Health economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of probiotics and usual care with usual care without probiotics in mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit patients alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT). METHODS: We conducted a health economic evaluation alongside the PROSPECT randomized control trial (October 2013-March 2019). We adopted a public healthcare payer's perspective. Forty-four intensive care units in three countries (Canada/USA/Saudi Arabia) with adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients (N = 2,650) were included. Interventions were probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administered enterally twice daily. We collected healthcare resource use and estimated unit costs in 2019 United States dollars (USD) over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge/death. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing probiotics vs usual care. The primary outcome was incremental cost per ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) event averted; secondary outcomes were costs per Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD), and mortality averted. Uncertainty was investigated using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost per patient was USD 66,914 (91,098) for patients randomized to probiotics, with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of USD 42,947 [22,239 to 76,205]. By comparison, for those not receiving probiotics, mean (SD) cost per patient was USD 62,701 (78,676) (median [IQR], USD 41,102 [23,170 to 75,140]; incremental cost, USD 4,213; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2,269 to 10,708). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for VAP or AAD events averted, probiotics were dominated by usual care (more expensive, with similar effectiveness). The ICERs were USD 1,473,400 per CDAD event averted (95% CI, undefined) and USD 396,764 per death averted (95% CI, undefined). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves reveal that probiotics were not cost-effective across wide ranges of plausible willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics for VAP prevention among critically ill patients were not cost-effective. Study registration data www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT01782755); registered 4 February 2013.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à comparer le rapport coût-efficacité d'un traitement avec probiotiques ajoutés aux soins habituels avec des soins habituels prodigués sans probiotiques chez les patients des soins intensifs sous ventilation mécanique dans le cadre de l'étude PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une évaluation de l'économie de la santé parallèlement à l'étude randomisée contrôlée PROSPECT (octobre 2013-mars 2019). Nous avons adopté le point de vue d'un payeur public de services de santé. Quarante-quatre unités de soins intensifs dans trois pays (Canada/États-Unis/Arabie saoudite) prenant soin de patients adultes gravement malades sous ventilation mécanique (n = 2650) ont été inclus. Les interventions ont été les suivantes : probiotiques (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administrés par voie entérale deux fois par jour. Nous avons recueilli les données concernant l'utilisation des ressources en soins de santé et estimé les coûts unitaires en dollars américains (USD) de 2019 sur un horizon temporel allant de la randomisation au congé de l'hôpital / décès. Nous avons calculé des rapports coût-efficacité différentiels (RCED) en comparant les probiotiques vs les soins habituels. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le coût différentiel par événement évité de pneumonie associée au ventilateur (PAV); les critères d'évaluation secondaires étaient les coûts par diarrhée associée au Clostridioides difficile (DACD), diarrhée associée aux antibiotiques (DAA) et mortalité évitées. L'incertitude a été étudiée à l'aide d'analyses d'amorçage et de sensibilité non paramétriques. RéSULTATS: Le coût moyen (écart type [ÉT]) par patient était de 66 914 (91 098) USD pour les patients randomisés au groupe probiotiques, avec une médiane [écart interquartile (ÉIQ)] de 42 947 USD [22 239 à 76 205]. En comparaison, pour ceux ne recevant pas de probiotiques, le coût moyen (ÉT) par patient était de 62 701 USD (78 676) (médiane [ÉIQ], 41 102 USD [23 170 à 75 140]; coût différentiel, 4213 USD; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95%, -2269 à 10 708). En matière de rapports coût-efficacité différentiels pour les événements de PAV ou DAA évités, les probiotiques étaient dominés par les soins habituels (plus coûteux, avec une efficacité similaire). Les RCED étaient de 1 473 400 USD par événement de DACD évitée (IC 95 %, non défini) et de 396 764 USD par décès évité (IC 95 %, non défini). Les courbes d'acceptabilité coût-efficacité révèlent que les probiotiques n'étaient pas rentables dans de larges gammes de seuils plausibles de volonté de payer. Les analyses de sensibilité n'ont pas modifié les conclusions. CONCLUSION: Les probiotiques utilisés pour prévenir la PAV chez les patients gravement malades n'étaient pas rentables. Enregistrement de l'étude : www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01782755); enregistrée le 4 février 2013.

Economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common healthcare-associated infection in the intensive care unit (ICU). Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms that may confer health benefits when ingested. Prior randomised trials suggest that probiotics may prevent infections such as VAP and Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD). PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial) is a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG with usual care versus usual care without probiotics in preventing VAP and other clinically important outcomes in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The objective of E-PROSPECT is to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of L. rhamnosus GG plus usual care versus usual care without probiotics in critically ill patients. E-PROSPECT will be performed from the public healthcare payer's perspective over a time horizon from ICU admission to hospital discharge.We will determine probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all patients alongside PROSPECT. We will retrieve unit costs for each resource use item using jurisdiction-specific public databases, supplemented by individual site unit costs if such databases are unavailable. Direct costs will include medications, personnel costs, radiology/laboratory testing, operative/non-operative procedures and per-day hospital 'hoteling' costs not otherwise encompassed. The primary outcome is the incremental cost per VAP prevented between the two treatment groups. Other clinical events such as CDAD, antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and in-hospital mortality will be included as secondary outcomes. We will perform pre-specified subgroup analyses (medical/surgical/trauma; age; frailty status; antibiotic use; prevalent vs no prevalent pneumonia) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses for VAP, then generate confidence intervals using the non-parametric bootstrapping approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Study approval for E-PROSPECT was granted by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board of McMaster University on 29 July 2019. Informed consent was obtained from the patient or substitute decision-maker in PROSPECT. The findings of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01782755; Pre-results.

Global Collaboration in Acute Care Clinical Research: Opportunities, Challenges, and Needs.

The most impactful research in critical care comes from trials groups led by clinician-investigators who study questions arising through the day-to-day care of critically ill patients. The success of this model reflects both "necessity"-the paucity of new therapies introduced through industry-led research-and "clinical reality"-nuanced modulation of standard practice can have substantial impact on clinically important outcomes. Success in a few countries has fueled efforts to build similar models around the world and to collaborate on an unprecedented scale in large international trials. International collaboration brings opportunity-the more rapid completion of clinical trials, enhanced generalizability of the results of these trials, and a focus on questions that have evoked international curiosity. It has changed practice, improved outcomes, and enabled an international response to pandemic threats. It also brings challenges. Investigators may feel threatened by the loss of autonomy inherent in collaboration, and appropriate models of academic credit are yet to be developed. Differences in culture, practice, ethical frameworks, research experience, and resource availability create additional imbalances. Patient and family engagement in research is variable and typically inadequate. Funders are poorly equipped to evaluate and fund international collaborative efforts. Yet despite or perhaps because of these challenges, the discipline of critical care is leading the world in crafting new models of clinical research collaboration that hold the promise of not only improving the care of the most vulnerable patients in the healthcare system but also transforming the way that we conduct clinical research.

What is an intensive care unit? A report of the task force of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine.

Since their widespread introduction more than half a century ago, intensive care units (ICUs) have become an integral part of the health care system. Although most ICUs are found in high-income countries, they are increasingly a feature of health care systems in low- and middle-income countries. The World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine convened a task force whose objective was to answer the question "What is an ICU?" in an internationally meaningful manner and to develop a system for stratifying ICUs on the basis of the intensity of the care they provide. We undertook a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature to assemble existing models for ICU stratification. Based on these and on discussions among task force members by teleconference and 2 face-to-face meetings, we present a proposed definition and classification of ICUs. An ICU is an organized system for the provision of care to critically ill patients that provides intensive and specialized medical and nursing care, an enhanced capacity for monitoring, and multiple modalities of physiologic organ support to sustain life during a period of life-threatening organ system insufficiency. Although an ICU is based in a defined geographic area of a hospital, its activities often extend beyond the walls of the physical space to include the emergency department, hospital ward, and follow-up clinic. A level 1 ICU is capable of providing oxygen, noninvasive monitoring, and more intensive nursing care than on a ward, whereas a level 2 ICU can provide invasive monitoring and basic life support for a short period. A level 3 ICU provides a full spectrum of monitoring and life support technologies, serves as a regional resource for the care of critically ill patients, and may play an active role in developing the specialty of intensive care through research and education. A formal definition and descriptive framework for ICUs can inform health care decision-makers in planning and measuring capacity and provide clinicians and patients with a benchmark to evaluate the level of resources available for clinical care.

Development of an intensive care unit resource assessment survey for the care of critically ill patients in resource-limited settings.

PURPOSE: Capacity to provide critical care in resource-limited settings is poorly understood because of lack of data about resources available to manage critically ill patients. Our objective was to develop a survey to address this issue. METHODS: We developed and piloted a cross-sectional self-administered survey in 9 resource-limited countries. The survey consisted of 8 domains; specific items within domains were modified from previously developed survey tools. We distributed the survey by e-mail to a convenience sample of health care providers responsible for providing care to critically ill patients. We assessed clinical sensibility and test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Nine of 15 health care providers responded to the survey on 2 separate occasions, separated by 2 to 4 weeks. Clinical sensibility was high (3.9-4.9/5 on assessment tool). Test-retest reliability for questions related to resource availability was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.99; mean (SD) of weighted κ values = 0.67 [0.19]). The mean (SD) time for survey completion survey was 21 (16) minutes. CONCLUSIONS: A reliable cross-sectional survey of available resources to manage critically ill patients can be feasibly administered to health care providers in resource-limited settings. The survey will inform future research focusing on access to critical care where it is poorly described but urgently needed.

Determinants of Citation Impact in Large Clinical Trials in Critical Care: The Role of Investigator-Led Clinical Trials Groups.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized clinical trials provide the best evidence of treatment effectiveness; factors determining their impact are unknown. We sought to determine the influence of funding (industry vs nonindustry), research (comparative effectiveness vs technology evaluation), and organizational models (investigator-led trials group vs others) on the impact of large trials in critical care medicine. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE for randomized clinical trials published between 1990 and 2012 in five critical care, five general interest, and one pediatrics journal. Impact was evaluated as annual citation rates measured using the ISI Web of Knowledge database. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible trials enrolled at least 100 critically ill adults, children, or neonates, evaluated an intervention that was applied during the ICU stay, and reported mortality and/or length of ICU or hospital stay. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers identified eligible studies, and two separate reviewers extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 391 randomized clinical trials, recruiting 208,154 subjects. Funding source--industry versus peer review versus mixed--did not impact citation rates. Comparative effectiveness studies made up 52.5% of the reports and were cited more frequently than studies evaluating novel technologies (median, 15.6 vs 10.3 citations/yr; p = 0.002). Trials conducted by investigator-led trials groups (n = 45) were cited a median of 45.7 (interquartile range [IQR], 17.3-86.2) times per year, significantly more often (p < 0.0001) than multicenter trials conducted by ad hoc groups (n = 89; median, 19 [IQR, 8.7-30.4]) or industry (n = 85; median, 12.3 [IQR, 5.4-24.1]), and more than single-center trials (n = 116; median, 6.8 [IQR, 3.5-12.8]) or small ad hoc trials involving two to five centers (n = 59; median, 11.0 [IQR, 4.5-22.4]). Although only 11.5% of all trials included, randomized clinical trials from investigator-led research consortia accounted for nine of the 16 studies cited more than 100 times per year and 23.4% of all citations; their costs were substantially less than the typical costs of industry-run trials.. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials conducted by investigator-led research groups are significantly more frequently cited than industry-led trials in critical care medicine. In addition, costs appear to be substantially lower with investigator-led trials. Support for and expansion of this model of research can ensure that critical care research is clinically relevant and practice changing.

Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping. DISCUSSION: This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143 . Date of registration: 10 September 2005.

Cost-effectiveness of dalteparin vs unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients.

IMPORTANCE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of acute illness, and its prevention is a ubiquitous aspect of inpatient care. A multicenter blinded, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, finding no difference in the primary end point of leg deep-vein thrombosis but a reduced rate of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia among critically ill medical-surgical patients who received dalteparin. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH for prophylaxis against VTE in critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective economic evaluation concurrent with the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Randomized Trial (May 2006 to June 2010). The economic evaluation adopted a health care payer perspective and in-hospital time horizon; derived baseline characteristics and probabilities of intensive care unit and in-hospital events; and measured costs among 2344 patients in 23 centers in 5 countries and applied these costs to measured resource use and effects of all enrolled patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH during the period of hospitalization, and sensitivity analyses across cost ranges. RESULTS: Hospital costs per patient were $39,508 (interquartile range [IQR], $24,676 to $71,431) for 1862 patients who received LMWH compared with $40,805 (IQR, $24,393 to $76,139) for 1862 patients who received UFH (incremental cost, -$1297 [IQR, -$4398 to $1404]; P = .41). In 78% of simulations, a strategy using LMWH was most effective and least costly. In sensitivity analyses, a strategy using LMWH remained least costly unless the drug acquisition cost of dalteparin increased from $8 to $179 per dose and was consistent among higher- and lower-spending health care systems. There was no threshold at which lowering the acquisition cost of UFH favored prophylaxis with UFH. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: From a health care payer perspective, the use of the LMWH dalteparin for VTE prophylaxis among critically ill medical-surgical patients was more effective and had similar or lower costs than the use of UFH. These findings were driven by lower rates of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and corresponding lower overall use of resources with LMWH.

Assessment of the worldwide burden of critical illness: the intensive care over nations (ICON) audit.

BACKGROUND: Global epidemiological data regarding outcomes for patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are scarce, but are important in understanding the worldwide burden of critical illness. We, therefore, did an international audit of ICU patients worldwide and assessed variations between hospitals and countries in terms of ICU mortality. METHODS: 730 participating centres in 84 countries prospectively collected data on all adult (>16 years) patients admitted to their ICU between May 8 and May 18, 2012, except those admitted for fewer than 24 h for routine postoperative monitoring. Participation was voluntary. Data were collected daily for a maximum of 28 days in the ICU and patients were followed up for outcome data until death or hospital discharge. In-hospital death was analysed using multilevel logistic regression with three levels: patient, hospital, and country. FINDINGS: 10,069 patients were included from ICUs in Europe (5445 patients; 54·1%), Asia (1928; 19·2%), the Americas (1723; 17·1%), Oceania (439; 4·4%), the Middle East (393; 3·9%), and Africa (141; 1·4%). Overall, 2973 patients (29·5%) had sepsis on admission or during the ICU stay. ICU mortality rates were 16·2% (95% CI 15·5-16·9) across the whole population and 25·8% (24·2-27·4) in patients with sepsis. Hospital mortality rates were 22·4% (21·6-23·2) in the whole population and 35·3% (33·5-37·1) in patients with sepsis. Using a multilevel analysis, the unconditional model suggested significant between-country variations (var=0·19, p=0·002) and between-hospital variations (var=0·43, p<0·0001) in the individual risk of in-hospital death. There was a stepwise increase in the adjusted risk of in-hospital death according to decrease in global national income. INTERPRETATION: This large database highlights that sepsis remains a major health problem worldwide, associated with high mortality rates in all countries. Our findings also show a significant association between the risk of death and the global national income and suggest that ICU organisation has an important effect on risk of death. FUNDING: None.

Participation of ICUs in critical care pandemic research: a province wide, cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: Little information exists to identify barriers to participation in pandemic research involving critically ill patients. We sought to characterize clinical research activity during the recent influenza A pandemic and to understand the experiences, beliefs, and practices of key stakeholders involved in pandemic research implementation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, provincial postal questionnaire. SETTING: Level III ICUs. PARTICIPANTS: ICU administrators and research coordinators. MEASUREMENTS: We used rigorous survey methodology to identify potential respondents and to develop, test, and administer two-related questionnaires. MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed responses from 39 research coordinators and 139 administrators (response rates: 70.9% and 73.2%, respectively). Compared with non-influenza A studies, influenza A studies were less likely to be randomized trials and most often investigator-initiated and peer-review funded. Whereas both respondent groups felt that pandemic research would be helpful in providing care during future pandemics, research coordinators placed significantly greater importance on their ICU's participation in pandemic research. Both respondent groups expressed a need for rapid approval processes, designated funding for research personnel, adequate funding for start-up and patient screening, preapproved template protocols and consent forms, and clearer guidance regarding co-enrollment. Research coordinators acknowledged a need for alternative consent models to increase their capacity to participate in future pandemic research. More administrators expressed willingness to participate in the next pandemic if the required research resources were made available to them. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas research personnel and administrators support participation in pandemic ICU research, several modifiable barriers to participation exist. Pandemic research preparedness planning with regulatory bodies and dedicated funding to support research infrastructure, especially in community settings, are required to optimize future pandemic research participation.

Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations.

Surgical innovation is an important part of surgical practice. Its assessment is complex because of idiosyncrasies related to surgical practice, but necessary so that introduction and adoption of surgical innovations can derive from evidence-based principles rather than trial and error. A regulatory framework is also desirable to protect patients against the potential harms of any novel procedure. In this first of three Series papers on surgical innovation and evaluation, we propose a five-stage paradigm to describe the development of innovative surgical procedures.

No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations.

Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.

Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation.

Research on surgical interventions is associated with several methodological and practical challenges of which few, if any, apply only to surgery. However, surgical evaluation is especially demanding because many of these challenges coincide. In this report, the second of three on surgical innovation and evaluation, we discuss obstacles related to the study design of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies assessing surgical interventions. We also describe the issues related to the nature of surgical procedures-for example, their complexity, surgeon-related factors, and the range of outcomes. Although difficult, surgical evaluation is achievable and necessary. Solutions tailored to surgical research and a framework for generating evidence on which to base surgical practice are essential.

Design, conduct, analysis and reporting of a multi-national placebo-controlled trial of activated protein C for persistent septic shock.

The role of drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DAA) in severe sepsis remains controversial and clinicians are unsure whether or not to treat their patients with DAA. In response to a request from the European Medicines Agency, Eli Lilly will sponsor a new placebo-controlled trial and history suggests the results will be subject to great scrutiny. An academic steering committee will oversee the conduct of the study and will write the study manuscripts. The steering committee intends that the study will be conducted with the maximum possible transparency; this includes publication of the study protocol and a memorandum of understanding which delineates the role of the sponsor. The trial has the potential to provide clinicians with valuable data but patients will only benefit if clinicians have confidence in the conduct, analysis and reporting of the trial. This special article describes the process by which the trial was developed, major decisions regarding trial design, and plans for independent analysis, interpretation and reporting of the data.

GnRH pulse frequency modulation of gonadotropin subunit gene transcription in normal gonadotropes-assessment by primary transcript assay provides evidence for roles of GnRH and follistatin.

We examined the time course of action of GnRH pulse frequency on gonadotropin subunit gene transcription and assessed the roles of GnRH, follistatin (FS), and activin on differential transcription of the LHbeta and FSHbeta genes. GnRH-deficient male rats were pulsed with 25 ng GnRH either every 30 min (fast frequency) or every 240 min (slow frequency) for 1-24 h. Both GnRH frequencies increased alpha primary transcript (PT) 5-fold within 6 h, but only fast frequency GnRH increased alpha mRNA. Only fast frequency GnRH pulses affected LHbeta PT, resulting in 6- to 9-fold increases between 1-24 h. Fast frequency GnRH pulses transiently increased FSHbeta PT at 1 and 6 h (4- and 2-fold, respectively); but by 24 h FSHbeta PT had returned to control levels and was correlated to a 5- to 9-fold increase in FS mRNA. In contrast, slow GnRH pulses increased FSHbeta PT 3- and 6-fold at 8 and 24 h, respectively, which was correlated with a decline in FS mRNA. Activin mRNA did not change significantly after either GnRH frequency, but tended to fall after fast pulses. To test whether activin was required for the effects of GnRH on FSHbeta transcription, rats were treated with GnRH pulses every 240 min for 8 h +/- FS. FS treatment alone markedly decreased basal FSHbeta PT. GnRH in the presence of FS increased FSHbeta PT 8-fold but did not restore FSHbeta transcription to control or GnRH alone values. In summary, whereas alpha-subunit transcription is independent of frequency, an increase in alpha mRNA requires fast frequency GnRH pulses. Fast frequency GnRH pulses increased both LHbeta and FSHbeta transcription, but the response of FSHbeta was transient. The sustained rise in FSHbeta transcription and mRNA expression required slow frequency GnRH pulses and was correlated to low FS mRNA. Neutralization of pituitary activin by exogenous FS markedly reduced basal FSHbeta PT and mRNA but did not prevent the stimulation of FSHbeta transcription by slow frequency GnRH pulses. These studies suggest that the frequency regulation of FSHbeta transcription involves both direct actions of GnRH and indirect effects, via changes in pituitary FS expression.