Cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study: a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study is to compare home versus in-hospital cervical ripening to determine whether home cervical ripening is safe (for the primary outcome of neonatal unit (NNU) admission), acceptable to women and cost-effective from the perspective of both women and the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a prospective multicentre observational cohort study with an internal pilot phase. We will obtain data from electronic health records from at least 14 maternity units offering only in-hospital cervical ripening and 12 offering dinoprostone home cervical ripening. We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed methods study to evaluate processes and women/partner experiences. Our primary sample size is 8533 women with singleton pregnancies undergoing induction of labour (IOL) at 39+0 weeks' gestation or more. To achieve this and contextualise our findings, we will collect data relating to a cohort of approximately 41 000 women undergoing IOL after 37 weeks. We will use mixed effects logistic regression for the non-inferiority comparison of NNU admission and propensity score matched adjustment to control for treatment indication bias. The economic analysis will be undertaken from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) and the pregnant woman. It will include a within-study cost-effectiveness analysis and a lifetime cost-utility analysis to account for any long-term impacts of the cervical ripening strategies. Outcomes will be reported as incremental cost per NNU admission avoided and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained. RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: CHOICE has been funded and approved by the National Institute of Healthcare Research Health Technology and Assessment, and the results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN32652461.

Study protocol for POSITIF, a randomised multicentre feasibility trial of a brief cognitive-behavioural intervention plus information versus information alone for the treatment of post-stroke fatigue.

BACKGROUND: Approximately, half of stroke survivors experience fatigue. Fatigue may persist for many months and interferes with participation in everyday activities and has a negative impact on social and family relationships, return to work, and quality of life. Fatigue is among the top 10 priorities for 'Life after Stroke' research for stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians. We previously developed and tested in a small uncontrolled pilot study a manualised, clinical psychologist-delivered, face-to-face intervention, informed by cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). We then adapted it for delivery by trained therapists via telephone. We now aim to test the feasibility of this approach in a parallel group, randomised controlled feasibility trial (Post Stroke Intervention Trial In Fatigue, POSITIF). METHODS/DESIGN: POSITIF aims to recruit 75 stroke survivors between 3 months and 2 years post-stroke who would like treatment for their fatigue. Eligible consenting stroke survivors will be randomised to either a 7-session manualised telephone-delivered intervention based on CBT principles plus information about fatigue, or information only. The aims of the intervention are to (i) provide an explanation for post-stroke fatigue, in particular that it is potentially reversible (an educational approach), (ii) encourage participants to overcome the fear of taking physical activity and challenge negative thinking (a cognitive approach) and (iii) promote a balance between daily activities, rest and sleep and then gradually increase levels of physical activity (a behavioural approach). Fatigue, mood, quality of life, return to work and putative mediators will be assessed at baseline (just before randomisation), at the end of treatment and 6 months after randomisation. POSITIF will determine the feasibility of recruitment, adherence to the intervention and the resources required to deliver the intervention in a larger trial. DISCUSSION: The POSITIF feasibility trial will recruit until 31 January 2020. Data will inform the utility and design of a future adequately powered randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03551327. Registered on 11 June 2018.

Oxygen saturation targets in infants with bronchiolitis (BIDS): a double-blind, randomised, equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a permissive hypoxaemic target for an oxygen saturation of 90% for children with bronchiolitis, which is consistent with the WHO recommendations for targets in children with lower respiratory tract infections. No evidence exists to support this threshold. We aimed to assess whether the 90% or higher target for management of oxygen supplementation was equivalent to a normoxic 94% or higher target for infants admitted to hospital with viral bronchiolitis. METHODS: We did a parallel-group, randomised, controlled, equivalence trial of infants aged 6 weeks to 12 months of age with physician-diagnosed bronchiolitis newly admitted into eight paediatric hospital units in the UK (the Bronchiolitis of Infancy Discharge Study [BIDS]). A central computer randomly allocated (1:1) infants, in varying length blocks of four and six and without stratification, to be clipped to standard oximeters (patients treated with oxygen if pulse oxygen saturation [SpO2] <94%) or modified oximeters (displayed a measured value of 90% as 94%, therefore oxygen not given until SpO2 <90%). All parents, clinical staff, and outcome assessors were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was time to resolution of cough (prespecified equivalence limits of plus or minus 2 days) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN28405428. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, and March 30, 2012, and Oct 1, and March 29, 2013, we randomly assigned 308 infants to standard oximeters and 307 infants to modified oximeters. Cough resolved by 15·0 days (median) in both groups (95% CI for difference -1 to 2) and so oxygen thresholds were equivalent. We recorded 35 serious adverse events in 32 infants in the standard care group and 25 serious adverse events in 24 infants in the modified care group. In the standard care group, eight infants transferred to a high-dependency unit, 23 were readmitted, and one had a prolonged hospital stay. In the modified care group, 12 infants were transferred to a high-dependency unit and 12 were readmitted to hospital. Recorded adverse events did not differ significantly. INTERPRETATION: Management of infants with bronchiolitis to an oxygen saturation target of 90% or higher is as safe and clinically effective as one of 94% or higher. Future research should assess the benefits and risks of different oxygen saturation targets in acute respiratory infection in older children, particularly in developing nations where resources are scarce. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme.