Background: To assess the quality of reporting of RCT protocols approved by UK research ethics committees before and after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline. Methods: We had access to RCT study protocols that received ethical approval in the UK in 2012 (n=103) and 2016 (n=108). From those, we assessed the adherence to the 33 SPIRIT items (i.e. a total of 64 components of the 33 SPIRIT items). We descriptively analysed the adherence to SPIRIT guidelines as proportion of adequately reported items (median and interquartile range [IQR]) and stratified the results by year of approval and sponsor. Results: The proportion of reported SPIRIT items increased from a median of 64.9% (IQR, 57.6–69.2%) in 2012 to a median of 72.5% (IQR, 65.3–78.3%) in 2016. Industry-sponsored RCTs reported more SPIRIT items in 2012 (median 67.4%; IQR, 64.1–69.4%) compared to non-industry-sponsored trials (median 59.8%; IQR, 46.5–67.7%). This gap between industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials increased in 2016 (industry-sponsored: median 75.6%; IQR, 71.2–79.0% vs non-industry-sponsored: median 65.3%; IQR, 51.6–76.3%). Conclusions: The adherence to SPIRIT guidelines has improved in the UK from 2012 to 2016 but remains on a modest level, especially for non-industry-sponsored RCTs.

Availability of randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols is essential for the interpretation of trial results and research transparency. In this study, we determined the availability of RCT protocols approved in Switzerland, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom in 2012. For these RCTs, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and trial registries for publicly available protocols and corresponding full-text publications of results. We determined the proportion of RCTs with (1) publicly available protocols, (2) publications citing the protocol, and (3) registries providing a link to the protocol. A multivariable logistic regression model explored factors associated with protocol availability. Three hundred twenty-six RCTs were included, of which 118 (36.2%) made their protocol publicly available; 56 (47.6% 56 of 118) provided as a peer-reviewed publication and 48 (40.7%, 48 of 118) provided as supplementary material. A total of 90.9% (100 of 110) of the protocols were cited in the main publication, and 55.9% (66 of 118) were linked in the clinical trial registry. Larger sample size (>500; odds ratio [OR] = 5.90, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.75-13.31) and investigator sponsorship (OR = 1.99, 95% CI, 1.11-3.59) were associated with increased protocol availability. Most protocols were made available shortly before the publication of the main results. RCT protocols should be made available at an early stage of the trial.

The aims of this Oncoplastic Breast Consortium and European Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists initiative were to identify uncertainties and controversies in axillary management of early breast cancer and to recommend appropriate strategies to address them. By use of Delphi methods, 15 questions were prioritized by more than 250 breast surgeons, patient advocates and radiation oncologists from 60 countries. Subsequently, a global virtual consensus panel considered available data, ongoing studies and resource utilization. It agreed that research should no longer be prioritized for standardization of axillary imaging, de-escalation of axillary surgery in node-positive cancer and risk evaluation of modern surgery and radiotherapy. Instead, expert consensus recommendations for clinical practice should be based on current evidence and updated once results from ongoing studies become available. Research on de-escalation of radiotherapy and identification of the most relevant endpoints in axillary management should encompass a meta-analysis to identify knowledge gaps, followed by a Delphi process to prioritize and a consensus conference to refine recommendations for specific trial designs. Finally, treatment of residual nodal disease after surgery was recommended to be assessed in a prospective register.

Antimicrobial resistance has become a serious worldwide public health problem and is associated with antibiotic overuses. Whether personalized prescription feedback to high antibiotic prescribers using routinely collected data can lower antibiotic use in the long run is unknown. We describe the design and rationale of a nationwide pragmatic randomized controlled trial enrolling 2900 primary care physicians in Switzerland with high antibiotic prescription rates based on national reimbursement claims data. About 1450 physicians receive quarterly postal and online antibiotic prescription feedback over 24 months allowing a comparison of the individual prescription rates with peers. Initially, they also receive evidence based treatment guidelines. The 1450 physicians in the control group receive no information. The primary outcome is the amount of antibiotics prescribed over a one year-period, measured as defined daily doses per 100 consultations. Other outcomes include the amount of antibiotics prescribed to specific age groups (65 years), to male and female patients, in addition to prescriptions of specific antibiotic groups. Further analyses address disease-specific quality indicators for outpatient antibiotic prescriptions, the acceptance of the intervention, and the impact on costs. This trial investigates whether continuous personalized prescription feedback on a health system level using routinely collected health data reduces antibiotic overuse. The feasibility and applicability of a web-based interface for communication with primary care physicians is further assessed. ClinTrials.gov NCT01773824 (Date registered: August 24, 2012).

Background: In hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), family communication of genetic test results is essential for cascade genetic screening, that is, identifying and testing blood relatives of known mutation carriers to determine whether they also carry the pathogenic variant, and to propose preventive and clinical management options. However, up to 50% of blood relatives are unaware of relevant genetic information, suggesting that potential benefits of genetic testing are not communicated effectively within family networks. Technology can facilitate communication and genetic education within HBOC families. Objective: The aims of this study are to develop the K-CASCADE (Korean–Cancer Predisposition Cascade Genetic Testing) cohort in Korea by expanding an infrastructure developed by the CASCADE (Cancer Predisposition Cascade Genetic Testing) Consortium in Switzerland; develop a digital health intervention to support the communication of cancer predisposition for Swiss and Korean HBOC families, based on linguistic and cultural adaptation of the Family Gene Toolkit; evaluate its efficacy on primary (family communication of genetic results and cascade testing) and secondary (psychological distress, genetic literacy, active coping, and decision making) outcomes; and explore its translatability using the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance framework. Methods: The digital health intervention will be available in French, German, Italian, Korean, and English and can be accessed via the web, mobile phone, or tablet (ie, device-agnostic). K-CASCADE cohort of Korean HBOC mutation carriers and relatives will be based on the CASCADE infrastructure. Narrative data collected through individual interviews or mini focus groups from 20 to 24 HBOC family members per linguistic region and 6-10 health care providers involved in genetic services will identify the local cultures and context, and inform the content of the tailored messages. The efficacy of the digital health intervention against a comparison website will be assessed in a randomized trial with 104 HBOC mutation carriers (52 in each study arm). The translatability of the digital health intervention will be assessed using survey data collected from HBOC families and health care providers. Results: Funding was received in October 2019. It is projected that data collection will be completed by January 2023 and results will be published in fall 2023. Conclusions: This study addresses the continuum of translational research, from developing an international research infrastructure and adapting an existing digital health intervention to testing its efficacy in a randomized controlled trial and exploring its translatability using an established framework. Adapting existing interventions, rather than developing new ones, takes advantage of previous valid experiences without duplicating efforts. Culturally sensitive web-based interventions that enhance family communication and understanding of genetic cancer risk are timely. This collaboration creates a research infrastructure between Switzerland and Korea that can be scaled up to cover other hereditary cancer syndromes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04214210; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04214210 and CRiS KCT0005643; https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/

Background: Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain. Objectives and methods: Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs. Discussion: The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time.