Evaluation of venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for hospital inpatients: the VTEAM evidence synthesis.

Background: Pharmacological prophylaxis during hospital admission can reduce the risk of acquired blood clots (venous thromboembolism) but may cause complications, such as bleeding. Using a risk assessment model to predict the risk of blood clots could facilitate selection of patients for prophylaxis and optimise the balance of benefits, risks and costs. Objectives: We aimed to identify validated risk assessment models and estimate their prognostic accuracy, evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for selecting hospitalised patients for prophylaxis, assess the feasibility of using efficient research methods and estimate key parameters for future research. Design: We undertook a systematic review, decision-analytic modelling and observational cohort study conducted in accordance with Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines. Setting: NHS hospitals, with primary data collection at four sites. Participants: Medical and surgical hospital inpatients, excluding paediatric, critical care and pregnancy-related admissions. Interventions: Prophylaxis for all patients, none and according to selected risk assessment models. Main outcome measures: Model accuracy for predicting blood clots, lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years associated with alternative strategies, accuracy of efficient methods for identifying key outcomes and proportion of inpatients recommended prophylaxis using different models. Results: We identified 24 validated risk assessment models, but low-quality heterogeneous data suggested weak accuracy for prediction of blood clots and generally high risk of bias in all studies. Decision-analytic modelling showed that pharmacological prophylaxis for all eligible is generally more cost-effective than model-based strategies for both medical and surgical inpatients, when valuing a quality-adjusted life-year at £20,000. The findings were more sensitive to uncertainties in the surgical population; strategies using risk assessment models were more cost-effective if the model was assumed to have a very high sensitivity, or the long-term risks of post-thrombotic complications were lower. Efficient methods using routine data did not accurately identify blood clots or bleeding events and several pre-specified feasibility criteria were not met. Theoretical prophylaxis rates across an inpatient cohort based on existing risk assessment models ranged from 13% to 91%. Limitations: Existing studies may underestimate the accuracy of risk assessment models, leading to underestimation of their cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness findings do not apply to patients with an increased risk of bleeding. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis options were excluded from the modelling. Primary data collection was predominately retrospective, risking case ascertainment bias. Conclusions: Thromboprophylaxis for all patients appears to be generally more cost-effective than using a risk assessment model, in hospitalised patients at low risk of bleeding. To be cost-effective, any risk assessment model would need to be highly sensitive. Current evidence on risk assessment models is at high risk of bias and our findings should be interpreted in this context. We were unable to demonstrate the feasibility of using efficient methods to accurately detect relevant outcomes for future research. Future work: Further research should evaluate routine prophylaxis strategies for all eligible hospitalised patients. Models that could accurately identify individuals at very low risk of blood clots (who could discontinue prophylaxis) warrant further evaluation. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020165778 and Researchregistry5216. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127454) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 20. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

People who are admitted to hospital are at risk of blood clots that can cause serious illness or death. Patients are often given low doses of blood-thinning drugs to reduce this risk. However, these drugs can cause side effects, such as bleeding. Hospitals currently use complex risk assessment models (risk scores, which usually include patient, disease, mobility and intervention factors) to determine the individual risk of blood clots and identify people most likely to benefit from blood-thinning drugs. There are a lot of different risk scores and we do not know which one is best. We also do not know how these scores compare to each other or whether using scores to decide who should get blood-thinning drugs provides good value for money to the NHS. We reviewed all previous studies of risk scores. We found that they did not predict blood clots very well and we could not recommend one score over another. We then created a mathematical model to simulate the use of blood-thinning drugs in people admitted to hospital. The model suggested that giving blood-thinning drugs to everyone who could have them would probably provide the best value for money, in medical patients. Our findings were the same, but less certain, for surgical patients. We also collected information from four NHS hospitals to explore possibilities for future research. Our work showed that routinely collected electronic data on blood clots and bleeding events is not very accurate and that using different scores could result in variable use of blood-thinning medications. Our findings suggest that it may be better value to the NHS and better for patients if we were to offer blood-thinning medications to everyone on admission to hospital, without using any risk score. However, this approach needs further research to ensure it is safe and effective. Such research would not be able to rely on routine electronic data to identify blood clots or bleeding events, in isolation.

Play brick therapy to aid the social skills of children and young people with autism spectrum disorder: the I-SOCIALISE cluster RCT.

Background: Social skills interventions are commonly recommended to help children and young people with autism spectrum disorder develop social skills, but some struggle to engage in these interventions. LEGO® (LEGO System A/S, Billund, Denmark) based therapy, a group social skills intervention, aims to be more interesting and engaging. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of LEGO® based therapy on the social and emotional skills of children and young people with autism spectrum disorder in school settings compared with usual support. Secondary objectives included evaluations of cost-effectiveness, acceptability and treatment fidelity. Design: A cluster randomised controlled trial randomly allocating participating schools to either LEGO® based therapy and usual support or usual support only. Setting: Mainstream schools in the north of England. Participants: Children and young people (aged 7-15 years) with autism spectrum disorder, their parent/guardian, an associated teacher/teaching assistant and a facilitator teacher/teaching assistant (intervention schools only). Intervention: Schools randomised to the intervention arm delivered 12 weekly sessions of LEGO® based therapy, which promotes collaborative play and encourages social problem-solving in groups of three children and young people with a facilitator (trained teacher or teaching assistant). Participants received usual support from school and community services. Participants in the control arm received usual support only. Research assistants and statisticians were blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measure: The social skills subscale of the Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS), completed by the children and young people's unblinded teacher pre randomisation and 20 weeks post randomisation. The SSIS social skills subscale measures social skills including social communication, co-operation, empathy, assertion, responsibility and self-control. Participants completed a number of other pre- and post-randomisation measures of emotional health, quality of life, loneliness, problem behaviours, academic competence, service resource utilisation and adverse events. Results: A total of 250 children and young people from 98 schools were randomised: 127 to the intervention arm and 123 to the control arm. Intention-to-treat analysis of the main outcome measure showed a modest positive difference of 3.74 points (95% confidence interval -0.16 to 7.63 points, standardised effect size 0.18; p = 0.06) in favour of the intervention arm. Statistical significance increased in per-protocol analysis, with a modest positive difference (standardised effect size 0.21; p = 0.036). Cost-effectiveness of the intervention was found in reduced service use costs and a small increase in quality-adjusted life-years. Intervention fidelity and acceptability were positive. No intervention-related adverse events or effects were reported. Conclusions: The primary and pre-planned sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome consistently showed a positive clinical difference, with modest standardised effect sizes of between 0.15 and 0.21. There were positive health economics and qualitative findings, corroborated by the difference between arms for the majority of secondary outcomes, which were not statistically significant but favoured the intervention arm. Post hoc additional analysis was exploratory and was not used in drawing this conclusion. Given the small positive change, LEGO® based therapy for children and young people with autism spectrum disorder in schools should be considered. Limitations: The primary outcome measure was completed by an unblinded teacher (rather than by the facilitator). Future work: The study team recommends future research into LEGO® based therapy, particularly in school environments. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN64852382. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/49/32) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 12. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Autism spectrum disorder is characterised by difficulties with social relationships and communication, which can make it difficult to make friends. Social skills training is commonly used to help children and young people learn different social skills, but some children and young people do not enjoy these therapies. LEGO^® (LEGO System A/S, Billund, Denmark) based therapy takes a new approach by focusing on making the process interesting and fun. This research investigated the effect of LEGO^® based therapy groups in schools on the social and emotional abilities of children and young people with autism spectrum disorder. It was a randomised controlled trial, so each school that was taking part was randomly chosen to provide either usual support (from the school or NHS services) or 12 sessions of LEGO^® based therapy with a trained school staff member as well as usual support. Children and young people played one of three roles ­ the 'engineer' (gives instructions), the 'supplier' (finds the pieces) or the 'builder' (builds the model) ­ and worked together. Questionnaires completed by children and young people, their parents/guardians and teachers were used to look at the intervention's effects. The main objective was to see if there was a change in social skills measured by a teacher-completed questionnaire. Results showed that the social skills of children and young people in the LEGO^® based therapy groups did improve a little. We found that the intervention is not very costly for schools to run. Many parents/guardians and teachers thought that the intervention was beneficial and that the children and young people enjoyed it.

A randomized controlled trial of a proportionate universal parenting program delivery model (E-SEE Steps) to enhance child social-emotional wellbeing.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for parenting programs to improve wellbeing in children under three is inconclusive. We investigated the fidelity, impact, and cost-effectiveness of two parenting programs delivered within a longitudinal proportionate delivery model ('E-SEE Steps'). METHODS: Eligible parents with a child ≤ 8 weeks were recruited into a parallel two-arm, assessor blinded, randomized controlled, community-based, trial with embedded economic and process evaluations. Post-baseline randomization applied a 5:1 (intervention-to-control) ratio, stratified by primary (child social-emotional wellbeing (ASQ:SE-2)) and key secondary (maternal depression (PHQ-9)) outcome scores, sex, and site. All intervention parents received the Incredible Years® Baby Book (IY-B), and were offered the targeted Infant (IY-I)/Toddler (IY-T) program if eligible, based on ASQ:SE-2/PHQ-9 scores. Control families received usual services. Fidelity data were analysed descriptively. Primary analysis applied intention to treat. Effectiveness analysis fitted a marginal model to outcome scores. Cost-effectiveness analysis involved Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: The target sample (N = 606) was not achieved; 341 mothers were randomized (285:56), 322 (94%) were retained to study end. Of those eligible for the IY-I (n = 101), and IY-T (n = 101) programs, 51 and 21 respectively, attended. Eight (of 14) groups met the 80% self-reported fidelity criteria. No significant differences between arms were found for adjusted mean difference scores; ASQ:SE-2 (3.02, 95% CI: -0.03, 6.08, p = 0.052), PHQ-9 (-0.61; 95% CI: -1.34, 0.12, p = 0.1). E-SEE Steps had higher costs, but improved mothers' Health-related Quality of Life (0.031 Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gain), ICER of £20,062 per QALY compared to control. Serious adverse events (n = 86) were unrelated to the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: E-SEE Steps was not effective, but was borderline cost-effective. The model was delivered with varying fidelity, with lower-than-expected IY-T uptake. Changes to delivery systems and the individual programs may be needed prior to future evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN11079129.

Cost-utility analysis of LEGO based therapy for school children and young people with autism spectrum disorder: results from a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of LEGO-based therapy compared with usual support. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis alongside randomised control trial. SETTING: Mainstream primary and secondary schools in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 248 children and young people (CYP) with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) aged 7-15 years. INTERVENTION: LEGO-based therapy is a group social skills intervention designed specifically for CYP with ASD. Through play, CYP learn to use the skills such as joint attention, sharing, communication and group problem-solving. CYP randomised to the intervention arm received 12 weekly sessions of LEGO-based therapy and usual support, while CYP allocated to control arm received usual support only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Average costs based on National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by EQ-5D-Y over time horizon of 1 year were collected during the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted. The uncertainty around the ICER estimates was presented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). A set of sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the primary findings. RESULTS: After adjustment and bootstrapping, on average, CYP in LEGO-based therapy group incurred less costs (incremental cost was -£251 (95% CI -£752 to £268)) and gained marginal improvement in QALYs (QALYs gained 0.009 (95% CI -0.008 to 0.028)). The CEAC shows that the probability of LEGO-based therapy being cost-effective was 94% at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained. Results of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Compared with usual support, LEGO-based therapy produced marginal reduction in costs and improvement in QALYs. Results from both primary and sensitivity analyses suggested that LEGO-based therapy was likely to be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN64852382.