Assessing micro- vs macro-costing approaches for treating appendicitis in children with appendicectomy or non-operatively

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a health economic sub-study within a feasibility RCT comparing a non-operative treatment pathway as an alternative to appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children. The objectives were to understand and assess data collection tools and methods and to determine indicative costs and benefits assessing the feasibility of conducting a full economic evaluation within the definitive trial. METHODS: We compared different methods of estimating treatment costs including micro-costing, hospital administrative data (PLICS) and health system (NHS) reference costs. We compared two different HRQoL instruments (CHU-9D and EQ-5D-5L) in terms of data completeness and sensitivity to change over time, including potential ceiling effects. We also explored how the timing of data collection and duration of the analysis could affect QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years) and the results of the cost-utility analysis (CUA) within the future RCT. RESULTS: Using a micro-costing approach, the total per treatment costs were in alignment with hospital administrative data (PLICS). Average health system reference cost data (macro-costing using NHS costs) could potentially underestimate these treatment costs, particularly for non-operative treatment. Costs incurred following hospital discharge in the primary care setting were minimal, and limited family borne costs were reported by parents/carers. While both HRQoL instruments performed relatively well, our results highlight the problem of ceiling effect and the importance of the timing of data collection and the duration of the analysis in any future assessment using QALYs and CUA. CONCLUSIONS: We highlighted the importance of obtaining accurate individual-patient cost data when conducting economic evaluations. Our results suggest that timing of data collection and duration of the assessment are important considerations when evaluating cost-effectiveness and reporting cost per QALY. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15830435

Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of a specialist and a generic parenting programme for the treatment of preschool ADHD

BACKGROUND: The New Forest Parenting Programme (NFPP) is a home-delivered, evidence-based parenting programme to target symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in preschool children. It has been adapted for use with 'hard-to-reach' or 'difficult-to-treat' children. This trial will compare the adapted-NFPP with a generic parenting group-based programme, Incredible Years (IY), which has been recommended for children with preschool-type ADHD symptoms.METHODS/DESIGN: This multicentre randomized controlled trial comprises three arms: adapted-NFPP, IY and treatment as usual (TAU). A sample of 329 parents of preschool-aged children with a research diagnosis of ADHD enriched for hard-to-reach and potentially treatment-resistant children will be allocated to the arms in the ratio 3:3:1. Participants in the adapted-NFPP and IY arms receive an induction visit followed by 12 weekly parenting sessions of 1½ hours (adapted-NFPP) or 2½ hours (IY) over 2.5 years. Adapted-NFPP will be delivered as a one-to-one home-based intervention; IY, as a group-based intervention. TAU participants are offered a parenting programme at the end of the study. The primary objective is to test whether the adapted-NFPP produces beneficial effects in terms of core ADHD symptoms. Secondary objectives include examination of the treatment impact on secondary outcomes, a study of cost-effectiveness and examination of the mediating role of treatment-induced changes in parenting behaviour and neuropsychological function. The primary outcome is change in ADHD symptoms, as measured by the parent-completed version of the SNAP-IV questionnaire, adjusted for pretreatment SNAP-IV score. Secondary outcome measures are: a validated index of behaviour during child's solo play; teacher-reported SNAP-IV (ADHD scale); teacher and parent SNAP-IV (ODD) Scale; Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory - Oppositional Defiant Disorder scale; Revised Client Service Receipt Inventory - Health Economics Costs measure and EuroQol (EQ5D) health-related quality-of-life measure. Follow-up measures will be collected 6 months after treatment for participants allocated to adapted-NFPP and IY.DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence as to whether the adapted-NFPP is more effective and cost-effective than the recommended treatment and TAU. It will also provide information about mediating factors (improved parenting and neuropsychological function) and moderating factors (parent and child genetic factors) in any increased benefit.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN39288126.</p

Emollient bath additives for the treatment of childhood eczema (BATHE): multi-centre pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness

Objectives: To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of including emollient bath additives in the management of childhood eczema. Trial design: Pragmatic randomised open-label superiority trial with two parallel groups. Setting and recruitment: 96 general practices in Wales, West of England and Southern England. Invitation by personal letter or opportunistically by usual clinical team. Participants: Children were eligible to participate if aged over 12 months and less than 12 years, fulfilling UK Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Dermatitis. Children with inactive or very mild eczema (5 or less on Nottingham Eczema Severity Scale) were excluded, as were children who bathed less than once a week, or whose carers were not willing to accept randomisation. 483 were randomised and one withdrew, leaving 482 children in the trial: 51% female, 84% white, mean age 5 years. Interventions: The intervention group were prescribed emollient bath additives by their usual clinical team and were asked to use them regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued with standard eczema management and were given standardised advice on how to wash. Primary outcome: Eczema control measured by Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM, range 0-28) weekly for 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes: Eczema severity over 1 year (4-weekly POEM from baseline to 52 weeks); number of eczema exacerbations resulting in primary healthcare consultation; disease-specific quality of life (QOL) (Dermatitis Family Impact); generic QoL (Child Health Utility-9D); resource utilisation; type and quantity of topical corticosteroid/calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. Randomisation: 483 children were randomised (1:1) using online software, stratified by recruiting centre. Results: 95.6% (461/482) of participants completed at least one post-baseline POEM, so were included in the analysis, and 76.8% (370/482) of participants completed questionnaires for more than 80% of the time points for the primary outcome (12/16 weekly questionnaires to 16 weeks). The mean Baseline POEM was 9.5 (s.d. 5.7) in the bath additives group and 10.1 (s.d. 5.8) in the no bath additives group. The mean POEM over the 16-week period was 7.5 (s.d. 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (6.0) in the no bath additives group. There was no statistically significant difference in weekly POEM scores between groups over 16 weeks. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, topical corticosteroid use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additive group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additive group (95% CI -0.27 to 1.10), below the published minimal clinically important difference for POEM of 3 points. There was no difference between groups in secondary outcomes, economic outcomes or in adverse effects. Conclusions: This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit from including emollient bath additives in the standard management of childhood eczema. Further research is needed into optimal regimens for leave-on emollient and use of soap substitutes for children with eczema

CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children – a randomised controlled feasibility Trial (CONTRACT)

Objective To establish the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy in children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.Design Feasibility randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study to inform recruiter training to optimise recruitment and the design of a future definitive trial.Setting Three specialist paediatric surgery centres in the UK.Patients Children (aged 4–15 years) with a clinical diagnosis of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.Interventions Appendicectomy or a non-operative treatment pathway (comprising broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation).Main outcome measures Primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited. Secondary outcomes evaluated adherence to interventions, data collection during follow-up, safety of treatment pathways and clinical course.Results Fifty per cent of eligible participants (95% CI 40 to 59) approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. Repeated bespoke recruiter training was associated with an increase in recruitment rate over the course of the trial from 38% to 72%. There was high acceptance of randomisation, good patient and surgeon adherence to trial procedures and satisfactory completion of follow-up. Although more participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated, treatment pathways were found to be safe and adverse event profiles acceptable.Conclusion Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared with appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children is feasible.Trial registration number ISRCTN15830435

Conservative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis in children:the CONTRACT feasibility study, including feasibility RCT

Background Whilst non-operative treatment is known to be effective for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children, comparative randomised trial data reporting important outcomes compared to appendicectomy are lacking.ObjectivesTo ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a non-operative treatment pathway compared to appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children.•DesignMixed methods study including: a feasibility RCT; embedded and parallel qualitative and survey studies; parallel health economic feasibility study; development of a core outcome set.Setting Three specialist NHS Paediatric Surgical Units in EnglandParticipants Children (aged 4-15 years) clinically diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis participated in the feasibility RCT. Children, their families, recruiting clinicians and other healthcare professionals involved in caring for children with appendicitis took part in the qualitative study. UK Specialist Paediatric Surgeons took part in the survey. Specialist Paediatric Surgeons, Adult General Surgeons who treat children, and children and young people who previously had appendicitis along with their families took part in the core outcomes set development.Interventions Participants in the feasibility RCT were randomised to a non-operative treatment pathway (broad-spectrum antibiotics and active observation) or appendicectomy.Main outcome measures Primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients recruited to the feasibility trial.Data sourcesNHS casenotes, questionnaire responses, transcribed audio recordings of recruitment discussions and qualitative interviewsResults Overall, 50% (95%CI 40-59) of 115 eligible participants approached about the trial agreed to participate and were randomised. There was high acceptance of randomisation and good adherence to trial procedures and follow-up (follow rates of 89%, 85% and 85% at six weeks, three months and six months respectively). More participants had perforated appendicitis than had been anticipated.Qualitative work enabled us to: communicate about the trial effectively with patients and families; design and deliver bespoke training to optimise recruitment; and understand how to optimise design and delivery of a future trial.The health economic study, indicated that the main cost drivers are the ward stay cost and the cost of the operation, and has informed quality of life assessment methods for future work.A core outcome set for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people was developed, containing 14 outcomes.There is adequate surgeon interest to justify proceeding to an effectiveness trial with 51% of those surveyed expressing a willingness to recruit with an unchanged trial protocol.LimitationsSince the feasibility RCT was only performed in three centres we cannot guarantee successful recruitment across a larger number of sites. However, our qualitative work has informed a bespoke training package to facilitate this. Although survey results suggest adequate clinician interest to make a larger trial possible, actual participation may differ, and equipoise may have moved over time.Conclusions A future effectiveness trial is feasible following limited additional preparation to establish appropriate outcome measures and case identification. We recommend a limited package of qualitative work be included to optimise recruitment at new centres in particular.Future work Prior to proceeding to an effectiveness trial we need to: develop a robust method for distinguishing children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from those with more advanced appendicitis; reach agreement on a primary outcome measure and effect size that is acceptable to all stakeholder groups involved.Study registration ISRCTN15830435.Funding detailsNIHR HTA programm

Serial prophylactic exchange blood transfusion in pregnant women with sickle cell disease (TAPS-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancies in women with sickle cell disease (SCD) are associated with a higher risk of sickle and pregnancy complications. Limited options exist for treating SCD during pregnancy. Serial prophylactic exchange blood transfusion (SPEBT) has been shown to be effective in treating SCD outside pregnancy, but evidence is lacking regarding its use during pregnancy. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a future phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of SPEBT in pregnant women with SCD. METHODS: The study is an individually randomised, two-arm, feasibility trial with embedded qualitative and health economic studies. Fifty women, 18 years of age and older, with SCD and a singleton pregnancy at ≤ 18 weeks' gestation will be recruited from six hospitals in England. Randomisation will be conducted using a secure online database and minimised by centre, SCD genotype and maternal age. Women allocated to the intervention arm will receive SPEBT commencing at ≤ 18 weeks' gestation, performed using automated erythrocytapheresis every 6-10 weeks until the end of pregnancy, aiming to maintain HbS% or combined HbS/HbC% below 30%. Women in the standard care arm will only receive transfusion when clinically indicated. The primary outcome will be the recruitment rate. Additional endpoints include reasons for refusal to participate, attrition rate, protocol adherence, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Women will be monitored throughout pregnancy to assess maternal, sickle, and foetal complications. Detailed information about adverse events (including hospital admission) and birth outcomes will be extracted from medical records and via interview at 6 weeks postpartum. An embedded qualitative study will consist of interviews with (a) 15-25 trial participants to assess experiences and acceptability, (b) 5-15 women who decline to participate to identify barriers to recruitment and (c) 15-20 clinical staff to explore fidelity and acceptability. A health economic study will inform a future cost effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: This feasibility study aims to rigorously evaluate SPEBT as a treatment for SCD in pregnancy and its impact on maternal and infant outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIH registry (www.clinicaltrials.gov), registration number NCT03975894 (registered 05/06/19); ISRCTN (www.isrctn.com), registration number ISRCTN52684446 (retrospectively registered 02/08/19)

Feasibility of weekly participant-reported data collection in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care: Experiences from the BATHE trial (Bath Additives for the Treatment of cHildhood Eczema)

Background Patient-reported outcomes measures in clinical trials ensure that evaluations of effectiveness focus on outcomes that are important to patients. In relapsing-remitting conditions, such as eczema, repeated measurements may allow a more accurate reflection of disease burden and treatment effect than less frequent measurements. We asked parents/carers of children with eczema taking part in a trial of bath emollients to complete weekly questionnaires for 16 weeks. Methods The objective of this study was to determine the acceptability and practicality of collecting weekly measures of eczema severity online for 16 weeks in children aged 1 to 11 years as part of the BATHE study. BATHE randomised patients to bath emollients plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care only. The primary outcome was eczema severity, measured by the seven-item Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) repeated weekly for 16 weeks. Acceptability was explored through qualitative interviews with 10 participants. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Practicality was assessed by exploring the completeness of the data and keeping a log of any problems. Results Four hundred and eighty-two participants were recruited to the trial and 429 opted to complete measures online (89.0%). Data were collected online for 83% of time points over the 16-week period and there was no association between socio-demographic characteristics and data completeness. Two hundred and six (48%) completed their weekly data every week for 16 weeks and 341 (79%) completed it at least 80% of the time. The mean number of weeks completed was 13.3 out of 16 (SD 4.2). Interviewees said that they understood the rationale behind weekly collection and some welcomed this as it helped them realise how their child’s eczema changed weekly. Whilst some interviewees spoke of weekly questionnaires as onerous, others said that they found them quick and easy. Reminders were welcomed. Parents/carers seemed happy to receive telephone reminders and it was sometimes useful for eliciting problems relating to obtaining trial medication or password problems for online data collection. Conclusions Amongst this population, high levels of data completeness suggests that weekly completion of the online questionnaire appears to be acceptable and feasible over a 16-week period

CONTRACT Study - CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children (feasibility):study protocol for a randomised controlled Trial

BackgroundCurrently, the routine treatment for acute appendicitis in the United Kingdom is an appendicectomy. However, there is increasing scientific interest and research into non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults and children. While a number of studies have investigated non-operative treatment of appendicitis in adults, this research cannot be applied to the paediatric population. Ultimately, we aim to perform a UK-based multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of non-operative treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children, as compared with appendicectomy. First, we will undertake a feasibility study to assess the feasibility of performing such a trial.Methods/designThe study involves a feasibility RCT with a nested qualitative research to optimise recruitment as well as a health economic substudy. Children (aged 4–15 years inclusive) diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis that would normally be treated with an appendicectomy are eligible for the RCT. Exclusion criteria include clinical/radiological suspicion of perforated appendicitis, appendix mass or previous non-operative treatment of appendicitis. Participants will be randomised into one of two arms. Participants in the intervention arm are treated with antibiotics and regular clinical assessment to ensure clinical improvement. Participants in the control arm will receive appendicectomy. Randomisation will be minimised by age, sex, duration of symptoms and centre. Children and families who are approached for the RCT will be invited to participate in the embedded qualitative substudy, which includes recording of recruitment consultants and subsequent interviews with participants and non-participants and their families and recruiters. Analyses of these will inform interventions to optimise recruitment. The main study outcomes include recruitment rate (primary outcome), identification of strategies to optimise recruitment, performance of trial treatment pathways, clinical outcomes and safety of non-operative treatment. We have involved children, young people and parents in study design and delivery.DiscussionIn this study we will explore the feasibility of performing a full efficacy RCT comparing non-operative treatment with appendicectomy in children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Factors determining success of the present study include recruitment rate, safety of non-operative treatment and adequate interest in the future RCT. Ultimately this feasibility study will form the foundation of the main RCT and reinforce its design.Trial registrationISRCTN15830435. Registered on 8 February 2017

Feasibility of weekly participant-reported data collection in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care:experiences from the BATHE trial (Bath Additives for the Treatment of cHildhood Eczema)

Background: Patient‐reported outcomes measures in clinical trials ensure that evaluations of effectiveness focus on outcomes that are important to patients. In relapsing‐remitting conditions such as eczema, repeated measurements may allow a more accurate reflection of disease burden and treatment effect than less frequent measurements. We asked parents/carers of children with eczema taking part in a trial of bath emollients to complete weekly questionnaires for 16 weeks.Methods: The objective of this study was to determine the acceptability and practicality of collecting weekly measures of eczema severity online for 16 weeks in children aged 1 to 11 years as part of the BATHE study. BATHE randomised patients to bath emollients plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care only. The primary outcome was eczema severity, measured by the 7‐item Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) repeated weekly for 16 weeks. Acceptability was explored through qualitative interviews with ten participants. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Practicality was assessed by exploring the completeness of the data and keeping a log of any problems.Results: 482 participants were recruited to the trial and 429 opted to complete measures online(89.0%). Data were collected online for 83% of timepoints over the 16 week period and there was no association between socio‐demographic characteristics and data completeness. 206 (48%) completed their weekly data every week for 16 weeks and 341 (79%) completed it at least 80% of the time. The mean number of weeks completed was 13.3 out of 16 (s.d 4.2). Interviewees said they understood the rationale behind weekly collection and some welcomed this as it helped them realise how their child’s eczema changed weekly. While some interviewees spoke of weekly questionnaires as onerous, others said they found them quick and easy. Reminders were welcomed. Parents/carers seemed happy to receive telephone reminders and it was sometimes useful for eliciting problems relating to obtaining trial medication or password problems for online data collection.Conclusions: Amongst this population, high levels of data completeness suggests that weekly completion of the online questionnaire appears to be acceptable and feasible over a 16 week period.Trial registration number: ISRCTN84102309, Registered on 9/12/201