Comparing alternating pressure mattresses and high-specification foam mattresses to prevent pressure ulcers in high-risk patients: the PRESSURE 2 RCT

Background: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a burden to patients, carers and health-care providers. Specialist mattresses minimise the intensity and duration of pressure on vulnerable skin sites in at-risk patients. Primary objective: Time to developing a new PU of category ≥ 2 in patients using an alternating pressure mattress (APM) compared with a high-specification foam mattress (HSFM). Design: A multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, planned as an adaptive double-triangular group sequential, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with an a priori sample size of 2954 participants. Randomisation used minimisation (incorporating a random element). Setting: The trial was set in 42 secondary and community inpatient facilities in the UK. Participants: Adult inpatients with evidence of acute illness and at a high risk of PU development. Interventions and follow-up: APM or HSFM – the treatment phase lasted a maximum of 60 days; the final 30 days were post-treatment follow-up. Main outcome measures: Time to event. Results: From August 2013 to November 2016, 2029 participants were randomised to receive either APM (n = 1016) or HSFM (n = 1013). Primary end point – 30-day final follow-up: of the 2029 participants in the intention-to-treat population, 160 (7.9%) developed a new PU of category ≥ 2. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU of category ≥ 2 [Fine and Gray model HR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.04; exact p-value of 0.0890 and 2% absolute difference]. Treatment phase sensitivity analysis: 132 (6.5%) participants developed a new PU of category ≥ 2 between randomisation and end of treatment phase. There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time-to-event sensitivity analysis (Fine and Gray model HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93; p = 0.0176 and 2.6% absolute difference). Secondary end points – 30-day final follow-up: new PUs of category ≥ 1 developed in 350 (17.2%) participants, with no evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development, (Fine and Gray model HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; p-value = 0.0733 and absolute difference 3.1%). New PUs of category ≥ 3 developed in 32 (1.6%) participants with insufficient evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development (Fine and Gray model HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.62; p = 0.5530 and absolute difference 0.4%). Of the 145 pre-existing PUs of category 2, 89 (61.4%) healed – there was insufficient evidence of a difference in time to healing (Fine and Gray model HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68; p = 0.6122 and absolute difference 2.9%). Health economics – the within-trial and long-term analysis showed APM to be cost-effective compared with HSFM; however, the difference in costs models are small and the quality-adjusted life-year gains are very small. There were no safety concerns. Blinded photography substudy – the reliability of central blinded review compared with clinical assessment for PUs of category ≥ 2 was ‘very good’ (kappa statistic 0.82, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa 0.82). Quality-of-life substudy – the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life – Prevention (PU-QoL-P) instrument meets the established criteria for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. Limitations: A lower than anticipated event rate. Conclusions: In acutely ill inpatients who are bedfast/chairfast and/or have a category 1 PU and/or localised skin pain, APMs confer a small treatment phase benefit that is diminished over time. Overall, the APM patient compliance, very low PU incidence rate observed and small differences between mattresses indicate the need for improved indicators for targeting of APMs and individualised decision-making. Decisions should take into account skin status, patient preferences (movement ability and rehabilitation needs) and the presence of factors that may be potentially modifiable through APM allocation, including being completely immobile, having nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or having altered skin/category 1 PU. Future work: Explore the relationship between mental capacity, levels of independent movement, repositioning and PU development. Explore ‘what works for whom and in what circumstances’. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01151335. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Comparison of ALitretinoin with PUVA as the first-line treatment in patients with severe chronic HAnd eczema (ALPHA):study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Introduction Hand eczema (HE) is one of the most common skin disorders and an important cause for morbidity and occupational disability. The 1-year prevalence of HE is estimated to be up to 10% and it is estimated that 5%–7% of those develop severe chronic HE. However, current clinical evidence is not compelling enough to guide clinical practice. In a survey among 194 UK dermatologists the most frequent first choice approaches were psoralen combined with ultraviolet A (UVA) treatment (PUVA), oral steroids and alitretinoin (AL). When asked which strategy was most efficient for long-term outcome 20% of clinicians indicated they did not know; 43% of clinicians reported AL and 30% reported PUVA. Methods and analysis ALPHA is a multicentre, open, prospective, two-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial comparing PUVA and AL with a planned sample size re-estimation. Between 500 and 780 participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis. The physician’s global assessment (PGA) will direct treatment after randomisation, non-responders will be treated according to usual clinical practice; providing valuable pilot data on second line therapeutic approaches to inform future trials. Assessments will be conducted up to 52 weeks post randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the Hand Eczema Severity Index at 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures include modified Total Lesion Symptom Score, PGA, time to relapse, patient reported outcome measures and DNA extraction and assessment of genetic variants. A substudy on molecular inflammatory mediators will provide information on subgroup specific treatment responses. Photographs will be taken and HE severity assessed by a central review panel

