Mapping sources of noise in an intensive care unit.

Excessive noise in hospitals adversely affects patients' sleep and recovery, causes stress and fatigue in staff and hampers communication. The World Health Organization suggests sound levels should be limited to 35 decibels. This is probably unachievable in intensive care units, but some reduction from current levels should be possible. A preliminary step would be to identify principal sources of noise. As part of a larger project investigating techniques to reduce environmental noise, we installed a microphone array system in one with four beds in an adult general intensive care unit. This continuously measured locations and sound pressure levels of noise sources. This report summarises results recorded over one year. Data were collected between 7 April 2017 and 16 April 2018 inclusive. Data for a whole day were available for 248 days. The sound location system revealed that the majority of loud sounds originated from extremely limited areas, very close to patients' ears. This proximity maximises the adverse effects of high environmental noise levels for patients. Some of this was likely to be appropriate communication between the patient, their caring staff and visitors. However, a significant proportion of loud sounds may originate from equipment alarms which are sited at the bedside. A redesign of the intensive care unit environment to move alarm sounds away from the bed-side might significantly reduce the environmental noise burden to patients.

Go/no-go decision in anaesthesia: wide variation in risk tolerance amongst anaesthetists.

BACKGROUND: The variability in risk tolerance in medicine is not well understood. Parallels are often drawn between aviation and anaesthesia. The aviation industry is perceived as culturally risk averse, and part of preflight checks involves a decision on whether the flight can operate. This is sometimes termed a go/no-go decision. This questionnaire study was undertaken to explore the equivalent go/no-go decision in anaesthesia. We presented anaesthetists with a range of situations in which additional risk might be expected and asked them to decide whether they would proceed with the case. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to anaesthetic colleagues of all grades in one National Health Service Trust. Eleven scenarios, all drawn from critical incident data, were presented. Participants were invited to consider whether they would proceed, how they would modify their anaesthetic technique, and to predict whether a colleague with similar experience would make the same decision. Textual responses were analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: The scenario response rate was 28%. Consultants were significantly more likely to proceed than trainees. In no scenario was there absolute agreement over whether to proceed, even in scenarios where national guidelines would suggest a case should be cancelled. Thematic analysis suggested a wide variability in what anaesthetists consider acceptable or professional behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that safety decisions cannot be made in isolation and that clinicians must consider operational requirements, such as throughput, when making a go/no-go decision. The level of variability in decision-making was surprising, particularly for scenarios that appeared to go against guidelines.

Interleukin-2 therapy in patients with HIV infection.

BACKGROUND: Used in combination with antiretroviral therapy, subcutaneous recombinant interleukin-2 raises CD4+ cell counts more than does antiretroviral therapy alone. The clinical implication of these increases is not known. METHODS: We conducted two trials: the Subcutaneous Recombinant, Human Interleukin-2 in HIV-Infected Patients with Low CD4+ Counts under Active Antiretroviral Therapy (SILCAAT) study and the Evaluation of Subcutaneous Proleukin in a Randomized International Trial (ESPRIT). In each, patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who had CD4+ cell counts of either 50 to 299 per cubic millimeter (SILCAAT) or 300 or more per cubic millimeter (ESPRIT) were randomly assigned to receive interleukin-2 plus antiretroviral therapy or antiretroviral therapy alone. The interleukin-2 regimen consisted of cycles of 5 consecutive days each, administered at 8-week intervals. The SILCAAT study involved six cycles and a dose of 4.5 million IU of interleukin-2 twice daily; ESPRIT involved three cycles and a dose of 7.5 million IU twice daily. Additional cycles were recommended to maintain the CD4+ cell count above predefined target levels. The primary end point of both studies was opportunistic disease or death from any cause. RESULTS: In the SILCAAT study, 1695 patients (849 receiving interleukin-2 plus antiretroviral therapy and 846 receiving antiretroviral therapy alone) who had a median CD4+ cell count of 202 cells per cubic millimeter were enrolled; in ESPRIT, 4111 patients (2071 receiving interleukin-2 plus antiretroviral therapy and 2040 receiving antiretroviral therapy alone) who had a median CD4+ cell count of 457 cells per cubic millimeter were enrolled. Over a median follow-up period of 7 to 8 years, the CD4+ cell count was higher in the interleukin-2 group than in the group receiving antiretroviral therapy alone--by 53 and 159 cells per cubic millimeter, on average, in the SILCAAT study and ESPRIT, respectively. Hazard ratios for opportunistic disease or death from any cause with interleukin-2 plus antiretroviral therapy (vs. antiretroviral therapy alone) were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.18; P=0.47) in the SILCAAT study and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.16; P=0.55) in ESPRIT. The hazard ratios for death from any cause and for grade 4 clinical events were 1.06 (P=0.73) and 1.10 (P=0.35), respectively, in the SILCAAT study and 0.90 (P=0.42) and 1.23 (P=0.003), respectively, in ESPRIT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a substantial and sustained increase in the CD4+ cell count, as compared with antiretroviral therapy alone, interleukin-2 plus antiretroviral therapy yielded no clinical benefit in either study. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00004978 [ESPRIT] and NCT00013611 [SILCAAT study].)

