Quality improvement in the undergraduate medical curriculum: the need for clinical exposure.

This correspondence article aims to outline the importance of an integrated clinical component within Quality Improvement education in response to the recently published article by Shah et al.. The Quality Improvement and Patient Safety workshops described in the above study were compared with the Quality Improvement module experienced by medical students at King's College London. The key difference between the two methods of teaching Quality Improvement was the clinical project undertaken by King's College Students, which helped students gain an appreciation of the pitfalls of instigating change in a clinical environment. The authors feel that this arguably more authentic experience could have benefited the students in the study in making them feel better equipped to use the skills learned in the theoretical workshops in their later careers.

The TREATT Trial (TRial to EvaluAte Tranexamic acid therapy in Thrombocytopenia): safety and efficacy of tranexamic acid in patients with haematological malignancies with severe thrombocytopenia: study protocol for a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with haematological malignancies often develop thrombocytopenia as a consequence of either their disease or its treatment. Platelet transfusions are commonly given to raise a low platelet count and reduce the risk of clinical bleeding (prophylaxis) or stop active bleeding (therapy). Recent studies have shown that many patients continue to experience bleeding despite the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions. Tranexamic acid is an anti-fibrinolytic, which reduces the breakdown of clots formed in response to bleeding. Anti-fibrinolytics have been shown to prevent bleeding, decrease blood loss and use of red cell transfusions in elective and emergency surgery, and are used widely in these settings. The aim of this trial is to test whether giving tranexamic acid to patients receiving treatment for haematological malignancies reduces the risk of bleeding or death and the need for platelet transfusions. METHODS: This is a multinational randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel, superiority trial. Patients will be randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (given intravenously or orally) or a matching placebo in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by site. Patients with haematological malignancies receiving intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation (or both) who are at least 18 years of age and expected to become severely thrombocytopenic for at least 5 days will be eligible for this trial. The primary outcome of the trial is the proportion of patients who died or had bleeding of World Health Organization grade 2 or above during the first 30 days of the trial. We will measure the rates of bleeding daily by using a short, structured assessment of bleeding, and we will record the number of transfusions given to patients. We will assess the risk of arterial and venous thrombosis for 120 days from the start of trial treatment. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the safety and efficacy of using prophylactic tranexamic acid during a period of intensive chemotherapy and associated thrombocytopenia in people with haematological disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on Current Controlled Trials on 25 March 2015 (ISRCTN73545489) and is also registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03136445).

Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (TRIGGER): a pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion thresholds for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding are controversial. So far, only three small, underpowered studies and one single-centre trial have been done. Findings from the single-centre trial showed reduced mortality with restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. We aimed to assess whether a multicentre, cluster randomised trial is a feasible method to substantiate or refute this finding. METHODS: In this pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial, done in six university hospitals in the UK, we enrolled all patients aged 18 years or older with new presentations of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, irrespective of comorbidity, except for exsanguinating haemorrhage. We randomly assigned hospitals (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation sequence (random permuted block size of 6, without stratification or matching) to either a restrictive (transfusion when haemoglobin concentration fell below 80 g/L) or liberal (transfusion when haemoglobin concentration fell below 100 g/L) RBC transfusion policy. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate, protocol adherence, haemoglobin concentration, RBC exposure, selection bias, and information to guide design and economic evaluation of the phase 3 trial. Main exploratory clinical outcomes were further bleeding and mortality at day 28. We did analyses on all enrolled patients for whom an outcome was available. This trial is registered, ISRCTN85757829 and NCT02105532. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2012, and March 1, 2013, we enrolled 936 patients across six hospitals (403 patients in three hospitals with a restrictive policy and 533 patients in three hospitals with a liberal policy). Recruitment rate was significantly higher for the liberal than for the restrictive policy (62% vs 55%; p=0·04). Despite some baseline imbalances, Rockall and Blatchford risk scores were identical between policies. Protocol adherence was 96% (SD 10) in the restrictive policy vs 83% (25) in the liberal policy (difference 14%; 95% CI 7-21; p=0·005). Mean last recorded haemoglobin concentration was 116 (SD 24) g/L for patients on the restrictive policy and 118 (20) g/L for those on the liberal policy (difference -2·0 [95% CI -12·0 to 7·0]; p=0·50). Fewer patients received RBCs on the restrictive policy than on the liberal policy (restrictive policy 133 [33%] vs liberal policy 247 [46%]; difference -12% [95% CI -35 to 11]; p=0·23), with fewer RBC units transfused (mean 1·2 [SD 2·1] vs 1·9 [2·8]; difference -0·7 [-1·6 to 0·3]; p=0·12), although these differences were not significant. We noted no significant difference in clinical outcomes. INTERPRETATION: A cluster randomised design led to rapid recruitment, high protocol adherence, separation in degree of anaemia between groups, and non-significant reduction in RBC transfusion in the restrictive policy. A large cluster randomised trial to assess the effectiveness of transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is both feasible and essential before clinical practice guidelines change to recommend restrictive transfusion for all patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. FUNDING: NHS Blood and Transplant Research and Development.

