Management of myelofibrosis:a survey of current practice in the United Kingdom

To investigate the experience of clinicians in the management of patients with myelofibrosis, current treatment options and their utility.

A feasibility study testing four hypotheses with phase II outcomes in advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS3): a model for randomised controlled trials in the era of personalised medicine?

Background: Molecular characteristics of cancer vary between individuals. In future, most trials will require assessment of biomarkers to allocate patients into enriched populations in which targeted therapies are more likely to be effective. The MRC FOCUS3 trial is a feasibility study to assess key elements in the planning of such studies.

Patients and methods: Patients with advanced colorectal cancer were registered from 24 centres between February 2010 and April 2011. With their consent, patients' tumour samples were analysed for KRAS/BRAF oncogene mutation status and topoisomerase 1 (topo-1) immunohistochemistry. Patients were then classified into one of four molecular strata; within each strata patients were randomised to one of two hypothesis-driven experimental therapies or a common control arm (FOLFIRI chemotherapy). A 4-stage suite of patient information sheets (PISs) was developed to avoid patient overload.

Results: A total of 332 patients were registered, 244 randomised. Among randomised patients, biomarker results were provided within 10 working days (w.d.) in 71%, 15 w.d. in 91% and 20 w.d. in 99%. DNA mutation analysis was 100% concordant between two laboratories. Over 90% of participants reported excellent understanding of all aspects of the trial. In this randomised phase II setting, omission of irinotecan in the low topo-1 group was associated with increased response rate and addition of cetuximab in the KRAS, BRAF wild-type cohort was associated with longer progression-free survival.

Conclusions: Patient samples can be collected and analysed within workable time frames and with reproducible mutation results. Complex multi-arm designs are acceptable to patients with good PIS. Randomisation within each cohort provides outcome data that can inform clinical practice.

Developing a best practice model for partnership practice between specialist palliative care and intellectual disability services: a mixed methods study

Background: The lack of access to good quality palliative care for people with intellectual disabilities is highlighted in the international literature. In response, more partnership practice in end-of-life care is proposed. 
Aim: This study aimed to develop a best practice model to guide and promote partnership practice between specialist palliative care and intellectual disability services. 
Design: A mixed methods research design involving two phases was used, underpinned by a conceptual model for partnership practice. 
Setting/participants: Phase 1 involved scoping end-of-life care to people with intellectual disability, based on self-completed questionnaires. In all, 47 of 66 (71.2%) services responded. In Phase 2, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with a purposive sample recruited of 30 health and social care professionals working in intellectual disability and palliative care services, who had provided palliative care to someone with intellectual disability. For both phases, data were collected from primary and secondary care in one region of the United Kingdom. 
Results: In Phase 1, examples of good practice were apparent. However, partnership practice was infrequent and unmet educational needs were identified. Four themes emerged from the interviews in Phase 2: challenges and issues in end-of-life care, sharing and learning, supporting and empowering and partnership in practice. 
Conclusion: Joint working and learning between intellectual disability and specialist palliative care were seen as key and fundamental. A framework for partnership practice between both services has been developed which could have international applicability and should be explored with other services in end-of-life care.

General practice-recorded depression and antidepressant use in young people with newly diagnosed Type 1 diabetes: a cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

Aims - To investigate whether young people with Type 1 diabetes have an increased rate of depression andantidepressant use and whether their risk varies by age group, time from diabetes diagnosis, calendar period ofdiagnosis or complications status. Methods - A cohort of incident cases of patients with Type 1 diabetes diagnosed before 35 years of age (n = 5548) wasidentified within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and individually age and sex matched with up to two controlsubjects without diabetes (n = 10 657). Patients with depression were identified through general practice-recordeddepression codes and antidepressant prescriptions. Cox regression models gave hazard ratios for depression in peoplewith Type 1 diabetes compared with control subjects. Results - People with Type 1 diabetes were twice as likely to have a record of antidepressant use and generalpractice-diagnosed depression as their matched control subjects (hazard ratio 2.08, 95% CI 1.73–2.50, P < 0.001).These associations varied by time from diagnosis, with marked increases observed within the first 5 years of diagnosis(hazard ratio 2.14, 95% CI 1.51–3.03, P < 0.001), and by age at diabetes diagnosis, with excesses noted even in the 10-to 19-year age group (hazard ratio 1.45, 95% CI 1.06–1.98, P = 0.02). Conclusions - This population-based study shows that people with Type 1 diabetes have higher rates of generalpractice-recorded depression and antidepressant use. The excess is present within 5 years of diabetes diagnosis,suggesting psychological input for patients is warranted in the early years of their condition.

Addressing inequalities in physical activity participation: Implications for public health policy and practice

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics of those doing no moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (0days/week), some MVPA (1-4days/week) and sufficient MVPA (≥5days/week) to meet the guidelines in order to effectively develop and target PA interventions to address inequalities in participation.

METHOD: A population survey (2010/2011) of 4653 UK adults provided data on PA and socio-demographic characteristics. An ordered logit model investigated the covariates of 1) participating in no PA, 2) participating in some PA, and 3) meeting the PA guidelines. Model predictions were derived for stereotypical subgroups to highlight important policy and practice implications.

RESULTS: Mean age of participants was 45years old (95% CI 44.51, 45.58) and 42% were male. Probability forecasting showed that males older than 55years of age (probability=0.20; 95% CI 0.11, 0.28), and both males (probability=0.31; 95% CI 0.17, 0.45) and females (probability=0.38; 95% CI 0.27, 0.50) who report poor health are significantly more likely to do no PA.

CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the characteristics of those doing no MVPA and some MVPA could help develop population-level interventions targeting those most in need. Findings suggest that interventions are needed to target older adults, particularly males, and those who report poor health.

Challenges in secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases: A review of the current practice

With the changing demography of populations and increasing prevalence of co-morbidity, frail patients and more complex cardiac conditions, the modern medicine is facing novel challenges leading to rapid innovation where evidence and experiences are lacking. This scenario is also evident in cardiovascular disease prevention, which continuously needs to accommodate its ever changing strategies, settings, and goals. The present paper summarises actual challenges of secondary prevention, and discusses how this intervention should not only be effective but also efficient. By this way the paper tries to bridge the gaps between research and real-world findings and thereby may find ways to improve standard care.

An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER. Copyright © 2013 by the American Thoracic Society.

A systematic review investigating the effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) for the management of low back and/or pelvic pain (LBPP) in pregnancy

Aim: To evaluate and summarize the current evidence on the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for the management of low back pain and/or pelvic pain in pregnancy.

Background: International research demonstrates that 25-30% of women use complementary and alternative medicine to manage low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy without robust evidence demonstrating its effectiveness.

Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for low back and/or pelvic pain in pregnancy.

Data Sources: Cochrane library (1898-2013), PubMed (1996-2013), MEDLINE (1946-2013), AMED (1985-2013), Embase (1974-2013), Cinahl (1937-2013), Index to Thesis (1716-2013) and Ethos (1914-2013).

Review Methods: Selected studies were written in English, randomized controlled trials, a group 1 or 2 therapy and reported pain reduction as an outcome measure. Study quality was reviewed using Risk of Bias and evidence strength the Cochrane Grading of Recommendations and Development Evaluation Tool.

Results: Eight studies were selected for full review. Two acupuncture studies with low risk of bias showed both clinically important changes and statistically significant results. There was evidence of effectiveness for osteopathy and chiropractic. However, osteopathy and chiropractic studies scored high for risk of bias. Strength of the evidence across studies was very low.

Conclusion: There is limited evidence supporting the use of general CAM for managing pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic pain. However, the restricted availability of high-quality studies, combined with the very low evidence strength, makes it impossible to make evidence-based recommendations for practice.

Six-year follow-up of the SPHERE RCT: secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice.

Objective: To determine the long-term effectiveness of a complex intervention in primary care aimed at improving outcomes for patients with coronary heart disease.

Design: A 6-year follow-up of a cluster randomised controlled trial, which found after 18 months that both total and cardiovascular hospital admissions were significantly reduced in intervention practices (8% absolute reduction).

Setting: 48 general practices in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Participants: 903 patients with established coronary heart disease at baseline in the original trial.

Intervention: The original intervention consisted of tailored practice and patient plans; training sessions for practitioners in medication prescribing and behavioural change; and regular patient recall system. Control practices provided usual care. Following the intervention period, all supports from the research team to intervention practices ceased.

Outcome measures: Primary outcome: hospital admissions, all cause and cardiovascular; secondary outcomes: mortality; blood pressure and cholesterol control.

Results: At 6-year follow-up, data were collected from practice records of 696 patients (77%). For those who had died, we censored their data at the point of death and cause of death was established. There were no significant differences between the intervention and control practices in either total (OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.28)) or cardiovascular hospital admissions (OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.49 to 1.65)). We confirmed mortality status of 886 of the original 903 patients (98%). There were no significant differences in mortality (15% in intervention and 16% in control) or in the proportions of patients above target control for systolic blood pressure or total cholesterol.

Conclusions: Initial significant differences in the numbers of total and cardiovascular hospital admissions were not maintained at 6 years and no differences were found in mortality or blood pressure and cholesterol control. Policymakers need to continue to assess the effectiveness of previously efficacious programmes.

Trial registration number: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24081411.

Personalised and Precision Medicine in Cancer Clinical Trials: Panacea for Progress or Pandora's Box?

Cancer clinical trials have been one of the key foundations for significant advances in oncology. However, there is a clear recognition within the academic, care delivery and pharmaceutical/biotech communities that our current model of clinical trial discovery and development is no longer fit for purpose. Delivering transformative cancer care should increasingly be our mantra, rather than maintaining the status quo of, at best, the often miniscule incremental benefits that are observed with many current clinical trials. As we enter the era of precision medicine for personalised cancer care (precision and personalised medicine), it is important that we capture and utilise our greater understanding of the biology of disease to drive innovative approaches in clinical trial design and implementation that can lead to a step change in cancer care delivery. A number of advances have been practice changing (e.g. imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukaemia, Herceptin in erb-B2-positive breast cancer), and increasingly we are seeing the promise of a number of newer approaches, particularly in diseases like lung cancer and melanoma. Targeting immune checkpoints has recently yielded some highly promising results. New algorithms that maximise the effectiveness of clinical trials, through for example a multi-stage, multi-arm type design are increasingly gaining traction. However, our enthusiasm for the undoubted advances that have been achieved are being tempered by a realisation that these new approaches may have significant cost implications. This article will address these competing issues, mainly from a European perspective, highlight the problems and challenges to healthcare systems and suggest potential solutions that will ensure that the cost/value rubicon is addressed in a way that allows stakeholders to work together to deliver optimal cost-effective cancer care, the benefits of which can be transferred directly to our patients.