Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

In: Health Technology Assessment, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Vol. 20, No. 18 ( 2016-03), p. 1-220

Abstract: Impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) are recommended for adults to reduce bloodstream infection (BSI) but not for children. Objective To determine the effectiveness of impregnated compared with standard CVCs for reducing BSI in children admitted for intensive care. Design Multicentre randomised controlled trial, cost-effectiveness analysis from a NHS perspective and a generalisability analysis and cost impact analysis. Setting 14 English paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in England. Participants Children aged 〈  16 years admitted to a PICU and expected to require a CVC for ≥ 3 days. Interventions Heparin-bonded, antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and minocycline) or standard polyurethane CVCs, allocated randomly (1 : 1 : 1). The intervention was blinded to all but inserting clinicians. Main outcome measure Time to first BSI sampled between 48 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after CVC removal. The following data were used in the trial: trial case report forms; hospital administrative data for 6 months pre and post randomisation; and national-linked PICU audit and laboratory data. Results In total, 1859 children were randomised, of whom 501 were randomised prospectively and 1358 were randomised as an emergency; of these, 984 subsequently provided deferred consent for follow-up. Clinical effectiveness – BSIs occurred in 3.59% (18/502) of children randomised to standard CVCs, 1.44% (7/486) of children randomised to antibiotic CVCs and 3.42% (17/497) of children randomised to heparin CVCs. Primary analyses comparing impregnated (antibiotic and heparin CVCs) with standard CVCs showed no effect of impregnated CVCs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.34]. Secondary analyses showed that antibiotic CVCs were superior to standard CVCs (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.96) but heparin CVCs were not (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.03). Time to thrombosis, mortality by 30 days and minocycline/rifampicin resistance did not differ by CVC. Cost-effectiveness – heparin CVCs were not clinically effective and therefore were not cost-effective. The incremental cost of antibiotic CVCs compared with standard CVCs over a 6-month time horizon was £1160 (95% CI –£4743 to £6962), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £54,057 per BSI avoided. There was considerable uncertainty in costs: antibiotic CVCs had a probability of 0.35 of being dominant. Based on index hospital stay costs only, antibiotic CVCs were associated with a saving of £97,543 per BSI averted. The estimated value of health-care resources associated with each BSI was £10,975 (95% CI –£2801 to £24,751). Generalisability and cost-impact – the baseline risk of BSI in 2012 for PICUs in England was 4.58 (95% CI 4.42 to 4.74) per 1000 bed-days. An estimated 232 BSIs could have been averted in 2012 using antibiotic CVCs. The additional cost of purchasing antibiotic CVCs for all children who require them (£36 per CVC) would be less than the value of resources associated with managing BSIs in PICUs with standard BSI rates of 〉  1.2 per 1000 CVC-days. Conclusions The primary outcome did not differ between impregnated and standard CVCs. However, antibiotic-impregnated CVCs significantly reduced the risk of BSI compared with standard and heparin CVCs. Adoption of antibiotic-impregnated CVCs could be beneficial even for PICUs with low BSI rates, although uncertainty remains whether or not they represent value for money to the NHS. Limitations – inserting clinicians were not blinded to allocation and a lower than expected event rate meant that there was limited power for head-to-head comparisons of each type of impregnation. Future work – adoption of impregnated CVCs in PICUs should be considered and could be monitored through linkage of electronic health-care data and clinical data on CVC use with laboratory surveillance data on BSI. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01029717. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 20, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1366-5278 , 2046-4924

URL: Article

DOI: 10.3310/hta20180

Language: English

Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2059206-1

In: Health Technology Assessment, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Vol. 24, No. 36 ( 2020-7), p. 1-152

Abstract: In the UK, juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common inflammatory disorder in childhood, affecting 10 : 100,000 children and young people aged 〈  16 years each year, with a population prevalence of around 1 : 1000. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis; however, there is currently a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used with various disease subtypes and severities of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Objective The main study objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Design This was a mixed-methods study. Work packages included a literature review; qualitative interviews with children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their families; a questionnaire survey and screening log to establish current UK practice; a consensus meeting with health-care professionals, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and their families to establish the primary outcome; a feasibility study to pilot data capture and to collect data for future sample size calculations; and a final consensus meeting to establish the final protocol. Setting The setting was rheumatology clinics across the UK. Participants Children, young people and their families who attended clinics and health-care professionals took part in this mixed-methods study. Interventions This study observed methods of prescribing corticosteroids across the UK. Main outcome measures The main study outcomes were the acceptability of a future trial for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals, and the feasibility of delivering such a trial. Results Qualitative interviews identified differences in the views of children, young people and their families on a randomised controlled trial and potential barriers to recruitment. A total of 297 participants were screened from 13 centres in just less than 6 months. In practice, all routes of corticosteroid administration were used, and in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection was the most common treatment. The questionnaire surveys showed the varying clinical practice across the UK, but established intra-articular corticosteroids as the treatment control for a future trial. The primary outcome of choice for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals was the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count. However, results from the feasibility study showed that, owing to missing blood test data, the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score should be used. The Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score are composite disease activity scoring systems for juvenile arthritis. Two final trial protocols were established for a future randomised controlled trial. Limitations Fewer clinics were included in this feasibility study than originally planned, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions about these units to take part in future research. Conclusions A definitive randomised controlled trial is likely to be feasible based on the findings from this study; however, important recommendations should be taken into account when planning such a trial. Future work This mixed-methods study has laid down the foundations to develop the evidence base in this area and conducting a randomised control trial to compare different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is likely to be feasible. Study registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16649996. 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. 24, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1366-5278 , 2046-4924

