Randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'Families for Health', a family-based childhood obesity treatment intervention delivered in a community setting for ages 6 to 11 years

Background: Effective programmes to help children manage their weight are required. ‘Families for Health’ focuses on a parenting approach, designed to help parents develop their parenting skills to support lifestyle change within the family. Families for Health version 1 showed sustained reductions in mean body mass index (BMI) z-score after 2 years in a pilot project. Objective: The aim was to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Design: The trial was a multicentre, investigator-blind RCT, with a parallel economic and process evaluation, with follow-up at 3 and 12 months. Randomisation was by family unit, using a 1 : 1 allocation by telephone registration, stratified by three sites, with a target of 120 families. Setting: Three sites in the West Midlands, England, UK. Participants: Children aged 6–11 years who were overweight (≥ 91st centile BMI) or obese (≥ 98th centile BMI), and their parents/carers. Recruitment was via referral or self-referral. Interventions: Families for Health version 2 is a 10-week, family-based community programme with parallel groups for parents and children, addressing parenting, lifestyle, social and emotional development. Usual care was the treatment for childhood obesity provided within each locality. Main outcome measures: Joint primary outcome measures were change in children’s BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 12 months’ follow-up (QALYs were calculated using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions Youth version). Secondary outcome measures included changes in children’s waist circumference, percentage body fat, physical activity, fruit/vegetable consumption and quality of life. Parents’ BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent–child relationships and parenting style were also assessed. The process evaluation documented recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity, using mixed methods. Results: The study recruited 115 families (128 children; 63 boys and 65 girls), with 56 families randomised to the Families for Health arm and 59 to the ‘usual-care’ control arm. There was 80% retention of families at 3 months (Families for Health, 46 families; usual care, 46 families) and 72% retention at 12 months (Families for Health, 44 families; usual care, 39 families). The change in BMI z-score at 12 months was not significantly different in the Families for Health arm and the usual-care arm [0.114, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.001 to 0.229; p = 0.053]. However, within-group analysis showed that the BMI z-score was significantly reduced in the usual-care arm (–0.118, 95% CI –0.203 to –0.034; p = 0.007), but not in the Families for Health arm (–0.005, 95% CI –0.085 to 0.078; p = 0.907). There was only one significant difference between groups for secondary outcomes. The economic evaluation, taking a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, showed that mean costs 12 months post randomisation were significantly higher for Families for Health than for usual care (£998 vs. £548; p < 0.001). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness of Families for Health was estimated at £552,175 per QALY gained. The probability that the Families for Health programme is cost-effective did not exceed 40% across a range of thresholds. The process evaluation demonstrated that the programme was implemented, as planned, to the intended population and any adjustments did not deviate widely from the handbook. Many families waited more than 3 months to receive the intervention. Facilitators’, parents’ and children’s experiences of Families for Health were largely positive and there were no adverse events. Further analysis could explore why some children show a clinically significant benefit while others have a worse outcome. Conclusions: Families for Health was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity in children aged 6–11 years, in comparison with usual care. Further exploration of the wide range of responses in BMI z-score in children following the Families for Health and usual-care interventions is warranted, focusing on children who had a clinically significant benefit and those who showed a worse outcome with treatment. Further research could focus on the role of parents in the prevention of obesity, rather than treatment. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45032201. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Corrigendum: A systematic review and economic evaluation of bisphosphonates for the prevention of fragility fractures

Abstract Background Fragility fractures are fractures that result from mechanical forces that would not ordinarily result in fracture. Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates [alendronic acid (Fosamax® and Fosamax® Once Weekly, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd), risedronic acid (Actonel® and Actonel Once a Week®, Warner Chilcott UK Ltd), ibandronic acid (Bonviva®, Roche Products Ltd) and zoledronic acid (Aclasta®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)] for the prevention of fragility fracture and to assess their cost-effectiveness at varying levels of fracture risk. Data sources For the clinical effectiveness review, six electronic databases and two trial registries were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and BIOSIS Previews, Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Searches were limited by date from 2008 until September 2014. Review methods A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of effectiveness studies were conducted. A review of published economic analyses was undertaken and a de novo health economic model was constructed. Discrete event simulation was used to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each bisphosphonate treatment strategy and a strategy of no treatment for a simulated cohort of patients with heterogeneous characteristics. The model was populated with effectiveness evidence from the systematic review and NMA. All other parameters were estimated from published sources. A NHS and Personal Social Services perspective was taken, and costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Fracture risk was estimated from patient characteristics using the QFracture® (QFracture-2012 open source revision 38, Clinrisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and FRAX® (web version 3.9, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK) tools. The relationship between fracture risk and incremental net benefit (INB) was estimated using non-parametric regression. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analyses were used to assess uncertainty. Results Forty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the clinical effectiveness systematic review, with 27 RCTs providing data for the fracture NMA and 35 RCTs providing data for the femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) NMA. All treatments had beneficial effects on fractures versus placebo, with hazard ratios varying from 0.41 to 0.92 depending on treatment and fracture type. The effects on vertebral fractures and percentage change in BMD were statistically significant for all treatments. There was no evidence of a difference in effect on fractures between bisphosphonates. A statistically significant difference in the incidence of influenza-like symptoms was identified from the RCTs for zoledronic acid compared with placebo. Reviews of observational studies suggest that upper gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently reported in the first month of oral bisphosphonate treatment, but pooled analyses of placebo-controlled trials found no statistically significant difference. A strategy of no treatment was estimated to have the maximum INB for patients with a 10-year QFracture risk under 1.5%, whereas oral bisphosphonates provided maximum INB at higher levels of risk. However, the PSA suggested that there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether or not no treatment is the optimal strategy until the QFracture score is around 5.5%. In the model using FRAX, the mean INBs were positive for all oral bisphosphonate treatments across all risk categories. Intravenous bisphosphonates were estimated to have lower INBs than oral bisphosphonates across all levels of fracture risk when estimated using either QFracture or FRAX. Limitations We assumed that all treatment strategies are viable alternatives across the whole population. Conclusions Bisphosphonates are effective in preventing fragility fractures. However, the benefit-to-risk ratio in the lowest-risk patients may be debatable given the low absolute QALY gains and the potential for adverse events. We plan to extend the analysis to include non-bisphosphonate therapies. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Concordance in diabetic foot ulceration : a cross-sectional study of agreement between wound swabbing and tissue sampling in infected ulcers

BACKGROUND: There is inadequate evidence to advise clinicians on the relative merits of swabbing versus tissue sampling of infected diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) concordance between culture results from wound swabs and tissue samples from the same ulcer; (2) whether or not differences in bacterial profiles from swabs and tissue samples are clinically relevant; (3) concordance between results from conventional culture versus polymerase chain reaction (PCR); and (4) prognosis for patients with an infected DFU at 12 months' follow-up. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, multicentre study involving patients with diabetes and a foot ulcer that was deemed to be infected by their clinician. Microbiology specimens for culture were taken contemporaneously by swab and by tissue sampling from the same wound. In a substudy, specimens were also processed by PCR. A virtual 'blinded' clinical review compared the appropriateness of patients' initial antibiotic regimens based on the results of swab and tissue specimens. Patients' case notes were reviewed at 12 months to assess prognosis. RESULTS: The main study recruited 400 patients, with 247 patients in the clinical review. There were 12 patients in the PCR study and 299 patients in the prognosis study. Patients' median age was 63 years (range 26-99 years), their diabetes duration was 15 years (range 2 weeks-57 years), and their index ulcer duration was 1.8 months (range 3 days-12 years). Half of the ulcers were neuropathic and the remainder were ischaemic/neuroischaemic. Tissue results reported more than one pathogen in significantly more specimens than swabs {86.1% vs. 70.1% of patients, 15.9% difference [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.8% to 20.1%], McNemar's p-value < 0.0001}. The two sampling techniques reported a difference in the identity of pathogens for 58% of patients. The number of pathogens differed in 50.4% of patients. In the clinical review study, clinicians agreed on the need for a change in therapy for 73.3% of patients (considering swab and tissue results separately), but significantly more tissue than swab samples required a change in therapy. Compared with traditional culture, the PCR technique reported additional pathogens for both swab and tissue samples in six (50%) patients and reported the same pathogens in four (33.3%) patients and different pathogens in two (16.7%) patients. The estimated healing rate was 44.5% (95% CI 38.9% to 50.1%). At 12 months post sampling, 45 (15.1%) patients had died, 52 (17.4%) patients had a lower-extremity ipsilateral amputation and 18 (6.0%) patients had revascularisation surgery. LIMITATIONS: We did not investigate the potential impact of microbiological information on care. We cannot determine if the improved information yield from tissue sampling is attributable to sample collection, sample handling, processing or reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue sampling reported both more pathogens and more organisms overall than swabbing. Both techniques missed some organisms, with tissue sampling missing fewer than swabbing. Results from tissue sampling more frequently led to a (virtual) recommended change in therapy. Long-term prognosis for patients with an infected foot ulcer was poor. FUTURE WORK: Research is needed to determine the effect of sampling/processing techniques on clinical outcomes and antibiotic stewardship. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme