Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study

Background

Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department.

Objectives

To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment.

Design

Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness.

Setting

Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England.

Participants

Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded.

Interventions

Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation.

Main outcome measures

Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

Results

Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed.

Limitations

We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling.

Conclusions

No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis.

Study registration

This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease: the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation

Background

Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor that lowers serum uric acid and is used to prevent acute gout flares in patients with gout. Observational and small interventional studies have suggested beneficial cardiovascular effects of allopurinol.

Objective

To determine whether allopurinol improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease.

Design

Prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint multicentre clinical trial.

Setting

Four hundred and twenty-four UK primary care practices.

Participants

Aged 60 years and over with ischaemic heart disease but no gout.

Interventions

Participants were randomised (1 : 1) using a central web-based randomisation system to receive allopurinol up to 600 mg daily that was added to usual care or to continue usual care.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was the composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation, all cardiovascular hospitalisations, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs. usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis.

Results

From 7 February 2014 to 2 October 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and randomised to the allopurinol arm (n = 2979) or the usual care arm (n = 2958). A total of 5721 randomised participants (2853 allopurinol; 2868 usual care) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis population (mean age 72.0 years; 75.5% male). There was no difference between the allopurinol and usual care arms in the primary endpoint, 314 (11.0%) participants in the allopurinol arm (2.47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11.3%) in the usual care arm (2.37 events per 100 patient-years), hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.21); p = 0.65. Two hundred and eighty-eight (10.1%) participants in the allopurinol arm and 303 (10.6%) participants in the usual care arm died, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.20); p = 0.77. The pre-specified health economic analysis plan was to perform a 'within trial' cost-utility analysis if there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, so NHS costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated over a 5-year period. The difference in costs between treatment arms was +£115 higher for allopurinol (95% confidence interval £17 to £210) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval -0.061 to +0.060). We conclude that there is no evidence that allopurinol used in line with the study protocol is cost-effective.

Limitations

The results may not be generalisable to younger populations, other ethnic groups or patients with more acute ischaemic heart disease. One thousand six hundred and thirty-seven participants (57.4%) in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomised treatment, but an on-treatment analysis gave similar results to the main analysis.

Conclusions

The ALL-HEART study showed that treatment with allopurinol 600 mg daily did not improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to usual care in patients with ischaemic heart disease. We conclude that allopurinol should not be recommended for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with ischaemic heart disease but no gout.

Future work

The effects of allopurinol on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease and co-existing hyperuricaemia or clinical gout could be explored in future studies.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2013-003559-39) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN 32017426).

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/36/41) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme

Background

Randomised controlled trials ('trials') are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted.

Objectives

PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial.

Design

A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously.

Setting

Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible.

Participants

Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom.

Interventions

Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial.

Main outcome measures

Number of host trials funded.

Results

Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials.

Limitations

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3).

Conclusions

PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial.

Future work

Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice.

Study registration

All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Towards Improved Identification of Vertebral Fractures in Routine Computed Tomography (CT) Scans: Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning Algorithm

Vertebral fractures (VFs) are the hallmark of osteoporosis, being one of the most frequent types of fragility fracture and an early sign of the disease. They are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. VFs are incidentally found in one out of five imaging studies, however, more than half of the VFs are not identified nor reported in patient computed tomography (CT) scans. Our study aimed to develop a machine learning algorithm to identify VFs in abdominal/chest CT scans and evaluate its performance. We acquired two independent data sets of routine abdominal/chest CT scans of patients aged 50 years or older: a training set of 1011 scans from a non-interventional, prospective proof-of-concept study at the Universitair Ziekenhuis (UZ) Brussel and a validation set of 2000 subjects from an observational cohort study at the Hospital of Holbaek. Both data sets were externally reevaluated to identify reference standard VF readings using the Genant semiquantitative (SQ) grading. Four independent models have been trained in a cross-validation experiment using the training set and an ensemble of four models has been applied to the external validation set. The validation set contained 15.3% scans with one or more VF (SQ2-3), whereas 663 of 24,930 evaluable vertebrae (2.7%) were fractured (SQ2-3) as per reference standard readings. Comparison of the ensemble model with the reference standard readings in identifying subjects with one or more moderate or severe VF resulted in an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.90), accuracy of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93), kappa of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.67-0.76), sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.85), and specificity of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93-0.96). We demonstrated that a machine learning algorithm trained for VF detection achieved strong performance on an external validation set. It has the potential to support healthcare professionals with the early identification of VFs and prevention of future fragility fractures. © 2023 UCB S.A. and The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

One versus three weeks hypofractionated whole breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer treatment: the FAST-Forward phase III RCT

Background

FAST-Forward aimed to identify a 5-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy delivered in 1 week that was non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and as safe as the standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Published acute toxicity and 5-year results are presented here with other aspects of the trial.

