This paper provides an account of a specific operation – the removal of the thymus gland (thymectomy) to treat the rare neurological condition myasthenia gravis – from its first performance in 1936, by the American surgeon Alfred Blalock, to the publication in 2016 of an international multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the technique. Thymectomy was the subject of a transatlantic controversy in the 1950s, in which the main players were the English surgeon Geoffrey Keynes, and American neurologists and surgeons from New York, Boston, and the Mayo Clinic. The resolution of this controversy involved the use of increasingly sophisticated statistical techniques, but also crucially other influences including the social transformation of thoracic surgery, and competition between the leading American centres. The consensus achieved after this controversy was challenged in the late 1970s, eventually prompting the implementation of a trial acceptable to twenty-first-century evidence-based medicine. This account will demonstrate that surgical innovation in the period covered required increasing attention to the statistical basis of patient selection and outcome evaluation; that the processes of technical innovation cannot be regarded as separate from developments in the professional culture of surgery, and that one of the consequences of these changes has been the gradual eclipse of the prestigious autonomous surgeon.

The need for collaborative and transparent sharing of COVID-19 clinical trial and large-scale observational study data to accelerate scientific discovery and inform clinical practice is critical. Responsible data-sharing requires addressing challenges associated with data privacy and confidentiality, data linkage, data quality, variable harmonization, data formats, and comprehensive metadata documentation to produce a high-quality, contextually rich, findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) dataset. This communication explores the experiences and lessons learned from sharing National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) COVID-19 clinical trial (including adaptive platform trials) and cohort study datasets through the NHLBI BioData Catalyst® (BDC) ecosystem, focusing on the challenges and successes of harmonizing these datasets for broader research use. Our findings highlight the importance of establishing standardized data formats, adopting common data elements and creating and maintaining robust data governance structures that address common challenges (i.e., data privacy and data-sharing limitations resulting from informed consent). These efforts resulted in a set of comprehensive and interoperable datasets from 5 clinical trials and 13 cohort studies that will enable downstream reuse in analyses and collaborations. The principles and strategies outlined, derived through experience with consortia data, can lay the groundwork for advancing collaborative and efficient data sharing.

There has been substantial recent renewed interest and investment to assess the therapeutic potential of psychedelic compounds in addiction disorders. This editorial discusses the available evidence from randomised trials and future research directions in the field, together with potential implications for patients, professionals and the wider addiction treatment system.

Vaccines have revolutionised the field of medicine, eradicating and controlling many diseases. Recent pandemic vaccine successes have highlighted the accelerated pace of vaccine development and deployment. Leveraging this momentum, attention has shifted to cancer vaccines and personalised cancer vaccines, aimed at targeting individual tumour-specific abnormalities. The UK, now regarded for its vaccine capabilities, is an ideal nation for pioneering cancer vaccine trials. This article convened experts to share insights and approaches to navigate the challenges of cancer vaccine development with personalised or precision cancer vaccines, as well as fixed vaccines. Emphasising partnership and proactive strategies, this article outlines the ambition to harness national and local system capabilities in the UK; to work in collaboration with potential pharmaceutic partners; and to seize the opportunity to deliver the pace for rapid advances in cancer vaccine technology.

Extant literature reveals how patients of marginalized social identities, socioeconomic status (SES), and medical experiences – especially patients of color and older adults – are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). Emerging evidence increasingly indicates CCT underrepresentation among patients of lower SES or rural origin, sexual and gender minorities, and patients with comorbid disability. This review applies an intersectional perspective to characterizing CCT representativeness across race and ethnicity, age, sexual and gender identity, SES, and disability. Four databases were systematically queried for articles addressing CCT participation inequities across these marginalizing indicators, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. One hundred one articles were included in a qualitative evaluation of CCT representativeness within each target population in the context of their intersectional impacts on participation. Findings corroborate strong evidence of CCT underrepresentation among patients of color, older age, lower SES, rural origin, and comorbid disabling conditions while highlighting systemic limitations in data available to characterize representativeness. Results emphasize how observed inequities interactively manifest through the compounding effects of minoritized social identity, inequitable economic conditions, and marginalizing medical experiences. Recommendations are discussed to more accurately quantify CCT participation inequities across underserved cancer populations and understand their underpinning mechanisms.

