Improving public health by improving clinical trial guidelines and their application.

Evidence generated from randomized controlled trials forms the foundation of cardiovascular therapeutics and has led to the adoption of numerous drugs and devices that prolong survival and reduce morbidity, as well as the avoidance of interventions that have been shown to be ineffective or even unsafe. Many aspects of cardiovascular research have evolved considerably since the first randomized trials in cardiology were conducted. In order to be large enough to provide reliable evidence about effects on major outcomes, cardiovascular trials may now involve thousands of patients recruited from hundreds of clinical sites in many different countries. Costly infrastructure has developed to meet the increasingly complex organizational and operational requirements of these clinical trials. Concerns have been raised that this approach is unsustainable, inhibiting the reliable evaluation of new and existing treatments, to the detriment of patient care. These issues were considered by patients, regulators, funders, and trialists at a meeting of the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Roundtable in October 2015. This paper summarizes the key insights and discussions from the workshop, highlights subsequent progress, and identifies next steps to produce meaningful change in the conduct of cardiovascular clinical research.

Prospective study design and data analysis in UK Biobank.

Population-based prospective studies, such as UK Biobank, are valuable for generating and testing hypotheses about the potential causes of human disease. We describe how UK Biobank's study design, data access policies, and approaches to statistical analysis can help to minimize error and improve the interpretability of research findings, with implications for other population-based prospective studies being established worldwide.

Imaging in population science: cardiovascular magnetic resonance in 100,000 participants of UK Biobank - rationale, challenges and approaches.

UK Biobank is a prospective cohort study with 500,000 participants aged 40 to 69. Recently an enhanced imaging study received funding. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) will be part of a multi-organ, multi-modality imaging visit in 3-4 dedicated UK Biobank imaging centres that will acquire and store imaging data from 100,000 participants (subject to successful piloting). In each of UK Biobank's dedicated bespoke imaging centres, it is proposed that 15-20 participants will undergo a 2 to 3 hour visit per day, seven days a week over a period of 5-6 years. The imaging modalities will include brain MRI at 3 Tesla, CMR and abdominal MRI at 1.5 Tesla, carotid ultrasound and DEXA scans using carefully selected protocols. We reviewed the rationale, challenges and proposed approaches for concise phenotyping using CMR on such a large scale. Here, we discuss the benefits of this imaging study and review existing and planned population based cardiovascular imaging in prospective cohort studies. We will evaluate the CMR protocol, feasibility, process optimisation and costs. Procedures for incidental findings, quality control and data processing and analysis are also presented. As is the case for all other data in the UK Biobank resource, this database of images and related information will be made available through UK Biobank's Access Procedures to researchers (irrespective of their country of origin and whether they are academic or commercial) for health-related research that is in the public interest.

The UK Biobank imaging enhancement of 100,000 participants: rationale, data collection, management and future directions.

UK Biobank is a population-based cohort of half a million participants aged 40-69 years recruited between 2006 and 2010. In 2014, UK Biobank started the world's largest multi-modal imaging study, with the aim of re-inviting 100,000 participants to undergo brain, cardiac and abdominal magnetic resonance imaging, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and carotid ultrasound. The combination of large-scale multi-modal imaging with extensive phenotypic and genetic data offers an unprecedented resource for scientists to conduct health-related research. This article provides an in-depth overview of the imaging enhancement, including the data collected, how it is managed and processed, and future directions.