Design

Multicentre phase III non-inferiority trial. Patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3pN0-1M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to 40 Gy in 15 fractions (3 weeks), 27 Gy or 26 Gy in 5 fractions (1 week) whole breast/chest wall (Main Trial). Primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority pre-defined as < 1.6% excess for 5-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio = 1.81). Normal tissue effects were assessed independently by clinicians, patients and photographs.

Sub-studies

Two acute skin toxicity sub-studies were undertaken to confirm safety of the test schedules. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade ≥ 3 acute breast skin toxicity at any time from the start of radiotherapy to 4 weeks after completion. Nodal Sub-Study patients had breast/chest wall plus axillary radiotherapy testing the same three schedules, reduced to the 40 and 26 Gy groups on amendment, with the primary endpoint of 5-year patient-reported arm/hand swelling.

Limitations

A sequential hypofractionated or simultaneous integrated boost has not been studied.

Participants

Ninety-seven UK centres recruited 4096 patients (1361:40 Gy, 1367:27 Gy, 1368:26 Gy) into the Main Trial from November 2011 to June 2014. The Nodal Sub-Study recruited an additional 469 patients from 50 UK centres. One hundred and ninety and 162 Main Trial patients were included in the acute toxicity sub-studies.

Results

Acute toxicity sub-studies evaluable patients: (1) acute grade 3 Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity reported in 40 Gy/15 fractions 6/44 (13.6%); 27 Gy/5 fractions 5/51 (9.8%); 26 Gy/5 fractions 3/52 (5.8%). (2) Grade 3 common toxicity criteria for adverse effects toxicity reported for one patient. At 71-month median follow-up in the Main Trial, 79 ipsilateral breast tumour relapse events (40 Gy: 31, 27 Gy: 27, 26 Gy: 21); hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) versus 40 Gy were 27 Gy: 0.86 (0.51 to 1.44), 26 Gy: 0.67 (0.38 to 1.16). With 2.1% (1.4 to 3.1) 5-year incidence ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy, estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy (non-inferiority test) were -0.3% (-1.0-0.9) for 27 Gy (p = 0.0022) and -0.7% (-1.3-0.3) for 26 Gy (p = 0.00019). Five-year prevalence of any clinician-assessed moderate/marked breast normal tissue effects was 40 Gy: 98/986 (9.9%), 27 Gy: 155/1005 (15.4%), 26 Gy: 121/1020 (11.9%). Across all clinician assessments from 1 to 5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy were 1.55 (1.32 to 1.83; p < 0.0001) for 27 Gy and 1.12 (0.94-1.34; p = 0.20) for 26 Gy. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effects risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy. Nodal Sub-Study reported no arm/hand swelling in 80% and 77% in 40 Gy and 26 Gy at baseline, and 73% and 76% at 24 months. The prevalence of moderate/marked arm/hand swelling at 24 months was 10% versus 7% for 40 Gy compared with 26 Gy.

Interpretation

Five-year local tumour incidence and normal tissue effects prevalence show 26 Gy in 5 fractions in 1 week is a safe and effective alternative to 40 Gy in 15 fractions for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer.

Future work

Ten-year Main Trial follow-up is essential. Inclusion in hypofractionation meta-analysis ongoing. A future hypofractionated boost trial is strongly supported.

Trial registration

FAST-Forward was sponsored by The Institute of Cancer Research and was registered as ISRCTN19906132.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 09/01/47) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 25. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Antidepressants in pregnancy: applying causal epidemiological methods to understand service-use outcomes in women and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in exposed children

Background

Antidepressants are commonly prescribed during pregnancy, despite a lack of evidence from randomised trials on the benefits or risks. Some studies have reported associations of antidepressants during pregnancy with adverse offspring neurodevelopment, but whether or not such associations are causal is unclear.

Objectives

To study the associations of antidepressants for depression in pregnancy with outcomes using multiple methods to strengthen causal inference.

