Health economics and quality of life in a feasibility RCT of paediatric acute appendicitis: a protocol study

Background: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common acute surgical emergencies in children and accounts for an annual cost of approximately £50 million to the National Health Service. Investigating alternative treatment options offers the best prospect of enhancing the quality of care for patients and potential opportunities for cost savings through better allocative efficiency. A feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing a non-operative treatment pathway with appendicectomy for children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis is underway (CONTRACT feasibility RCT). Aims: The prime objective of this economic substudy conducted alongside the CONTRACT feasibility RCT is to better understand and assess: (1) cost data collection tools and cost drivers by identifying patients’ pathways and (2) patient quality of life by assessing alternative paediatric health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments. Outcomes from this study will inform a future efficacy RCT assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nonoperative treatment pathway for the treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. Methods: The economic substudy will use individuallevel data and will be conducted from the health system perspective over the study’s 6-month follow-up period. Microcosting will include health resource and service use, while potential benefits acquired will be measured using the HRQoL measures, Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) and Euroqol-5 dimensions and 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L). We will assess the appropriateness of using the cost per quality-adjusted life year framework in the future RCT, as well as testing and identifying the most suitable HRQoL instrument. Conclusions: The outcomes of the investigational economic substudy will be used to inform the design of our future definitive RCT. However, the result from this economic study will also provide a detailed description and account of the issues inherent in paediatric Economic Evaluations Alongside Clinical Trials with an emphasis on costing methods of interventions taking place in secondary care settings. Trial registration number: ISRCTN1583043

CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children – a randomised controlled feasibility Trial (CONTRACT)

Objective To establish the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy in children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.Design Feasibility randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study to inform recruiter training to optimise recruitment and the design of a future definitive trial.Setting Three specialist paediatric surgery centres in the UK.Patients Children (aged 4–15 years) with a clinical diagnosis of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.Interventions Appendicectomy or a non-operative treatment pathway (comprising broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation).Main outcome measures Primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited. Secondary outcomes evaluated adherence to interventions, data collection during follow-up, safety of treatment pathways and clinical course.Results Fifty per cent of eligible participants (95% CI 40 to 59) approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. Repeated bespoke recruiter training was associated with an increase in recruitment rate over the course of the trial from 38% to 72%. There was high acceptance of randomisation, good patient and surgeon adherence to trial procedures and satisfactory completion of follow-up. Although more participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated, treatment pathways were found to be safe and adverse event profiles acceptable.Conclusion Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children is feasible.Trial registration number ISRCTN15830435

Conservative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis in children:the CONTRACT feasibility study, including feasibility RCT

Background Whilst non-operative treatment is known to be effective for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, comparative randomised trial data reporting important outcomes compared to appendicectomy are lacking.ObjectivesTo ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared to appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children.•DesignMixed methods study including: a feasibility RCT; embedded and parallel qualitative and survey studies; parallel health economic feasibility study; development of a core outcome set.Setting Three specialist NHS Paediatric Surgical Units in EnglandParticipants Children (aged 4-15 years) clinically diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis participated in the feasibility RCT. Children, their families, recruiting clinicians and other healthcare professionals involved in caring for children with appendicitis took part in the qualitative study. UK Specialist Paediatric Surgeons took part in the survey. Specialist Paediatric Surgeons, Adult General Surgeons who treat children, and children and young people who previously had appendicitis along with their families took part in the core outcomes set development.Interventions Participants in the feasibility RCT were randomised to a non-operative treatment pathway (broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation) or appendicectomy.Main outcome measures Primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited to the feasibility trial.Data sourcesNHS casenotes, questionnaire responses, transcribed audio recordings of recruitment discussions and qualitative interviewsResults Overall, 50% (95%CI 40-59) of 115 eligible participants approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. There was high acceptance of randomisation and good adherence to trial procedures and follow-up (follow rates of 89%, 85% and 85% at six weeks, three months and six months respectively). More participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated.Qualitative work enabled us to: communicate about the trial effectively with patients and families; design and deliver bespoke training to optimise recruitment; and understand how to optimise design and delivery of a future trial.The health economic study, indicated that the main cost drivers are the ward stay cost and the cost of the operation, and has informed quality of life assessment methods for future work.A core outcome set for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people was developed, containing 14 outcomes.There is adequate surgeon interest to justify proceeding to an effectiveness trial with 51% of those surveyed expressing a willingness to recruit with an unchanged trial protocol.LimitationsSince the feasibility RCT was only performed in three centres we cannot guarantee successful recruitment across a larger number of sites. However, our qualitative work has informed a bespoke training package to facilitate this. Although survey results suggest adequate clinician interest to make a larger trial possible, actual participation may differ, and equipoise may have moved over time.Conclusions A future effectiveness trial is feasible following limited additional preparation to establish appropriate outcome measures and case identification. We recommend a limited package of qualitative work be included to optimise recruitment at new centres in particular.Future work Prior to proceeding to an effectiveness trial we need to: develop a robust method for distinguishing children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from those with more advanced appendicitis; reach agreement on a primary outcome measure and effect size that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups involved.Study registration ISRCTN15830435.Funding detailsNIHR HTA programm

