Community Use of Repurposed Drugs Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic in the Netherlands: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

Background: Repurposing registered drugs could reduce coronavirus disease (COVID-19) burden before novel drugs are authorized. Little is known about how the pandemic and imposed restrictions changed their dispensing. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on repurposed drugs dispensing in the Netherlands. Methods: We performed interrupted time-series study using University of Groningen prescription database IADB.nl to evaluate dispensing trends of 24 repurposed drugs before (2017-February 2020) and after (March 2020-2021) the pandemic' start. Primary outcomes were monthly prevalence and incidence rates. An autoregressive integrated moving average model assessed the effect of pandemic and stringency index (measuring strictness of government's restriction policies). Results: Annual number of IADB.nl population ranged from 919,697 to 952,400. Generally, dispensing of common long-term-used drugs was not significantly affected by pandemic. The prevalence of antibacterials (-4.20 users per 1000 people), antivirals (-0.04), corticosteroids (-1.29), prednisolone (-1.32), calcium channel blocker (-0.41), and diuretics (-1.29) was lower than expected after the pandemic's start, while the prevalence of ivermectin (0.07), sulfonylureas (0.15), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor (0.17), and anticoagulants (1.95) was higher than expected. The pandemic was associated with statistically significant decreases in the incidence of antibacterials (-1.21), corticosteroids (-0.60), prednisolone (-0.64) and anticoagulants (-0.02), and increases in ivermectin (0.02), aggregated antidiabetic drugs (0.13), and SGLT2 inhibitors (0.06). These trends were positively associated with pandemic and negatively associated with stringency index. Conclusion: Dispensing of most drugs was not significantly associated with pandemic and government's response. Despite some statistically significant disruptions, these were not necessarily clinically relevant due to small absolute differences observed.

Repurposed drug studies on the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Current evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically evaluate published studies on repurposed drugs for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 among healthy adults. DESIGN: Systematic review. ELIGIBILITY: Quantitative experimental and observational intervention studies that evaluated the effectiveness of repurposed drugs for the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 disease. DATA SOURCE: PubMed and Embase (1 January 2020-28 September 2022). RISK OF BIAS: Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were applied to assess the quality of studies. DATA ANALYSIS: Meta-analyses for each eligible drug were performed if ≥2 similar study designs were available. RESULTS: In all, 65 (25 trials, 40 observational) and 29 publications were eligible for review and meta-analyses, respectively. Most studies pertained to hydroxychloroquine (32), ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (11), statin (8), and ivermectin (8). In trials, hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis reduced laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90), I2=48%), a result largely driven by one clinical trial (weight: 60.5%). Such beneficial effects were not observed in observational studies, nor for prognostic clinical outcomes. Ivermectin did not significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR: 0.35 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.26), I2=96%) and findings for clinical outcomes were inconsistent. Neither ACEi or ARB were beneficial in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of the evidence from clinical trials was of moderate quality and of lower quality in observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Results from our analysis are insufficient to support an evidence-based repurposed drug policy for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis because of inconsistency. In the view of scarce supportive evidence on repurposing drugs for COVID-19, alternative strategies such as immunisation of vulnerable people are warranted to prevent the future waves of infection. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021292797.

Estimation of treatment effects in short-term depression studies. An evaluation based on the ICH E9(R1) estimands framework.

Estimands aim to incorporate intercurrent events in design, data collection and estimation of treatment effects in clinical trials. Our aim was to understand what estimands may correspond to efficacy analyses commonly employed in clinical trials conducted before publication of ICH E9(R1). We re-analysed six clinical trials evaluating a new anti-depression treatment. We selected the following analysis methods-ANCOVA on complete cases, following last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation and following multiple imputation; mixed-models for repeated measurements without imputation (MMRM), MMRM following LOCF imputation and following jump-to-reference imputation; and pattern-mixture mixed models. We included a principal stratum analysis based on the predicted subset of the study population who would not discontinue due to adverse events or lack of efficacy. We translated each analysis into the implicitly targeted estimand, and formulated corresponding clinical questions. We could map six estimands to analysis methods. The same analysis method could be mapped to more than one estimand. The major difference between estimands was the strategy for intercurrent events, with other attributes mostly the same across mapped estimands. The quantitative differences in MADRS10 population-level summaries between the estimands were 4-8 points. Not all six estimands had a clinically meaningful interpretation. Only a few analyses would target the same estimand, hence only few could be used as sensitivity analyses. The fact that an analysis could estimate different estimands emphasises the importance of prospectively defining the estimands targeting the primary objective of a trial. The fact that an estimand can be targeted by different analyses emphasises the importance of prespecifying precisely the estimator for the targeted estimand.

Analysing the protection from respiratory tract infections and allergic diseases early in life by human milk components: the PRIMA birth cohort.

BACKGROUND: Many studies support the protective effect of breastfeeding on respiratory tract infections. Although infant formulas have been developed to provide adequate nutritional solutions, many components in human milk contributing to the protection of newborns and aiding immune development still need to be identified. In this paper we present the methodology of the "Protecting against Respiratory tract lnfections through human Milk Analysis" (PRIMA) cohort, which is an observational, prospective and multi-centre birth cohort aiming to identify novel functions of components in human milk that are protective against respiratory tract infections and allergic diseases early in life. METHODS: For the PRIMA human milk cohort we aim to recruit 1000 mother-child pairs in the first month postpartum. At one week, one, three, and six months after birth, fresh human milk samples will be collected and processed. In order to identify protective components, the level of pathogen specific antibodies, T cell composition, Human milk oligosaccharides, as well as extracellular vesicles (EVs) will be analysed, in the milk samples in relation to clinical data which are collected using two-weekly parental questionnaires. The primary outcome of this study is the number of parent-reported medically attended respiratory infections. Secondary outcomes that will be measured are physician diagnosed (respiratory) infections and allergies during the first year of life. DISCUSSION: The PRIMA human milk cohort will be a large prospective healthy birth cohort in which we will use an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to identify the longitudinal effect human milk components that play a role in preventing (respiratory) infections and allergies during the first year of life. Ultimately, we believe that this study will provide novel insights into immunomodulatory components in human milk. This may allow for optimizing formula feeding for all non-breastfed infants.

Year-to-year variation in attack rates could result in underpowered respiratory syncytial virus vaccine efficacy trials.

OBJECTIVES: Year-to-year variation in respiratory viruses may result in lower attack rates than expected. We aimed to illustrate the impact of year-to-year variation in attack rates on the likelihood of demonstrating vaccine efficacy (VE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We considered an individually randomized maternal vaccine trial against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-associated hospitalizations. For 10 RSV-associated hospitalizations per 1,000 infants, sample size to have 80% power for true VE of 50% and 70% was 9,846 and 4,424 participants. We reported power to show VE for varying attack rates, selected to reflect realistic year-to-year variation using observational studies. Eight scenarios including varying number of countries and seasons were developed to assess the influence of these trial parameters. RESULTS: Including up to three seasons decreased the width of the interquartile range for power. Including more seasons concentrated statistical power closer to 80%. Least powered trials had higher statistical power with more seasons. In all scenarios, at least half of the trials had <80% power. For three-season trials, increasing the sample size by 10% reduced the percentage of underpowered trials to less than one-quarter of trials. CONCLUSION: Year-to-year variation in RSV attack rates should be accounted for during trial design. Mitigation strategies include recruiting over more seasons, or adaptive trial designs.

The GetReal Trial Tool: design, assess and discuss clinical drug trials in light of Real World Evidence generation.

Methodologies incorporating Real World Elements into clinical trial design (also called pragmatic trials) offer an attractive opportunity to assess the effect of a treatment strategy in routine care and as such guide decision making in practice. Uptake of these methods is slow for several reasons, including uncertainty about acceptability of trial results, lack of experience with the methodology and operational challenges. We developed the "GetReal Trial Tool," an easy-to-use online interface, which allows users to assess the impact of design choices on generalizability to routine clinical practice, while taking into account risk of bias, precision, acceptability and operational feasibility. The tool is grounded in the scientific literature combined with knowledge of experts from academia, pharmaceutical companies, HTA bodies, patient organizations, and regulators. The aim is to help researchers optimize trial design and facilitate translation of evidence from pragmatic trials to clinical practice. In this paper we describe the development, structure and application of the GetReal Trial Tool.

