Panic or peace - prioritising infant welfare when medicating feverish infants: a grounded theory study of adherence in a paediatric clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Literature on factors influencing medication adherence within paediatric clinical trials is sparse. The Paracetamol and Ibuprofen in the Primary Prevention of Asthma in Tamariki (PIPPA Tamariki) trial is an open-label, randomised controlled trial aiming to determine whether paracetamol treatment, compared with ibuprofen treatment, as required for fever and pain in the first year of life, increases the risk of asthma at age six years. To inform strategies for reducing trial medication crossovers, understanding factors influencing the observed ibuprofen-to-paracetamol crossovers (non-protocol adherence) is vital. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors influencing the decision-making process when administering or prescribing ibuprofen to infants that may contribute to the crossover events in the PIPPA Tamariki trial. METHODS: Constructivist grounded theory methods were employed. We conducted semi-structured interviews of caregivers of enrolled PIPPA Tamariki infants and healthcare professionals in various healthcare settings. Increasing theoretical sensitivity of the interviewers led to theoretical sampling of participants who could expand on the teams' early constructed codes. Transcribed interviews were coded and analysed using the constant comparative method of concurrent data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Between September and December 2020, 20 participants (12 caregivers; 8 healthcare professionals) were interviewed. We constructed a grounded theory of prioritising infant welfare that represents a basic social process when caregivers and healthcare professionals medicate feverish infants. This process comprises three categories: historical, trusting relationships and being discerning; and is modified by one condition: being conflicted. Participants bring with them historical ideas. Trusting relationships with researchers, treating clinicians and family play a central role in enabling participants to challenge historical ideas and be discerning. Trial medication crossovers occur when participants become conflicted, and they revert to historical practices that feel familiar and safer. CONCLUSIONS: We identified factors and a basic social process influencing ibuprofen use in infants and trial medication crossover events, which can inform strategies for promoting adherence in the PIPPA Tamariki trial. Future studies should explore the role of trusting relationships between researchers and treating clinicians when conducting research.

Economic analysis of the 'Take Charge' intervention for people following stroke: Results from a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake an economic analysis of the Take Charge intervention as part of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study. DESIGN: An open, parallel-group, randomised trial comparing active and control interventions with blinded outcome assessment. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke. INTERVENTIONS: The Take Charge intervention, a strengths based, self-directed rehabilitation intervention, in two doses (one or two sessions), and a control intervention (no Take Charge sessions). MEASURES: The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for the period between randomisation (always post hospital discharge) and 12 months following acute stroke. QALYs were calculated from the EuroQol-5D-5L. Costs of stroke-related and non-health care were obtained by questionnaire, hospital records and the New Zealand Ministry of Health. RESULTS: One-year post hospital discharge cost of care was mean (95% CI) $US4706 (3758-6014) for the Take Charge intervention group and $6118 (4350-8005) for control, mean (95% CI) difference $ -1412 (-3553 to +729). Health utility scores were mean (95% CI) 0.75 (0.73-0.77) for Take Charge and 0.71 (0.67-0.75) for control, mean (95% CI) difference 0.04 (0.0-0.08). Cost per QALY gained for the Take Charge intervention was $US -35,296 (=£ -25,524, € -30,019). Sensitivity analyses confirm Take Charge is cost-effective, even at a very low willingness-to-pay threshold. With a threshold of $US5000 per QALY, the probability that Take Charge is cost-effective is 99%. CONCLUSION: Take Charge is cost-effective and probably cost saving.

