The development of a set of key points to aid clinicians and researchers in designing and conducting n-of-1 trials.

INTRODUCTION: n-of-1 trials are undertaken to optimise the evaluation of health technologies in individual patients. They involve a single patient receiving treatments, both interventional and control, consecutively over set periods of time, the order of which is decided at random. Although n-of-1 trials are undertaken in medical research it could be argued they have the utility to be undertaken more frequently. We undertook the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) commissioned DIAMOND (Development of generalisable methodology for n-of-1 trials delivery for very low volume treatments) project to develop key points to assist clinicians and researchers in designing and conducting n-of-1 trials. METHODS: The key points were developed by undertaking a stakeholder workshop, followed by a discussion within the study team and then a stakeholder dissemination and feedback event. The stakeholder workshop sought to gain the perspectives of a variety of stakeholders (including clinicians, researchers and patient representatives) on the design and use of n-of-1 trials. A discussion between the study team was held to reflect on the workshop and draft the key points. Lastly, the stakeholders from the workshop were invited to a dissemination and feedback session where the proposed key points were presented and their feedback gained. RESULTS: A set of 22 key points were developed based on the insights from the workshop and subsequent discussions. They provide guidance on when an n-of-1 trial might be a viable or appropriate study design and discuss key decisions involved in the design of n-of-1 trials, including determining an appropriate number of treatment periods and cycles, the choice of comparator, recommended approaches to randomisation and blinding, the use of washout periods and approaches to analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The key points developed in the project will support clinical researchers to understand key considerations when designing n-of-1 trials. It is hoped they will support the wider implementation of the study design.

A methodological review of randomised n-of-1 trials.

BACKGROUND: n-of-1 trials are a type of crossover trial designed to optimise the evaluation of health technologies in individual patients. This trial design may be considered for the evaluation of health technologies in rare conditions where fewer patients are available to take part in research. This review describes the characteristics of randomised n-of-1 trials conducted over the span of 12 years, including how the n-of-1 design has been employed to study both rare and non-rare conditions. METHODS: Databases and clinical trials registries were searched for articles including "n-of-1" in the title between 2011 and 2023. The reference lists of reviews identified by the searches were searched for any additional eligible articles. Randomised n-of-1 trials were selected for inclusion and data were extracted on a range of design, population, and analysis characteristics. Descriptive statistics were produced for all variables. RESULTS: We identified 74 studies meeting our eligibility criteria, 13 of which (17.6%) were conducted in rare conditions. They were conducted in a range of clinical areas with the most common being neurological conditions (n = 16, 21.6%). The median (Q1, Q3) number of participants randomised was 9 (4, 20) and 12 trials (16.2%) involved a single patient only. Forty-six (62.2%) trials evaluated pharmaceutical interventions and 49 (66.2%) trials were placebo controlled. Trials had a median (Q1, Q3) of six (4, 8) periods and 61 (82.4%) compared two health technologies. Fifty-seven (77.0%) trials incorporated blinding and 32 (43.2%) had a washout period. Forty-nine trials (66.2%) used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess the primary outcome. Trials used a range of approaches to analysis and 48 (64.9%) combined data from multiple patients. The characteristics of the n-of-1 trials conducted in rare conditions were generally consistent with those in non-rare conditions. CONCLUSIONS: n-of-1 trials are still underused and the application of the n-of-1 design for the evaluation of health technologies for rare diseases has been particularly limited. We have summarised the characteristics of randomised n-of-1 trials in rare and non-rare conditions. We hope that it can inform researchers in the design of future n-of-1 studies. Further work is required to provide guidance on specific design considerations, implementation, and statistical analysis of these studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Delivering relational continuity of care in UK general practice: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Relational continuity of care (patients seeing the same GP) is associated with better outcomes for patients, but it has been declining in general practice in the UK. AIM: To understand what interventions have been tried to improve relational continuity of care in general practice in the UK. DESIGN & SETTING: Scoping review of articles on UK General Practice and written in English. METHOD: An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus from 2002 to the present day was undertaken. Sources of grey literature were also searched. Studies that detailed service-level methods of achieving relational continuity of care with a GP in the UK were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were described narratively in relation to the elements listed in the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). A logic model describing the rationale behind interventions was constructed. RESULTS: Seventeen unique interventions were identified. The interventions used a wide variety of strategies to try to improve relational continuity. This included personal lists, amended booking processes, regular reviews, digital technology, facilitated follow-ups, altered appointment times, and use of acute hubs. Twelve of the interventions targeted specific patient groups for increased continuity while others focused on increasing continuity for all patients. Changes in continuity levels were measured inconsistently using several different methods. CONCLUSION: Several different strategies have been used in UK general practices in an attempt to improve relational continuity of care. While there is a similar underlying logic to these interventions, their scope, aims, and methods vary considerably. Furthermore, owing to a weak evidence base, comparing their efficacy remains challenging.

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study.

Background: Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department. Objectives: To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment. Design: Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness. Setting: Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England. Participants: Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded. Interventions: Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation. Main outcome measures: Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed. Limitations: We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling. Conclusions: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition in which an abnormal response to infection causes heart, lung or kidney failure. People with sepsis need urgent treatment. They need to be prioritised at the emergency department rather than waiting in the queue. Paramedics attempt to identify people with possible sepsis using an early warning score (based on simple measurements, such as blood pressure and heart rate) alongside their impression of the patient's diagnosis. They can then alert the hospital to assess the patient quickly. However, an inaccurate early warning score might miss cases of sepsis or unnecessarily prioritise people without sepsis. We aimed to measure how accurately early warning scores identified people with sepsis when used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression. We collected data from 71,204 people that two ambulance services transported to four different hospitals in 2019. We recorded paramedic diagnostic impressions and calculated early warning scores for each patient. At one hospital, we linked ambulance records to hospital records and identified who had sepsis. We then calculated the accuracy of using the scores alongside diagnostic impression to diagnose sepsis. Finally, we used modelling to predict how many patients (with and without sepsis) paramedics would prioritise using different strategies based on early warning scores and diagnostic impression. We found that none of the currently available early warning scores were ideal. When they were applied to all patients, they prioritised too many people. When they were only applied to patients whom the paramedics thought had infection, they missed many cases of sepsis. The NEWS2, score, which ambulance services already use, was as good as or better than all the other scores we studied. We found that using the NEWS2, score in people with a paramedic impression of infection could achieve a reasonable balance between prioritising too many patients and avoiding missing patients with sepsis.

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: retrospective diagnostic cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ambulance services need to identify and prioritise patients with sepsis for early hospital assessment. We aimed to determine the accuracy of early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis that required urgent treatment. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective diagnostic cohort study involving adult emergency medical cases transported to Sheffield Teaching Hospitals ED by Yorkshire Ambulance Service in 2019. We used routine ambulance service data to calculate 21 early warning scores and categorise paramedic diagnostic impressions as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation or other presentation. We linked cases to hospital records and identified those meeting the sepsis-3 definition who received urgent hospital treatment for sepsis (reference standard). Analysis determined the accuracy of strategies that combined early warning scores at varying thresholds for positivity with paramedic diagnostic impression. RESULTS: We linked 12 870/24 955 (51.6%) cases and identified 348/12 870 (2.7%) with a positive reference standard. None of the strategies provided sensitivity greater than 0.80 with positive predictive value greater than 0.15. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2) applied to patients with a diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection was 0.756 (95% CI 0.729, 0.783). No other early warning score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Paramedic impression of sepsis or infection had sensitivity of 0.572 (0.519, 0.623) and positive predictive value of 0.156 (0.137, 0.176). NEWS2 thresholds of >4, >6 and >8 applied to patients with a diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection, respectively, provided sensitivities and positive predictive values of 0.522 (0.469, 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189, 0.245), 0.447 (0.395, 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239, 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268, 0.365) and 0.333 (0.284, 0.386). CONCLUSION: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2 alongside paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: researchregistry5268, https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry%23home/registrationdetails/5de7bbd97ca5b50015041c33/.