Strengthening clinical cancer research in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: In 1999, 270,000 cases of cancer were registered in the United Kingdom, placing a large burden on the NHS. Cancer outcome data in 1999 suggested that UK survival rates were poorer than most other European countries. In the same year, a Department of Health review noted that clinical trials accrual was poor (<3.5% of incident cases) and hypothesised that increasing research activity might improve outcomes and reduce the variability of outcomes across England. Thus, the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) was established to increase participation in cancer clinical research. METHODS: The NCRN was established in 2001 to provide a robust infrastructure for cancer clinical research and improvements in patient care. Remit of NCRN is to coordinate, support and deliver cancer clinical research through the provision of research support staff across England. The NCRN works closely with similar networks in Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland. A key aim of NCRN is to improve the speed of research and this was also assessed by comparing the speed of study delivery of a subset of cancer studies opening before and after NCRN was established. RESULTS: Patient recruitment increased through NCRN, with almost 32,000 (12% of annual incident cases) cancer patients being recruited each year. Study delivery has improved, with more studies meeting the recruitment target - 74% compared with 39% before NCRN was established. CONCLUSION: The coordinated approach to cancer clinical research has demonstrated increased accrual, wide participation and successful trial delivery, which should lead to improved outcomes and care.

Daily co-trimoxazole prophylaxis in severely immunosuppressed HIV-infected adults in Africa started on combination antiretroviral therapy: an observational analysis of the DART cohort.

BACKGROUND: Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis can reduce mortality from untreated HIV infection in Africa; whether benefits occur alongside combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) is unclear. We estimated the effect of prophylaxis after ART initiation in adults. METHODS: Participants in our observational analysis were from the DART randomised trial of management strategies in HIV-infected, symptomatic, previously untreated African adults starting triple-drug ART with CD4 counts lower than 200 cells per muL. Co-trimoxazole prophylaxis was not routinely used or randomly allocated, but was variably prescribed by clinicians. We estimated effects on clinical outcomes, CD4 cell count, and body-mass index (BMI) using marginal structural models to adjust for time-dependent confounding by indication. DART was registered, number ISRCTN13968779. FINDINGS: 3179 participants contributed 14 214 years of follow-up (8128 [57%] person-years on co-trimoxazole). Time-dependent predictors of co-trimoxazole use were current CD4 cell count, haemoglobin concentration, BMI, and previous WHO stage 3 or 4 events on ART. Present prophylaxis significantly reduced mortality (odds ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.50-0.85; p=0.001). Mortality risk reduction on ART was substantial to 12 weeks (0.41, 0.27-0.65), sustained from 12-72 weeks (0.56, 0.37-0.86), but not evident subsequently (0.96, 0.63-1.45; heterogeneity p=0.02). Variation in mortality reduction was not accounted for by time on co-trimoxazole or current CD4 cell count. Prophylaxis reduced frequency of malaria (0.74, 0.63-0.88; p=0.0005), an effect that was maintained with time, but we observed no effect on new WHO stage 4 events (0.86, 0.69-1.07; p=0.17), CD4 cell count (difference vs non-users, -3 cells per muL [-12 to 6]; p=0.50), or BMI (difference vs non-users, -0.04 kg/m(2) [-0.20 to 0.13); p=0.68]. INTERPRETATION: Our results reinforce WHO guidelines and provide strong motivation for provision of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis for at least 72 weeks for all adults starting combination ART in Africa. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, the UK Department for International Development, the Rockefeller Foundation, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Abbott Laboratories.

