scholarly journals DiPALS: Diaphragm Pacing in patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis – a randomised controlled trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (45) ◽  
pp. 1-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J McDermott ◽  
Mike J Bradburn ◽  
Chin Maguire ◽  
Cindy L Cooper ◽  
Wendy O Baird ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Diaphragm Pacing ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Lateral Sclerosis

BackgroundAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disease resulting in death, usually from respiratory failure, within 2–3 years of symptom onset. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is a treatment that when given to patients in respiratory failure leads to improved survival and quality of life. Diaphragm pacing (DP), using the NeuRx/4®diaphragm pacing system (DPS)™ (Synapse Biomedical, Oberlin, OH, USA), is a new technique that may offer additional or alternative benefits to patients with ALS who are in respiratory failure.ObjectiveThe Diaphragm Pacing in patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (DiPALS) trial evaluated the effect of DP on survival over the study duration in patients with ALS with respiratory failure.DesignThe DiPALS trial was a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial incorporating health economic analyses and a qualitative longitudinal substudy.ParticipantsEligible participants had a diagnosis of ALS (ALS laboratory-supported probable, clinically probable or clinically definite according to the World Federation of Neurology revised El Escorial criteria), had been stabilised on riluzole for 30 days, were aged ≥ 18 years and were in respiratory failure. We planned to recruit 108 patients from seven UK-based specialist ALS or respiratory centres. Allocation was performed using 1 : 1 non-deterministic minimisation.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to either standard care (NIV alone) or standard care (NIV) plus DP using the NeuRX/4 DPS.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause. Secondary outcomes were patient quality of life [assessed by European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, three levels (EQ-5D-3L), Short Form questionnaire-36 items and Sleep Apnoea Quality of Life Index questionnaire]; carer quality of life (EQ-5D-3L and Caregiver Burden Inventory); cost–utility analysis and health-care resource use; tolerability and adverse events. Acceptability and attitudes to DP were assessed in a qualitative substudy.ResultsIn total, 74 participants were randomised into the trial and analysed, 37 participants to NIV plus pacing and 37 to standard care, before the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee advised initial suspension of recruitment (December 2013) and subsequent discontinuation of pacing (on safety grounds) in all patients (June 2014). Follow-up assessments continued until the planned end of the study in December 2014. The median survival (interquartile range) was 22.5 months (lower quartile 11.8 months; upper quartile not reached) in the NIV arm and 11.0 months (6.7 to 17.0 months) in the NIV plus pacing arm, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.27 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.25;p = 0.01).ConclusionsDiaphragmatic pacing should not be used as a routine treatment for patients with ALS in respiratory failure.Future workIt may be that certain population subgroups benefit from DP. We are unable to explain the mechanism behind the excess mortality in the pacing arm, something the small trial size cannot help address. Future research should investigate the mechanism by which harm or benefit occurs further.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN53817913.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 45. See the HTA programme website for further project information. Additional funding was provided by the Motor Neurone Disease Association of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Nature stroke study; NASTRU - A randomised controlled trial of nature-based post-stroke fatigue rehabilitation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna María Pálsdóttir ◽  
Kjerstin Stigmar ◽  
Bo Norrving ◽  
Patrik Grahn ◽  
Ingemar F Petersson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Perceived Value ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Fatigue is common after stroke and contributes to disability and impaired quality of life. Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the efficacy of any intervention for post-stroke fatigue. The aim of the study was to examine whether 10 weeks Nature-based rehabilitation (NRB) as add-on to standard care may improve post-stroke fatigue, perceived value of everyday occupations, function, activity and participation compared to standard care only (Clinical Trial.gov Identifier: NCT02435043, 2012/352, 05-06-2015). The study was carried out as a single blinded two-armed randomised controlled trial. Stroke survivors identified through routine 3-month follow-up visit (sub-acute) or medical records (chronic stroke > 1 year earlier) were randomised to Standard care + NBR or Standard care only. Blinded evaluations were conducted at follow-up 8 and 14 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes were post-stroke fatigue (Mental Fatigue Scale, total score) and perceived value of everyday occupations (Oval-pd) 8 months after randomisation. About a quarter of the screened patients were eligible; half accepted to participate and 101 were randomised, mean age 67 years, 60% female. The patients with sub-acute stroke were highly compliant with the intervention. Fatigue decreased to a value below the suggested cut-off for mental fatigue (<10.5) in the intervention group but not in the control group; no statistically significant differences were found though between the groups. Conclusion: NASTRU is the first randomised study on NBR for patients with post stroke fatigue. NBR was feasible and well tolerated. The study was underpowered due to difficulties in recruiting participants. No significant differences were detected between intervention and control group. A larger RCT is warranted. Keywords: clinical trial, enriched environment, everyday occupations, horticulture therapy, quality of life.

scholarly journals A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal uterine bleeding

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (61) ◽  
pp. 1-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Justin Clark ◽  
Lee J Middleton ◽  
Natalie AM Cooper ◽  
Lavanya Diwakar ◽  
Elaine Denny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Inpatient Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Abnormal Uterine Bleeding ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Uterine Bleeding ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Uterine Polyps

BackgroundUterine polyps cause abnormal bleeding in women and conventional practice is to remove them in hospital under general anaesthetic. Advances in technology make it possible to perform polypectomy in an outpatient setting, yet evidence of effectiveness is limited.ObjectivesTo test the hypothesis that in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) associated with benign uterine polyp(s), outpatient polyp treatment achieved as good, or no more than 25% worse, alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months compared with standard inpatient treatment. The hypothesis that response to uterine polyp treatment differed according to the pattern of AUB, menopausal status and longer-term follow-up was tested. The cost-effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient polypectomy was examined.DesignA multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, incorporating a cost-effectiveness analysis and supplemented by a parallel patient preference study. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study.SettingOutpatient hysteroscopy clinics and inpatient gynaecology departments within UK NHS hospitals.ParticipantsWomen with AUB – defined as heavy menstrual bleeding (formerly known as menorrhagia) (HMB), intermenstrual bleeding or postmenopausal bleeding – and hysteroscopically diagnosed uterine polyps.InterventionsWe randomly assigned 507 women, using a minimisation algorithm, to outpatient polypectomy compared with conventional inpatient polypectomy as a day case in hospital under general anaesthesia.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was successful treatment at 6 months, determined by the woman’s assessment of her bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, procedure feasibility, acceptability and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.ResultsAt 6 months, 73% (166/228) of women who underwent outpatient polypectomy were successfully treated compared with 80% (168/211) following inpatient polypectomy [relative risk (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.02]. The lower end of the CIs showed that outpatient polypectomy was at most 18% worse, in relative terms, than inpatient treatment, within the 25% margin of non-inferiority set at the outset of the study. By 1 and 2 years the corresponding proportions were similar producing RRs close to unity. There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed according to any of the predefined subgroups when treatments by variable interaction parameters were examined. Failure to completely remove polyps was higher (19% vs. 7%; RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1) with outpatient polypectomy. Procedure acceptability was reduced with outpatient compared with inpatient polyp treatment (83% vs. 92%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). There were no significant differences in quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at 6 and 12 months for inpatient treatment were £1,099,167 and £668,800 per additional QALY, respectively.ConclusionsWhen treating women with AUB associated with uterine polyps, outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy at 6 and 12 months, and relatively cost-effective. However, patients need to be aware that failure to remove a polyp is more likely with outpatient polypectomy and procedure acceptability lower.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 65868569.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Evaluation of a complex intervention (Engager) for prisoners with common mental health problems, near to and after release: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e017931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Kirkpatrick ◽  
Charlotte Lennox ◽  
Rod Taylor ◽  
Rob Anderson ◽  
Michael Maguire ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Mental Health ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Common Mental Health Problems ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Drug And Alcohol

