scholarly journals Three wound-dressing strategies to reduce surgical site infection after abdominal surgery: the Bluebelle feasibility study and pilot RCT

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (39) ◽  
pp. 1-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barnaby C Reeves ◽  
Leila Rooshenas ◽  
Rhiannon C Macefield ◽  
Mark Woodward ◽  
Nicky J Welton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Value Of Information ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Pilot Rct

Background Surgical site infection (SSI) affects up to 20% of people with a primary closed wound after surgery. Wound dressings may reduce SSI. Objective To assess the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dressing types or no dressing to reduce SSI in primary surgical wounds. Design Phase A – semistructured interviews, outcome measure development, practice survey, literature reviews and value-of-information analysis. Phase B – pilot RCT with qualitative research and questionnaire validation. Patients and the public were involved. Setting Usual NHS care. Participants Patients undergoing elective/non-elective abdominal surgery, including caesarean section. Interventions Phase A – none. Phase B – simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing (tissue adhesive) or ‘no dressing’. Main outcome measures Phase A – pilot RCT design; SSI, patient experience and wound management questionnaires; dressing practices; and value-of-information of a RCT. Phase B – participants screened, proportions consented/randomised; acceptability of interventions; adherence; retention; validity and reliability of SSI measure; and cost drivers. Data sources Phase A – interviews with patients and health-care professionals (HCPs), narrative data from published RCTs and data about dressing practices. Phase B – participants and HCPs in five hospitals. Results Phase A – we interviewed 102 participants. HCPs interpreted ‘dressing’ variably and reported using available products. HCPs suggested practical/clinical reasons for dressing use, acknowledged the weak evidence base and felt that a RCT including a ‘no dressing’ group was acceptable. A survey showed that 68% of 1769 wounds (727 participants) had simple dressings and 27% had glue-as-a-dressing. Dressings were used similarly in elective and non-elective surgery. The SSI questionnaire was developed from a content analysis of existing SSI tools and interviews, yielding 19 domains and 16 items. A main RCT would be valuable to the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Phase B – from 4 March 2016 to 30 November 2016, we approached 862 patients for the pilot RCT; 81.1% were eligible, 59.4% consented and 394 were randomised (simple, n = 133; glue, n = 129; no dressing, n = 132); non-adherence was 3 out of 133, 8 out of 129 and 20 out of 132, respectively. SSI occurred in 51 out of 281 participants. We interviewed 55 participants. All dressing strategies were acceptable to stakeholders, with no indication that adherence was problematic. Adherence aids and patients’ understanding of their allocated dressing appeared to be key. The SSI questionnaire response rate overall was 67.2%. Items in the SSI questionnaire fitted a single scale, which had good reliability (test–retest and Cronbach’s alpha of > 0.7) and diagnostic accuracy (c-statistic = 0.906). The key cost drivers were hospital appointments, dressings and redressings, use of new medicines and primary care appointments. Limitations Multiple activities, often in parallel, were challenging to co-ordinate. An amendment took 4 months, restricting recruitment to the pilot RCT. Only 67% of participants completed the SSI questionnaire. We could not implement photography in theatres. Conclusions A main RCT of dressing strategies is feasible and would be valuable to the NHS. The SSI questionnaire is sufficiently accurate to be used as the primary outcome. A main trial with three groups (as in the pilot) would be valuable to the NHS, using a primary outcome of SSI at discharge and patient-reported SSI symptoms at 4–8 weeks. Trial registration Phase A – Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06792113; Phase B – Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49328913. 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. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub (reference number MR/K025643/1).

PP499 Disinvestment Supported By A Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment Unit: A Case Of A Teaching Hospital In Brazil

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 39-39
Author(s):  
Rosane Paixão Schlatter ◽  
Katiuce Tomazi Kny ◽  
Maria Angelica Pires Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Teaching Hospital ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Progressive Increase ◽  
World Health ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Increased Risk

IntroductionThe Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), a public teaching hospital, has a Hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA) unit to support the decision-making process on technology incorporation, rationalization or disinvestment. In 2017, the plastic adhesive drape was standardized at HCPA for use in cardiovascular, digestive, orthopedic, and neurological surgery for the purpose of preventing surgical site infection (SSI). This study evaluated whether the plastic adhesive drape technology is more effective than the no adhesive drapes in the surgical procedures in which it is used in the HCPA, so as to support the medical board's decision regarding the rationalization of use.MethodsThe primary outcome was the surgical site infection rate (SSI). Searches were performed in PubMed, Cochrane and national and international health agencies: World Health Organization (WHO), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), Brazilian National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies (CONITEC) and Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) databases. The search strategy combined terms related to the technology and types of surgery in which it is used in the HCPA. The quality of the included studies was assessed. Additionally, data on technology utilization and costs in the hospital were analyzed.ResultsTechnology assessment followed AdHopHTA project recommendations. Data from the hospital showed that the technology has been used in fifteen surgical specialties, different from the proposed incorporation, with a progressive increase in consumption from 2017 to 2018. The literature review included a systematic review with seven clinical trials, which concluded that the plastic adhesive drape lacks benefits, with potential for increased risk of SSI. The evidence was of moderate quality.ConclusionsThe expenses associated with the use of the technology were considered unjustified as it is not reimbursed by the Brazilian Ministry of Health and its disinvestment was recommended. The Medical Board approved the disinvestment of the technology based on the evidence found by the HB-HTA unit, and the medical staff complied with the decision.

scholarly journals Restricted fluid bolus versus current practice in children with septic shock: the FiSh feasibility study and pilot RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (51) ◽  
pp. 1-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Inwald ◽  
Ruth R Canter ◽  
Kerry Woolfall ◽  
Caitlin B O’Hara ◽  
Paul R Mouncey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Septic Shock ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Fluid Bolus ◽  
Site Staff ◽  
Pilot Rct ◽  
The Uk

Background There has been no randomised controlled trial (RCT) of fluid bolus therapy in paediatric sepsis in the developed world despite evidence that excess fluid may be associated with harm. Objectives To determine the feasibility of the Fluids in Shock (FiSh) trial – a RCT comparing restricted fluid bolus (10 ml/kg) with current practice (20 ml/kg) in children with septic shock in the UK. Design (1) Qualitative feasibility study exploring parents’ views about the pilot RCT. (2) Pilot RCT over a 9-month period, including integrated parental and staff perspectives study. Setting (1) Recruitment took place across four NHS hospitals in England and on social media. (2) Recruitment took place across 13 NHS hospitals in England. Participants (1) Parents of children admitted to a UK hospital with presumed septic shock in the previous 3 years. (2) Children presenting to an emergency department with clinical suspicion of infection and shock after 20 ml/kg of fluid. Exclusion criteria were receipt of > 20 ml/kg of fluid, conditions requiring fluid restriction and the patient not for full active treatment (i.e. palliative care plan in place). Site staff and parents of children in the pilot were recruited to the perspectives study. Interventions (1) None. (2) Children were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to 10- or 20-ml/kg fluid boluses every 15 minutes for 4 hours if in shock. Main outcome measures (1) Acceptability of FiSh trial, proposed consent model and potential outcome measures. (2) Outcomes were based on progression criteria, including recruitment and retention rates, protocol adherence and separation between the groups, and collection and distribution of potential outcome measures. Results (1) Twenty-one parents were interviewed. All would have consented for the pilot study. (2) Seventy-five children were randomised, 40 to the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 35 to the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Two children were withdrawn. Although the anticipated recruitment rate was achieved, there was variability across the sites. Fifty-nine per cent of children in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and 74% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group required only a single trial bolus before shock resolved. The volume of fluid (in ml/kg) was 35% lower in the first hour and 44% lower over the 4-hour period in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group. Fluid boluses were delivered per protocol (volume and timing) for 79% of participants in the 10-ml/kg fluid bolus group and for 55% in the 20-ml/kg fluid bolus group, mainly as a result of delivery not being completed within 15 minutes. There were no deaths. Length of hospital stay, paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) transfers, and days alive and PICU free did not differ significantly between the groups. Two adverse events were reported in each group. A questionnaire was completed by 45 parents, 20 families and seven staff were interviewed and 20 staff participated in focus groups. Although a minority of site staff lacked equipoise in favour of more restricted boluses, all supported the trial. Conclusions Even though a successful feasibility and pilot RCT were conducted, participants were not as unwell as expected. A larger trial is not feasible in its current design in the UK. Future work Further observational work is required to determine the epidemiology of severe childhood infection in the UK in the postvaccine era. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15244462. 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. 22, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Combining mirtazapine with SSRIs or SNRIs for treatment-resistant depression: the MIR RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (63) ◽  
pp. 1-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kessler ◽  
Alison Burns ◽  
Debbie Tallon ◽  
Glyn Lewis ◽  
Stephanie MacNeill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Reuptake Inhibitor ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression

Background Depression is usually managed in primary care and antidepressants are often the first-line treatment, but only half of those treated respond to a single antidepressant. Objectives To investigate whether or not combining mirtazapine with serotonin–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants results in better patient outcomes and more efficient NHS care than SNRI or SSRI therapy alone in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Design The MIR trial was a two-parallel-group, multicentre, pragmatic, placebo-controlled randomised trial with allocation at the level of the individual. Setting Participants were recruited from primary care in Bristol, Exeter, Hull/York and Manchester/Keele. Participants Eligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years; were taking a SSRI or a SNRI antidepressant for at least 6 weeks at an adequate dose; scored ≥ 14 points on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II); were adherent to medication; and met the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, criteria for depression. Interventions Participants were randomised using a computer-generated code to either oral mirtazapine or a matched placebo, starting at a dose of 15 mg daily for 2 weeks and increasing to 30 mg daily for up to 12 months, in addition to their usual antidepressant. Participants, their general practitioners (GPs) and the research team were blind to the allocation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was depression symptoms at 12 weeks post randomisation compared with baseline, measured as a continuous variable using the BDI-II. Secondary outcomes (at 12, 24 and 52 weeks) included response, remission of depression, change in anxiety symptoms, adverse events (AEs), quality of life, adherence to medication, health and social care use and cost-effectiveness. Outcomes were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. A qualitative study explored patients’ views and experiences of managing depression and GPs’ views on prescribing a second antidepressant. Results There were 480 patients randomised to the trial (mirtazapine and usual care, n = 241; placebo and usual care, n = 239), of whom 431 patients (89.8%) were followed up at 12 weeks. BDI-II scores at 12 weeks were lower in the mirtazapine group than the placebo group after adjustment for baseline BDI-II score and minimisation and stratification variables [difference –1.83 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.92 to 0.27 points; p = 0.087]. This was smaller than the minimum clinically important difference and the CI included the null. The difference became smaller at subsequent time points (24 weeks: –0.85 points, 95% CI –3.12 to 1.43 points; 12 months: 0.17 points, 95% CI –2.13 to 2.46 points). More participants in the mirtazapine group withdrew from the trial medication, citing mild AEs (46 vs. 9 participants). Conclusions This study did not find convincing evidence of a clinically important benefit for mirtazapine in addition to a SSRI or a SNRI antidepressant over placebo in primary care patients with TRD. There was no evidence that the addition of mirtazapine was a cost-effective use of NHS resources. GPs and patients were concerned about adding an additional antidepressant. Limitations Voluntary unblinding for participants after the primary outcome at 12 weeks made interpretation of longer-term outcomes more difficult. Future work Treatment-resistant depression remains an area of important, unmet need, with limited evidence of effective treatments. Promising interventions include augmentation with atypical antipsychotics and treatment using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06653773; EudraCT number 2012-000090-23. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (49) ◽  
pp. 1-130
Author(s):  
Nadine E Foster ◽  
Kika Konstantinou ◽  
Martyn Lewis ◽  
Reuben Ogollah ◽  
Benjamin Saunders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Fast Track ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Care Pathways ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Stratified Care

Background Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is ‘stepped’, comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics. Objectives The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care. Design This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial. Setting Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK. Participants Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery. Interventions In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost–utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients’ and clinicians’ views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist. Results A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy. Conclusions The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration. Limitations Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results. Future work Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581. 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. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Adding emollient bath additives to standard eczema management for children with eczema: the BATHE RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (57) ◽  
pp. 1-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Santer ◽  
Kate Rumsby ◽  
Matthew J Ridd ◽  
Nick A Francis ◽  
Beth Stuart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Additive Group ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Bath Additives

BackgroundChildhood eczema is very common. Treatment often includes emollient bath additives, despite there being little evidence of their effectiveness.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of emollient bath additives in the management of childhood eczema.DesignPragmatic, randomised, open-label, multicentre superiority trial with two parallel groups.SettingNinety-six general practices in Wales, the west of England and southern England. Invitation by personal letter or opportunistically.ParticipantsChildren aged between 12 months and 12 years fulfilling the UK Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Eczema. Children with inactive or very mild eczema (a score of ≤ 5 on the Nottingham Eczema Severity Scale) were excluded, as were children who bathed less than once per week or whose parents/carers were not prepared to accept randomisation.InterventionsThe intervention group were prescribed 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 standard eczema management, including regular leave-on emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCSs) when required.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was eczema control measured by Patient Oriented Eczema Measure [POEM, 0 (clear) to 28 (severe)] weekly for 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were eczema severity over 1 year (4-weekly POEM), number of eczema exacerbations, disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire), generic QoL (Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions) and type and quantity of topical steroid/calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. Children were randomised (1 : 1) using online software to either bath additives plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care alone, stratified by recruiting centre, and there was open-label blinding.ResultsFrom December 2014 to May 2016, 482 children were randomised: 51% were female, 84% were white and the mean age was 5 years (n = 264 in the intervention group,n = 218 in the control group). Reported adherence to randomised treatment allocation was > 92% in both groups, with 76.7% of participants completing at least 12 (80%) of the first 16 weekly questionnaires for the primary outcome. Baseline POEM score was 9.5 [standard deviation (SD) 5.7] in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. Average POEM score over the first 16 weeks was 7.5 (SD 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, TCS 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% confidence interval –0.27 to 1.10), which is well below the published minimal clinically important difference of 3 points. There was no difference between groups in secondary outcomes or in adverse effects such as redness, stinging or slipping.LimitationsSimple randomisation resulted in an imbalance in baseline group size, although baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups.ConclusionThis trial found no evidence of clinical benefit of including emollient bath additives in the standard management of childhood eczema.Future workFurther research is required on optimal regimens of leave-on emollients and the use of emollients as soap substitutes.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Health Technology Assessment in Surgery

2012 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Bergqvist ◽  
M. Rosén
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Literature Research ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Ideal Method

This review focuses on how surgical methods should be assessed from a health technology perspective. The use of randomized controlled trials, population based registries, systematic literature research and the recently published IDEAL method are briefly discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document