Sarah Ronaldson

The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: Evaluations of two exemplar trials

BACKGROUND Pragmatic trials compare the effects of different decisions in usual clinical practice. OBJECTIVES To develop and evaluate methods to implement simple pragmatic trials using routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) and recruiting patients at the point of care; to identify the barriers and facilitators for general practitioners (GPs) and patients and the experiences of trial participants. DESIGN Two exemplar randomised trials (Retropro and eLung) with qualitative evaluations. SETTING Four hundred and fifty-nine English and Scottish general practices contributing EHRs to a research database, of which 17 participated in the trials. PARTICIPANTS Retropro aimed to recruit 300 patients with hypercholesterolaemia and high cardiovascular risk and eLung aimed to recruit 150 patients with a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation. INTERVENTIONS Retropro randomised between simvastatin and atorvastatin and eLung between immediate antibiotics and deferred or non-use. eLung recruited during an unscheduled consultation using EHR flagging. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Successful trial completion with implementation of information technology (IT) system for flagging and data processing and documentation of operational and scientific experiences. DATA SOURCES EHR research database. RESULTS The governance approval process took over 3 years. A total of 58.8% of the practices (n = 270) expressed interest in participating. The number of interested practices dropped substantially with each stage of the governance process. In Retropro, 6.5% of the practices (n = 30) were eventually approved and 3.7% (n = 17) recruited patients; in eLung, these numbers were 6.8% (n = 31) and 1.3% (n = 6) respectively. Retropro successfully completed recruitment (301 patients) whereas eLung recruited 31 patients. Retropro recruited 20.6% of all statin starters in recruiting practices and 1.1% in the EHR database; the comparable numbers for eLung were 32.3% and 0.9% respectively. The IT system allowed for complex eligibility criteria with central on and off control of recruitment and flagging at a practice. Good Clinical Practice guidelines, governance and consent procedures were found to have substantially affected the intended simple nature of the trials. One qualitative study of 13 clinicians found that clinicians were generally positive about the principle of computerised trial recruitment (flagging during consultation). However, trials which did not include patients with acute illness were favoured. The second qualitative process evaluation interviewed 27 GPs about their actual experiences, including declining, recruiting and non-recruiting GPs. Opportunistic patient recruitment during a routine GP consultation was found to be the most controversial element. The actual experiences of recruiting patients during unscheduled consultation were generally more positive than the hypothetical views of GPs. Several of the recruiting GPs reported the process took 5 minutes and was straightforward and feasible on most occasions. Almost all GPs expressed their strong support for the use of EHRs for trials. Ten eLung participants were interviewed, all of whom considered it acceptable to be recruited during a consultation and to use EHRs for trials. CONCLUSIONS EHR point-of-care trials are feasible, although the recruitment of clinicians is a major challenge owing to the complexity of trial approvals. These trials will provide substantial evidence on clinical effectiveness only if trial interventions and participating clinicians and patients are typical of usual clinical care and trials are simple to initiate and conduct. Recommendations for research include the development of evidence and implementation of risk proportionality in trial governance and conduct. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33113202 and ISRCTN72035428. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and the Wellcome Trust and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Economic evaluation of SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (Grazax(®)) in children.

Background Grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis is a common allergic respiratory disorder affecting over 20% of the UK population in terms of quality of life and sleep, work, and school patterns. The SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) has been demonstrated as a disease-modifying treatment which gives a sustained effect even after completion of a treatment course. The objective of this study was to provide an economic assessment of whether treatment with the SQ-standardized grass AIT, Grazax® (Phleum pratense) in combination with symptomatic medications is preferable to the standard of care using symptomatic medications only. The analysis was performed for children with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without concomitant asthma, in the UK. Methods The model evaluated the two treatment regimens in a cohort of 1,000 children from a payer’s perspective. Treatment was modeled in terms of management of symptoms, impact on resource use, and development of allergic asthma. The analysis modeled the use of SQ-standardized grass AIT and the sustained effects of treatment over a 9-year time horizon (ie, 3 years of treatment, with modeled long-term benefits). Data inputs were drawn from a recent clinical trial, published studies, and databases. Results SQ-standardized grass AIT improves patient outcomes, generating an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of £12,168. This is below commonly accepted thresholds in the UK. Conclusion The resulting incremental cost per QALY falls below commonly accepted willingness to pay thresholds. Therefore, the SQ-standardized grass AIT is a cost-effective option for the treatment of grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis in the UK pediatric population.

Identifying the primary outcome for a randomised controlled trial in rheumatoid arthritis: the role of a discrete choice experiment

BackgroundThis study sought to establish the preferences of people with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) about the best outcome measure for a health and fitness intervention randomised controlled trial (RCT). The results of this study were used to inform the choice of the trial primary and secondary outcome measure.MethodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to assess people’s preferences regarding a number of outcomes (foot and ankle pain, fatigue, mobility, ability to perform daily activities, choice of footwear) as well as different schedules and frequency of delivery for the health and fitness intervention. The outcomes were chosen based on literature review, clinician recommendation and patients’ focus groups. The DCE was constructed in SAS software using the D-efficiency criteria. It compared hypothetical scenarios with varying levels of outcomes severity and intervention schedule. Preference weights were estimated using appropriate econometric models. The partial log-likelihood method was used to assess the attribute importance.ResultsOne hundred people with RA completed 18 choice sets. Overall, people selected foot and ankle pain as the most important outcome, with mobility being nearly as important. There was no evidence of differential preference between intervention schedules or frequency of delivery.ConclusionsFoot and ankle pain can be considered the patient choice for primary outcome of an RCT relating to a health and fitness intervention. This study demonstrated that, by using the DCE method, it is possible to incorporate patients’ preferences at the design stage of a RCT. This approach ensures patient involvement at early stages of health care design.

Determining the optimal approach to identifying individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: The DOC study

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES Early identification of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) results in patients receiving appropriate management for their condition at an earlier stage in their disease. The determining the optimal approach to identifying individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (DOC) study was a case-finding study to enhance early identification of COPD in primary care, which evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a series of simple lung function tests and symptom-based case-finding questionnaires. METHODS Current smokers aged 35 or more were invited to undertake a series of case-finding tools, which comprised lung function tests (specifically, spirometry, microspirometry, peak flow meter, and WheezoMeter) and several case-finding questionnaires. The effectiveness of these tests, individually or in combination, to identify small airways obstruction was evaluated against the gold standard of spirometry, with the quality of spirometry tests assessed by independent overreaders. The study was conducted with general practices in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, in the UK. RESULTS Six hundred eighty-one individuals met the inclusion criteria, with 444 participants completing their study appointments. A total of 216 (49%) with good-quality spirometry readings were included in the analysis. The most effective case-finding tools were found to be the peak flow meter alone, the peak flow meter plus WheezoMeter, and microspirometry alone. In addition to the main analysis, where the severity of airflow obstruction was based on fixed ratios and percent of predicted values, sensitivity analyses were conducted by using lower limit of normal values. CONCLUSIONS This research informs the choice of test for COPD identification; case-finding by use of the peak flow meter or microspirometer could be used routinely in primary care for suspected COPD patients. Only those testing positive to these tests would move on to full spirometry, thereby reducing unnecessary spirometric testing.

The impact of lung function case‐finding tests on smoking behaviour: A nested randomised trial within a case‐finding cohort

Increasing awareness of peoples lung health through the use of lung function tests or symptom‐based questionnaires is a potential method to aid smoking cessation. We investigated the impact of case‐finding lung function tests for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on smoking behaviour.

Can occupational therapist-led home environmental assessment prevent falls in older people? A modified cohort randomised controlled trial protocol.

Introduction Falls and fall-related injuries are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to society. Environmental hazards are implicated as a major contributor to falls among older people. A recent Cochrane review found an environmental assessment, undertaken by an occupational therapist, to be an effective approach to reducing falls. However, none of the trials included a cost-effectiveness evaluation in the UK setting. This protocol describes a large multicentre trial investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of environmental assessment and modification within the home with the aim of preventing falls in older people. Methods and analysis A two-arm, modified cohort randomised controlled trial, conducted within England, with 1299 community-dwelling participants aged 65 years and above, who are at an increased risk of falls. Participants will be randomised 2:1 to receive either usual care or home assessment and modification. The primary outcome is rate of falls (falls/person/time) over 12 months assessed by monthly patient self-report falls calendars. Secondary self-reported outcome measures include: the proportion of single and multiple fallers, time to first fall over a 12-month period, quality of life (EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L) and health service utilisation at 4, 8 and 12 months. A nested qualitative study will examine the feasibility of providing the intervention and explore barriers, facilitators, workload implications and readiness to employ these interventions into routine practice. An economic evaluation will assess value for money in terms of cost per fall averted. Ethics and dissemination This study protocol (including the original application and subsequent amendments) received a favourable ethical opinion from National Health Service West of Scotland REC 3. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conference presentations. A summary of the findings will be sent to participants. Trial registration number ISRCTN22202133; Pre-results.

Cost-effectiveness of antibiotics for COPD management: Observational analysis using CPRD data

It is often difficult to determine the cause of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, and antibiotics are frequently prescribed. This study conducted an observational cost-effectiveness analysis of prescribing antibiotics for exacerbations of COPD based on routinely collected data from patient electronic health records. A cohort of 45 375 patients aged 40 years or more who attended their general practice for a COPD exacerbation during 2000–2013 was identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Two groups were formed (“immediate antibiotics” or “no antibiotics”) based on whether antibiotics were prescribed during the index general practice (GP) consultation, with data analysed according to subsequent healthcare resource use. A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, using a time horizon of 4 weeks in the base case. The use of antibiotics for COPD exacerbations resulted in cost savings and an improvement in all outcomes analysed; i.e. GP visits, hospitalisations, community respiratory team referrals, all referrals, infections and subsequent antibiotics prescriptions were lower for the antibiotics group. Hence, the use of antibiotics was dominant over no antibiotics. The economic analysis suggests that use of antibiotics for COPD exacerbations is a cost-effective alternative to not prescribing antibiotics for patients who present to their GP, and remains cost-effective when longer time horizons of 3 months and 12 months are considered. It would be useful for a definitive trial to be undertaken in this area to determine the cost-effectiveness of antibiotics for COPD exacerbations. Prescribing antibiotics for patients presenting to their GP with COPD exacerbations was found to be cost-effective http://ow.ly/F7Pe30bYBEs