IntroductionThe ‘Engager’ programme is a ‘through-the-gate’ intervention designed to support prisoners with common mental health problems as they transition from prison back into the community. The trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Engager intervention.Methods and analysisThe study is a parallel two-group randomised controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation to either: (a) the Engager intervention plus standard care (intervention group) or (b) standard care alone (control group) across two investigation centres (South West and North West of England). Two hundred and eighty prisoners meeting eligibility criteria will take part. Engager is a person-centred complex intervention delivered by practitioners and aimed at addressing offenders’ mental health and social care needs. It comprises one-to-one support for participants prior to release from prison and for up to 20 weeks postrelease. The primary outcome is change in psychological distress measured by the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure at 6 months postrelease. Secondary outcomes include: assessment of subjective met/unmet need, drug and alcohol use, health-related quality of life and well-being-related quality of life measured at 3, 6 and 12 months postrelease; change in objective social domains, drug and alcohol dependence, service utilisation and perceived helpfulness of services and change in psychological constructs related to desistence at 6 and 12 months postrelease; and recidivism at 12 months postrelease. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate the cost-effectiveness.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Wales Research Ethics Committee 3 (ref: 15/WA/0314) and the National Offender Management Service (ref: 2015–283). Findings will be disseminated to commissioners, clinicians and service users via papers and presentations.Trial registration numberISRCTN11707331; Pre-results.

Survival and quality of life after tracheostomy for acute respiratory failure in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 329.e7-329.e14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Vianello ◽  
Giovanna Arcaro ◽  
Arianna Palmieri ◽  
Mario Ermani ◽  
Fausto Braccioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ◽  
Respiratory Failure ◽  
Acute Respiratory Failure ◽  
Lateral Sclerosis

scholarly journals Nutritional counseling with or without mobile health technology: a randomized open-label standard-of-care-controlled trial in ALS

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie M Wills ◽  
Jamie Garry ◽  
Jane Hubbard ◽  
Taylor Mezoian ◽  
Christopher T Breen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Calorie Intake ◽  
Nutritional Counseling ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Lateral Sclerosis

Abstract Background: Nutritional status is an important prognostic factor in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). We wished to study the safety, tolerability and efficacy of nutritional counseling with or without an mHealth application to maintain or increase body weight in ALS, compared to standard care. Methods: In this randomized open-label, standard-of-care-controlled, single-center clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with ALS to one of three nutritional interventions: counseling by their physician or nurse (“standard care”), counseling by a registered dietitian (RD) (“in-person”), or counseling supported by a mHealth app (“mHealth”). Both intervention arms received tailored nutrition recommendations and recorded dietary intake and weight biweekly (mHealth) or monthly (in-person). The primary outcome of weight and secondary and tertiary outcomes of calorie intake, ALSFRS-R, and quality of life (QOL) were recorded at each clinic visit and analyzed in an ITT mixed model analysis. Results: A total of 88 participants were enrolled of whom 78 were included in this analysis. The three arms were well-balanced except for excess males in the mHealth arm and greater weight lost at baseline in the in-person arm. Participants in the mHealth arm increased their calorie intake at month 3 to an average of 94% (95% CI: 85, 103) of recommended calories, compared to 81% (95% CI: 72, 91, p= 0.06 vs. mHealth) in the standard care arm. After 6 months, calorie intake and change in weight was not different among the three arms. QOL scores in the mHealth arm were stable over three months (0.3 points, 95% CI: -1.7, 2.2) compared to worsening in standard care (-2.1 points, 95% CI: -4.0, -0.2, p = 0.09 vs. mHealth), but all scores declined by six months. ALSFRS-R total scores declined by an average of -2.6 points (95% CI: -5.1, -0.1) over six months in the mHealth arm (p=0.13 vs. standard care) compared to -5.8 points (95% CI: -8.2, -3.4, p=0.74 vs. standard care) in the in-person and -5.2 points (95% CI: -7.6, -2.9) in the standard care arm. Conclusions: Nutritional counseling is safe but did not increase weight compared to standard care in ALS patients. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02418546. Registered April 16, 2015. Keywords: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, ALS, Neurodegenerative disease, mobile health technology, mHealth, nutrition, nutritional counseling, randomized controlled trial

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document