Search

Background: Healthcare technologies are becoming more commonplace, however clinical and patient perspectives regarding the use of technology in the management of childhood asthma have yet to be investigated. Within a clinical trial of asthma management in children, we conducted a qualitative process evaluation that provided insights into the experiences and perspectives of healthcare staff and families on (i) the use of smart inhalers to monitor medication adherence and (ii) the use of algorithm generated treatment recommendations. Methods: We interviewed trial staff (n = 15) and families (n = 6) who were involved in the trial to gauge perspectives around the use of smart inhalers to monitor adherence and the algorithm to guide clinical decision making. Findings: Staff and families indicated that there were technical issues associated with the smart inhalers. While staff suggested that the smart inhalers were good for monitoring adherence and enabling communication regarding medication use, parents and children indicated that smart inhaler use increased motivation to adhere to medication and provided the patient (child) with a sense of responsibility for the management of their asthma. Staff were open-minded about the use of the algorithm to guide treatment recommendations, but some were not familiar with its' use in clinical care. There were some concerns expressed regarding treatment step-down decisions generated by the algorithm, and some staff highlighted the importance of using clinical judgement. Families perceived the algorithm to be a useful technology, but indicated that they felt comforted by the clinicians' own judgements. Conclusion: The use of technology and individual data within appointments was considered useful to both staff and families: closer monitoring and the educational impacts were especially highlighted. Utilising an algorithm was broadly acceptable, with caveats around clinicians using the recommendations as a guide only and wariness around extreme step-ups/downs considering contextual factors not taken into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The benefit of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in guiding asthma treatment is uncertain. We evaluated the efficacy of adding FeNO to symptom-guided treatment in children with asthma versus only symptom-guided treatment. RAACENO was a multicentre, parallel, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in 35 secondary care centres and 17 primary care recruitment sites (only seven primary care sites managed to recruit patients) in the UK. Patients with a confirmed asthma diagnosis, aged 6–15 years, prescribed inhaled corticosteroids, and who received a course of oral corticosteroids for at least one asthma exacerbation during the 12 months before recruitment were included. Participants were randomly assigned to either FeNO plus symptom-guided treatment (intervention) or symptom-guided treatment alone (standard care) using a 24 h in-house, web-based randomisation system. Participants and the clinical and research teams were not masked to the group allocation. A web-based algorithm gave treatment recommendations based on the Asthma Control Test (ACT) or Childhood ACT (CACT) score; current asthma treatment; adherence to study treatment in the past 3 months; and use of FeNO (in the intervention group). Follow-up occurred at 3-month intervals for 12 months. The primary outcome was any asthma exacerbation treated with oral corticosteroids in the 12 months after randomisation, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ISRCTN67875351. Between June 22, 2017, and Aug 8, 2019, 535 children were assessed for eligibility, 20 were ineligible and six were excluded post-randomisation. 509 children were recruited and at baseline, the mean age of participants was 10·1 years (SD 2·6), and 308 (60·5%) were male. The median FeNO was 21 ppb (IQR 10–48), mean predicted FEV 1 was 89·6% (SD 18·0), and median daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids was 400 μg budesonide equivalent (IQR 400–1000). Asthma was partly or fully controlled in 256 (50·3%) of 509 participants. The primary outcome, which was available for 506 (99%) of 509 participants, occurred in 123 (48·2%) of 255 participants in the intervention group and 129 (51·4%) of 251 in the standard care group, the intention-to-treat adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0·88 (95% CI 0·61 to 1·27; p=0·49). The adjusted difference in the percentage of participants who received the intervention in whom the primary outcome occurred compared with those who received standard care was −3·1% (−11·9% to 5·6%). In 377 (21·3%) of 1771 assessments, the algorithm recommendation was not followed. Adverse events were reported by 27 (5·3%) of 509 participants (15 in the standard care group and 12 in the intervention group). The most common adverse event was itch after skin prick testing (reported by eight participants in each group). We found that the addition of FeNO to symptom-guided asthma treatment did not lead to reduced exacerbations among children prone to asthma exacerbation. Asthma symptoms remain the only tool for guiding treatment decisions. National Institute for Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Participants want to receive the results of trials that they have participated in. Dissemination practices are disparate, and there is limited guidance available on what information to provide to participants and how to deliver it. Objectives: This study aimed to establish what trial participants believe should be included in a results summary and how this information should be delivered. Methods: A mixed‐methods design was used with focus groups and interviews involving women convenience‐sampled from two host randomized‐controlled trials. Participants ranked information items in order of their importance for inclusion in a trial results summary and potential modes of delivery by preference. All participants provided written informed consent. Results: Sixteen women (mean age [SD] = 71.6 [9.7] years) participated. Participants ranked 'individual results from the study' and 'summary of overall trial results' as most important. Themes such as reassurance and setting results in context were identified as contributing to participants' decisions around ranking. 'A thank you for your contribution to the study' was ranked the least important. Delivery by post was the preferred mode of receiving results, with receiving a hard copy of results cited as helpful to refer back to. Conclusion: Our findings provide insight into what information trial participants deem as important when receiving trial results and how they would like results delivered. Involving patients during development of trial results to be communicated to participants could help to ensure that the right information is delivered in the right way. Patient or Public Contribution: Public partners were involved in focussed aspects of study conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two commonly performed surgical interventions are available for severe (grade II-IV) haemorrhoids; traditional excisional surgery and stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Uncertainty exists as to which is most effective. The eTHoS trial was designed to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stapled haemorrhoidopexy compared with traditional excisional surgery.Methods: The eTHoS trial was a large, open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial done in adult participants (aged 18 years or older) referred to hospital for surgical treatment for grade II-IV haemorrhoids. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either traditional excisional surgery or stapled haemorrhoidopexy. Randomisation was minimised according to baseline EuroQol 5 dimensions 3 level score (EQ-5D-3L), haemorrhoid grade, sex, and centre with an automated system to stapled haemorrhoidopexy or traditional excisional surgery. The primary outcome was area under the quality of life curve (AUC) measured with the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system over 24 months, assessed according to the randomised groups. The primary outcome measure was analysed using linear regression with adjustment for the minimisation variables. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80061723.Findings: Between Jan 13, 2011, and Aug 1, 2014, 777 patients were randomised (389 to receive stapled haemorrhoidopexy and 388 to receive traditional excisional surgery). Stapled haemorrhoidopexy was less painful than traditional excisional surgery in the short term and surgical complication rates were similar between groups. The EQ-5D-3L AUC score was higher in the traditional excisional surgery group than the stapled haemorrhoidopexy group over 24 months; mean difference -0·073 (95% CI -0·140 to -0·006; p=0·0342). EQ-5D-3L was higher for stapled haemorrhoidopexy in the first 6 weeks after surgery, the traditional excisional surgery group had significantly better quality of life scores than the stapled haemorrhoidopexy group. 24 (7%) of 338 participants who received stapled haemorrhoidopexy and 33 (9%) of 352 participants who received traditional excisional surgery had serious adverse events.Interpretation: As part of a tailored management plan for haemorrhoids, traditional excisional surgery should be considered over stapled haemorrhoidopexy as the surgical treatment of choice.Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]