Randomised controlled trial of three burns dressings for partial thickness burns in children

BACKGROUND This study compared the effects of three silver dressing combinations on small to medium size acute partial thickness burns in children, focusing on re-epithelialization time, pain and distress during dressing changes. METHOD Children (0-15 years) with clean, ≤ 10% total body surface area (TBSA) partial thickness burns who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Children received either (1) Acticoat™; (2) Acticoat™ with Mepitel™; or (3) Mepilex Ag™ dressings. Measures of burn re-epithelialization, pain, and distress were recorded at dressing changes every 3-5 days until full re-epithelialization occurred. RESULTS One hundred and three children were recruited with 96 children included for analysis. No infections were detected for the course of the study. When adjusted for burn depth, Acticoat™ significantly increased the expected days to full re-epithelialization by 40% (IRR = 1.40; 95% CI: 1.14-1.73, p < 0.01) and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ significantly increased the expected days to full re-epithelialization by 33% (IRR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.08-1.63, p ≤ 0.01) when compared to Mepilex Ag™. Expected FLACC scores in the Mepilex Ag™ group were 32% lower at dressing removal (p = 0.01) and 37% lower at new dressing application (p = 0.04); and scores in the Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ group were 23% lower at dressing removal (p = 0.04) and 40% lower at new dressing application (p < 0.01), in comparison to the Acticoat™ group. Expected Visual Analog Scale-Pain (VAS-P) scores were 25% lower in the Mepilex Ag™ group at dressing removal (p = 0.04) and 34% lower in the Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ group (p = 0.02) at new dressing application in comparison to the Acticoat™ group. There was no significant difference between the Mepilex Ag™ and the Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ groups at all timepoints and with any pain measure. CONCLUSION Mepilex Ag™ is an effective silver dressing, in terms of accelerated wound re-epithelialization time (compared to Acticoat™ and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™) and decreased pain during dressing changes (compared to Acticoat™), for clean, < 10% TBSA partial thickness burns in children.

A multi-centre open-label randomised non-inferiority trial comparing watchful waiting to antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media without perforation in low-risk urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (the WATCH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Treatment guidelines recommend watchful waiting for children older than 2 years with acute otitis media (AOM) without perforation, unless they are at high risk of complications. The high prevalence of chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM) in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities leads these children to be classified as high risk. Urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are at lower risk of complications, but evidence to support the subsequent recommendation for watchful waiting in this population is lacking. Methods/Design This non-inferiority multi-centre randomised controlled trial will determine whether watchful waiting is non-inferior to immediate antibiotics for urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with AOM without perforation. Children aged 2 − 16 years with AOM who are considered at low risk for complications will be recruited from six participating urban primary health care services across Australia. We will obtain informed consent from each participant or their guardian. The primary outcome is clinical resolution on day 7 (no pain, no fever of at least 38 °C, no bulging eardrum and no complications of AOM such as perforation or mastoiditis) as assessed by general practitioners or nurse practitioners. Participants and outcome assessors will not be blinded to treatment. With a sample size of 198 children in each arm, we have 80 % power to detect a non-inferiority margin of up to 10 % at a significance level of 5 %, assuming clinical improvement of at least 80 % in both groups. Allowing for a 20 % dropout rate, we aim to recruit 495 children. We will analyse both by intention-to-treat and per protocol. We will assess the cost- effectiveness of watchful waiting compared to immediate antibiotic prescription. We will also report on the implementation of the trial from the perspectives of parents/carers, health professionals and researchers. Discussion The trial will provide evidence for the safety and effectiveness of watchful waiting for the management of AOM in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children living in urban settings who are considered to be at low risk of complications.

