Comparison of patient (POEM), observer (EASI, SASSAD, TIS) and corneometry measures of emollient effectiveness in children with eczema: findings from the COMET feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Eczema affects around 20% of children, but multiple different outcome measures have hampered research into the effectiveness of different treatments. OBJECTIVES: To compare the change in scores and correlations within and between five measures of eczema severity: Patient-Orientated Eczema Measure (POEM), Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD), Three Item Severity (TIS) and skin hydration (corneometry). METHODS: Data from a feasibility trial that randomized young children with eczema to one of four emollients were used. Participants were followed for 3 months (84 days). Descriptive statistics (by emollient over time) and Spearman's correlation coefficients comparing scores at each time point and absolute change (between adjacent time points) for each outcome measure were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 197 children, mean ± SD age 21·7 ± 12·8 months, were randomized. POEM and TIS appeared to capture a range of eczema severity at baseline, but only POEM had close approximation to normal distribution. Mean POEM, EASI, SASSAD and TIS scores improved month by month, with POEM showing the greatest sensitivity (effect size 0·42). Correlations within POEM, EASI, SASSAD and TIS were moderate to good, decreasing over time. Correlations between measures were strongest for EASI, SASSAD and TIS. By contrast, corneometry scores were more variable, correlated less well over time and were poorly correlated with the other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Except for corneometry, all measures appear to change in relation to emollient use over time and correlate well with themselves. POEM demonstrated the greatest range of scores at baseline and change in eczema severity over the first 28 days.

Cost and effectiveness of treatment options for childhood obesity.

UNLABELLED: What is already known about this subject Approximately one-fifth of children in the UK are obese. There are currently few, effective interventions available in the UK. There are very little data on relative cost-effectiveness of childhood obesity interventions, which hampers the commissioning of future services. What this study adds Simple multi-component obesity interventions can be provided at relatively low cost per 0.1 body mass index standard deviation score (BMI SDS) improvement. More intensive and effective interventions incur greater cost per 0.1 BMI SDS reduction but this may be justified given the improved overall BMI SDS reduction attained. OBJECTIVE: To describe the costs and outcomes of three models of care for childhood obesity previously evaluated in two 2-arm pilot randomized trials in England. The treatments were (i) a hospital clinic (control in both trials), comprising a multidisciplinary team of consultant, dietitian and exercise specialist; (ii) a nurse-led primary care clinic replicating the service provided by the hospital and (iii) an intensive intervention using Mandometer®, a behaviour modification tool aimed at encouraging slower eating and better recognition of satiety. METHOD: Patient-level data on resources used to deliver each intervention were collected during the trials. Apart from the cost of the Mandometer® the majority of cost was staff time, dependent on discipline and grade. Outcome for both trials was body mass index standard deviation score (BMI SDS) measured at 12 months. RESULTS: Cost and outcome data were available for 143 children in total. Cost per child was £1749 (SD £243) in the Mandometer® group, £301 (£76) in the primary care group, and £263 (£88) and £209 (£81) in the hospital groups. Mean reduction in BMI SDS was 0.40 (0.35), 0.17 (0.26), 0.15 (0.25) and 0.14 (0.32), respectively. CONCLUSION: Intensive management using Mandometer® was effective but costly (£432 per 0.1 reduction in BMI SDS) compared to conventional care (range £153-£173). A total of 26% children receiving conventional care achieved a clinically meaningful reduction in BMI SDS; however, use of Mandometer® training may be justified in children not responding to conventional lifestyle interventions.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'PhysioDirect' telephone assessment and advice services for physiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: As a result of long delays for physiotherapy for musculoskeletal problems, several areas in the UK have introduced PhysioDirect services in which patients telephone a physiotherapist for initial assessment and treatment advice. However, there is no robust evidence about the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness or acceptability to patients of PhysioDirect. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether or not PhysioDirect is equally as clinically effective as and more cost-effective than usual care for patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) problems in primary care. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial to assess equivalence, incorporating economic evaluation and nested qualitative research. Patients were randomised in 2 : 1 ratio to PhysioDirect or usual care using a remote automated allocation system at the level of the individual, stratifying by physiotherapy site and minimising by sex, age group and site of MSK problem. For the economic analysis, cost consequences included NHS and patient costs, and the cost of lost production. Cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out from the perspective of the NHS. Interviews were conducted with patients, physiotherapists and their managers. SETTING: Four community physiotherapy services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults referred by general practitioners or self-referred for physiotherapy for a MSK problem. INTERVENTIONS: Patients allocated to PhysioDirect were invited to telephone a senior physiotherapist for initial assessment and advice using a computerised template, followed by face-to-face care when necessary. Patients allocated to usual care were put on to a waiting list for face-to-face care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the Short Form questionnaire-36 items, version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical Component Score (PCS) at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included other measures of health outcome [Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EuroQol health utility measure, EQ-5D), global improvement, response to treatment], wait for treatment, time lost from work and usual activities, patient satisfaction. Data were collected by postal questionnaires at baseline, 6 weeks and 6 months, and from routine records by researchers blind to allocation. RESULTS: A total of 1506 patients were allocated to PhysioDirect and 743 to usual care. Patients allocated to PhysioDirect had a shorter wait for treatment than those allocated to usual care [median 7 days vs 34 days; arm-time ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.35] and had fewer non-attended face-to-face appointments [incidence rate ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.73)]. The primary outcome at 6 months' follow-up was equivalent between PhysioDirect and usual care [mean PCS 43.50 vs 44.18, adjusted difference in means -0.01 (95% CI -0.80 to 0.79)]. The secondary measures of health outcome all demonstrated equivalence at 6 months, with slightly greater improvement in the PhysioDirect arm at 6 weeks' follow-up. Patients were equally satisfied with access to care but slightly less satisfied overall with PhysioDirect compared with usual care. NHS costs (physiotherapy plus other relevant NHS costs) per patient were similar in the two arms [PhysioDirect £ 198.98 vs usual care £ 179.68, difference in means £ 19.30 (95% CI -£ 37.60 to £ 76.19)], while QALYs gained were also similar [difference in means 0.007 (95% CI -0.003 to 0.016)]. Incremental cost per QALY gained was £ 2889. The probability that PhysioDirect was cost-effective at a £ 20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold was 88%. These conclusions about cost-effectiveness were robust to sensitivity analyses. There was no evidence of difference between trial arms in cost to patients or value of lost production. No adverse events were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Providing physiotherapy via PhysioDirect is equally clinically effective compared with usual waiting list-based care, provides faster access to treatment, appears to be safe, and is broadly acceptable to patients. PhysioDirect is probably cost-effective compared with usual care.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a physical activity intervention as a treatment for depression: the treating depression with physical activity (TREAD) trial.

OBJECTIVE: The TREAting Depression with physical activity (TREAD) study investigated the cost-effectiveness of a physical activity intervention, in addition to usual general practitioner care, as a treatment for people with depression. DESIGN: An individually randomised, pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial with follow-up at 4, 8 and 12 months. A subset of participants took part in a qualitative study that investigated the acceptability and perceived benefits of the intervention. SETTING: General practices in the Bristol and Exeter areas. PARTICIPANTS: Aged 18-69 years with an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Edition (ICD-10) diagnosis of depression and scoring ≥ 14 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Those who were unable to complete self-administered questionnaires in English, with medical contraindications to physical activity or with psychosis, bipolar disorder or serious drug abuse were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: We devised an intervention designed to encourage choice and autonomy in the adoption of physical activity. It consisted of up to three face-to-face and ten telephone contacts delivered by a trained physical activity facilitator over an 8-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the BDI score measured at 4 months. Secondary outcomes included depressive symptoms over the 12 months and quality of life, antidepressant use and level of physical activity. RESULTS: The study recruited 361 patients, with 182 randomised to the intervention arm and 179 to the usual care arm; there was 80% retention at the 4-month follow-up. The intervention group had a slightly lower BDI score at 4 months [-0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.06 to 1.99] but there was no evidence that the intervention improved outcome for depression. Neither was there any evidence to suggest a difference in the prescription of or self-reported use of antidepressants. However, the amount of physical activity undertaken by those who had received the intervention was increased (odds ratio 2.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.9) and was sustained beyond the end of the intervention. From a health-care perspective, the intervention group was more costly than the usual care group, with the cost of the intervention £220 per person on average. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the intervention is cost-effective as a treatment for depression using current willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: This physical activity intervention is very unlikely to lead to any clinical benefit in terms of depressive symptoms or to be a cost-effective treatment for depression. Previous research has reported some benefit and there are three possible reasons for this discrepancy: first, even though the intervention increased self-reported physical activity, the increase in activity was not sufficiently large to lead to a measurable influence; second, only more vigorous activity might be of benefit; and third, previous studies had recruited individuals with a pre-existing commitment to physical activity. Future research is needed to identify and explain the mechanisms by which depression might be effectively treated, including, in particular, specific guidance on the optimum type, intensity and duration of physical activity required to produce a therapeutic effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16900744. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 16, No. 10. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

