Conectar
The Circle of Security-Parenting (COS-P) group intervention has demonstrated efficacy in reducing maternal perinatal mental health difficulty (PMHD) symptoms in some contexts. The Circle of Security Intervention (COSI) study, a multisite, individually randomised, single-blind, parallel-arm controlled trial, was conducted in England to assess the clinical effectiveness of COS-P in reducing perinatal psychopathology, parenting and infant development, as well as its acceptability among the National Health Service (NHS) participants and staff. The main aim of this work is to estimate the cost-utility of COS-P plus treatment as usual (TAU) relative to TAU among mothers and birthing parents receiving NHS perinatal mental health services (PMHS) in England.
A within-trial economic evaluation was performed comparing COS-P plus TAU with TAU alone, using data from the COSI trial, which employed a 2:1 randomisation ratio. Analyses were conducted from both NHS and personal social services (PSS) and societal perspectives. A 12-month time horizon was used, consistent with the final trial follow-up.
Secondary care NHS perinatal health services across multiple centres in England.
A total of 371 mothers and birthing parents with PMHD were randomised and had complete economic outcome data; 248 received COS-P plus TAU and 123 received TAU alone. Participants were eligible if they were receiving NHS PMHS; exclusion criteria were defined in the trial protocol.
Participants in the intervention arm received the COS-P group programme in addition to TAU. The control group received TAU alone.
The primary economic outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 12 months, derived from the 5-level EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire - responses. Costs were estimated from NHS and PSS as well as societal perspectives, including healthcare utilisation and productivity losses due to work absence.
Compared with TAU, COS-P was associated with higher costs from both NHS and PSS (£180.58; 95% CI –£1075 to £1436) and societal (£72.94; 95% CI –£1473 to £1619) perspectives. COS-P was marginally less effective in terms of QALYs (–0.01; 95% CI –0.06 to 0.05). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated substantial uncertainty around cost and effectiveness estimates.
On average, COS-P was associated with higher costs and did not demonstrate improvements in health-related quality of life compared with TAU alone. Given the uncertainty surrounding the estimates, further research is warranted to explore potential longer term economic and clinical impacts of COS-P in perinatal mental health settings.
SRCTN18308962.
To determine the safety and efficacy of ruxolitinib (RUX) and fostamatinib (FOS) compared with standard of care (SOC) in patients requiring hospital admission for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia.
Adaptive multiarm, multistage, randomised, open-label trial (three arm, two stage).
Five hospitals in England between October 2020 and September 2022.
Hospitalised patients (≥18 years) with COVID-19 pneumonia defined by a modified WHO COVID-19 severity grade of 3 or 4.
Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive RUX (10 mg two times per day for 7 days then 5 mg two times per day for 7 days), FOS (150 mg two times per day for 7 days then 100 mg two times per day for 7 days) or SOC.
Primary outcome was development of severe COVID-19 pneumonia (modified WHO severity grade≥5) within 14 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes included mortality, invasive and non-invasive ventilation, venous thromboembolism, duration of hospital stay, readmissions, inflammatory markers and serious adverse events (SAEs).
At stage 1, 181 patients were randomised, with 4 assessed as ineligible post randomisation. FOS was stopped early for futility with 16 participants (27.6%, n=58) developing severe COVID-19 pneumonia compared with 15 (25.0%, n=60) in the SOC arm (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) compared with SOC: 1.12; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.58; p=0.608). RUX progressed to stage 2 but the trial was stopped early due to slow recruitment. At the final analysis, 10 participants (16.1%, n=62) developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia in the RUX arm compared with 15 (24.6%, n=61) in the SOC arm (aOR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.57; p=0.161). Four (7.4%) participants in the FOS arm, none in the RUX arm and three (5.5%) in the SOC arm died within 14 days of randomisation. Infections were the most frequently reported SAE and were numerically higher in the FOS (10, 17.2%) and RUX (10, 16.1%) arms compared with SOC (7, 11.5%). Two unexpected serious adverse reactions occurred in the RUX arm only.
We found no evidence that FOS was superior to SOC for the treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients requiring hospital admission. Due to early stopping, the trial was underpowered to establish RUX’s effect in this population. Further study is needed.
NCT04581954; EUDRA-CT:
FreshRSS 