Women’s Wellness after Cancer Program Study (WWACP)– A multi centre randomised controlled trial examining the benefits and cost effectiveness of an Evidenced Based, e-health intervention

Background Advances in cancer diagnosis and treatment have significantly improved survival rates, through their subsequent health needs are often not adequately addressed by current health services. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Partnerships Project awarded a national collaborative project to develop, trial and evaluate clinical benefits and cost effectiveness of an e-health enabled structured health promotion intervention - The Women’s Wellness after Cancer Program (WWACP). The aim of this e-health enabled multimodal intervention is to improve health related quality of life in women previously treated for target cancers. Aim The WWACP is a 12-week web based, interactive, holistic program. Primary outcomes for this project are to promote a positive change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and reduction in Body Mass Index (BMI) in the women undertaking WWACP compared to women who receive usual care. Secondary outcomes include managing other side effects of cancer treatment through evidence-based nutrition and exercise practices, dealing with stress, sleep, menopause and sexuality issues. Methods The single-blinded multi-center randomized controlled trial recruited a toatl of 330 women within 24 months of completion of chemotherapy and /or radiotherapy. Women were randomly assigned to either a usual care or intervention group. Women provided with the intervention were provided with an interactive iBook and journal, web interface, and three virtual consultations by experienced cancer nurses. A variety of methods were utilized, to enable positive self- efficacy and lifestyle changes. These include online coaching with a registered nurse trained in the intervention, plus written educational and health promotional information. The program has been delivered through the e-health enabled interfaces, which enables virtual delivery via desktop and mobile computing devices. Importantly this enables accessibility for rural and regional women in Australia who are frequently geographically disadvantaged in terms of health care provision. Results Research focusing on alternative methods of delivering post treatment / or survivorship care in cancer utilizing web based interfaces is limited, but emerging evidence suggests that Internet interventions can increase psychological and physical wellbeing in cancer patients. The WWACP trial aims to establish the effectiveness of delivery of the program in terms of positive patient outcomes and cost effective, flexibility. The trial will be completed in September and results will be presented at the conference. Conclusions Women after acute hematological, breast and gynecological cancer treatments demonstrate good cancer survival rates and face residual health problems which are amenable to behavioral interventions. The conclusion of active treatment is a key 'teachable moment' in which sustainable positive lifestyle change can be achieved if patients receive education and psychological support which targets key treatment related health problems and known chronic disease risk factors.

IMPOSE (IMProving Outcomes after Sepsis)—the effect of a multidisciplinary follow-up service on health-related quality of life in patients postsepsis syndromes—a double-blinded randomised controlled trial: protocol

Introduction Patients post sepsis syndromes have a poor quality of life and a high rate of recurring illness or mortality. Follow-up clinics have been instituted for patients postgeneral intensive care but evidence is sparse, and there has been no clinic specifically for survivors of sepsis. The aim of this trial is to investigate if targeted screening and appropriate intervention to these patients can result in an improved quality of life (Short Form 36 health survey (SF36V.2)), decreased mortality in the first 12 months, decreased readmission to hospital and/or decreased use of health resources. Methods and analysis 204 patients postsepsis syndromes will be randomised to one of the two groups. The intervention group will attend an outpatient clinic two monthly for 6 months and receive screening and targeted intervention. The usual care group will remain under the care of their physician. To analyse the results, a baseline comparison will be carried out between each group. Generalised estimating equations will compare the SF36 domain scores between groups and across time points. Mortality will be compared between groups using a Cox proportional hazards (time until death) analysis. Time to first readmission will be compared between groups by a survival analysis. Healthcare costs will be compared between groups using a generalised linear model. Economic (health resource) evaluation will be a within-trial incremental cost utility analysis with a societal perspective. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC; HREC/13/QRBW/17), The University of Queensland HREC (2013000543), Griffith University (RHS/08/14/HREC) and the Australian Government Department of Health (26/2013). The results of this study will be submitted to peer-reviewed intensive care journals and presented at national and international intensive care and/or rehabilitation conferences.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.

The effectiveness of using patient-reported outcome measures as quality improvement tools

Aim: To investigate the value of using PROMs as quality improvement tools. Methods: Two systematic reviews were undertaken. The first reviewed the quantitative literature on the impact of PROMs feedback and the second reviewed the qualitative literature on the use of PROMs in practice. These reviews informed the focus of the primary research. A cluster randomised controlled trial (PROFILE) examined the impact of providing peer benchmarked PROMs feedback to consultant orthopaedic surgeons on improving outcomes for hip replacement surgery. Qualitative interviews with surgeons in the intervention arm of the trial examined the view of and reactions to the feedback. Results: The quantitative review of 17 studies found weak evidence to suggest that providing PROMs feedback to professionals improves patient outcomes. The qualitative review of 16 studies identified the barriers and facilitators to the use of PROMs based on four themes: practical considerations, attitudes towards the data, methodological concerns and the impact of feedback on care. The PROFILE trial included 11 surgeons and 215 patients in the intervention arm, and 10 surgeons and 217 patients in the control arm. The trial found no significant difference in the Oxford Hip Score between the arms (-0.7, 95% CI -1.9-0.5, p=0.2). Interviews with surgeons revealed mixed opinions about the value of the PROMs feedback and the information did not promote explicit changes to their practice. Conclusion: It is important to use PROMs which have been validated for the specific purpose of performance measurement, consult with professionals when developing a PROMs feedback intervention, communicate with professionals about the objectives of the data collection, educate professionals on the properties and interpretation of the data, and support professionals in using the information to improve care. It is also imperative that the burden of data collection and dissemination of the information is minimised.

Can Genetics Predict Response to Complex Behavioral Interventions? Evidence from a Genetic Analysis of the Fast Track Randomized Control Trial.

Early interventions are a preferred method for addressing behavioral problems in high-risk children, but often have only modest effects. Identifying sources of variation in intervention effects can suggest means to improve efficiency. One potential source of such variation is the genome. We conducted a genetic analysis of the Fast Track randomized control trial, a 10-year-long intervention to prevent high-risk kindergarteners from developing adult externalizing problems including substance abuse and antisocial behavior. We tested whether variants of the glucocorticoid receptor gene NR3C1 were associated with differences in response to the Fast Track intervention. We found that in European-American children, a variant of NR3C1 identified by the single-nucleotide polymorphism rs10482672 was associated with increased risk for externalizing psychopathology in control group children and decreased risk for externalizing psychopathology in intervention group children. Variation in NR3C1 measured in this study was not associated with differential intervention response in African-American children. We discuss implications for efforts to prevent externalizing problems in high-risk children and for public policy in the genomic era.

Randomised controlled trial of effects of Helicobacter pylori infection and its eradication on heartburn and gastro-oesophageal reflux: the bristol helicobacter project

Objectives To investigate the effects of Helicobacter pylori infection and its eradication on heartburn and gastro-oesophageal reflux. Design Cross sectional study, followed by a randomised placebo controlled trial. Setting Seven general practices in Bristol, England. Participants 10 537 people, aged 20-59 years, with and without H pylori infection (determined by the 13C-urea breath test). Main outcome measures Prevalence of heartburn and gastro-oesophageal acid reflux at baseline and two years after treatment to eradicate H pylori infection. Results At baseline, H pylori infection was associated with increased prevalence of heartburn (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.23) but not reflux (1.05, 0.97 to 1.14). In participants with H pylori infection, active treatment had no effect on the overall prevalence of heartburn (0.99, 0.88 to 1.12) or reflux (1.04, 0.91 to 1.19) and did not improve pre-existing symptoms of heartburn or reflux. Conclusions H pylori infection is associated with a slightly increased prevalence of heartburn but not reflux. Treatment to eradicate H pylori has no net benefit in patients with heartburn or gastro-oesophageal reflux

A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomised clinical trial in acute low back pain

The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned the terms ‘mobilization’ and ‘manipulation’, nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80), and a combination of both (CT; n=80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=9.178; df=2;P=0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n=21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n=7/74; df=1; P=0.003).
The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.