Inhibitor development in previously untreated patients with severe haemophilia: A comparison of included patients and outcomes between a clinical study and a registry-based study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate whether a disease registry could serve as a suitable alternative to clinical studies to investigate safety of orphan drugs in children. METHODS: We used individual patient data from previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe haemophilia A from the factor VIII (rAHF-PFM)-clinical study and the PedNet registry. The primary outcome was the patient characteristics at entry and the difference in inhibitor development between the clinical study and the registry-based study at 50 exposure days. RESULTS: Clinical study patients more often had a positive family history of inhibitors (31% vs 10%) and a high-risk F8 genotype (82% vs 63%). In the clinical study 41/55 (75%) and in the registry-based study 162/168 (96%) patients reached 50 exposure days. Inhibitors developed in 16 of the 41 patients in the clinical study (39%) vs 44 of the 162 patients in the registry-based study (27%); seven patients (7%) vs 28 patients (17%) had high-titre inhibitors. The risk of developing an inhibitor during the first 50 exposure days was similar (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.56-1.94), when adjusted for family history of inhibitors, F8 gene mutation and intensive treatment at first exposure. CONCLUSION: In the registry-based study, patient numbers and completeness of follow-up were higher. The risk of developing an inhibitor to a single product was comparable. Although the sample size of this study was too small to conclude on differences in high- or low-titre inhibitors, this suggests that a registry could serve as a more suitable source for evaluation of high-titre inhibitors in the setting of factor VIII deficiency.

The (cost) effectiveness of procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia for hysteroscopic myomectomy, a multicentre randomised controlled trial: PROSECCO trial, a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: In women with abnormal uterine bleeding, fibroids are a frequent finding. In case of heavy menstrual bleeding and presence of submucosal type 0-1 fibroids, hysteroscopic resection is the treatment of first choice, as removal of these fibroids is highly effective. Hysteroscopic myomectomy is currently usually performed in the operating theatre. A considerable reduction in costs and a higher patient satisfaction are expected when procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol (PSA) in an outpatient setting is applied. However, both safety and effectiveness - including the necessity for re-intervention due to incomplete resection - have not yet been evaluated. METHODS: This study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design and will be performed in the Netherlands. Women > 18 years with a maximum of 3 symptomatic type 0 or 1 submucosal fibroids with a maximum diameter of 3.5 cm are eligible to participate in the trial. After informed consent, 205 women will be randomised to either hysteroscopic myomectomy using procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol in an outpatient setting or hysteroscopic myomectomy using general anaesthesia in a clinical setting in the operating theatre. Primary outcome will be the percentage of complete resections, based on transvaginal ultrasonography 6 weeks postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are cost effectiveness, menstrual blood loss (Pictorial blood assessment chart), quality of life, pain, return to daily activities/work, hospitalization, (post) operative complications and re-interventions. Women will be followed up to one year after hysteroscopic myomectomy. DISCUSSION: This study may demonstrate comparable effectiveness of hysteroscopic myomectomy under procedural sedation and analgesia versus general anaesthesia in a safe and patient friendly environment, whilst achieving a significant cost reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register, number NTR5357 . Registered 11th of August 2015.

Balloon catheter for induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean and an unfavorable cervix.

