Transition of care for adolescents from paediatric services to adult health services. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4), [CD009794].

SummaryBackgroundOptimum surgical intervention for low-grade haemorrhoids is unknown. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) has been proposed as an efficacious, safe therapy while rubber band ligation (RBL) is a commonly used outpatient treatment. We compared recurrence after HAL versus RBL in patients with grade II–III haemorrhoids.MethodsThis multicentre, open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial included patients from 17 acute UK NHS trusts. We screened patients aged 18 years or older presenting with grade II–III haemorrhoids. We excluded patients who had previously received any haemorrhoid surgery, more than one injection treatment for haemorrhoids, or more than one RBL procedure within 3 years before recruitment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either RBL or HAL with Doppler. Randomisation was computer-generated and stratified by centre with blocks of random sizes. Allocation concealment was achieved using a web-based system. The study was open-label with no masking of participants, clinicians, or research staff. The primary outcome was recurrence at 1 year, derived from the patient's self-reported assessment in combination with resource use from their general practitioner and hospital records. Recurrence was analysed in patients who had undergone one of the interventions and been followed up for at least 1 year. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN41394716.FindingsFrom Sept 9, 2012, to May 6, 2014, of 969 patients screened, 185 were randomly assigned to the HAL group and 187 to the RBL group. Of these participants, 337 had primary outcome data (176 in the RBL group and 161 in the HAL group). At 1 year post-procedure, 87 (49%) of 176 patients in the RBL group and 48 (30%) of 161 patients in the HAL group had haemorrhoid recurrence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2·23, 95% CI 1·42–3·51; p=0·0005). The main reason for this difference was the number of extra procedures required to achieve improvement (57 [32%] participants in the RBL group and 23 [14%] participants in the HAL group had a subsequent procedure for haemorrhoids). The mean pain 1 day after procedure was 3·4 (SD 2·8) in the RBL group and 4·6 (2·8) in the HAL group (difference −1·2, 95% CI −1·8 to −0·5; p=0·0002); at day 7 the scores were 1·6 (2·3) in the RBL group and 3·1 (2·4) in the HAL group (difference −1·5, −2·0 to −1·0; p<0·0001). Pain scores did not differ between groups at 21 days and 6 weeks. 15 individuals reported serious adverse events requiring hospital admission. One patient in the RBL group had a pre-existing rectal tumour. Of the remaining 14 serious adverse events, 12 (7%) were among participants treated with HAL and two (1%) were in those treated with RBL. Six patients had pain (one treated with RBL, five treated with HAL), three had bleeding not requiring transfusion (one treated with RBL, two treated with HAL), two in the HAL group had urinary retention, two in the HAL group had vasovagal upset, and one in the HAL group had possible sepsis (treated with antibiotics).Interpr...

Objectives We aimed to derive and validate a triage tool, based on clinical assessment alone, for predicting adverse outcome in acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 infection. Methods We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 emergency departments across the United Kingdom (UK). We collected presenting data from 22445 people attending with suspected COVID-19 between 26 March 2020 and 28 May 2020. The primary outcome was death or organ support (respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal) by record review at 30 days. We split the cohort into derivation and validation sets, developed a clinical score based on the coefficients from multivariable analysis using the derivation set, and the estimated discriminant performance using the validation set. Results We analysed 11773 derivation and 9118 validation cases. Multivariable analysis identified that age, sex, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation/inspired oxygen ratio, performance status, consciousness, history of renal impairment, and respiratory distress were retained in analyses restricted to the ten or fewer predictors. We used findings from multivariable analysis and clinical judgement to develop a score based on the NEWS2 score, age, sex, and performance status. This had a c-statistic of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.79–0.81) in the validation cohort and predicted adverse outcome with sensitivity 0.98 (0.97–0.98) and specificity 0.34 (0.34–0.35) for scores above four points. Conclusion A clinical score based on NEWS2, age, sex, and performance status predicts adverse outcome with good discrimination in adults with suspected COVID-19 and can be used to support decision-making in emergency care. Registration ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN28342533, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN28342533

Childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been associated with reduced health and well-being of patients and their families. The authors undertook a large UK survey-based observational study of the burden associated with childhood ADHD. The impact of ADHD on both the patient (N = 476) and their siblings (N = 337) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and happiness was quantified using multiple standard measures [e.g. child health utility-9D (CHU-9D), EuroQol-5D-Youth]. In the analysis, careful statistical adjustments were made to ensure a like-for-like comparison of ADHD families with two different control groups. We controlled for carers’ ADHD symptoms, their employment and relationship status and siblings’ ADHD symptoms. ADHD was associated with a significant deficit in the patient’s HRQoL (with a CHU-9D score of around 6 % lower). Children with ADHD also have less sleep and were less happy with their family and their lives overall. No consistent decrement to the HRQoL of the siblings was identified across the models, except that related to their own conduct problems. The siblings do, however, report lower happiness with life overall and with their family, even when controlling for the siblings own ADHD symptoms. We also find evidence of elevated bullying between siblings in families with a child with ADHD. Overall, the current results suggest that the reduction in quality of life caused by ADHD is experienced both by the child with ADHD and their siblings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00787-016-0841-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects > 3 million people in the UK. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are the second most common reason for emergency hospital admission in the UK. Pulmonary rehabilitation is usual care for stable COPD but there is little evidence for early pulmonary rehabilitation (EPR) following AECOPD, either in hospital or immediately post discharge.ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of recruiting patients, collecting data and delivering EPR to patients with AECOPD to evaluate EPR compared with usual care.DesignParallel-group, pilot 2 × 2 factorial randomised trial with nested qualitative research and an economic analysis.SettingTwo acute hospital NHS trusts. Recruitment was carried out from September 2015 to April 2016 and follow-up was completed in July 2016.ParticipantsEligible patients were those aged ≥ 35 years who were admitted with AECOPD, who were non-acidotic and who maintained their blood oxygen saturation level (SpO2) within a prescribed range. Exclusions included the presence of comorbidities that affected the ability to undertake the interventions.Interventions(1) Hospital EPR: muscle training delivered at the patient’s hospital bed using a cycle ergometer and (2) home EPR: a pulmonary rehabilitation programme delivered in the patient’s home. Both interventions were delivered by trained physiotherapists. Participants were allocated on a 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to (1) hospital EPR (n = 14), (2) home EPR (n = 15), (3) hospital EPR and home EPR (n = 14) and (4) control (n = 15). Outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation; it was not possible to blind patients.Main outcome measuresFeasibility of recruiting 76 participants in 7 months at two centres; intervention delivery; views on intervention/research acceptability; clinical outcomes including the 6-minute walk distance (6WMD); and costs. Semistructured interviews with participants (n = 27) and research health professionals (n = 11), optimisation assessments and an economic analysis were also undertaken.ResultsOver 7 months 449 patients were screened, of whom most were not eligible for the trial or felt too ill/declined entry. In total, 58 participants (76%) of the target 76 participants were recruited to the trial. The primary clinical outcome (6MWD) was difficult to collect (hospital EPR,n = 5; home EPR,n = 6; hospital EPR and home EPR,n = 5; control,n = 5). Hospital EPR was difficult to deliver over 5 days because of patient discharge/staff availability, with 34.1% of the scheduled sessions delivered compared with 78.3% of the home EPR sessions. Serious adverse events were experienced by 26 participants (45%), none of which was related to the interventions. Interviewed participants generally found both interventions to be acceptable. Home EPR had a higher rate of acceptability, mainly because patients felt too unwell when in hospital to undergo hospital EPR. Physiotherapists generally found the interventions to be acceptable and valued them but found delivery difficult because of staffing issues. The health economic analysis results suggest that there would be value in conducting a larger trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of the hospital EPR and hospital EPR plus home EPR trial arms and collect more information to inform the hospital cost and quality-adjusted life-year parameters, which were shown to be key drivers of the model.ConclusionsA full-scale randomised controlled trial using this protocol would not be feasible. Recruitment and delivery of the hospital EPR intervention was difficult. The data obtained can be used to design a full-scale trial of home EPR. Because of the small sample and large confidence intervals, this study should not be used to inform clinical practice.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN18634494.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundOptimal surgical intervention for low-grade haemorrhoids is unknown. Rubber band ligation (RBL) is probably the most common intervention. Haemorrhoidal artery ligation (HAL) is a novel alternative that may be more efficacious.ObjectiveThe comparison of HAL with RBL for the treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids.DesignA multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial.PerspectiveUK NHS and Personal Social Services.Setting17 NHS Trusts.