Early comprehensive care of preterm infants-effects on quality of life, childhood development, and healthcare utilization: study protocol for a cohort study linking administrative healthcare data with patient reported primary data.

BACKGROUND: About 9 % of all children in Germany are born preterm. Despite significant improvements of medical care, preterm infants are at a greater risk to develop short and long term health complications. Negative consequences of preterm birth include neurodevelopmental disabilities, behavioral problems or learning disorders. Most data on effects of prematurity are derived from single or multi-center studies and not population-based. Since some of the long term problems of preterm delivery are associated with a disturbed parent-child interaction originating in the neonatal period, several intervention programs became available aiming to strengthen the early parent-child relationship. However, there is insufficient knowledge regarding the psychosocial and socioeconomic impact of these interventions. Prior to introducing them into routine care, those effects have to be rigorously evaluated. The population-based cohort study EcoCare-PIn (Early comprehensive Care of Preterm Infants-effects on quality of life, childhood development, and healthcare utilization) will investigate the following primary research questions: 1) What are the short- and long-term consequences of preterm birth with regard to parental stress, parent-child relationship, childhood development, quality of life and healthcare utilization including costs? 2) Does early family-centered psychosocial care prevent the hypothesized negative consequences of preterm birth on the above mentioned outcomes? METHODS/DESIGN: EcoCare-PIn examines the research questions by means of a linkage of a) pseudonymized administrative individual-level claims data from the German statutory health insurance AOK PLUS on approximately 140,000 children born between 2007 and 2013 in Saxony, and b) primary data collected from the parents/caregivers of all very low birth weight (<1,500 g; n = 1,000) and low birth weight infants (1,500 to 2,500 g; n = 5,500) and a matched sample of infants above 2,500 g birth weight (n = 10,000). DISCUSSION: In Saxony, approximately 50 % of all individuals are insured at the AOK PLUS. The linkage of patient-level administrative and primary data is a novel approach in neonatal research and probably the only way to overcome shortcomings of studies solely relying on one data source. The study results are based on an observation period of up to 8 years and will directly inform perinatal healthcare provision in Saxony and Germany as a whole.

Common definition for categories of clinical research: a prerequisite for a survey on regulatory requirements by the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN).

BACKGROUND: Thorough knowledge of the regulatory requirements is a challenging prerequisite for conducting multinational clinical studies in Europe given their complexity and heterogeneity in regulation and perception across the EU member states. METHODS: In order to summarise the current situation in relation to the wide spectrum of clinical research, the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) developed a multinational survey in ten European countries. However a lack of common classification framework for major categories of clinical research was identified, and therefore reaching an agreement on a common classification was the initial step in the development of the survey. RESULTS: The ECRIN transnational working group on regulation, composed of experts in the field of clinical research from ten European countries, defined seven major categories of clinical research that seem relevant from both the regulatory and the scientific points of view, and correspond to congruent definitions in all countries: clinical trials on medicinal products; clinical trials on medical devices; other therapeutic trials (including surgery trials, transplantation trials, transfusion trials, trials with cell therapy, etc.); diagnostic studies; clinical research on nutrition; other interventional clinical research (including trials in complementary and alternative medicine, trials with collection of blood or tissue samples, physiology studies, etc.); and epidemiology studies. Our classification was essential to develop a survey focused on protocol submission to ethics committees and competent authorities, procedures for amendments, requirements for sponsor and insurance, and adverse event reporting following five main phases: drafting, consensus, data collection, validation, and finalising. CONCLUSION: The list of clinical research categories as used for the survey could serve as a contribution to the, much needed, task of harmonisation and simplification of the regulatory requirements for clinical research in Europe.

Treatment following an evidence-based algorithm versus individualised symptom-oriented treatment for atopic eczema. A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based treatment algorithms, successfully established for asthma, are missing for atopic eczema (AE). OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether treatment according to an evidence-based algorithm is an effective and applicable concept for the management of AE. METHODS: Based on a systematic literature review, we developed an evidence-based severity-score-oriented treatment algorithm for AE and compared its effectiveness to that of an individualised symptom-oriented treatment (individual therapy) in a randomised controlled trial. Sixty-three participants were randomised to algorithm (n = 32) or individual therapy (n = 31) and treated accordingly for 12 months. Study end points included difference between baseline SCORAD and mean SCORAD under treatment (primary end point), quality of life and treatment utilisation. Analysis was by intention to treat (registration: Clinical Trials.gov:NCT00148746). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in clinical or subjective response were observed between groups. Treatment following the algorithm and individual treatment both effectively controlled AE. Mean SCORAD reductions were 47% (95% confidence interval, CI = 38-55; algorithm) and 42% (95% CI = 29-54; individual). Clinical response was paralleled by improved quality of life in both groups. Physicians adhered to the algorithm option in 93% of their treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: Treatment following an evidence-based algorithm is an effective and applicable concept for the management of AE but does not show clear advantages compared to individualised treatment in a dermatological setting.