INTRODUCTION: When women with a previous cesarean section and an unfavorable cervix have an indication for delivery, the choice is to induce labor or to perform a cesarean section. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of a balloon catheter as a method of induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean section and an unfavorable cervix compared with an elective repeat cesarean section. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study in 51 hospitals in the Netherlands on term women with one previous cesarean section, a live singleton fetus in cephalic position, an unfavorable cervix and an indication for delivery. We recorded obstetric, maternal and neonatal characteristics. We compared the outcome of women who were induced with a balloon catheter with the outcome of women who delivered by elective repeat cesarean section. Main outcomes were maternal and neonatal morbidity. Mode of delivery was a secondary outcome for women who were induced. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Analysis was performed on 993 women who were induced and 321 women who had a repeat cesarean section (August 2011 until September 2012). Among the women who were induced, 560 (56.4%) delivered vaginally and 11 (1.1%) sustained a uterine rupture. Composite adverse maternal outcome (uterine rupture, severe postpartum hemorrhage or postpartum infection) occurred in 73 (7.4%) in the balloon and 14 (4.5%) women in the repeat cesarean section group (aOR 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-2.96). Composite adverse neonatal outcome (Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes or umbilical pH <7.10) occurred in 57 (5.7%) and 10 (3.2%) neonates, respectively (aOR 1.40, 95% CI 0.87-3.48). Women who were induced had a shorter postpartum admission time (2.0 vs 3.0 days (P < 0.0001)). CONCLUSIONS: In women with a previous cesarean section and a need for delivery, induction of labor with a balloon catheter does not result in a significant increase in adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes as compared with planned cesarean section.

Systematic review showed that stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials often did not reach their planned sample size.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how often stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trials reach their planned sample size, and what reasons are reported for choosing a stepped-wedge trial design. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a PubMed literature search (period 2012 to 2017) and included articles describing the results of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial. We calculated the percentage of studies reaching their prespecified number of participants and clusters, and we summarized the reasons for choosing the stepped-wedge trial design as well as difficulties during enrollment. RESULTS: Forty-six individual stepped-wedge studies from a total of 53 articles were included in our review. Of the 35 studies, for which recruitment rate could be calculated, 69% recruited their planned number of participants, with 80% having recruited the planned number of clusters. Ethical reasons were the most common motivation for choosing the stepped-wedge trial design. Most important difficulties during study conduct were dropout of clusters and delayed implementation of the intervention. CONCLUSION: About half of recently published stepped-wedge trials reached their planned sample size indicating that recruitment is also a major problem in these trials. Still, the stepped-wedge trial design can yield practical, ethical, and methodological advantages.

Evidence supporting regulatory-decision making on orphan medicinal products authorisation in Europe: methodological uncertainties.

BACKGROUND: To assess uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for orphan medicinal products (OMP), a summary of the current basis for approval is required; a systematic grouping of medical conditions may be useful in summarizing information and issuing recommendations for practice. METHODS: A grouping of medical conditions with similar characteristics regarding the potential applicability of methods and designs was created using a consensus approach. The 125 dossiers for authorised OMP published between 1999 and 2014 on the EMA webpage were grouped accordingly and data was extracted from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to assess the extent and robustness of the pivotal evidence supporting regulatory decisions. RESULTS: 88% (110/125) of OMP authorizations were based on clinical trials, with 35% (38/110) including replicated pivotal trials. The mean (SD) number of pivotal trials per indication was 1.4 (0.7), and the EPARs included a median of three additional non-pivotal supportive studies. 10% of OMPs (13/125) were authorised despite only negative pivotal trials. One-third of trials (53/159) did not include a control arm, one-third (50/159) did not use randomisation, half the trials (75/159) were open-label and 75% (119/159) used intermediate or surrogate variables as the main outcome. Chronic progressive conditions led by multiple system/organs, conditions with single acute episodes and progressive conditions led by one organ/system were the groups where the evidence deviated most from conventional standards. Conditions with recurrent acute episodes had the most robust datasets. The overall size of the exposed population at the time of authorisation of OMP - mean(SD) 190.5 (202.5) - was lower than that required for the qualification of clinically-relevant adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The regulatory evidence supporting OMP authorization showed substantial uncertainties, including weak protection against errors, substantial use of designs unsuited for conclusions on causality, use of intermediate variables, lack of a priorism and insufficient safety data to quantify risks of relevant magnitude. Grouping medical conditions based on clinical features and their methodological requirements may facilitate specific methodological and regulatory recommendations for the study of OMP to strengthen the evidence base.

