Value and engagement : what can clinical trials learn from techniques used in not-for-profit marketing?

No funding has been received for this work.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Offloading devices for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers: a realist evaluation

Background Heel pressure ulcers can cause pain, reduce mobility, lead to longer hospital stays and in severe cases can lead to sepsis, amputation, and death. Offloading boots are marketed as heel pressure ulcer prevention devices, working by removing pressure to the heel, yet there is little good quality evidence about their clinical effectiveness. Given that evidence is not guiding use of these devices, this study aims to explore, how, when, and why these devices are used in hospital settings. Objective To explore how offloading devices are used to prevent heel pressure ulcers, for whom and in what circumstances. Methods A realist evaluation was undertaken to explore the contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes that might influence how offloading devices are implemented and used in clinical practice for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers in hospitals. Eight Tissue Viability Nurse Specialists from across the UK (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) were interviewed. Questions sought to elicit whether, and in what ways, initial theories about the use of heel pressure ulcers fitted with interviewee's experiences. Results Thirteen initial theories were refined into three programme theories about how offloading devices are used by nurses ‘proactively’ to prevent heel pressure ulcers, ‘reactively’ to treat and minimise deterioration of early-stage pressure ulcers, and patient factors that influence how these devices are used. Conclusions Offloading devices were used in clinical practice by all the interviewees. It was viewed that they were not suitable to be used by every patient, at every point in their inpatient journey, nor was it financially viable. However, the interviewees thought that identifying suitable ‘at risk’ patient groups that can maintain use of the devices could lead to proactive and cost-effective use of the devices. This understanding of the contexts and mechanisms that influence the effective use of offloading devices has implications for clinical practice and design of clinical trials of offloading devices. Tweetable abstract How, for whom, and in what circumstances do offloading devices work to prevent heel pressure ulcers? Tissue viability nurses' perspectives

Comparative effectiveness of heel-specific medical devices for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers: a systematic review

Background Pressure ulcers (PUs) impact on patient's quality of life and are costly for healthcare providers. Heels are a particular concern due to specific risk factors. Relative effectiveness of medical devices, e.g., dressings, off-loading devices, heel cushioning devices, to reduce PU development is unknown. Methods Systematic review of the effectiveness of heel-specific medical devices for the prevention of heel PU (HPU)s. Database searches were performed from inception to June 2021 for RCTs. The primary outcome was incidence of new HPUs. Trials were assessed for risk of bias and data analysed with risk ratios, mean difference or hazard ratios as appropriate. Results Fifteen RCTs (4724 participants) were identified. Dressings, as constant low pressure (CLP) devices vs standard care: eight trials (very low quality) showed no-significant difference in effectiveness (RR 0.31, 95%CI 0.10 to 1.01). Off-loading devices vs standard care: three trials (low quality), showed significant reduction in development of Category≥1 HPUs (RR 0.20, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.80) two trials (medium quality), showed significant reduction in development of Category≥2 HPUs (RR 0.08, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.67). Comparisons between off-loading devices: two trials (low quality) showed no clear difference in HPU incidence. In a paediatric post-surgical population, one trial of off-loading device and one of a dressing (CLP device), both versus standard care, showed no clear difference in HPU incidence (RR 0.19 95%CI 0.02 to 1.55 and RR 0.89 95%CI 0.56 to 1.42 respectively). Conclusions Off-loading devices may reduce HPU incidence, from low-quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that dressings reduce HPU incidence

Pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial : cost effectiveness analysis

Objective To assess tire cost effectiveness of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers in patients admitted to hospital. Design Cost effectiveness analysis carried out alongside the pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial; a multicentre UK based pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting 11 hospitals in six UK NHS trusts. Participants Intention to treat population comprising 1971 participants. Main outcome measures Kaplan Meier estimates of restricted mean time to development of pressure ulcers and total costs for treatment in hospital. Results Alternating pressure mattresses were associated with lower overall costs (283.6 pound per patient on average, 95% confidence interval -377.59 pound to. 976.79) pound mainly due to reduced length of stay in hospital, and greater benefits (a delay in time to ulceration of 10.64 days on average, - 24.40 to 3.09). The differences in health benefits and total costs for hospital stay between alternating pressure mattresses and alternating pressure overlays were not statistically significant; however, a cost effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that on average alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays were associated with air 80% probability of being cost saving. Conclusion Alternating pressure mattresses for the prevention of pressure ulcers are more likely to be cost effective and are more acceptable to patients than alternating pressure overlays

Power and sample size for multistate model analysis of longitudinal discrete outcomes in disease prevention trials.

For clinical trials where participants pass through a number of discrete health states resulting in longitudinal measures over time, there are several potential primary estimands for the treatment effect. Incidence or time to a particular health state are commonly used outcomes but the choice of health state may not be obvious and these estimands do not make full use of the longitudinal assessments. Multistate models have been developed for some diseases and conditions with the purpose of understanding their natural history and have been used for secondary analysis to understand mechanisms of action of treatments. There is little published on the use of multistate models as the primary analysis method and potential implications on design features, such as assessment schedules. We illustrate methods via analysis of data from a motivating example; a Phase III clinical trial of pressure ulcer prevention strategies. We clarify some of the possible estimands that might be considered and we show, via a simulation study, that under some circumstances the sample size could be reduced by half using a multistate model based analysis, without adversely affecting the power of the trial

Exploring the role of pain as an early predictor of category 2 pressure ulcers: a prospective cohort study

Objective To explore pressure area related pain as a predictor of category ≥2 pressure ulcer (PU) development. Design Multicentre prospective cohort study. Setting UK hospital and community settings. Participants inclusion Consenting acutely ill patients aged ≥18 years, defined as high risk (Braden bedfast/chairfast AND completely immobile/very limited mobility; pressure area related pain or; category 1 PU). Exclusion Patients too unwell, unable to report pain, 2 or more category ≥2 PUs. Follow-up Twice weekly for 30 days. Primary and secondary outcome measures Development and time to development of one or more category ≥2 PUs. Results Of 3819 screened, 1266 were eligible, 634 patients were recruited, 32 lost to follow-up, providing a 602 analysis population. 152 (25.2%) developed one or more category ≥2 PUs. 464 (77.1%) patients reported pressure area related pain on a healthy, altered or category 1 skin site of whom 130 (28.0%) developed a category ≥2 PU compared with 22 (15.9%) of those without pain. Full stepwise variable selection was used throughout the analyses. (1) Multivariable logistic regression model to assess 9 a priori factors: presence of category 1 PU (OR=3.25, 95% CI (2.17 to 4.86), p<0.0001), alterations to intact skin (OR=1.98, 95% CI (1.30 to 3.00), p=0.0014), pressure area related pain (OR=1.56, 95% CI (0.93 to 2.63), p=0.0931). (2) Multivariable logistic regression model to account for overdispersion: presence of category 1 PU (OR=3.20, 95% CI (2.11 to 4.85), p<0.0001), alterations to intact skin (OR=1.90, 95% CI (1.24 to 2.91), p=0.0032), pressure area related pain (OR=1.85, 95% CI (1.07 to 3.20), p=0.0271), pre-existing category 2 PU (OR=2.09, 95% CI (1.35 to 3.23), p=0.0009), presence of chronic wound (OR=1.66, 95% CI (1.06 to 2.62), p=0.0277), Braden activity (p=0.0476). (3) Accelerated failure time model: presence of category 1 PU (AF=2.32, 95% CI (1.73 to 3.12), p<0.0001), pressure area related pain (AF=2.28, 95% CI (1.59 to 3.27), p<0.0001). (4) 2-level random-intercept logistic regression model: skin status which comprised 2 levels (versus healthy skin); alterations to intact skin (OR=4.65, 95% CI (3.01 to 7.18), p<0.0001), presence of category 1 PU (OR=17.30, 95% CI (11.09 to 27.00), p<0.0001) and pressure area related pain (OR=2.25, 95% CI (1.53 to 3.29), p<0.0001). Conclusions This is the first study to assess pain as a predictor of category ≥2 PU development. In all 4 models, pain emerged as a risk factor associated with an increased probability of category ≥2 PU development

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

Developing a pressure ulcer risk factor minimum data set and risk assessment framework

AIM: To agree a draft pressure ulcer risk factor Minimum Data Set to underpin the development of a new evidenced-based Risk Assessment Framework.BACKGROUND: A recent systematic review identified the need for a pressure ulcer risk factor Minimum Data Set and development and validation of an evidenced-based pressure ulcer Risk Assessment Framework. This was undertaken through the Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (RP-PG-0407-10056), funded by the National Institute for Health Research and incorporates five phases. This article reports phase two, a consensus study.DESIGN: Consensus study.METHOD: A modified nominal group technique based on the Research and Development/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method. This incorporated an expert group, review of the evidence and the views of a Patient and Public Involvement service user group. Data were collected December 2010-December 2011.FINDINGS: The risk factors and assessment items of the Minimum Data Set (including immobility, pressure ulcer and skin status, perfusion, diabetes, skin moisture, sensory perception and nutrition) were agreed. In addition, a draft Risk Assessment Framework incorporating all Minimum Data Set items was developed, comprising a two stage assessment process (screening and detailed full assessment) and decision pathways.CONCLUSION: The draft Risk Assessment Framework will undergo further design and pre-testing with clinical nurses to assess and improve its usability. It will then be evaluated in clinical practice to assess its validity and reliability. The Minimum Data Set could be used in future for large scale risk factor studies informing refinement of the Risk Assessment Framework

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