Antibody and T-cell response to bivalent booster SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in people with compromised immune function (COVERALL-3).

BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA vaccines, designed to combat emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, incorporate ancestral strains and a new variant. Our study assessed the immune response in previously vaccinated individuals of the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) and the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study (STCS) following bivalent mRNA vaccination. METHODS: Eligible SHCS and STCS participants received approved bivalent mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (mRNA-1273.214 or BA.1-adapted BNT162b2) within clinical routine. Blood samples were collected at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 6 months post vaccination. We analyzed the proportion of participants with anti-spike protein antibody response ≥1642 units/ml (indicating protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection), and in a subsample T-cell response (including mean concentrations), stratifying results by cohorts and population characteristics. RESULTS: In SHCS participants, baseline anti-spike antibody concentrations ≥1642 were observed in 87% (96/112), reaching nearly 100% at follow-ups. Among STCS participants, 58% (35/60) had baseline antibodies ≥1642, increasing to 80% at 6 months. Except for lung transplant recipients, all participants showed a five-fold increase in geometric mean antibody concentrations at 4 weeks and a reduction by half at 6 months. At baseline, T-cell responses were positive in 96% (26/27) of SHCS participants and 36% (16/45) of STCS participants (moderate increase to 53% at 6 months). Few participants reported SARS-CoV-2 infections, side-effects, or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent mRNA vaccination elicited a robust humoral response in individuals with HIV or solid organ transplants, with delayed responses in lung transplant recipients. Despite a waning effect, antibody levels remained high at 6 months and adverse events were rare.

Antibody Response in Immunocompromised Patients After the Administration of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 by Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273 by Moderna are the most commonly used vaccines to prevent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. Head-to-head comparison of the efficacy of these vaccines in immunocompromised patients is lacking. METHODS: Parallel, 2-arm (allocation 1:1), open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial nested into the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study. People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) or solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR; ie, lung and kidney) from these cohorts were randomized to mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2. The primary endpoint was antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 spike (S1) protein receptor binding domain (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay, Roche; cutoff ≥0.8 units/mL) 12 weeks after first vaccination (ie, 8 weeks after second vaccination). In addition, antibody response was measured with the Antibody Coronavirus Assay 2 (ABCORA 2). RESULTS: A total of 430 patients were randomized and 412 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (341 PLWH and 71 SOTR). The percentage of patients showing an immune response was 92.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.4-95.8; 186/202) for mRNA-1273 and 94.3% (95% CI: 91.2-97.4; 198/210) for BNT162b2 (difference: -2.2%; 95% CI: -7.1 to 2.7), fulfilling noninferiority of mRNA-1273. With the ABCORA 2 test, 89.1% had an immune response to mRNA-1273 (95% CI: 84.8-93.4; 180/202) and 89.5% to BNT162b2 (95% CI: 85.4-93.7; 188/210). Based on the Elecsys test, all PLWH had an antibody response (100.0%; 341/341), whereas for SOTR, only 60.6% (95% CI: 49.2-71.9; 43/71) had titers above the cutoff level. CONCLUSIONS: In immunocompromised patients, the antibody response of mRNA-1273 was noninferior to BNT162b2. PLWH had in general an antibody response, whereas a high proportion of SOTR had no antibody response.

Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis.

BACKGROUND: We previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: We have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research.

Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Whether there is sufficient capacity and capability for the successful conduct and delivery of a clinical trial should be assessed by several stakeholders according to transparent and evidence-based criteria during trial planning. For this openly shared, user-tested, and validated tools are necessary. Therefore, we systematically examined the public availability and content of checklists which assess the study-level feasibility in the planning phase of clinical trials. METHODS: In our scoping review we systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, and Google (last search, June 2021). We included all publicly available checklists or tools that assessed study level feasibility of clinical trials, examined their content, and checked whether they were user-tested or validated in any form. Data was analysed and synthesised using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 10 publicly available checklists from five countries were identified. The checklists included 48 distinct items that were classified according to the following seven different domains of clinical trial feasibility: regulation, review and oversight; participant recruitment; space, material and equipment; financial resources; trial team resources; trial management; and pilot or feasibility studies. None of the available checklists appeared to be user-tested or validated. CONCLUSIONS: Although a number of publicly available checklists to assess the feasibility of clinical trials exist, their reliability and usefulness remain unclear. Openly shared, user-tested, and validated feasibility assessment tools for a better planning of clinical trials are lacking.

Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Describe and evaluate the methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning methods in oncology. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in MEDLINE and Embase between 01/01/2019 and 05/09/2019, for studies developing a prognostic prediction model using machine learning methods in oncology. We used the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) to assess the methodological conduct of included publications. Results were summarised by modelling type: regression-, non-regression-based and ensemble machine learning models. RESULTS: Sixty-two publications met inclusion criteria developing 152 models across all publications. Forty-two models were regression-based, 71 were non-regression-based and 39 were ensemble models. A median of 647 individuals (IQR: 203 to 4059) and 195 events (IQR: 38 to 1269) were used for model development, and 553 individuals (IQR: 69 to 3069) and 50 events (IQR: 17.5 to 326.5) for model validation. A higher number of events per predictor was used for developing regression-based models (median: 8, IQR: 7.1 to 23.5), compared to alternative machine learning (median: 3.4, IQR: 1.1 to 19.1) and ensemble models (median: 1.7, IQR: 1.1 to 6). Sample size was rarely justified (n = 5/62; 8%). Some or all continuous predictors were categorised before modelling in 24 studies (39%). 46% (n = 24/62) of models reporting predictor selection before modelling used univariable analyses, and common method across all modelling types. Ten out of 24 models for time-to-event outcomes accounted for censoring (42%). A split sample approach was the most popular method for internal validation (n = 25/62, 40%). Calibration was reported in 11 studies. Less than half of models were reported or made available. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological conduct of machine learning based clinical prediction models is poor. Guidance is urgently needed, with increased awareness and education of minimum prediction modelling standards. Particular focus is needed on sample size estimation, development and validation analysis methods, and ensuring the model is available for independent validation, to improve quality of machine learning based clinical prediction models.

Developing and testing a Corona VaccinE tRiAL pLatform (COVERALL) to study Covid-19 vaccine response in immunocompromised patients.

BACKGROUND: The rapid course of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic calls for fast implementation of clinical trials to assess the effects of new treatment and prophylactic interventions. Building trial platforms embedded in existing data infrastructures is an ideal way to address such questions within well-defined subpopulations. METHODS: We developed a trial platform building on the infrastructure of two established national cohort studies: the Swiss human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) Cohort Study (SHCS) and Swiss Transplant Cohort Study (STCS). In a pilot trial, termed Corona VaccinE tRiAL pLatform (COVERALL), we assessed the vaccine efficacy of the first two licensed SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in Switzerland and the functionality of the trial platform. RESULTS: Using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), we developed a trial platform integrating the infrastructure of the SHCS and STCS. An algorithm identifying eligible patients, as well as baseline data transfer ensured a fast inclusion procedure for eligible patients. We implemented convenient re-directions between the different data entry systems to ensure intuitive data entry for the participating study personnel. The trial platform, including a randomization algorithm ensuring balance among different subgroups, was continuously adapted to changing guidelines concerning vaccination policies. We were able to randomize and vaccinate the first trial participant the same day we received ethics approval. Time to enroll and randomize our target sample size of 380 patients was 22 days. CONCLUSION: Taking the best of each system, we were able to flag eligible patients, transfer patient information automatically, randomize and enroll the patients in an easy workflow, decreasing the administrative burden usually associated with a trial of this size.

Correction to: Prophylactic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Following Midline Laparotomy-Long-Term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

In the original version of the article, Philippe M. Glauser's, Philippe Brosi's, Benjamin Speich's, Samuel A. Käser's, Andres Heigl's, and Christoph A. Maurer's first and last names were interchanged. The names are correct as reflected here. The original article has been corrected.

Prophylactic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Following Midline Laparotomy-Long-Term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Incisional hernia, a serious complication after laparotomy, is associated with high morbidity and costs. This trial examines the value of prophylactic intraperitoneal onlay mesh to reduce the risk of incisional hernia after a median follow-up time of 5.3 years. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group, open-label, single center, randomized controlled trial (NCT01003067). After midline incision, the participants were either allocated to abdominal wall closure according to Everett with a PDS-loop running suture reinforced by an intraperitoneal composite mesh strip (Group A) or the same procedure without the additional mesh strip (Group B). RESULTS: A total of 276 patients were randomized (Group A = 131; Group B = 136). Follow-up data after a median of 5.3 years after surgery were available from 183 patients (Group A = 95; Group B = 88). Incisional hernia was diagnosed in 25/95 (26%) patients in Group A and in 46/88 (52%) patients in Group B (risk ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.36-0.77; p < 0.001). Eighteen patients with asymptomatic incisional hernia went for watchful waiting instead of hernia repair and remained free of symptoms after of a median follow-up of 5.1 years. Between the second- and fifth-year follow-up period, no complication associated with the mesh could be detected. CONCLUSION: The use of a composite mesh in intraperitoneal onlay position significantly reduces the risk of incisional hernia during a 5-year follow-up period. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Ref. NCT01003067 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Reporting Quality of Journal Abstracts for Surgical Randomized Controlled Trials Before and After the Implementation of the CONSORT Extension for Abstracts.

BACKGROUND: Adequate reporting is crucial in full-text publications but even more so in abstracts because they are the most frequently read part of a publication. In 2008, an extension for abstracts of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-A) statement was published, defining which items should be reported in abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, we compared the adherence of RCT abstracts to CONSORT-A before and after the publication of CONSORT-A. METHODS: RCTs published in the five surgical journals with the highest impact factor were identified through PubMed for 2005-2007 and 2014-2016. Adherence to 15 CONSORT-A items and two additional items for abstracts of non-pharmacological trials was assessed in duplicate. We compared the overall adherence to CONSORT-A between the two time periods using an unpaired t test and explored adherence to specific items. RESULTS: A total of 192 and 164 surgical RCT abstracts were assessed (2005-2007 and 2014-2016, respectively). In the pre-CONSORT-A phase, the mean score of adequately reported items was 6.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.90-6.38) and 8.11 in the post-CONSORT-A phase (95% CI 7.83-8.39; mean difference 1.97, 95% CI 1.60-2.34; p < 0.0001). The comparison of individual items indicated a significant improvement in 9 of the 15 items. The three least reported items in the post-CONSORT-A phase were randomization (2.4%), blinding (13.4%), and funding (0.0%). Specific items for non-pharmacological trials were rarely reported (approximately 10%). CONCLUSION: The reporting in abstracts of surgical RCTs has improved after the implementation of CONSORT-A. More importantly, there is still ample room for improvement.

Prophylactic Intraperitoneal Onlay Mesh Reinforcement Reduces the Risk of Incisional Hernia, Two-Year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Incisional hernias still are a major concern after laparotomy and are causing substantial morbidity. This study examines the feasibility, safety and incisional hernia rate of the use of a prophylactic intraperitoneal onlay mesh stripe (IPOM) to prevent incisional hernia following midline laparotomy. METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled trial randomly allocated patients undergoing median laparotomy either to mass closure of the abdominal wall with a PDS-loop running suture reinforced by an intraperitoneal composite mesh stripe (Group A) or to the same procedure without the additional mesh stripe (Group B). Primary endpoint was the incidence of incisional hernias at 2 years following midline laparotomy. Secondary endpoints are were the feasibility, the safety of the mesh stripe implantation including postoperative pain, and the incidence of incisional hernias at 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 267 patients were included in this study. Follow-up data 2 years after surgery was available from 210 patients (Group A = 107; Group B = 103). An incisional hernia was diagnosed in 18/107 (17%) patients in Group A and in 40/103 (39%) patients in Group B (p < 0.001). A surgical operation due to an incisional hernia was conducted for 12/107 (11%) patients in Group A and for 24/103 (23%) patients in Group B (p = 0.039). In both groups, minor and major complications as well as postoperative pain are reported with no statistically significant difference between the groups, even in contaminated situations. CONCLUSIONS: This first randomized clinical trial indicates that the placement of a non-absorbable IPOM-stripe with prophylactic intention may significantly reduce the risk for a midline incisional hernia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Ref. NCT01003067 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Blinding in Surgical Randomized Clinical Trials in 2015.

