No abstract

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.

Campbell, B. C.V. et al. (2019) Penumbral imaging and functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke treated with endovascular thrombectomy versus medical therapy: a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data.ABSTRACT Background: CT-perfusion (CTP) and MRI may assist patient selection for endovascular thrombectomy. We aimed to establish whether imaging assessments of ischaemic core and penumbra volumes were associated with functional outcomes and treatment effect.

Objective To determine if an intervention consisting of telemonitoring and supervision by usual primary care clinicians of home self measured blood pressure and optional patient decision support leads to clinically important reductions in daytime systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure.Design Multicentre randomised controlled trial.Setting 20 primary care practices in south east Scotland.Participants 401 people aged 29-95 years with uncontrolled blood pressure (mean daytime ambulatory measurement ≥135/85 mm Hg but ≤210/135 mm Hg).Intervention Self measurement and transmission of blood pressure readings to a secure website for review by the attending nurse or doctor and participant, with optional automated patient decision support by text or email for six months.Main outcome measures Blinded assessment of mean daytime systolic ambulatory blood pressure six months after randomisation.Results 200 participants were randomised to the intervention and 201 to usual care; primary outcome data were available for 90% of participants (182 and 177, respectively). The mean difference in daytime systolic ambulatory blood pressure adjusted for baseline and minimisation factors between intervention and usual care was 4.3 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 2.0 to 6.5; P=0.0002) and for daytime diastolic ambulatory blood pressure was 2.3 mm Hg (0.9 to 3.6; P=0.001), with higher values in the usual care group. The intervention was associated with a mean increase of one general practitioner (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.6; P=0.0002) and 0.6 (0.1 to 1.0; P=0.01) practice nurse consultations during the course of the study.Conclusions Supported self monitoring by telemonitoring is an effective method for achieving clinically important reductions in blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in primary care settings. However, it was associated with increase in use of National Health Service resources. Further research is required to determine if the reduction in blood pressure is maintained in the longer term and if the intervention is cost effective.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72614272.

In a prospective cohort study of patient outcomes following stroke, William Whiteley and colleagues find that markers of inflammatory response are associated with poor outcomes. However, addition of these markers to existing prognostic models does not improve outcome prediction.

No abstract

1. Attitudes of doctors to the Committee on Safety of Medicines' (CSM) adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting scheme were investigated in order to assess their understanding of the purposes of the scheme and to identify reasons for failing to report suspected adverse drug reactions. 2. A postal questionnaire and letter of invitation were sent to 500 doctors who were randomly selected from the 1992 Medical Directory. A reminder letter and a second copy of the questionnaire were sent to non‐responders after 4 weeks. 3. 284 (57%) responded to the questionnaire. Of these, 179 (63%) stated that they had previously reported an ADR to the CSM or a pharmaceutical manufacturer. 77% of general practitioners stated that they had reported one or more ADRs compared with 55% of hospital doctors. 4. Reasons for under‐reporting included lack of time, lack of report forms and the misconception that absolute confidence in the diagnosis of an adverse reaction was important in the decision to send in a report. 5. An investigation of seven commonly proposed reasons for under‐reporting showed that on the whole they did not apply. 6. Most doctors knew the types of reactions that the Committee on Safety of Medicines seeks reports for but only 38% knew the precise meaning of the Committee on Safety of Medicines' black triangle symbol. There also seemed to be confusion about some of the purposes of the adverse drug reaction reporting scheme. 7. The number of reporting doctors is much higher than has previously been estimated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government.