Routine versus clinically driven laboratory monitoring of HIV antiretroviral therapy in Africa (DART): a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) is often managed without routine laboratory monitoring in Africa; however, the effect of this approach is unknown. This trial investigated whether routine toxicity and efficacy monitoring of HIV-infected patients receiving ART had an important long-term effect on clinical outcomes in Africa. METHODS: In this open, non-inferiority trial in three centres in Uganda and one in Zimbabwe, 3321 symptomatic, ART-naive, HIV-infected adults with CD4 counts less than 200 cells per microL starting ART were randomly assigned to laboratory and clinical monitoring (LCM; n=1659) or clinically driven monitoring (CDM; n=1662) by a computer-generated list. Haematology, biochemistry, and CD4-cell counts were done every 12 weeks. In the LCM group, results were available to clinicians; in the CDM group, results (apart from CD4-cell count) could be requested if clinically indicated and grade 4 toxicities were available. Participants switched to second-line ART after new or recurrent WHO stage 4 events in both groups, or CD4 count less than 100 cells per microL (LCM only). Co-primary endpoints were new WHO stage 4 HIV events or death, and serious adverse events. Non-inferiority was defined as the upper 95% confidence limit for the hazard ratio (HR) for new WHO stage 4 events or death being no greater than 1.18. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN13968779. FINDINGS: Two participants assigned to CDM and three to LCM were excluded from analyses. 5-year survival was 87% (95% CI 85-88) in the CDM group and 90% (88-91) in the LCM group, and 122 (7%) and 112 (7%) participants, respectively, were lost to follow-up over median 4.9 years' follow-up. 459 (28%) participants receiving CDM versus 356 (21%) LCM had a new WHO stage 4 event or died (6.94 [95% CI 6.33-7.60] vs 5.24 [4.72-5.81] per 100 person-years; absolute difference 1.70 per 100 person-years [0.87-2.54]; HR 1.31 [1.14-1.51]; p=0.0001). Differences in disease progression occurred from the third year on ART, whereas higher rates of switch to second-line treatment occurred in LCM from the second year. 283 (17%) participants receiving CDM versus 260 (16%) LCM had a new serious adverse event (HR 1.12 [0.94-1.32]; p=0.19), with anaemia the most common (76 vs 61 cases). INTERPRETATION: ART can be delivered safely without routine laboratory monitoring for toxic effects, but differences in disease progression suggest a role for monitoring of CD4-cell count from the second year of ART to guide the switch to second-line treatment. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, the UK Department for International Development, the Rockefeller Foundation, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Abbott Laboratories.

Patient and public involvement.

The involvement of patients and the public in the development of clinical research initiatives in the UK has been central and is increasing. Whilst initially developed in relation to cancer research and cancer care, this activity has now generalized to all of healthcare research particularly through organizations such as INVOLVE (www.invo.org.uk). Patients and Public Involvement (PPI) has been evaluated and shown to be established across the NHS in the UK. The National Institute for Health Research in England has made PPI central in its development. More recently evidence is accumulating that PPI has significant impact on the quality and delivery of clinical research in healthcare but more work on the evaluation of its impact is required.

Research-intensive cancer care in the NHS in the UK.

In the late 1990 s, in response to poor national cancer survival figures, government monies were invested to enhance recruitment to clinical cancer research. Commencing with England in 2001 and then rolling out across all four countries, a network of clinical cancer research infrastructure was created, the new staff being linked to existing clinical care structures including multi-disciplinary teams. In parallel, a UK-wide co-ordination of cancer research funders driven by the 'virtual' National Cancer Research Institute, combined to create a 'whole-system approach' linking research funders, researchers and NHS clinicians all working to the same ends. Over the next 10 years, recruitment to clinical trials and other well-designed studies, increased 4-fold, reaching 17% of the incident cancer population, the highest national rate world-wide. The additional resources led to more studies opened, and more patients recruited across the country, for all types of cancers and irrespective of additional clinical research staff in some hospitals. In 2006, a co-ordinated decision was made to increasingly focus on randomized trials, leading to increased recruitment, without any fall-off in accrual to non-randomized and observational studies. The National Cancer Research Network has supported large successful trials which are changing clinical practice in many cancers.

Extending the clinical research network approach to all of healthcare.