Design

This was an observational cohort design using multiple methods to strengthen causal inference, including multivariable regression, propensity score matching, instrumental variable analysis, negative control exposures, comparison across indications and exposure discordant pregnancies analysis.

Setting

This took place in UK general practice.

Participants

Participants were pregnant women with depression.

Interventions

The interventions were initiation of antidepressants in pregnancy compared with no initiation, and continuation of antidepressants in pregnancy compared with discontinuation.

Main outcome measures

The maternal outcome measures were the use of primary care and secondary mental health services during pregnancy, and during four 6-month follow-up periods up to 24 months after pregnancy, and antidepressant prescription status 24 months following pregnancy. The child outcome measures were diagnosis of autism, diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and intellectual disability.

Data sources

UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Results

Data on 80,103 pregnancies were used to study maternal primary care outcomes and were linked to 34,274 children with at least 4-year follow-up for neurodevelopmental outcomes. Women who initiated or continued antidepressants during pregnancy were more likely to have contact with primary and secondary health-care services during and after pregnancy and more likely to be prescribed an antidepressant 2 years following the end of pregnancy than women who did not initiate or continue antidepressants during pregnancy (odds ratioinitiation 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.95 to 2.39; odds ratiocontinuation 2.40, 95% confidence interval 2.27 to 2.53). There was little evidence for any substantial association with autism (odds ratiomultivariableregression 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.35; odds ratiopropensityscore 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.32), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (odds ratiomultivariableregression 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.29; odds ratiopropensityscore 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.25) or intellectual disability (odds ratiomultivariableregression 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.19; odds ratiopropensityscore 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.31) in children of women who continued antidepressants compared with those who discontinued antidepressants. There was inconsistent evidence of an association between initiation of antidepressants in pregnancy and diagnosis of autism in offspring (odds ratiomultivariableregression 1.23, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.78; odds ratiopropensityscore 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.66) but not attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or intellectual disability; however, but results were imprecise owing to smaller numbers.

Limitations

Several causal-inference analyses lacked precision owing to limited numbers. In addition, adherence to the prescribed treatment was not measured.

Conclusions

Women prescribed antidepressants during pregnancy had greater service use during and after pregnancy than those not prescribed antidepressants. The evidence against any substantial association with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or intellectual disability in the children of women who continued compared with those who discontinued antidepressants in pregnancy is reassuring. Potential association of initiation of antidepressants during pregnancy with offspring autism needs further investigation.

Future work

Further research on larger samples could increase the robustness and precision of these findings. These methods applied could be a template for future pharmaco-epidemiological investigation of other pregnancy-related prescribing safety concerns.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (15/80/19) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of MRI-based technologies for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: systematic review and economic evaluation

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies are non-invasive diagnostic tests that can be used to assess non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Objectives

The study objectives were to assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of two magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies (LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography) for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for whom advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis had not been diagnosed and who had indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, or for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse was unsuitable, or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing.

Data sources

The data sources searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using established methods. Diagnostic test accuracy estimates were calculated using bivariate models and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated using a hierarchical model. A simple decision-tree model was developed to generate cost-effectiveness results.

Results

The diagnostic test accuracy review (13 studies) and the clinical impact review (11 studies) only included one study that provided evidence for patients who had indeterminate or discordant results from fibrosis testing. No studies of patients for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse were unsuitable were identified. Depending on fibrosis level, relevant published LiverMultiScan diagnostic test accuracy results ranged from 50% to 88% (sensitivity) and from 42% to 75% (specificity). No magnetic resonance elastography diagnostic test accuracy data were available for the specific population of interest. Results from the clinical impact review suggested that acceptability of LiverMultiScan was generally positive. To explore how the decision to proceed to biopsy is influenced by magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies, the External Assessment Group presented cost-effectiveness analyses for LiverMultiScan plus biopsy versus biopsy only. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained results for seven of the eight diagnostic test strategies considered showed that LiverMultiScan plus biopsy was dominated by biopsy only; for the remaining strategy (Brunt grade ≥2), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained was £1,266,511. Results from threshold and scenario analyses demonstrated that External Assessment Group base-case results were robust to plausible variations in the magnitude of key parameters.

Limitations

Diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness data for magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies for the population that is the focus of this assessment were limited.

Conclusions

Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies may be useful to identify patients who may benefit from additional testing in the form of liver biopsy and those for whom this additional testing may not be necessary. However, there is a paucity of diagnostic test accuracy and clinical impact data for patients who have indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse are unsuitable or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Given the External Assessment Group cost-effectiveness analyses assumptions, the use of LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography for assessing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for patients with inconclusive results from previous fibrosis testing is unlikely to be a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources compared with liver biopsy only.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021286891.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the Evidence Synthesis Programme of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Co-ordinated multidisciplinary intervention to reduce time to successful extubation for children on mechanical ventilation: the SANDWICH cluster stepped-wedge RCT

BACKGROUND

Daily assessment of patient readiness for liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation can reduce the duration of ventilation. However, there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of this in a paediatric population.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of a ventilation liberation intervention in critically ill children who are anticipated to have a prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation (primary objective) and in all children (secondary objective).

DESIGN

A pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised trial with economic and process evaluations.

SETTING

Paediatric intensive care units in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Invasively mechanically ventilated children (aged < 16 years).

INTERVENTIONS

The intervention incorporated co-ordinated multidisciplinary care, patient-relevant sedation plans linked to sedation assessment, assessment of ventilation parameters with a higher than usual trigger for undertaking an extubation readiness test and a spontaneous breathing trial on low levels of respiratory support to test extubation readiness. The comparator was usual care. Hospital sites were randomised sequentially to transition from control to intervention and were non-blinded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation until the first successful extubation. The secondary outcome measures were successful extubation, unplanned extubation and reintubation, post-extubation use of non-invasive ventilation, tracheostomy, post-extubation stridor, adverse events, length of intensive care and hospital stay, mortality and cost per respiratory complication avoided at 28 days.

RESULTS

The trial included 10,495 patient admissions from 18 paediatric intensive care units from 5 February 2018 to 14 October 2019. In children with anticipated prolonged ventilation (n = 8843 admissions: control, n = 4155; intervention, n = 4688), the intervention resulted in a significantly shorter time to successful extubation [cluster and time-adjusted median difference -6.1 hours (interquartile range -8.2 to -5.3 hours); adjusted hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.20; p = 0.02] and a higher incidence of successful extubation (adjusted relative risk 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.02; p = 0.03) and unplanned extubation (adjusted relative risk 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.51; p = 0.03), but not reintubation (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.36; p = 0.38). In the intervention period, the use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation was significantly higher (adjusted relative risk 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.49; p = 0.04), with no evidence of a difference in intensive care length of stay or other harms, but hospital length of stay was longer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.97; p = 0.01). Findings for all children were broadly similar. The control period was associated with lower, but not statistically significantly lower, total costs (cost difference, mean £929.05, 95% confidence interval -£516.54 to £2374.64) and significantly fewer respiratory complications avoided (mean difference -0.10, 95% confidence interval -0.16 to -0.03).

LIMITATIONS

The unblinded intervention assignment may have resulted in performance or detection bias. It was not possible to determine which components were primarily responsible for the observed effect. Treatment effect in a more homogeneous group remains to be determined.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention resulted in a statistically significant small reduction in time to first successful extubation; thus, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should explore intervention sustainability and effects of the intervention in other paediatric populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN16998143.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials.

SETTING

Sixteen UK fertility units.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m² and previous trauma to the endometrium.

INTERVENTIONS

Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs.

RESULTS

One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22).

LIMITATIONS

A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Non-invasive testing for early detection of neovascular macular degeneration in unaffected second eyes of older adults: EDNA diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration is a leading cause of sight loss, and early detection and treatment is important. For patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration in one eye, it is usual practice to monitor the unaffected eye. The test used to diagnose neovascular age-related macular degeneration, fundus fluorescein angiography, is an invasive test. Non-invasive tests are available, but their diagnostic accuracy is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine the diagnostic monitoring performance of tests for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the second eye of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration. The secondary objectives were the cost-effectiveness of tests and to identify predictive factors of developing neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, prospective, cohort, comparative diagnostic accuracy study in a monitoring setting for up to 3 years. A Cox regression risk prediction model and a Markov microsimulation model comparing cost-effectiveness of the index tests over 25 years were used.

SETTING

This took place in hospital eye services.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were adults (aged 50-95 years) with newly diagnosed (within the previous 6 weeks) neovascular age-related macular degeneration in one eye and an unaffected second (study) eye who were attending for treatment injections in the first eye and who had a study eye baseline visual acuity of ≥ 68 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters.