Research on nutraceutical and dietary interventions in psychiatry has grown substantially, but progress is hindered by methodological inconsistencies and limited reporting standards. To address this, the International Society for Nutritional Psychiatry Research presents the first guidelines on clinical trial design, conduct, and reporting for future clinical trials in this area. Recommendations were developed using a Delphi process including eighteen researchers with considerable clinical trial expertise and experience in either methodology, nutraceutical, or dietary interventions in psychiatry. These guidelines provide forty-nine recommendations for clinical trial design and outcomes, five for trial reporting, and seven for future research priorities. The recommendations included in these guidelines are designed to inform both nutraceutical and dietary clinical trial interventions in Nutritional Psychiatry. Common themes include an emphasis on the importance of a multidisciplinary research team and integration of co-design processes into the conduct and design of clinical research, methods to improve transparency and replicability of trial outcomes, and measures to address common biases in nutrition trials. Furthermore, we provide recommendations for future research including examining a greater variety of nutraceutical and dietary interventions, scalable delivery models, effectiveness and implementation studies, and the need to investigate these interventions in the prevention and management of less studied psychiatric conditions (e.g. schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). Recommendations included within these guidelines are intended to improve the rigor and clinical relevance of ongoing and future clinical trials in Nutritional Psychiatry.

‘Each has shaped the other.’1

Evidence abounds on the salience of attachment to early development and beyond. In 2018, Adshead distilled the relevance of 20 years of attachment theory to psychiatric practice.2 We argue research funders must move one step further: develop the evidence around perinatal attachment-informed interventions.

Efficient evidence generation to assess the clinical and economic impact of medical therapies is critical amid rising healthcare costs and aging populations. However, drug development and clinical trials remain far too expensive and inefficient for all stakeholders. On October 25–26, 2023, the Duke Clinical Research Institute brought together leaders from academia, industry, government agencies, patient advocacy, and nonprofit organizations to explore how different entities and influencers in drug development and healthcare can realign incentive structures to efficiently accelerate evidence generation that addresses the highest public health needs. Prominent themes surfaced, including competing research priorities and incentives, inadequate representation of patient population in clinical trials, opportunities to better leverage existing technology and infrastructure in trial design, and a need for heightened transparency and accountability in research practices. The group determined that together these elements contribute to an inefficient and costly clinical research enterprise, amplifying disparities in population health and sustaining gaps in evidence that impede advancements in equitable healthcare delivery and outcomes. The goal of addressing the identified challenges is to ultimately make clinical trials faster, more inclusive, and more efficient across diverse communities and settings.

The Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) Cross-Trial Statistics Group gathered lessons learned from statisticians responsible for the design and analysis of the 11 ACTIV therapeutic master protocols to inform contemporary trial design as well as preparation for a future pandemic. The ACTIV master protocols were designed to rapidly assess what treatments might save lives, keep people out of the hospital, and help them feel better faster. Study teams initially worked without knowledge of the natural history of disease and thus without key information for design decisions. Moreover, the science of platform trial design was in its infancy. Here, we discuss the statistical design choices made and the adaptations forced by the changing pandemic context. Lessons around critical aspects of trial design are summarized, and recommendations are made for the organization of master protocols in the future.

Underrepresentation of people from racial and ethnic minoritized groups in clinical trials threatens external validity of clinical and translational science, diminishes uptake of innovations into practice, and restricts access to the potential benefits of participation. Despite efforts to increase diversity in clinical trials, children and adults from Latino backgrounds remain underrepresented. Quality improvement concepts, strategies, and tools demonstrate promise in enhancing recruitment and enrollment in clinical trials. To demonstrate this promise, we draw upon our team’s experience conducting a randomized clinical trial that tests three behavioral interventions designed to promote equity in language and social-emotional skill acquisition among Latino parent–infant dyads from under-resourced communities. The recruitment activities took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, which intensified the need for responsive strategies and procedures. We used the Model for Improvement to achieve our recruitment goals. Across study stages, we engaged strategies such as (1) intentional team formation, (2) participatory approaches to setting goals, monitoring achievement, selecting change strategies, and (3) small iterative tests that informed additional efforts. These strategies helped our team overcome several barriers. These strategies may help other researchers apply quality improvement tools to increase participation in clinical and translational research among people from minoritized groups.