Suzanne Hartley

Can stand-alone computer-based interventions reduce alcohol consumption? A systematic review

AIM To determine the effects of computer-based interventions aimed at reducing alcohol consumption in adult populations. METHODS The review was undertaken following standard Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance for systematic reviews. The literature was searched until December 2008, with no restrictions on language. Randomized trials with parallel comparator groups were identified in the form of published and unpublished data. Two authors independently screened abstracts and papers for inclusion. Data extraction and bias assessment was undertaken by one author and checked by a second author. Studies that measured total alcohol consumption and frequency of binge drinking episodes were eligible for inclusion in meta-analyses. A random-effects model was used to pool mean differences. RESULTS Twenty-four studies were included in the review (19 combined in meta-analyses). The meta-analyses suggested that computer-based interventions were more effective than minimally active comparator groups (e.g. assessment-only) at reducing alcohol consumed per week in student and non-student populations. However, most studies used the mean to summarize skewed data, which could be misleading in small samples. A sensitivity analysis of those studies that used suitable measures of central tendency found that there was no difference between intervention and minimally active comparator groups in alcohol consumed per week by students. Few studies investigated non-student populations or compared interventions with active comparator groups. CONCLUSION Computer-based interventions may reduce alcohol consumption compared with assessment-only; the conclusion remains tentative because of methodological weaknesses in the studies. Future research should consider that the distribution of alcohol consumption data is likely to be skewed and that appropriate measures of central tendency are reported.

Childhood obesity: should primary school children be routinely screened? A systematic review and discussion of the evidence

Background: Population monitoring has been introduced in UK primary schools in an effort to track the growing obesity epidemic. It has been argued that parents should be informed of their child’s results, but is there evidence that moving from monitoring to screening would be effective? We describe what is known about the effectiveness of monitoring and screening for overweight and obesity in primary school children and highlight areas where evidence is lacking and research should be prioritised. Design: Systematic review with discussion of evidence gaps and future research. Data sources: Published and unpublished studies (any language) from electronic databases (inception to July 2005), clinical experts, Primary Care Trusts and Strategic Health Authorities, and reference lists of retrieved studies. Review methods: We included any study that evaluated measures of overweight and obesity as part of a population-level assessment and excluded studies whose primary outcome measure was prevalence. Results: There were no trials assessing the effectiveness of monitoring or screening for overweight and obesity. Studies focussed on the diagnostic accuracy of measurements. Information on the attitudes of children, parents and health professionals to monitoring was extremely sparse. Conclusions: Our review found a lack of data on the potential impact of population monitoring or screening for obesity and more research is indicated. Identification of effective weight reduction strategies for children and clarification of the role of preventative measures are priorities. It is difficult to see how screening to identify individual children can be justified without effective interventions.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of height screening programmes during the primary school years: a systematic review

Objective: To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of height screening (of children aged 4 to 11) to identify height-related conditions. Design: Systematic review and economic modelling. Setting and intervention: We included published and unpublished screening studies of any design, except case reports, conducted in any setting that measured children’s height as part of a population-level assessment. Studies were identified by electronic database searches, contact with experts and from bibliographies of retrieved studies. Participants: Children aged between 4 and 11 years. Outcome measures: Diagnostic yield of height-related conditions and change in quality of life, as measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), for early versus late treatment of underlying conditions. Results: Twelve studies described a height-screening programme and provided data on the diagnostic yield of newly diagnosed height-related conditions. Where reported, yield for growth-hormone deficiency (per 1000 children screened) ranged from 0.05 (1 in 20 000) to 0.62 (approximately 1 in 1500) and for Turner syndrome (per 1000 children screened) was between 0.02 (1 in 50 000) and 0.07 (approximately 1 in 14 000). As a secondary gain, children with other potentially treatable conditions were identified; diagnostic yields ranged from 0.22 to 1.84 per 1000 children screened. Three studies did not detect any new cases, but all of these studies had methodological limitations. Economic modelling suggested that height screening is associated with health improvements and is cost effective for a willingness to pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY. Conclusions: This review indicates the utility and acceptable cost-effectiveness of height screening arising from increased detection of height-related disorders and secondary pick-up of other undiagnosed conditions. Further research is needed to obtain more reliable data on quality of life gains and costs associated with early interventions for height-related conditions. The exact role of height-screening programmes in improving child health remains to be determined.