The development of Clinical Research Networks (CRN) has been central to the work conducted by Health Departments and research funders to promote and support clinical research within the NHS in the UK. In England, the National Institute for Health Research has supported the delivery of clinical research within the NHS primarily through CRN. CRN provide the essential infrastructure within the NHS for the set up and delivery of clinical research within a high-quality peer-reviewed portfolio of studies. The success of the National Cancer Research Network is summarized in Chapter 5. In this chapter progress in five other topics, and more recently in primary care and comprehensively across the NHS, is summarized. In each of the 'topic-specific' networks (Dementias and Neurodegenerative Diseases, Diabetes, Medicines for Children, Mental Health, Stroke) there has been a rapid and substantial increase in portfolios and in the recruitment of patients into studies in these portfolios. The processes and the key success factors are described. The CRN have worked to support research supported by pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies and there has been substantial progress in improving the speed, cost and delivery of these 'industry' studies. In particular, work to support the increased speed of set up and delivery of industry studies, and to embed this firmly in the NHS, was explored in the North West of England in an Exemplar Programme which showed substantial reductions in study set-up times and improved recruitment into studies and showed how healthcare (NHS) organizations can overcome delays in set up times when they actively manage the process. Seven out of 20 international studies reported that the first patient to be entered anywhere in the world was from the UK. In addition, the CRN have supported research management and governance, workforce development and clinical trials unit collaboration and coordination. International peer reviews of all of the CRN have been positive and resulted in the continuation of the system for a further 5 years in all cases.

Nevirapine/zidovudine/lamivudine has superior immunological and virological responses not reflected in clinical outcomes in a 48-week randomized comparison with abacavir/zidovudine/lamivudine in HIV-infected Ugandan adults with low CD4 cell counts.

BACKGROUND: Triple nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor regimens have advantages as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), avoiding hepatotoxicity and interactions with anti-tuberculosis therapy, and sparing two drug classes for second-line ART. Concerns exist about virological potency; efficacy has not been assessed in Africa. METHODS: A safety trial comparing nevirapine with abacavir was conducted in two Ugandan Development of Antiretroviral Therapy in Africa (DART) centres: 600 symptomatic antiretroviral-naïve HIV-infected adults with CD4 counts <200 cells/microL were randomized to zidovudine/lamivudine plus abacavir or nevirapine (placebo-controlled to 24-week primary toxicity endpoint, and then open-label). Documented World Health Organization (WHO) stage 4 events were independently reviewed and plasma HIV-1 RNA assayed retrospectively. Exploratory efficacy analyses are intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The median pre-ART CD4 count was 99 cells/microL, and the median pre-ART viral load was 284 600 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL. A total of 563 participants (94%) completed 48 weeks of follow-up, 25 (4%) died and 12 (2%) were lost to follow-up. The randomized drug was substituted in 21 participants (7%) receiving abacavir vs. 34 (11%) receiving nevirapine (P=0.09). At 48 weeks, 62% of participants receiving abacavir vs. 77% of those receiving nevirapine had viral loads <50 copies/mL (P<0.001), and mean CD4 count increases from baseline were +147 vs. +173 cells/microL, respectively (P=0.006). Nine participants (3%) receiving abacavir vs. 16 (5%) receiving nevirapine died [hazard ratio (HR) 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-1.25; P=0.15]; 20 receiving abacavir vs. 32 receiving nevirapine developed new or recurrent WHO 4 events or died (HR=0.60; 95% CI 0.34-1.05; P=0.07) and 48 receiving abacavir vs. 68 receiving nevirapine developed new or recurrent WHO 3 or 4 events or died (HR=0.67; 95% CI 0.46-0.96; P=0.03). Seventy-one participants (24%) receiving abacavir experienced 91 grade 4 adverse events compared with 130 events in 109 participants (36%) on nevirapine (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The clear virological/immunological superiority of nevirapine over abacavir was not reflected in clinical outcomes over 48 weeks. The inability of CD4 cell count/viral load to predict initial clinical treatment efficacy is unexplained and requires further evaluation.

CD4+ count-guided interruption of antiretroviral treatment.