: Lack of blinding in randomized clinical trials can bias the effect estimates of the observed intervention. In trials assessing nonpharmacological interventions (eg, surgical randomized clinical trials) blinding is usually more difficult. In this mini-review the blinding and reporting of blinding was assessed from surgical randomized clinical trials that were published in leading medical and surgical journals in 2015. Conducting a systematic search on PubMed, a total of 99 studies were deemed as relevant and blinding status assessed. Blinding was explicitly stated for practitioners, patients, and outcome observers in 3%, 37%, and 52%, respectively. The blinding status was not clearly stated in a large proportion of studies or had sometimes a misleading classification. Hence, authors and journals publishing randomized controlled trials should pay attention that status of blinding is unambiguously reported.

Oxantel pamoate-albendazole for Trichuris trichiura infection.

BACKGROUND: Infections with soil-transmitted helminths (Ascaris lumbricoides, hookworm, and Trichuris trichiura) are widespread and often occur concomitantly. These parasitic-worm infections are typically treated with albendazole or mebendazole, but both drugs show low efficacy against T. trichiura. Albendazole is the drug of choice against hookworm. METHODS: In this double-blind trial conducted on Pemba Island, Tanzania, we randomly assigned children, 6 to 14 years of age, to receive one of four treatments: oxantel pamoate at a dose of 20 mg per kilogram of body weight, plus 400 mg of albendazole, administered on consecutive days; oxantel pamoate at a single dose of 20 mg per kilogram; albendazole at a single dose of 400 mg; or mebendazole at a single dose of 500 mg. We assessed the efficacy and safety profile of oxantel pamoate-albendazole when used in the treatment of T. trichiura infection (primary outcome) and concomitant soil-transmitted helminth infection (secondary outcome). Efficacy was determined by means of assessment of the cure rate and egg-reduction rate. Adverse events were assessed four times after treatment. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 458 children, of whom 450 were infected with T. trichiura, 443 with hookworm, and 293 with A. lumbricoides. The cure rate of T. trichiura infection was significantly higher with oxantel pamoate-albendazole than with mebendazole (31.2% vs. 11.8%, P=0.001), as was the egg-reduction rate (96.0% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 93.5 to 97.6] vs. 75.0% [95% CI, 64.2 to 82.0]). The cure rate with albendazole (2.6%) and the egg-reduction rate with albendazole (45.0%; 95% CI, 32.0 to 56.4) were significantly lower than the rates with mebendazole (P=0.02 for the comparison of cure rates). Oxantel pamoate had low efficacy against hookworm and A. lumbricoides. Adverse events (mainly mild) were reported by 30.9% of all children. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with oxantel pamoate-albendazole resulted in higher cure and egg-reduction rates for T. trichiura infection than the rates with standard therapy. (Funded by the Medicor Foundation and the Swiss National Science Foundation; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN54577342.).

Evaluation of portable microscopic devices for the diagnosis of Schistosoma and soil-transmitted helminth infection.

The diagnosis of parasitic worm (helminth) infections requires specialized laboratory settings, but most affected individuals reside in locations without access to such facilities. We tested two portable microscopic devices for the diagnosis of helminth infections in a cross-sectional survey in rural Côte d'Ivoire. We examined 164 stool samples under a light microscope and then re-examined with a commercial portable light microscope and an experimental mobile phone microscope for the diagnosis of Schistosoma mansoni and soil-transmitted helminths. Additionally, 180 filtered urine samples were examined by standard microscopy and compared with the portable light microscope for detection of Schistosoma haematobium eggs. Conventional microscopy was considered the diagnostic reference standard. For S. mansoni, S. haematobium and Trichuris trichiura, the portable light microscope showed sensitivities of 84.8%, 78.6% and 81.5%, respectively, and specificities of 85.7%, 91.0% and 93.0%, respectively. For S. mansoni and T. trichiura, we found sensitivities for the mobile phone microscope of 68.2% and 30.8%, respectively, and specificities of 64.3% and 71.0%, respectively. We conclude that the portable light microscope has sufficient diagnostic yield for Schistosoma and T. trichiura infections, while the mobile phone microscope has only modest sensitivity in its current experimental set-up. Development of portable diagnostic technologies that can be used at point-of-sample collection will enhance diagnostic coverage in clinical and epidemiological settings.

Characteristics, Progression, and Output of Randomized Platform Trials: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Platform trials have become increasingly common, and evidence is needed to determine how this trial design is actually applied in current research practice. Objective: To determine the characteristics, progression, and output of randomized platform trials. Evidence Review: In this systematic review of randomized platform trials, Medline, Embase, Scopus, trial registries, gray literature, and preprint servers were searched, and citation tracking was performed in July 2022. Investigators were contacted in February 2023 to confirm data accuracy and to provide updated information on the status of platform trial arms. Randomized platform trials were eligible if they explicitly planned to add or drop arms. Data were extracted in duplicate from protocols, publications, websites, and registry entries. For each platform trial, design features such as the use of a common control arm, use of nonconcurrent control data, statistical framework, adjustment for multiplicity, and use of additional adaptive design features were collected. Progression and output of each platform trial were determined by the recruitment status of individual arms, the number of arms added or dropped, and the availability of results for each intervention arm. Findings: The search identified 127 randomized platform trials with a total of 823 arms; most trials were conducted in the field of oncology (57 [44.9%]) and COVID-19 (45 [35.4%]). After a more than twofold increase in the initiation of new platform trials at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of platform trials has since declined. Platform trial features were often not reported (not reported: nonconcurrent control, 61 of 127 [48.0%]; multiplicity adjustment for arms, 98 of 127 [77.2%]; statistical framework, 37 of 127 [29.1%]). Adaptive design features were only used by half the studies (63 of 127 [49.6%]). Results were available for 65.2% of closed arms (230 of 353). Premature closure of platform trial arms due to recruitment problems was infrequent (5 of 353 [1.4%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found that platform trials were initiated most frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic and declined thereafter. The reporting of platform features and the availability of results were insufficient. Premature arm closure for poor recruitment was rare.

Characteristics, consent patterns, and challenges of randomized trials using the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) is a pragmatic design approach that may overcome frequent challenges of traditional randomized trials such as slow recruitment, burdensome consent procedures, or limited external validity. This scoping review aims to identify all randomized controlled trials using the TwiCs design and to summarize their design characteristics, ways to obtain informed consent, output, reported challenges and mitigation strategies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane, trial registries and citation tracking up to December 2022. TwiCs were defined as randomized trials embedded in a cohort with post-randomization consent for the intervention group and no specific post-randomization consent for the usual care control group. Information from identified TwiCs were extracted in duplicate from protocols, publications, and registry entries. We analyzed the information descriptively and qualitatively to highlight methodological challenges and solutions related to non-uptake of interventions and informed consent procedure. RESULTS: We identified a total of 46 TwiCs conducted between 2005 and 2022 in 14 different countries by a handful of research groups. The most common medical fields were oncology (11/46; 24%), infectious diseases (8/46;17%), and mental health (7/46; 15%). A typical TwiCs was investigator-initiated (46/46;100%), publicly funded (36/46; 78%), and recruited outpatients (27/46; 59%). Excluding eight pilot trials, only 16/38 (42%) TwiCs adjusted their calculated sample size for non-uptake of the intervention, anticipating a median non-uptake of 25% (interquartile range 10%-32%) in the experimental arm. Seventeen TwiCs (45%) planned analyses to adjust effect estimates for non-uptake. Regarding informed consent, we observed three patterns: 1) three separate consents for cohort participation, randomization, and intervention (17/46; 37%); 2) combined consent for cohort participation and randomization and a separate intervention consent (10/46; 22%); and 3) consent only for cohort participation and intervention (randomization consent not mentioned; 19/46; 41%). CONCLUSIONS: Existing TwiCs are globally scattered across a few research groups covering a wide range of medical fields and interventions. Despite the potential advantages, the number of TwiCs remains small. The variability in consent procedures and the possibility of substantial non-uptake of the intervention warrants further research to guide the planning, implementation, and analysis of TwiCs.

