IMPLEmenting a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain evidence-based manageMENT in general practice (IMPLEMENT) : cluster randomised controlled trial study protocol

Background: Evidence generated from reliable research is not frequently implemented into clinical practice. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are a potential vehicle to achieve this. A recent systematic review of implementation strategies of guideline dissemination concluded that there was a lack of evidence regarding effective strategies to promote the uptake of guidelines. Recommendations from this review, and other studies, have suggested the use of interventions that are theoretically based because these may be more effective than those that are not. An evidencebased clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low back pain was recently developed in Australia. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention for a condition which is common, has a high burden, and for which there is an evidence-practice gap in the primary care setting. Aim: This study aims to test the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention for implementing a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain in general practice in Victoria, Australia. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of patients who are referred for a plain x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-consultation. Methods/Design: This study protocol describes the details of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Ninety-two general practices (clusters), which include at least one consenting general practitioner, will be randomised to an intervention or control arm using restricted randomisation. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific low back pain of less than three months duration will be eligible for inclusion. An average of twenty-five patients per general practice will be recruited, providing a total of 2,300 patient participants. General practitioners in the control arm will receive access to the guideline using the existing dissemination strategy. Practitioners in the intervention arm will be invited to participate in facilitated face-to-face workshops that have been underpinned by behavioural theory. Investigators (not involved in the delivery of the intervention), patients, outcome assessors and the study statistician will be blinded to group allocation. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538 (date registered 14/03/2006).The trial is funded by the NHMRC by way of a Primary Health Care Project Grant (334060). JF has 50% of her time funded by the Chief Scientist Office3/2006). of the Scottish Government Health Directorate and 50% by the University of Aberdeen. PK is supported by a NHMRC Health Professional Fellowship (384366) and RB by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (334010). JG holds a Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. All other authors are funded by their own institutions

Interaction of enamel matrix proteins with human periodontal ligament cells

Dorothy Hodgkin Postgraduate Award for research studies (jointly funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK, and by Institut Straumann) and the Research Discretionary Funds of the Periodontology Unit, UCL Eastman Dental Institute. Financial support was also provided by the NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre and by the WCU Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (No. R31-10069)

Hand sanitisers for reducing illness absences in primary school children in New Zealand: a cluster randomised controlled trial study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>New Zealand has relatively high rates of morbidity and mortality from infectious disease compared with other OECD countries, with infectious disease being more prevalent in children compared with others in the population. Consequences of infectious disease in children may have significant economic and social impact beyond the direct effects of the disease on the health of the child; including absence from school, transmission of infectious disease to other pupils, staff, and family members, and time off work for parents/guardians. Reduction of the transmission of infectious disease between children at schools could be an effective way of reducing the community incidence of infectious disease. Alcohol based no-rinse hand sanitisers provide an alternative hand cleaning technology, for which there is some evidence that they may be effective in achieving this. However, very few studies have investigated the effectiveness of hand sanitisers, and importantly, the potential wider economic implications of this intervention have not been established.</p> <p>Aims</p> <p>The primary objective of this trial is to establish if the provision of hand sanitisers in primary schools in the South Island of New Zealand, in addition to an education session on hand hygiene, reduces the incidence rate of absence episodes due to illness in children. In addition, the trial will establish the cost-effectiveness and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the intervention in this setting.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A cluster randomised controlled trial will be undertaken to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hand sanitisers. Sixty-eight primary schools will be recruited from three regions in the South Island of New Zealand. The schools will be randomised, within region, to receive hand sanitisers and an education session on hand hygiene, or an education session on hand hygiene alone. Fifty pupils from each school in years 1 to 6 (generally aged from 5 to 11 years) will be randomly selected for detailed follow-up about their illness absences, providing a total of 3400 pupils. In addition, absence information will be collected on all children from the school rolls. Investigators not involved in the running of the trial, outcome assessors, and the statistician will be blinded to the group allocation until the analysis is completed.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ACTRN12609000478213</p

A randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve sun protective behaviour in adolescents ('you can still be HOT in the shade'): study protocol

