increased low-allergy formula prescription. There was no evidence that practice prescribing of paediatric adrenaline auto-injectors or anti-reflux medications, or maternal features such as anxiety, age, parity and socioeconomic status were associated with CMA overdiagnosis. CONCLUSION: CMA overdiagnosis is common in early infancy. Risk factors include high primary care practice-based low-allergy formula prescribing and maternal report of antibiotic prescription during pregnancy.

Emollients for preventing atopic eczema: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the BEEP trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent discoveries have led to the suggestion that enhancing skin barrier from birth might prevent eczema and food allergy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children at 2 years from a health service perspective. We also considered a 5-year time horizon as a sensitivity analysis. METHODS: A within-trial economic evaluation using data on health resource use and quality of life captured as part of the BEEP trial alongside the trial data. Parents/carers of 1394 infants born to families at high risk of atopic disease were randomised 1:1 to the emollient group, which were advised to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel or Diprobase Cream) to their child at least once daily to the whole body during the first year of life or usual care. Both groups received advice on general skin care. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema in the primary cost-effectiveness analysis. Secondary analysis, undertaken as a cost-utility analysis, reports incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) where child utility was elicited using the proxy CHU-9D at 2 years. RESULTS: At 2 years, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI -54.31, 229.27) per participant, whilst the adjusted proportion without eczema was 0.0164 (95% CI -0.0329, 0.0656). The ICER was £5337 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. Adjusted incremental QALYs were very slightly improved in the emollient group, 0.0010 (95% CI -0.0069, 0.0089). At 5 years, adjusted incremental costs were lower for the emollient group, -£106.89 (95% CI -354.66, 140.88) and the proportion without eczema was -0.0329 (95% CI -0.0659, 0.0002). The 5-year ICER was £3201 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. However, when inpatient costs due to wheezing were excluded, incremental costs were lower and incremental effects greater in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: In line with effectiveness endpoints, advice given in the BEEP trial to apply daily emollient during infancy for eczema prevention in high-risk children does not appear cost-effective.

Emollients for prevention of atopic dermatitis: 5-year findings from the BEEP randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of emollients for preventing atopic dermatitis/eczema is controversial. The Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention trial evaluated the effects of daily emollients during the first year of life on atopic dermatitis and atopic conditions to age 5 years. METHODS: 1394 term infants with a family history of atopic disease were randomized (1:1) to daily emollient plus standard skin-care advice (693 emollient group) or standard skin-care advice alone (701 controls). Long-term follow-up at ages 3, 4 and 5 years was via parental questionnaires. Main outcomes were parental report of a clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis and food allergy. RESULTS: Parents reported more frequent moisturizer application in the emollient group through to 5 years. A clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis between 12 and 60 months was reported for 188/608 (31%) in the emollient group and 178/631 (28%) in the control group (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.30). Although more parents in the emollient group reported food reactions in the previous year at 3 and 4 years, cumulative incidence of doctor-diagnosed food allergy by 5 years was similar between groups (92/609 [15%] emollients and 87/632 [14%] controls, adjusted relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.45). Findings were similar for cumulative incidence of asthma and hay fever. CONCLUSIONS: Daily emollient application during the first year of life does not prevent atopic dermatitis, food allergy, asthma or hay fever.

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

Importance: Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials. Design: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist. Findings: This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

Using the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale in clinical trials: construct validity, interpretability, reliability and acceptability.

BACKGROUND: Validated outcome measures are needed for vitiligo trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess construct validity, interpretability, reliability and acceptability of the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS). METHODS: We used images of vitiligo before and after treatment, plus outcome data, from the HI-Light Vitiligo trial. We compared outcome assessments made by trial participants with assessments of images by clinicians and people with vitiligo who were not trial participants [Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel]. Hypothesis testing assessed psychometric properties of the VNS, with κ statistics to assess agreement between outcomes. Three focus groups and two online discussion groups provided insight into the use of VNS by people with vitiligo. RESULTS: Our hypothesis of a positive association between VNS and participant-reported global treatment success was supported for trial participants (κ = 0·41 if VNS success was defined as ≥ 4; κ = 0·71 if VNS success was defined as ≥ 3), but not for the blinded PPI panel (κ = 0·28). As hypothesized, the association with participant-reported global success was higher for VNS (κ = 0·41) than for clinician-reported percentage repigmentation (κ = 0·17). Seventy-five per cent of trial participants valued a VNS of 3 (partial response) as a treatment success. Test-retest reliability was good: κ = 0·69 (95% confidence interval 0·63-0·74). Age and skin phototype did not influence interpretation of the VNS scores. To people with vitiligo, the VNS is an acceptable and meaningful patient-reported outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Trial participants may assess their vitiligo differently compared with blinded assessors. A VNS score of 3 may be more highly valued by people undergoing vitiligo treatment than was previously thought. What is already known about this topic? Vitiligo is a common condition, and can have a considerable psychological impact. A Vitiligo Core Outcome Set is being developed, to enable the results of vitiligo trials to be compared and combined more easily. The Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) developed in partnership with people with vitiligo; initial validation studies have been promising. What does this study add? The VNS shows good construct validity, reliability and acceptability; it can be used in all ages and skin phototypes. All five levels of the VNS scale should be reported for transparency, to aid interpretation of trial findings, and to facilitate meta-analysis in systematic reviews. VNS assessments made by trial participants and independent observers are likely to be qualitatively different, making blinded assessment of VNS by independent observers difficult to interpret. Blinding of participants to trial interventions is recommended whenever possible. What are the clinical implications of the work? The VNS can be used as a PROM to assess the cosmetic acceptability of repigmentation at individual patches of vitiligo. A VNS score of 3 or more is likely to be valued by patients as a treatment success.

Daily emollient during infancy for prevention of eczema: the BEEP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children. METHODS: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: 1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Statistical reanalysis of vascular event outcomes in primary and secondary vascular prevention trials.

BACKGROUND: Vascular prevention trials typically use dichotomous event outcomes although this may be inefficient statistically and gives no indication of event severity. We assessed whether ordinal outcomes would be more efficient and how to best analyse them. METHODS: Chief investigators of vascular prevention randomised controlled trials that showed evidence of either benefit or harm, or were included in a systematic review that overall showed benefit or harm, shared individual participant data from their trials. Ordered categorical versions of vascular event outcomes (such as stroke and myocardial infarction) were analysed using 15 statistical techniques and their results then ranked, with the result with the smallest p-value given the smallest rank. Friedman and Duncan's multiple range tests were performed to assess differences between tests by comparing the average ranks for each statistical test. RESULTS: Data from 35 trials (254,223 participants) were shared with the collaboration. 13 trials had more than two treatment arms, resulting in 59 comparisons. Analysis approaches (Mann Whitney U, ordinal logistic regression, multiple regression, bootstrapping) that used ordinal outcome data had a smaller average rank and therefore appeared to be more efficient statistically than those that analysed the original binary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Ordinal vascular outcome measures appear to be more efficient statistically than binary outcomes and provide information on the severity of event. We suggest a potential role for using ordinal outcomes in vascular prevention trials.

Gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea (G-ToG): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection for which ceftriaxone is the current first-line treatment, but antimicrobial resistance is emerging. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone (both combined with azithromycin) for treatment of gonorrhoea. METHODS: G-ToG was a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamicin to treatment with ceftriaxone for patients with gonorrhoea. The patients, treating physician, and assessing physician were masked to treatment but the treating nurse was not. The trial took place at 14 sexual health clinics in England. Adults aged 16-70 years were eligible for participation if they had a diagnosis of uncomplicated genital, pharyngeal, or rectal gonorrhoea. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single intramuscular dose of either gentamicin 240 mg (gentamicin group) or ceftriaxone 500 mg (ceftriaxone group). All participants also received a single 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. Randomisation (1:1) was stratified by clinic and performed using a secure web-based system. The primary outcome was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all initially infected sites, defined as a negative nucleic acid amplification test 2 weeks post treatment. Primary outcome analyses included only participants who had follow-up data, irrespective of the baseline visit N gonorrhoeae test result. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the risk difference. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN51783227. FINDINGS: Of 1762 patients assessed, we enrolled 720 participants between Oct 7, 2014, and Nov 14, 2016, and randomly assigned 358 to gentamicin and 362 to ceftriaxone. Primary outcome data were available for 306 (85%) of 362 participants allocated to ceftriaxone and 292 (82%) of 358 participants allocated to gentamicin. At 2 weeks after treatment, infection had cleared for 299 (98%) of 306 participants in the ceftriaxone group compared with 267 (91%) of 292 participants in the gentamicin group (adjusted risk difference -6·4%, 95% CI -10·4% to -2·4%). Of the 328 participants who had a genital infection, 151 (98%) of 154 in the ceftriaxone group and 163 (94%) of 174 in the gentamicin group had clearance at follow-up (adjusted risk difference -4·4%, -8·7 to 0). For participants with a pharyngeal infection, a greater proportion receiving ceftriaxone had clearance at follow-up (108 [96%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 82 [80%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -15·3%, -24·0 to -6·5). Similarly, a greater proportion of participants with rectal infection in the ceftriaxone group had clearance (134 [98%] in the ceftriaxone group compared with 107 [90%] in the gentamicin group; adjusted risk difference -7·8%, -13·6 to -2·0). Thus, we did not find that a single dose of gentamicin 240 mg was non-inferior to a single dose of ceftriaxone 500 mg for the treatment of gonorrhoea, when both drugs were combined with a 1 g dose of oral azithromycin. The side-effect profiles were similar between groups, although severity of pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin (mean visual analogue pain score 36 of 100 in the gentamicin group vs 21 of 100 in the ceftriaxone group). INTERPRETATION: Gentamicin is not appropriate as first-line treatment for gonorrhoea but remains potentially useful for patients with isolated genital infection, or for patients who are allergic or intolerant to ceftriaxone, or harbour a ceftriaxone-resistant isolate. Further research is required to identify and test new alternatives to ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhoea. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Gentamicin, azithromycin and ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea: the relationship between antibiotic MIC and clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between MIC and clinical outcome in a randomized controlled trial that compared gentamicin 240 mg plus azithromycin 1 g with ceftriaxone 500 mg plus azithromycin 1 g. MIC analysis was performed on Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates from all participants who were culture positive before they received treatment. METHODS: Viable gonococcal cultures were available from 279 participants, of whom 145 received ceftriaxone/azithromycin and 134 received gentamicin/azithromycin. Four participants (6 isolates) and 14 participants (17 isolates) did not clear infection in the ceftriaxone/azithromycin and gentamicin/azithromycin arms, respectively. MICs were determined by Etest on GC agar base with 1% Vitox. The geometric mean MICs of azithromycin, ceftriaxone and gentamicin were compared using logistic and linear regression according to treatment received and N. gonorrhoeae clearance. RESULTS: As the azithromycin MIC increased, gentamicin/azithromycin treatment was less effective than ceftriaxone/azithromycin at clearing N. gonorrhoeae. There was a higher geometric mean MIC of azithromycin for isolates from participants who had received gentamicin/azithromycin and did not clear infection compared with those who did clear infection [ratio 1.95 (95% CI 1.28-2.97)], but the use of categorical MIC breakpoints did not accurately predict the treatment response. The geometric mean MIC of azithromycin was higher in isolates from the pharynx compared with genital isolates. CONCLUSIONS: We found that categorical resistance to azithromycin or ceftriaxone in vitro, and higher gentamicin MICs in the absence of breakpoints, were poorly predictive of treatment failure.

An algorithm for diagnosing IgE-mediated food allergy in study participants who do not undergo food challenge.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy diagnosis in clinical studies can be challenging. Oral food challenges (OFC) are time-consuming, carry some risk and may, therefore, not be acceptable to all study participants. OBJECTIVE: To design and evaluate an algorithm for detecting IgE-mediated food allergy in clinical study participants who do not undergo OFC. METHODS: An algorithm for trial participants in the Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention (BEEP) study who were unwilling or unable to attend OFC was developed. BEEP is a pragmatic, multi-centre, randomized-controlled trial of daily emollient for the first year of life for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in high-risk infants (ISRCTN21528841). We built on the European iFAAM consensus guidance to develop a novel food allergy diagnosis algorithm using available information on previous allergenic food ingestion, food reaction(s) and sensitization status. This was implemented by a panel of food allergy experts blind to treatment allocation and OFC outcome. We then evaluated the algorithm's performance in both BEEP and Enquiring About Tolerance (EAT) study participants who did undergo OFC. RESULTS: In 31/69 (45%) BEEP and 44/55 (80%) EAT study control group participants who had an OFC the panel felt confident enough to categorize children as "probable food allergy" or "probable no food allergy". Algorithm-derived panel decisions showed high sensitivity 94% (95%CI 68, 100) BEEP; 90% (95%CI 72, 97) EAT and moderate specificity 67% (95%CI 39, 87) BEEP; 67% (95%CI 39, 87) EAT. Sensitivity and specificity were similar when all BEEP and EAT participants with OFC outcome were included. CONCLUSION: We describe a new algorithm with high sensitivity for IgE-mediated food allergy in clinical study participants who do not undergo OFC. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This may be a useful tool for excluding food allergy in future clinical studies where OFC is not conducted.

Cost-benefit of outcome adjudication in nine randomised stroke trials.

BACKGROUND: Central adjudication of outcomes is common for randomised trials and should control for differential misclassification. However, few studies have estimated the cost of the adjudication process. METHODS: We estimated the cost of adjudicating the primary outcome in nine randomised stroke trials (25,436 participants). The costs included adjudicators' time, direct payments to adjudicators, and co-ordinating centre costs (e.g. uploading cranial scans and general set-up costs). The number of events corrected after adjudication was our measure of benefit. We calculated cost per corrected event for each trial and in total. RESULTS: The primary outcome in all nine trials was either stroke or a composite that included stroke. In total, the adjudication process associated with this primary outcome cost in excess of £100,000 for a third of the trials (3/9). Mean cost per event corrected by adjudication was £2295.10 (SD: £1482.42). CONCLUSIONS: Central adjudication is a time-consuming and potentially costly process. These costs need to be considered when designing a trial and should be evaluated alongside the potential benefits adjudication brings to determine whether they outweigh this expense.

Cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial (CRAMMS).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory problems in people with multiple sclerosis. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with multiple sclerosis aged 18-69 years, who reported cognitive problems in daily life and had cognitive problems on standardized assessment. INTERVENTIONS: A group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered in 10 weekly sessions in comparison with usual care. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological subscale at 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included measures of everyday memory problems, mood, fatigue, cognitive abilities and employment at 6 and 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: In all, 245 participants were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation and 204 to usual care. Mean Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 12 months was 22.2 (SD = 6.1) for cognitive rehabilitation and 23.4 (SD = 6.0) for usual care group; adjusted difference -0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.5 to 0.3, P = 0.20. No differences were observed in cognitive abilities, fatigue or employment. There were small differences in favour of cognitive rehabilitation for the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 6 months and everyday memory and mood at 6 and 12 months. There was no evidence of an effect on costs (-£808; 95% CI = -£2248 to £632) or on quality-adjusted life year gain (0.00; 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.02). CONCLUSION: This rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on the impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life, but there was some evidence of an effect on everyday memory problems and mood.

Outcome Assessment by Central Adjudicators Versus Site Investigators in Stroke Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Purpose- In randomized stroke trials, central adjudication of a trial's primary outcome is regularly implemented. However, recent evidence questions the importance of central adjudication in randomized trials. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes assessed by central adjudicators with outcomes assessed by site investigators. Methods- We included randomized stroke trials where the primary outcome had undergone an assessment by site investigators and central adjudicators. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar for eligible studies. We extracted information about the adjudication process as well as the treatment effect for the primary outcome, assessed both by central adjudicators and by site investigators. We calculated the ratio of these treatment effects so that a ratio of these treatment effects >1 indicated that central adjudication resulted in a more beneficial treatment effect than assessment by the site investigator. A random-effects meta-analysis model was fitted to estimate a pooled effect. Results- Fifteen trials, comprising 69 560 participants, were included. The primary outcomes included were stroke (8/15, 53%), a composite event including stroke (6/15, 40%) and functional outcome after stroke measured on the modified Rankin Scale (1/15, 7%). The majority of site investigators were blind to treatment allocation (9/15, 60%). On average, there was no difference in treatment effect estimates based on data from central adjudicators and site investigators (pooled ratio of these treatment effects=1.02; 95% CI, [0.95-1.09]). Conclusions- We found no evidence that central adjudication of the primary outcome in stroke trials had any impact on trial conclusions. This suggests that potential advantages of central adjudication may not outweigh cost and time disadvantages in stroke studies if the primary purpose of adjudication is to ensure validity of trial findings.

Prehospital Transdermal Glyceryl Trinitrate for Ultra-Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Data From the RIGHT-2 Trial.

Background and Purpose- Pilot trials suggest that glyceryl trinitrate (GTN; nitroglycerin) may improve outcome when administered early after stroke onset. Methods- We undertook a multicentre, paramedic-delivered, ambulance-based, prospective randomized, sham-controlled, blinded-end point trial in adults with presumed stroke within 4 hours of ictus. Participants received transdermal GTN (5 mg) or a sham dressing (1:1) in the ambulance and then daily for three days in hospital. The primary outcome was the 7-level modified Rankin Scale at 90 days assessed by central telephone treatment-blinded follow-up. This prespecified subgroup analysis focuses on participants with an intracerebral hemorrhage as their index event. Analyses are intention-to-treat. Results- Of 1149 participants with presumed stroke, 145 (13%; GTN, 74; sham, 71) had an intracerebral hemorrhage: time from onset to randomization median, 74 minutes (interquartile range, 45-110). By admission to hospital, blood pressure tended to be lower with GTN as compared with sham: mean, 4.4/3.5 mm Hg. The modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days was nonsignificantly higher in the GTN group: adjusted common odds ratio for poor outcome, 1.87 (95% CI, 0.98-3.57). A prespecified global analysis of 5 clinical outcomes (dependency, disability, cognition, quality of life, and mood) was worse with GTN; Mann-Whitney difference, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.01-0.35; Wei-Lachin test). GTN was associated with larger hematoma and growth, and more mass effect and midline shift on neuroimaging, and altered use of hospital resources. Death in hospital but not at day 90 was increased with GTN. There were no significant between-group differences in serious adverse events. Conclusions- Prehospital treatment with GTN worsened outcomes in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Since these results could relate to the play of chance, confounding, or a true effect of GTN, further randomized evidence on the use of vasodilators in ultra-acute intracerebral hemorrhage is needed. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN26986053.