BACKGROUND: Despite declines in morbidity and mortality with the use of combination antiretroviral therapy, its effectiveness is limited by adverse events, problems with adherence, and resistance of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). METHODS: We randomly assigned persons infected with HIV who had a CD4+ cell count of more than 350 per cubic millimeter to the continuous use of antiretroviral therapy (the viral suppression group) or the episodic use of antiretroviral therapy (the drug conservation group). Episodic use involved the deferral of therapy until the CD4+ count decreased to less than 250 per cubic millimeter and then the use of therapy until the CD4+ count increased to more than 350 per cubic millimeter. The primary end point was the development of an opportunistic disease or death from any cause. An important secondary end point was major cardiovascular, renal, or hepatic disease. RESULTS: A total of 5472 participants (2720 assigned to drug conservation and 2752 to viral suppression) were followed for an average of 16 months before the protocol was modified for the drug conservation group. At baseline, the median and nadir CD4+ counts were 597 per cubic millimeter and 250 per cubic millimeter, respectively, and 71.7% of participants had plasma HIV RNA levels of 400 copies or less per milliliter. Opportunistic disease or death from any cause occurred in 120 participants (3.3 events per 100 person-years) in the drug conservation group and 47 participants (1.3 per 100 person-years) in the viral suppression group (hazard ratio for the drug conservation group vs. the viral suppression group, 2.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 3.7; P<0.001). Hazard ratios for death from any cause and for major cardiovascular, renal, and hepatic disease were 1.8 (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.9; P=0.007) and 1.7 (95% CI, 1.1 to 2.5; P=0.009), respectively. Adjustment for the latest CD4+ count and HIV RNA level (as time-updated covariates) reduced the hazard ratio for the primary end point from 2.6 to 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0 to 2.1). CONCLUSIONS: Episodic antiretroviral therapy guided by the CD4+ count, as used in our study, significantly increased the risk of opportunistic disease or death from any cause, as compared with continuous antiretroviral therapy, largely as a consequence of lowering the CD4+ cell count and increasing the viral load. Episodic antiretroviral therapy does not reduce the risk of adverse events that have been associated with antiretroviral therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00027352 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Risk for opportunistic disease and death after reinitiating continuous antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV previously receiving episodic therapy: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Episodic use of antiretroviral therapy guided by CD4+ cell counts is inferior to continuous antiretroviral therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether reinitiating continuous antiretroviral therapy in patients who received episodic treatment reduces excess risk for opportunistic disease or death. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Sites in 33 countries. PATIENTS: 5472 HIV-infected individuals with CD4(+) cell counts greater than 0.350 x 10(9) cells/L enrolled from January 2002 to January 2006. INTERVENTION: Episodic or continuous antiretroviral therapy initially, followed by continuous therapy in participants previously assigned to episodic treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Opportunistic disease or death was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Eighteen months after the recommendation to reinitiate continuous therapy, mean CD4+ cell counts were 0.152 x 10(9) cells/L (95% CI, 0.136 to 0.167 x 10(9) cells/L) less in participants previously assigned to episodic treatment (P < 0.001). The proportion of follow-up time spent with CD4+ cell counts of 0.500 x 10(9) cells/L or more and HIV RNA levels of 400 copies/mL or less was 29% for participants initially assigned to episodic therapy and 66% for those assigned to continuous therapy. Participants who reinitiated continuous therapy experienced rapid suppression of HIV RNA levels (89.7% with HIV RNA levels < or =400 copies/mL after 6 months), but CD4+ cell counts after 6 months remained 0.140 x 10(9) cells/L below baseline. The hazard ratio (episodic versus continuous treatment) for opportunistic disease or death decreased after the recommendation to reinitiate continuous therapy (from 2.5 [CI, 1.8 to 3.5] to 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]; P = 0.033 for difference). The residual excess risk was attributable to failure to reinitiate therapy by some participants and slow recovery of CD4+ cell counts for those who reinitiated therapy. LIMITATION: Follow-up was too short to assess the full effect of switching from episodic to continuous antiretroviral therapy. CONCLUSION: Reinitiating continuous antiretroviral therapy in patients previously assigned to episodic treatment reduced excess risk for opportunistic disease or death, but excess risk remained. Episodic antiretroviral therapy, as used in the SMART study, should be avoided.

Intraventricular pentosan polysulphate in human prion diseases: an observational study in the UK.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND METHODS: This observational study assessed the effect of continuous intraventricular infusion of pentosan polysulphate (PPS) in seven patients at different clinical centres in the UK. RESULTS: Complications of intraventricular catheterization were frequent. PPS was well-tolerated over a wide dose range (11-110 microg/kg/day) during the 6-month study. Four patients were assessed for the entire study period: one remained stable, two showed minimal deterioration and one progressed significantly. CONCLUSION: Mean survival of all patients was longer than reported values for natural history of specific prion disorders. Possible reasons for these findings are explored.

Virological and immunological outcomes at 3 years after starting antiretroviral therapy with regimens containing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, protease inhibitor, or both in INITIO: open-label randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy has greatly reduced HIV mortality and morbidity. However, the best sequence of regimens and implications of initial regimen for long-term therapeutic success are not well defined. METHODS: In INITIO, a large international randomised trial, we compared antiretroviral therapy with two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (didanosine+stavudine) plus either a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz, EFV) or a protease inhibitor (nelfinavir, NFV), or both (EFV/NFV), in patients with HIV-1 infection who had not previously received antiretroviral drugs. Primary outcomes were proportion with undetectable HIV RNA in plasma, and change in CD4 count from baseline at 3 years. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN44582462. FINDINGS: We followed up 911 participants (297 EFV, 311 NFV, 303 EFV/NFV). At 3 years, the proportion with HIV RNA less than 50 copies per mL was highest in the EFV group (188 [74%] EFV, 162 [62%] NFV, 155 [62%] EFV/NFV; p=0.004). Mean (95% CI) increases in CD4 count were 316x10(6) cells per L (288-343) for EFV, 289x10(6) cells per L (262-316) for NFV, and 274x10(6) cells per L (231-291) for EFV/NFV (p=0.1). Fewer participants in the EFV group than in the other groups stopped adequate antiretroviral therapy for more than 30 days (p=0.005). Participants in the EFV/NFV group had shorter time to stopping the initial regimen (p<0.0001) and to a treatment modifying adverse event (p=0.04) than those in the other groups. INTERPRETATION: Starting antiretroviral therapy with a three-drug/two-class regimen including efavirenz was better than starting with regimens including nelfinavir or efavirenz plus nelfinavir in terms of virological suppression and durability of the initial regimen. The shorter time on adequate antiretroviral therapy or to a treatment-modifying adverse event might explain the absence of additional benefit for the four-drug regimen.

Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials.

OBJECTIVES: To address issues about data monitoring committees (DMCs) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Handsearching of selected books. Personal contacts with experts in the field. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic literature reviews of DMCs and small group processes in decision-making; sample surveys of: reports of RCTs, recently completed and ongoing RCTs and policies of major organisations involved in RCTs; case studies of four DMCs; and interviews with experienced DMC members. All focused on 23 prestated questions. RESULTS: Although still a minority, RCTs increasingly have DMCs. There is wide agreement that nearly all trials need some form of data monitoring. Central to the role of the DMC is monitoring accumulating evidence related to benefit and toxicity; variation in emphasis has been reflected in the plethora of names. DMCs for trials performed for regulatory purposes should be aware of any special requirements and regulatory consequences. Advantages were identified for both larger and smaller DMCs. There is general agreement that a DMC should be independent and multidisciplinary. Consumer and ethicist membership is controversial. The chair is recognised as being particularly influential, and likely to be most effective if he or she is experienced, understands both statistical and clinical issues, and is facilitating in style and impartial. There is no evidence available to judge suggested approaches to training. The review suggested that costs should be covered, but other rewards must be so minimal as to not affect decision-making. It is usual to have a minimum frequency of DMC meetings, with evidence that face-to-face meetings are preferable. It is common to have open sessions and a closed session. A report to a DMC should cover benefits and risks in a balanced way, summarised in an accessible style, avoiding excessive detail, and be as current as possible. Disadvantages of blinded analyses seem to outweigh advantages. Information about comparable studies should be included, although interaction with the DMCs of similar ongoing trials is controversial. A range of formal statistical approaches can be used, although this is only one of a number of considerations. DMCs usually reach decisions by consensus, but other approaches are sometimes used. The general, but not unanimous, view is that DMCs should be advisory rather than executive on the basis that it is the trial organisers who are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Some form of data monitoring should be considered for all RCTs, with reasons given where there is no DMC or when any member is not independent. An early DMC meeting is helpful, determining roles and responsibilities; planned operations can be agreed with investigators and sponsors/funders. A template for a DMC charter is suggested. Competing interests should be declared. DMC size (commonly three to eight people) is chosen to optimise performance. Members are usually independent and drawn from appropriate backgrounds, and some, particularly the chair, are experienced. A minimum frequency of meetings is usually agreed, with flexibility for more if needed. The DMC should understand and agree the statistical approach (and guidelines) chosen, with both the DMC statistician and analysis statistician competent to apply the method. A DMC's primary purpose is to ensure that continuing a trial according to its protocol is ethical, taking account of both individual and collective ethics. A broader remit in respect of wider ethical issues is controversial; arguably, these are primarily the responsibility of research ethics committees, trial steering committees and investigators. The DMC should know the range of recommendations or decisions open to it, in advance. A record should be kept describing the key issues discussed and the rationale for decisions taken. Errors are likely to be reduced if a DMC makes a thorough review of the evidence and has a clear understanding of how it should function, there is active participation by all members, differences are resolved through discussion and there is systematic consideration of the various decision options. DMCs should be encouraged to comment on draft final trial reports. These should include information about the data monitoring process and detail the DMC membership. It is recommended that groups responsible for data monitoring be given the standard name 'Data Monitoring Committee' (DMC). Areas for further research include: widening DMC membership beyond clinicians, trialists and statisticians; initiatives to train DMC members; methods of DMC decision-making; 'open' data monitoring; DMCs covering a portfolio of trials rather than single trials; DMC size and membership, incorporating issues of group dynamics; empirical study of the workings of DMCs and their decision-making, and which trials should or should not have a DMC.