The feasibility of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to compare usual care with usual care plus individualised homeopathy, in children requiring secondary care for asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of a pragmatic trial design with economic evaluation and nested qualitative study, comparing usual care (UC) with UC plus individualised homeopathy, in children requiring secondary care for asthma. This included recruitment and retention, acceptability of outcome measures patients' and health professionals' views and experiences and a power calculation for a definitive trial. METHODS: In a pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) design, children on step 2 or above of the British Thoracic Society Asthma Guidelines (BTG) were randomly allocated to UC or UC plus a five visit package of homeopathic care (HC). Outcome measures included the Juniper Asthma Control Questionnaire, Quality of Life Questionnaire and a resource use questionnaire. Qualitative interviews were used to gain families' and health professionals' views and experiences. RESULTS: 226 children were identified from hospital clinics and related patient databases. 67 showed an interest in participating, 39 children were randomised, 18 to HC and 21 to UC. Evidence in favour of adjunctive homeopathic treatment was lacking. Economic evaluation suggests that the cost of additional consultations was not offset by the reduced cost of homeopathic remedies and the lower use of primary care by children in the homeopathic group. Qualitative data gave insights into the differing perspectives of families and health care professionals within the research process. CONCLUSIONS: A future study using this design is not feasible, further investigation of a potential role for homeopathy in asthma management might be better conducted in primary care with children with less severe asthma.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial to compare antidepressants with a community-based psychosocial intervention for the treatment of women with postnatal depression: the RESPOND trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical effectiveness at 4 weeks of antidepressant therapy for mothers with postnatal depression (PND) compared with general supportive care; to compare outcome at 18 weeks of those randomised to antidepressant therapy with those randomised to listening visits as the first intervention (both groups were to be allowed to receive the alternative intervention after 4 weeks if the woman or her doctor so decided); and to assess acceptability of antidepressants and listening visits to users and health professionals. DESIGN: A pragmatic two-arm individually randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from 77 general practices: 21 in Bristol, 21 in south London and 35 in Manchester. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 254 women who fulfilled International Classification of Diseases version 10 criteria for major depression in the first 6 postnatal months were recruited and randomised. INTERVENTIONS: Women were randomised to receive either an antidepressant, usually a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor prescribed by their general practitioner (GP), or non-directive counselling (listening visits) from a specially trained research health visitor (HV). The trial was designed to compare antidepressants with general supportive care for the first 4 weeks, after which women allocated to listening visits commenced their sessions. It allowed for women to receive the alternative intervention if they had not responded to their allocated intervention or wished to change to, or add in, the alternative intervention at any time after 4 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The duration of the trial was 18 weeks. Primary outcome, measured at 4 weeks and 18 weeks post randomisation, was the proportion of women improved on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), that is scoring < 13. Secondary outcomes were the EPDS measured as a continuous variable at 4 and 18 weeks, and scores on various other questionnaires. RESULTS: At 4 weeks, women were more than twice as likely to have improved if they had been randomised to antidepressants compared with listening visits, which started after the 4-week follow-up, i.e. after 4 weeks of general supportive care [primary intention-to-treat (ITT), 45% versus 20%; odds ratio (OR) 3.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8 to 6.5, p < 0.001]. Explanatory analyses emphasised these findings. At 18 weeks, ITT analysis revealed that the proportion of women improving was 11% greater in the antidepressant group, but logistic regression analysis showed no clear benefit for one group over the other [62% versus 51%, OR 1.5 (95% CI 0.8 to 2.6), p = 0.19]. Overall, there was a difference between the groups in favour of the antidepressant group of about 25 percentage points at 4 weeks, which reduced at 18 weeks. No statistical support existed for a benefit of antidepressants at 18 weeks, but 95% CIs could not rule out a clinically important benefit. It was difficult for GPs not to prescribe antidepressants to women randomised to listening visits after the initial 4 weeks, so many women received both interventions in both groups by 18 weeks and consequently power was reduced. Qualitative interviews with women revealed a preference for listening visits but an acceptance that antidepressants might be necessary. They wished to be reassured that their GP and HV were offering continuity of care focusing on their particular set of circumstances. Interviews with GPs and HVs revealed lack of collaboration in managing care for women with PND; neither professional group was willing to assume responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: At 4 weeks, antidepressants were significantly superior to general supportive care. Trial design meant that by 18 weeks many of the women initially randomised to listening visits were also receiving antidepressants, and more vice versa. The lack of evidence for differences at 18 weeks is likely to reflect a combination of reduced power and the considerable degree of switching across the two interventions. Qualitative study revealed that women found both antidepressants and listening visits effective depending on their circumstances and preferences. The trial indicates that early treatment with antidepressants leads to clinical benefit for women with PND.

Paracetamol and ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children: the PITCH randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paracetamol plus ibuprofen compared with paracetamol and ibuprofen separately for time without fever, and the relief of fever-associated discomfort in young children who can be managed at home. DESIGN: The trial design was a single-centre (multisite), individually randomised, blinded, three-arm trial comparing paracetamol and ibuprofen together with paracetamol or ibuprofen separately. SETTING: There were three recruitment settings, as follows: 'local' where research nurses were recruited from NHS primary care sites; 'remote' where NHS sites notified the study of potentially eligible children; and 'community' where parents contacted the study in response to local media advertisements. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged between 6 months and 6 years with fever > or = 37.8 degrees C and < or = 41 degrees C due to an illness that could be managed at home. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was the provision of, and advice to give, the medicines for up to 48 hours: paracetamol every 4-6 hours (maximum of four doses in 24 hours) and ibuprofen every 6-8 hours (maximum of three doses in 24 hours). Every parent received two bottles, with at least one containing an active medicine. Parents, research nurses and investigators were blinded to treatment allocation by the use of identically matched placebo medicines. The dose of medicine was determined by the child's weight: paracetamol 15 mg/kg and ibuprofen 10 mg/kg per dose. RESULTS: For additional time without fever in the first 4 hours, use of both medicines was superior to use of paracetamol alone [adjusted difference 55 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 33 to 77 minutes; p < 0.001] and may have been as good as ibuprofen (adjusted difference 16 minutes, 95% CI -6 to 39 minutes; p = 0.2). Both medicines together cleared the fever 23 minutes (95% CI 2-45 minutes; p = 0.015) faster than paracetamol alone, but no faster than ibuprofen alone (adjusted difference -3 minutes, 95% CI 24-18 minutes; p = 0.8). For additional time without fever in the first 24 hours, both medicines were superior to paracetamol (adjusted difference 4.4 hours, 95% CI 2.4-6.3 hours; p < 0.001) or ibuprofen (adjusted difference 2.5 hours, 95% CI 0.6-4.5 hours; p = 0.008) alone. No reduction in discomfort or other fever-associated symptoms was found, although power was low for these outcomes. An exploratory analysis showed that children with higher discomfort levels had higher mean temperatures. No difference in adverse effects was observed between treatment groups. The recommended maximum number of doses of paracetamol and ibuprofen in 24 hours was exceeded in 8% and 11% of children respectively. Over the 5-day study period, paracetamol and ibuprofen together was the cheapest option for the NHS due to the lower use of health-care services:14 pounds [standard deviation (SD) 23 pounds] versus 20 pounds (SD 38 pounds) for paracetamol and 18 pounds (SD 40 pounds) for ibuprofen. Both medicines were also cheapest for parents because the lower use of health care services resulted in personal saving on travel costs and less time off work: 24 pounds (SD 46 pounds) versus 26 pounds (SD 63 pounds) for paracetamol and 30 pounds (SD 91 pounds) for ibuprofen. This more than compensated for the extra cost of medication. However, statistical evidence for these differences was weak due to lack of power. Overall, a quarter of children were 'back to normal' by 48 hours and one-third by day 5. Five (3%) children were admitted to hospital, two with pneumonia, two with bronchiolitis and one with a severe, but unidentified 'viral illness'. CONCLUSIONS: Young children who are unwell with fever should be treated with ibuprofen first, but the relative risks (inadvertently exceeding the maximum recommended dose) and benefits (extra 2.5 hours without fever) of using paracetamol plus ibuprofen over 24 hours should be considered. However, if two medicines are used, it is recommended that all dose times are carefully recorded to avoid accidentally exceeding the maximum recommended dose. Manufacturers should consider supplying blank charts for this purpose. Use of both medicines should not be discouraged on the basis of cost to either parents or the NHS. Parents and clinicians should be aware that fever is a relatively short-lived symptom, but may have more serious prognostic implications than the other common symptom presentations of childhood.

Capturing the value of complementary and alternative medicine: including patient preferences in economic evaluation.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is growing in popularity among patients, for an increasing range of conditions. However, current provision of CAM in the National Health Service in the UK is limited, patchy and disparate, which results in considerable inequity and patient unease. This has led to an escalation in the debate about the role of CAM within the NHS. Lack of evidence about the cost effectiveness of CAM therapies compared with other forms of care is often cited as the main reason for the reluctance of funders to integrate CAM into mainstream service provision. Cost-effectiveness relies on evidence about costs and benefits. Cost data are relatively straightforward to collect but it has proved difficult to value the complete package of benefits offered by CAM, likely to be both process and outcome based, in a way that can be compared with alternatives. Stated preference discrete choice modelling (SPDCM), a method of healthcare evaluation growing in popularity, uses information about patient preferences to identify the important characteristics of an intervention or method of delivering care and how patients value these. SPDCM is a method that could be used to evaluate the 'added value' provided by CAM and thus supply evidence on cost-effectiveness that policy makers could use in configuring service provision.

Cognitive behavioural therapy in chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomised controlled trial of an outpatient group programme.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that group cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) will produce an effective and cost-effective management strategy for patients in primary care with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalopathy (CFS/ME). DESIGN: A double-blind, randomised controlled trial was adopted with three arms. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6 and 12 months after first assessment and results were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. SETTING: A health psychology department for the management of chronic illness in a general hospital in Bristol, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a diagnosis of CFS/ME referred by their GP. INTERVENTIONS: The three interventions were group CBT incorporating graded activity scheduling, education and support group (EAS) and standard medical care (SMC). OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Short Form with 36 Items (SF-36) physical and mental health summary scales. Other outcome measures included the Chalder fatigue scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, General Health Questionnaire, physical function (shuttles walked, walking speed and perceived fatigue), health utilities index and cognitive function (mood, recall and reaction times). RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were recruited to the trial and 52 were randomised to receive CBT, 50 to EAS and 51 to SMC. Twelve patients failed to attend for the 12-month follow-up and 19 patients attended one follow-up, but not both. The sample was found to be representative of the patient group and the characteristics of the three groups were similar at baseline. Three outcome measures, SF-36 mental health score, Chalder fatigue scale and walking speed, showed statistically significant differences between the groups. Patients in the CBT group had significantly higher mental health scores [difference +4.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) +0.72 to +7.97, p = 0.019], less fatigue (difference -2.61, 95% CI -4.92 to -0.30, p = 0.027) and were able to walk faster (difference +2.83 shuttles, 95% CI +1.12 to +5.53, p = 0.0013) than patients in the SMC group. CBT patients also walked faster and were less fatigued than those randomised to EAS (walking speed: difference +1.77, 95% CI +0.025 to +3.51, p = 0.047; fatigue: difference -3.16, 95% CI -5.59 to -0.74, p = 0.011). Overall, no other statistically significant difference across the groups was found, although for many measures a trend towards an improved outcome with CBT was seen. Except for walking speed, which, on average, increased by +0.87 shuttles (95% CI +0.09 to +1.65, p = 0.029) between the 6- and 12-month follow-ups, the scores were similar at 6 and 12 months. At baseline, 30% of patients had an SF-36 physical score within the normal range and 52% had an SF-36 mental health score in the normal range. At 12 months, the physical score was in the normal range for 46% of the CBT group, 26% of the EAS group and 44% of SMC patients. For mental health score the percentages were CBT 74%, EAS 67% and SMC 70%. Of the CBT group, 32% showed at least a 15% increase in physical function and 64% achieved a similar improvement in their mental health. For the EAS and SMC groups, this improvement in physical and mental health was achieved for 40 and 60% (EAS) and 49 and 53% (SMC), respectively. The cost-effectiveness of the intervention proved very difficult to assess and did not yield reliable conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Group CBT did not achieve the expected change in the primary outcome measure as a significant number did not achieve scores within the normal range post-intervention. The treatment did not return a significant number of subjects to within the normal range on this domain; however, significant improvements were evident in some areas. Group CBT was effective in treating symptoms of fatigue, mood and physical fitness in CFS/ME. It was found to be as effective as trials using individual therapy in these domains. However, it did not bring about improvement in cognitive function or quality of life. There was also evidence of improvement in the EAS group, which indicates that there is limited value in the non-specific effects of therapy. Further research is needed to develop better outcome measures, assessments of the broader costs of the illness and a clearer picture of the characteristics best fitted to this type of intervention.

Estimating the "avoidable" burden of disease by Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs).

The World Bank's Global Burden of Disease Study pioneered the use of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). In this paper we distinguish between the total and the "avoidable" burden of disease. We identify different ways of measuring DALYs: incidence-based DALYs are appropriate where the means of reducing the burden of disease is by prevention; prevalence-based DALYs are appropriate when a disease cannot be prevented but effective treatment is available. The methods of estimating each are explained and we describe how we have applied these methods to seven causes of death and disability in the South and West Region. We discuss the relevance of this work for monitoring the health of populations and deciding how best to use scarce resources to improve health.