INTERVENTIONS

The index tests were Amsler chart (completed by participants), fundus clinical examination, optical coherence tomography, self-reported vision assessment (completed by participants) and visual acuity. The reference standard was fundus fluorescein angiography.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity; the performance of the risk predictor model; and costs and quality-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

In total, 552 out of 578 patients who consented from 24 NHS hospitals (n = 16 ineligible; n = 10 withdrew consent) took part. The mean age of the patients was 77.4 years (standard deviation 7.7 years) and 57.2% were female. For the primary analysis, 464 patients underwent follow-up fundus fluorescein angiography and 120 developed neovascular age-related macular degeneration on fundus fluorescein angiography. The diagnostic accuracy [sensitivity (%) (95% confidence interval); specificity (%) (95% confidence interval)] was as follows: optical coherence tomography 91.7 (85.2 to 95.6); 87.8 (83.8 to 90.9)], fundus clinical examination [53.8 (44.8 to 62.5); 97.6 (95.3 to 98.9)], Amsler [33.7 (25.1 to 43.5); 81.4 (76.4 to 85.5)], visual acuity [30.0 (22.5 to 38.7); 66.3 (61.0 to 71.1)] and self-reported vision [4.2 (1.6 to 9.8); 97.0 (94.6 to 98.5)]. Optical coherence tomography had the highest sensitivity across all secondary analyses. The final prediction model for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the non-affected eye included smoking status, family history of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, the presence of nodular drusen with or without reticular pseudodrusen, and the presence of pigmentary abnormalities [c-statistic 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.71)]. Optical coherence tomography monitoring generated the greatest quality-adjusted life-years gained per patient (optical coherence tomography, 5.830; fundus clinical examination, 5.787; Amsler chart, 5.736, self-reported vision, 5.630; and visual acuity, 5.600) for the lowest health-care and social care costs (optical coherence tomography, £19,406; fundus clinical examination, £19,649; Amsler chart, £19,751; self-reported vision, £20,198; and visual acuity, £20,444) over the lifetime of the simulated cohort. Optical coherence tomography dominated the other tests or had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds (£20,000) across the scenarios explored.

LIMITATIONS

The diagnostic performance may be different in an unselected population without any history of neovascular age-related macular degeneration; the prediction model did not include genetic profile data, which might have improved the discriminatory performance.

CONCLUSIONS

Optical coherence tomography was the most accurate in diagnosing conversion to neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the fellow eye of patients with unilateral neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Economic modelling suggests that optical coherence tomography monitoring is cost-effective and leads to earlier diagnosis of and treatment for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in the second eye of patients being treated for neovascular age-related macular degeneration in their first eye.

FUTURE WORK

Future works should investigate the role of home monitoring, improved risk prediction models and impact on long-term visual outcomes.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study was registered as ISRCTN48855678.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs

BACKGROUND

Levetiracetam (Keppra^®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran^®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal^®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim^®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy.

DESIGN

Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel.

SETTING

Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions.

FUTURE WORK

SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Progressive exercise compared with best-practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for rotator cuff disorders: the GRASP factorial RCT

BACKGROUND

Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain is very common, but there is uncertainty regarding which modes of exercise delivery are optimal and the long-term benefits of corticosteroid injections.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best-practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial (with a 2 × 2 factorial design).

SETTING

Twenty NHS primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain in the previous 6 months.

INTERVENTIONS

A total of 708 participants were randomised (March 2017-May 2019) by a centralised computer-generated 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 allocation ratio to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (n = 174) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (n = 174) (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n = 182) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (n = 178) (one physiotherapy session).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included SPADI subdomains, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions, five-level version, sleep disturbance, fear avoidance, pain self-efficacy, return to activity, Global Impression of Treatment and health resource use. Outcomes were collected by postal questionnaires at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. A within-trial economic evaluation was also conducted. The primary analysis was intention to treat.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean age of 55.5 (standard deviation 13.1) years and 49.3% were female. The mean baseline SPADI score was 54.1 (standard deviation 18.5). Follow-up rates were 91% at 8 weeks and 87% at 6 and 12 months. There was an overall improvement in SPADI score from baseline in each group over time. Over 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and the best-practice advice intervention in shoulder pain and function (adjusted mean difference between groups over 12 months -0.66, 99% confidence interval -4.52 to 3.20). There was also no difference in SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and best-practice advice intervention when analysed at the 8-week and 6- and 12-month time points. Injection resulted in improvement in shoulder pain and function at 8 weeks compared with no injection (adjusted mean difference -5.64, 99% confidence interval -9.93 to -1.35), but not when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.11, 99% confidence interval -4.47 to 2.26), or at 6 and 12 months. There were no serious adverse events. In the base-case analysis, adding injection to best-practice advice gained 0.021 quality-adjusted life-years (p = 0.184) and increased the cost by £10 per participant (p = 0.747). Progressive exercise alone was £52 (p = 0.247) more expensive per participant than best-practice advice, and gained 0.019 QALYs (p = 0.220). At a ceiling ratio of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, injection plus best-practice advice had a 54.93% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment.

