Niamh M Redmond

Paracetamol plus ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children (PITCH): randomised controlled trial

Objective To investigate whether paracetamol (acetaminophen) plus ibuprofen are superior to either drug alone for increasing time without fever and the relief of fever associated discomfort in febrile children managed at home. Design Individually randomised, blinded, three arm trial. Setting Primary care and households in England. Participants Children aged between 6 months and 6 years with axillary temperatures of at least 37.8°C and up to 41.0°C. Intervention Advice on physical measures to reduce temperature and the provision of, and advice to give, paracetamol plus ibuprofen, paracetamol alone, or ibuprofen alone. Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were the time without fever (<37.2°C) in the first four hours after the first dose was given and the proportion of children reported as being normal on the discomfort scale at 48 hours. Secondary outcomes were time to first occurrence of normal temperature (fever clearance), time without fever over 24 hours, fever associated symptoms, and adverse effects. Results On an intention to treat basis, paracetamol plus ibuprofen were superior to paracetamol for less time with fever in the first four hours (adjusted difference 55 minutes, 95% confidence interval 33 to 77; P<0.001) and may have been as good as ibuprofen (16 minutes, −7 to 39; P=0.2). For less time with fever over 24 hours, paracetamol plus ibuprofen were superior to paracetamol (4.4 hours, 2.4 to 6.3; P<0.001) and to ibuprofen (2.5 hours, 0.6 to 4.4; P=0.008). Combined therapy cleared fever 23 minutes (2 to 45; P=0.025) faster than paracetamol alone but no faster than ibuprofen alone (−3 minutes, 18 to −24; P=0.8). No benefit was found for discomfort or other symptoms, although power was low for these outcomes. Adverse effects did not differ between groups. Conclusion Parents, nurses, pharmacists, and doctors wanting to use medicines to supplement physical measures to maximise the time that children spend without fever should use ibuprofen first and consider the relative benefits and risks of using paracetamol plus ibuprofen over 24 hours. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN26362730.

Interventions to influence consulting and antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infections in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are common in children and generally self-limiting, yet often result in consultations to primary care. Frequent consultations divert resources from care for potentially more serious conditions and increase the opportunity for antibiotic overuse. Overuse of antibiotics is associated with adverse effects and antimicrobial resistance, and has been shown to influence how patients seek care in ensuing illness episodes. Methodology/Principal Findings We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of interventions directed towards parents or caregivers which were designed to influence consulting and antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in children in primary care. Main outcomes were parental consulting rate, parental knowledge, and proportion of children subsequently consuming antibiotics. Of 5,714 references, 23 studies (representing 20 interventions) met inclusion criteria. Materials designed to engage children in addition to parents were effective in modifying parental knowledge and behaviour, resulting in reductions in consulting rates ranging from 13 to 40%. Providing parents with delayed prescriptions significantly decreased reported antibiotic use (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.46 (0.40, 0.54); moreover, a delayed or no prescribing approach did not diminish parental satisfaction. Conclusions In order to be most effective, interventions to influence parental consulting and antibiotic use should: engage children, occur prior to an illness episode, employ delayed prescribing, and provide guidance on specific symptoms. These results support the wider implementation of interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in children.

Antipyretic drugs for children.

Theres still not enough evidence to support prescribing paracetamol and ibuprofen in combination or alternately

Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Despite effective assessment methods and medications targeting osteoporosis and related fractures, screening for fracture risk is not currently advocated in the UK. We tested whether a community-based screening intervention could reduce fractures in older women. METHODS We did a two-arm randomised controlled trial in women aged 70-85 years to compare a screening programme using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) with usual management. Women were recruited from 100 general practitioner (GP) practices in seven regions of the UK: Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Norwich, Sheffield, Southampton, and York. We excluded women who were currently on prescription anti-osteoporotic drugs and any individuals deemed to be unsuitable to enter a research study (eg, known dementia, terminally ill, or recently bereaved). The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals who had one or more osteoporosis-related fractures over a 5-year period. In the screening group, treatment was recommended in women identified to be at high risk of hip fracture, according to the FRAX 10-year hip fracture probability. Prespecified secondary outcomes were the proportions of participants who had at least one hip fracture, any clinical fracture, or mortality; and the effect of screening on anxiety and health-related quality of life. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN 55814835. FINDINGS 12 483 eligible women were identified and participated in the trial, and 6233 women randomly assigned to the screening group between April 15, 2008, and July 2, 2009. Treatment was recommended in 898 (14%) of 6233 women. Use of osteoporosis medication was higher at the end of year 1 in the screening group compared with controls (15% vs 4%), with uptake particularly high (78% at 6 months) in the screening high-risk subgroup. Screening did not reduce the primary outcome of incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·85-1·03, p=0·178), nor the overall incidence of all clinical fractures (0·94, 0·86-1·03, p=0·183), but screening reduced the incidence of hip fractures (0·72, 0·59-0·89, p=0·002). There was no evidence of differences in mortality, anxiety levels, or quality of life. INTERPRETATION Systematic, community-based screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK is feasible, and could be effective in reducing hip fractures. FUNDING Arthritis Research UK and Medical Research Council.

Paracetamol plus ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children (PITCH): economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

Objective To estimate the cost to the NHS and to parents and carers of treating febrile preschool children with paracetamol, ibuprofen, or both, and to compare these costs with the benefits of each treatment regimen. Design Cost consequences analysis and cost effectiveness analysis conducted as part of a three arm, randomised controlled trial. Participants Children between the ages of 6 months and 6 years recruited from primary care and the community with axillary temperatures ≥37.8°C and ≤41°C. Interventions Paracetamol, ibuprofen, or both drugs. Main outcome measures Costs to the NHS and to parents and carers. Cost consequences analysis at 48 hours and 5 days comparing cost with children’s temperature, discomfort, activity, appetite, and sleep; cost effectiveness analysis at 48 hours comparing cost with percentage of children “recovered.” Results Difficulties in recruiting children to the trial lowered the precision of the estimates of cost and some outcomes. At 48 hours, cost to the NHS was £11.33 for paracetamol, £8.49 for ibuprofen, and £8.16 for both drugs. By day 5 these costs rose to £19.63, £18.36, and £13.92 respectively. For parents and carers, the 48 hour costs were £23.86 for paracetamol, £20.60 for ibuprofen, and £25.07 for both, and the day 5 costs were £26.35, £29.90, and £24.02 respectively. Outcomes measured at 48 hours and 5 days were inconclusive because of lack of power; the cost effectiveness analysis at 48 hours provided little evidence that one treatment choice was significantly more cost effective than another. At 4 hours ibuprofen and the combined treatment were superior to paracetamol in terms of the trial primary outcome of time without fever; at 24 hours the combined treatment performed best on this outcome. Conclusions There is no strong evidence of a difference in cost between the treatments, but clinical and cost data together indicate that using both drugs together may be most cost effective over the course of the illness. This treatment option performs best and is no more expensive because of less use of healthcare resources, resulting in lower costs to the NHS and to parents.

The TARGET cohort study protocol: a prospective primary care cohort study to derive and validate a clinical prediction rule to improve the targeting of antibiotics in children with respiratory tract illnesses

BackgroundChildren with respiratory tract infections are the single most frequent patient group to make use of primary care health care resources. The use of antibiotics remains highly prevalent in young children, but can lead to antimicrobial resistance as well as reinforcing the idea that parents should re-consult for similar symptoms. One of the main drivers of indiscriminate antimicrobial use is the lack of evidence for, and therefore uncertainty regarding, which children are at risk of poor outcome. This paper describes the protocol for the TARGET cohort study, which aims to derive and validate a clinical prediction rule to identify children presenting to primary care with respiratory tract infections who are at risk of hospitalisation.Methods/designThe TARGET cohort study is a large, multicentre prospective observational study aiming to recruit 8,300 children aged ≥3 months and <16 years presenting to primary care with a cough and respiratory tract infection symptoms from 4 study centres (Bristol, London, Oxford and Southampton). Following informed consent, symptoms, signs and demographics will be measured. In around a quarter of children from the Bristol centre, a single sweep, dual bacterial-viral throat swab will be taken and parents asked to complete a symptom diary until the child is completely well or for 28 days, whichever is sooner. A review of medical notes including clinical history, re-consultation and hospitalisations will be undertaken. Multivariable logistic regression will be used to identify the independent clinical predictors of hospitalisation as well as the prognostic significance of upper respiratory tract microbes. The clinical prediction rule will be internally validated using various methods including bootstrapping.DiscussionThe clinical prediction rule for hospitalisation has the potential to help identify a small group of children for hospitalisation and a much larger group where hospitalisation is very unlikely and antibiotic prescribing would be less warranted. This study will also be the largest natural history study to date of children presenting to primary care with acute cough and respiratory tract infections, and will provide important information on symptom duration, re-consultations and the microbiology of the upper respiratory tract.

Development and internal validation of a clinical rule to improve antibiotic use in children presenting to primary care with acute respiratory tract infection and cough: a prognostic cohort study

Summary Background Antimicrobial resistance is a serious threat to public health, with most antibiotics prescribed in primary care. General practitioners (GPs) report defensive antibiotic prescribing to mitigate perceived risk of future hospital admission in children with respiratory tract infections. We developed a clinical rule aimed to reduce clinical uncertainty by stratifying risk of future hospital admission. Methods 8394 children aged between 3 months and 16 years presenting with acute cough (for ≤28 days) and respiratory tract infection were recruited to a prognostic cohort study from 247 general practitioner practices in England. Exposure variables included demographic characteristics, parent-reported symptoms, and physical examination signs. The outcome was hospital admission for respiratory tract infection within 30 days, collected using a structured, blinded review of medical records. Findings 8394 (100%) children were included in the analysis, with 78 (0·9%, 95% CI 0·7%–1·2%) admitted to hospital: 15 (19%) were admitted on the day of recruitment (day 1), 33 (42%) on days 2–7; and 30 (39%) on days 8–30. Seven characteristics were independently associated (p<0·01) with hospital admission: age <2 years, current asthma, illness duration of 3 days or less, parent-reported moderate or severe vomiting in the previous 24 h, parent-reported severe fever in the previous 24 h or a body temperature of 37·8°C or more at presentation, clinician-reported intercostal or subcostal recession, and clinician-reported wheeze on auscultation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for the coefficient-based clinical rule was 0·82 (95% CI 0·77–0·87, bootstrap validated 0·81). Assigning one point per characteristic, a points-based clinical rule consisting of short illness, temperature, age, recession, wheeze, asthma, and vomiting (mnemonic STARWAVe; AUROC 0·81, 0·76–0·85) distinguished three hospital admission risk strata: very low (0·3%, 0·2–0·4%) with 1 point or less, normal (1·5%, 1·0–1·9%) with 2 or 3 points, and high (11·8%, 7·3–16·2%) with 4 points or more. Interpretation Clinical characteristics can distinguish children at very low, normal, and high risk of future hospital admission for respiratory tract infection and could be used to reduce antibiotic prescriptions in primary care for children at very low risk. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundEczema is common in children and in the UK most cases are managed in primary care. The foundation of all treatment is the regular use of leave-on emollients to preserve and restore moisture to the skin. This not only improves comfort but may also reduce the need for rescue treatment for ‘flares’, such as topical corticosteroids. However, clinicians can prescribe many different types of emollient and there is a paucity of evidence to guide this choice. One reason for this may be the challenges of conducting a clinical trial: are parents or carers of young children willing to be randomly allocated an emollient and followed up for a meaningful amount of time?DesignThis is a single-centre feasibility study of a pragmatic, four-arm, single-masked, randomized trial. Children with eczema who are eligible (from 1 month to less than 5 years of age, not known to be sensitive or allergic to any of study emollients or their constituents) are recruited via their general practices. Participants are allocated Aveeno® lotion, Diprobase® cream, Doublebase® gel or Hydromol® ointment via a web-based system, using a simple randomization process in a 1:1:1:1 fashion. Researchers are masked to the study emollient. Participants are assessed at baseline and followed up for 3 months. Data are collected by daily diaries, monthly researcher visits and review of electronic medical records. Because this is a feasibility study, a formal sample size calculation for the estimation of treatment effectiveness has not be made but we aim to recruit 160 participants.DiscussionRecruitment is on-going. At the end of the study, as well as being able to answer the question, ‘Is it is possible to recruit and retain children with eczema from primary care into a four-arm randomized trial of emollients?’, we will also have collected important data on the acceptability and effectiveness of four commonly used emollients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN21828118 and Clinical Trials Register EudraCT2013-003001-26.

Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET): feasibility study of a randomised controlled parallel group trial in children recruited from primary care

Objectives To determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of ‘leave on’ emollients for children with eczema. Design Single-centre, pragmatic, 4-arm, observer-blinded, parallel, randomised feasibility trial. Setting General practices in the UK. Participants Children with eczema aged 1 month to <5 years. Outcome measures Primary outcome—proportion of parents who reported use of the allocated study emollient every day for the duration of follow-up (12 weeks). Other feasibility outcomes—participant recruitment and retention, data collection and completeness and blinding of observers to allocation. Interventions Aveeno lotion, Diprobase cream, Doublebase gel, Hydromol ointment. Results 197 children were recruited—107 by self-referral (mainly via practice mail-outs) and 90 by inconsultation (clinician consenting and randomising) pathways. Participants recruited inconsultation were younger, had more severe Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores and were more likely to withdraw than self-referrals. Parents of 20 (10%) of all the randomised participants reported using the allocated emollient daily for 84 days. The use of other non-study emollients was common. Completeness of data collected by parent-held daily diaries and at monthly study visits was good. Daily diaries were liked (81%) but mainly completed on paper rather than via electronic (‘app’) form. Major costs drivers were general practitioner consultations and eczema-related prescriptions. Observer unblinding was infrequent, and occurred at the baseline or first follow-up visit through accidental disclosure. Conclusions It is feasible in a primary care setting to recruit and randomise young children with eczema to emollients, follow them up and collect relevant trial data, while keeping observers blinded to their allocation. However, reported use of emollients (study and others) has design implications for future trials. Trial registration number ISRCTN21828118/EudraCT2013-003001-26.

The CHICO (Children's Cough) Trial protocol: a feasibility randomised controlled trial investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention to improve the management of children presenting to primary care with acute respiratory tract infection

Introduction While most respiratory tract infections (RTIs) will resolve without treatment, many children will receive antibiotics and some will develop severe symptoms requiring hospitalisation. There have been calls for evidence to reduce uncertainty regarding the identification of children who will and will not benefit from antibiotics. The aim of this feasibility trial is to test recruitment and the acceptance of a complex behavioural intervention designed to reduce antibiotic prescribing, and to inform how best to conduct a larger trial. Methods and analysis The CHICO (Childrens Cough) trial is a single-centre feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing a web-based, within-consultation, behavioural intervention with usual care for children presenting to general practitioner practices with RTI and acute cough. The trial aims to recruit at least 300 children between October 2014 and April 2015, in a single area in South West England. Following informed consent, demographic information will be recorded, and symptoms and signs measured. Parents/carers of recruited children will be followed up on a weekly basis to establish symptom duration, resource use and cost of the illness to the parent until the childs cough has resolved or up to 8 weeks, whichever occurs earlier. A review of medical notes, including clinical history, primary care reconsultations and hospitalisations will be undertaken 2 months after recruitment. The trial feasibility will be assessed by: determining acceptability of the intervention to clinicians and parent/carers; quantifying differential recruitment and follow-up; determining intervention fidelity; the success in gathering the data necessary to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis; and collecting data about antibiotic prescribing rates to inform the sample size needed for a fully powered RCT. Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the North West—Haydock Research Ethics Committee, UK (reference number: 14/NW/1034). The findings from this feasibility trial will be disseminated through research conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number ISRCTN23547970.