Applicability and added value of novel methods to improve drug development in rare diseases.

BACKGROUND: The ASTERIX project developed a number of novel methods suited to study small populations. The objective of this exercise was to evaluate the applicability and added value of novel methods to improve drug development in small populations, using real world drug development programmes as reported in European Public Assessment Reports. METHODS: The applicability and added value of thirteen novel methods developed within ASTERIX were evaluated using data from 26 European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) for orphan medicinal products, representative of rare medical conditions as predefined through six clusters. The novel methods included were 'innovative trial designs' (six methods), 'level of evidence' (one method), 'study endpoints and statistical analysis' (four methods), and 'meta-analysis' (two methods) and they were selected from the methods developed within ASTERIX based on their novelty; methods that discussed already available and applied strategies were not included for the purpose of this validation exercise. Pre-requisites for application in a study were systematized for each method, and for each main study in the selected EPARs it was assessed if all pre-requisites were met. This direct applicability using the actual study design was firstly assessed. Secondary, applicability and added value were explored allowing changes to study objectives and design, but without deviating from the context of the drug development plan. We evaluated whether differences in applicability and added value could be observed between the six predefined condition clusters. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Direct applicability of novel methods appeared to be limited to specific selected cases. The applicability and added value of novel methods increased substantially when changes to the study setting within the context of drug development were allowed. In this setting, novel methods for extrapolation, sample size re-assessment, multi-armed trials, optimal sequential design for small sample sizes, Bayesian sample size re-estimation, dynamic borrowing through power priors and fall-back tests for co-primary endpoints showed most promise - applicable in more than 40% of evaluated EPARs in all clusters. Most of the novel methods were applicable to conditions in the cluster of chronic and progressive conditions, involving multiple systems/organs. Relatively fewer methods were applicable to acute conditions with single episodes. For the chronic clusters, Goal Attainment Scaling was found to be particularly applicable as opposed to other (non-chronic) clusters. CONCLUSION: Novel methods as developed in ASTERIX can improve drug development programs. Achieving optimal added value of these novel methods often requires consideration of the entire drug development program, rather than reconsideration of methods for a specific trial. The novel methods tested were mostly applicable in chronic conditions, and acute conditions with recurrent episodes.

Pharmacological pain relief and fear of childbirth in low risk women; secondary analysis of the RAVEL study.

BACKGROUND: Fear of childbirth may reduce the womens' pain tolerance during labour and may have impact on the mother-infant interaction. We aimed to assess (1) the association between fear of childbirth antepartum and subsequent request for pharmacological pain relief, and (2) the association between the used method of pain relief and experienced fear of childbirth as reported postpartum in low risk labouring women. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the RAVEL study, a randomised controlled trial comparing remifentanil patient controlled analgesia (PCA) and epidural analgesia to relieve labour pain. The RAVEL study included 409 pregnant women at low risk for obstetric complications at 18 midwifery practices and six hospitals in The Netherlands (NTR 3687). We measured fear of childbirth antepartum and experienced fear of childbirth reported postpartum, using the Wijma Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire. RESULTS: Women with fear of childbirth antepartum more frequently requested pain relief compared to women without fear of childbirth antepartum, but this association did not reach statistical significance (adjusted odds ratio (aOR2.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8-4.6). Women who received epidural analgesia more frequently reported fear of childbirth postpartum compared to women who did not receive epidural analgesia (aOR3.5; CI 1.5-8.2), while the association between remifentanil-PCA and fear of childbirth postpartum was not statistically significant (aOR1.7; CI 0.7-4.3). CONCLUSIONS: Women with fear of childbirth antepartum more frequently requested pain relief compared to women without fear of childbirth antepartum, but this association was not statistically significant. Women who received pharmacological pain relief more frequently reported that they had experienced fear of childbirth during labour compared to women who did not receive pain relief. Based on our data epidural analgesia with continuous infusion does not seem to be preferable over remifentanil-PCA as method of pain relief when considering fear of childbirth postpartum. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register 3687 ; Register date: 5 Nov 2012.

Fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials: an integrated scientific and ethical approach.

BACKGROUND: Since pregnant women are severely underrepresented in clinical research, many take the position that the exclusion of pregnant women from research must be justified unless there are compelling "scientific reasons" for their exclusion. However, it is questionable whether this approach renders research with pregnant women fair. This paper analyzes and evaluates when research with pregnant women can be considered as fair and what constitutes scientific reasons for exclusion. METHODS: Conceptual ethical and methodological analysis and evaluation of fair inclusion. RESULTS: Fair inclusion of pregnant women means (1) that pregnant women who are eligible are not excluded solely for being pregnant and (2) that the research interests of pregnant women are prioritized, meaning that they ought to receive substantially more attention. Fairness does not imply that pregnant women should be included in virtually every research project, as including only a few pregnant women in a population consisting only of women will not help to determine the effectiveness and safety of a treatment in pregnant women. Separate trials in pregnant women may be preferable once we assume, or know, that effects of interventions in pregnant women differ from the effects in other subpopulations, or when we assume, or know, that there are no differences. In the latter case, it may be preferable to conduct post-marketing studies or establish registries. If there is no conclusive evidence indicating either differences or equivalence of effects between pregnant and non-pregnant women, yet it seems unlikely that major differences or exact equivalence exist, the inclusion of pregnant women should be sufficient. Depending on the research question, this boils down to representativeness in terms of the proportion of pregnant and non-pregnant women, or to oversampling pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: Fair inclusion of pregnant women in research implies that separate trials in pregnant women should be promoted. Inclusion of pregnant women has to be realized at the earliest phases of the research process. In addition to researchers and research ethics committees, scientific advisory councils, funders, drug regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, journal editors and others have a joint responsibility to further develop the evidence base for drug use in pregnant women.

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 3. Patient selection challenges and consequences.

This paper addresses challenges of identifying, enrolling, and retaining participants in a trial conducted within a routine care setting. All patients who are potential candidates for the treatments in routine clinical practice should be considered eligible for a pragmatic trial. To ensure generalizability, the recruited sample should have a similar distribution of the treatment effect modifiers as the target population. In practice, this can be best achieved by including-within the selected sites-all patients without further selection. If relevant heterogeneity between subgroups is expected, increasing the relative proportion of the subgroup of patients in the heterogeneous trial could be considered (oversampling) or a separate trial in this subgroup can be planned. Selection will nevertheless occur. Low enrollment and loss to follow-up can introduce selection and can jeopardize validity as well as generalizability. Pragmatic trials are conducted in clinical practice rather than in a dedicated research setting, which could reduce recruitment rates. However, if a trial poses a minimal burden to the physician and the patient and routine clinical practice is maximally adhered to, the participation rate may be high and loss to follow-up will not be a specific problem for pragmatic trials.

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 6. Outcome measures in the real world.

Results from pragmatic trials should reflect the comparative treatment effects encountered in patients in real-life clinical practice to guide treatment decisions. Therefore, pragmatic trials should focus on outcomes that are relevant to patients, clinical practice, and treatment choices. This sixth article in the series (see Box) discusses different types of outcomes and their suitability for pragmatic trials, design choices for measuring these outcomes, and their implications and challenges. Measuring outcomes in pragmatic trials should not interfere with real-world clinical practice to ensure generalizability of trial results, and routinely collected outcomes should be prioritized. Typical outcomes include mortality, morbidity, functional status, well-being, and resource use. Surrogate endpoints are typically avoided as primary outcome. It is important to measure outcomes over a relevant time horizon and obtain valid and precise results. As pragmatic trials are often open label, a less subjective outcome can reduce bias. Methods that decrease bias or enhance precision of the results, such as standardization and blinding of outcome assessment, should be considered when a high risk of bias or high variability is expected. The selection of outcomes in pragmatic trials should be relevant for decision making and feasible in terms of executing the trial in the context of interest. Therefore, this should be discussed with all stakeholders as early as feasible to ensure the relevance of study results for decision making in clinical practice and the ability to perform the study.

