Feedback GAP: study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care

Background

The implementation of new medical knowledge into general practice is a complex process. Blended learning may offer an effective and efficient educational intervention to reduce the knowledge-to-practice gap. The aim of this study was to compare knowledge acquisition about dementia management between a blended learning approach using online modules in addition to quality circles (QCs) and QCs alone.

Methods

In this cluster-randomised trial with QCs as clusters and general practitioners (GPs) as participants, 389 GPs from 26 QCs in the western part of Germany were invited to participate. Data on the GPs' knowledge were obtained at three points in time by means of a questionnaire survey. Primary outcome was the knowledge gain before and after the interventions. A subgroup analysis of the users of the online modules was performed.

Results

166 GPs were available for analysis and filled out a knowledge test at least two times. A significant increase of knowledge was found in both groups that indicated positive learning effects of both approaches. However, there was no significant difference between the groups. A subgroup analysis of the GPs who self-reported that they had actually used the online modules showed that they had a significant increase in their knowledge scores.

Conclusion

A blended learning approach was not superior to a QCs approach for improving knowledge about dementia management. However, a subgroup of GPs who were motivated to actually use the online modules had a gain in knowledge.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36550981.     

Improving stroke prevention therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation in primary care: protocol for a pragmatic,cluster-randomized trial

Background

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is growing as the population ages, and at least 15% of ischemic strokes are attributed to AF. However, many high-risk AF patients are not offered guideline-recommended stroke prevention therapy due to a variety of system, provider, and patient-level barriers.

Methods

We will conduct a pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial randomizing primary care clinics to test a “toolkit” of quality improvement interventions in primary care. In keeping with the recommendations of the chronic care model to simultaneously activate patients and facilitate proactive care by providers, the toolkit includes provider-focused strategies (education, audit and feedback, electronic decision support, and reminders) plus patient-directed strategies (educational letters and reminders). The trial will include two feedback cycles at baseline and approximately 6 months and a final data collection at approximately 12 months. The study will be powered to show a difference of 10% in the primary outcome of proportion of patients receiving guideline-recommended stroke prevention therapy. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and will be blind to treatment allocation. Unit of analysis will be the patient; models will use generalized estimating equations to account for clustering at the clinical level.

Discussion

Stroke prevention therapy using anticoagulation in patients with AF is known to reduce strokes by two thirds or more in clinical trials, but most studies indicate under-use of this treatment in real-world practice. If the toolkit successfully improves care for patients with AF, stakeholders will be engaged to facilitate broader application to maximize the potential to improve patient outcomes. The intervention toolkit tested in this project could also provide a model to improve quality of care for other chronic cardiovascular conditions managed in primary care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01927445). Registered August 14, 2014 at https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

     

Acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care: large,pragmatic, randomised trial

Objective To determine the effects of a policy of “use acupuncture” on headache, health status, days off sick, and use of resources in patients with chronic headache compared with a policy of “avoid acupuncture.”Design Randomised, controlled trial.Setting General practices in England and Wales.Participants 401 patients with chronic headache, predominantly migraine.Interventions Patients were randomly allocated to receive up to 12 acupuncture treatments over three months or to a control intervention offering usual care.Main outcome measures Headache score, SF-36 health status, and use of medication were assessed at baseline, three, and 12 months. Use of resources was assessed every three months.Results Headache score at 12 months, the primary end point, was lower in the acupuncture group (16.2, SD 13.7, n = 161, 34% reduction from baseline) than in controls (22.3, SD 17.0, n = 140, 16% reduction from baseline). The adjusted difference between means is 4.6 (95% confidence interval 2.2 to 7.0; P = 0.0002). This result is robust to sensitivity analysis incorporating imputation for missing data. Patients in the acupuncture group experienced the equivalent of 22 fewer days of headache per year (8 to 38). SF-36 data favoured acupuncture, although differences reached significance only for physical role functioning, energy, and change in health. Compared with controls, patients randomised to acupuncture used 15% less medication (P = 0.02), made 25% fewer visits to general practitioners (P = 0.10), and took 15% fewer days off sick (P = 0.2).Conclusions Acupuncture leads to persisting, clinically relevant benefits for primary care patients with chronic headache, particularly migraine. Expansion of NHS acupuncture services should be considered.     