Impact of treatment changes on the interpretation of the Concorde trial.

BACKGROUND: The Concorde trial compared two policies of therapy with zidovudine (ZVD) in individuals with asymptomatic HIV infection: immediate or deferred ZDV. Participants in both groups could stop their blinded trial therapy for several reasons and/or could start open-label ZDV. The difference in survival and disease progression between the two groups was estimated allowing for treatment changes. METHODS: The relationship between latest CD4 count, treatment changes and time to AIDS-related complex (ARC), AIDS or death was investigated using time-updated proportional hazards models, but these models gave seriously biased estimates of the effect of ZDV. Therefore, a method based on the comparison of the randomized groups was used. A model relating a participant's events times to the treatment actually received was used to estimate what would have been observed if the deferred group had not received ZDV before ARS or AIDS, and to explore alternative policies for starting Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) prophylaxis. RESULTS: The major treatment changes during the trial were the termination of blinded therapy because of adverse events or personal reasons (575 out of 1749 participants), starting open-label ZDV (745 participants), and starting PCP prophylaxis (613 participants). Starting open-label ZDV and PCP prophylaxis were strongly related to latest CD4 count. The uncorrected hazard ratios for immediate compared with deferred groups were 0.89 for time to ARC, AIDS or death [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-1.05], 1.01 for time to AIDS or death (95% CI, 0.82-1.24), and 1.26 for time to death (95% CI, 0.93-1.70). After correction for treatment changes, these hazard ratios were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.57-1.11), 1.01 (95% CI, 0.81-1.26), and 1.37 (95% CI, 0.91-2.08), respectively. Correction for PCP prophylaxis made little difference to the results. CONCLUSIONS: Open-label ZDV before ARC or AIDS in the deferred group was likely to have diluted any differences between the immediate and deferred groups. After correction for this dilution, both the estimated benefit of immediate treatment in delaying progression to ARC, AIDS or death and the estimated disadvantage of immediate treatment in accelerating death were somewhat increased, but both remained consistent with chance alone. This study demonstrated the large potential bias inherent in non-randomization-based methods of analysis of clinical trials.

The practical significance of potential biases in estimates of the AIDS incubation period distribution in the UK register of HIV seroconverters.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the practical significance of the following sources of bias for estimates of the AIDS incubation period in a large seroconverter cohort: estimation of the time of seroconversion; presentation with an HIV-related illness; preferential inclusion of survivors; loss to follow-up and analysis cut-off date; the inclusion of Kaposi's sarcoma as an AIDS event; death without an AIDS diagnosis; and representativeness of the HIV population. METHODS: Standard non-parametric survival methods were used to estimate the AIDS incubation period distribution. The practical importance of each type of bias was assessed using various sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The potential sources of bias of most practical importance in this study were the right-censoring strategy and that due to lack of documentation of a negative HIV antibody test. Five different right-censoring strategies gave estimates of the median time to AIDS ranging from 8.1 to 10.8 years for the 1202 individuals enrolled in the UK Register of HIV Seroconverters. HIV-infected persons with a history of a previous antibody negative test which could not be verified appeared to progress to AIDS more rapidly than persons with such verification (Relative risk = 1.8, 95% confidence intervals = 1.3-2.3). CONCLUSIONS: As a number of possible causes of bias can impact on results, care must be taken to document them and control for them wherever possible. In our study, this was particularly relevant in relation to the documentation of a previous HIV antibody negative test and the choice of analysis cut-off dates. As methods may differ between cohorts, comparison of the published results from one cohort with those of another may be misleading.