Prevention of Morbidity in Sickle Cell Disease (POMS2a)-overnight auto-adjusting continuous positive airway pressure compared with nocturnal oxygen therapy: a randomised crossover pilot study examining patient preference and safety in adults and children

DESIGN: This randomised crossover trial compared nocturnal auto-adjusting continuous positive airway pressure (APAP) and nocturnal oxygen therapy (NOT) in adults and children with sickle cell anaemia, with patient acceptability as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary physiology (adults), safety, and daily pain during interventions and washout documented using tablet technology. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were age > 8 years and the ability to use an iPad to collect daily pain data. Trial participation was 4 weeks; week 1 involved baseline data collection and week 3 was a washout between interventions, which were administered for 7 days each during weeks 2 and 4 in a randomised order. Qualitative interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed for content using a funnelling technique, starting generally and then gaining more detailed information on the experience of both interventions. Safety data included routine haematology and median pain days between each period. Missing pain day values were replaced using multiple imputation. RESULTS: Ten adults (three female, median age 30.2 years, range 18-51.5 years) and eleven children (five female, median age 12 years, range 8.7-16.9 years) enrolled. Nine adults and seven children completed interviews. Qualitative data revealed that the APAP machine was smaller, easier to handle, and less noisy. Of 16 participants, 10 preferred APAP (62.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 38.6-81.5%). Haemoglobin decreased from baseline on APAP and NOT (mean difference -3.2 g/L (95% CI -6.0 to -0.2 g/L) and -2.5 g/L (95% CI -4.6 to 0.3 g/L), respectively), but there was no significant difference between interventions (NOT versus APAP, 1.1 (-1.2 to 3.6)). Pulmonary function changed little. Compared with baseline, there were significant decreases in the median number of pain days (1.58 for APAP and 1.71 for NOT) but no significant difference comparing washout with baseline. After adjustment for carry-over and period effects, there was a non-significant median difference of 0.143 (95% CI -0.116 to 0.401) days additional pain with APAP compared with NOT. CONCLUSION: In view of the point estimate of patient preference for APAP, and no difference in haematology or pulmonary function or evidence that pain was worse during or in washout after APAP, it was decided to proceed with a Phase II trial of 6 months APAP versus standard care with further safety monitoring for bone marrow suppression and pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN46078697 . Registered on 18 July 2014

CONTRACT Study - CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children (feasibility):study protocol for a randomised controlled Trial

BackgroundCurrently, the routine treatment for acute appendicitis in the United Kingdom is an appendicectomy. However, there is increasing scientific interest and research into non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults and children. While a number of studies have investigated non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults, this research cannot be applied to the paediatric population. Ultimately, we aim to perform a UK-based multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of non-operative treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children, as compared with appendicectomy. First, we will undertake a feasibility study to assess the feasibility of performing such a trial.Methods/designThe study involves a feasibility RCT with a nested qualitative research to optimise recruitment as well as a health economic substudy. Children (aged 4–15 years inclusive) diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis that would normally be treated with an appendicectomy are eligible for the RCT. Exclusion criteria include clinical/radiological suspicion of perforated appendicitis, appendix mass or previous non-operative treatment of appendicitis. Participants will be randomised into one of two arms. Participants in the intervention arm are treated with antibiotics and regular clinical assessment to ensure clinical improvement. Participants in the control arm will receive appendicectomy. Randomisation will be minimised by age, sex, duration of symptoms and centre. Children and families who are approached for the RCT will be invited to participate in the embedded qualitative substudy, which includes recording of recruitment consultants and subsequent interviews with participants and non-participants and their families and recruiters. Analyses of these will inform interventions to optimise recruitment. The main study outcomes include recruitment rate (primary outcome), identification of strategies to optimise recruitment, performance of trial treatment pathways, clinical outcomes and safety of non-operative treatment. We have involved children, young people and parents in study design and delivery.DiscussionIn this study we will explore the feasibility of performing a full efficacy RCT comparing non-operative treatment with appendicectomy in children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Factors determining success of the present study include recruitment rate, safety of non-operative treatment and adequate interest in the future RCT. Ultimately this feasibility study will form the foundation of the main RCT and reinforce its design.Trial registrationISRCTN15830435. Registered on 8 February 2017

Preschool hyperactivity specifically elevates long-term mental health risks more strongly in males than females: a prospective longitudinal study through to young adulthood