Factors associated with potentially serious incidental findings and with serious final diagnoses on multi-modal imaging in the UK Biobank Imaging Study: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Feedback of potentially serious incidental findings (PSIFs) to imaging research participants generates clinical assessment in most cases. Understanding the factors associated with increased risks of PSIFs and of serious final diagnoses may influence individuals' decisions to participate in imaging research and will inform the design of PSIFs protocols for future research studies. We aimed to determine whether, and to what extent, socio-demographic, lifestyle, other health-related factors and PSIFs protocol are associated with detection of both a PSIF and a final diagnosis of serious disease. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Our cohort consisted of all UK Biobank participants who underwent imaging up to December 2015 (n = 7334, median age 63, 51.9% women). Brain, cardiac and body magnetic resonance, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry images from the first 1000 participants were reviewed systematically by radiologists for PSIFs. Thereafter, radiographers flagged concerning images for radiologists' review. We classified final diagnoses as serious or not using data from participant surveys and clinical correspondence from GPs up to six months following imaging (either participant or GP correspondence, or both, were available for 93% of participants with PSIFs). We used binomial logistic regression models to investigate associations between age, sex, ethnicity, socio-economic deprivation, private healthcare use, alcohol intake, diet, physical activity, smoking, body mass index and morbidity, with both PSIFs and serious final diagnoses. Systematic radiologist review generated 13 times more PSIFs than radiographer flagging (179/1000 [17.9%] versus 104/6334 [1.6%]; age- and sex-adjusted OR 13.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 10.3-17.1] p<0.001) and proportionally fewer serious final diagnoses (21/179 [11.7%]; 33/104 [31.7%]). Risks of both PSIFs and of serious final diagnoses increased with age (sex-adjusted ORs [95% CI] for oldest [67-79 years] versus youngest [44-58 years] participants for PSIFs and serious final diagnoses respectively: 1.59 [1.07-2.38] and 2.79 [0.86 to 9.0] for systematic radiologist review; 1.88 [1.14-3.09] and 2.99 [1.09-8.19] for radiographer flagging). No other factor was significantly associated with either PSIFs or serious final diagnoses. Our study is the largest so far to investigate the factors associated with PSIFs and serious final diagnoses, but despite this, we still may have missed some associations due to sparsity of these outcomes within our cohort and small numbers within some exposure categories. CONCLUSION: Risks of PSIFs and serious final diagnosis are substantially influenced by PSIFs protocol and to a lesser extent by age. As only 1/5 PSIFs represent serious disease, evidence-based PSIFs protocols are paramount to minimise over-investigation of healthy research participants and diversion of limited health services away from patients in need.

Impact of detecting potentially serious incidental findings during multi-modal imaging.

Background: There are limited data on the impact of feedback of incidental findings (IFs) from research imaging.  We evaluated the impact of UK Biobank's protocol for handling potentially serious IFs in a multi-modal imaging study of 100,000 participants (radiographer 'flagging' with radiologist confirmation of potentially serious IFs) compared with systematic radiologist review of all images. Methods: Brain, cardiac and body magnetic resonance, and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans from the first 1000 imaged UK Biobank participants were independently assessed for potentially serious IFs using both protocols. We surveyed participants with potentially serious IFs and their GPs up to six months after imaging to determine subsequent clinical assessments, final diagnoses, emotional, financial and work or activity impacts. Results: Compared to systematic radiologist review, radiographer flagging resulted in substantially fewer participants with potentially serious IFs (179/1000 [17.9%] versus 18/1000 [1.8%]) and a higher proportion with serious final diagnoses (21/179 [11.7%] versus 5/18 [27.8%]). Radiographer flagging missed 16/21 serious final diagnoses (i.e., false negatives), while systematic radiologist review generated large numbers of non-serious final diagnoses (158/179) (i.e., false positives). Almost all (90%) participants had further clinical assessment (including invasive procedures in similar numbers with serious and non-serious final diagnoses [11 and 12 respectively]), with additional impact on emotional wellbeing (16.9%), finances (8.9%), and work or activities (5.6%). Conclusions: Compared with systematic radiologist review, radiographer flagging missed some serious diagnoses, but avoided adverse impacts for many participants with non-serious diagnoses. While systematic radiologist review may benefit some participants, UK Biobank's responsibility to avoid both unnecessary harm to larger numbers of participants and burdening of publicly-funded health services suggests that radiographer flagging is a justifiable approach in the UK Biobank imaging study. The potential scale of non-serious final diagnoses raises questions relating to handling IFs in other settings, such as commercial and public health screening.