The Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure in young children:Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference

BACKGROUND: The Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) has been recommended as the core patient‐reported outcome measure for trials of eczema treatments. Using data from the Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment randomized feasibility study, we assess the responsiveness to change and determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the POEM in young children with eczema. METHODS: Responsiveness to change by repeated administrations of the POEM was investigated in relation to change recalled using the Parent Global Assessment (PGA) measure. Five methods of determining the MCID of the POEM were employed; three anchor‐based methods using PGA as the anchor: the within‐patient score change, between‐patient score change and sensitivity and specificity method, and two distribution‐based methods: effect size estimate and the one half standard deviation of the baseline distribution of POEM scores. RESULTS: Successive POEM scores were found to be responsive to change in eczema severity. The MCID of the POEM change score, in relation to a slight improvement in eczema severity as recalled by parents on the PGA, estimated by the within‐patient score change (4.27), the between‐patient score change (2.89) and the sensitivity and specificity method (3.00) was similar to the one half standard deviation of the POEM baseline scores (2.94) and the effect size estimate (2.50). CONCLUSIONS: The Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure as applied to young children is responsive to change, and the MCID is around 3. This study will encourage the use of POEM and aid in determining sample size for future randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema in young children

Diagnosis, assessment and treatment of childhood eczema in primary care:cross-sectional study

Background: The majority of children with eczema in the UK are looked after in primary care yet we know little about their care in this setting. Aim: To compare the diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of eczema in primary care with published diagnostic criteria and management guidelines. Design & setting: Cross-sectional study using data from a randomised controlled feasibility study. General practices, UK. Method: Baseline data from children aged 1 month to 5 years recruited ‘in-consultation’ for the Choice of Moisturiser in Eczema Treatment (COMET) feasibility study was used. These included clinician diagnosis and global severity assessment; the parent-completed Patient Orientated Eczema Measure (POEM); a questionnaire about eczema treatments, including use of topical corticosteroid (TCS); and, the Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI) carried out by trained researchers. Descriptive analyses were undertaken to compare diagnoses with UK diagnostic criteria, severity assessments, and treatment with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellent (NICE) guidance. Results: Data were available for 90 participants. Only 46% of participants labelled as having eczema met the UK diagnostic criteria. Agreement between the global severity assessment by a healthcare practitioner with the EASI and POEM measures of eczema severity were 44% and 48% respectively. Emollients and TCSs were underused with 44% of participants not using any emollient and 46% using one or more TCSs. The ‘match’ between eczema severity and TCSs potency was poor. Conclusion: Discrepancies were found between the diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of children with eczema in primary care, and UK diagnostic criteria and guidelines. Further investigation to explore the reasons for this discordance, and whether it matters, is needed

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials:further development and evaluation of the participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure

Background: Informed consent is an accepted ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet there is no standardised method of assessing patient understanding for informed consent. The participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure was developed for application to recruitment discussions to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding. Preliminary evaluation of the PIC indicated the need to improve inter-rater and intra-rater reliability ratings and conduct further psychometric evaluation. This paper describes the assessment, revision and evaluation of the PIC within the context of OPTiMISE, a pragmatic primary care-based trial. Methods: This study used multiple methods across two phases. In phase one, one researcher applied the existing PIC measure to 18 audio-recorded recruitment discussions from the OPTiMISE study and made detailed observational notes about any uncertainties in application. Appointments were sampled to be maximally diverse for patient gender, study centre, recruiter and before and after an intervention to optimise information provision. Application uncertainties were reviewed by the study team, revisions made and a coding manual developed and agreed. In phase two, the coding manual was used to develop tailored guidelines for applying the PIC to appointments within the OPTiMISE trial. Two researchers then assessed 27 further appointments, purposively sampled as above, to evaluate inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, content validity and feasibility. Results: Application of the PIC to 18 audio-recorded OPTiMISE recruitment discussions resulted in harmonisation of the scales rating recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding, minor amendments to clarify wording and the development of detailed generic coding guidelines for applying the measure within any trial. Application of the revised measure using these guidelines to 27 further recruitment discussions showed good feasibility (time to complete), content validity (completion rate) and reliability (inter- and intra-rater) of the measure. Conclusion: The PIC provides a means to evaluate the content of information provided by recruiters, patient participation in recruitment discussions and, to some extent, evidence of patient understanding. Future work will use the measure to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding both across and within trials

The feasibility and acceptability of an early intervention in primary care to prevent chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in adults:randomised controlled trial

Background Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)) is defined as fatigue that is disabling, is accompanied by additional symptoms and persists for ≥ 4 months. Treatment of CFS/ME aims to help patients manage their symptoms and make lifestyle adjustments. We do not know whether intervening early in primary care (< 4 months after onset of fatigue) can prevent the development of CFS/ME. Methods This was a feasibility randomised controlled trial with adults (age ≥ 18 years) comparing usual care with usual care plus an early intervention (EI; a combination of psycho-education and cognitive behavioural therapy, CBT). This study took place in fourteen primary care practices in Bristol, England and aimed to identify issues around recruitment and retention for a full-scale trial. It was not powered to support statistical analysis of differences in outcomes. Integrated qualitative methodology was used to explore the feasibility and acceptability of recruitment and randomisation to the intervention. Results Forty-four patients were recruited (1 August 2012–November 28, 2013), falling short of our predicted recruitment rate of 100 patients in 8 months. Qualitative data from GPs showed recruitment was not feasible because it was difficult to identify potential participants within 4 months of symptom onset. Some referring GPs felt screening investigations recommended by NICE were unnecessary, and they had difficulty finding patients who met the eligibility criteria. Qualitative data from some participant interviews suggested that the intervention was not acceptable in its current format. Although the majority of participants found parts of the intervention acceptable, many reported one or more problems with acceptability. Participants who discontinued the intervention or found it problematic did not relate to the therapeutic model, disliked telephone consultations or found self-reflection challenging. Conclusions A randomised controlled trial to test an early intervention for fatigue in adults in primary care is not feasible using this intervention and recruitment strategy

Rivastigmine for gait stability in patients with Parkinson's disease (ReSPonD): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

Background Falls are a frequent and serious complication of Parkinson's disease and are related partly to an underlying cholinergic deficit that contributes to gait and cognitive dysfunction in these patients. Gait dysfunction can lead to an increased variability of gait from one step to another, raising the likelihood of falls. In the ReSPonD trial we aimed to assess whether ameliorating this cholinergic deficit with the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor rivastigmine would reduce gait variability. Methods We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial at the North Bristol NHS Trust Hospital, Bristol, UK, in patients with Parkinson's disease recruited from community and hospital settings in the UK. We included patients who had fallen at least once in the year before enrolment, were able to walk 18 m without an aid, had no previous exposure to an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, and did not have dementia. Our clinical trials unit randomly assigned (1:1) patients to oral rivastigmine or placebo capsules (both taken twice a day) using a computer-generated randomisation sequence and web-based allocation. Rivastigmine was uptitrated from 3 mg per day to the target dose of 12 mg per day over 12 weeks. Both the trial team and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Masking was achieved with matched placebo capsules and a dummy uptitration schedule. The primary endpoint was difference in step time variability between the two groups at 32 weeks, adjusted for baseline age, cognition, step time variability, and number of falls in the previous year. We measured step time variability with a triaxial accelerometer during an 18 m walking task in three conditions: normal walking, simple dual task with phonemic verbal fluency (walking while naming words beginning with a single letter), and complex dual task switching with phonemic verbal fluency (walking while naming words, alternating between two letters of the alphabet). Analysis was by modified intention to treat; we excluded from the primary analysis patients who withdrew, died, or did not attend the 32 week assessment. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 19880883. Findings Between Oct 4, 2012 and March 28, 2013, we enrolled 130 patients and randomly assigned 65 to the rivastigmine group and 65 to the placebo group. At week 32, compared with patients assigned to placebo (59 assessed), those assigned to rivastigmine (55 assessed) had improved step time variability for normal walking (ratio of geometric means 0·72, 95% CI 0·58–0·88; p=0·002) and the simple dual task (0·79; 0·62–0·99; p=0·045). Improvements in step time variability for the complex dual task did not differ between groups (0·81, 0·60–1·09; p=0·17). Gastrointestinal side-effects were more common in the rivastigmine group than in the placebo group (p<0·0001); 20 (31%) patients in the rivastigmine group versus three (5%) in the placebo group had nausea and 15 (17%) versus three (5%) had vomiting