Evidence of continuities between preschool hyperactivity and adult mental health problems highlight the potential value of targeting early identification and intervention strategies. However, specific risk factors are currently unclear. This large-scale prospective longitudinal study aimed to identify which hyperactive preschoolers are at greatest long-term risk of poor mental health. One hundred and seventy children (89 females) rated as hyperactive by their parents and 88 non-hyperactive controls (48 females) were identified from a community sample of 4,215 3 year-olds. Baseline data relating to behavioral/emotional problems and background characteristics were collected. Follow-up mental health and functional impairment outcomes were collected between 14 and 25 years of age. At age 3 years, males and females in the hyperactive group had similarly raised levels of hyperactivity and other behavior problems. In adolescence/young adulthood, these individuals showed elevated symptoms of ADHD, conduct disorder, mood disorder, anxiety and autism, as well as functional impairment. Preschool hyperactivity was strongly predictive of poor adolescent/adult outcomes for males across domains with effects being specifically driven by hyperactivity. For females, the effects of preschool hyperactivity were smaller and dropped to non-significant levels when other preschool problems were taken into account. Environmental risk factors also differed between the sexes, although these may also have been mediated by genetic risk. In conclusion, these results demonstrate marked sex differences in preschool predictors of later adolescent/adult mental health problems. Future research should include a measure of preschool inattention as well hyperactivity. The findings highlight the potential value of tailored approaches to early identification strategies

Prevention of Morbidity in Sickle Cell Disease (POMS2a)-overnight auto-adjusting continuous positive airway pressure compared with nocturnal oxygen therapy: a randomised crossover pilot study examining patient preference and safety in adults and children.

DESIGN: This randomised crossover trial compared nocturnal auto-adjusting continuous positive airway pressure (APAP) and nocturnal oxygen therapy (NOT) in adults and children with sickle cell anaemia, with patient acceptability as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary physiology (adults), safety, and daily pain during interventions and washout documented using tablet technology. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were age > 8 years and the ability to use an iPad to collect daily pain data. Trial participation was 4 weeks; week 1 involved baseline data collection and week 3 was a washout between interventions, which were administered for 7 days each during weeks 2 and 4 in a randomised order. Qualitative interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed for content using a funnelling technique, starting generally and then gaining more detailed information on the experience of both interventions. Safety data included routine haematology and median pain days between each period. Missing pain day values were replaced using multiple imputation. RESULTS: Ten adults (three female, median age 30.2 years, range 18-51.5 years) and eleven children (five female, median age 12 years, range 8.7-16.9 years) enrolled. Nine adults and seven children completed interviews. Qualitative data revealed that the APAP machine was smaller, easier to handle, and less noisy. Of 16 participants, 10 preferred APAP (62.5%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 38.6-81.5%). Haemoglobin decreased from baseline on APAP and NOT (mean difference -3.2 g/L (95% CI -6.0 to -0.2 g/L) and -2.5 g/L (95% CI -4.6 to 0.3 g/L), respectively), but there was no significant difference between interventions (NOT versus APAP, 1.1 (-1.2 to 3.6)). Pulmonary function changed little. Compared with baseline, there were significant decreases in the median number of pain days (1.58 for APAP and 1.71 for NOT) but no significant difference comparing washout with baseline. After adjustment for carry-over and period effects, there was a non-significant median difference of 0.143 (95% CI -0.116 to 0.401) days additional pain with APAP compared with NOT. CONCLUSION: In view of the point estimate of patient preference for APAP, and no difference in haematology or pulmonary function or evidence that pain was worse during or in washout after APAP, it was decided to proceed with a Phase II trial of 6 months APAP versus standard care with further safety monitoring for bone marrow suppression and pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN46078697 . Registered on 18 July 2014

A comparison of the clinical effectiveness and cost of specialised individually-delivered parent training for preschool attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a generic, group-based programme: a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of the New Forest Parenting Programme versus Incredible Years

Objective: To compare the efficacy and cost of specialised individually-delivered parent training (PT) for preschool children with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) against generic group-based PT and treatment as usual (TAU). Design: Multi-centre, three-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial. Research Setting: National Health Service Trusts. Participants: Preschool children (33-54 months) fulfilling ADHD research diagnostic criteria. Interventions: New Forest Parenting Programme (NFPP) – 12 week individual, home-delivered ADHD PT programme; Incredible Years (IY) – 12 week group-based, PT programme initially designed for children with behaviour problems. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome - Parent ratings of child’s ADHD symptoms (Swanson, Nolan & Pelham Questionnaire - SNAP-IV). Secondary outcomes - teacher ratings (SNAP-IV) and direct observations of ADHD symptoms and parent/teacher ratings of conduct problems. NFPP, IY and TAU outcomes were measured at baseline (T1) and post-treatment (T2). NFPP and IY outcomes only were measured 6 months post treatment (T3). Researchers, but not therapists or parents, were blind to treatment allocation. Analysis employed mixed effect regression models (multiple imputation). Intervention and other costs were estimated using standardized approaches. Results: NFPP and IY did not differ on parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms (mean difference -0.009 95%CI [-0.191, 0.173], p=0.921) or any other measure. Small, non-significant, benefits of NFPP over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms (-0.189 95%CI [-0.380, 0.003], p=0.053). NFPP significantly reduced parent-rated conduct-problems compared to TAU across scales (p-values.05). The cost per family of providing NFPP in the trial was significantly lower than IY (£1,591 versus £2,103). Conclusions: Although, there were no differences between NFPP and IY with regards clinical effectiveness, individually-delivered NFPP cost less. However, this difference may be reduced when implemented in routine clinical practice. Clinical decisions should take into account parental preferences between delivery approaches. Funding: National Institute of Health Research. Trial Registration: Trial name: COPPI Trial; ISRCTN39288126