Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention with and without telephone support in primary care (SupportBack 2): a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is prevalent and a leading cause of disability. We aimed to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an accessible, scalable internet intervention for supporting behavioural self-management (SupportBack). METHODS: Participants in UK primary care with low back pain without serious spinal pathology were randomly assigned 1:1:1 using computer algorithms stratified by disability level and telephone-support centre to usual care, usual care and SupportBack, or usual care and SupportBack with physiotherapist telephone-support (three brief calls). The primary outcome was low back pain-related disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] score) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months using a repeated measures model, analysed by intention to treat using 97·5% CIs. A parallel economic evaluation from a health services perspective was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. People with lived experience of low back pain were involved in this trial from the outset. This completed trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14736486. FINDINGS: Between Nov 29, 2018, and Jan 12, 2021, 825 participants were randomly assigned (274 to usual care, 275 to SupportBack only, 276 to SupportBack with telephone-support). Participants had a mean age of 54 (SD 15), 479 (58%) of 821 were women and 342 (42%) were men, and 591 (92%) of 641 were White. Follow-up rates were 687 (83%) at 6 weeks, 598 (73%) at 3 months, 589 (72%) at 6 months, and 652 (79%) at 12 months. For the primary analysis, 736 participants were analysed (249 usual care, 245 SupportBack, and 242 SupportBack with telephone support). At a significance level of 0·025, there was no difference in RMDQ over 12 months with SupportBack versus usual care (adjusted mean difference -0·5 [97·5% CI -1·2 to 0·2]; p=0·085) or SupportBack with telephone-support versus usual care (-0·6 [-1·2 to 0·1]; p=0·048). There were no treatment-related serious adverse events. The economic evaluation showed that the SupportBack group dominated usual care, being both more effective and less costly. Both interventions were likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per quality adjusted life year compared with usual care. INTERPRETATION: The SupportBack internet interventions did not significantly reduce low back pain-related disability over 12 months compared with usual care. They were likely to be cost-effective and safe. Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety should be considered together when determining whether to apply these interventions in clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (16/111/78).

Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention in primary care: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness (SupportBack 2).

INTRODUCTION: Self-management and remaining physically active are first-line recommendations for the care of patients with low back pain (LBP). With a lifetime prevalence of up to 85%, novel approaches to support behavioural self-management are needed. Internet interventions may provide accessible support for self-management of LBP in primary care. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the 'SupportBack' internet intervention, with or without physiotherapist telephone support in reducing LBP-related disability in primary care patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A three-parallel arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare three arms: (1) usual primary care for LBP; (2) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention; (3) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention with additional physiotherapist telephone support. Patients with current LBP and no indicators of serious spinal pathology are identified and invited via general practice list searches and mailouts or opportunistic recruitment following LBP consultations. Participants undergo a secondary screen for possible serious spinal pathology and are then asked to complete baseline measures online after which they are randomised to an intervention arm. Follow-ups occur at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is physical function (using the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire) over 12 months (repeated measures design). Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, troublesome days in pain over the last month, pain self-efficacy, catastrophising, kinesophobia, health-related quality of life and cost-related measures for a full health economic analysis. A full mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 18/SC/0388). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, communication with practices and patient groups. Patient representatives will support the implementation of our full dissemination strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14736486.

HATRIC: a study of Pelargonium sidoides root extract EPs®7630 (Kaloba®) for the treatment of acute cough due to lower respiratory tract infection in adults-study protocol for a double blind, placebo-controlled randomised feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute lower respiratory tract infection is a common acute infection managed in primary care. The current dominant management strategy in the UK is antibiotics, despite widespread publicity regarding antimicrobial resistance and evidence that the small benefits of antibiotics do not outweigh the harms. There is a need to address the rising problem of antibiotic resistance by providing credible alternative strategies, which reduce symptom burden. There is sufficient evidence to recommend the use of Pelargonium sidoides root extract in order to warrant undertaking an independent clinical trial.We propose a feasibility study to demonstrate our ability to recruit and retain patients and conduct a placebo-controlled trial of Pelargonium sidoides extract EPs®7630 in lower respiratory tract infection where pneumonia is not suspected. Both the tablet and liquid formulations will be included. METHODS: The HATRIC trial is a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled feasibility study aiming to determine the potential to conduct a fully powered trial of Pelargonium sidoides root extract as an alternative to the inappropriate use of antibiotics for acute bronchitis in UK primary care.Primary care sites will be equally randomised to one of two formulation groups (tablet or liquid preparation). Additionally, within each site, patients will be evenly randomised to active or placebo treatment. Antibiotic consumption will be monitored during the trial, but the use of a delayed prescription strategy is encouraged. The target sample size for this study is 160 patients overall or 40 per arm, recruited from approximately 20 primary care sites. The analysis will be descriptive focusing on estimation with no formal comparison of groups taking place. DISCUSSION: If this trial demonstrates the feasibility of recruitment and delivery, we will seek funding for a fully powered placebo-controlled trial of Pelargonium sidoides root extract for the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: HATRIC was registered on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN17672884) on 16 August 2018.

Physiotherapy breathing retraining for asthma: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite effective pharmacotherapy, asthma continues to impair quality of life for most patients. Non-pharmacological approaches, including breathing retraining, are therefore of great interest to patients. However, clinicians rarely advocate breathing retraining and access to this intervention is restricted for most patients due to the limited availability of suitable physiotherapists and poor integration of breathing retraining into standard care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a digital self-guided breathing retraining intervention. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 34 general practices in the UK. Eligibility criteria for patients with asthma were broad, comprising a physician diagnosis of asthma, age of 16-70 years, receipt of at least one anti-asthma medication in the previous year, and impaired asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire [AQLQ] score of <5·5). We developed a self-guided intervention, which was delivered as a DVD plus a printed booklet (DVDB). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either the DVDB intervention, three face-to-face breathing retraining sessions, or standard care, in a 2:1:2 ratio, for 12 months. Randomisation was achieved using the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit telephone randomisation service by use of random number generators. The primary outcome was the AQLQ score in the intention-to-treat population at 12 months. The trial was powered to show equivalence between the two active intervention groups, and superiority of both intervention groups over usual care. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported and physiological measures of asthma control, patient acceptability, and health-care costs. This trial was registered with International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISRCTN88318003. FINDINGS: Between Nov 5, 2012 and Jan 28, 2014, invitations to participate in the study were sent to 15 203 patients with general practitioner-diagnosed asthma, of whom 655 were recruited into the study. AQLQ scores at 12 months were significantly higher in the DVDB group (mean 5·40, SD 1·14) than in the usual care group (5·12, SD 1·17; adjusted mean difference 0·28, 95% CI 0·11 to 0·44), and in the face-to-face group (5·33, SD 1·06) than in the usual care group (adjusted mean difference 0·24, 95% CI 0·04 to 0·44); AQLQ scores were similar between the DVDB group and the face-to-face group (0·04, 95% CI -0·16 to 0·24). There were no significant differences between the randomisation groups in FEV1 or fraction of exhaled nitric oxide. 744 adverse events occurred in 272 patients: 101 (39%) of 261 patients in the DVDB group, 55 (42%) of 132 patients in the face-to-face group, and 132 (50%) of 262 in the usual care group, with patients reporting one or more event. 11 (4%) patients in the DVDB group, four (3%) patients in the face-to-face group, and 20 (8%) patients in the usual care group had a serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION: Breathing retraining programmes improve quality of life in patients with incompletely controlled asthma despite having little effect on lung function or airway inflammation. Such programmes can be delivered conveniently and cost-effectively as a self-guided digital audiovisual programme, so might also reduce health-care costs. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research.

Uva-ursi extract and ibuprofen as alternative treatments of adult female urinary tract infection (ATAFUTI): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with acute uncomplicated urine infection are usually treated with antibiotics. One trial has demonstrated that delayed antibiotic treatment offered without symptom relief results in a modest reduction in antibiotic use. There is some evidence that ibuprofen provides symptom relief and reduces antibiotic use. Uva-ursi, a herbal product, has a traditional use for urinary infection symptom relief. We set out to test: in adult women with suspected UTI who accept the delayed prescription strategy: Do NSAIDs or uva-ursi (a herbal product) provide relief from urinary symptoms and reduce antibiotic use. METHODS/DESIGN: Adult women with suspected urinary tract infection presenting to primary care will be randomised using a factorial trial design in which patients will be randomised to one of two interventions as below: Group 1 - Uva-ursi + advice to take ibuprofen Group 2 - Placebo + advice to take ibuprofen Group 3 - Uva-ursi + no advice to take ibuprofen Group 4 - Placebo + no advice to take ibuprofen Patients and physicians will be blinded to the randomised group for the herb. The main outcome is symptom severity at days 2-4 recorded in a validated, self-report diary used in previous studies. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic use and symptom duration. In total the trial will require 328 patients in order to achieve at least 90% power for the primary endpoint and 80% for the secondary endpoint. In accordance with CONSORT guidelines all comparative analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis using SPSS or similar package. DISCUSSION: The outcomes from this trial have the potential to modify the current approach to the management of acute urinary symptoms with less dependence on the use of antibiotics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN43397016 . Registered on 11 February 2015.

A randomised controlled study of the effectiveness of breathing retraining exercises taught by a physiotherapist either by instructional DVD or in face-to-face sessions in the management of asthma in adults.

BACKGROUND: Asthma control is suboptimal, resulting in quality of life (QoL) impairment and costs. Breathing retraining exercises have evidence of effectiveness as adjuvant treatment, but are infrequently used. OBJECTIVES: To transfer the contents of a brief (three-session) physiotherapist-delivered breathing retraining programme to a digital versatile disc (DVD) and booklet format; to compare the effectiveness of the self-guided intervention with that of 'face-to-face' physiotherapy and usual care for QoL and other asthma-related outcomes; to perform a health economic assessment of both interventions; and to perform a process evaluation using quantitative and qualitative methods. DESIGN: Parallel-group three-arm randomised controlled trial. SETTING: General practice surgeries in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 655 adults currently receiving asthma treatment with impaired asthma-related QoL were randomly allocated to the DVD (n = 261), physiotherapist (n = 132) and control (usual care) (n = 262) arms in a 2 : 1 : 2 ratio. It was not possible to blind participants but data collection and analysis were performed blinded. INTERVENTIONS: Physiotherapy-based breathing retraining delivered through three 'face-to-face' respiratory physiotherapist sessions or a self-guided programme (DVD plus our theory-based behaviour change booklet) developed by the research team, with a control of usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was asthma-specific QoL, measured using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Secondary outcomes included asthma symptom control [Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)], psychological state [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)], hyperventilation symptoms (Nijmegen questionnaire), generic QoL [EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)], assessments of airway physiology (spirometry) and inflammation (exhaled nitric oxide) and health resource use and costs. Assessments were carried out at baseline and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Patient engagement and experience were also assessed using quantitative and qualitative methods. RESULTS: Primary efficacy analysis was between-group comparison of changes in AQLQ scores from baseline to 12 months in the intention-to-treat population with adjustments for prespecified covariates. Significant improvements occurred in the DVD group compared with the control group [adjusted mean difference 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.44; p < 0.001] and in the face-to-face physiotherapy group compared with the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.44; p < 0.05), with equivalence between the DVD and the face-to-face physiotherapy groups (adjusted mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.24). In all sensitivity analyses, both interventions remained significantly superior to the control and equivalence between the interventions was maintained. In other questionnaire outcome measures and in the physiological measures assessed, there were no significant between-group differences. Process evaluations showed that participants engaged well with both of the active interventions, but that some participants in the DVD arm would have liked to receive tuition from a professional. Asthma health-care costs were lower in both intervention arms than in the control group, indicating 'dominance' for both of the interventions compared with the control, with lowest costs in the DVD arm. The rate of adverse events was lower in the DVD and face-to-face physiotherapy groups than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Only 10% of the potentially eligible population responded to the study invitation. However, breathing retraining exercises improved QoL and reduced health-care costs in adults with asthma whose condition remains uncontrolled despite standard pharmacological therapy, were engaged with well by patients and can be delivered effectively as a self-guided intervention. The intervention should now be transferred to an internet-based platform and implementation studies performed. Interventions for younger patients should be developed and trialled. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88318003. FUNDING: This project was primarily funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Additional financial support was received from Comprehensive Local Research Networks.

Patients' views of receiving lessons in the Alexander technique and an exercise prescription for managing back pain in the ATEAM trial.

BACKGROUND: Lessons in the Alexander Technique and exercise prescription proved effective for managing low back pain in primary care in a clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To understand trial participants' expectations and experiences of the Alexander Technique and exercise prescription. METHODS: A questionnaire assessing attitudes to the intervention, based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour, was completed at baseline and 3-month follow-up by 183 people assigned to lessons in the Alexander Technique and 176 people assigned to exercise prescription. Semi-structured interviews to assess the beliefs contributing to attitudes to the intervention were carried out at baseline with14 people assigned to the lessons in the Alexander Technique and 16 to exercise prescription, and at follow-up with 15 members of the baseline sample. RESULTS: Questionnaire responses indicated that attitudes to both interventions were positive at baseline but became more positive at follow-up only in those assigned to lessons in the Alexander Technique. Thematic analysis of the interviews suggested that at follow-up many patients who had learned the Alexander Technique felt they could manage back pain better. Whereas many obstacles to exercising were reported, few barriers to learning the Alexander Technique were described, since it 'made sense', could be practiced while carrying out everyday activities or relaxing, and the teachers provided personal advice and support. CONCLUSION: Using the Alexander Technique was viewed as effective by most patients. Acceptability may have been superior to exercise because of a convincing rationale and social support and a better perceived fit with the patient's particular symptoms and lifestyle.