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 2. Setting, sites, and investigator selection.

This second article in the series on pragmatic trials describes the challenges in selection of sites for pragmatic clinical trials and the impact on validity, precision, and generalizability of the results. The selection of sites is an important factor for the successful execution of a pragmatic trial and impacts the extent to which the results are applicable to future patients in clinical practice. The first step is to define usual care and understand the heterogeneity of sites, patient demographics, disease prevalence and country choice. Next, specific site characteristics are important to consider such as interest in the objectives of the trial, the level of research experience, availability of resources, and the expected number of eligible patients. It can be advisable to support the sites with implementing the trial-related activities and minimize the additional burden that the research imposes on routine clinical practice. Health care providers should be involved in an early phase of protocol development to generate engagement and ensure an appropriate selection of sites with patients who are representative of the future drug users.

MisoREST: Surgical versus expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for miscarriage: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of curettage versus expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a multicenter cohort study alongside a randomized clinical trial (RCT) between June 2012 until July 2014. 27 Dutch hospitals participated. Women with an incomplete evacuation after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage who declined to participate in the RCT, received treatment of their preference; curettage (n=65) or expectant management (n=132). A successful outcome was defined as an empty uterus on sonography at six weeks or uneventful clinical follow-up. We furthermore assessed complication rate and (re)intervention rate RESULTS: Of the 197 women who declined to participate in the RCT, 65 preferred curettage and 132 expectant management. A successful outcome was observed in 62/65 women (95%) in the surgical group versus 112/132 women (85%) in the expectant group (RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.03-1.2), with complication rates of 6.2% versus 2.3%, respectively (RR 2.7, 95% CI 0.6-12). CONCLUSION: In women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment, expectant management is an effective and safe option. This finding could restrain the use of curettage in women that have used misoprostol in the treatment of first trimester miscarriage.

Nifedipine versus placebo in the treatment of preterm prelabor rupture of membranes: a randomized controlled trial: Assessment of perinatal outcome by use of tocolysis in early labor-APOSTEL IV trial.

OBJECTIVE: Preterm birth is the most common cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Around one third of preterm deliveries starts with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM). The aim of this trial was to study the effect of prolonged tocolysis with nifedipine versus placebo in women with PPROM on perinatal outcome and prolongation of pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: The Apostel IV was a nationwide multicenter randomized placebo controlled trial. We included women with PPROM without contractions between 24(+0) and 33(+6) weeks of gestation. Participants were randomly allocated to daily 80mg nifedipine or placebo, until the start of labor, with a maximum of 18 days. The primary outcome measure was a composite of poor neonatal outcome, including perinatal death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, periventricular leukomalacia>grade 1, intraventricular hemorrhage>grade 2, necrotizing enterocolitis>stage 1 and culture proven sepsis. Secondary outcomes were gestational age at delivery and prolongation of pregnancy. Analysis was by intention to treat. To detect a reduction of poor neonatal outcome from 30% to 10%, 120 women needed to be randomized. TRIAL REGISTRY: NTR 3363. RESULTS: Between October 2012 and December 2014 we randomized 25 women to nifedipine and 25 women to placebo. Due to slow recruitment the study was stopped prematurely. The median gestational age at randomization was 29.9 weeks (IQR 27.7-31.3) in the nifedipine group and 27.0 weeks (IQR 24.7-29.9) in the placebo group. Other baseline characteristics were comparable. The adverse perinatal outcome occurred in 9 neonates (33.3%) in the nifedipine group and 9 neonates (32.1%) in the placebo group (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.49-2.2). Two perinatal deaths occurred, both in the nifedipine group. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia was seen less frequently in the nifedipine group (0% versus 17.9%; p=0.03). Prolongation of pregnancy did not differ between the nifedipine and placebo group (median 11 versus 8 days, HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.58-1.79). CONCLUSION: This randomized trial did not show a beneficial effect of prolonged tocolysis on neonatal outcomes or prolongation of pregnancy in women with PPROM without contractions. However, since results are based on a small sample size, a difference in effectiveness cannot be excluded.