UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Web-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered CTUs.

RESULTS: Twenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fifteen (65%) CTUs had received requests for data, and seven (30%) had made external requests for data in the previous 12 months. CTUs supported the need for increased data sharing activities although concerns were raised about patient identification, misuse of data, and financial burden. Custodianship of clinical trial data and requirements for a CTU to align its policy to their parent institutes were also raised. No CTUs supported the use of an open access model for data sharing.

CONCLUSION: There is support within the publicly funded UKCRC-registered CTUs for data sharing, but many perceived barriers remain. CTUs are currently using a variety of approaches and procedures for sharing data. This survey has informed further work, including development of guidance for publicly funded CTUs, to promote good practice and facilitate data sharing.

Good Laboratory Practice for optimization research

Good Laboratory Practice has been a part of non-clinical research for over 40 years. Optimization Research, despite having many papers discussing standards being published over the same period of time, has yet to embrace standards that underpin its research. In this paper we argue the need to adopt standards in optimization research. Building on previous papers, many of which have suggested that the optimization research community should adopt certain standards, we suggest a concrete set of recommendations that the community should adopt. We also discuss how the proposals in this paper could be progressed.

How can we use systematic reviews to inform clinical practice?

Aims/purpose: Systematic reviews provide the highest quality evidence and inform clinical practice. For patient benefit, it is imperative that nurses keep abreast of evidence-based practice. This presentation highlights where to find systematic reviews and how the information presented can be used to inform care.
Presentation description: Clinical research is increasing at an incredible rate. In the clinical trials database alone, more than 2000 new studies are registered/month and this does not include qualitative studies that do not require registration. Keeping abreast of current evidence can not only be a time consuming process, but can be problematic when studies produce conflicting results. Systematic reviews can be useful for summarizing the increasing amount of knowledge that is gained from scientific papers. In addition, combining individual studies in a meta-analysis increases statistical power, resulting in more precise effect estimates. This presentation draws upon a few systematic reviews relevant to ICU nursing practice, highlights their findings and demonstrates how the information can be used to inform translation of evidence into practice. Additionally, although these reviews include steps to minimize bias, nurses should be aware of some of the biases that may reduce confidence in the findings.
Conclusion: Systematic reviews can be useful tools for informing evidence based practice, although careful interpretation is necessary for understanding their relevance to local practice.

Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol

Introduction Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported. Hypothesis: Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.

Methods and analysis Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.

Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r).

Effect of tailored practice and patient care plans on secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective: To test the effectiveness of a complex intervention designed, within a theoretical framework, to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease. Design: Cluster randomised controlled multicentre trial. Setting: General practices in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, regions with different healthcare systems. Participants: 903 patients with established coronary heart disease registered with one of 48 practices. Intervention: Tailored care plans for practices (practice based training in prescribing and behaviour change, administrative support, quarterly newsletter), and tailored care plans for patients (motivational interviewing, goal identification, and target setting for lifestyle change) with reviews every four months at the practices. Control practices provided usual care. Main outcome measures: The proportion of patients at 18 month follow-up above target levels for blood pressure and total cholesterol concentration, and those admitted to hospital, and changes in physical and mental health status (SF-12). Results: At baseline the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits were: systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg (305/899; 33.9%, 95% confidence interval 30.8% to 33.9%), diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg (111/901; 12.3%, 10.2% to 14.5%), and total cholesterol concentration greater than 5 mmol/l (188/860; 20.8%, 19.1% to 24.6%). At the 18 month follow-up there were no significant differences between intervention and control groups in the numbers (proportions) of patients above the recommended limits: systolic blood pressure, intervention 98/360 (27.2%) v control, 133/405 (32.8%), odds ratio 1.51 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 2.30; P=0.06); diastolic blood pressure, intervention 32/360 (8.9%) v control, 40/405 (9.9%), 1.40 (0.75 to 2.64; P=0.29); and total cholesterol concentration, intervention 52/342 (15.2%) v control, 64/391 (16.4%), 1.13 (0.63 to 2.03; P=0.65). The number of patients admitted to hospital over the 18 month study period significantly decreased in the intervention group compared with the control group: 107/415 (25.8%) v 148/435 (34.0%), 1.56 (1.53 to 2.60; P=0.03). Conclusions: Admissions to hospital were significantly reduced after an intensive 18 month intervention to improve outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease, but no other clinical benefits were shown, possibly because of a ceiling effect related to improved management of the disease. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24081411.

Recent Advances in Antidiabetic Drug Therapies Targeting the Enteroinsular Axis

The enteroinsular axis (EIA) constitutes a physiological signalling system whereby intestinal endocrine cells secrete incretin hormones following feeding that potentiate insulin secretion and contribute to the regulation of blood glucose homeostasis. The two key hormones responsible are named glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Recent years have witnessed sustained development of antidiabetic therapies that exploit the EIA. Current clinical compounds divide neatly into two classes. One concerns analogues or mimetics of GLP-1, such as exenatide (Byetta) or liraglutide (NN2211). The other group comprises the gliptins (e. g. sitagliptin and vildagliptin) which boost endogenous incretin activity by inhibiting the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP 4) that degrades both GLP-1 and GIP. Ongoing research indicates that further incretin and gliptin compounds will become available for clinical use in the near future, offering comparable or improved efficacy. For incretin analogues there is the prospect of prolonged duration of action and alternative routes of administration. This review focuses on recent advances in pre-clinical research and their translation into clinical studies to provide future therapies for type 2 diabetes targeting the EIA.