Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a universal parenting skills programme in deprived communities : multicentre randomised controlled trial

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost utility of a universally provided early years parenting programme. Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting: Early years centres in four deprived areas of South Wales. Participants: Families with children aged between 2 and 4 years. 286 families were recruited and randomly allocated to the intervention or waiting list control. Intervention: The Family Links Nurturing Programme (FLNP), a 10-week course with weekly 2 h facilitated group sessions. Main outcome measures: Negative and supportive parenting, child and parental well-being and costs assessed before the intervention, following the course (3 months) and at 9 months using standardised measures. Results: There were no significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes between trial arms at 3 or 9 months. With ‘+’ indicating improvement, difference in change in negative parenting score at 9 months was +0.90 (95%CI −1.90 to 3.69); in supportive parenting, +0.17 (95%CI −0.61 to 0.94); and 12 of the 17 secondary outcomes showed a non-significant positive effect in the FLNP arm. Based on changes in parental well-being (SF-12), the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was estimated to be £34 913 (range 21 485–46 578) over 5 years and £18 954 (range 11 664–25 287) over 10 years. Probability of cost per QALY gained below £30 000 was 47% at 5 years and 57% at 10 years. Attendance was low: 34% of intervention families attended no sessions (n=48); only 47% completed the course (n=68). Also, 19% of control families attended a parenting programme before 9-month follow-up. Conclusions: Our trial has not found evidence of clinical or cost utility for the FLNP in a universal setting. However, low levels of exposure and contamination mean that uncertainty remains. Trial registration: The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13919732

Protocol for an open label: phase I trial within a cohort of foetal cell transplants in people with Huntington’s disease

Huntington’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterised by motor, cognitive and psychiatric symptoms. Currently, no disease-modifying therapies are available to slow or halt disease progression. Huntington’s disease is characterised by relatively focal and specific loss of striatal medium spiny neurons, which makes it suitable for cell replacement therapy, a process involving the transplantation of donor cells to replace those lost due to disease. TRIDENT (TRIal DEsigns for delivery of Novel Therapies in neurodegeneration) is a phase I Trial Within a Cohort (TWiC) designed to assess safety and feasibility of transplanting human fetalstriatal cells into the striatum of people with Huntington’s disease. A minimum of 18 participants will be enrolled in the study cohort, and up to five eligible participants will be randomly selected to undergo transplantation of 12-22 million fetal cells in a dose escalation paradigm. Independent reviewers will assess safety outcomes (lack of significant infection, bleeding or new neurological deficit) four weeks after surgery, and ongoing safety will be established before conducting each subsequent surgery. All participants will undergo detailed clinical and functional assessment at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Surgery will be performed one month after baseline, and transplant participants will undergo regular clinical follow-up for at least 12 months. Evaluation of trial processes will also be undertaken. Transplant participants and their carers will be interviewed approximately one month before and after surgery. Interviews will also be conducted with non-transplanted participants and healthcare staff delivering the intervention and involved in the clinical care of participants. Evaluation of clinical and functional efficacy outcomes and intervention costs will be carried out to explore plausible trial designs for subsequent randomised controlled trials aimed at evaluating efficacy and cost-effectiveness of cell replacement therapy. TRIDENT will enable the assessment of the safety, feasibility, acceptability and cost of fetalcell transplants in people with Huntington’s disease. The data collected will inform trial designs for complex intracranial interventions in a range of neurodegenerative conditions and facilitate the development of stable surgical pipelines for delivery of future stem cell trials

Palliative radiotherapy after oesophageal cancer stenting (ROCS): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

Background: patients with advanced oesophageal cancer have a median survival of 3-6 months, and most require intervention for dysphagia. Self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion is the most typical form of palliation in these patients, but dysphagia deterioration and re-intervention are common. This study examined the efficacy of adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) compared with usual care alone in preventing dysphagia deterioration and reducing service use after SEMS insertion.Methods: this was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial based at cancer centres and acute care hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Patients (aged ≥16 years) with incurable oesophageal carcinoma receiving stent insertion for primary management of dysphagia were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive usual care alone or EBRT (20 Gy in five fractions or 30 Gy in ten fractions) plus usual care after stent insertion. Usual care was implemented according to need as identified by the local multidisciplinary team (MDT). Randomisation was via the method of minimisation stratified by treating centre, stage at diagnosis (I-III vs IV), histology (squamous or non-squamous), and MDT intent to give chemotherapy (yes vs no). The primary outcome was difference in proportions of participants with dysphagia deterioration (&gt;11 point decrease on patient-reported European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire-oesophagogastric module [QLQ-OG25], or a dysphagia-related event consistent with such a deterioration) or death by 12 weeks in a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which excluded patients who did not have a stent inserted and those without a baseline QLQ-OG25 assessment. Secondary outcomes included survival, quality of life (QoL), morbidities (including time to first bleeding event or hospital admission for bleeding event and first dysphagia-related stent complications or re-intervention), and cost-effectiveness. Safety analysis was undertaken in the modified ITT population. The study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN12376468, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01915693, and is completed.Findings: 220 patients were randomly assigned between Dec 16, 2013, and Aug 24, 2018, from 23 UK centres. The modified ITT population (n=199) comprised 102 patients in the usual care group and 97 patients in the EBRT group. Radiotherapy did not reduce dysphagia deterioration, which was reported in 36 (49%) of 74 patients receiving usual care versus 34 (45%) of 75 receiving EBRT (adjusted odds ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·40-1·68], p=0·59) in those with complete data for the primary endpoint. No significant difference was observed in overall survival: median overall survival was 19·7 weeks (95% CI 14·4-27·7) with usual care and 18·9 weeks (14·7-25·6) with EBRT (adjusted hazard ratio 1·06 [95% CI 0·78-1·45], p=0·70; n=199). Median time to first bleeding event or hospital admission for a bleeding event was 49·0 weeks (95% CI 33·3-not reached) with EBRT versus 65·9 weeks (52·7-not reached) with usual care (adjusted subhazard ratio 0·52 [95% CI 0·28-0·97], p=0·038; n=199). No time versus treatment interaction was observed for prespecified QoL outcomes. We found no evidence of differences between trial group in time to first stent complication or re-intervention event. The most common (grade 3-4) adverse event was fatigue, reported in 19 (19%) of 102 patients receiving usual care alone and 22 (23%) of 97 receiving EBRT. On cost-utility analysis, EBRT was more expensive and less efficacious than usual care.Interpretation: patients with advanced oesophageal cancer having SEMS insertion for the primary management of their dysphagia did not gain additional benefit from concurrent palliative radiotherapy and it should not be routinely offered. For a minority of patients clinically considered to be at high risk of tumour bleeding, concurrent palliative radiotherapy might reduce bleeding risk and the need for associated interventions.Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.</p

General practitioner use of a C-reactive protein point-of-care test to help target antibiotic prescribing in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (the PACE study) : study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Most patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care are prescribed an antibiotic, which may not always be appropriate and may cause harm. C-reactive protein (CRP) is an acute-phase biomarker that can be rapidly measured at the point of care and may predict benefit from antibiotic treatment in AECOPD. It is not clear whether the addition of a CRP point-of-care test (POCT) to clinical assessment leads to a reduction in antibiotic consumption without having a negative impact on COPD health status. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) aiming to include 650 participants with a diagnosis of AECOPD in primary care. Participants will be randomised to be managed according to usual care (control) or with the addition of a CRP POCT to guide antibiotic prescribing. Antibiotic consumption for AECOPD within 4 weeks post randomisation and COPD health status (total score) measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) at 2 weeks post randomisation will be co-primary outcomes. Primary analysis (by intention-to-treat) will determine differences in antibiotic consumption for superiority and COPD health status for non-inferiority. Secondary outcomes include: COPD health status, CCQ domain scores, use of other COPD treatments (weeks 1, 2 and 4), EQ-5D utility scores (weeks 1, 2 and 4 and month 6), disease-specific, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 6 months, all-cause antibiotic consumption (antibiotic use for any condition) during first 4 weeks post randomisation, total antibiotic consumption (number of days during first 4 weeks of antibiotic consumed for AECOPD/any reason), antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation and during following 4 weeks, adverse effects over the first 4 weeks, incidence of pneumonia (weeks 4 and 6 months), health care resource use and cost comparison over the 6 months following randomisation. Prevalence and resistance profiles of bacteria will be assessed using throat and sputum samples collected at baseline and 4-week follow-up. A health economic evaluation and qualitative process evaluation will be carried out. DISCUSSION: If shown to be effective (i.e. leads to a reduction in antibiotic use with no worse COPD health status), the use of the CRP POCT could lead to better outcomes for patients with AECOPD and help reduce selective pressures driving the development of antimicrobial resistance. PACE will be one of the first studies to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a POCT biomarker to guide clinical decision-making in primary care on patient-reported outcomes, antibiotic prescribing and antibiotic resistance for AECOPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN24346473 . Registered on 20 August 2014

C-reactive protein point-of-care testing for safely reducing antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the PACE RCT

Most patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care are prescribed antibiotics, but these may not be beneficial, and they can cause side effects and increase the risk of subsequent resistant infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) could safely reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance. To determine whether or not the use of a C-reactive protein (CRP) POCT to guide prescribing decisions for AECOPD reduces antibiotic consumption without having a negative impact on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) health status and is cost-effective. A multicentre, parallel-arm, randomised controlled open trial with an embedded process, and a health economic evaluation. General practices in Wales and England. A UK NHS perspective was used for the economic analysis. Adults (aged ≥ 40 years) with a primary care diagnosis of COPD, presenting with an AECOPD (with at least one of increased dyspnoea, increased sputum volume and increased sputum purulence) of between 24 hours' and 21 days' duration. CRP POCTs to guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for AECOPD, compared with usual care (no CRP POCT), using remote online randomisation. Patient-reported antibiotic consumption for AECOPD within 4 weeks post randomisation and COPD health status as measured with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) at 2 weeks. For the economic evaluation, patient-reported resource use and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions were included. In total, 653 participants were randomised from 86 general practices. Three withdrew consent and one was randomised in error, leaving 324 participants in the usual-care arm and 325 participants in the CRP POCT arm. Antibiotics were consumed for AECOPD by 212 out of 274 participants (77.4%) and 150 out of 263 participants (57.0%) in the usual-care and CRP POCT arm, respectively [adjusted odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.47]. The CCQ analysis comprised 282 and 281 participants in the usual-care and CRP POCT arms, respectively, and the adjusted mean CCQ score difference at 2 weeks was 0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI -0.33 to -0.05 points). The upper limit of the CI did not contain the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.3. The total cost from a NHS perspective at 4 weeks was £17.59 per patient higher in the CRP POCT arm (95% CI -£34.80 to £69.98;  = 0.408). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £222 per 1% reduction in antibiotic consumption compared with usual care at 4 weeks and £15,251 per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months with no significant changes in sensitivity analyses. Patients and clinicians were generally supportive of including CRP POCT in the assessment of AECOPD. A CRP POCT diagnostic strategy achieved meaningful reductions in patient-reported antibiotic consumption without impairing COPD health status or increasing costs. There were no associated harms and both patients and clinicians valued the diagnostic strategy. Implementation studies that also build on our qualitative findings could help determine the effect of this intervention over the longer term. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24346473. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 24, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often experience flare-ups known as acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Antibiotics are prescribed for most flare-ups, but they do not always benefit patients and may cause harm, such as side effects or subsequent infections that are resistant. Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) can be used to help determine when antibiotics are more likely to be needed. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a marker of inflammation that can be measured with a POCT. Patients with flare-ups and a low CRP value are less likely to benefit from antibiotics. The PACE trial asked whether or not measuring CRP with a POCT could lead to fewer antibiotics being consumed for flare-ups, without having negative effects for patients. We aimed to recruit 650 patients with a COPD flare-up from primary care. Patients were randomly assigned to either (1) usual care with the addition of a CRP POCT, or (2) usual care without the addition of the test. Antibiotic use over the first 4 weeks and patients’ self-assessment of their health 2 weeks after enrolment were measured in both groups. Patients in the CRP test group used fewer antibiotics than those managed as usual, and had improved patient-reported outcomes. Costs were a little higher in the CRP POCT group. Interviews with patients and clinicians found that they appreciated the CRP test being included in the decision-making process.This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessmentprogramme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 15. See the NIHRJournals Library website for further project informatio

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised self-management intervention for living with long COVID: protocol for the LISTEN randomised controlled trial

Background: Individuals living with long COVID experience multiple, interacting and fluctuating symptoms which can have a dramatic impact on daily living. The aim of the Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support EvaluatioN (LISTEN) trial is to evaluate effects of the LISTEN co-designed self-management support intervention for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID on participation in routine activities, social participation, emotional well-being, quality of life, fatigue, and self-efficacy. Cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated, and a detailed process evaluation carried out to understand how LISTEN is implemented. Methods: The study is a pragmatic randomised effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trial in which a total of 558 non-hospitalised people with long COVID will be randomised to either the LISTEN intervention or usual care. Recruitment strategies have been developed with input from the LISTEN Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) advisory group and a social enterprise, Diversity and Ability, to ensure inclusivity. Eligible participants can self-refer into the trial via a website or be referred by long COVID services. All participants complete a range of self-reported outcome measures, online, at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post randomisation (the trial primary end point). Those randomised to the LISTEN intervention are offered up to six one-to-one sessions with LISTEN-trained intervention practitioners and given a co-designed digital resource and paper-based book. A detailed process evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial to inform implementation approaches should the LISTEN intervention be found effective and cost-effective. Discussion: The LISTEN trial is evaluating a co-designed, personalised self-management support intervention (the LISTEN intervention) for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID. The design has incorporated extensive strategies to minimise participant burden and maximise access. Whilst the duration of follow-up is limited, all participants are approached to consent for long-term follow-up (subject to additional funding being secured)

Rationale for the shielding policy for clinically vulnerable people in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

Introduction Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the first year of the pandemic from March 2020. As the first stage in the EVITE Immunity evaluation (Effects of shielding for vulnerable people during COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes, costs and immunity, including those with cancer:quasi-experimental evaluation), we generated a logic model to describe the programme theory underlying the shielding intervention. Design and participants We reviewed published documentation on shielding to develop an initial draft of the logic model. We then discussed this draft during interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in putting shielding into effect in Wales and England. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to inform a final draft of the logic model. Results The shielding intervention was a complex one, introduced at pace by multiple agencies working together. We identified three core components: agreement on clinical criteria; development of the list of people appropriate for shielding; and communication of shielding advice. In addition, there was a support programme, available as required to shielding people, including food parcels, financial support and social support. The predicted mechanism of change was that people would isolate themselves and so avoid infection, with the primary intended outcome being reduction in mortality in the shielding group. Unintended impacts included negative impact on mental and physical health and well-being. Details of the intervention varied slightly across the home nations of the UK and were subject to minor revisions during the time the intervention was in place. Conclusions Shielding was a largely untested strategy, aiming to mitigate risk by placing a responsibility on individuals to protect themselves. The model of its rationale, components and outcomes (intended and unintended) will inform evaluation of the impact of shielding and help us to understand its effect and limitations