LIMITATIONS

Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group allocation. Twelve-month follow-up may be insufficient for identifying all safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Progressive exercise was not superior to a best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. Subacromial corticosteroid injection improved shoulder pain and function, but provided only modest short-term benefit. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection was expected to be most cost-effective, although there was substantial uncertainty.

FUTURE WORK

Longer-term follow-up, including any serious adverse effects of corticosteroid injection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16539266 and EudraCT 2016-002991-28.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nutritional management in newborn babies receiving therapeutic hypothermia: two retrospective observational studies using propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic hypothermia is standard of care for babies with moderate to severe hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy. There is limited evidence to inform provision of nutrition during hypothermia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the association during therapeutic hypothermia between (1) enteral feeding and outcomes, such as necrotising enterocolitis and (2) parenteral nutrition and outcomes, such as late-onset bloodstream infection.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study using data held in the National Neonatal Research Database and applying propensity score methodology to form matched groups for analysis.

SETTING

NHS neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

Babies born at ≥ 36 gestational weeks between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017 who received therapeutic hypothermia for 72 hours or who died during treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Enteral feeding analysis - babies who were enterally fed during therapeutic hypothermia (intervention) compared with babies who received no enteral feeds during therapeutic hypothermia (control). Parenteral nutrition analysis - babies who received parenteral nutrition during therapeutic hypothermia (intervention) compared with babies who received no parenteral nutrition during therapeutic hypothermia (control).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were severe and pragmatically defined necrotising enterocolitis (enteral feeding analysis) and late-onset bloodstream infection (parenteral nutrition analysis). Secondary outcomes were survival at neonatal discharge, length of neonatal stay, breastfeeding at discharge, onset of breastfeeding, time to first maternal breast milk, hypoglycaemia, number of days with a central line in situ, duration of parenteral nutrition, time to full enteral feeds and growth.

RESULTS

A total of 6030 babies received therapeutic hypothermia. Thirty-one per cent of babies received enteral feeds and 25% received parenteral nutrition. Seven babies (0.1%) were diagnosed with severe necrotising enterocolitis, and further comparative analyses were not conducted on this outcome. A total of 3236 babies were included in the matched enteral feeding analysis. Pragmatically defined necrotising enterocolitis was rare in both groups (0.5% vs. 1.1%) and was lower in babies who were fed during hypothermia (rate difference -0.5%, 95% confidence interval -1.0% to -0.1%; p = 0.03). Higher survival to discharge (96.0% vs. 90.8%, rate difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval 3.9% to 6.6%; p < 0.001) and higher breastfeeding at discharge (54.6% vs. 46.7%, rate difference 8.0%, 95% confidence interval 5.1% to 10.8%; p < 0.001) rates were observed in enterally fed babies who also had a shorter neonatal stay (mean difference -2.2 days, 95% confidence interval -3.0 to -1.2 days). A total of 2480 babies were included in the matched parenteral nutrition analysis. Higher levels of late-onset bloodstream infection were seen in babies who received parenteral nutrition (0.3% vs. 0.9%, rate difference 0.6%, 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 1.2%; p = 0.03). Survival was lower in babies who did not receive parenteral nutrition (90.0% vs. 93.1%, rate difference 3.1%, 95% confidence interval 1.5% to 4.7%; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Propensity score methodology can address imbalances in observed confounders only. Residual confounding by unmeasured or poorly recorded variables cannot be ruled out. We did not analyse by type or volume of enteral or parenteral nutrition.

CONCLUSIONS

Necrotising enterocolitis is rare in babies receiving therapeutic hypothermia, and the introduction of enteral feeding is associated with a lower risk of pragmatically defined necrotising enterocolitis and other beneficial outcomes, including rates of higher survival and breastfeeding at discharge. Receipt of parenteral nutrition during therapeutic hypothermia is associated with a higher rate of late-onset infection but lower mortality. These results support introduction of enteral feeding during therapeutic hypothermia.

FUTURE WORK

Randomised trials to assess parenteral nutrition during therapeutic hypothermia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN474042962.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT

BACKGROUND

Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is 'stepped', comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care.

DESIGN

This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients' and clinicians' views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist.

RESULTS

A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration.

LIMITATIONS

Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results.

FUTURE WORK

Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Interventions to improve the mental health of children and young people with long-term physical conditions: linked evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Although mental health difficulties can severely complicate the lives of children and young people (CYP) with long-term physical conditions (LTCs), there is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of interventions to treat them.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve the mental health of CYP with LTCs (review 1) and explore the factors that may enhance or limit their delivery (review 2).

DATA SOURCES

For review 1, 13 electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Science Citation Index. For review 2, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched. Supplementary searches, author contact and grey literature searches were also conducted.

REVIEW METHODS

The first systematic review sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations of interventions to improve elevated symptoms of mental ill health in CYP with LTCs. Effect sizes for each outcome were calculated post intervention (Cohen's d). When appropriate, random-effects meta-analyses produced pooled effect sizes (d). Review 2 located primary qualitative studies exploring experiences of CYP with LTCs, their families and/or practitioners, regarding interventions aiming to improve the mental health and well-being of CYP with LTCs. Synthesis followed the principles of metaethnography. An overarching synthesis integrated the findings from review 1 and review 2 using a deductive approach. End-user involvement, including topic experts and CYP with LTCs and their parents, was a feature throughout the project.

RESULTS

Review 1 synthesised 25 RCTs evaluating 11 types of intervention, sampling 12 different LTCs. Tentative evidence from seven studies suggests that cognitive-behavioural therapy interventions could improve the mental health of CYP with certain LTCs. Intervention-LTC dyads were diverse, with few opportunities to meta-analyse. No economic evaluations were located. Review 2 synthesised 57 studies evaluating 21 types of intervention. Most studies were of individuals with cancer, a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or mixed LTCs. Interventions often aimed to improve broader mental health and well-being, rather than symptoms of mental health disorder. The metaethnography identified five main constructs, described in an explanatory line of argument model of the experience of interventions. Nine overarching synthesis categories emerged from the integrated evidence, raising implications for future research.

LIMITATIONS

Review 1 conclusions were limited by the lack of evidence about intervention effectiveness. No relevant economic evaluations were located. There were no UK studies included in review 1, limiting the applicability of findings. The mental health status of participants in review 2 was usually unknown, limiting comparability with review 1. The different evidence identified by the two systematic reviews challenged the overarching synthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a relatively small amount of comparable evidence for the effectiveness of interventions for the mental health of CYP with LTCs. Qualitative evidence provided insight into the experiences that intervention deliverers and recipients valued. Future research should evaluate potentially effective intervention components in high-quality RCTs integrating process evaluations. End-user involvement enriched the project.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001716.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.

Fluoxetine to improve functional outcomes in patients after acute stroke: the FOCUS RCT

BACKGROUND

Our Cochrane review of selective serotonin inhibitors for stroke recovery indicated that fluoxetine may improve functional recovery, but the trials were small and most were at high risk of bias.

OBJECTIVES

The Fluoxetine Or Control Under Supervision (FOCUS) trial tested the hypothesis that fluoxetine improves recovery after stroke.

DESIGN

The FOCUS trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

This trial took place in 103 UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients were eligible if they were aged ≥ 18 years, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, with focal neurological deficits, between 2 and 15 days after onset.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated 20 mg of fluoxetine once per day or the matching placebo for 6 months via a web-based system using a minimisation algorithm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Outcome was assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed by their treatment allocation as specified in a published statistical analysis plan.