Multiple Interventions for Diabetic Foot Ulcer Treatment Trial (MIDFUT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes affects more than 425 million people worldwide with a lifetime risk of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) of up to 25%. Management includes wound debridement, wound dressings, offloading, treatment of infection and ischaemia, optimising glycaemic control; use of advanced adjuvant therapies is limited by high cost and lack of robust evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, seamless phase II/III, open, parallel group, multi-arm multi-stage randomised controlled trial in patients with a hard-to-heal DFU, with blinded outcome assessment. A maximum of 447 participants will be randomised (245 participants in phase II and 202 participants in phase III). The phase II primary objective will determine the efficacy of treatment strategies including hydrosurgical debridement ± decellularised dermal allograft, or the combination with negative pressure wound therapy, as an adjunct to treatment as usual (TAU), compared with TAU alone, with patients randomised in a 1:1:1:2 allocation. The outcome is achieving at least 50% reduction in index ulcer area at 4 weeks post randomisation.The phase III primary objective will determine whether one treatment strategy, continued from phase II, reduces time to healing of the index ulcer compared with TAU alone, with participants randomised in a 1:1 allocation. Secondary objectives will compare healing status of the index ulcer, infection rate, reulceration, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and incidence of adverse events over 52 weeks post randomisation. Phase II and phase III primary endpoint analysis will be conducted using a mixed-effects logistic regression model and Cox proportional hazards regression, respectively. A within-trial economic evaluation will be undertaken; the primary economic analysis will be a cost-utility analysis presenting ICERs for each treatment strategy in rank order of effectiveness, with effects expressed as quality-adjusted life years.The trial has predefined progression criteria for the selection of one treatment strategy into phase III based on efficacy, safety and costs at 4 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee; approved 26 April 2017; (REC reference: 17/YH/0055). There is planned publication of a monograph in National Institute for Health Research journals and main trial results and associated papers in high-impact peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN64926597; registered on 6 June 2017

Effectiveness of GRACE risk score in patients admitted to hospital with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (UKGRIS): parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of risk stratification using the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (GRS) for patients presenting to hospital with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN: Parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients presenting with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome to 42 hospitals in England between 9 March 2017 and 30 December 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. INTERVENTION: Hospitals were randomised (1:1) to patient management by standard care or according to the GRS and associated guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were use of guideline recommended management and time to the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, new onset heart failure hospital admission, and readmission for cardiovascular event. Secondary measures included the duration of hospital stay, EQ-5D-5L (five domain, five level version of the EuroQoL index), and the composite endpoint components. RESULTS: 3050 participants (1440 GRS, 1610 standard care) were recruited in 38 UK clusters (20 GRS, 18 standard care). The mean age was 65.7 years (standard deviation 12), 69% were male, and the mean baseline GRACE scores were 119.5 (standard deviation 31.4) and 125.7 (34.4) for GRS and standard care, respectively. The uptake of guideline recommended processes was 77.3% for GRS and 75.3% for standard care (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.92, P=0.56). The time to the first composite cardiac event was not significantly improved by the GRS (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16, P=0.37). Baseline adjusted EQ-5D-5L utility at 12 months (difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.04) and the duration of hospital admission within 12 months (mean 11.2 days, standard deviation 18 days v 11.8 days, 19 days) were similar for GRS and standard care. CONCLUSIONS: In adults presenting to hospital with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome, the GRS did not improve adherence to guideline recommended management or reduce cardiovascular events at 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 29731761

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Pressure ulcers represent a major burden to patients, carers and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 1 in 17 hospital and 1 in 20 community patients. They impact greatly on an individual’s functional status and health-related quality of life. The mainstay of pressure ulcer prevention practice is the provision of pressure redistribution support surfaces and patient repositioning. The aim of the PRESSURE 2 study is to compare the two main mattress types utilised within the NHS: high-specification foam and alternating pressure mattresses, in the prevention of pressure ulcers. Methods/Design PRESSURE 2 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, double triangular, group sequential, parallel group trial. A maximum of 2954 ‘high-risk’ patients with evidence of acute illness will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either a high-specification foam mattress or alternating-pressure mattress in conjunction with an electric profiling bed frame. The primary objective of the trial is to compare mattresses in terms of the time to developing a new Category 2 or above pressure ulcer by 30 days post end of treatment phase. Secondary endpoints include time to developing new Category 1 and 3 or above pressure ulcers, time to healing of pre-existing Category 2 pressure ulcers, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, incidence of mattress change and safety. Validation objectives are to determine the responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life-Prevention instrument and the feasibility of having a blinded endpoint assessment using photography. The trial will have a maximum of three planned analyses with unequally spaced reviews at event-driven coherent cut-points. The futility boundaries are constructed as non-binding to allow a decision for stopping early to be overruled by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee. Discussion The double triangular, group sequential design of the PRESSURE 2 trial will provide an efficient design through the possibility of early stopping for demonstrating either superiority, inferiority of mattresses or futility of the trial. The trial optimises the potential for producing robust clinical evidence on the effectiveness of two commonly used mattresses in clinical practice earlier than in a conventional design

A patient-reported pressure ulcer health-related quality of life instrument for use in prevention trials (PU-QOL-P): psychometric evaluation

Introduction: Pressure ulcer-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments should be used to inform patient care and provide a strong evidence base for interventions aimed at preventing pressure ulcers. The aim was to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of the psychometric properties of a PRO instrument designed to assess symptoms and functional outcomes in patients at high-risk of developing pressure ulcers, the PU-QOL-P instrument. Methods: We modified the original PU-QOL instrument to be suitable for patients at high risk of pressure ulcer development based on feedback from patients, specialist nurses and PRO methodologists. The modified PU-QOL-P instrument was administered to a sub-set of patients participating in the PRESSURE 2 trial. Patients completed PU-QOL-P and SF12 instruments at baseline, weeks 1 and 3, and 30 days post-treatment. We undertook psychometric evaluation of the modified PU-QOL-P to test scale targeting, scaling assumptions, reliability, validity and responsiveness. Results: The analysis sample consisted of 617 patients that completed both instruments at baseline. We found that the PU-QOL-P instrument, consisting of nine PU-specific outcomes: three symptom and six function scales, meets established criteria for reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness. Internal consistency reliability was high with all scale Cronbach alpha > 0.795 (range 0.795–0.970). The factor analysis mostly supported the six-function scale structure. Scaling assumptions were satisfied; all item-total correlations above 0.30. Convergent validity was confirmed by significant correlations between hypothesized scales as expected. PU-QOL-P scales were responsive to change: mean scale scores from baseline to 30 days post-treatment were statistically significant for all scales apart the daily activities scale (effect sizes ranged from moderate to high). As expected, worse symptoms and functioning was observed in patients who had a category 1 or 2 PU compared to patients who did not have a PU. Conclusions: The PU-QOL-P provides a standardised method for assessing pressure ulcer-specific symptoms and functional outcomes for quantifying the benefits of associated interventions from the patient’s perspective. It can be used in research with adults at risk of pressure ulcer development in all UK healthcare settings

Comparison of ALitretinoin with PUVA as the first-line treatment in patients with severe chronic HAnd eczema (ALPHA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract Introduction: Hand eczema (HE) is one of the most common skin disorders and an important cause for morbidity and occupational disability. The 1-year prevalence of HE is estimated to be up to 10% and it is estimated that 5%-7% of those develop severe chronic HE. However, current clinical evidence is not compelling enough to guide clinical practice. In a survey among 194 UK dermatologists the most frequent first choice approaches were psoralen combined with ultraviolet A (UVA) treatment (PUVA), oral steroids and alitretinoin (AL). When asked which strategy was most efficient for long-term outcome 20% of clinicians indicated they did not know; 43% of clinicians reported AL and 30% reported PUVA. Methods and analysis: ALPHA is a multicentre, open, prospective, two-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial comparing PUVA and AL with a planned sample size re-estimation. Between 500 and 780 participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis. The physician's global assessment (PGA) will direct treatment after randomisation, non-responders will be treated according to usual clinical practice; providing valuable pilot data on second line therapeutic approaches to inform future trials.Assessments will be conducted up to 52 weeks post randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the Hand Eczema Severity Index at 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures include modified Total Lesion Symptom Score, PGA, time to relapse, patient reported outcome measures and DNA extraction and assessment of genetic variants. A substudy on molecular inflammatory mediators will provide information on subgroup specific treatment responses. Photographs will be taken and HE severity assessed by a central review panel

"Kun ette nyt kuitenkaan kaatuisi" : potilasohje ikääntyneen kaatumisen ennaltaehkäisyyn

