Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results from the randomised, Phase IIB trial in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia to compare fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone and low-dose rituximab: the Attenuated dose Rituximab with ChemoTherapy In Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (ARCTIC) trial

Background: The conventional frontline therapy for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). Rituximab (Mabthera®, Roche Products Ltd) targets the CD20 antigen, which is expressed at low levels in CLL. The standard dose of rituximab in CLL (375 mg/m2 in cycle 1 and 500 mg/m2 in cycles 2–6) was selected based on toxicity data only. Small doses of rituximab (as low as 20 mg) have biological activity in CLL, with an immediate reduction in circulating CLL cells and down-regulation of CD20. Phase II trials had suggested improved efficacy with the addition of mitoxantrone to FCR. The key assumption for the Attenuated dose Rituximab with ChemoTherapy In CLL (ARCTIC) trial was that the addition of mitoxantrone to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and low-dose rituximab would be more effective than conventional FCR. Objectives: To assess whether fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone and low-dose rituximab (FCM-miniR) (100 mg of rituximab per cycle) was non-inferior to FCR in frontline CLL. Complete response (CR) rate was the primary end point, with the secondary end points being progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, eradication of minimal residual disease (MRD), safety and cost-effectiveness. Design: ARCTIC was a UK multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, Phase IIB non-inferiority trial in previously untreated CLL. A total of 206 patients with previously untreated CLL who required treatment, according to the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia criteria, were to be randomised to FCR or FCM-miniR. There was an independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee (DMEC) with a pre-planned interim efficacy assessment on 103 participants. Results: The DMEC’s interim analysis led to early trial closure. Although the response rates in both arms were higher than anticipated, FCM-miniR had a lower CR rate than FCR. This was partly attributable to the higher toxicity associated with mitoxantrone. A total of 100 participants completed FCR, 79 completed FCM-miniR and 21 commenced FCM-miniR but switched to FCR following DMEC recommendations. The CR rate for participants receiving FCR was 76%, compared with 55% for FCM-miniR (adjusted odds ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.73). Key secondary end points also showed that FCR was superior, with more participants achieving MRD negativity (57% for FCR vs. 46% for FCM-miniR). More participants experienced a serious adverse reaction with FCM-miniR compared with FCR (50% vs. 41%). At a median of 37.3 months’ follow-up, the PFS and OS rates are good compared with previous studies, with no significant difference between the treatment arms. The economic analysis indicates that because FCM-miniR is less effective than FCR, FCM-miniR is not expected to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon, producing a mean cost-saving of –£7723, a quality-adjusted life-year loss of –0.73 and a resulting incremental net monetary loss of –£6780. Conclusions: FCM-miniR is less well tolerated, with poorer response rates, than FCR, partly owing to the additional toxicity associated with mitoxantrone. In view of this, FCM-miniR will not be taken forward into a larger definitive Phase III trial. The trial demonstrated that oral FCR yields extremely high response rates compared with historical series with intravenous chemotherapy. Future work: We shall compare the results of ARCTIC with those of the ADMIRE (Does the ADdition of Mitoxantrone Improve Response to FCR chemotherapy in patients with CLL?) trial, which compared FCR with FCM-R to assess the efficacy of low- versus standard-dose rituximab, allowing for the toxicity associated with mitoxantrone. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16544962. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Use of varenicline for smoking cessation treatment in UK primary care: an association rule mining analysis

BACKGROUND: Varenicline is probably the most effective smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, but is less widely used than nicotine replacement therapy. We therefore set out to identify the characteristics of numerically important groups of patients who typically do, or do not, receive varenicline in the UK. METHODS: We used association rule mining to analyse data on prescribing of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy in relation to age, sex, comorbidity and other variables from 477,620 people aged 16 years and over, registered as patients throughout 2011 with one of 559 UK general practices in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, and recorded to be current smokers. RESULTS: 46,685 participants (9.8% of all current smokers) were prescribed any smoking cessation treatment during 2011, and 19,316 of these (4% of current smokers, 41% of those who received any therapy) were prescribed varenicline. Prescription of varenicline was most common among heavy smokers aged 31–60, and in those with a diagnosis of COPD. Varenicline was rarely used among smokers who were otherwise in good health, or were aged over 60, were lighter smokers, or had psychotic disorders or dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Varenicline is being underused in healthy smokers, or in older smokers, and in those with psychotic disorders or dementia. Since varenicline is probably the most effective available single cessation therapy, this study identifies under-treatment of substantial public health significance

