Contamination in complex healthcare trials:the falls in care homes (FinCH) study experience

BACKGROUND: Trials are at risk of contamination bias which can occur when participants in the control group are inadvertently exposed to the intervention. This is a particular risk in rehabilitation studies where it is easy for trial interventions to be either intentionally or inadvertently adopted in control settings. The Falls in Care Homes (FinCH) trial is used in this paper as an example of a large randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to explore the potential risks of contamination bias. We outline the FinCH trial design, present the potential risks from contamination bias, and the strategies used in the design of the trial to minimise or mitigate against this. The FinCH trial was a multi-centre randomised controlled trial, with embedded process evaluation, which evaluated whether systematic training in the use of the Guide to Action Tool for Care Homes reduced falls in care home residents. Data were collected from a number of sources to explore contamination in the FinCH trial. Where specific procedures were adopted to reduce risk of, or mitigate against, contamination, this was recorded. Data were collected from study e-mails, meetings with clinicians, research assistant and clinician network communications, and an embedded process evaluation in six intervention care homes. During the FinCH trial, there were six new falls prevention initiatives implemented outside the study which could have contaminated our intervention and findings. Methods used to minimise contamination were: cluster randomisation at the level of care home; engagement with the clinical community to highlight the risks of early adoption; establishing local collaborators in each site familiar with the local context; signing agreements with NHS falls specialists that they would maintain confidentiality regarding details of the intervention; opening additional research sites; and by raising awareness about the importance of contamination in research among participants. CONCLUSION: Complex rehabilitation trials are at risk of contamination bias. The potential for contamination bias in studies can be minimized by strengthening collaboration and dialogue with the clinical community. Researchers should recognise that clinicians may contaminate a study through lack of research expertise

Quality of life, pain and use of analgesic, anxiolytic and antidepressant medication, in people living in care homes

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/BACKGROUND: People living in care homes often have problems with pain, anxiety and depression. Whether being on analgesia, anxiolytics or antidepressants has any bearing on pain severity and quality of life (QoL) in this population, requires further investigation. OBJECTIVES: (i) to examine the relationship between pain, anxiety and depression and medication use in care home residents and (ii) to compare those on medications to treat pain, anxiety and depression, and those who were not, and associations with pain severity and overall QoL. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial testing a falls prevention intervention in care homes. We recorded pain, anxiety and depression, QoL measurements and prescribed medication use. RESULTS: In 1589 participants, the mean age was 84.7 years (±9.3 SD), 32.2% were male and 67.3% had a diagnosis of dementia. 54.3% and 53.2% of participants had some level of pain and anxiety or depression respectively, regardless of prescribed medication use. There was a direct association between pain severity and being on any analgesia, opioid analgesia, and antidepressants, but no associations between pain severity and use of paracetamol and anxiolytics. QoL was best for residents with no pain and not on any analgesia, anxiolytics or antidepressants and worst for those with moderate-extreme pain and taking at least two of these classes of medications. CONCLUSION: Many care home residents live with pain, anxiety and depression. Addressing residents' pain may also increase their quality of life, but using medication alone to reach this goal may be inadequate.Peer reviewe

Improving primary care Access in Context and Theory (I-ACT trial): a theory-informed randomised cluster feasibility trial using a realist perspective

Background Primary care access can be challenging for older, rural, socio-economically disadvantaged populations. Here we report the I-ACT cluster feasibility trial which aims to assess the feasibility of trial design and context-sensitive intervention to improve primary care access for this group and so expand existing theory. Methods Four general practices were recruited; three randomised to intervention and one to usual care. Intervention practices received £1500, a support manual and four meetings to develop local, innovative solutions to improve the booking system and transport. Patients aged over 64 years old and without household car access were recruited to complete questionnaires when booking an appointment or attending the surgery. Outcome measures at 6 months included: self-reported ease of booking an appointment and transport; health care use; patient activation; capability; and quality of life. A process evaluation involved observations and interviews with staff and participants. Results Thirty-four patients were recruited (26 female, eight male, mean age 81.6 years for the intervention group and 79.4 for usual care) of 1143 invited (3% response rate). Most were ineligible because of car access. Twenty-nine participants belonged to intervention practices and five to usual care. Practice-level data was available for all participants, but participant self-reported data was unavailable for three. Fifty-six appointment questionnaires were received based on 150 appointments (37.3%). Practices successfully designed and implemented the following context-sensitive interventions: Practice A: a stacked telephone system and promoting community transport; Practice B: signposting to community transport, appointment flexibility, mobility scooter charging point and promoting the role of receptionists; and Practice C: local taxi firm partnership and training receptionists. Practices found the process acceptable because it gave freedom, time and resource to be innovative or provided an opportunity to implement existing ideas. Data collection methods were acceptable to participants, but some found it difficult remembering to complete booking and appointment questionnaires. Expanded theory highlighted important mechanisms, such as reassurance, confidence, trust and flexibility. Conclusions Recruiting older participants without access to a car proved challenging. Retention of participants and practices was good but only about a third of appointment questionnaires were returned. This study design may facilitate a shift from one-size-fits-all interventions to more context-sensitive interventions

Quality of Life, Pain and Use of Analgesic, Anxiolytic and Antidepressant medication, in people living in care homes

BackgroundPeople living in care homes often have problems with pain, anxiety and depression. Whether being on analgesia, anxiolytics or antidepressants has any bearing on pain severity and quality of life (QoL) in this population, requires further investigation.Objectives(i) to examine the relationship between pain, anxiety and depression and medication use in care home residents and (ii) to compare those on medications to treat pain, anxiety and depression, and those who were not, and associations with pain severity and overall QoL.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial testing a falls prevention intervention in care homes. We recorded pain, anxiety and depression, QoL measurements and prescribed medication use.ResultsIn 1589 participants, the mean age was 84.7 years (±9.3 SD), 32.2% were male and 67.3% had a diagnosis of dementia. 54.3% and 53.2% of participants had some level of pain and anxiety or depression respectively, regardless of prescribed medication use. There was a direct association between pain severity and being on any analgesia, opioid analgesia, and antidepressants, but no associations between pain severity and use of paracetamol and anxiolytics. QoL was best for residents with no pain and not on any analgesia, anxiolytics or antidepressants and worst for those with moderate-extreme pain and taking at least two of these classes of medications.ConclusionMany care home residents live with pain, anxiety and depression. Addressing residents’ pain may also increase their quality of life, but using medication alone to reach this goal may be inadequate

Leukotriene antagonists as first-line or add-on asthma controller therapy

Most randomized trials of treatment for asthma study highly selected patients under idealized conditions. METHODS: We conducted two parallel, multicenter, pragmatic trials to evaluate the real-world effectiveness of a leukotriene-receptor antagonist (LTRA) as compared with either an inhaled glucocorticoid for first-line asthma-controller therapy or a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) as add-on therapy in patients already receiving inhaled glucocorticoid therapy. Eligible primary care patients 12 to 80 years of age had impaired asthma-related quality of life (Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [MiniAQLQ] score =6) or inadequate asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ] score =1). We randomly assigned patients to 2 years of open-label therapy, under the care of their usual physician, with LTRA (148 patients) or an inhaled glucocorticoid (158 patients) in the first-line controller therapy trial and LTRA (170 patients) or LABA (182 patients) added to an inhaled glucocorticoid in the add-on therapy trial. RESULTS: Mean MiniAQLQ scores increased by 0.8 to 1.0 point over a period of 2 years in both trials. At 2 months, differences in the MiniAQLQ scores between the two treatment groups met our definition of equivalence (95% confidence interval [CI] for an adjusted mean difference, -0.3 to 0.3). At 2 years, mean MiniAQLQ scores approached equivalence, with an adjusted mean difference between treatment groups of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.13) in the first-line controller therapy trial and of -0.11 (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.11) in the add-on therapy trial. Exacerbation rates and ACQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Study results at 2 months suggest that LTRA was equivalent to an inhaled glucocorticoid as first-line controller therapy and to LABA as add-on therapy for diverse primary care patients. Equivalence was not proved at 2 years. The interpretation of results of pragmatic research may be limited by the crossover between treatment groups and lack of a placebo group

Human Cortical Neural Stem Cells Expressing Insulin‐Like Growth Factor‐I: A Novel Cellular Therapy for Alzheimer’s Disease

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135291/1/sct3201653379.pd

Predicting asthma-related crisis events using routine electronic healthcare data

Background There is no published algorithm predicting asthma crisis events (accident and emergency [A&E] attendance, hospitalisation, or death) using routinely available electronic health record (EHR) data. Aim To develop an algorithm to identify individuals at high risk of an asthma crisis event. Design and setting Database analysis from primary care EHRs of people with asthma across England and Scotland. Method Multivariable logistic regression was applied to a dataset of 61 861 people with asthma from England and Scotland using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. External validation was performed using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank of 174 240 patients from Wales. Outcomes were ≥1 hospitalisation (development dataset) and asthma-related hospitalisation, A&E attendance, or death (validation dataset) within a 12-month period. Results Risk factors for asthma-related crisis events included previous hospitalisation, older age, underweight, smoking, and blood eosinophilia. The prediction algorithm had acceptable predictive ability with a receiver operating characteristic of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70 to 0.72) in the validation dataset. Using a cut-point based on the 7% of the population at greatest risk results in a positive predictive value of 5.7% (95% CI = 5.3% to 6.1%) and a negative predictive value of 98.9% (95% CI = 98.9% to 99.0%), with sensitivity of 28.5% (95% CI = 26.7% to 30.3%) and specificity of 93.3% (95% CI = 93.2% to 93.4%); those individuals had an event risk of 6.0% compared with 1.1% for the remaining population. In total, 18 people would need to be followed to identify one admission. Conclusion This externally validated algorithm has acceptable predictive ability for identifying patients at high risk of asthma-related crisis events and excluding those not at high risk

Comparison of serious inhaler technique errors made by device-naïve patients using three different dry powder inhalers: a randomised, crossover, open-label study

Background: Serious inhaler technique errors can impair drug delivery to the lungs. This randomised, crossover, open-label study evaluated the proportion of patients making predefined serious errors with Pulmojet compared with Diskus and Turbohaler dry powder inhalers. Methods: Patients ≥18 years old with asthma and/or COPD who were current users of an inhaler but naïve to the study devices were assigned to inhaler technique assessment on Pulmojet and either Diskus or Turbohaler in a randomised order. Patients inhaled through empty devices after reading the patient information leaflet. If serious errors potentially affecting dose delivery were recorded, they repeated the inhalations after watching a training video. Inhaler technique was assessed by a trained nurse observer and an electronic inhalation profile recorder. Results: Baseline patient characteristics were similar between randomisation arms for the Pulmojet-Diskus (n = 277) and Pulmojet-Turbohaler (n = 144) comparisons. Non-inferiority in the proportions of patients recording no nurse-observed serious errors was demonstrated for both Pulmojet versus Diskus, and Pulmojet versus Turbohaler; therefore, superiority was tested. Patients were significantly less likely to make ≥1 nurse-observed serious errors using Pulmojet compared with Diskus (odds ratio, 0.31; 95 % CI, 0.19–0.51) or Pulmojet compared with Turbohaler (0.23; 0.12–0.44) after reading the patient information leaflet with additional video instruction, if required. Conclusions These results suggest Pulmojet is easier to learn to use correctly than the Turbohaler or Diskus for current inhaler users switching to a new dry powder inhaler