URL: Article

DOI: 10.3310/hta24360

Language: English

Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research

Publication Date: 2020

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2059206-1

In: Rheumatology, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 58, No. Supplement_4 ( 2019-10-01)

Abstract: Background Corticosteroids (CS) are widely used for rapid-action or induction treatment in children and young people (CYP) with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Given a lack of evidence base on CS induction regimen for CYP with JIA, and since criteria for choosing CS are based on healthcare professional (HCP) preference, further research is needed (1). Methods A national electronic survey was undertaken among HCPs across the UK as part of the Steroid Induction Regimen for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (SIRJIA) study. We aimed to establish the opinions of HCPs current practice regarding the clinical criteria for commencing CS treatment Results A total of 39 (24%) responses were received from 162 HCPs. These included 22 (56%) NHS consultants, five (13%) grid trainees, eight (21%) clinical nurse specialists and four other HCPs (10%). The most common treatments newly diagnosed JIA or a disease flare were intra-articular IACS or a combination of DMARDs and IAS (except for systemic JIA and oligoarticular JIA). The majority of HCPs 17 would treat new and flaring CYP the same with 53% choosing a different regime or not answering. The key criteria HCPs used for commencing CS and choosing route of administration were rapid induction of remission (31 (89%)), high disease activity (31 (89%)), severity of systemic JIA (30 (86%)) and level of inflammation (28 (80%)), see Table 1. The main determinants of route of administration was disease severity disease subtype. The majority of HCPs (52-72%) would consider entering CYP with JIA into a trial randomising to modes of administration. P14 Table 1 Reasons of CS Choice Number N = 39 Percentage % High Disease Activity 35 89.7 Rapid induction of remission 34 87.18 Severity of Systemic JIA 34 87.18 Level of inflammation 32 82.5 Severe Uveitis 30 76.92 JIA subtype 27 68.21 Targeting Specific Joints 26 66.67 Level of Disability 18 46.15 Level of pain 16 41.03 Long-standing Disease 11 28.1 Patient reluctance to take DMARDS 8 20.5 Conclusion The results from this national survey of clinical practice showed varying practices in the management of new CYP with JIA and those that are flaring. The majority of HCPs who completed this survey, indicated that they would be prepared to consider entering CYP into a trial that randomised to the four CS delivery methods. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1462-0324 , 1462-0332

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez415.002

Language: English

Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1474143-X

In: BMJ Open, BMJ, Vol. 9, No. 6 ( 2019-06), p. e025788-

Abstract: Currently, all people with diabetes (PWD) aged 12 years and over in the UK are invited for screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) annually. Resources are not increasing despite a 5% increase in the numbers of PWD nationwide each year. We describe the rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of personalised variable-interval risk-based screening for DR. This is the first randomised trial of personalised screening for DR and the largest ophthalmic RCT in the UK. Methods and analysis PWD attending seven screening clinics in the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Screening Programme were recruited into a single site RCT with a 1:1 allocation to individualised risk-based variable-interval or annual screening intervals. A risk calculation engine developed for the trial estimates the probability that an individual will develop referable disease (screen positive DR) within the next 6, 12 or 24 months using demographic, retinopathy and systemic risk factor data from primary care and screening programme records. Dynamic, secure, real-time data connections have been developed. The primary outcome is attendance for follow-up screening. We will test for equivalence in attendance rates between the two arms. Secondary outcomes are rates and severity of DR, visual outcomes, cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life. The required sample size was 4460 PWD. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from National Research Ethics Service Committee North West – Preston, reference 14/NW/0034. Results will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. This pragmatic RCT will inform screening policy in the UK and elsewhere. Trial registration number ISRCTN87561257 ; Pre-results.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2044-6055 , 2044-6055

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025788

Language: English

Publisher: BMJ

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2599832-8

In: Trials, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 16, No. S2 ( 2015-12)

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1745-6215

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-O59

Language: English

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Publication Date: 2015

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2040523-6

In: Health Technology Assessment, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Vol. 24, No. 57 ( 2020-11), p. 1-190

Abstract: Clinical trials show that antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters reduce catheter-related bloodstream infection in adults and children receiving intensive care, but there is insufficient evidence for use in newborn babies. Objectives The objectives were (1) to determine clinical effectiveness by conducting a randomised controlled trial comparing antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters for reducing bloodstream or cerebrospinal fluid infections (referred to as bloodstream infections); (2) to conduct an economic evaluation of the costs, cost-effectiveness and value of conducting additional research; and (3) to conduct a generalisability analysis of trial findings to neonatal care in the NHS. Design Three separate studies were undertaken, each addressing one of the three objectives. (1) This was a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic randomised controlled trial; (2) an analysis was undertaken of hospital care costs, lifetime cost-effectiveness and value of information from an NHS perspective; and (3) this was a retrospective cohort study of bloodstream infection rates in neonatal units in England. Setting The randomised controlled trial was conducted in 18 neonatal intensive care units in England. Participants Participants were babies who required a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (of 1 French gauge in size). Interventions The interventions were an antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter (coated with rifampicin–miconazole) or a standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, allocated randomly (1 : 1) using web randomisation. Main outcome measure Study 1 – time to first bloodstream infection, sampled between 24 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal. Study 2 – cost-effectiveness of the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter compared with the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Study 3 – risk-adjusted bloodstream rates in the trial compared with those in neonatal units in England. For study 3, the data used were as follows: (1) case report forms and linked death registrations; (2) case report forms and linked death registrations linked to administrative health records with 6-month follow-up; and (3) neonatal health records linked to infection surveillance data. Results Study 1, clinical effectiveness – 861 babies were randomised (antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter, n  = 430; standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, n  = 431). Bloodstream infections occurred in 46 babies (10.7%) randomised to antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters and in 44 (10.2%) babies randomised to standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. No difference in time to bloodstream infection was detected (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.67; p  = 0.63). Secondary outcomes of rifampicin resistance in positive blood/cerebrospinal fluid cultures, mortality, clinical outcomes at neonatal unit discharge and time to peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal were similar in both groups. Rifampicin resistance in positive peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip cultures was higher in the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter group (relative risk 3.51, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 10.57; p  = 0.02) than in the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter group. Adverse events were similar in both groups. Study 2, economic evaluation – the mean cost of babies’ hospital care was £83,473. Antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters were not cost-effective. Given the increased price, compared with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters, the minimum reduction in risk of bloodstream infection for antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters to be cost-effective was 3% and 15% for babies born at 23–27 and 28–32 weeks’ gestation, respectively. Study 3, generalisability analysis – risk-adjusted bloodstream infection rates per 1000 peripherally inserted central venous catheter days were similar among babies in the trial and in all neonatal units. Of all bloodstream infections in babies receiving intensive or high-dependency care in neonatal units, 46% occurred during peripherally inserted central venous catheter days. Limitations The trial was open label as antimicrobial-impregnated and standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters are different colours. There was insufficient power to determine differences in rifampicin resistance. Conclusions No evidence of benefit or harm was found of peripherally inserted central venous catheters impregnated with rifampicin–miconazole during neonatal care. Interventions with small effects on bloodstream infections could be cost-effective over a child’s life course. Findings were generalisable to neonatal units in England. Future research should focus on other types of antimicrobial impregnation of peripherally inserted central venous catheters and alternative approaches for preventing bloodstream infections in neonatal care. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81931394. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1366-5278 , 2046-4924

URL: Article

DOI: 10.3310/hta24570

Language: English

Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research

Publication Date: 2020

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2059206-1

In: The Lancet, Elsevier BV, Vol. 387, No. 10029 ( 2016-04), p. 1732-1742

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0140-6736

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00340-8

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2016

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2067452-1

detail.hit.zdb_id: 3306-6

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1476593-7

SSG: 5,21

In: BMC Infectious Diseases, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2021-12)

Abstract: SARS-CoV-2 is frequently shed in the stool of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The extent of faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 among individuals in the community, and its potential to contribute to spread of disease, is unknown. Methods In this prospective, observational cohort study among households in Liverpool, UK, participants underwent weekly nasal/throat swabbing to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus, over a 12-week period from enrolment starting July 2020. Participants that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asked to provide a stool sample three and 14 days later. In addition, in October and November 2020, during a period of high community transmission, stool sampling was undertaken to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding among all study participants. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected using Real-Time PCR. Results A total of 434 participants from 176 households were enrolled. Eighteen participants (4.2%: 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–6.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus on nasal/throat swabs and of these, 3/17 (18%: 95% CI 4–43%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in stool. Two of three participants demonstrated ongoing faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, without gastrointestinal symptoms, after testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. Among 165/434 participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection and who took part in the prevalence study, none had SARS-CoV-2 in stool. There was no demonstrable household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among households containing a participant with faecal shedding. Conclusions Faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 occurred among community participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, during a period of high community transmission, faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 was not detected among participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is unlikely that the faecal-oral route plays a significant role in household and community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 1471-2334

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06443-7

Language: English

Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Publication Date: 2021

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2041550-3

In: The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, Elsevier BV, Vol. 3, No. 6 ( 2019-06), p. 381-390

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 2352-4642

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/S2352-4642(19)30114-2

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2019

In: The Lancet, Elsevier BV, Vol. 394, No. 10208 ( 2019-10), p. 1530-1539

Type of Medium: Online Resource

ISSN: 0140-6736

URL: Article

DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31603-4

Language: English

Publisher: Elsevier BV

Publication Date: 2019

detail.hit.zdb_id: 2067452-1

detail.hit.zdb_id: 3306-6

detail.hit.zdb_id: 1476593-7

SSG: 5,21