Background: Most skin cancers are preventable by encouraging consistent use of sun protective behaviour. In Australia, adolescents have high levels of knowledge and awareness of the risks of skin cancer but exhibit significantly lower sun protection behaviours than adults. There is limited research aimed at understanding why people do or do not engage in sun protective behaviour, and an associated absence of theory-based interventions to improve sun safe behaviour. This paper presents the study protocol for a school-based intervention which aims to improve the sun safe behaviour of adolescents. Methods/design: Approximately 400 adolescents (aged 12-17 years) will be recruited through Queensland, Australia public and private schools and randomized to the intervention (n = 200) or 'wait-list' control group (n = 200). The intervention focuses on encouraging supportive sun protective attitudes and beliefs, fostering perceptions of normative support for sun protection behaviour, and increasing perceptions of control/self-efficacy over using sun protection. It will be delivered during three × one hour sessions over a three week period from a trained facilitator during class time. Data will be collected one week pre-intervention (Time 1), and at one week (Time 2) and four weeks (Time 3) post-intervention. Primary outcomes are intentions to sun protect and sun protection behaviour. Secondary outcomes include attitudes toward performing sun protective behaviours (i.e., attitudes), perceptions of normative support to sun protect (i.e., subjective norms, group norms, and image norms), and perceived control over performing sun protective behaviours (i.e., perceived behavioural control). Discussion: The study will provide valuable information about the effectiveness of the intervention in improving the sun protective behaviour of adolescents

A Novel Method to Adjust Efficacy Estimates for Uptake of Other Active Treatments in Long-Term Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND: When rates of uptake of other drugs differ between treatment arms in long-term trials, the true benefit or harm of the treatment may be underestimated. Methods to allow for such contamination have often been limited by failing to preserve the randomization comparisons. In the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study, patients were randomized to fenofibrate or placebo, but during the trial many started additional drugs, particularly statins, more so in the placebo group. The effects of fenofibrate estimated by intention-to-treat were likely to have been attenuated. We aimed to quantify this effect and to develop a method for use in other long-term trials. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We applied efficacies of statins and other cardiovascular drugs from meta-analyses of randomized trials to adjust the effect of fenofibrate in a penalized Cox model. We assumed that future cardiovascular disease events were reduced by an average of 24% by statins, and 20% by a first other major cardiovascular drug. We applied these estimates to each patient who took these drugs for the period they were on them. We also adjusted the analysis by the rate of discontinuing fenofibrate. Among 4,900 placebo patients, average statin use was 16% over five years. Among 4,895 assigned fenofibrate, statin use was 8% and nonuse of fenofibrate was 10%. In placebo patients, use of cardiovascular drugs was 1% to 3% higher. Before adjustment, fenofibrate was associated with an 11% reduction in coronary events (coronary heart disease death or myocardial infarction) (P = 0.16) and an 11% reduction in cardiovascular disease events (P = 0.04). After adjustment, the effects of fenofibrate on coronary events and cardiovascular disease events were 16% (P = 0.06) and 15% (P = 0.008), respectively. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This novel application of a penalized Cox model for adjustment of a trial estimate of treatment efficacy incorporates evidence-based estimates for other therapies, preserves comparisons between the randomized groups, and is applicable to other long-term trials. In the FIELD study example, the effects of fenofibrate on the risks of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease events were underestimated by up to one-third in the original analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN64783481