Bridging the gap: identifying factors impacting mRNA severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine booster response in people with HIV-1.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the association of demographic and clinical characteristics, including HIV-specific parameters with the antibody response to a third dose of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA vaccine in people with HIV-1 (PWH). DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of data collected during the observational extension of the COrona VaccinE tRiAL pLatform trial (COVERALL-2) nested into the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS). METHODS: Serological measurements were conducted on a total of 439 PWH who had received a third dose of either mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Antibody reactivity was assessed using the multifactorial ABCORA immunoassay that defines SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion and predicts neutralization activity. The association between log transformed antibody reactivity and various baseline factors, including vaccine type, demographics, immune and viral status, smoking status, comorbidities, infection history, and co-medication with chemotherapy and immunosuppressive drugs, was investigated using a multivariable linear regression model. RESULTS: Antibody response to third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was significantly lower among PWH with CD4 + cell count less than 350 cells/µl [ratio of means 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.95]. Having a detectable HIV-1 viral load at least 50 copies/ml and being on concurrent chemotherapy was associated with an overall lower humoral immune response (ratio of means 0.75; 95% CI 0.57-1.00 and 0.34; 95% CI 0.22-0.52, respectively). CONCLUSION: The study highlights the importance of optimal antiretroviral treatment for PWH, emphasizing the need for timely intervention to enhance the vaccine immunogenicity in this population. Moreover, it underscores the significance of sequential mRNA vaccination and provides important evidence for informing vaccine guidelines.

Effect of dulaglutide in promoting abstinence during smoking cessation: 12-month follow-up of a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial.

Background: Smoking cessation is challenging, despite making use of established smoking cessation therapies. Preclinical studies and one clinical pilot study suggest the antidiabetic drug glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue to modulate addictive behaviours and nicotine craving. Previously, we reported the short-term results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Herein we report long-term abstinence rates and weight developments after 24 and 52 weeks. Methods: This single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial was done at the University Hospital Basel in Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) individuals with at least a moderate nicotine dependence willing to quit smoking to either a 12-week treatment with dulaglutide 1.5 mg or placebo subcutaneously once weekly in addition to standard of care smoking cessation therapy (varenicline 2 mg/day and behavioural counselling). After 12 weeks, dulaglutide or placebo injections were discontinued and the participants were followed up at week 24 and 52. The primary outcome of self-reported and biochemically confirmed point prevalence abstinence rate, and secondary outcome of secondary outcome of weight change were assessed at weeks 24 and 52. All participants who received one dose of the study drug were included in the intention to treat set and participants who received at least 10/12 doses of the study drug formed the per protocol set. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03204396. Findings: Of the 255 participants who were randomly assigned between June 22, 2017 and December 3, 2020, 63% (80/127) (dulaglutide group) and 65% (83/128) (placebo group) were abstinent after 12 weeks. These abstinence rates declined to 43% (54/127) and 41% (52/128), respectively, after 24 weeks and to 32% (41/127) and 32% (41/128), respectively, after 52 weeks. Post-cessation weight gain was prevented in the dulaglutide group (-1.0 kg, standard deviation [SD] 2.7) as opposed to the placebo group (+1.9 kg, SD 2.4) after 12 weeks. However, at week 24, increases in weight from baseline were observed in both groups (median, interquartile range [IQR]: dulaglutide: +1.5 kg, [-0.4, 4.1], placebo: +3.0 kg, [0.6, 4.6], baseline-adjusted difference in weight change -1.0 kg (97.5% CI [-2.16, 0.16])), and at week 52 the groups showed similar weight gain (median, IQR: dulaglutide: +2.8 kg [-0.4, 4.7], placebo: +3.1 kg [-0.4, 6.0], baseline-adjusted difference in weight change: -0.35 kg (95% CI [-1.72, 1.01])). In the follow-up period (week 12 to week 52) 51 (51%) and 48 (48%) treatment-unrelated adverse events were recorded in the dulaglutide and the placebo group, respectively. No treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths occurred. Interpretation: Dulaglutide does not improve long-term smoking abstinence, but has potential to counteract weight gain after quitting. However, 3 months of treatment did not have a sustained beneficial effect on weight at 1 year. As post-cessation weight gain is highest in the first year after quitting smoking, future studies should consider a longer treatment duration with a GLP-1 analogue in abstinent individuals. Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation, the Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation, the Goldschmidt-Jacobson Foundation, the Hemmi-Foundation, the University of Basel, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences.

Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: In biomedical research, spin is the overinterpretation of findings, and it is a growing concern. To date, the presence of spin has not been evaluated in prognostic model research in oncology, including studies developing and validating models for individualized risk prediction. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE and EMBASE for oncology-related studies that developed and validated a prognostic model using machine learning published between 1st January, 2019, and 5th September, 2019. We used existing spin frameworks and described areas of highly suggestive spin practices. RESULTS: We included 62 publications (including 152 developed models; 37 validated models). Reporting was inconsistent between methods and the results in 27% of studies due to additional analysis and selective reporting. Thirty-two studies (out of 36 applicable studies) reported comparisons between developed models in their discussion and predominantly used discrimination measures to support their claims (78%). Thirty-five studies (56%) used an overly strong or leading word in their title, abstract, results, discussion, or conclusion. CONCLUSION: The potential for spin needs to be considered when reading, interpreting, and using studies that developed and validated prognostic models in oncology. Researchers should carefully report their prognostic model research using words that reflect their actual results and strength of evidence.

Reporting guidelines used varying methodology to develop recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We investigated the developing methods of reporting guidelines in the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network's database. METHODS: In October 2018, we screened all records and excluded those not describing reporting guidelines from further investigation. Twelve researchers performed duplicate data extraction on bibliometrics, scope, development methods, presentation, and dissemination of all publications. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings. RESULTS: Of the 405 screened records, 262 described a reporting guidelines development. The number of reporting guidelines increased over the past 3 decades, from 5 in the 1990s and 63 in the 2000s to 157 in the 2010s. Development groups included 2-151 people. Literature appraisal was performed during the development of 56% of the reporting guidelines; 33% used surveys to gather external opinion on items to report; and 42% piloted or sought external feedback on their recommendations. Examples of good reporting for all reporting items were presented in 30% of the reporting guidelines. Eighteen percent of the reviewed publications included some level of spin. CONCLUSION: Reporting guidelines have been developed with varying methodology. Reporting guideline developers should use existing guidance and take an evidence-based approach, rather than base their recommendations on expert opinion of limited groups of individuals.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues: a new way to quit smoking? (SKIP)-a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of premature death. Despite dedicated programmes, quit rates remain low due to barriers such as nicotine withdrawal syndrome or post-cessation weight gain. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues reduce energy intake and body weight and seem to modulate addictive behaviour. These GLP-1 properties are of major interest in the context of smoking cessation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the GLP-1 analogue dulaglutide as a new therapy for smoking cessation. METHODS: This is a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, superiority, single-centre randomized study including 255 patients. The intervention consists of a 12-week dulaglutide treatment phase with 1.5 mg once weekly or placebo subcutaneously, in addition to standard of care (behavioural counselling and pharmacotherapy with varenicline). A 40-week non-treatment phase follows. The primary outcome is the point prevalence abstinence rate at week 12. Smoking status is self-reported and biochemically confirmed by end-expiratory exhaled carbon monoxide measurement. Further endpoints include post-cessational weight gain, nicotine craving analysis, glucose homeostasis and long-term nicotine abstinence. Two separate substudies assess behavioural, functional and structural changes by functional magnetic resonance imaging and measures of energy metabolism (i.e. resting energy expenditure, body composition). DISCUSSION: Combining behavioural counselling and medical therapy, e.g. with varenicline, improves abstinence rates and is considered the standard of care. We expect a further increase in quit rates by adding a second component of medical therapy and assume a dual effect of dulaglutide treatment (blunting nicotine withdrawal symptoms and reducing post-cessational weight gain). This project is of high relevance as it explores novel treatment options aimed at preventing the disastrous consequences of nicotine consumption and obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03204396 . Registered on June 26, 2017.