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 18 years presenting with grade II/III (second- and third-degree) haemorrhoids, including those who have undergone previous RBL.InterventionsHAL with Doppler probe compared with RBL.OutcomesPrimary outcome – recurrence at 1 year post procedure; secondary outcomes – recurrence at 6 weeks; haemorrhoid severity score; European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, 5-level version (EQ-5D-5L); Vaizey incontinence score; pain assessment; complications; and cost-effectiveness.ResultsA total of 370 participants entered the trial. At 1 year post procedure, 30% of the HAL group had evidence of recurrence compared with 49% after RBL [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 3.51;p = 0.0005]. The main reason for the difference was the number of extra procedures required to achieve improvement/cure. If a single HAL is compared with multiple RBLs then only 37.5% recurred in the RBL arm (adjusted OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15;p = 0.20). Persistence of significant symptoms at 6 weeks was lower in both arms than at 1 year (9% HAL and 29% RBL), suggesting significant deterioration in both groups over the year. Symptom score, EQ-5D-5L and Vaizey score improved in both groups compared with baseline, but there was no difference between interventions. Pain was less severe and of shorter duration in the RBL group; most of the HAL group who had pain had mild to moderate pain, resolving by 3 weeks. Complications were low frequency and not significantly different between groups. It appeared that HAL was not cost-effective compared with RBL. In the base-case analysis, the difference in mean total costs was £1027 higher for HAL. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for HAL; however, the difference was very small (0.01) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £104,427 per additional QALY.ConclusionsAt 1 year, although HAL resulted in fewer recurrences, recurrence was similar to repeat RBL. Symptom scores, complications, EQ-5D-5L and continence score were no different, and patients had more pain in the early postoperative period after HAL. HAL is more expensive and unlikely to be cost-effective in terms of incremental cost per QALY.LimitationsBlinding of participants and site staff was not possible.Future workThe incidence of recurrence may continue to increase with time. Further follow-up would add to the evidence regarding long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The polysymptomatic nature of haemorrhoidal disease requires a validated scoring system, and the data from this trial will allow further assessment of validity of such a system. These data add to the literature regarding treatment of grade II/III haemorrhoids. The results dovetail with results from the eTHoS study [Watson AJM, Hudson J, Wood J, Kilonzo M, Brown SR, McDonald A,et al.Comparison of stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease (eTHoS): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.Lancet2016, in press.] comparing stapled haemorrhoidectomy with excisional haemorrhoidectomy. Combined results will allow expansion of analysis, allowing surgeons to tailor their treatment options to individual patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN41394716.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 88. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundAdequate reporting of adaptive designs (ADs) maximises their potential benefits in the conduct of clinical trials. Transparent reporting can help address some obstacles and concerns relating to the use of ADs. Currently, there are deficiencies in the reporting of AD trials. To overcome this, we have developed a consensus-driven extension to the CONSORT statement for randomised trials using an AD. This paper describes the processes and methods used to develop this extension rather than detailed explanation of the guideline.MethodsWe developed the guideline in seven overlapping stages:Building on prior research to inform the need for a guideline;A scoping literature review to inform future stages;Drafting the first checklist version involving an External Expert Panel;A two-round Delphi process involving international, multidisciplinary, and cross-sector key stakeholders;A consensus meeting to advise which reporting items to retain through voting, and to discuss the structure of what to include in the supporting explanation and elaboration (E&E) document;Refining and finalising the checklist; andWriting-up and dissemination of the E&E document.The CONSORT Executive Group oversaw the entire development process.ResultsDelphi survey response rates were 94/143 (66%), 114/156 (73%), and 79/143 (55%) in rounds 1, 2, and across both rounds, respectively. Twenty-seven delegates from Europe, the USA, and Asia attended the consensus meeting. The main checklist has seven new and nine modified items and six unchanged items with expanded E&E text to clarify further considerations for ADs. The abstract checklist has one new and one modified item together with an unchanged item with expanded E&E text. The E&E document will describe the scope of the guideline, the definition of an AD, and some types of ADs and trial adaptations and explain each reporting item in detail including case studies.ConclusionsWe hope that making the development processes, methods, and all supporting information that aided decision-making transparent will enhance the acceptability and quick uptake of the guideline. This will also help other groups when developing similar CONSORT extensions. The guideline is applicable to all randomised trials with an AD and contains minimum reporting requirements.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1196-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits.