REMOTE-ILD study: Description of the protocol for a multicentre, 12-month randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring of spirometry and pulse oximetry in patients with interstitial lung disease.

INTRODUCTION: Remote monitoring of home physiological measurements has been proposed as a solution to support patients with chronic diseases as well as facilitating virtual consultations and pandemic preparedness for the future. Daily home spirometry and pulse oximetry have been demonstrated to be safe and acceptable to patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) but there is currently limited evidence to support its integration into clinical practice. AIM: Our aim is to understand the clinical utility of frequent remote physiological measurements in ILD and the impact of integrating these into clinical practice from a patient, clinical and health economic perspective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 132 patients with fibrotic ILD will be recruited and randomised to receive either usual care with remote digital monitoring of home spirometry and pulse oximetry or usual care alone for 12 months. All participants will complete health-related quality of life and experience questionnaires.The primary outcome compares the availability of spirometry measurements within the 2 weeks preceding planned clinic appointments. Secondary outcomes will explore other aspects of clinical and cost-effectiveness of the remote monitoring programme. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee (22/LO/0309). All participants will provide informed consent.This study is registered with www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT05662124).The results of the study will be submitted for presentation at regional and national conferences and submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Reports will be prepared for study participants with the support from our public involvement representatives through the charity Action for Pulmonary Fibrosis.

The UK's pandemic influenza research portfolio: a model for future research on emerging infections.

The 2009 influenza A H1N1 pandemic was responsible for considerable global morbidity and mortality. In 2009, several research studies in the UK were rapidly funded and activated for clinical and public health actions. However, some studies were too late for their results to have an early and substantial effect on clinical care, because of the time required to call for research proposals, assess, fund, and set up the projects. In recognition of these inherent delays, a portfolio of projects was funded by the National Institute for Health Research in 2012. These studies have now been set up (ie, with relevant permissions and arrangements made for data collection) and pilot tested where relevant. All studies are now on standby awaiting activation in the event of a pandemic being declared. In this Personal View, we describe the projects that were set up, the challenges of putting these projects into a maintenance-only state, and ongoing activities to maintain readiness for activation, and discuss how to plan research for a range of major incidents.

The assessment of depression in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of psychometric validation studies.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depression in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) is high; however, symptoms common to both conditions makes measurement difficult. There is no high quality overview of validation studies to guide the choice of depression inventory for this population. METHODS: A systematic review of studies validating the use of generic depression inventories in people with MS was conducted using MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Studies validating the use of depression inventories in PwMS and published in English were included; validation studies of tests for cognitive function and general mental health were excluded. Eligible studies were then quality assessed using the COSMIN checklist and findings synthesised narratively by instrument and validity domain. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (N = 5,991 PwMS) evaluating 12 instruments were included in the review. Risk of bias varied greatly between instrument and validity domain. CONCLUSIONS: The review of validation studies was constrained by poor quality reporting and outcome reporting bias. Well-conducted evaluations of some instruments are unavailable for some validity domains. This systematic review provides an evidence base for trade-offs in the selection of an instrument for assessing self-reported symptoms of depression in research or clinical practice involving people with MS. We make detailed and specific recommendations for where further research is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014010597.