Search

Background: Licensed ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and unlicensed bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) are used to treat macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion, but their relative clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact on the UK NHS and Personal Social Services have never been directly compared over the typical disease treatment period. Objective: The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for the management of macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. Design: This was a three-arm, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Setting: The trial was set in 44 UK NHS ophthalmology departments, between 2014 and 2018. Participants: A total of 463 patients with visual impairment due to macula oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included in the trial. Interventions: The participants were treated with repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (n = 155), aflibercept (n = 154) or bevacizumab (n = 154). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was an increase in the best corrected visual acuity letter score from baseline to 100 weeks in the trial eye. The null hypothesis that aflibercept and bevacizumab are each inferior to ranibizumab was tested with a non-inferiority margin of –5 visual acuity letters over 100 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional visual acuity, and imaging outcomes, Visual Function Questionnaire-25, EuroQol-5 Dimensions with and without a vision bolt-on, and drug side effects. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index to measure quality-adjusted life-years. Results: The adjusted mean changes at 100 weeks in the best corrected visual acuity letter scores were as follows – ranibizumab, 12.5 letters (standard deviation 21.1 letters); aflibercept, 15.1 letters (standard deviation 18.7 letters); and bevacizumab, 9.8 letters (standard deviation 21.4 letters). Aflibercept was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference 2.23 letters, 95% confidence interval –2.17 to 6.63 letters; p = 0.0006), but not superior. The study was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference –1.73 letters, 95% confidence interval –6.12 to 2.67 letters; p = 0.071). A post hoc analysis was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference was –3.96 letters, 95% confidence interval –8.34 to 0.42 letters; p = 0.32). All per-protocol population results were the same. Fewer injections were required with aflibercept (10.0) than with ranibizumab (11.8) (difference in means –1.8, 95% confidence interval –2.9 to –0.8). A post hoc analysis showed that more bevacizumab than aflibercept injections were required (difference in means 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 2.7). There were no new safety concerns. The model- and trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses estimated that bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment at a threshold of £20,000–30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Limitations: The comparison of aflibercept and bevacizumab was a post hoc analysis. Conclusion: The study showed aflibercept to be non-inferior to ranibizumab. However, the possibility that bevacizumab is worse than ranibizumab and aflibercept by 5 visual acuity letters cannot be ruled out. Bevacizumab is an economically attractive treatment alternative and would lead to substantial cost savings to the NHS and other health-care systems. However, uncertainty about its relative effectiveness should be discussed comprehensively with patients, their representatives and funders before treatment is considered. Future work: To obtain extensive patient feedback and discuss with all stakeholders future bevacizumab NHS use. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13623634. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Although strategies have been developed to minimise the risk of occupational hand dermatitis in nurses, their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unclear. Objectives: The Skin Care Intervention in Nurses trial tested the hypothesis that a behaviour change package intervention, coupled with provision of hand moisturisers, could reduce the point prevalence of hand dermatitis when compared with standard care among nurses working in the NHS. The secondary aim was to assess the impact of the intervention on participants’ beliefs and behaviour regarding hand care, and the cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison with normal care. Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: Thirty-five NHS hospital trusts/health boards/universities. Participants: First-year student nurses with a history of atopic tendency, and full-time intensive care unit nurses. Intervention: Sites were randomly allocated to be ‘intervention plus’ or ‘intervention light’. Participants at ‘intervention plus’ sites received access to a bespoke online behaviour change package intervention, coupled with personal supplies of moisturising cream (student nurses) and optimal availability of moisturising cream (intensive care unit nurses). Nurses at ‘intervention light’ sites received usual care, including a dermatitis prevention leaflet. Main outcome measure: The difference between intervention plus and intervention light sites in the change of point prevalence of visible hand dermatitis was measured from images taken at baseline and at follow-up. Randomisation: Fourteen sites were randomised to the intervention plus arm, and 21 sites were randomised to the intervention light arm. Blinding: The participants, trial statistician, methodologist and the dermatologists interpreting the hand photographs were blinded to intervention assignment. Numbers analysed: An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted on data from 845 student nurses and 1111 intensive care unit nurses. Results: The intention-to-treat analysis showed no evidence that the risk of developing dermatitis was greater in the intervention light group than in the intervention plus group (student nurses: odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 2.69; intensive care unit nurses: odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 2.44). Both groups had high levels of baseline beliefs about the benefits of using hand moisturisers before, during and after work. The frequency of use of hand moisturisers before, during and after shifts was significantly higher in the intensive care unit nurses in the intervention plus arm at follow-up than in the comparator group nurses. For student nurses, the intervention plus group mean costs were £2 lower than those for the comparator and 0.00002 more quality-adjusted life-years were gained. For intensive care unit nurses, costs were £4 higher and 0.0016 fewer quality-adjusted life-years were gained. Harms: No adverse events were reported. Limitations: Only 44.5% of participants in the intervention plus arm accessed the behaviour change package. Conclusion: The intervention did not result in a statistically significant decrease in the prevalence of hand dermatitis in the intervention plus group. Future work: Participants had a high level of baseline beliefs about the importance of using hand moisturisers before, during and after work. Future research should focus on how workplace culture can be changed in order for that knowledge to be actioned. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53303171. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: People recovering from heroin addiction need better treatments than are currently offered. The chronic relapsing nature of drug dependence means that helping a patient to achieve abstinence is often difficult. Naltrexone blocks the effects of ingested heroin; however, evidence is conflicting regarding the best delivery method. Objectives: The primary purpose of the trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone versus standard oral naltrexone versus relapse prevention therapy without medication for opioid use disorder (OUD). Design: This was a 3-year, definitive, three-centre, three-arm, parallel group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial. Setting: Two specialist NHS outpatient addiction clinics: one in London and one in Birmingham. Participants: Planned study sample – 300 adult patients with OUD who had completed detoxification. Interventions: One iGen/Atral-Cipan Extended Release Naltrexone device (iGen/Atral-Cipan, Castanheira do Ribatejo, Portugal) (765 mg naltrexone or placebo) at day 0 of study week 1. Three weekly directly observed active or placebo oral naltrexone tablets (2 × 50 mg, Monday and Wednesday; 3 × 50 mg, Friday) at day 0 of study week 1 (for 4 weeks) and then an 8-week regimen of patient-administered dosing at the same dosing level. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of heroin-negative urine drug screen (UDS) results at the end of the 12-week post-randomisation time point. Results: Six patients were recruited and randomised to receive study interventions. Two patients had no positive UDS samples for heroin during the 12-week treatment period, one patient had only one positive UDS sample and the remaining patients had two, six and eight positive UDS results for heroin. All patients had at least one missed clinic visit (range 1–14). Conclusions: Considerable problems were encountered with (1) the stipulated requirement of a validated ‘detoxified’ status prior to the initiation of the study naltrexone, (2) the requirement for a consent cooling-off period and (3) delays awaiting the surgical implant procedure. Major upheaval to the organisation and delivery of NHS community treatment services across England led to extremely poor levels of actual entry of patients into the trial. Research-vital clinical and procedural requirements were, therefore, more challenging to implement. The potential therapeutic value of the opioid antagonist naltrexone still needs clear investigation, including comparison of the established oral form with the new ultra-long-acting depot implant formulations (for which no licensed products exist in Europe). Despite the small number of study participants, some tentative conclusions can be reached, relevant to potential future work. The blinding of the active/placebo medications appeared to be good. Self-report was not sufficient to detect instances of heroin use. Self-report plus UDS information provided a fuller picture. Instances of lapsed heroin use were not necessarily followed by full relapse, and future work should consider the lapse–relapse relationship. The prison release setting also warrants special consideration. In future, investigators should consider seeking ethics approval for studies in which clinical procedures to accelerate the treatment process are permitted, even if outside orthodox clinical practice, if they address a clinical need at the time of challenge and clinical risk. In addition, it may be appropriate to seek exemption from the ordinary requirement of a cooling-off period after securing consent because it is often essential to initiate treatment promptly. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95809946. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: People with an intellectual (learning) disability (ID) and epilepsy have an increased seizure frequency, higher frequencies of multiple antiepileptic drug (AED) use and side effects, higher treatment costs, higher mortality rates and more behavioural problems than the rest of the population with epilepsy. The introduction of nurse-led care may lead to improvements in outcome for those with an ID and epilepsy; however, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial. Objective: To determine whether or not ID nurses, using a competency framework developed to optimise nurse management of epilepsy in people with an ID, can cost-effectively improve clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in the management of epilepsy compared with treatment as usual. Design: Cluster-randomised two-arm trial. Setting: Community-based secondary care delivered by members of community ID teams. Participants: Participants were adults aged 18–65 years with an ID and epilepsy under the care of a community ID team and had had at least one seizure in the 6 months before the trial. Interventions: The experimental intervention was the Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework. This provides guidelines describing a structure and goals to support the delivery of epilepsy care and management by ID-trained nurses. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the seizure severity scale from the Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life questionnaire. Measures of mood, behaviour, AED side effects and carer strain were also collected. A cost–utility analysis was undertaken along with a qualitative examination of carers’ views of participants’ epilepsy management. Results: In total, 312 individuals were recruited into the study from 17 research clusters. Using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for baseline individual-level and cluster-level variables there was no significant difference in seizure severity score between the two arms. Altogether, 238 complete cases were included in the non-imputed primary analysis. Analyses of the secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences between arms. A planned subgroup analysis identified a significant interaction between treatment arm and level of ID. There was a suggestion in those with mild to moderate ID that the competency framework may be associated with a small reduction in concerns over seizure severity (standard error 2.005, 95% confidence interval –0.554 to 7.307; p = 0.092). However, neither subgroup showed a significant intervention effect individually. Family members’ perceptions of nurses’ management depended on the professional status of the nurses, regardless of trial arm. Economic analysis suggested that the competency framework intervention was likely to be cost-effective, primarily because of a reduction in the costs of supporting participants compared with treatment as usual. Limitations: The intervention could not be delivered blinded. Treatment as usual varied widely between the research sites. Conclusions: Overall, for adults with an ID and epilepsy, the framework conferred no clinical benefit compared with usual treatment. The economic analysis suggested that there may be a role for the framework in enhancing the cost-effectiveness of support for people with epilepsy and an ID. Future research could explore the specific value of the competency framework for those with a mild to moderate ID and the potential for greater long-term benefits arising from the continuing professional development element of the framework. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96895428. Funding: This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Transverse myelitis (TM) is an immune-mediated disorder of the spinal cord that affects adults and children and that causes motor, sensory and autonomic dysfunction. There is a prolonged recovery phase, which may continue for many years. Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) is an uncommon relapsing inflammatory central nervous system condition in which TM can be the first presenting symptom. As TM and NMO affect many patients in the prime of their working life, the disorder can impose a significant demand on health resources. There are currently no robust controlled trials in children or adults to inform the optimal treatment of TM. However, treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is being effectively used in the management of a range of neurological conditions. Although other interventions such as plasma exchange (PLEX) in addition to intravenous (IV) methylprednisolone therapy can be beneficial in TM, PLEX is costly and technically challenging to deliver in the acute setting. IVIG is more readily accessible and less costly. Objective: To evaluate whether additional and early treatment with IVIG is of extra benefit in TM compared with standard therapy with IV steroids. Design: A multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of IVIG compared with standard therapy for the treatment of TM in adults and children. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 1 year diagnosed with either acute first-onset TM or first presentation of NMO. Target recruitment was 170 participants (85 participants per arm). Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to treatment with IV methylprednisolone only or treatment with IV methylprednisolone plus 2 g/kg of IVIG in divided doses within 5 days of the first commencement of steroid therapy. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome measure – American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) Impairment Scale at 6 months post randomisation, with a good outcome defined by a two-grade change. Secondary and tertiary outcome measures – ASIA motor and sensory scales, Expanded Disability Status Scale, health outcome, quality of life, Client Service Receipt Inventory and International Spinal Cord Injury Pain, Bladder and Bowel Basic Data Sets. Results: In total, 26 participants were screened and two were randomised into the study. With the limited sample size, treatment effect could not be determined. However, we identified barriers to accrual that included strict inclusion criteria, the short enrolment window, challenges associated with the use of the ASIA Impairment Scale as an outcome measure and estimation of the incidence of TM. Conclusions: The study did not reach the end point and the effect of IVIG in TM/NMO could not be determined. Investigators should be aware of the potential challenges associated with carrying out a rare disease trial with a short enrolment window. The study question is one that still necessitates investigation. Preliminary work to ameliorate the effect of the barriers encountered in this study is vital. Trial registration: EudraCT 2014-002335-34, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02398994 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12127581. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also received from Biotest AG, Germany (supply of IVIG) and the Transverse Myelitis Society (excess research cost to facilitate study initiation).