Part of the solution: A survey of community organisation perspectives on barriers and facilitating actions to Advance Care Planning in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Despite the established benefits of Advance Care Planning (ACP), engagement remains low in British Columbia. Since 2016, a growing number of community-based nonprofits have offered ACP education. To date, no study has focused on the perspectives of nonprofits on ACP in British Columbia. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitating actions to ACP as perceived by British Columbian nonprofits. DESIGN: A mixed-methods design was used. Data were collected through online surveys and telephone interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Staff and volunteers from British Columbian nonprofits that are providing or interested in providing public education on ACP were recruited for this study. RESULTS: The lack of public awareness of ACP, the emotional difficulty of the conversation, the complicated ACP process, the belief that ACP is synonymous with completing a medical order form, the challenge of introducing ACP in different cultural contexts and the siloed approach to ACP education were rated as the most important barriers to ACP engagement. The most important facilitating actions were developing clear messages, improving ACP literacy, reframing ACP as part of life planning, simplifying ACP documentation and transfer, integrating ACP conversations into clinical practice and better collaboration between the health system and nonprofits. DISCUSSION: This study identifies numerous opportunities to improve ACP engagement in British Columbia from a community lens. To maximize ACP engagement, community-led ACP education should be offered in coordination with the health system. CONCLUSION: Community-led ACP education as well as collaboration and consultation with nonprofits are part of the solution to the low ACP engagement in British Columbia. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Study participants, including staff and volunteers at nonprofits, are members of the public.

An overview of precision oncology basket and umbrella trials for clinicians.

With advancements in biomarkers and momentum in precision medicine, biomarker-guided trials such as basket trials and umbrella trials have been developed under the master protocol framework. A master protocol refers to a single, overarching design developed to evaluate multiple hypotheses with the general goal of improving the efficiency of trial evaluation. One type of master protocol is the basket trial, in which a targeted therapy is evaluated for multiple diseases that share common molecular alterations or risk factors that may help predict whether the patients will respond to the given therapy. Another variant of a master protocol is the umbrella trial, in which multiple targeted therapies are evaluated for a single disease that is stratified into multiple subgroups based on different molecular or other predictive risk factors. Both designs follow the core principle of precision medicine-to tailor intervention strategies based on the patient's risk factor(s) that can help predict whether they will respond to a specific treatment. There have been increasing numbers of basket and umbrella trials, but they are still poorly understood. This article reviews common characteristics of basket and umbrella trials, key trials and recent US Food and Drug Administration approvals for precision oncology, and important considerations for clinical readers when critically evaluating future publications on basket trials and umbrella trials and for researchers when designing these clinical trials.

Association of Early Interventions With Birth Outcomes and Child Linear Growth in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries: Bayesian Network Meta-analyses of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The first 1000 days of life represent a critical window for child development. Pregnancy, exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) period (0-6 months), and complementary feeding (CF) period (6-24 months) have different growth requirements, so separate considerations for intervention strategies are needed. No synthesis to date has attempted to quantify the associations of interventions under multiple domains of micronutrient and balanced energy protein and food supplements, deworming, maternal education, water sanitation, and hygiene across these 3 life periods with birth and growth outcomes. Objective: To determine the magnitude of association of interventions with birth and growth outcomes based on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) using Bayesian network meta-analyses. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from their inception up to August 14, 2018. Study Selection: Included were LMIC-based RCTs of interventions provided to pregnant women, infants (0-6 months), and children (6-24 months). Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers used a standardized data extraction and quality assessment form. Random-effects network meta-analyses were performed for each life period. Effect sizes are reported as odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MeanDiffs) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). This study calculated probabilities of interventions being superior to standard of care by at least a minimal clinically important difference. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study compared ORs on preterm birth and MeanDiffs on birth weight for pregnancy, length for age (LAZ) for EBF, and height for age (HAZ) for CF. Results: Among 302 061 participants in 169 randomized clinical trials, the network meta-analyses found several nutritional interventions that demonstrated greater association with improved birth and growth outcomes compared with standard of care. For instance, compared with standard of care, maternal supplements of multiple micronutrients showed reduced odds for preterm birth (OR, 0.54; 95% CrI, 0.27-0.97) and improved mean birth weight (MeanDiff, 0.08 kg; 95% CrI, 0.00-0.17 kg) but not LAZ during EBF (MeanDiff, -0.02; 95% CrI, -0.18 to 0.14). Supplementing infants and children with multiple micronutrients showed improved LAZ (MeanDiff, 0.20; 95% CrI, 0.03-0.35) and HAZ (MeanDiff, 0.14; 95% CrI, 0.02-0.25). The study found that pregnancy interventions generally had higher probabilities of a minimal clinically importance difference than the interventions for the EBF or CF in the first 1000 days of life. Conclusions and Relevance: These analyses highlight the importance of intervening early for child development, during pregnancy if possible. Results of this study suggest that there is a need to combine interventions from multiple domains and test for their effectiveness as a package.

Reporting of master protocols towards a standardized approach: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In September 2018 the FDA provided a draft guidance on master protocols reflecting an increased interest in these designs by industry. Master protocols refer to a single overarching protocol developed to evaluate multiple hypotheses and may be further categorized as basket, umbrella, and platform trials. However, inconsistencies in reporting persist in the literature. We conducted a systematic review to describe master protocol reporting with the goal of facilitating the further development and spread of these innovative trial designs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to April 25, 2019 for English articles on master protocols. This was supplemented by hand searches of trial registries and of the bibliographies of published reviews. We used the FDA's definitions of master protocols as references and compared them to self-reported master protocols. RESULTS: We identified 278 master protocol publications, consisting of 228 protocols and 50 reviews. Sixty-six records provided unique definitions of master protocol types. We observed considerable heterogeneity in definitions of master protocols, and over half (54%) used oncology-specific language. The majority of self-classified master protocols (57%) were consistent with the FDA's definitions of master protocols. CONCLUSION: The terms 'master protocol', 'basket trial', 'umbrella trial', and 'platform trial' are inconsistently described. Careful treatment of these terms and adherence to the definitions set forth by the FDA will facilitate better understanding of these trial designs and allow them to be used broadly and to their full potential in clinical research. We encourage trial methodologists to use these trial designations when applicable.