The effect of the Take Charge intervention on mood, motivation, activation and risk factor management: Analysis of secondary data from the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To use secondary data from the Taking Charge after Stroke study to explore mechanisms for the positive effect of the Take Charge intervention on physical health, advanced activities of daily living and independence for people after acute stroke. DESIGN: An open, parallel-group, randomised trial with two active and one control intervention and blinded outcome assessment. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke. INTERVENTIONS: One, two, or zero sessions of the Take Charge intervention, a self-directed rehabilitation intervention which helps a person with stroke take charge of their own recovery. MEASURES: Twelve months after stroke: Mood (Patient Health Questionnaire-2, Mental Component Summary of the Short Form 36); 'ability to Take Charge' using a novel measure, the Autonomy-Mastery-Purpose-Connectedness (AMP-C) score; activation (Patient Activation Measure); body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP) and medication adherence (Medication Adherence Questionnaire). RESULTS: Follow-up was near-complete (388/390 (99.5%)) of survivors at 12 months. Mean age (SD) was 72.0 (12.5) years. There were no significant differences in mood, activation, 'ability to Take Charge', medication adherence, BMI or BP by randomised group at 12 months. There was a significant positive association between baseline AMP-C scores and 12-month outcome for control participants (1.73 (95%CI 0.90 to 2.56)) but not for the Take Charge groups combined (0.34 (95%CI -0.17 to 0.85)). CONCLUSION: The mechanism by which Take Charge is effective remains uncertain. However, our findings support a hypothesis that baseline variability in motivation, mastery and connectedness may be modified by the Take Charge intervention.

Randomised controlled trial of paracetamol or ibuprofen, as required for fever and pain in the first year of life, for prevention of asthma at age 6 years: paracetamol or ibuprofen in the primary prevention of asthma in Tamariki (PIPPA Tamariki) protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma is one of the most common diseases in the world and is a global public health burden. There is an urgent need for research that leads to evidenced-based primary prevention strategies to reduce the prevalence of asthma. One novel risk factor that might have a role in the pathogenesis of asthma is the use of paracetamol in early life. This trial aims to determine if paracetamol, compared with ibuprofen use, as required for fever and pain in the first year of life, increases the risk of asthma at age 6 years. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Paracetamol and Ibuprofen in Primary Prevention of Asthma in Tamariki trial is a multicentre, open-label, two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial. 3922 infants born at ≥32 weeks' gestation will be randomly allocated to receive only paracetamol or only ibuprofen for treatment of fever and pain, if required in the first year of life. The primary outcome is asthma at 6 years of age, defined as the presence of wheeze in the preceding 12 months. Secondary outcomes include hospital admissions for bronchiolitis, wheeze or asthma in the first year of life, and within the first 6 years of life; wheeze at 3 years of age; eczema within the first year and at 3 and 6 years of age; atopy at 3 and 6 years of age. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the Northern A Health and Disability Ethics Committee of New Zealand (17/NTA/233). Dissemination plans include publication in international peer-reviewed journals, and presentation at national and international scientific meetings, assimilation into national and international guidelines, and presentation of findings to lay audiences through established media links. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618000303246; Pre-results.

Taking Charge after Stroke: A randomized controlled trial of a person-centered, self-directed rehabilitation intervention.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: "Take Charge" is a novel, community-based self-directed rehabilitation intervention which helps a person with stroke take charge of their own recovery. In a previous randomized controlled trial, a single Take Charge session improved independence and health-related quality of life 12 months following stroke in Maori and Pacific New Zealanders. We tested the same intervention in three doses (zero, one, or two sessions) in a larger study and in a broader non-Maori and non-Pacific population with stroke. We aimed to confirm whether the Take Charge intervention improved quality of life at 12 months after stroke in a different population and whether two sessions were more effective than one. METHODS: We randomized 400 people within 16 weeks of acute stroke who had been discharged to institution-free community living at seven centers in New Zealand to a single Take Charge session (TC1, n = 132), two Take Charge sessions six weeks apart (TC2, n = 138), or a control intervention (n = 130). Take Charge is a "talking therapy" that encourages a sense of purpose, autonomy, mastery, and connectedness with others. The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary score of the Short Form 36 at 12 months following stroke comparing any Take Charge intervention to control. RESULTS: Of the 400 people randomized (mean age 72.2 years, 58.5% male), 10 died and two withdrew from the study. The remaining 388 (97%) people were followed up at 12 months after stroke. Twelve months following stroke, participants in either of the TC groups (i.e. TC1 + TC2) scored 2.9 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.95 to 4.9, p = 0.004) points higher (better) than control on the Short Form 36 Physical Component Summary. This difference remained significant when adjusted for pre-specified baseline variables. There was a dose effect with Short Form 36 Physical Component Summary scores increasing by 1.9 points (95% CI 0.8 to 3.1, p < 0.001) for each extra Take Charge session received. Exposure to the Take Charge intervention was associated with reduced odds of being dependent (modified Rankin Scale 3 to 5) at 12 months (TC1 + TC2 12% versus control 19.5%, odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Confirming the previous randomized controlled trial outcome, Take Charge-a low-cost, person-centered, self-directed rehabilitation intervention after stroke-improved health-related quality of life and independence. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au. Unique identifier: ACTRN12615001163594.

