Health Technology Assessment
Latest Publications
TOTAL DOCUMENTS
H-INDEX
Published By National Institute For Health Research
Behavioural interventions to promote physical activity in a multiethnic population at high risk of diabetes: PROPELS three-arm RCT
Background Type 2 diabetes is a leading cause of mortality globally and accounts for significant health resource expenditure. Increased physical activity can reduce the risk of diabetes. However, the longer-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in those at high risk of type 2 diabetes is unknown. Objectives To investigate whether or not Walking Away from Diabetes (Walking Away) – a low-resource, 3-hour group-based behavioural intervention designed to promote physical activity through pedometer use in those with prediabetes – leads to sustained increases in physical activity when delivered with and without an integrated mobile health intervention compared with control. Design Three-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial with follow-up conducted at 12 and 48 months. Setting Primary care and the community. Participants Adults whose primary care record included a prediabetic blood glucose measurement recorded within the past 5 years [HbA1c ≥ 42 mmol/mol (6.0%), < 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) mmol/mol; fasting glucose ≥ 5.5 mmol/l, < 7.0 mmol/l; or 2-hour post-challenge glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/l, < 11.1 mmol/l] were recruited between December 2013 and February 2015. Data collection was completed in July 2019. Interventions Participants were randomised (1 : 1 : 1) using a web-based tool to (1) control (information leaflet), (2) Walking Away with annual group-based support or (3) Walking Away Plus (comprising Walking Away, annual group-based support and a mobile health intervention that provided automated, individually tailored text messages to prompt pedometer use and goal-setting and provide feedback, in addition to biannual telephone calls). Participants and data collectors were not blinded; however, the staff who processed the accelerometer data were blinded to allocation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was accelerometer-measured ambulatory activity (steps per day) at 48 months. Other objective and self-reported measures of physical activity were also assessed. Results A total of 1366 individuals were randomised (median age 61 years, median body mass index 28.4 kg/m2, median ambulatory activity 6638 steps per day, women 49%, black and minority ethnicity 28%). Accelerometer data were available for 1017 (74%) and 993 (73%) individuals at 12 and 48 months, respectively. The primary outcome assessment at 48 months found no differences in ambulatory activity compared with control in either group (Walking Away Plus: 121 steps per day, 97.5% confidence interval –290 to 532 steps per day; Walking Away: 91 steps per day, 97.5% confidence interval –282 to 463). This was consistent across ethnic groups. At the intermediate 12-month assessment, the Walking Away Plus group had increased their ambulatory activity by 547 (97.5% confidence interval 211 to 882) steps per day compared with control and were 1.61 (97.5% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.45) times more likely to achieve 150 minutes per week of objectively assessed unbouted moderate to vigorous physical activity. In the Walking Away group, there were no differences compared with control at 12 months. Secondary anthropometric, biomechanical and mental health outcomes were unaltered in either intervention study arm compared with control at 12 or 48 months, with the exception of small, but sustained, reductions in body weight in the Walking Away study arm (≈ 1 kg) at the 12- and 48-month follow-ups. Lifetime cost-effectiveness modelling suggested that usual care had the highest probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Of 50 serious adverse events, only one (myocardial infarction) was deemed possibly related to the intervention and led to the withdrawal of the participant from the study. Limitations Loss to follow-up, although the results were unaltered when missing data were replaced using multiple imputation. Conclusions Combining a physical activity intervention with text messaging and telephone support resulted in modest, but clinically meaningful, changes in physical activity at 12 months, but the changes were not sustained at 48 months. Future work Future research is needed to investigate which intervention types, components and features can help to maintain physical activity behaviour change over the longer term. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83465245. 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. 25, No. 77. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background There is a lack of evidence of the effect of cue-based feeding compared with scheduled feeding on important outcomes for preterm infants. Objectives The objectives were as follows: (1) to describe the characteristics, components, theoretical basis and outcomes of approaches to feeding preterm infants transitioning from tube to oral feeding; (2) to identify operational policies, barriers and facilitators, and staff and parents’ educational needs in neonatal units implementing cue-based feeding; (3) to co-produce an intervention for feeding preterm infants in response to feeding cues; (4) to appraise the willingness of parents and staff to implement and sustain the intervention; (5) to assess associated costs of implementing cue-based feeding; (6) to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a future trial; (7) to scope existing data-recording systems and potential outcome measures; and (8) to determine stakeholders’ views of whether or not a randomised controlled trial of this approach is feasible. Design This was a mixed-methods intervention development and feasibility study comprising (1) a systematic review, case studies, qualitative research and stakeholder consensus; (2) the co-production of the intervention; (3) a mixed-methods feasibility study; and (4) an assessment of stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation. Setting Three neonatal units in the UK (two level 3 units and one level 2 unit). Participants Developmentally normal, clinically stable preterm infants receiving enteral feeds (n = 50), parents (n = 15 pre intervention development; n = 14 in the feasibility study) and health-care practitioners (n = 54 pre intervention development; n = 16 in the feasibility study). Intervention An evidence-informed multicomponent intervention comprising training, a feeding protocol, feeding assessment tools, supplementary training materials [including posters, a film and a narrated PowerPoint (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) presentation] and the ‘Our Feeding Journey’ document. Main outcome measures The main outcome measures were recruitment and screening rates, infant weight gain, duration of the intervention, feeding outcomes, implementation outcomes (contextual facilitators and barriers, acceptability, adoption, appropriateness and fidelity) and stakeholder preferences for a future evaluation. Results The systematic review of 25 studies concluded that evidence in favour of cue-based feeding should be treated cautiously. The case studies and qualitative research highlighted contextual barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of cue-based feeding. The telephone survey found that many neonatal units are considering implementing cue-based feeding. We recruited 37% of eligible infants, and there was good retention in the study until discharge but a high loss to follow-up at 2 weeks post discharge. The mean number of days from intervention to transition to full oral feeding was 10.8, and the mean daily change in weight gain was 25 g. The intervention was acceptable to parents and staff, although there was dissatisfaction with the study documentation. Intervention training did not reach all staff. A cluster-randomised design with a composite outcome was suggested by stakeholders for a future study. Limitations The intervention was available only in English. Intervention training did not reach all staff. There was low recruitment to qualitative interviews and observations. Only a small number of medical staff engaged in either the training or the interviews. Conclusions It is feasible to implement a cue-based feeding intervention with improved training and documentation. Further work is needed to assess the feasibility of a future trial, noting evidence of existing lack of equipoise. Future work The next steps are to digitalise the intervention and conduct a survey of all neonatal units in the UK. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018097317 and ISRCTN13414304. 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. 25, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background The first histology-independent marketing authorisation in Europe was granted in 2019. This was the first time that a cancer treatment was approved based on a common biomarker rather than the location in the body at which the tumour originated. This research aims to explore the implications for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Methods Targeted reviews were undertaken to determine the type of evidence that is likely to be available at the point of marketing authorisation and the analyses required to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Several challenges were identified concerning the design and conduct of trials for histology-independent products, the greater levels of heterogeneity within the licensed population and the use of surrogate end points. We identified approaches to address these challenges by reviewing key statistical literature that focuses on the design and analysis of histology-independent trials and by undertaking a systematic review to evaluate the use of response end points as surrogate outcomes for survival end points. We developed a decision framework to help to inform approval and research policies for histology-independent products. The framework explored the uncertainties and risks associated with different approval policies, including the role of further data collection, pricing schemes and stratified decision-making. Results We found that the potential for heterogeneity in treatment effects, across tumour types or other characteristics, is likely to be a central issue for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Bayesian hierarchical methods may serve as a useful vehicle to assess the level of heterogeneity across tumours and to estimate the pooled treatment effects for each tumour, which can inform whether or not the assumption of homogeneity is reasonable. Our review suggests that response end points may not be reliable surrogates for survival end points. However, a surrogate-based modelling approach, which captures all relevant uncertainty, may be preferable to the use of immature survival data. Several additional sources of heterogeneity were identified as presenting potential challenges to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal, including the cost of testing, baseline risk, quality of life and routine management costs. We concluded that a range of alternative approaches will be required to address different sources of heterogeneity to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. An exemplar case study was developed to illustrate the nature of the assessments that may be required. Conclusions Adequately designed and analysed basket studies that assess the homogeneity of outcomes and allow borrowing of information across baskets, where appropriate, are recommended. Where there is evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects and estimates of cost-effectiveness, consideration should be given to optimised recommendations. Routine presentation of the scale of the consequences of heterogeneity and decision uncertainty may provide an important additional approach to the assessments specified in the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methods guide. Further research Further exploration of Bayesian hierarchical methods could help to inform decision-makers on whether or not there is sufficient evidence of homogeneity to support pooled analyses. Further research is also required to determine the appropriate basis for apportioning genomic testing costs where there are multiple targets and to address the challenges of uncontrolled Phase II studies, including the role and use of surrogate end points. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 76. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background Levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Objectives To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy. Design Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel. Setting Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK. Participants Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication. Interventions Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Results Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range –£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of –0.035, 95% central range –0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective. Limitations The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions. Future work SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel. Conclusions Focal epilepsy – The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy – The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64. 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. 25, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background New-onset atrial fibrillation occurs in around 10% of adults treated in an intensive care unit. New-onset atrial fibrillation may lead to cardiovascular instability and thromboembolism, and has been independently associated with increased length of hospital stay and mortality. The long-term consequences are unclear. Current practice guidance is based on patients outside the intensive care unit; however, new-onset atrial fibrillation that develops while in an intensive care unit differs in its causes and the risks and clinical effectiveness of treatments. The lack of evidence on new-onset atrial fibrillation treatment or long-term outcomes in intensive care units means that practice varies. Identifying optimal treatment strategies and defining long-term outcomes are critical to improving care. Objectives In patients treated in an intensive care unit, the objectives were to (1) evaluate existing evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, (2) compare the use and clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, and (3) determine outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation. Methods We undertook a scoping review that included studies of interventions for treatment or prevention of new-onset atrial fibrillation involving adults in general intensive care units. To investigate the long-term outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation, we carried out a retrospective cohort study using English national intensive care audit data linked to national hospital episode and outcome data. To analyse the clinical effectiveness of different new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, we undertook a retrospective cohort study of two large intensive care unit databases in the USA and the UK. Results Existing evidence was generally of low quality, with limited data suggesting that beta-blockers might be more effective than amiodarone for converting new-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and for reducing mortality. Using linked audit data, we showed that patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation have more comorbidities than those who do not. After controlling for these differences, patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation had substantially higher mortality in hospital and during the first 90 days after discharge (adjusted odds ratio 2.32, 95% confidence interval 2.16 to 2.48; adjusted hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.70, respectively), and higher rates of subsequent hospitalisation with atrial fibrillation, stroke and heart failure (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 5.86, 95% confidence interval 5.33 to 6.44; adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.93; and adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.44, respectively), than patients who did not have new-onset atrial fibrillation. From intensive care unit data, we found that new-onset atrial fibrillation occurred in 952 out of 8367 (11.4%) UK and 1065 out of 18,559 (5.7%) US intensive care unit patients in our study. The median time to onset of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients who received treatment was 40 hours, with a median duration of 14.4 hours. The clinical characteristics of patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation were similar in both databases. New-onset atrial fibrillation was associated with significant average reductions in systolic blood pressure of 5 mmHg, despite significant increases in vasoactive medication (vasoactive-inotropic score increase of 2.3; p < 0.001). After adjustment, intravenous beta-blockers were not more effective than amiodarone in achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.44) or rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.11). Digoxin therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.86) and calcium channel blocker therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.79) than amiodarone. Findings were consistent across both the combined and the individual database analyses. Conclusions Existing evidence for new-onset atrial fibrillation management in intensive care unit patients is limited. New-onset atrial fibrillation in these patients is common and is associated with significant short- and long-term complications. Beta-blockers and amiodarone appear to be similarly effective in achieving cardiovascular control, but digoxin and calcium channel blockers appear to be inferior. Future work Our findings suggest that a randomised controlled trial of amiodarone and beta-blockers for management of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients should be undertaken. Studies should also be undertaken to provide evidence for or against anticoagulation for patients who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation in intensive care units. Finally, given that readmission with heart failure and thromboembolism increases following an episode of new-onset atrial fibrillation while in an intensive care unit, a prospective cohort study to demonstrate the incidence of atrial fibrillation and/or left ventricular dysfunction at hospital discharge and at 3 months following the development of new-onset atrial fibrillation should be undertaken. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13252515. 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. 25, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background Children and young people with neurodisability often need help to achieve socially acceptable bladder and bowel control. Approaches vary depending on whether or not the impairment results from spinal cord pathology that impairs motor control and sensation of the bladder and bowel. Currently, there is uncertainty about which interventions are effective. Objective The objective was to summarise the available evidence on and current practice for improving continence in children and young people with neurodisability. Design A systematic review of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and factors that modify intervention implementation, alongside a cross-sectional, online survey of current practice with health professionals, parent carers, school and care staff and young people with neurodisability. Results Twelve databases were searched in the review, resulting in 5756 references; 71 studies (72 papers) were included in the analyses. Most of the evidence was for children with spinal cord pathology, which involved evaluations of pharmacological approaches and surgical techniques, whereas the evidence pertaining to those with non-spinal-cord-related pathology tended to be for behavioural interventions. The methodological quality of studies was rated as being moderate to poor. There were three robust qualitative studies about the experience of continence among children with spinal cord pathology. We found substantial heterogeneity across the interventions that we evaluated in terms of quality, study design and outcomes measured. No economic studies were found. The results were synthesised narratively and reported in text and tables. We did not find any eligible studies evaluating interventions using toilet and clothing adaptations in the review, although the survey highlighted that these types of interventions are frequently used and considered. In total, 949 people responded to the survey: 202 health professionals, 605 parent carers, 122 school and social care staff, and 20 young people. The survey results illustrated the different roles that professionals have in improving continence, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to supporting children and young people and their families. Clinicians employ a range of assessments and interventions to improve continence or independent toileting, depending on the needs of the child. Limitations Quantitative studies in the review were not methodologically robust. The survey had a risk of response bias. Conclusions Our research found a dearth of good-quality evidence for many of the interventions currently in use, and no evidence of experiences of implementing interventions for children with non-spinal-cord-related pathology. There was also no evidence of cost-effectiveness of any of the interventions. Future work There is a need to involve young people and families in the design of high-quality evaluative research for interventions that aim to improve continence. This is especially the case for children with autism and learning disability, who have been neglected in previous evaluative and qualitative research. We recommend better training for health, education and care professionals about toileting, informed by evidence and the lived experiences of children and their families. We recommend a joined-up multidisciplinary and holistic approach to improving continence to maximise independence, dignity and comfort. It is vital that children and young people with neurodisability have early access to regular, integrated assessment of their bladder and bowel health, and are fully supported with appropriate personalised treatment. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018100572. 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. 25, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background There has been a steady increase in the number of primary care patients receiving long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment, despite limited evidence of a benefit of this treatment beyond 8 months. Objective The ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession (ANTLER) trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant medication in preventing relapse in UK primary care. Design This was a Phase IV, double-blind, pragmatic, multisite, individually randomised parallel-group controlled trial, with follow-up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Participants were randomised using minimisation on centre, type of antidepressant and baseline depressive symptom score above or below the median using Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised (two categories). Statisticians were blind to allocation for the outcome analyses. Setting General practices in London, Bristol, Southampton and York. Participants Individuals aged 18–74 years who had experienced at least two episodes of depression and had been taking antidepressants for ≥ 9 months but felt well enough to consider stopping their medication. Those who met an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of depression or with other psychiatric conditions were excluded. Intervention At baseline, participants were taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg. They were randomised to either remain on their current medication or discontinue medication after a tapering period. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the time, in weeks, to the beginning of the first depressive episode after randomisation. This was measured by a retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised that assessed the onset of a depressive episode in the previous 12 weeks, and was conducted at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The depression-related resource use was collected over 12 months from medical records and patient-completed questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. Results Between 9 March 2017 and 1 March 2019, we randomised 238 participants to antidepressant continuation (the maintenance group) and 240 participants to antidepressant discontinuation (the discontinuation group). The time to relapse of depression was shorter in the discontinuation group, with a hazard ratio of 2.06 (95% confidence interval 1.56 to 2.70; p < 0.0001). By 52 weeks, relapse was experienced by 39% of those who continued antidepressants and 56% of those who discontinued antidepressants. The secondary analysis revealed that people who discontinued experienced more withdrawal symptoms than those who remained on medication, with the largest difference at 12 weeks. In the discontinuation group, 37% (95% confidence interval 28% to 45%) of participants remained on their randomised medication until the end of the trial. In total, 39% (95% confidence interval 32% to 45%) of participants in the discontinuation group returned to their original antidepressant compared with 20% (95% confidence interval 15% to 25%) of participants in maintenance group. The health economic evaluation demonstrated that participants randomised to discontinuation had worse utility scores at 3 months (–0.037, 95% confidence interval –0.059 to –0.015) and fewer quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months (–0.019, 95% confidence interval –0.035 to –0.003) than those randomised to continuation. The discontinuation pathway, besides giving worse outcomes, also cost more [extra £2.71 per patient over 12 months (95% confidence interval –£36.10 to £37.07)] than the continuation pathway, although the cost difference was not significant. Conclusions Patients who discontinue long-term maintenance antidepressants in primary care are at increased risk of relapse and withdrawal symptoms. However, a substantial proportion of patients can discontinue antidepressants without relapse. Our findings will give patients and clinicians an estimate of the likely benefits and harms of stopping long-term maintenance antidepressants and improve shared decision-making. The participants may not have been representative of all people on long-term maintenance treatment and we could study only a restricted range of antidepressants and doses. Identifying patients who will not relapse if they discontinued antidepressants would be clinically important. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15969819 and EudraCT 2015-004210-26. 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. 25, No. 69. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background Around 60,000 babies are born preterm (prior to 37 weeks’ gestation) each year in the UK. There is little evidence on the optimal birth mode (vaginal or caesarean section). Objective The overall aim of the CASSAVA project was to determine if a trial to define the optimal mode of preterm birth could be carried out and, if so, determine what sort of trial could be conducted and how it could best be performed. We aimed to determine the specific groups of preterm women and babies for whom there are uncertainties about the best planned mode of birth, and if there would be willingness to recruit to, and participate in, a randomised trial to address some, but not all, of these uncertainties. This project was conducted in response to a Heath Technology Assessment programme commissioning call (17/22 ‘Mode of delivery for preterm infants’). Methods We conducted clinician and patient surveys (n = 224 and n = 379, respectively) to identify current practice and opinion, and a consensus survey and Delphi workshop (n = 76 and n = 22 participants, respectively) to inform the design of a hypothetical clinical trial. The protocol for this clinical trial/vignette was used in telephone interviews with clinicians (n = 24) and in focus groups with potential participants (n = 13). Results Planned sample size and data saturation was achieved for all groups except for focus groups with participants, as this had to be curtailed because of the COVID-19 pandemic and data saturation was not achieved. There was broad agreement from parents and health-care professionals that a trial is needed. The clinician survey demonstrated a variety of practice and opinion. The parent survey suggested that women and their families generally preferred vaginal birth at later gestations and caesarean section for preterm infants. The interactive workshop and Delphi consensus process confirmed the need for more evidence (hence the case for a trial) and provided rich information on what a future trial should entail. It was agreed that any trial should address the areas with most uncertainty, including the management of women at 26–32 weeks’ gestation, with either spontaneous preterm labour (cephalic presentation) or where preterm birth was medically indicated. Clear themes around the challenges inherent in conducting any trial emerged, including the concept of equipoise itself. Specific issues were as follows: different clinicians and participants would be in equipoise for each clinical scenario, effective conduct of the trial would require appropriate resources and expertise within the hospital conducting the trial, potential participants would welcome information on the trial well before the onset of labour and minority ethnic groups would require tailored approaches. Conclusion Given the lack of evidence and the variation of practice and opinion in this area, and having listened to clinicians and potential participants, we conclude that a trial should be conducted and the outlined challenges resolved. Future work The CASSAVA project could be used to inform the design of a randomised trial and indicates how such a trial could be carried out. Any future trial would benefit from a pilot with qualitative input and a study within a trial to inform optimal recruitment. Limitations Certainty that a trial could be conducted can be determined only when it is attempted. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12295730. 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. 25, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. Objectives To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. Design This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. Participants Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. Main outcome measures The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. Results Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. Limitations The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. Conclusions The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. 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. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background There is informal consensus that simple compression fractures of the body of the thoracolumbar vertebrae between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra without neurological complications can be managed conservatively and that obvious unstable fractures require surgical fixation. However, there is a zone of uncertainty about whether surgical or conservative management is best for stable fractures. Objectives To assess the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing surgical fixation with initial conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fractures without spinal cord injury. Design External randomised feasibility study, qualitative study and national survey. Setting Three NHS hospitals. Methods A feasibility randomised controlled trial using block randomisation, stratified by centre and type of injury (high- or low-energy trauma) to allocate participants 1 : 1 to surgery or conservative treatment; a costing analysis; a national survey of spine surgeons; and a qualitative study with clinicians, recruiting staff and patients. Participants Adults aged ≥ 16 years with a high- or low-energy fracture of the body of a thoracolumbar vertebra between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra, confirmed by radiography, computerised tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, with at least one of the following: kyphotic angle > 20° on weight-bearing radiographs or > 15° on a supine radiograph or on computerised tomography; reduction in vertebral body height of 25%; a fracture line propagating through the posterior wall of the vertebra; involvement of two contiguous vertebrae; or injury to the posterior longitudinal ligament or annulus in addition to the body fracture. Interventions Surgical fixation: open spinal surgery (with or without spinal fusion) or minimally invasive stabilisation surgery. Conservative management: mobilisation with or without a brace. Main outcome measure Recruitment rate (proportion of eligible participants randomised). Results Twelve patients were randomised (surgery, n = 8; conservative, n = 4). The proportion of eligible patients recruited was 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.63) over a combined total of 30.7 recruitment months. Of 211 patients screened, 28 (13.3%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Patients in the qualitative study (n = 5) expressed strong preferences for surgical treatment, and identified provision of information about treatment and recovery and when and how they are approached for consent as important. Nineteen surgeons and site staff participated in the qualitative study. Key themes were the lack of clinical consensus regarding the implementation of the eligibility criteria in practice and what constitutes a stable fracture, alongside lack of equipoise regarding treatment. Based on the feasibility study eligibility criteria, 77% (50/65) and 70% (46/66) of surgeons participating in the survey were willing to randomise for high- and low-energy fractures, respectively. Limitations Owing to the small number of participants, there is substantial uncertainty around the recruitment rate. Conclusions A definitive trial is unlikely to be feasible currently, mainly because of the small number of patients meeting the eligibility criteria. The recruitment and follow-up rates were slightly lower than anticipated; however, there is room to increase these based on information gathered and the support within the surgical community for a future trial. Future work Development of consensus regarding the population of interest for a trial. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12094890. 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. 25, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
