Minding the Gap: Appraising the promise and performance of regulatory reform in Australia

‘Mind the Gap!’ is an almost iconic exhortation, originating in the London Underground, warning travellers to be careful when navigating the ‘gap’ between the platform and train. In this volume, Peter Carroll, Rex Deighton-Smith, Helen Silver and Chris Walker retrospectively assess the ‘gap’ — no less dynamic and perilous in a public policy context — between the promise and performance of successive waves of regulation in Australia since the 1980s. Regulatory bodies exist to exercise what might be broadly termed ‘control functions’ and, by nature, tend to be conservative both in their culture and operations. Institutional conservatism does not, of necessity, preclude the exercise of creativity and foresight, both of which are sorely required if government is to successfully meet the challenge of delivering more effective and less costly regulation. The business and policy environment is complex, the risks are great and the rewards of success and the costs of failure will be enormous. The true measure of success will be how effectively we are able to close the gap between promise and performance

Assessing the efficacy of oral immunotherapy for the desensitisation of peanut allergy in children (STOP II): a phase 2 randomised controlled trial

SummaryBackgroundSmall studies suggest peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) might be effective in the treatment of peanut allergy. We aimed to establish the efficacy of OIT for the desensitisation of children with allergy to peanuts.MethodsWe did a randomised controlled crossover trial to compare the efficacy of active OIT (using characterised peanut flour; protein doses of 2–800 mg/day) with control (peanut avoidance, the present standard of care) at the NIHR/Wellcome Trust Cambridge Clinical Research Facility (Cambridge, UK). Randomisation (1:1) was by use of an audited online system; group allocation was not masked. Eligible participants were aged 7–16 years with an immediate hypersensitivity reaction after peanut ingestion, positive skin prick test to peanuts, and positive by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). We excluded participants if they had a major chronic illness, if the care provider or a present household member had suspected or diagnosed allergy to peanuts, or if there was an unwillingness or inability to comply with study procedures. Our primary outcome was desensitisation, defined as negative peanut challenge (1400 mg protein in DBPCFC) at 6 months (first phase). Control participants underwent OIT during the second phase, with subsequent DBPCFC. Immunological parameters and disease-specific quality-of-life scores were measured. Analysis was by intention to treat. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of those with desensitisation to peanut after 6 months between the active and control group at the end of the first phase. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN62416244.FindingsThe primary outcome, desensitisation, was recorded for 62% (24 of 39 participants; 95% CI 45–78) in the active group and none of the control group after the first phase (0 of 46; 95% CI 0–9; p<0·001). 84% (95% CI 70–93) of the active group tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein (equivalent to roughly five peanuts). Median increase in peanut threshold after OIT was 1345 mg (range 45–1400; p<0·001) or 25·5 times (range 1·82–280; p<0·001). After the second phase, 54% (95% CI 35–72) tolerated 1400 mg challenge (equivalent to roughly ten peanuts) and 91% (79–98) tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein. Quality-of-life scores improved (decreased) after OIT (median change −1·61; p<0·001). Side-effects were mild in most participants. Gastrointestinal symptoms were, collectively, most common (31 participants with nausea, 31 with vomiting, and one with diarrhoea), then oral pruritus after 6·3% of doses (76 participants) and wheeze after 0·41% of doses (21 participants). Intramuscular adrenaline was used after 0·01% of doses (one participant).InterpretationOIT successfully induced desensitisation in most children within the study population with peanut allergy of any severity, with a clinically meaningful increase in peanut threshold. Quality of life improved after intervention and there was a good safety profile. Immunological changes corresponded with clinical desensitisation. Further studies in wider populations are recommended; peanut OIT should not be done in non-specialist settings, but it is effective and well tolerated in the studied age group.FundingMRC-NIHR partnership

CHANGES IN BALANCE AND JOINT POSITION SENSE DURING A 12-DAY HIGH ALTITUDE TREK

The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in postural control and knee joint position sense (KJPS) during a trek to high altitude. Postural control during standing balance and KJPS were measured in 12 participants at sea-level, 3619m, 4600m and 5140m. Total (p = 0.003, d=1.9) and anterior-posterior sway velocity (p= 0.001, d=1.9) during standing balance with eyes open velocity was significantly greater at altitudes of 3619m and 5140m when compared with sea level. Despite a gradual ascent profile, exposure to 3619 m was associated with impairments in postural control. Importantly, these impairments did not worsen at higher altitudes. The present findings should be considered during future trekking expeditions when considering specific strategies to manage impairments in postural control that occur with increasing altitude

A Feasibility Trial of Power Up: Smartphone App to Support Patient Activation and Shared Decision Making for Mental Health in Young People

Background: Digital tools have the potential to support patient activation and shared decision making in the face of increasing levels of mental health problems in young people. There is a need for feasibility trials of digital interventions to determine the usage and acceptability of interventions. In addition, there is a need to determine the ability to recruit and retain research participants to plan rigorous effectiveness trials and therefore, develop evidence-based recommendations for practice.Objective: To determine the feasibility of undertaking a cluster randomized control trial to test the effectiveness of a smartphone app, Power Up, co-designed with young people to support patient activation and shared decision making for mental health.Methods: Overall, 270 young people were screened for participation and 53% (N = 142) were recruited and completed baseline measures across eight specialist child mental health services (n = 62, mean (SD) age = 14.66 (1.99) years, 52% female) and two mainstream secondary schools (n = 80; mean (SD) age = 16.88 (0.68) years, 46% female). Young people received Power Up in addition to management as usual or received management as usual only. Post-trial interviews were conducted with 11 young people from the intervention arms (specialist services n = 6; schools n = 5).Results: Usage data showed that there were an estimated 50 (out of 64) users of Power Up in the intervention arms. Findings from the interviews indicated that young people found Power Up to be acceptable. Young people reported: 1) their motivation for use of Power Up, 2) the impact of use, and 3) barriers to use. Out of the 142 recruited participants, 45% (64/142) completed follow up measures, and the approaches to increase retention agreed by the steering group are discussed.Conclusions: The findings of the present research indicate that the app is acceptable and it is feasible to examine the effectiveness of Power Up in a prospective cluster randomized control trial

General practitioners’ perspectives on campaigns to promote rapid help-seeking behaviour at the onset of rheumatoid arthritis

Objective. To explore general practitioners’ (GPs’ ) perspectives on public health campaigns to encourage people with the early symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to seek medical help rapidly. Design. Nineteen GPs participated in four semistructured focus groups. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. Results. GPs recognised the need for the early treatment of RA and identified that facilitating appropriate access to care was important. However, not all held the view that a delay in help seeking was a clinically significant issue. Furthermore, many were concerned that the early symptoms of RA were often non-specific, and that current knowledge about the nature of symptoms at disease onset was inadequate to inform the content of a help-seeking campaign. They argued that a campaign might not be able to specifically target those who need to present urgently. Poorly designed campaigns were suggested to have a negative impact on GPs’ workloads, and would “clog up” the referral pathway for genuine cases of RA. Conclusions. GPs were supportive of strategies to improve access to Rheumatological care and increase public awareness of RA symptoms. However, they have identified important issues that need to be considered in developing a public health campaign that forms part of an overall strategy to reduce time to treatment for patients with new onset RA. This study highlights the value of gaining GPs’ perspectives before launching health promotion campaigns

Strengthening and stretching for rheumatoid arthritis of the hand (SARAH):Design of a randomised controlled trial of a hand and upper limb exercise intervention-ISRCTN89936343

Background: Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) commonly affects the hands and wrists with inflammation, deformity, pain, weakness and restricted mobility leading to reduced function. The effectiveness of exercise for RA hands is uncertain, although evidence from small scale studies is promising. The Strengthening And Stretching for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand (SARAH) trial is a pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of adding an optimised exercise programme for hands and upper limbs to best practice usual care for patients with RA.Methods/design: 480 participants with problematic RA hands will be recruited through 17 NHS trusts. Treatments will be provided by physiotherapists and occupational therapists. Participants will be individually randomised to receive either best practice usual care (joint protection advice, general exercise advice, functional splinting and assistive devices) or best practice usual care supplemented with an individualised exercise programme of strengthening and stretching exercises. The study assessors will be blinded to treatment allocation and will follow participants up at four and 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the Hand function subscale of the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire, and secondary outcomes include hand and wrist impairment measures, quality of life, and resource use. Economic and qualitative studies will also be carried out in parallel.Discussion: This paper describes the design and development of a trial protocol of a complex intervention study based in therapy out-patient departments. The findings will provide evidence to support or refute the use of an optimised exercise programme for RA of the hand in addition to best practice usual care.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN89936343Keywords: Randomised controlled trial, Rheumatoid arthritis, Exercise, Hand, Rehabilitatio

A Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled Trial of Atorvastatin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with increased cardiovascular event (CVE) risk. The impact of statins in RA is not established. We assessed whether atorvastatin is superior to placebo for the primary prevention of CVEs in RA patients. Methods: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial was designed to detect a 32% CVE risk reduction based on an estimated 1.6% per annum event rate with 80% power at P 50 years or with a disease duration of >10 years who did not have clinical atherosclerosis, diabetes, or myopathy received atorvastatin 40 mg daily or matching placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or any arterial revascularization. Secondary and tertiary end points included plasma lipids and safety. Results: A total of 3,002 patients (mean age 61 years; 74% female) were followed up for a median of 2.51 years (interquartile range [IQR] 1.90, 3.49 years) (7,827 patient‐years). The study was terminated early due to a lower than expected event rate (0.70% per annum). Of the 1,504 patients receiving atorvastatin, 24 (1.6%) experienced a primary end point, compared with 36 (2.4%) of the 1,498 receiving placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.39, 1.11]; P = 0.115 and adjusted HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.32, 1.15]; P = 0.127). At trial end, patients receiving atorvastatin had a mean ± SD low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level 0.77 ± 0.04 mmoles/liter lower than those receiving placebo (P < 0.0001). C‐reactive protein level was also significantly lower in the atorvastatin group than the placebo group (median 2.59 mg/liter [IQR 0.94, 6.08] versus 3.60 mg/liter [IQR 1.47, 7.49]; P < 0.0001). CVE risk reduction per mmole/liter reduction in LDL cholesterol was 42% (95% CI −14%, 70%). The rates of adverse events in the atorvastatin group (n = 298 [19.8%]) and placebo group (n = 292 [19.5%]) were similar. Conclusion: Atorvastatin 40 mg daily is safe and results in a significantly greater reduction of LDL cholesterol level than placebo in patients with RA. The 34% CVE risk reduction is consistent with the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration meta‐analysis of statin effects in other populations