Eicosapentaenoic acid and aspirin, alone and in combination, for the prevention of colorectal adenomas (seAFOod Polyp Prevention trial): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: The omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and aspirin both have proof of concept for colorectal cancer chemoprevention, aligned with an excellent safety profile. Therefore, we aimed to test the efficacy of EPA and aspirin, alone and in combination and compared with a placebo, in individuals with sporadic colorectal neoplasia detected at colonoscopy. METHODS: In a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial, patients aged 55-73 years who were identified during colonoscopy as being at high risk in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP; ≥3 adenomas if at least one was ≥10 mm in diameter or ≥5 adenomas if these were <10 mm in diameter) were recruited from 53 BCSP endoscopy units in England, UK. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1:1) using a secure web-based server to receive 2 g EPA-free fatty acid (FFA) per day (either as the FFA or triglyceride), 300 mg aspirin per day, both treatments in combination, or placebo for 12 months using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, and stratified by BCSP site. Research staff and participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the adenoma detection rate (ADR; the proportion of participants with any adenoma) at 1 year surveillance colonoscopy analysed in all participants with observable follow-up data using a so-called at-the-margins approach, adjusted for BCSP site and repeat endoscopy at baseline. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, number ISRCTN05926847. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2011, and June 10, 2016, 709 participants were randomly assigned to four treatment groups (176 to placebo, 179 to EPA, 177 to aspirin, and 177 to EPA plus aspirin). Adenoma outcome data were available for 163 (93%) patients in the placebo group, 153 (85%) in the EPA group, 163 (92%) in the aspirin group, and 161 (91%) in the EPA plus aspirin group. The ADR was 61% (100 of 163) in the placebo group, 63% (97 of 153) in the EPA group, 61% (100 of 163) in the aspirin group, and 61% (98 of 161) in the EPA plus aspirin group, with no evidence of any effect for EPA (risk ratio [RR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·87 to 1·12; risk difference -0·9%, -8·8 to 6·9; p=0·81) or aspirin (RR 0·99 (0·87 to 1·12; risk difference -0·6%, -8·5 to 7·2; p=0·88). EPA and aspirin were well tolerated (78 [44%] of 176 had ≥1 adverse event in the placebo group compared with 82 [46%] in the EPA group, 68 [39%] in the aspirin group, and 76 [45%] in the EPA plus aspirin group), although the number of gastrointestinal adverse events was increased in the EPA alone group at 146 events (compared with 85 in the placebo group, 86 in the aspirin group, and 68 in the aspirin plus placebo group). Six upper-gastrointestinal bleeding events were reported across the treatment groups (two in the EPA group, three in the aspirin group, and one in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Neither EPA nor aspirin treatment were associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients with at least one colorectal adenoma. Further research is needed regarding the effect on colorectal adenoma number according to adenoma type and location. Optimal use of EPA and aspirin might need a precision medicine approach to adenoma recurrence. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a UK Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole versus clopidogrel alone or aspirin and dipyridamole in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia (TARDIS): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive antiplatelet therapy with three agents might be more effective than guideline treatment for preventing recurrent events in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole) with that of guideline-based antiplatelet therapy. METHODS: We did an international, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial in adult participants with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) within 48 h of onset. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio using computer randomisation to receive loading doses and then 30 days of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin 75 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, and dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily) or guideline-based therapy (comprising either clopidogrel alone or combined aspirin and dipyridamole). Randomisation was stratified by country and index event, and minimised with prognostic baseline factors, medication use, time to randomisation, stroke-related factors, and thrombolysis. The ordinal primary outcome was the combined incidence and severity of any recurrent stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic; assessed using the modified Rankin Scale) or TIA within 90 days, as assessed by central telephone follow-up with masking to treatment assignment, and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN47823388. FINDINGS: 3096 participants (1556 in the intensive antiplatelet therapy group, 1540 in the guideline antiplatelet therapy group) were recruited from 106 hospitals in four countries between April 7, 2009, and March 18, 2016. The trial was stopped early on the recommendation of the data monitoring committee. The incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA did not differ between intensive and guideline therapy (93 [6%] participants vs 105 [7%]; adjusted common odds ratio [cOR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·67-1·20, p=0·47). By contrast, intensive antiplatelet therapy was associated with more, and more severe, bleeding (adjusted cOR 2·54, 95% CI 2·05-3·16, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with recent cerebral ischaemia, intensive antiplatelet therapy did not reduce the incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA, but did significantly increase the risk of major bleeding. Triple antiplatelet therapy should not be used in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, British Heart Foundation.

High- versus low-intensity interventions for perinatal depression delivered by non-specialist primary maternal care providers in Nigeria: cluster randomised controlled trial (the EXPONATE trial).

BACKGROUND: Contextually appropriate interventions delivered by primary maternal care providers (PMCPs) might be effective in reducing the treatment gap for perinatal depression. AIM: To compare high-intensity treatment (HIT) with low-intensity treatment (LIT) for perinatal depression. METHOD: Cluster randomised clinical trial, conducted in Ibadan, Nigeria between 18 June 2013 and 11 December 2015 in 29 maternal care clinics allocated by computed-generated random sequence (15 HIT; 14 LIT). Interventions were delivered individually to antenatal women with DSM-IV (1994) major depression by trained PMCPs. LIT consisted of the basic psychosocial treatment specifications in the World Health Organization Mental Health Gap Action Programme - Intervention Guide. HIT comprised LIT plus eight weekly problem-solving therapy sessions with possible additional sessions determined by scores on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). The primary outcome was remission of depression at 6 months postpartum (EPDS < 6). RESULTS: There were 686 participants; 452 and 234 in HIT and LIT arms, respectively, with both groups similar at baseline. Follow-up assessments, completed on 85%, showed remission rates of 70% with HIT and 66% with LIT: risk difference 4% (95% CI -4.1%, 12.0%), adjusted odds ratio 1.12 (95% CI 0.73, 1.72). HIT was more effective for severe depression (odds ratio 2.29; 95% CI 1.01, 5.20; P = 0.047) and resulted in a higher rate of exclusive breastfeeding. Infant outcomes, cost-effectiveness and adverse events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Except among severely depressed perinatal women, we found no strong evidence to recommend high-intensity in preference to low-intensity psychological intervention in routine primary maternal care. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS: None.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18-69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization. RESULTS: We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: -2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): -6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient's everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions.