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.

Exploring the barriers to, and importance of, participant diversity in early-phase clinical trials: an interview-based qualitative study of professionals and patient and public representatives.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the importance of, and barriers to achieving, diversity in early-phase clinical trials. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Five professionals (clinical researchers and methodologists) and three patient and public representatives (those with experience of early-phase clinical trials and/or those from ethnic minority backgrounds) were interviewed between June and August 2022. Participants were identified via their institutional web page, existing contacts or social media (eg, X, formerly known as Twitter). RESULTS: Professionals viewed that diversity is not currently considered in all early-phase clinical trials but felt that it should always be taken into account. Such trials are primarily undertaken at a small number of centres, thus limiting the populations they can access. Referrals from clinicians based in the community may increase diversity; however, those referred are often not from underserved groups. Referrals may be hindered by the extra resources required to approach and recruit underserved groups and participants often having to undertake 'self-driven' referrals. Patient and public representatives stated that diversity is important in research staff and that potential participants should be informed of the need for diversity. Those from underserved groups may require clarification regarding the potential harms of a treatment, even if these are unknown. Education may improve awareness and perception of early-phase clinical trials. We provide 14 recommendations to improve diversity in early-phase clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity should be considered in all early-phase trials. Consideration is required regarding the extent of diversity and how it is addressed. The increased resources needed to recruit those from underserved groups may warrant funders to increase the funds to support the recruitment of such participants. The potential harms and societal benefits of the research should be presented to potential participants in a balanced but accurate way to increase transparency.

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.

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop.

Background: Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit-risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials. Objectives: The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit-risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting. Methods: A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019). Results: We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit-risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit-risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit-risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit-risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results. Conclusions: These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit-risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit-risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made. Limitations: This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit-risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method. Study registration: The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882. Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme.

Randomised controlled trials are considered the best way to gather evidence about potential NHS treatments. They can be designed from different perspectives depending whether the aim is to show that a new treatment is better than, equal to or no worse than the current best available treatment. The selection of this design relates to the single most important outcome; however, often multiple outcomes can be affected by a treatment. For example, a new treatment may improve disease management but increase side effects. Patients want a treatment to work but not at the price of poor quality of life; therefore, a trade-off must be made, and the recommended treatment depends on this trade-off. Benefit­risk methods can assess the trade-off between multiple outcomes and can include patient preference. These methods could improve the way that decisions are made about treatments in the NHS, but there is currently limited research about the use of these methods in publicly funded trials. The aim of this report is to improve the design of clinical trials by helping researchers to select the most appropriate trial design and to decide when to include a benefit­risk method. The recommendations were created using the opinions of experts within the field and consisted of a survey, review of the literature and a workshop. The project created a list of 19 factors that can assist researchers to select the most appropriate trial design. Furthermore, six key areas were identified in which researchers may consider including a benefit­risk method within a trial. Finally, if a benefit­risk assessment is being used, a checklist of items has been created that identifies the information important to include in reports. This report is, however, limited in its applicability and further research should extend this work, as well as provide more detail on individual methods that are available.

I-SOCIALISE: Results from a cluster randomised controlled trial investigating the social competence and isolation of children with autism taking part in LEGO® based therapy ('Play Brick Therapy') clubs in school environments.

LAY ABSTRACT: Autism is characterised by keen interests and differences in social interactions and communication. Activities that help autistic children and young people with social skills are commonly used in UK schools. LEGO® based therapy is a new activity that provides interesting and fun social opportunities for children and young people and involves building LEGO® models together. This study looked at LEGO® based therapy for the social skills of autistic children and young people in schools. It was a randomised controlled trial, meaning each school was randomly chosen (like flipping a coin) to either run LEGO® based therapy groups in school over 12 weeks and have usual support from school or other professionals, or only have usual support from school or other professionals. The effect of the LEGO® based therapy groups was measured by asking children and young people, their parents/guardians, and a teacher at school in both arms of the study to complete some questionnaires. The main objective was to see if the teacher's questionnaire answers about the children and young people's social skills changed between their first and second completions. The social skills of participants in the LEGO® based therapy groups were found to have improved in a small way when compared to usual support only. The study also found that LEGO® based therapy was not very costly for schools to run and parents/guardians and teachers said they thought it was good for their children and young people. We suggest further research into different potential benefits of LEGO® based therapy.

One session treatment (OST) is equivalent to multi-session cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in children with specific phobias (ASPECT): results from a national non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 5%-10% children and young people (CYP) experience specific phobias that impact daily functioning. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is recommended but has limitations. One Session Treatment (OST), a briefer alternative incorporating CBT principles, has demonstrated efficacy. The Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT) investigated the non-inferiority of OST compared to multi-session CBT for treating specific phobias in CYP. METHODS: ASPECT was a pragmatic, multi-center, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial in 26 CAMHS sites, three voluntary agency services, and one university-based CYP well-being service. CYP aged 7-16 years with specific phobia were randomized to receive OST or CBT. Clinical non-inferiority and a nested cost-effectiveness evaluation was assessed 6-months post-randomization using the Behavioural Avoidance Task (BAT). Secondary outcome measures included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety Depression Scale, goal-based outcome measure, and EQ-5DY and CHU-9D, collected blind at baseline and six-months. RESULTS: 268 CYPs were randomized to OST (n = 134) or CBT (n = 134). Mean BAT scores at 6 months were similar across groups in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations (CBT: 7.1 (ITT, n = 76), 7.4 (PP, n = 57), OST: 7.4 (ITT, n = 73), 7.6 (PP, n = 56), on the standardized scale-adjusted mean difference for CBT compared to OST -0.123, 95% CI -0.449 to 0.202 (ITT), mean difference -0.204, 95% CI -0.579 to 0.171 (PP)). These findings were wholly below the standardized non-inferiority limit of 0.4, suggesting that OST is non-inferior to CBT. No between-group differences were found on secondary outcomes. OST marginally decreased mean service use costs and maintained similar mean Quality Adjusted Life Years compared to CBT. CONCLUSIONS: One Session Treatment has similar clinical effectiveness to CBT for specific phobias in CYP and may be a cost-saving alternative.

One-session treatment compared with multisession CBT in children aged 7-16 years with specific phobias: the ASPECT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Up to 10% of children and young people have a specific phobia that can significantly affect their mental health, development and daily functioning. Cognitive-behavioural therapy-based interventions remain the dominant treatment, but limitations to their provision warrant investigation into low-intensity alternatives. One-session treatment is one such alternative that shares cognitive-behavioural therapy principles but has a shorter treatment period. OBJECTIVE: This research investigated the non-inferiority of one-session treatment to cognitive-behavioural therapy for treating specific phobias in children and young people. The acceptability and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment were examined. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, with embedded economic and qualitative evaluations. SETTINGS: There were 26 sites, including 12 NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 7-16 years and had a specific phobia defined in accordance with established international clinical criteria. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive one-session treatment or usual-care cognitive-behavioural therapy, and were stratified according to age and phobia severity. Outcome assessors remained blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Behavioural Avoidance Task at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the Anxiety Disorder Interview Schedule, Child Anxiety Impact Scale, Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, a goal-based outcome measure, Child Health Utility 9D, EuroQol-5 Dimensions Youth version and resource usage. Treatment fidelity was assessed using the Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Scale for Children and Young People and the One-Session Treatment Rating Scale. RESULTS: A total of 274 participants were recruited, with 268 participants randomised to one-session treatment (n = 134) or cognitive-behavioural therapy (n = 134). A total of 197 participants contributed some data, with 149 participants in the intention-to-treat analysis and 113 in the per-protocol analysis. Mean Behavioural Avoidance Task scores at 6 months were similar across treatment groups when both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were applied [cognitive-behavioural therapy: 7.1 (intention to treat), 7.4 (per protocol); one-session treatment: 7.4 (intention to treat), 7.6 (per protocol); on the standardised scale adjusted mean difference for cognitive-behavioural therapy compared with one-session treatment -0.123, 95% confidence interval -0.449 to 0.202 (intention to treat), mean difference -0.204, 95% confidence interval -0.579 to 0.171 (per protocol)]. These findings were wholly below the standardised non-inferiority limit of 0.4, which suggests that one-session treatment is non-inferior to cognitive-behavioural therapy. No between-group differences in secondary outcome measures were found. The health economics evaluation suggested that, compared with cognitive-behavioural therapy, one-session treatment marginally decreased the mean service use costs and maintained similar mean quality-adjusted life-year improvement. Nested qualitative evaluation found one-session treatment to be considered acceptable by those who received it, their parents/guardians and clinicians. No adverse events occurred as a result of phobia treatment. LIMITATIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic meant that 48 children and young people could not complete the primary outcome measure. Service waiting times resulted in some participants not starting therapy before follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: One-session treatment for specific phobia in UK-based child mental health treatment centres is as clinically effective as multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy and highly likely to be cost-saving. Future work could involve improving the implementation of one-session treatment through training and commissioning of improved care pathways. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN19883421. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A phobia is an intense, ongoing fear of an everyday object or situation. The phobia causes distress and the person with the phobia avoids that object or situation. Many children and young people have phobias that affect their daily lives. Cognitive­behavioural therapy helps by changing what people do or think when they have a phobia and is the most common treatment approach. However, cognitive­behavioural therapy is expensive, takes time and is not always easy to get. Different treatments are needed to help children and young people with specific phobias. One such therapy is one-session treatment, which works in similar ways to cognitive­behavioural therapy but takes place over one main 3-hour session. Our study, called ASPECT (Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial), compared these two treatments to examine whether or not one-session treatment is as effective as cognitive­behavioural therapy. Overall, 274 children and young people aged 7­16 years from 26 sites nationally helped with our research, of whom 268 received either cognitive­behavioural therapy or one-session treatment. The results at 6 months found that one-session treatment and cognitive­behavioural therapy worked as well as each other for treating phobias in children and young people. We also found evidence that one-session treatment is cheaper than cognitive­behavioural therapy. We spoke with children and young people, their parents/guardians and the therapists of the single-session treatment, and we found one-session treatment to be acceptable for their needs. Future research could explore how to make one-session treatment more easily available for children and young people with specific phobias because it can save time and money, and works just as well as cognitive­behavioural therapy.

What is the purpose of clinical trial monitoring?

BACKGROUND: The sources of information on clinical trial monitoring do not give information in an accessible language and do not give detailed guidance. In order to enable communication and to build clinical trial monitoring tools on a strong easily communicated foundation, we identified the need to define monitoring in accessible language. METHODS: In a three-step process, the material from sources that describe clinical trial monitoring were synthesised into principles of monitoring. A poll regarding their applicability was run at a UK national academic clinical trials monitoring meeting. RESULTS: The process derived 5 key principles of monitoring: keeping participants safe and respecting their rights, having data we can trust, making sure the trial is being run as it was meant to be, improving the way the trial is run and preventing problems before they happen. CONCLUSION: From the many sources mentioning monitoring of clinical trials, the purpose of monitoring can be summarised simply as 5 principles. These principles, given in accessible language, should form a firm basis for discussion of monitoring of clinical trials.

One-session treatment for specific phobias: Barriers, facilitators and acceptability as perceived by children & young people, parents, and clinicians.

Between 2015 and 2020 the Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT) was conducted in the UK to examine the non-inferiority of One-Session Treatment in comparison to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy based interventions for children and young people with specific phobias. A nested qualitative evaluation was conducted as part of this trial to examine the acceptability of One-Session Treatment. Qualitative interviews were conducted with children and young people taking part in the trial, their parents/guardians, and clinicians delivering the intervention, about their experiences and the acceptability of One Session Treatment. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis followed a qualitative framework approach, a widely used method of analysing primary qualitative data pertaining to healthcare practices with policy relevance. Stakeholder groups found One Session Treatment to be an acceptable intervention and barriers and facilitators for its implementation into services were also identified. Potential barriers included challenges to patient flow and treatment scepticism, whilst facilitators included adopting a child-centred approach, child readiness and suitability, opportunity for increased momentum, parental support and involvement, and proximal and distal gains. For One Session Treatment's successful implementation into services, consideration of these barriers is needed and suitability guidance for its use in this population should be developed. Further research exploring children and young people's experiences of receiving Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and its acceptability in comparison to One Session Treatment would be welcomed.

Practical guidance for planning resources required to support publicly-funded adaptive clinical trials.

Adaptive designs are a class of methods for improving efficiency and patient benefit of clinical trials. Although their use has increased in recent years, research suggests they are not used in many situations where they have potential to bring benefit. One barrier to their more widespread use is a lack of understanding about how the choice to use an adaptive design, rather than a traditional design, affects resources (staff and non-staff) required to set-up, conduct and report a trial. The Costing Adaptive Trials project investigated this issue using quantitative and qualitative research amongst UK Clinical Trials Units. Here, we present guidance that is informed by our research, on considering the appropriate resourcing of adaptive trials. We outline a five-step process to estimate the resources required and provide an accompanying costing tool. The process involves understanding the tasks required to undertake a trial, and how the adaptive design affects them. We identify barriers in the publicly funded landscape and provide recommendations to trial funders that would address them. Although our guidance and recommendations are most relevant to UK non-commercial trials, many aspects are relevant more widely.

Trial Forge Guidance 3: randomised trials and how to recruit and retain individuals from ethnic minority groups-practical guidance to support better practice.

Randomised trials, especially those intended to directly inform clinical practice and policy, should be designed to reflect all those who could benefit from the intervention under test should it prove effective. This does not always happen. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) INCLUDE project identified many groups in the UK that are under-served by trials, including ethnic minorities.This guidance document presents four key recommendations for designing and running trials that include the ethnic groups needed by the trial. These are (1) ensure eligibility criteria and recruitment pathway do not limit participation in ways you do not intend, (2) ensure your trial materials are developed with inclusion in mind, (3) ensure staff are culturally competent and (4) build trusting partnerships with community organisations that work with ethnic minority groups. Each recommendation comes with best practice advice, public contributor testimonials, examples of the inclusion problem tackled by the recommendation, or strategies to mitigate the problem, as well as a collection of resources to support implementation of the recommendations.We encourage trial teams to follow the recommendations and, where possible, evaluate the strategies they use to implement them. Finally, while our primary audience is those designing, running and reporting trials, we hope funders, grant reviewers and approvals agencies may also find our guidance useful.

Cost and effectiveness of one session treatment (OST) for children and young people with specific phobias compared to multi-session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT): results from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, around 93,000 (0.8%) children and young people (CYP) are experiencing specific phobias that have a substantial impact on daily life. The current gold-standard treatment-multi-session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) - is effective at reducing specific phobia severity; however, CBT is time consuming, requires specialist CBT therapists, and is often at great cost and limited availability. A briefer variant of CBT called one session treatment (OST) has been found to offer similar clinical effectiveness for specific phobia as multi-session CBT. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of OST compared to multi-session CBT for CYP with specific phobias through the Alleviating Specific Phobias Experienced by Children Trial (ASPECT), a two-arm, pragmatic, multi-centre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. METHODS: CYP aged seven to 16 years with specific phobias were recruited nationally via Health and Social Care pathways, remotely randomised to the intervention group (OST) or the control group (CBT-based therapies) and analysed (n = 267). Resource use based on NHS and personal social services perspective and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) measured by EQ-5D-Y were collected at baseline and at six-month follow-up. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to capture the uncertainty around the ICER estimates. The results were presented on a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). A set of sensitivity analyses (including taking a societal perspective) were conducted to assess the robustness of the primary findings. RESULTS: After adjustment and bootstrapping, on average CYP in the OST group incurred less costs (incremental cost was -£302.96 (95% CI -£598.86 to -£28.61)) and maintained similar improvement in QALYs (QALYs gained 0.002 (95% CI - 0.004 to 0.008)). The CEAC shows that the probability of OST being cost-effective was over 95% across all the WTP thresholds. Results of a set of sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Compared to CBT, OST produced a reduction in costs and maintained similar improvement in QALYs. Results from both primary and sensitivity analyses suggested that OST was highly likely to be cost saving. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN19883421 (30/11/2016).

Accuracy of emergency medical service telephone triage of need for an ambulance response in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess accuracy of emergency medical service (EMS) telephone triage in identifying patients who need an EMS response and identify factors which affect triage accuracy. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Emergency telephone triage provided by Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS) National Health Service (NHS) Trust. PARTICIPANTS: 12 653 adults who contacted EMS telephone triage services provided by YAS between 2 April 2020 and 29 June 2020 assessed by COVID-19 telephone triage pathways were included. OUTCOME: Accuracy of call handler decision to dispatch an ambulance was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support at 30 days from first contact with the telephone triage service. RESULTS: Callers contacting EMS dispatch services had an 11.1% (1405/12 653) risk of death or needing organ support. In total, 2000/12 653 (16%) of callers did not receive an emergency response and they had a 70/2000 (3.5%) risk of death or organ support. Ambulances were dispatched to 4230 callers (33.4%) who were not conveyed to hospital and did not deteriorate. Multivariable modelling found variables of older age (1 year increase, OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.05) and presence of pre-existing respiratory disease (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.60) to be predictors of false positive triage. CONCLUSION: Telephone triage can reduce ambulance responses but, with low specificity. A small but significant proportion of patients who do not receive an initial emergency response deteriorated. Research to improve accuracy of EMS telephone triage is needed and, due to limitations of routinely collected data, this is likely to require prospective data collection.

A mixed methods evaluation of the acceptability of therapy using LEGO® bricks (LEGO® based therapy) in mainstream primary and secondary education.

Many autistic children and young people need extra support with social skills. Social skills programmes, such as LEGO® based therapy (LBT), are commonly used to help with these difficulties. The aim of this study was to examine the acceptability of LBT using qualitative interviews and questionnaires with facilitators and parents/guardians on behalf of autistic children and young people. Acceptability was measured in line with constructs of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Questionnaires were analyzed descriptively and between group comparisons were undertaken using the Mann-Whitney U Test. Telephone interviews were undertaken with a sub-sample of facilitators. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and framework analysis was performed by two researchers supported by NVivo. The questionnaire response rate was 80% for facilitators and 77% for parents/guardians. Overall acceptability, measured on a 1-5 (minimum-maximum) scale, was high for both facilitators and parents/guardians with a median (range) of 5 (4-5) and 4 (3-5), respectively. Facilitators rated the acceptability of the programme significantly higher overall than parents (p < 0.001). Facilitators reported that participants and wider school staff viewed the programme positively. They observed improvements in communication and social skills during the sessions. Potential barriers to programme delivery, such as resources and staff schedules, were identified but facilitators reported that these challenges did not outweigh the benefits. There is increasing emphasis on the role of schools in seeking to improve social outcomes for autistic children therefore this high degree of acceptability makes this an attractive school-based programme for schools, autistic children and their families. LAY SUMMARY: Social skills programmes, such as LEGO® based therapy (LBT), are often used to help autistic children and young people with their social skills. The acceptability of LBT with school staff and parents/guardians on behalf of children and young people was explored using interviews and questionnaires. Our results show that LBT is viewed as a highly acceptable programme that can help autistic children and young people improve their communication and social skills.

Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess accuracy of telephone triage in identifying need for emergency care among those with suspected COVID-19 infection and identify factors which affect triage accuracy. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Community telephone triage provided in the UK by Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust (YAS). PARTICIPANTS: 40 261 adults who contacted National Health Service (NHS) 111 telephone triage services provided by YAS between 18 March 2020 and 29 June 2020 with symptoms indicating COVID-19 infection were linked to Office for National Statistics death registrations and healthcare data collected by NHS Digital. OUTCOME: Accuracy of triage disposition was assessed in terms of death or need for organ support up to 30 days from first contact. RESULTS: Callers had a 3% (1200/40 261) risk of serious adverse outcomes (death or organ support). Telephone triage recommended self-care or non-urgent assessment for 60% (24 335/40 261), with a 1.3% (310/24 335) risk of adverse outcomes. Telephone triage had 74.2% sensitivity (95% CI: 71.6 to 76.6%) and 61.5% specificity (95% CI: 61% to 62%) for the primary outcome. Multivariable analysis suggested respiratory comorbidities may be overappreciated, and diabetes underappreciated as predictors of deterioration. Repeat contact with triage service appears to be an important under-recognised predictor of deterioration with 2 contacts (OR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.75) and 3 or more contacts (OR 4.02, 95% CI: 1.68 to 9.65) associated with false negative triage. CONCLUSION: Patients advised to self-care or receive non-urgent clinical assessment had a small but non-negligible risk of serious clinical deterioration. Repeat contact with telephone services needs recognition as an important predictor of subsequent adverse outcomes.

Prognostic accuracy of triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19 in a prehospital setting: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tools proposed to triage patient acuity in COVID-19 infection have only been validated in hospital populations. We estimated the accuracy of five risk-stratification tools recommended to predict severe illness and compared accuracy to existing clinical decision making in a prehospital setting. METHODS: An observational cohort study using linked ambulance service data for patients attended by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) crews in the Yorkshire and Humber region of England between 26 March 2020 and 25 June 2020 was conducted to assess performance of the Pandemic Respiratory Infection Emergency System Triage (PRIEST) tool, National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), WHO algorithm, CRB-65 and Pandemic Medical Early Warning Score (PMEWS) in patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. The primary outcome was death or need for organ support. RESULTS: Of the 7549 patients in our cohort, 17.6% (95% CI 16.8% to 18.5%) experienced the primary outcome. The NEWS2 (National Early Warning Score, version 2), PMEWS, PRIEST tool and WHO algorithm identified patients at risk of adverse outcomes with a high sensitivity (>0.95) and specificity ranging from 0.3 (NEWS2) to 0.41 (PRIEST tool). The high sensitivity of NEWS2 and PMEWS was achieved by using lower thresholds than previously recommended. On index assessment, 65% of patients were transported to hospital and EMS decision to transfer patients achieved a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.85) and specificity of 0.39 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.40). CONCLUSION: Use of NEWS2, PMEWS, PRIEST tool and WHO algorithm could improve sensitivity of EMS triage of patients with suspected COVID-19 infection. Use of the PRIEST tool would improve sensitivity of triage without increasing the number of patients conveyed to hospital.

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.

Costs and staffing resource requirements for adaptive clinical trials: quantitative and qualitative results from the Costing Adaptive Trials project.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive designs offer great promise in improving the efficiency and patient-benefit of clinical trials. An important barrier to further increased use is a lack of understanding about which additional resources are required to conduct a high-quality adaptive clinical trial, compared to a traditional fixed design. The Costing Adaptive Trials (CAT) project investigated which additional resources may be required to support adaptive trials. METHODS: We conducted a mock costing exercise amongst seven Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the UK. Five scenarios were developed, derived from funded clinical trials, where a non-adaptive version and an adaptive version were described. Each scenario represented a different type of adaptive design. CTU staff were asked to provide the costs and staff time they estimated would be needed to support the trial, categorised into specified areas (e.g. statistics, data management, trial management). This was calculated separately for the non-adaptive and adaptive version of the trial, allowing paired comparisons. Interviews with 10 CTU staff who had completed the costing exercise were conducted by qualitative researchers to explore reasons for similarities and differences. RESULTS: Estimated resources associated with conducting an adaptive trial were always (moderately) higher than for the non-adaptive equivalent. The median increase was between 2 and 4% for all scenarios, except for sample size re-estimation which was 26.5% (as the adaptive design could lead to a lengthened study period). The highest increase was for statistical staff, with lower increases for data management and trial management staff. The percentage increase in resources varied across different CTUs. The interviews identified possible explanations for differences, including (1) experience in adaptive trials, (2) the complexity of the non-adaptive and adaptive design, and (3) the extent of non-trial specific core infrastructure funding the CTU had. CONCLUSIONS: This work sheds light on additional resources required to adequately support a high-quality adaptive trial. The percentage increase in costs for supporting an adaptive trial was generally modest and should not be a barrier to adaptive designs being cost-effective to use in practice. Informed by the results of this research, guidance for investigators and funders will be developed on appropriately resourcing adaptive trials.

Prognostic accuracy of emergency department triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19: the PRIEST observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The WHO and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to compare the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19. METHODS: We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the UK. We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment with the WHO algorithm, National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2), CURB-65, CRB-65, Pandemic Modified Early Warning Score (PMEWS) and the swine flu adult hospital pathway (SFAHP). We used 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome. RESULTS: We analysed data from 20 891 adults, of whom 4611 (22.1%) died or received organ support (primary outcome), with 2058 (9.9%) receiving organ support and 2553 (12.2%) dying without organ support (secondary outcomes). C-statistics for the primary outcome were: CURB-65 0.75; CRB-65 0.70; PMEWS 0.77; NEWS2 (score) 0.77; NEWS2 (rule) 0.69; SFAHP (6-point rule) 0.70; SFAHP (7-point rule) 0.68; WHO algorithm 0.61. All triage tools showed worse prediction for receipt of organ support and better prediction for death without organ support. At the recommended threshold, PMEWS and the WHO criteria showed good sensitivity (0.97 and 0.95, respectively) at the expense of specificity (0.30 and 0.27, respectively). The NEWS2 score showed similar sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.28) when a lower threshold than recommended was used. CONCLUSION: CURB-65, PMEWS and the NEWS2 score provide good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19, and predicted death without organ support better than receipt of organ support. PMEWS, the WHO criteria and NEWS2 (using a lower threshold than usually recommended) provide good sensitivity at the expense of specificity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN56149622.