'Chemical condoms' for the prevention of HIV infection: evaluation of novel agents against SHIV(89.6PD) in vitro and in vivo.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal agents which are antiviral and/or inhibit the entry of HIV into the cell could prevent heterosexual transmission of HIV, and protect women who cannot negotiate condom use. METHODS: Four agents have been investigated for activity in vitro and in vivo against SHIV(89.6PD): two anionic polymers, dextrin-2-sulphate (D2S) and PRO 2000 (P2K), and two virucidal agents; a non-ionic detergent, nonoxynol-9 (N9) and a cyclic peptide ionophore, gramicidin-D (GD). All four agents were investigated in rhesus macaques, using an intra-vaginal challenge of two inoculations of 1 x 104 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID)50 of SHIV(89.6PD). RESULTS: D2S, P2K, GD and N9 all inhibited SHIV(89.6PD) in vitro. In vivo, three out of four control macaques were infected as judged by viral culture, seroconversion, DNA and RNA PCR; infection was confirmed in four out of eight macaques pre-treated with P2K, two out of four pre-treated with D2S, one out of four pre-treated with N9, two out of four pre-treated with GD and four out of four pre-treated with D2S + GD, a combination additive in vitro. INTERPRETATION: D2S and PRO-2000, novel inhibitors of HIV entry, showed evidence of protection in vivo, comparable to that seen with the virucide, N9. These data, together with the results of phase I and phase II studies in healthy women which have shown minimal toxicity, support plans for a phase III efficacy trial of chemically simple inhibitors of HIV entry with low toxicity, for the prevention of HIV infection in women.

Highly active antiretroviral therapy started in infants under 3 months of age: 72-week follow-up for CD4 cell count, viral load and drug resistance outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and impact of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) started in vertically HIV-1-infected infants less than 3 months of age. DESIGN: A multicentre, phase I/II, non-randomized, open-label study (PENTA 7). METHODS: Adverse events, plasma HIV-1 RNA, CD4 cell counts, CD4 cell percentage (CD4%) and clinical progression were recorded at baseline and prospectively to 72 weeks in order to assess the toxicity, tolerability and efficacy of a combination of stavudine, didanosine and nelfinavir. Selection of genotypic resistance was also investigated. RESULTS: Twenty infants, of whom only three had Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stage B, initiated HAART at median age 2.5 months (range, 0.9-4.7) with median HIV-1 RNA concentration 5.5 log10 copies/ml (range, 3.2-6.8) and CD4% 33% (range, 11-66). Median follow-up was 96 weeks (range, 60-144). At week 72, 11 infants were still taking the original treatment. Few adverse events were reported related to treatment, all minor and causing treatment interruption in only three infants. No AIDS-defining events occurred; one child died of non-HIV-related causes (prematurity). All but two had CD4% > 25% at 72 weeks; however, 14 infants had virological failure and six acquired resistance mutations. CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment with stavudine, didanosine and nelfinavir was well tolerated and associated with good clinical and immunological outcomes at week 72. However, a high rate of virological failure with emergence of genotypic resistance is of great concern. More palatable drug combinations for infants and closer drug monitoring are required.

Perspectives in drug therapy of HIV infection.

Current key issues in the drug therapy of HIV infection include the timing of treatment initiation, the use of multiple-drug therapy and the duration of treatment. Although most clinicians agree that symptomatic HIV disease should be treated, there is no consensus as to whether patients should be treated before symptoms develop; the results of the Concorde trial failed to demonstrate any long term improvement in disease progression or survival when antiretroviral therapy was initiated in asymptomatic individuals rather than deferring it until the development of AIDS or ARC. However, combination therapy may prove to be the most effective long term option. In the future, monitoring viral load or viral resistance may be a useful aid in determining whether antiretroviral therapy should be stopped or changed, particularly if any clinical benefits are transient or if adverse effects persist. New antiretroviral therapies must be evaluated in terms of both risks (associated adverse effects) and benefits (increase in survival, delay in disease progression or improvement in quality of life). There is an urgent need to identify the best surrogate markers to permit more rapid evaluation of therapeutic strategies.