A proactive approach to migraine in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Background:

Migraine is a common, disabling headache disorder that leads to lost quality of life and productivity. We investigated whether a proactive approach to patients with migraine, including an educational intervention for general practitioners, led to a decrease in headache and associated costs.

Methods:

We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to one of two groups: practices receiving the intervention and control practices. Participants were prescribed two or more doses of triptan per month. General practitioners in the intervention group received training on treating migraine and invited participating patients for a consultation and evaluation of the therapy they were receiving. Physicians in the control group continued with usual care. Our primary outcome was patients’ scores on the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) at six months. We considered a reduction in score of 2.3 points to be clinically relevant. We used the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) questionnaire to determine if such distress was a possible effect modifier. We also examined the interventions’ cost-effectiveness.

Results:

We enrolled 490 patients in the trial (233 to the intervention group and 257 to the control group). Of the 233 patients in the intervention group, 192 (82.4%) attended the consultation to evaluate the treatment of their migraines. Of these patients, 43 (22.3%) started prophylaxis. The difference in change in score on the HIT-6 between the intervention and control groups was 0.81 (p = 0.07, calculated from modelling using generalized estimating equations). For patients with low levels of psychological distress (baseline score on the K10 ≤ 20) this change was −1.51 (p = 0.008), compared with a change of 0.16 (p = 0.494) for patients with greater psychological distress. For patients who were not using prophylaxis at baseline and had two or more migraines per month, the mean HIT-6 score improved by 1.37 points compared with controls (p = 0.04). We did not find the intervention to be cost-effective.

Interpretation:

An educational intervention for general practitioners and a proactive approach to patients with migraine did not result in a clinically relevant improvement of symptoms. Psychological distress was an important confounder of success. (Current Controlled Trials registration no. ISRCTN72421511.)Migraine is a common, disabling headache disorder that results in lost quality of life and productivity, both during and between attacks.^1–8 Many patients with migraine suffer unnecessarily because they are not using their medications appropriately, or they are unaware of the possibility of prophylactic treatment. In the Netherlands, 3% of patients who take triptans consume 12 or more doses of the drug each month.⁹ These patients account for almost half of the costs associated with triptan use.¹⁰ In addition, although more than 25% of patients with migraine have two or more attacks each month, making them eligible for preventive treatment, only 8%–12% of patients use prophylaxis.^2,3,11–13 More than half of the patients with migraine in Dutch primary care who have an indication for prophylaxis have not discussed that option with their general practitioner.¹³We investigated whether a proactive approach to identifying patients with migraine who are receiving suboptimal treatment (i.e., inviting them to a consultation to evaluate their current treatment regimen and advising them about the options available for treating their migraine) could increase the use of preventive treatment and reduce the overuse of triptans, thereby reducing headache recurrence and associated costs. Our intervention involved educational sessions for general practitioners. Earlier studies aimed at reducing the overuse of other medications in primary care, such as benzodiazepines and acid-repressive drugs, showed that a proactive intervention led to a reduction in the use of medications.^14,15Because most patients with migraine in the Netherlands are treated by their general practitioner, we evaluated the costs and effects of a proactive approach to migraine in primary care. We included patients who had two or more attacks per month, because improvement could be reasonably expected in this group.     

A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the safety, clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and satisfaction with point of care testing in a general practice setting – rationale, design and baseline characteristics

The UK has a strong tradition of innovative evaluative health care research. There are, however, considerable forces impeding collaboration between clinicians, academics, patients and their advocates and industry. This paper argues that, if the UK is to regain a position at the forefront of clinical research into evaluation of care, some of these forces need to be overcome. Now, with explicit encouragement from funders within the UK's NHS, it is urgent that all parties discover better ways of working together so that more broad and meaningful research can be produced in a timely fashion.     

Effect of a web-based audit and feedback intervention with outreach visits on the clinical performance of multidisciplinary teams: a cluster-randomized trial in cardiac rehabilitation

Background

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of a web-based audit and feedback (A&F) intervention with outreach visits to support decision-making by multidisciplinary teams.

Methods

We performed a multicentre cluster-randomized trial within the field of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in the Netherlands. Our participants were multidisciplinary teams in Dutch CR centres who were enrolled in the study between July 2012 and December 2013 and received the intervention for at least 1 year. The intervention included web-based A&F with feedback on clinical performance, facilities for goal setting and action planning, and educational outreach visits. Teams were randomized either to receive feedback that was limited to psychosocial rehabilitation (study group A) or to physical rehabilitation (study group B). The main outcome measure was the difference in performance between study groups in 11 care processes and six patient outcomes, measured at patient level. Secondary outcomes included effects on guideline concordance for the four main CR therapies.

Results

Data from 18 centres (14,847 patients) were analysed, of which 12 centres (9353 patients) were assigned to group A and six (5494 patients) to group B. During the intervention, a total of 233 quality improvement goals was identified by participating teams, of which 49 (21%) were achieved during the study period. Except for a modest improvement in data completeness (4.5% improvement per year; 95% CI 0.65 to 8.36), we found no effect of our intervention on any of our primary or secondary outcome measures.

Conclusions

Within a multidisciplinary setting, our web-based A&F intervention engaged teams to define local performance improvement goals but failed to support them in actually completing the improvement actions that were needed to achieve those goals. Future research should focus on improving the actionability of feedback on clinical performance and on addressing the socio-technical perspective of the implementation process.

Trial registration

NTR3251

     

Use of standardized brief geriatric evaluation compared with routine care in general practice for preventing functional decline: a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial

Background:Although assessment of geriatric syndromes is increasingly encouraged in older adults, little evidence exists to support its systematic use by general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this study was to determine whether a systematic geriatric evaluation performed by GPs can prevent functional decline.Methods:We conducted a controlled, open-label, pragmatic cluster-randomized trial in 42 general practices in Switzerland. Participating GPs were expected to enrol an average of 10 community-dwelling adults (aged ≥ 75 yr) who understood French, and had visited their GP at least twice in the previous year. The intervention consisted of yearly assessment by the GP of 8 geriatric syndromes with an associated tailored management plan according to assessment results, compared with routine care. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of patients who lost at least 1 instrumental activity of daily living (ADL) and the proportion who lost at least 1 basic ADL, over 2 years. Our secondary outcomes were quality-of-life scores, measured using the older adult module of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument, and health care use.Results:Forty-two GPs recruited 429 participants (63% women) with a mean age of 82.5 years (standard deviation 4.8 yr) at time of recruitment. Of these, we randomly assigned 217 participants to the intervention and 212 to the control arm. The proportion of patients who lost at least 1 instrumental ADL in the intervention and control arms during the course of the study was 43.6% and 47.6%, respectively (risk difference −4.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] −14.9% to 6.7%, p = 0.5). The proportion of patients who lost at least 1 basic ADL was 12.4% in the intervention arm and 16.9% in the control arm (risk difference −5.1%, 95% CI −14.3% to 4.1%, p = 0.3).Interpretation:A yearly geriatric evaluation with an associated management plan, conducted systematically in GP practices, does not significantly lessen functional decline among community-dwelling, older adult patients, compared with routine care.Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02618291","term_id":"NCT02618291"}}NCT02618291.

The World Health Organization has defined healthy aging as the process of developing and maintaining functional ability that enables well-being in older age.¹ Functional ability is often measured by an individual’s ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) without assistance. Geriatric syndromes, corresponding to multifactorial, chronic conditions, can impair physical and mental capacities,^2–4 and are directly associated with functional decline.⁵ If recognized early, adapted preventive measures and management strategies can be started to limit functional decline.^6–8 Interventions that have been shown to delay functional decline include comprehensive geriatric assessment, regular home visits and physical therapy.^6,8,9 Comprehensive geriatric assessment consists of a “multidisciplinary diagnostic and treatment process that identifies medical, psychosocial, and functional capabilities of older adults to develop a coordinated plan to maximize overall health with ageing.”¹⁰ These assessments are usually performed by specialized geriatric teams for patients who have already been identified as frail or in the context of rehabilitation. However, most older patients see only their general practitioner (GP) and are not provided a comprehensive geriatric assessment, considering that this is a lengthy process that is often beyond the scope of a usual primary care consultation. A recent systematic review of comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care found only 4 studies conducted in this setting,¹¹ showing mixed effects on clinical outcomes. Only 1 study assessed functional ability, and it showed no impact in this context.¹²In primary care, it may be more beneficial to use shorter screening tools.^13–19 Previous studies using shorter tools adapted for primary care have failed to show a difference for patients compared with routine care.^17,18 These interventions usually targeted patients who were already identified as frail or with a predefined number of problems.^17,18,20In contrast, our Active Geriatric Evaluation (AGE) tool targets all patients aged 75 and older. This clinical tool can be easily integrated to clinical encounters in GP practices, without the need for additional organizational changes. For this study, we aimed to determine whether the AGE tool, specifically designed for GPs and consisting of a brief assessment of the most relevant geriatric syndromes combined with management plans, could slow functional decline in older patients.     

The Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework: a practical,evidence-informed approach for the design and implementation of socially constructed learning interventions using audit and group feedback

Background

Audit and feedback interventions may be strengthened using social interaction. The Calgary office of the Alberta Physician Learning Program (CPLP) developed a process for audit and group feedback for physicians. This paper extends previous work in which we developed a conceptual model of physician responses to audit and group feedback based on a qualitative analysis of six audit and group feedback sessions. The present study explored the mediating factors for successfully engaging physician groups in change planning through audit and group feedback.

Methods

To understand why some groups were more interactive than others, we completed a comparative case analysis of the six audit and group feedback projects from the prior study. We used framework analysis to build the case studies, triangulated our observations across data sources to validate findings, compared the case studies for similarities and differences that influenced social interaction (mediating factors), and thematically categorized mediating factors into an organizing framework.

Results

Mediating factors for socially interactive AGFS were a pre-existing relationship between the program team and the physician group, projects addressing important, actionable questions, easily interpretable data visualization in the reports, and facilitation of the groups that included reflective questioning. When these factors were in place (cases 1, 2A, 3), the audit and group feedback sessions were dynamic, with physicians sharing and comparing practices, and raising change cues (such as declaring commitments to de-prescribing, planning educational interventions, and improving documentation). In cases 2C–D, the mediating factors were less well established and in these cases, the sessions showed little physician reflection or change planning. We organized the mediating factors into a framework linking the factors for successful sessions to the conceptual model of physician behaviors which these mediating factors drive.

Conclusions

We propose the Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework as a practical tool to help foster socially constructed learning in audit and group feedback sessions. Ensuring that the four factors, relationship, question choice, data visualization, and facilitation, are considered for design and implementation of audit and group feedback will help physicians move from reactions to their data towards planning for change.

     

Evaluation of a package of continuum of care interventions for improved maternal,newborn, and child health outcomes and service coverage in Ghana: A cluster-randomized trial