Pilot study of feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of asthma risk with paracetamol versus ibuprofen use in infancy.

AIM: To undertake a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of paracetamol versus ibuprofen use during infancy to determine if paracetamol is associated with an increased risk of developing asthma, the preferred method of recruitment needs to be determined. We assessed three different recruitment domains to determine the likely enrolment rates of newborn infants into a three-year or six-year RCT of paracetamol versus ibuprofen and the development of asthma symptoms. The proposed RCT would require 1,806 participants. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to a convenience sample of Auckland and Wellington based parents/guardians within three different recruitment domains: antenatal classes, postnatal wards and six-week well-child visits at primary healthcare centres. RESULTS: Over a twelve-week period 19/586 (3.2%), 196/861 (22.8%), and 0/110 (0%) questionnaires were completed by parents/guardians of newborn infants in antenatal, postnatal and primary healthcare domains. In the postnatal recruitment domain, the likelihood of newborn infants being enrolled in the proposed RCT was rated 'very likely', 'likely' and 'neutral' by 15 (8%, CI 4-12%), 65 (33%, CI 26-40%) and 64 (33%, CI 25-39%) of respondents for a RCT of three years duration; and by 5 (3%, CI 1-5%), 37 (19%, CI 14-25%) and 59 (30%, CI 24-36%) of respondents respectively for a RCT of six years duration. CONCLUSIONS: Postnatal wards are expected to be the most successful recruitment domain for the proposed RCT, likely a reflection of the face-to-face direct recruitment by researchers. It appears feasible to recruit into the proposed RCT using three large New Zealand tertiary hospitals.

Randomised controlled trial of topical kanuka honey for the treatment of rosacea.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of topical 90% medical-grade kanuka honey and 10% glycerine (Honevo) as a treatment for rosacea. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with blinded assessment of primary outcome variable. SETTING: Outpatient primary healthcare population from 5 New Zealand sites. PARTICIPANTS: 138 adults aged ≥ 16, with a diagnosis of rosacea, and a baseline blinded Investigator Global Assessment of Rosacea Severity Score (IGA-RSS) of ≥ 2. 69 participants were randomised to each treatment arm. 1 participant was excluded from the Honevo group, and 7 and 15 participants withdrew from the Honevo and control groups, respectively. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to Honevo or control cream (Cetomacrogol), applied twice daily for 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of participants who had a ≥ 2 improvement in the 7-point IGA-RSS at week 8 compared to baseline. Secondary outcomes included change in IGA-RSS and subject-rated visual analogue score of change in severity (VAS-CS) on a 100 mm scale (0 mm 'much worse', 100 mm 'much improved') at weeks 2 and 8. RESULTS: 24/68 (34.3%) in the Honevo group and 12/69 (17.4%) in the control group had a ≥ 2 improvement in IGA-RSS at week 8 compared to baseline (relative risk 2.03; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.72, p=0.020). The change in IGA-RSS for Honevo compared to control at week 2 minus baseline was -1 (Hodges-Lehman estimate, 95% CI -1 to 0, p=0.03), and at week 8 minus baseline was -1 (Hodges-Lehman estimate, 95% CI -1 to 0, p=0.005). The VAS-CS at week 2 was 9.1 (95% CI 3.5 to 14.7), p=0.002, and at week 8 was 12.3 (95% CI 5.7 to 18.9)¸ p<0.001 for Honevo compared to control. CONCLUSIONS: Honevo is an effective treatment for rosacea. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial was registered in the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000004662.