"Once I'd done it once it was like writing your name":Lived experience of take-home naloxone administration by people who inject drugs

Background: The supply of naloxone, the opioid antagonist, for peer administration (‘take-home naloxone’ (THN)) has been promoted as a means of preventing opioid-related deaths for over 20 years. Despite this, little is known about PWID experiences of take-home naloxone administration. The aim of this study was to advance the evidence base on THN by producing one of the first examinations of the lived-experience of THN use among PWID.Methods: Qualitative, face to face, semi-structured interviews were undertaken at a harm reduction service with individuals known to have used take-home naloxone in an overdose situation in a large urban area in Scotland. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was then applied to the data from these in-depth accounts.Results: The primary analysis involved a total of 8 PWID (seven male, one female) known to have used take-home naloxone. This paper focuses on the two main themes concerning naloxone administration: psychological impacts of peer administration and role perceptions. In the former, the feelings participants encounter at different stages of their naloxone experience, including before, during and after use, are explored. In the latter, the concepts of role legitimacy, role adequacy, role responsibility and role support are considered.Conclusion: This study demonstrates that responding to an overdose using take-home naloxone is complex, both practically and emotionally, for those involved. Although protocols exist, a multitude of individual, social and environmental factors shape responses in the short and longer terms. Despite these challenges, participants generally conveyed a strong sense of therapeutic commitment to using take-home naloxone in their communities

Non-medical prescribing in prostate cancer care:a case study reflection

There are approximately 54000 nurse and midwife prescribers across the United Kingdom (UK), with 19000 nurse independent and supplementary prescribers. Prostate cancer specialist nurses are ideally suited to implement advanced levels of practice in non-medical prescribing, but little has been detailed in the literature about the prescribing practice in this clinical context. This paper set out to critically review evidence-based recommendations for Prostate Cancer Specialist Nurses using a case study reflection to contextualize the role of non-medical prescribing. A structured literature review was conducted in a range of electronic databases (DARE, Cochrane, MEDLINE, BNI, PsychINFO, EMBASE and CIHAHL), and a grey literature search in google, to identify studies employing a qualitative and/or quantitative methods. National (UK) and European clinical guidelines and legislative frameworks were also included. Methodological evaluation was conducted and evidence-based recommendations were integrated into a narrative synthesis. A multidisciplinary and proactive approach to the management of men with metastatic prostate cancer ensures safe and effective prescribing practice, and optimizes supportive care delivery. A reflective case study has illuminated the key features necessary to maximize the success of non-medical prescribing in prostate cancer care and captures the importance of good working relationships. While different practice models will emerge, the Prostate Cancer Model of Consultation may facilitate a structured framework for safe practice, embedded in effective communication strategies. Non-medical prescribers must be committed to continual professional development, and prescribe safely within individual competencies and scope of professional practice. There is a pressing need for further research to evaluate prescribing practices with a particular focus on the nature of influencing factors on prescribing decisions, cost-effectiveness and a more detailed understanding of how team working and inter-team referral affects prescribing decisions between the Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) members.</p

PLEASANT: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age children Associated with a New Term - a cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Asthma episodes and deaths are known to be seasonal. A number of reports have shown peaks in asthma episodes in school-aged children associated with the return to school following the summer vacation. A fall in prescription collection in the month of August has been observed, and was associated with an increase in the number of unscheduled contacts after the return to school in September. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to assess whether or not a NHS-delivered public health intervention reduces the September peak in unscheduled medical contacts. DESIGN: Cluster randomised trial, with the unit of randomisation being 142 NHS general practices, and trial-based economic evaluation. SETTING: Primary care. INTERVENTION: A letter sent (n = 70 practices) in July from their general practitioner (GP) to parents/carers of school-aged children with asthma to remind them of the importance of taking their medication, and to ensure that they have sufficient medication prior to the start of the new school year in September. The control group received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of children aged 5-16 years who had an unscheduled medical contact in September 2013. Supporting end points included the proportion of children who collected prescriptions in August 2013 and unscheduled contacts through the following 12 months. Economic end points were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and costs from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: There is no evidence of effect in terms of unscheduled contacts in September. Among children aged 5-16 years, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.25] against the intervention. The intervention did increase the proportion of children collecting a prescription in August (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.64) as well as scheduled contacts in the same month (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). For the wider time intervals (September-December 2013 and September-August 2014), there is weak evidence of the intervention reducing unscheduled contacts. The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children collecting prescriptions in August as well as having scheduled contacts in the same month. These unscheduled contacts in September could be a result of the intervention, as GPs may have wanted to see patients before issuing a prescription. The economic analysis estimated a high probability that the intervention was cost-saving, for baseline-adjusted costs, across both base-case and sensitivity analyses. There was no increase in QALYs. LIMITATION: The use of routine data led to uncertainty in the coding of medical contacts. The uncertainty was mitigated by advice from a GP adjudication panel. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children both collecting prescriptions and having scheduled contacts in August. After September there is weak evidence in favour of the intervention. The intervention had a favourable impact on costs but did not demonstrate any impact on QALYs. The results of the trial indicate that further work is required on assessing and understanding adherence, both in terms of using routine data to make quantitative assessments, and through additional qualitative interviews with key stakeholders such as practice nurses, GPs and a wider group of children with asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03000938. FUNDING DETAILS: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 93. See the HTA programme website for further project information

The Men’s Safer Sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men

Background: This report details the development of the Men’s Safer Sex website and the results of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), health economic assessment and qualitative evaluation. Objectives: (1) Develop the Men’s Safer Sex website to address barriers to condom use; (2) determine the best design for an online RCT; (3) inform the methods for collecting and analysing health economic data; (4) assess the Sexual Quality of Life (SQoL) questionnaire and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and (5) explore clinic staff and men’s views of online research methodology. Methods: (1) Website development: we combined evidence from research literature and the views of experts (n = 18) and male clinic users (n = 43); (2) feasibility RCT: 159 heterosexually active men were recruited from three sexual health clinics and were randomised by computer to the Men’s Safer Sex website plus usual care (n = 84) or usual clinic care only (n = 75). Men were invited to complete online questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, and sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnoses were recorded from clinic notes at 12 months; (3) health economic evaluation: we investigated the impact of using different questionnaires to calculate utilities and QALYs (the EQ-5D-3L and SQoL questionnaire), and compared different methods to collect resource use; and (4) qualitative evaluation: thematic analysis of interviews with 11 male trial participants and nine clinic staff, as well as free-text comments from online outcome questionnaires. Results: (1) Software errors and clinic Wi-Fi access presented significant challenges. Response rates for online questionnaires were poor but improved with larger vouchers (from 36% with £10 to 50% with £30). Clinical records were located for 94% of participants for STI diagnoses. There were no group differences in condomless sex with female partners [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.96]. New STI diagnoses were recorded for 8.8% (7/80) of the intervention group and 13.0% (9/69) of the control group (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.89). (2) Health-care resource data were more complete using patient files than questionnaires. The probability that the intervention is cost-effective is sensitive to the source of data used and whether or not data on intended pregnancies are included. (3) The pilot RCT fitted well around clinical activities but 37% of the intervention group did not see the Men’s Safer Sex website and technical problems were frustrating. Men’s views of the Men’s Safer Sex website and research procedures were largely positive. Conclusions: It would be feasible to conduct a large-scale RCT using clinic STI diagnoses as a primary outcome; however, technical errors and a poor response rate limited the collection of online self-reported outcomes. The next steps are (1) to optimise software for online trials, (2) to find the best ways to integrate digital health promotion with clinical services, (3) to develop more precise methods for collecting resource use data and (4) to work out how to overcome barriers to digital intervention testing and implementation in the NHS. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18649610. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 91. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Inhaler and nebuliser technique for people with a learning disability

Healthcare professionals who support people who require an inhaler or nebuliser need to know how to use the devices, monitor and assess patients’ inhaler techniques effectively. Often, people have inadequate inhaler techniques, which can lead to poor management of their respiratory condition, increased signs and symptoms, reduced quality of life and increased use of primary/secondary care services and treatment costs. This article explains how to use inhalers and nebulisers appropriately and considers some of the challenges for children and adults with a learning disability. It also describes some devices and assessment tools, and explores assessment/review methods to help ensure people use their inhalers/nebulisers successfully

Self-management toolkit and delivery strategy for end-of-life pain: the mixed-methods feasibility study

Background: Pain affects most people approaching the end of life and can be severe for some. Opioid analgesia is effective, but evidence is needed about how best to support patients in managing these medicines. Objectives: To develop a self-management support toolkit (SMST) and delivery strategy and to test the feasibility of evaluating this intervention in a future definitive trial. Design: Phase I – evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews with patients and carers. Phase II – qualitative semistructured focus groups and interviews with patients, carers and specialist palliative care health professionals. Phase III – multicentre mixed-methods single-arm pre–post observational feasibility study. Participants: Phase I – six patients and carers. Phase II – 15 patients, four carers and 19 professionals. Phase III – 19 patients recruited to intervention that experienced pain, living at home and were treated with strong opioid analgesia. Process evaluation interviews with 13 patients, seven carers and 11 study nurses. Intervention: Self-Management of Analgesia and Related Treatments at the end of life (SMART) intervention comprising a SMST and a four-step educational delivery approach by clinical nurse specialists in palliative care over 6 weeks. Main outcome measures: Recruitment rate, treatment fidelity, treatment acceptability, patient-reported outcomes (such as scores on the Brief Pain Inventory, Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale, and feasibility of collecting data on health-care resource use for economic evaluation). Results: Phase I – key themes on supported self-management were identified from evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews. Phase II – the SMST was developed and refined. The delivery approach was nested within a nurse–patient consultation. Phase III – intervention was delivered to 17 (89%) patients, follow-up data at 6 weeks were available on 15 patients. Overall, the intervention was viewed as acceptable and valued. Descriptive analysis of patient-reported outcomes suggested that interference from pain and self-efficacy were likely to be candidates for primary outcomes in a future trial. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. The health economic analysis suggested that SMART could be cost-effective. We identified key limitations and considerations for a future trial: improve recruitment through widening eligibility criteria, refine the SMST resources content, enhance fidelity of intervention delivery, secure research nurse support at recruiting sites, refine trial procedures (including withdrawal process and data collection frequency), and consider a cluster randomised design with nurse as cluster unit. Limitations: (1) The recruitment rate was lower than anticipated. (2) The content of the intervention was focused on strong opioids only. (3) The fidelity of intervention delivery was limited by the need for ongoing training and support. (4) Recruitment sites where clinical research nurse support was not secured had lower recruitment rates. (5) The process for recording withdrawal was not sufficiently detailed. (6) The number of follow-up visits was considered burdensome for some participants. (7) The feasibility trial did not have a control arm or assess randomisation processes. Conclusions: A future randomised controlled trial is feasible and acceptable

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is characterised by joint pain, swelling and limitation of movement caused by inflammation. Subsequent joint damage can lead to disability and growth restriction. Treatment commonly includes disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) such as methotrexate. Clinical practice now favours newer drugs termed biologic DMARDs where indicated.Objective: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of four biologic DMARDs (etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab and tocilizumab - with or without methotrexate where indicated) for the treatment of JIA (systemic or oligoarticular JIA excluded).Data sources: Electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and DARE were searched for published studies from inception to May 2015 for English language articles. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company submissions were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence.Review methods: Systematic reviews of clinical-effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A cost-utility decision analytic model was developed to compare estimated cost-effectiveness of biologic DMARDs versus methotrexate. The base case time horizon was 30 years and the model took a National Health Service (NHS) perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%.Results: Four placebo-controlled RCTs met the inclusion criteria for the clinical-effectiveness review (one RCT evaluating each biologic DMARD). Only one RCT included UK participants. Participants had to achieve an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi) 30 response to open-label lead-in treatment in order to be randomised. An exploratory adjusted indirect comparison suggests that the four biologic DMARDs are similar with fewer disease flares and greater proportions with ACR Pedi 50 and 70 responses among participants randomised to continued biologic DMARD. However, confidence intervals were wide, the number of trials was low and there was clinical heterogeneity between trials. Open-label extensions of the trials showed that generally ACR responses remained constant or even increased after the double-blind phase. The proportions of adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar between treatment and placebo groups. Four economic evaluations of biologic DMARDs for patients with JIA were identified but all had limitations. Two quality of life studies were included, one of which informed the cost-utility model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab versus methotrexate was £38,127, £32,526 and £38,656 per QALY, respectively. The ICER for abatacept versus methotrexate as a second line biologic was £39,536 per QALY.Limitations: The model does not incorporate the natural history of JIA in terms of long-term disease progression, as the current evidence is limited. There are no head-to-head trials of biologic DMARDs and clinical evidence for specific JIA subtypes is limited.Conclusions: Biologic DMARDs are superior to placebo (with methotrexate where permitted) in children with (predominantly) polyarticular course JIA, and an insufficient response to previous treatment. Randomised comparisons of biologic DMARDs with long-term efficacy and safety follow- are needed to establish comparative effectiveness. RCTs for JIA subtypes where evidence is lacking are also required.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. <br/