Tomlinson, George

Introduction In moderate to high-risk surgical procedures, 15–25% of patients develop a postoperative surgical site infection. Intraoperative incisional wound irrigation has the potential to reduce surgical site infections, and additional randomised controlled trials are required to provide evidence of effectiveness. Methods and analysis This protocol describes a pragmatic, adaptive, participant and adjudicator-blinded trial at 13 sites in Canada in up to 2500 participants. Participants planned for surgery with an abdominal or groin incision, who are eligible and provide verbal consent through an integrated consent model, are randomised to receive intraoperative incisional wound irrigation with povidone-iodine, saline or no irrigation. The primary outcome is surgical site infection within 30 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include quality of life measured 30 days postoperatively and morbidity, mortality and healthcare utilisation within 90 days postoperatively. Ethics and dissemination This trial has been approved by the research ethics board at the participating centres and stopped enrolling participants on May 23, 2025. All participants will provide verbal consent. Results will be disseminated via presentation at conferences, publication and posted on clinicaltrials.gov. Trial registration number The study is registered with http://clinicaltrial.gov ( NCT04548661 ; 14 September 2020).

Introduction Clinical trials are the avenue whereby the effects of interventions on health-related outcomes are evaluated. It is imperative that these trials are diverse and inclusive to reduce disparities in overall health outcomes as individuals can experience the same disease differently. When populations are not underrepresented in clinical trials, the results are not generalizable. Despite efforts to facilitate diverse representation across clinical trials, including guidance from the United States Food and Drug Administration, gaps persist in regard to understanding approaches to achieve this goal. With this in mind, we designed an international survey-based research study with the primary objectives to understand current tools and tactics investigators are employing in their clinical research and to identify gaps to ensure diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Methods This study was approved through the Institutional Review Board at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The survey was developed using QuestionPro software (Austin, TX, USA). The target population for this study was the members of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) along with individuals who attended or were presenting authors at the 2023 ASH Annual Meeting, and individuals on the “This Week in Blood email list.” Surveys were distributed via email to potential participants between April and July 2024. Reminder emails were sent on 2 occasions. The survey was also advertised via various social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn). No incentives were provided for completion of the survey. In the introductory email, participants were assured of the anonymous nature of the survey and were instructed to proceed only if they consented to participate voluntarily in this research study. Results The survey was viewed by 5171 individuals. There were 774 total responses, for a response rate of 15%. Complete responses were provided by 502 respondents. Fifty-seven percent of survey respondents were based in the United States and 56% were ASH members. Seventy-one percent of respondents were clinicians, of which the majority (74%) were primarily adult providers and 86% reported hematology as their clinical specialty, a large proportion of whom were malignant hematologists. Regarding clinical research involvement over the last 5 years, 29% identified as sub investigators, 23% were site principal investigators (PI) in multicenter studies, and 19% reported roles as overall PI for studies. Respondents reported employing tactics to enhance DEI in all phases of prospective clinical research studies. Nineteen percent stated that they engage patients in the research planning phase, in protocol design, review and revision. During the implementation phase, 21% reported outreach to community providers to increase trial awareness and encourage patient referrals. Patient groups were engaged to disseminate study findings in language that patients can understand by 22% of respondents. Among the tools that were used, the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Guidance on Clinical Practice was the most frequently reported tool in the planning phase (24%). Respondents reported no consistent use of any tool or tactic during the implementation and dissemination phases of clinical research and a large proportion reported using no tools to enhance DEI in their studies. Seventy-four percent of respondents reported that they had received no formal training or guidance on how to incorporate DEI principles and enhance DEI in clinical research. There were mixed opinions on the importance of incorporating DEI principles into clinical research, ranging from acknowledging the significance to dismissal of the concept. The majority of survey respondents (79%) indicated willingness to participate in a learning community developed by ASH. Conclusions The findings from this survey not only shed light on what resources and strategies investigators are employing most and at what stages of their clinical research, but also highlight a critical need for more training on and awareness of resources for incorporating DEI principles into clinical research. Results of this study will empower ASH to develop comprehensive resources that resonate with the dynamic needs of trialists in the pursuit of a more equitable and effective approach to clinical research.

Background Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

Abstract We examined the accuracy of preoperative assessment in predicting postoperative pulmonary risk in a prospective cohort of 272 consecutive patients referred for evaluation before nonthoracic surgery. Outcomes were assessed by an independent investigator who was blinded to the preoperative data. There were 22 (8%) postoperative pulmonary complications. Statistically significant predictors of pulmonary complications (all p ≤ 0.005) were as follows: hypercapnea of 45 mm Hg or more (odds ratio, 61.0), a FVC of less than 1.5 L/minute (odds ratio, 11.1), a maximal laryngeal height of 4 cm or less (odds ratio, 6.9), a forced expiratory time of 9 seconds or more (odds ratio, 5.7), smoking of 40 pack-years or more (odds ratio, 5.7), and a body mass index of 30 or more (odds ratio, 4.1). Multiple regression analyses revealed three preoperative clinical factors that are independently associated with pulmonary complications: an age of 65 years or more (odds ratio, 1.8; p = 0.02), smoking of 40 pack-years or more (odds ratio, 1.9; p = 0.02), and maximum laryngeal height of 4 cm or less (odds ratio, 2.0; p = 0.007). Thus, preoperative factors can identify those patients referred to pulmonologists or internists who are at increased risk for pulmonary complications after nonthoracic surgery.