Search

Background: Clinical uncertainty in primary care regarding the prognosis of children with respiratory tract infections contributes to the unnecessary use of antibiotics. Improved identification of children at low risk of future hospitalisation might reduce clinical uncertainty. A National Institute for Health and Care Research-funded 5-year programme (RP-PG-0608-10018) was used to develop and feasibility test an intervention., Objectives: The aim of the children with acute cough randomised controlled trial was to reduce antibiotic prescribing among children presenting with acute cough and respiratory tract infection without increasing hospital admission., Design: An efficient, pragmatic open-label, two-arm trial (with embedded qualitative and health economic analyses) using practice-level randomisation using routinely collected data as the primary outcome., Setting: General practitioner practices in England., Participants: General practitioner practices using the Egton Medical Information Systems ® patient-record system for children aged 0-9 years presenting with a cough or upper respiratory tract infection. Recruited by Clinical Research Networks and Clinical Commissioning Groups., Intervention: Comprised: (1) elicitation of parental concerns during consultation; (2) a clinician-focused prognostic algorithm to identify children with acute cough and respiratory tract infection at low, average or elevated risk of hospitalisation in the next 30 days accompanied by prescribing guidance, (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety-netting advice., Main Outcome Measures: Co-primaries using the practice list-size for children aged 0-9 years as the denominator: rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide items at each practice (superiority comparison) from NHS Business Services Authority ePACT2 and rate of hospital admission for respiratory tract infection (non-inferiority comparison) from Clinical Commissioning Groups, both routinely collected over 12 months., Results: Of the 310 practices required, 294 (95%) were recruited (144 intervention and 150 controls) with 336,496 registered 0-9-year-olds (5% of all 0-9-year-old children in England) from 47 Clinical Commissioning Groups. Included practices were slightly larger than those not included, had slightly lower baseline dispensing rates and were located in more deprived areas (reflecting the distribution for practice postcodes nationally). Twelve practices (4%) subsequently withdrew (six related to the pandemic). The median number of times the intervention was used was 70 per practice (by a median of 9 clinicians) over 12 months. There was no evidence that the antibiotic dispensing rate in the intervention practices [0.155 (95% confidence interval 0.135 to 0.179)] differed to controls [0.154 (95% confidence interval 0.130 to 0.182), relative risk= 1.011 (95% confidence interval 0.992 to 1.029); p = 0.253]. There was, overall, a reduction in dispensing levels and intervention usage during the pandemic. The rate of hospitalisation for respiratory tract infection in the intervention practices [0.019 (95% confidence interval 0.014 to 0.026)] compared to the controls [0.021 (95% confidence interval 0.014 to 0.029)] was non-inferior [relative risk = 0.952 (95% confidence interval 0.905 to 1.003)]. The qualitative evaluation found the clinicians liked the intervention, used it as a supportive aid, especially with borderline cases but that it, did not always integrate well within the consultation flow and was used less over time. The economic evaluation found no evidence of a difference in mean National Health Service costs between arms; mean difference -£1999 (95% confidence interval -£6627 to 2630)., Conclusions: The intervention was feasible and subjectively useful to practitioners, with no evidence of harm in terms of hospitalisations, but did not impact on antibiotic prescribing rates., Future Work and Limitations: Although the intervention does not appear to change prescribing behaviour, elements of the approach may be used in the design of future interventions., Trial Registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11405239 (date assigned 20 April 2018) at www.controlled-trials.com (accessed 5 September 2022). Version 4.0 of the protocol is available at: https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/ (accessed 5 September 2022)., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (NIHR award ref: 16/31/98) programme and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 27, No. 32. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men may indicate bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) or weakness, known as detrusor underactivity (DU). Severe bothersome LUTS are a common indication for surgery. The diagnostic tests may include urodynamics (UDS) to confirm whether BOO or DU is the cause, potentially reducing the number of people receiving (inappropriate) surgery., Objectives: The primary objective was to determine whether a care pathway including UDS is no worse for symptom outcome than one in which it is omitted, at 18 months after randomisation. Rates of surgery was the key secondary outcome., Design: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm (unblinded) randomised controlled trial, incorporating a health economic analysis and qualitative research., Setting: Urology departments of 26 NHS hospitals in England., Participants: Men (aged ≥ 18 years) seeking further treatment, potentially including surgery, for bothersome LUTS. Exclusion criteria were as follows: unable to pass urine without a catheter, having a relevant neurological disease, currently undergoing treatment for prostate or bladder cancer, previously had prostate surgery, not medically fit for surgery and/or unwilling to be randomised., Interventions: Men were randomised to a care pathway based on non-invasive routine tests (control) or routine care plus invasive UDS (intervention arm)., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 18 months after randomisation and the key secondary outcome was rates of surgery. Additional secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), quality of life, urinary and sexual symptoms, UDS satisfaction, maximum urinary flow rate and cost-effectiveness., Results: A total of 820 men were randomised (UDS, 427; routine care, 393). Sixty-seven men withdrew before 18 months and 11 died (unrelated to trial procedures). UDS was non-inferior to routine care for IPSS 18 months after randomisation, with a confidence interval (CI) within the margin of 1 point (-0.33, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.80). A lower surgery rate in the UDS arm was not found (38% and 36% for UDS and routine care, respectively), with overall rates lower than expected. AEs were similar between the arms at 43-44%. There were more cases of acute urinary retention in the routine care arm. Patient-reported outcomes for LUTS improved in both arms and satisfaction with UDS was high in men who received it. UDS was more expensive than routine care. From a secondary care perspective, UDS cost an additional £216 over an 18-month time horizon. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar, with a QALY difference of 0.006 in favour of UDS over 18 months. It was established that UDS was acceptable to patients, and valued by both patients and clinicians for its perceived additional insight into the cause and probable best treatment of LUTS., Limitations: The trial met its predefined recruitment target, but surgery rates were lower than anticipated., Conclusions: Inclusion of UDS in the diagnostic tests results in a symptom outcome that is non-inferior to a routine care pathway, but does not affect surgical rates for treating BOO. Results do not support the routine use of UDS in men undergoing investigation of LUTS., Future Work: Focus should be placed on indications for selective utilisation of UDS in individual cases and long-term outcomes of diagnosis and therapy., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56164274., 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. 24, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Outside this work, Paul Abrams reports grants and personal fees for being a consultant and speaker for Astellas Pharma Inc. (Tokyo, Japan), and personal fees for being a consultant for Ipsen (Paris, France) and a speaker for Pfizer Inc. (New York City, NY, USA) and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Mumbai, India). He also reports personal fees from Pierre Fabre S.A. (Paris, France) and Coloplast Ltd (Peterborough, UK). Christopher Chapple reports being an author for Allergan plc (Dublin, Ireland) and Astellas Pharma; being an investigator for scientific studies/trials with Astellas Pharma and Ipsen; being a patent holder with Symimetics; receiving personal fees as a consultant/advisor for Astellas Pharma, Bayer Schering Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Ferring Pharmaceuticals (Saint-Prex, Switzerland), Galvani Bioelectronics (GlaxoSmithKline; Stevenage, UK), Pierre Fabre, Symimetics, TARIS Biomedical Inc. (Lexington, MA, USA), and Urovant Sciences (Irvine, CA, USA); and receiving personal fees as a meeting participant/speaker for Astellas Pharma and Pfizer. J Athene Lane was a member of the Clinical Trials Unit funded by the National Institute for Health Research during the conduct of this trial. Marcus J Drake reports being on associated advisory boards and has received grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Allergan, Astellas Pharma and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. He has also received personal fees from Pfizer.

Background: Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common reason for primary care consultations and antibiotic prescribing in children. Options for improved pain control may influence antibiotic prescribing and consumption., Objective: The Children's Ear Pain Study (CEDAR) investigated whether or not providing anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops reduced antibiotic consumption in children with AOM. Secondary objectives included pain control and cost-effectiveness., Design: A multicentre, randomised, parallel-group (two-group initially, then three-group) trial., Setting: Primary care practices in England and Wales., Participants: 1- to 10-year-old children presenting within 1 week of suspected AOM onset with ear pain during the preceding 24 hours and not requiring immediate antibiotics. Participating children were logged into the study and allocated using a remote randomisation service., Interventions: Two-group trial - unblinded comparison of anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops versus usual care. Three-group trial - blinded comparison of anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops versus placebo ear drops and unblinded comparison with usual care., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was parent-reported antibiotic use by the child over 8 days following enrolment. Secondary measures included ear pain at day 2 and NHS and societal costs over 8 days., Results: Owing to a delay in provision of the placebo drops, the recruitment period was shortened and most participants were randomly allocated to the two-group study ( n  = 74) rather than the three-group study ( n  = 32). Comparing active drops with usual care in the combined two-group and three-group studies, 1 out of 39 (3%) children allocated to the active drops group and 11 out of 38 (29%) children allocated to the usual-care group consumed antibiotics in the 8 days following enrolment [unadjusted odds ratio 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.55; p  = 0.009; adjusted for delayed prescribing odds ratio 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.87; p  = 0.035]. A total of 43% (3/7) of patients in the placebo drops group consumed antibiotics by day 8, compared with 0% (0/10) of the three-group study active drops groups ( p  = 0.051). The economic analysis of NHS costs (£12.66 for active drops and £11.36 for usual care) leads to an estimated cost of £5.19 per antibiotic prescription avoided, but with a high degree of uncertainty. A reduction in ear pain at day 2 in the placebo group ( n  = 7) compared with the active drops group ( n  = 10) (adjusted difference in means 0.67, 95% CI -1.44 to 2.79; p  = 0.51) is consistent with chance. No adverse events were reported in children receiving active drops., Limitations: Estimated treatment effects are imprecise because the sample size target was not met. It is not clear if delayed prescriptions of an antibiotic were written prior to randomisation. Few children received placebo drops, which hindered the investigation of ear pain., Conclusions: This study suggests that reduced antibiotic use can be achieved in children with AOM by combining a no or delayed antibiotic prescribing strategy with anaesthetic-analgesic ear drops. Whether or not the active drops relieved ear pain was not established., Future Work: The observed reduction in antibiotic consumption following the prescription of ear drops requires replication in a larger study. Future work should establish if the effect of ear drops is due to pain relief., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09599764., 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. 23, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Alastair D Hay was funded by a NIHR Research Professorship (funding identifier NIHR-RP-02-12-012)., Competing Interests: Alastair D Hay and William Hollingworth are members of the Health Technology Assessment Clinical Trials Board. Chris Metcalfe is a member of a clinical trials unit in receipt of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) support funding. Desmond Nunez is an author of a related Cochrane review protocol. Paul Little is the Director of the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and a member of the NIHR Journals Library Board.

Background: The drainage, irrigation and fibrinolytic therapy (DRIFT) trial, conducted in 2003-6, showed a reduced rate of death or severe disability at 2 years in the DRIFT compared with the standard treatment group, among preterm infants with intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) and post-haemorrhagic ventricular dilatation., Objectives: To compare cognitive function, visual and sensorimotor ability, emotional well-being, use of specialist health/rehabilitative and educational services, neuroimaging, and economic costs and benefits at school age., Design: Ten-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial., Setting: Neonatal intensive care units (Bristol, Katowice, Glasgow and Bergen)., Participants: Fifty-two of the original 77 infants randomised., Interventions: DRIFT or standard therapy (cerebrospinal fluid tapping)., Main Outcome Measures: Primary - cognitive disability. Secondary - vision; sensorimotor disability; emotional/behavioural function; education; neurosurgical sequelae on magnetic resonance imaging; preference-based measures of health-related quality of life; costs of neonatal treatment and of subsequent health care in childhood; health and social care costs and impact on family at age 10 years; and a decision analysis model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DRIFT compared with standard treatment up to the age of 18 years., Results: By 10 years of age, 12 children had died and 13 were either lost to follow-up or had declined to participate. A total of 52 children were assessed at 10 years of age (DRIFT, n  = 28; standard treatment, n  = 24). Imbalances in gender and birthweight favoured the standard treatment group. The unadjusted mean cognitive quotient (CQ) score was 69.3 points [standard deviation (SD) 30.1 points] in the DRIFT group compared with 53.7 points (SD 35.7 points) in the standard treatment group, a difference of 15.7 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.9 to 34.2 points; p  = 0.096. After adjusting for the prespecified covariates (gender, birthweight and grade of IVH), this evidence strengthened: children who received DRIFT had a CQ advantage of 23.5 points ( p  = 0.009). The binary outcome, alive without severe cognitive disability, gave strong evidence that DRIFT improved cognition [unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 11.0; p  = 0.026) and adjusted OR 10.0 (95% CI 2.1 to 46.7; p  = 0.004)]; the number needed to treat was three. No significant differences were found in any secondary outcomes. There was weak evidence that DRIFT reduced special school attendance (adjusted OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.05; p  = 0.059). The neonatal stay (unadjusted mean difference £6556, 95% CI -£11,161 to £24,273) and subsequent hospital care (£3413, 95% CI -£12,408 to £19,234) costs were higher in the DRIFT arm, but the wide CIs included zero. The decision analysis model indicated that DRIFT has the potential to be cost-effective at 18 years of age. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (£15,621 per quality-adjusted life-year) was below the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. The cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to adjustment for birthweight and gender., Limitations: The main limitations are the sample size of the trial and that important characteristics were unbalanced at baseline and at the 10-year follow-up. Although the analyses conducted here were prespecified in the analysis plan, they had not been prespecified in the original trial registration., Conclusions: DRIFT improves cognitive function when taking into account birthweight, grade of IVH and gender. DRIFT is probably effective and, given the reduction in the need for special education, has the potential to be cost-effective as well. A future UK multicentre trial is required to assess efficacy and safety of DRIFT when delivered across multiple sites., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80286058., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The DRIFT trial and 2-year follow-up was funded by Cerebra and the James and Grace Anderson Trust., Competing Interests: No competing interests were declared.