Ikääntyneiden kaatumiset ovat suuri kansantaloudellinen ja -terveydellinen ongelma. Joka kolmas kotona asuvista 65-vuotiaista kaatuu kerran vuodessa, laitoksissa asuvista jopa yli puolet. Kaatuminen heikentää iäkkään elämänlaatua kokonaisvaltaisesti, ja aiheuttaa paljon turhaa kipua ja kärsimystä. Ohjaus on hoitotyön auttamismenetelmä, joka määritellään asiakkaan ja hoitajan tavoitteelliseksi toiminnaksi. Ohjauksen tavoitteena on vahvistaa iäkkään selviytymistä kotona hoitosuhteen jälkeen. Tämän opinnäytetyön tarkoituksena oli tuottaa selkeä ikääntyneiden kaatumista ennaltaehkäisevä potilasohje. Opinnäytetyön tavoitteena oli, että potilasohjetta voitaisiin hyödyntää hoitotyön ohjaamistilanteissa. Tavoitteena oli saada luotua potilasohjeesta sellainen, joka toimisi ikääntyneen ja omaisen työvälineenä ikääntyneen arjessa. Tämä opinnäytetyö on luonteeltaan toiminnallinen. Opinnäytetyö oli osa NÄYTKÖ-projektia, joka toteutui Turun hyvinvointitoimialan ja Turun ammattikorkeakoulun yhteistyöhankkeena. Opinnäytetyössä selvitettiin ikääntyneiden kaatumisia ja niiden ennaltaehkäisyä, potilasohjausta sekä luotiin kirjallinen potilasohje. Opinnäytetyön aineisto hankittiin tekemällä kattava kirjallisuuskatsaus sekä haastattelemalla sairaanhoitajia, jotka työskentelivät ikääntyneiden parissa (n=5). Haastattelut toteutuivat kahtena erillisenä fokusryhmähaastatteluna toukokuussa 2013. Aineisto analysoitiin sisällönanalyysia soveltaen. Saatujen tulosten mukaan ikääntyneiden kaatumisia ennaltaehkäistiin puutteellisesti. Kaatumisten ennaltaehkäisyssä avainasemassa ovat toimintakyvyn ja fyysisen kunnon ylläpitäminen, osteoporoosin esto ja hoito, apuvälineiden oikeanlainen käyttö ja ympäristön vaaratekijöiden poisto. Haastatelluiden hoitajien mielestä potilasohjeeseen kuuluu edellisten lisäksi myös tietoa kengistä, lääkkeistä, ravitsemuksesta ja nesteytyksestä, avunpyyntöön soveltuvista välineistä ja tiheävirtsaisuudesta. Ikääntyneet tarvitsevat kirjallisia potilasohjeita tukemaan muistia suullisen ohjauksen lisäksi. Omaiset tulisi ottaa paremmin huomioon ikääntyneitä ohjatessa ja järjestää heille mahdollisuus osallistua ikääntyneen kanssa ohjaustilanteisiin.Elderly falls are a major public health and economic problem. One in three people living in the home of 65-year-old crashes once a year, people living in institutions even more than half. The downfall to reduce the overall quality of life of the elderly, and causes a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering. Control is nursing interventions, which is defined as the client and the caregiver as a purposeful activity. The aim of instruction is to strengthen the survival of elderly home care after a therapeutic relationship. The purpose of this thesis was to produce fall prevention instructions for older patients. The goal was that the instruction could be used in nursing-guidance. The goal was create patient instruction that would work as a tool for the elderly and their relatives in everyday life. This thesis was functional. Thesis is a part of the NÄYTKÖ project, which was implemented with Welfare Division of the City of Turku and the Turku University of Applied Sciences in a collaborative project. The focus of this thesis was clear the elderly falls and prevention, patient education and to create written patient guidance. The material was obtained through a literature review and by interviewing nurses who worked with older people (n=5). Interviews were carried out in two separate focus group interviews in May 2013. The data were analyzed using content analysis. The results show that older people fall prevention has done incomplete. A key roles in falls prevention are functional capacity and physical condition, osteoporosis prevention and treatment, proper use of assistive devices and removal of environmental risk factors. Interviewed nurses think that in written instruction should also contain information about shoes, medicines, nutrition and hydration, appropriate instruments application for assistance and urinary frequency. The elderly need written instructions to support their memory. Relatives should take better account when giving patient guidance to elderly and provide them to have opportunity to participate in elderly guidance situations