Starting a conversation about estimands with public partners involved in clinical trials: a co-developed tool.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials aim to draw conclusions about the effects of treatments, but a trial can address many different potential questions. For example, does the treatment work well for patients who take it as prescribed? Or does it work regardless of whether patients take it exactly as prescribed? Since different questions can lead to different conclusions on treatment benefit, it is important to clearly understand what treatment effect a trial aims to investigate-this is called the 'estimand'. Using estimands helps to ensure trials are designed and analysed to answer the questions of interest to different stakeholders, including patients and public. However, there is uncertainty about whether patients and public would like to be involved in defining estimands and how to do so. Public partners are patients and/or members of the public who are part of, or advise, the research team. We aimed to (i) co-develop a tool with public partners that helps explain what an estimand is and (ii) explore public partner's perspectives on the importance of discussing estimands during trial design. METHODS: An online consultation meeting was held with 5 public partners of mixed age, gender and ethnicities, from various regions of the UK. Public partner opinions were collected and a practical tool describing estimands, drafted before the meeting by the research team, was developed. Afterwards, the tool was refined, and additional feedback sought via email. RESULTS: Public partners want to be involved in estimand discussions. They found an introductory tool, to be presented and described to them by a researcher, helpful for starting a discussion about estimands in a trial design context. They recommended storytelling, analogies and visual aids within the tool. Four topics related to public partners' involvement in defining estimands were identified: (i) the importance of addressing questions that are relevant to patients and public in trials, (ii) involving public partners early on, (iii) a need for education and communication for all stakeholders and (iv) public partners and researchers working together. CONCLUSIONS: We co-developed a tool for researchers and public partners to use to facilitate the involvement of public partners in estimand discussions.

Healthful eating patterns, serum metabolite profile and risk of diabetes in a population-based prospective study of US Hispanics/Latinos.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to evaluate associations of multiple recommended dietary patterns (i.e. the alternate Mediterranean diet [aMED], the Healthy Eating Index [HEI]-2015 and the healthful Plant-based Diet Index [hPDI]) with serum metabolite profile, and to examine dietary-pattern-associated metabolites in relation to incident diabetes. METHODS: We included 2842 adult participants free from diabetes, CVD and cancer during baseline recruitment of the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos. Metabolomics profiling of fasting serum was performed using an untargeted approach. Dietary pattern scores were derived using information collected by two 24 h dietary recalls. Dietary-pattern-associated metabolites were identified using multivariable survey linear regressions and their associations with incident diabetes were assessed using multivariable survey Poisson regressions with adjustment for traditional risk factors. RESULTS: We identified eight metabolites (mannose, γ/ß-tocopherol, N1-methylinosine, pyrraline and four amino acids) that were inversely associated with all dietary scores. These metabolites were detrimentally associated with various cardiometabolic risk traits, especially insulin resistance. A score comprised of these metabolites was associated with elevated risk of diabetes (RRper SD 1.54 [95% CI 1.29, 1.83]), and this detrimental association appeared to be attenuated or eliminated by having a higher score for aMED (pinteraction = 0.0001), HEI-2015 (pinteraction = 0.020) or hPDI (pinteraction = 0.023). For example, RR (95% CI) of diabetes for each SD increment in the metabolite score was 1.99 (1.44, 2.37), 1.67 (1.17, 2.38) and 1.08 (0.86, 1.34) across the lowest to the highest tertile of aMED score, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Various recommended dietary patterns were inversely related to a group of metabolites that were associated with elevated risk of diabetes. Adhering to a healthful eating pattern may attenuate or eliminate the detrimental association between metabolically unhealthy serum metabolites and risk of diabetes.

Unilateral Blaschkoid lichen planus in successive pregnancies.

A number of genetic, congenital and acquired dermatoses have been known to follow Blaschko's lines. A common disorder like lichen planus can very rarely present with pruritic lesions in atypical patterns such as unilateral distribution, painful eruptions and along Blaschko's lines. Various triggering factors varying from viral infections and vaccinations to trauma have been implicated in lichen planus. We describe a female patient in the second trimester of her second pregnancy who developed unilateral lichen planus along Blaschko's lines during both pregnancies. No case of lichen planus along Blaschko's lines recurring during pregnancy is reported so far. Could pregnancy itself be a contributory factor towards onset of lichen planus in this case?