BackgroundIn low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the continuum of care (CoC) for maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) is not always complete. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an integrated package of CoC interventions on the CoC completion, morbidity, and mortality outcomes of woman–child pairs in Ghana.Methods and findingsThis cluster-randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN: 90618993) was conducted at 3 Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS) sites in Ghana. The primary outcome was CoC completion by a woman–child pair, defined as receiving antenatal care (ANC) 4 times or more, delivery assistance from a skilled birth attendant (SBA), and postnatal care (PNC) 3 times or more. Other outcomes were the morbidity and mortality of women and children. Women received a package of interventions and routine services at health facilities (October 2014 to December 2015). The package comprised providing a CoC card for women, CoC orientation for health workers, and offering women with 24-hour stay at a health facility or a home visit within 48 hours after delivery. In the control arm, women received routine services only. Eligibility criteria were as follows: women who gave birth or had a stillbirth from September 1, 2012 to September 30, 2014 (before the trial period), from October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015 (during the trial period), or from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (after the trial period). Health service and morbidity outcomes were assessed before and during the trial periods through face-to-face interviews. Mortality was assessed using demographic surveillance data for the 3 periods above. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to evaluate the effectiveness as difference in differences (DiD). For health service and morbidity outcomes, 2,970 woman–child pairs were assessed: 1,480 from the baseline survey and 1,490 from the follow-up survey. Additionally, 33,819 cases were assessed for perinatal mortality, 33,322 for neonatal mortality, and 39,205 for maternal mortality. The intervention arm had higher proportions of completed CoC (410/870 [47.1%]) than the control arm (246/620 [39.7%]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] for DiD = 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08 to 2.92; p = 0.024). Maternal complications that required hospitalization during pregnancy were lower in the intervention (95/870 [10.9%]) than in the control arm (83/620 [13.4%]) (AOR for DiD = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.83; p = 0.008). Maternal mortality was 8/6,163 live births (intervention arm) and 4/4,068 live births during the trial period (AOR for DiD = 1.60; 95% CI: 0.40 to 6.34; p = 0.507) and 1/4,626 (intervention arm) and 9/3,937 (control arm) after the trial period (AOR for DiD = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.11 to 1.00; p = 0.050). Perinatal and neonatal mortality was not significantly reduced. As this study was conducted in a real-world setting, possible limitations included differences in the type and scale of health facilities and the size of subdistricts, contamination for intervention effectiveness due to the geographic proximity of the arms, and insufficient number of cases for the mortality assessment.ConclusionsThis study found that an integrated package of CoC interventions increased CoC completion and decreased maternal complications requiring hospitalization during pregnancy and maternal mortality after the trial period. It did not find evidence of reduced perinatal and neonatal mortality.Trial registrationThe study protocol was registered in the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry (90618993).

Akira Shibanuma and co-workers study a package of maternal and child health interventions in a cluster-randomized trial done in Ghana.     

Novel community health worker strategy for HIV service engagement in a hyperendemic community in Rakai,Uganda: A pragmatic,cluster-randomized trial

BackgroundEffective implementation strategies are needed to increase engagement in HIV services in hyperendemic settings. We conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial in a high-risk, highly mobile fishing community (HIV prevalence: approximately 38%) in Rakai, Uganda, to assess the impact of a community health worker-delivered, theory-based (situated Information, Motivation, and Behavior Skills), motivational interviewing-informed, and mobile phone application-supported counseling strategy called “Health Scouts” to promote engagement in HIV treatment and prevention services.Methods and findingsThe study community was divided into 40 contiguous, randomly allocated clusters (20 intervention clusters, n = 1,054 participants at baseline; 20 control clusters, n = 1,094 participants at baseline). From September 2015 to December 2018, the Health Scouts were deployed in intervention clusters. Community-wide, cross-sectional surveys of consenting 15 to 49-year-old residents were conducted at approximately 15 months (mid-study) and at approximately 39 months (end-study) assessing the primary programmatic outcomes of self-reported linkage to HIV care, antiretroviral therapy (ART) use, and male circumcision, and the primary biologic outcome of HIV viral suppression (<400 copies/mL). Secondary outcomes included HIV testing coverage, HIV incidence, and consistent condom use. The primary intent-to-treat analysis used log-linear binomial regression with generalized estimating equation to estimate prevalence risk ratios (PRR) in the intervention versus control arm. A total of 2,533 (45% female, mean age: 31 years) and 1,903 (46% female; mean age 32 years) residents completed the mid-study and end-study surveys, respectively. At mid-study, there were no differences in outcomes between arms. At end-study, self-reported receipt of the Health Scouts intervention was 38% in the intervention arm and 23% in the control arm, suggesting moderate intervention uptake in the intervention arm and substantial contamination in the control arm. At end-study, intention-to-treat analysis found higher HIV care coverage (PRR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.10, p = 0.011) and ART coverage (PRR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.10, p = 0.028) among HIV–positive participants in the intervention compared with the control arm. Male circumcision coverage among all men (PRR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.14, p = 0.31) and HIV viral suppression among HIV–positive participants (PRR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.12, p = 0.20) were higher in the intervention arm, but differences were not statistically significant. No differences were seen in secondary outcomes. Study limitations include reliance on self-report for programmatic outcomes and substantial contamination which may have diluted estimates of effect.ConclusionsA novel community health worker intervention improved HIV care and ART coverage in an HIV hyperendemic setting but did not clearly improve male circumcision coverage or HIV viral suppression. This community-based, implementation strategy may be a useful component in some settings for HIV epidemic control.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02556957","term_id":"NCT02556957"}}NCT02556957.