Restrictive vs liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: rationale and protocol for a cluster randomized feasibility trial.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is the commonest reason for hospitalization with hemorrhage in the UK and the leading indication for transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs). Observational studies suggest an association between more liberal RBC transfusion and adverse patient outcomes, and a recent randomised trial reported increased further bleeding and mortality with a liberal transfusion policy. TRIGGER (Transfusion in Gastrointestinal Bleeding) is a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial which aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of implementing a restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion policy in adult patients admitted with AUGIB. The trial will take place in 6 UK hospitals, and each centre will be randomly allocated to a transfusion policy. Clinicians throughout each hospital will manage all eligible patients according to the transfusion policy for the 6-month trial recruitment period. In the restrictive centers, patients become eligible for RBC transfusion when their hemoglobin is <8 g/dL. In the liberal centers patients become eligible for transfusion once their hemoglobin is <10 g/dL. All clinicians will have the discretion to transfuse outside of the policy but will be asked to document the reasons for doing so. Feasibility outcome measures include protocol adherence, recruitment rate, and evidence of selection bias. Clinical outcome measures include further bleeding, mortality, thromboembolic events, and infections. Quality of life will be measured using the EuroQol EQ-5D at day 28, and the costs associated with hospitalization for AUGIB in the UK will be estimated. Consent will be sought from participants or their representatives according to patient capacity for use of routine hospital data and day 28 follow up. The study has ethical approval for conduct in England and Scotland. Results will be analysed according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan and disseminated in peer reviewed publications to relevant stakeholders. The results of this study will inform the feasibility and design of a phase III randomized trial.

A no-prophylaxis platelet-transfusion strategy for hematologic cancers.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding in patients with hematologic cancers remains unclear. This trial assessed whether a policy of not giving prophylactic platelet transfusions was as effective and safe as a policy of providing prophylaxis. METHODS: We conducted this randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial at 14 centers in the United Kingdom and Australia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive, or not to receive, prophylactic platelet transfusions when morning platelet counts were less than 10×10(9) per liter. Eligible patients were persons 16 years of age or older who were receiving chemotherapy or undergoing stem-cell transplantation and who had or were expected to have thrombocytopenia. The primary end point was bleeding of World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, 3, or 4 up to 30 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients (301 in the no-prophylaxis group and 299 in the prophylaxis group) underwent randomization between 2006 and 2011. Bleeding of WHO grade 2, 3, or 4 occurred in 151 of 300 patients (50%) in the no-prophylaxis group, as compared with 128 of 298 (43%) in the prophylaxis group (adjusted difference in proportions, 8.4 percentage points; 90% confidence interval, 1.7 to 15.2; P=0.06 for noninferiority). Patients in the no-prophylaxis group had more days with bleeding and a shorter time to the first bleeding episode than did patients in the prophylaxis group. Platelet use was markedly reduced in the no-prophylaxis group. A prespecified subgroup analysis identified similar rates of bleeding in the two study groups among patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study support the need for the continued use of prophylaxis with platelet transfusion and show the benefit of such prophylaxis for reducing bleeding, as compared with no prophylaxis. A significant number of patients had bleeding despite prophylaxis. (Funded by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee and the Australian Red Cross Blood Service; TOPPS Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN08758735.).

Do all patients with hematologic malignancies and severe thrombocytopenia need prophylactic platelet transfusions? Background, rationale, and design of a clinical trial (trial of platelet prophylaxis) to assess the effectiveness of prophylactic platelet transfusions.

Although considerable advances have been made in many aspects of platelet transfusion therapy in the last 30 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, including the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding in patients with bone marrow failure. We have designed a randomized controlled trial to compare prophylactic platelet use with a threshold of a platelet count of 10 x 10(9)/L with no prophylaxis in adult thrombocytopenic patients with hematologic malignancies. The trial question is whether a no-prophylactic policy for the use of platelet transfusions in patients with hematologic malignancies is not inferior to a threshold prophylactic policy at 10 x 10(9)/L, for bleeding at World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, 3, or 4, up to 30 days from randomization. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients who have a significant clinical bleed, defined as WHO grade 2 or higher up to 30 days from randomization. Subsidiary clinical outcome measures include time to first bleed and a descriptive analysis of all severe bleeds. A bleeding assessment form is completed daily for all study subjects until day 30 from randomization. Minor modifications were made to the definitions at WHO grades 1 and 2 for petechiae and duration of nose bleeds, after piloting of the bleeding assessment forms. This study has been designed as a 2-stage randomized trial with an interim analysis planned after a minimum of 100 patients had been randomized and had completed their period of observation. Patients have initially been enrolled through 3 United Kingdom hematology centers. The interim analysis has been completed, and the results have confirmed a final sample size of 600 patients. Recruitment is now being extended to other centers in United Kingdom and Australia. Local research nurses are not blinded to treatment allocation, but a number of measures to reduce risk of assessment bias include repeated education around standard operating procedures, common definitions, and duplication of assessments. The expected completion date for the 5-year study is December 2011.