Instrumental variable meta-analysis of individual patient data: application to adjust for treatment non-compliance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Intention-to-treat (ITT) is the standard data analysis method which includes all patients regardless of receiving treatment. Although the aim of ITT analysis is to prevent bias due to prognostic dissimilarity, it is also a counter-intuitive type of analysis as it counts patients who did not receive treatment, and may lead to "bias toward the null." As treated (AT) method analyzes patients according to the treatment actually received rather than intended, but is affected by the selection bias. Both ITT and AT analyses can produce biased estimates of treatment effect, so instrumental variable (IV) analysis has been proposed as a technique to control for bias when using AT data. Our objective is to correct for bias in non-experimental data from previously published individual patient data meta-analysis by applying IV methods</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Center prescribing preference was used as an IV to assess the effects of methotrexate (MTX) in preventing debilitating complications of chronic graft-versus-host-disease (cGVHD) in patients who received peripheral blood stem cell (PBSCT) or bone marrow transplant (BMT) in nine randomized controlled trials (1107 patients). IV methods are applied using 2-stage logistic, 2-stage probit and generalized method of moments models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ITT analysis showed a statistically significant detrimental effect with the use of day 11 MTX, resulting in cGVHD odds ratio (OR) of 1.34 (95% CI 1.02-1.76). AT results showed no difference in the odds of cGVHD with the use of MTX [OR 1.31 (95%CI 0.99-1.73)]. IV analysis further corrected the results toward no difference in the odds of cGVHD between PBSCT vs. BMT, allowing for a possibility of beneficial effects of MTX in preventing cGVHD in PBSCT recipients (OR 1.14; 95%CI 0.83-1.56).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>All instrumental variable models produce similar results. IV estimates correct for bias and do not exclude the possibility that MTX may be beneficial, contradicting the ITT analysis.</p

Implementation of a pharmacist-led intervention to enhance statin prescribing for secondary prevention in primary care: a cluster randomized trial.

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Although statins have indisputably proven to reduce fatal and nonfatal events in patients with cardiovascular disease, many patients with established cardiovascular disease do not receive them. Research into the effective and efficient implementation of current guidelines on secondary prevention is therefore needed. DESIGN: A cluster randomized implementation trial was conducted between September 2006 and February 2008. METHODS: Experimental pharmacists received an intensive implementation programme, whereas control pharmacists received an educational manual only. Pharmacists in both the groups were asked to identify eligible patients and to provide general practitioners (GPs) with lists of these patients. Physicians received instructions from the pharmacists to review the patients regarding a statin indication and to start a statin when they considered this as appropriate. Main outcome measure was the percentage of identified patients who received one or more statin prescriptions at 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: Although twice as many patients were reviewed for a statin indication by a GP in the experimental group (19.7 vs. 10.8%, P = 0.023), an equally low number of patients in the experimental group and the control group received statins (5.8 vs. 5.3%, P = 0.104). CONCLUSION: The intensive implementation programme had an impact on pharmacists and GPs, but did not result in more patients receiving statins.1 april 201

White blood cell count predicts reduction in coronary heart disease mortality with pravastatin

Background-Elevated serum inflammatory marker levels are associated with a greater long-term risk of cardiovascular events. Because 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme-A reductase inhibitors (statins) may have an antiinflammatory action, it has been suggested that patients with elevated inflammatory marker levels may have a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk with statin treatment. Methods and Results-We evaluated the association between the white blood cell count (WBC) and coronary heart disease mortality during a mean follow-up of 6.0 years in the Long-Term Intervention With Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) Study, a clinical trial comparing pravastatin (40 mg/d) with a placebo in 9014 stable patients with previous myocardial infarction or unstable angina. An increase in baseline WBC was associated with greater coronary heart disease mortality in patients randomized to placebo (hazard ratio for 1 X 10(9)/L increase in WBC, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.25; P&lt;0.001) but not pravastatin (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.09; P=0.56; P for interaction=0.004). The numbers of coronary heart disease deaths prevented per 1000 patients treated with pravastatin were 0, 9, 30, and 38 for baseline WBC quartiles of &lt;5.9, 6.0 to 6.9, 7.0 to 8.1, and &gt;8.2X10(9)/L, respectively. WBC was a stronger predictor of this treatment benefit than the ratio of total to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and a global measure of cardiac risk. There was also a greater reduction (P=0.052) in the combined incidence of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke with pravastatin as baseline WBC increased ( by quartile: 3, 41, 61, and 60 events prevented per 1000 patients treated, respectively). Conclusions-These data support the hypothesis that individuals with evidence of inflammation may obtain a greater benefit from statin therapy