The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol.The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

Adding SW elastographic features to BI-RADS feature analysis improved specificity of breast US mass assessment without loss of sensitivity.

The purpose of this study was to determine the cerebrovascular risk stratification potential of baseline degree of stenosis, clinical features, and ultrasonic plaque characteristics in patients with asymptomatic internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis

Colony-forming units of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum were counted at 2-day intervals in 100 patients treated with 22 regimens of isoniazid, rifampin, pyrazinamide, ethambutol, or streptomycin, given alone or in combinations. The exponential fall in colony-forming units was measured by linear regression coefficients of the log counts during the initial 2-day phase of rapid, drug-determined killing and during the subsequent 12 days of much slower sterilizing activity. The regression coefficients during the first 2 days varied significantly according to the drug; the greatest effects in multiple regression analyses were due to isoniazid (p < 0.001) and rifampin (p = 0.027). The rapid kill obtained with isoniazid was unaffected by addition of other drugs, so that a change in activity after adding an unknown drug to isoniazid would not be measurable. In multiple regression analysis of the coefficients during Days 2-14, rifampin and streptomycin had significant effects (p = 0.007 and 0.006, respectively), indicating that both drugs had important sterilizing activity, streptomycin particularly early. Isoniazid and pyrazinamide had no significant effects. In analyses of combined drug regimens only, ethambutol had an effect (p = 0.01) in reverse direction to that of rifampin, suggesting it antagonized the sterilizing activity of other drugs.

BackgroundAdjustment for prognostic covariates can lead to increased power in the analysis of randomized trials. However, adjusted analyses are not often performed in practice.MethodsWe used simulation to examine the impact of covariate adjustment on 12 outcomes from 8 studies across a range of therapeutic areas. We assessed (1) how large an increase in power can be expected in practice; and (2) the impact of adjustment for covariates that are not prognostic.ResultsAdjustment for known prognostic covariates led to large increases in power for most outcomes. When power was set to 80% based on an unadjusted analysis, covariate adjustment led to a median increase in power to 92.6% across the 12 outcomes (range 80.6 to 99.4%). Power was increased to over 85% for 8 of 12 outcomes, and to over 95% for 5 of 12 outcomes. Conversely, the largest decrease in power from adjustment for covariates that were not prognostic was from 80% to 78.5%.ConclusionsAdjustment for known prognostic covariates can lead to substantial increases in power, and should be routinely incorporated into the analysis of randomized trials. The potential benefits of adjusting for a small number of possibly prognostic covariates in trials with moderate or large sample sizes far outweigh the risks of doing so, and so should also be considered.

IMPORTANCE While guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials exists, there is an absence of guidance covering the required content of statistical analysis plans (SAPs) to support transparency and reproducibility.OBJECTIVE To develop recommendations for a minimum set of items that should be addressed in SAPs for clinical trials, developed with input from statisticians, previous guideline authors, journal editors, regulators, and funders. DESIGN Funders and regulators (n = 39) of randomized trials were contacted and the literature was searched to identify existing guidance; a survey of current practice was conducted across the network of UK Clinical Research Collaboration-registered trial units (n = 46, 1 unit had 2 responders) and a Delphi survey (n = 73 invited participants) was conducted to establish consensus on SAPs. The Delphi survey was sent to statisticians in trial units who completed the survey of current practice (n = 46), CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) guideline authors (n = 16), pharmaceutical industry statisticians (n = 3), journal editors (n = 9), and regulators (n = 2) (3 participants were included in 2 groups each), culminating in a consensus meeting attended by experts (N = 12) with representatives from each group. The guidance subsequently underwent critical review by statisticians from the surveyed trial units and members of the expert panel of the consensus meeting (N = 51), followed by piloting of the guidance document in the SAPs of 5 trials.FINDINGS No existing guidance was identified. The registered trials unit survey (46 responses) highlighted diversity in current practice and confirmed support for developing guidance. The Delphi survey (54 of 73, 74% participants completing both rounds) reached consensus on 42% (n = 46) of 110 items. The expert panel (N = 12) agreed that 63 items should be included in the guidance, with an additional 17 items identified as important but may be referenced elsewhere. Following critical review and piloting, some overlapping items were combined, leaving 55 items.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Recommendations are provided for a minimum set of items that should be addressed and included in SAPs for clinical trials. Trial registration, protocols, and statistical analysis plans are critically important in ensuring appropriate reporting of clinical trials.

SummaryBackgroundRivaroxaban is established for the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism, but whether it is useful in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome is uncertain.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 2/3, non-inferiority trial, done in two UK hospitals, included patients with antiphospholipid syndrome who were taking warfarin for previous venous thromboembolism, with a target international normalised ratio of 2·5. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to continue with warfarin or receive 20 mg oral rivaroxaban daily. Randomisation was done centrally, stratified by centre and patient type (with vs without systemic lupus erythematosus). The primary outcome was percentage change in endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) from randomisation to day 42, with non-inferiority set at less than 20% difference from warfarin in mean percentage change. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. Other thrombin generation parameters, thrombosis, and bleeding were also assessed. Treatment effect was measured as the ratio of rivaroxaban to warfarin for thrombin generation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN68222801.FindingsOf 116 patients randomised between June 5, 2013, and Nov 11, 2014, 54 who received rivaroxaban and 56 who received warfarin were assessed. At day 42, ETP was higher in the rivaroxaban than in the warfarin group (geometric mean 1086 nmol/L per min, 95% CI 957–1233 vs 548, 484–621, treatment effect 2·0, 95% CI 1·7–2·4, p<0·0001). Peak thrombin generation was lower in the rivaroxaban group (56 nmol/L, 95% CI 47–66 vs 86 nmol/L, 72–102, treatment effect 0·6, 95% CI 0·5–0·8, p=0·0006). No thrombosis or major bleeding were seen. Serious adverse events occurred in four patients in each group.InterpretationETP for rivaroxaban did not reach the non-inferiority threshold, but as there was no increase in thrombotic risk compared with standard-intensity warfarin, this drug could be an effective and safe alternative in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and previous venous thromboembolism.FundingArthritis Research UK, Comprehensive Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, LUPUS UK, Bayer, National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

ObjectivesTo evaluate intra- and interobserver reproducibility of shear wave elastography (SWE) for breast masses.MethodsFor intraobserver reproducibility, each observer obtained three consecutive SWE images of 758 masses that were visible on ultrasound. 144 (19%) were malignant. Weighted kappa was used to assess the agreement of qualitative elastographic features; the reliability of quantitative measurements was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). For the interobserver reproducibility, a blinded observer reviewed images and agreement on features was determined.ResultsMean age was 50 years; mean mass size was 13 mm. Qualitatively, SWE images were at least reasonably similar for 666/758 (87.9%). Intraclass correlation for SWE diameter, area and perimeter was almost perfect (ICC ≥ 0.94). Intraobserver reliability for maximum and mean elasticity was almost perfect (ICC = 0.84 and 0.87) and was substantial for the ratio of mass-to-fat elasticity (ICC = 0.77). Interobserver agreement was moderate for SWE homogeneity (κ = 0.57), substantial for qualitative colour assessment of maximum elasticity (κ = 0.66), fair for SWE shape (κ = 0.40), fair for B-mode mass margins (κ = 0.38), and moderate for B-mode mass shape (κ = 0.58), orientation (κ = 0.53) and BI-RADS assessment (κ = 0.59).ConclusionsSWE is highly reproducible for assessing elastographic features of breast masses within and across observers. SWE interpretation is at least as consistent as that of BI-RADS ultrasound B-mode features.Key Points• Shear wave ultrasound elastography can measure the stiffness of breast tissue• It provides a qualitatively and quantitatively interpretable colour-coded map of tissue stiffness• Intraobserver reproducibility of SWE is almost perfect while intraobserver reproducibility of SWE proved to be moderate to substantial• The most reproducible SWE features between observers were SWE image homogeneity and maximum elasticity