RESULTS

Between 10 September 2012 and 31 March 2017, we recruited 3127 patients, 1564 of whom were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 of whom were allocated placebo. The modified Rankin Scale score at 6 months was available for 1553 out of 1564 (99.3%) of those allocated fluoxetine and 1553 out of 1563 (99.4%) of those allocated placebo. The distribution across modified Rankin Scale categories at 6 months was similar in the two groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0.951, 95% confidence interval 0.839 to 1.079; p = 0.439). Compared with placebo, patients who were allocated fluoxetine were less likely to develop a new episode of depression by 6 months [210 (13.0%) vs. 269 (16.9%), difference -3.78%, 95% confidence interval -1.26% to -6.30%; p = 0.003], but had more bone fractures [45 (2.9%) vs. 23 (1.5%), difference 1.41%, 95% confidence interval 0.38% to 2.43%; p = 0.007]. There were no statistically significant differences in any other recorded events at 6 or 12 months. Health economic analyses showed no differences between groups in health-related quality of life, hospital bed usage or health-care costs.

LIMITATIONS

Some non-adherence to trial medication, lack of face-to-face assessment of neurological status at follow-up and lack of formal psychiatric diagnosis during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

20 mg of fluoxetine daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve patients' functional outcome but decreased the occurrence of depression and increased the risk of fractures. These data inform decisions about using fluoxetine after stroke to improve functional outcome or to prevent or treat mood disorders. The Assessment oF FluoxetINe In sTroke recoverY (AFFINITY) (Australasia/Vietnam) and Efficacy oF Fluoxetine - a randomisEd Controlled Trial in Stroke (EFFECTS) (Sweden) trials recruited an additional 2780 patients and will report their results in 2020. These three trials have an almost identical protocol, which was collaboratively developed. Our planned individual patient data meta-analysis will provide more precise estimates of the effects of fluoxetine after stroke and indicate whether or not effects vary depending on patients' characteristics and health-care setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83290762.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Stroke Association (reference TSA 2011101) funded the start-up phase.

A support package for parents of excessively crying infants: development and feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Around 20% of 1- to 4-month-old infants cry for long periods without an apparent reason. Traditionally, this was attributed to gastrointestinal disorder ('colic'), but evidence shows that just 5% of infants cry a lot because of organic disturbances; in most cases, the crying is attributable to normal developmental processes. This has led to a focus on the impact of the crying on parents. Parental vulnerabilities influence how parents evaluate and respond to the crying and predict adverse outcomes. By developing evidence-based services that support parents, this study was designed to take the first steps towards national health services that enhance the coping and well-being of parents whose babies excessively cry. Related aims were to improve these infants' outcomes and how NHS money is spent.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a novel intervention package to support parents of excessively crying infants and to examine the feasibility of delivering and evaluating it in the NHS.

DESIGN

Stage 1 of this study aimed to (1) complete a literature review to identify example support materials, (2) obtain parents' guidance on the support needed when a baby cries excessively, together with their evaluation of the example materials, and (3) develop a support package based on the results. Stage 2 aimed to (1) recruit 60 parents whose babies were currently excessively crying, (2) assess parents' and NHS professionals' willingness to complete a study of the support package, (3) measure the use and evaluation of the package components, (4) estimate the package component costs and (5) provide evidence on the feasibility and methods for a large-scale trial.

SETTING

Primary health care.

PARTICIPANTS

Stage 1: 20 parents of previously excessively crying infants and 55 health visitors (HVs) or specialist community public health nurses (SCPHNs). Stage 2: 57 parents of currently excessively crying infants and 124 HVs/SCPHNs.

INTERVENTIONS

The support package included a website, a printed booklet and a programme of cognitive-behavioural therapy-based sessions delivered to parents by a qualified practitioner.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Demographic data, (2) figures for parents' use of the package components and continuation in the study, (3) parents' and HVs'/SCPHNs' ratings of the package components and suitability for NHS use, (4) questionnaire measures of parental well-being and infant health and (5) costs.

RESULTS

Most parents (95%) accessed the website or printed materials and half (51%) attended the practitioner sessions. All 52 parents and 85% of HVs/SCPHNs providing data would support the inclusion of the package in the NHS. It was associated with reduced parental frustration, anxiety, depression, reported infant crying and contacts with health professionals and increased knowledge about crying. Methods for a full trial and figures for the cost of excessive infant crying for the NHS and each package element were identified.

LIMITATIONS

No control group was included. Most of the recruited parents were white, well educated and in stable relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents and HVs/SCPHNs recognise the need for NHS provisions that support parents of excessively crying babies and consider the materials developed to meet that need. A full-scale randomised controlled trial is feasible and desirable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84975637.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 56. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.