Larry Chang and co-workers study an intervention by which community health workers aim to promote engagement in HIV treatment and prevention services in Uganda.     

Using information from asthma patients: a trial of information feedback in primary care.

OBJECTIVE--To test the effects of feedback of information about patients'' asthma to primary care teams. DESIGN--Patients'' reports of morbidity, use of health services, and drug use on questionnaire was given to primary care teams. Randomised controlled trial with general practices as the subject of the intervention was used to test effectiveness of supplying information. SETTING--Primary care in district health authority, London. SUBJECTS--23 general practices, each of which notified at least 20 asthmatic patients aged 15-60 years for each principal. Practices were randomly allocated to an invention group (receiving feedback of information on control of asthma) or a control group (no feedback). INTERVENTION--Information on cards inserted in patients'' medical records; booklet copies of information for team members; formal presentation to primary care teams; poster displays of data on patients in each practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Type and frequency of asthma symptoms, use of health services, use of asthma drugs. RESULTS--Reported morbidity at entry to the study was substantial: 45% (818) patients reported breathlessness at least once a week. Less than half these patients were using inhaled steroids regularly. Intervention and control groups did not differ in practice or patient characteristics on entry to the study. In spite of the potential for improvement no differences were observed between the two practice groups at the end of the study--for example, breathlessness at least once a week in last six months was experienced by 36% in intervention group v 35% in control group (t = -0.27, P < 0.79); surgery attendance in last six months by 48% v 48% (t = -0.05, P < 0.96); regular use of inhaled steroids by 60% v 58% (t = 0.51, P < 0.62). CONCLUSION--Feedback to general practitioners of information about patients'' asthma does not on its own lead to change in the outcome of clinical care.     

A cluster randomised controlled trial of the community effectiveness of two interventions in rural Malawi to improve health care and to reduce maternal, newborn and infant mortality

Background

Paclitaxel-eluting stents decrease angiographic and clinical restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention compared to bare metal stents. TAXUS Element is a third-generation paclitaxel-eluting stent which incorporates a novel, thinner-strut, platinum-enriched metal alloy platform. The stent is intended to have enhanced radiopacity and improved deliverability compared to other paclitaxel-eluting stents. The safety and efficacy of the TAXUS Element stent are being evaluated in the pivotal PERSEUS clinical trials.

Methods/Design

The PERSEUS trials include two parallel studies of the TAXUS Element stent in single, de novo coronary atherosclerotic lesions. The PERSEUS Workhorse study is a prospective, randomized (3:1), single-blind, non-inferiority trial in subjects with lesion length ≤28 mm and vessel diameter ≥2.75 mm to ≤4.0 mm which compares TAXUS Element to the TAXUS Express² paclitaxel-eluting stent system. The Workhorse study employs a novel Bayesian statistical approach that uses prior information to limit the number of study subjects exposed to the investigational device and thus provide a safer and more efficient analysis of the TAXUS Element stent. PERSEUS Small Vessel is a prospective, single-arm, superiority trial in subjects with lesion length ≤20 mm and vessel diameter ≥2.25 mm to <2.75 mm that compares TAXUS Element with a matched historical bare metal Express stent control.

Discussion

The TAXUS PERSEUS clinical trial program uses a novel statistical approach to evaluate whether design and metal alloy iterations in the TAXUS Element stent platform provide comparable safety and improved procedural performance compared to the previous generation Express stent. PERSEUS trial enrollment is complete and primary endpoint data are expected in 2010. PERSEUS Workhorse and Small Vessel are registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, identification numbers NCT00484315 and NCT00489541.     

Effectiveness of steam inhalation and nasal irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial

Background:Systematic reviews support nasal saline irrigation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms, but trials have been small and few in primary care settings. Steam inhalation has also been proposed, but supporting evidence is lacking. We investigated whether brief pragmatic interventions to encourage use of nasal irrigation or steam inhalation would be effective in relieving sinus symptoms.Methods:We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial involving adults (age 18–65 yr) from 72 primary care practices in the United Kingdom who had a history of chronic or recurrent sinusitis and reported a “moderate to severe” impact of sinus symptoms on their quality of life. Participants were recruited between Feb. 11, 2009, and June 30, 2014, and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 advice strategies: usual care, daily nasal saline irrigation supported by a demonstration video, daily steam inhalation, or combined treatment with both interventions. The primary outcome measure was the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI). Patients were followed up at 3 and 6 months. We imputed missing data using multiple imputation methods.Results:Of the 961 patients who consented, 871 returned baseline questionnaires (210 usual care, 219 nasal irrigation, 232 steam inhalation and 210 combined treatment). A total of 671 (77.0%) of the 871 participants reported RSDI scores at 3 months. Patients’ RSDI scores improved more with nasal irrigation than without nasal irrigation by 3 months (crude change −7.42 v. −5.23; estimated adjusted mean difference between groups −2.51, 95% confidence interval −4.65 to −0.37). By 6 months, significantly more patients maintained a 10-point clinically important improvement in the RSDI score with nasal irrigation (44.1% v. 36.6%); fewer used over-the-counter medications (59.4% v. 68.0%) or intended to consult a doctor in future episodes. Steam inhalation reduced headache but had no significant effect on other outcomes. The proportion of participants who had adverse effects was the same in both intervention groups.Interpretation:Advice to use steam inhalation for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms in primary care was not effective. A similar strategy to use nasal irrigation was less effective than prior evidence suggested, but it provided some symptomatic benefit. Trial registration: ISRCTN, no. 88204146.Rhinosinusitis probably affects more than 25 million Americans and 2.5 million Canadians.¹ Quality of life of patients with chronic or recurrent sinusitis has been reported to be similar to congestive heart disease and chronic pulmonary disease.² Antibiotics are prescribed for nearly all patients with sinusitis,³ but the evidence is modest⁴ and an international priority is to contain antibiotic resistance.⁵ Steam inhalation is widely advocated in rhinosinusitis, but a Cochrane review of steam for the “common cold” found equivocal evidence,⁶ and a recent primary care trial found no benefit and some harm (mild thermal injury) for pragmatic advice to inhale steam twice daily for a range of respiratory tract infections.⁷ The Cochrane review of nasal saline irrigation reported benefit.⁸ However, most of the trials were small, mainly from secondary care settings, and the review documented symptom data from only 129 participants, with high heterogeneity. Two small randomized controlled trials included some participants from primary care settings.^9,10 One of the studies compared a gravity-based nasal irrigation device with routine care among 76 participants mainly from primary care settings; it found that symptoms improved very little in the control group (by 1 point on the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index [RSDI] converted to a 100-point scale), as compared with a 14-point improvement in the irrigation group.⁹ The other (published since the Cochrane review) compared a positive-pressure squeeze bottle with saline nasal spray among 121 volunteers from various sources and found an 8.5-point improvement in the control group, as compared with a 15-point improvement in the irrigation group.¹⁰We conducted a large pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of brief advice to use nasal irrigation or steam inhalation in routine primary care for chronic or recurrent sinus symptoms.     

Management of alcoholism in the primary care setting.

Primary care physicians can play an important role in managing alcoholic patients. Identifying and treating alcoholism early, before it has interfered with patients'' relationships and work, may increase the likelihood of prolonged recovery. Simple office interventions can help motivate patients to abstain and seek treatment. People who abuse alcohol and are unwilling to abstain can benefit from a recommendation to reduce their intake of alcohol. For alcohol-dependent patients who decide to stop drinking, primary care physicians often can manage withdrawal on an outpatient basis. Selecting an appropriate treatment program for each alcoholic patient is important, and referral to a specialist to assist in matching patients to treatments is often necessary. Primary care physicians also can help prevent relapse. Although disulfiram is of limited value, primary care physicians can support recovery by identifying coexistent psychosocial problems, helping patients to restructure their lives, and ensuring continuity of care.     

Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised trial of acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care

Objective To evaluate the cost effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of chronic headache.Design Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial.Setting General practices in England and Wales.Participants 401 patients with chronic headache, predominantly migraine.Interventions Patients were randomly allocated to receive up to 12 acupuncture treatments over three months from appropriately trained physiotherapists, or to usual care alone.Main outcome measure Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained.Results Total costs during the one year period of the study were on average higher for the acupuncture group (£403; $768; €598) than for controls (£217) because of the acupuncture practitioners'' costs. The mean health gain from acupuncture during the one year of the trial was 0.021 quality adjusted life years (QALYs), leading to a base case estimate of £9180 per QALY gained. This result was robust to sensitivity analysis. Cost per QALY dropped substantially when the analysis incorporated likely QALY differences for the years after the trial.Conclusions Acupuncture for chronic headache improves health related quality of life at a small additional cost; it is relatively cost effective compared with a number of other interventions provided by the NHS.     

Setting up a pragmatic clinical trial in a low-resource setting: A qualitative assessment of GoLBeT,a trial of podoconiosis management in Northern Ethiopia

BackgroundClinical trials are often perceived as being expensive, difficult and beyond the capacity of healthcare workers in low-resource settings. However, in order to improve healthcare coverage, the World Health Organization (WHO) World Health Report 2013 stated that all countries need to become generators as well as recipients of data. This study is a methodological examination of the steps and processes involved in setting up the Gojjam Lymphoedema Best Practice Trial (GoLBeT; ISRCTN67805210), a highly pragmatic clinical trial conducted in northern Ethiopia. Challenges to the trial and strategies used to deal with them were explored, together with the reasons for delays.Methodology and principal findingsQualitative research methods were used to analyse emails and reports from the period between trial inception and recruitment. This analysis was complemented by interviews with key informants from the trial operational team. The Global Health Research Process Map was used as a framework against which to compare the steps involved in setting up the trial. A mini-group discussion was conducted with the trial operational team after study completion for reflection and further recommendations.This study showed that the key areas of difficulty in setting up and planning this trial were: the study design, that is, deciding on the study endpoint, where and how best to measure it, and assuring statistical power; recruitment and appropriate training of staff; planning for data quality; and gaining regulatory approvals. Collaboration, for example with statisticians, the trial steering committee, the study monitors, and members of the local community was essential to successfully setting up the trial.Conclusions and significanceLessons learnt from this trial might guide others planning pragmatic trials in settings where research is not common, allowing them to anticipate possible challenges and address them through trial design, planning and operational delivery. We also hope that this example might encourage similar pragmatic studies to be undertaken. Such studies are rarely undertaken or locally led, but are an accessible and efficient way to drive improved outcomes in public health.