A multi-centre phase 2 study of azacitidine in chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia.

1 Tefferi A, Lasho TL, Finke CM, Knudson RA, Ketterling R, Hanson CH et al. CALR vs JAK2 vs MPL-mutated or triple-negative myelofibrosis: clinical, cytogenetic and molecular comparisons. Leukemia 2014; 28: 1472–1477. 2 Rotunno G, Mannarelli C, Guglielmelli P, Pacilli A, Pancrazzi A, Pieri L et al. Impact of calreticulin mutations on clinical and hematological phenotype and outcome in essential thrombocythemia. Blood 2013; e-pub ahead of print 26 December 2013. 3 Klampfl T, Gisslinger H, Harutyunyan AS, Nivarthi H, Rumi E, Milosevic JD et al. Somatic mutations of calreticulin in myeloproliferative neoplasms. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 2379–2390. 4 Nangalia J, Massie CE, Baxter EJ, Nice FL, Gundem G, Wedge DC et al. Somatic CALR mutations in myeloproliferative neoplasms with nonmutated JAK2. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 2391–2405. 5 Rumi E, Pietra D, Ferretti V, Klampfl T, Harutyunyan AS, Milosevic JD et al. JAK2 or CALR mutation status defines subtypes of essential thrombocythemia with substantially different clinical course and outcomes. Blood 2013; e-pub ahead of print 23 December 2013. 6 Vannucchi AM, Lasho TL, Guglielmelli P, Biamonte F, Pardanani A, Pereira A et al. Mutations and prognosis in primary myelofibrosis. Leukemia 2013; 27: 1861–1869. 7 Gangat N, Caramazza D, Vaidya R, George G, Begna K, Schwager S et al. DIPSS plus: a refined Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System for primary myelofibrosis that incorporates prognostic information from karyotype, platelet count, and transfusion status. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 392–397. 8 Cervantes F, Dupriez B, Pereira A, Passamonti F, Reilly JT, Morra E et al. New prognostic scoring system for primary myelofibrosis based on a study of the International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment. Blood 2009; 113: 2895–2901. 9 Vardiman JW, Thiele J, Arber DA, Brunning RD, Borowitz MJ, Porwit A et al. The 2008 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia: rationale and important changes. Blood 2009; 114: 937–951.

A multidimensional approach to assessing intervention fidelity in a process evaluation of audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions: a study protocol

BackgroundIn England, NHS Blood and Transplant conducts national audits of transfusion and provides feedback to hospitals to promote evidence-based practice. Audits demonstrate 20% of transfusions fall outside guidelines. The AFFINITIE programme (Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE) involves two linked, 2×2 factorial, cluster-randomised trials, each evaluating two theoretically-enhanced audit and feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions in UK hospitals. The first intervention concerns the content/format of feedback reports. The second aims to support hospital transfusion staff to plan their response to feedback and includes a web-based toolkit and telephone support. Interpretation of trials is enhanced by comprehensively assessing intervention fidelity. However, reviews demonstrate fidelity evaluations are often limited, typically only assessing whether interventions were delivered as intended. This protocol presents methods for assessing fidelity across five dimensions proposed by the Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework, including intervention designer-, provider- and recipient-levels.Methods(1) Design: Intervention content will be specified in intervention manuals in terms of component behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Treatment differentiation will be examined by comparing BCTs across intervention/standard practice, noting the proportion of unique/convergent BCTs. (2) Training: draft feedback reports and audio-recorded role-play telephone support scenarios will be content analysed to assess intervention providers’ competence to deliver manual-specified BCTs. (3) Delivery: intervention materials (feedback reports, toolkit) and audio-recorded telephone support session transcripts will be content analysed to assess actual delivery of manual-specified BCTs during the intervention period. (4) Receipt and (5) enactment: questionnaires, semi-structured interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, and objective web-analytics data (report downloads, toolkit usage patterns) will be analysed to assess hospital transfusion staff exposure to, understanding and enactment of the interventions, and to identify contextual barriers/enablers to implementation. Associations between observed fidelity and trial outcomes (% unnecessary transfusions) will be examined using mediation analyses.DiscussionIf the interventions have acceptable fidelity, then results of the AFFINITIE trials can be attributed to effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of the interventions. Hence, this comprehensive assessment of fidelity will be used to interpret trial findings. These methods may inform fidelity assessments in future trials.Trial registrationISRCTN 15490813. Registered 11/03/2015

The DARS (Dopamine Augmented Rehabilitation in Stroke) trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of Co-careldopa treatment in addition to routine NHS occupational and physical therapy after stroke.

BackgroundStroke has a huge impact, leaving more than a third of affected people with lasting disability and rehabilitation remains a cornerstone treatment in the National Health Service (NHS). Recovery of mobility and arm function post-stroke occurs through re-learning to use the affected body parts and/or learning to compensate with the lesser affected side. Promising evidence suggests that the addition of Co-careldopa to physical therapy and occupational therapy may improve the recovery of arm and leg movement and lead to improved function.Methods/designDopamine Augmented Rehabilitation in Stroke (DARS) is a multi-centre double-blind, randomised, placebo, controlled clinical trial of Co-careldopa in addition to routine NHS occupational therapy and physical therapy as part of early stroke rehabilitation. Participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to either Co-careldopa or placebo. The primary objective of the trial is to determine whether the addition of six weeks of Co-careldopa treatment to rehabilitation therapy can improve the proportion of patients who can walk independently eight weeks post-randomisation.DiscussionThe DARS trial will provide evidence as to whether Co-careldopa, in addition to routine NHS occupational and physical therapy, leads to a greater recovery of motor function, a reduction in carer dependency and advance rehabilitation treatments for people with stroke.Trial registrationISRCTN99643613 assigned on 4 December 2009.

The evaluation of enhanced feedback interventions to reduce unnecessary blood transfusions (AFFINITIE): protocol for two linked cluster randomised factorial controlled trials

BackgroundBlood for transfusion is a frequently used clinical intervention, and is also a costly and limited resource with risks. Many transfusions are given to stable and non-bleeding patients despite no clear evidence of benefit from clinical studies. Audit and feedback (A&F) is widely used to improve the quality of healthcare, including appropriate use of blood. However, its effects are often inconsistent, indicating the need for coordinated research including more head-to-head trials comparing different ways of delivering feedback. A programmatic series of research projects, termed the ‘Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence-based Transfusion practIcE’ (AFFINITIE) programme, aims to test different ways of developing and delivering feedback within an existing national audit structure.MethodsThe evaluation will comprise two linked 2×2 factorial, cross-sectional cluster-randomised controlled trials. Each trial will estimate the effects of two feedback interventions, ‘enhanced content’ and ‘enhanced follow-on support’, designed in earlier stages of the AFFINITIE programme, compared to current practice. The interventions will be embedded within two rounds of the UK National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusion (NCABT) focusing on patient blood management in surgery and use of blood transfusions in patients with haematological malignancies. The unit of randomisation will be National Health Service (NHS) trust or health board. Clusters providing care relevant to the audit topics will be randomised following each baseline audit (separately for each trial), with stratification for size (volume of blood transfusions) and region (Regional Transfusion Committee). The primary outcome for each topic will be the proportion of patients receiving a transfusion coded as unnecessary. For each audit topic a linked, mixed-method fidelity assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted in parallel to the trial.DiscussionAFFINITIE involves a series of studies to explore how A&F may be refined to change practice including two cluster randomised trials linked to national audits of transfusion practice. The methodology represents a step-wise increment in study design to more fully evaluate the effects of two enhanced feedback interventions on patient- and trust-level clinical, cost, safety and process outcomes.Trial registrationhttp://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15490813

Effectiveness of an implementation optimisation intervention aimed at increasing parent engagement in HENRY, a childhood obesity prevention programme - the Optimising Family Engagement in HENRY (OFTEN) trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundFamily-based interventions to prevent childhood obesity depend upon parents’ taking action to improve diet and other lifestyle behaviours in their families. Programmes that attract and retain high numbers of parents provide an enhanced opportunity to improve public health and are also likely to be more cost-effective than those that do not. We have developed a theory-informed optimisation intervention to promote parent engagement within an existing childhood obesity prevention group programme, HENRY (Health Exercise Nutrition for the Really Young). Here, we describe a proposal to evaluate the effectiveness of this optimisation intervention in regard to the engagement of parents and cost-effectiveness.Methods/designThe Optimising Family Engagement in HENRY (OFTEN) trial is a cluster randomised controlled trial being conducted across 24 local authorities (approximately 144 children’s centres) which currently deliver HENRY programmes. The primary outcome will be parental enrolment and attendance at the HENRY programme, assessed using routinely collected process data. Cost-effectiveness will be presented in terms of primary outcomes using acceptability curves and through eliciting the willingness to pay for the optimisation from HENRY commissioners. Secondary outcomes include the longitudinal impact of the optimisation, parent-reported infant intake of fruits and vegetables (as a proxy to compliance) and other parent-reported family habits and lifestyle.DiscussionThis innovative trial will provide evidence on the implementation of a theory-informed optimisation intervention to promote parent engagement in HENRY, a community-based childhood obesity prevention programme. The findings will be generalisable to other interventions delivered to parents in other community-based environments. This research meets the expressed needs of commissioners, children’s centres and parents to optimise the potential impact that HENRY has on obesity prevention. A subsequent cluster randomised controlled pilot trial is planned to determine the practicality of undertaking a definitive trial to robustly evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the optimised intervention on childhood obesity prevention.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02675699. Registered on 4 February 2016.

Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundPressure ulcers represent a major burden to patients, carers and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 1 in 17 hospital and 1 in 20 community patients. They impact greatly on an individual’s functional status and health-related quality of life. The mainstay of pressure ulcer prevention practice is the provision of pressure redistribution support surfaces and patient repositioning. The aim of the PRESSURE 2 study is to compare the two main mattress types utilised within the NHS: high-specification foam and alternating pressure mattresses, in the prevention of pressure ulcers.Methods/DesignPRESSURE 2 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, double triangular, group sequential, parallel group trial. A maximum of 2954 ‘high-risk’ patients with evidence of acute illness will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either a high-specification foam mattress or alternating-pressure mattress in conjunction with an electric profiling bed frame. The primary objective of the trial is to compare mattresses in terms of the time to developing a new Category 2 or above pressure ulcer by 30 days post end of treatment phase. Secondary endpoints include time to developing new Category 1 and 3 or above pressure ulcers, time to healing of pre-existing Category 2 pressure ulcers, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, incidence of mattress change and safety. Validation objectives are to determine the responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life-Prevention instrument and the feasibility of having a blinded endpoint assessment using photography. The trial will have a maximum of three planned analyses with unequally spaced reviews at event-driven coherent cut-points. The futility boundaries are constructed as non-binding to allow a decision for stopping early to be overruled by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee.DiscussionThe double triangular, group sequential design of the PRESSURE 2 trial will provide an efficient design through the possibility of early stopping for demonstrating either superiority, inferiority of mattresses or futility of the trial. The trial optimises the potential for producing robust clinical evidence on the effectiveness of two commonly used mattresses in clinical practice earlier than in a conventional design.Trial registrationISRCTN01151335. Registered on 14 May 2013. Protocol version: 5.0, dated 25 September 2015Trial sponsor: Clare Skinner, Faculty Head of Research Support, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT; 0113 343 4897; C.E.Skinner@leeds.ac.uk.

Lenalidomide monotherapy and in combination with cytarabine, daunorubicin and etoposide for high-risk myelodysplasia and acute myeloid leukaemia with chromosome 5 abnormalities

Patients with high risk myelodysplasia (HR-MDS) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) with chromosomal changes involving deletion of the long arm of chromosome 5 (del5q), especially with complex karyotype, rarely have a durable response to combination chemotherapy. In the subgroup with monosomal karyotype there are no long term survivors (Fang et al., 2011) [1]. Recent experience indicates that the incidence of del5q in AML is ~20–30%, with only 20–25% of patients achieving complete remission (CR) (Farag et al., 2006) [2]. Additionally, therapy has significant toxicity, with induction death rates ~20% even in younger patients (Juliusson et al., 2009) [3]. This lack of efficacy provides the clinical rationale for combination/sequential therapy with Lenalidomide and combination chemotherapy. Dose dependent haematological toxicity is the major safety concern with such a combination protocol. Therefore we conducted a phase 2 study, AML Len5 (ISRCTN58492795), to assess safety, tolerability and efficacy of lenalidomide monotherapy, followed by lenalidomide with intensive chemotherapy in patients with primary/relapsed/refractory high risk MDS or AML with abnormalities of chromosome 5.