ObjectivesFor very preterm births, to compare alternative policies for umbilical cord clamping and immediate neonatal care.DesignParallel group randomised (1:1) trial, using sealed opaque numbered envelopes.SettingEight UK tertiary maternity units.Participants261 women expected to have a live birth before 32 weeks, and their 276 babies.InterventionsCord clamping after at least 2 min and immediate neonatal care with cord intact, or clamping within 20 s and immediate neonatal care after clamping.Main outcome measuresIntraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), death before discharge.Results132 women (137 babies) were allocated clamping ≥2 min and neonatal care cord intact, and 129 (139) clamping ≤20 s and neonatal care after clamping; six mother-infant dyads were excluded (2, 4) as birth was after 35+6 weeks, one withdrew (death data only available) (0, 1). Median gestation was 28.9 weeks for those allocated clamping ≥2 min, and 29.2 for those allocated clamping ≤20 s. Median time to clamping was 120 and 11 s, respectively. 7 of 135 infants (5.2%) allocated clamping ≥2 min died and 15 of 135 (11.1%) allocated clamping ≤20 s; risk difference (RD) −5.9% (95% CI −12.4% to 0.6%). Of live births, 43 of 134 (32%) had IVH vs 47 of 132 (36%), respectively; RD −3.5% (−14.9% to 7.8%). There were no clear differences in other outcomes for infants or mothers.ConclusionsThis is promising evidence that clamping after at least 2 min and immediate neonatal care with cord intact at very preterm birth may improve outcome; a large trial is urgently needed.Trial registrationISRCTN 21456601.

BackgroundThere is as yet no evidence on the feasibility of implementing recommendations from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis (OA) guidelines in primary care, or of the effect these recommendations have on the condition. The primary aim of this study is to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a model OA consultation (MOAC), implementing the core recommendations from the NICE OA guidelines in primary care. Secondary aims are to investigate the impact, feasibility and acceptability of the MOAC intervention; to develop and evaluate a training package for management of OA by general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses; test the feasibility of deriving ‘quality markers’ of OA management using a new consultation template and medical record review; and describe the uptake of core NICE OA recommendations in participants aged 45 years and over with joint pain.DesignA mixed methods study with a nested cluster randomised controlled trial.MethodThis study was developed according to a defined theoretical framework (the Whole System Informing Self-management Engagement). An overarching model (the Normalisation Process Theory) will be employed to undertake a comprehensive ‘whole-system’ evaluation of the processes and outcomes of implementing the MOAC intervention. The primary outcome is general physical health (Short Form-12 Physical component score [PCS]) (Ware 1996). The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention at practice level will be assessed by comparing intervention and control practices using a Quality Indicators template and medical record review. Impact and acceptability of the intervention for patients will be assessed via self-completed outcome measures and semi-structured interviews. The impact, acceptability and feasibility of the MOAC intervention and training for GPs and practice nurses will be evaluated using a variety of methods including questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations.DiscussionThe main output from the study will be to determine whether the MOAC intervention is clinically and cost effective. Additional outputs will be the development of the MOAC for patients consulting with joint pain in primary care, training and educational materials, and resources for patients and professionals regarding supported self-management and uptake of NICE guidance.Trial registrationISRCTN number: ISRCTN06984617.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0095-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SummaryObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a model osteoarthritis consultation, compared with usual care, on physical function and uptake of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) osteoarthritis recommendations, in adults ≥45 years consulting with peripheral joint pain in UK general practice.MethodTwo-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial with baseline health survey. Eight general practices in England. Participants: 525 adults ≥45 years consulting for peripheral joint pain, amongst 28,443 population survey recipients. Four intervention practices delivered the model osteoarthritis consultation to patients consulting with peripheral joint pain; four control practices continued usual care.The primary clinical outcome of the trial was the SF-12 physical component score (PCS) at 6 months; the main secondary outcome was uptake of NICE core recommendations by 6 months, measured by osteoarthritis quality indicators. A Linear Mixed Model was used to analyse clinical outcome data (SF-12 PCS). Differences in quality indicator outcomes were assessed using logistic regression.Results525 eligible participants were enrolled (mean age 67.3 years, SD 10.5; 59.6% female): 288 from intervention and 237 from control practices. There were no statistically significant differences in SF-12 PCS: mean difference at the 6-month primary endpoint was −0.37 (95% CI −2.32, 1.57). Uptake of core NICE recommendations by 6 months was statistically significantly higher in the intervention arm compared with control: e.g., increased written exercise information, 20.5% (7.9, 28.3).ConclusionWhilst uptake of core NICE recommendations was increased, there was no evidence of benefit of this intervention, as delivered in this pragmatic randomised trial, on the primary outcome of physical functioning at 6 months.Trial registrationISRCTN06984617.

Biologics have transformed management of inflammatory diseases. To optimize outcomes and reduce costs, dose adjustment informed by circulating drug levels has been proposed. We aimed to determine the real-world clinical utility of therapeutic drug monitoring in psoriasis. Within a multicenter (n=60) prospective observational cohort, 544 psoriasis patients were included who were on adalimumab monotherapy, with at least one serum sample and PASI (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) score available within the first year. We present models giving individualized probabilities of response for any given drug level: a minimally effective drug level of 3.2 μg/ml discriminates responders (PASI75: 75% improvement in baseline PASI) from non-responders and gives an estimated PASI75 probability of 65% (95% CI 60-71%). At 7ug/ml, PASI75 probability is 81% (95% CI 76-86%); beyond 7ug/ml, the drug level/response curve plateaus. Crucially, drug levels are predictive of response 6 months later, whether sampled early or at steady state. We confirm serum drug level to be the most important factor determining treatment response, highlighting the need to take drug levels into account when searching for biomarkers of response. This real-world study with pragmatic drug level sampling provides evidence to support the proactive measurement of adalimumab levels in psoriasis to direct treatment strategy, and is relevant to other inflammatory diseases.

BackgroundThe Cord Pilot Trial compared alternative policies for timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth at eight UK hospitals. Preterm birth can be rapid and unexpected, allowing little time for the usual consent process. Therefore, in addition to the usual procedure for written consent, a two-stage pathway for consent for use when birth was imminent was developed. The aims of this study were to explore clinicians’ views and experiences of offering two consent pathways for recruitment to a randomised trial of timing of cord clamping at very preterm birth.MethodsThis was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Clinicians from eight hospitals in the UK who had been involved in offering consent to the Cord Pilot Trial were invited to take part in an interview. Clinicians were interviewed in person or by telephone. Interviews were analysed using inductive systematic thematic analysis.ResultsSeventeen clinicians who had either offered usual written consent only (n = 6) or both the two-stage pathway (with oral assent before the birth and written consent after the birth) and usual written consent (n = 11) were interviewed. Six themes were identified: (1) team approach to offering participation; (2) consent form as a record; (3) consent and participation as a continual process; (4) different consent pathways for different trials; (5) balance between time, information, and understanding; and (6) validity of consent. Overall, clinicians were supportive of the two-stage consent pathway. Some clinicians felt that in time-critical situations oral assent presented an advantage over the usual written consent as they provided information on a “need to know” basis. However, there was some concern about how much information should be given for oral assent, and how this is understood by women when birth is imminent.ConclusionsThe two-stage pathway for consent developed for use in the Cord Pilot Trial when birth was imminent was acceptable to clinicians for comparable low-risk studies, although some concerns were raised about the practicalities of obtaining oral assent.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21456601. Registered on 28 February 2013.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1940-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.