scholarly journals Early, specialist vocational rehabilitation to facilitate return to work after traumatic brain injury: the FRESH feasibility RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (33) ◽  
pp. 1-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Radford ◽  
Chris Sutton ◽  
Tracey Sach ◽  
Jain Holmes ◽  
Caroline Watkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Work Ability ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Face To Face

BackgroundUp to 160,000 people incur traumatic brain injury (TBI) each year in the UK. TBI can have profound effects on many areas of human functioning, including participation in work. There is limited evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation (VR) after injury to promote early return to work (RTW) following TBI.ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of a definitive, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early, specialist VR plus usual care (UC) compared with UC alone on work retention 12 months post TBI.DesignA multicentre, feasibility, parallel-group RCT with a feasibility economic evaluation and an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation. Randomisation was by remote computer-generated allocation.SettingThree NHS major trauma centres (MTCs) in England.ParticipantsAdults with TBI admitted for > 48 hours and working or studying prior to injury.InterventionsEarly specialist TBI VR delivered by occupational therapists (OTs) in the community using a case co-ordination model.Main outcome measuresSelf-reported RTW 12 months post randomisation, mood, functional ability, participation, work self-efficacy, quality of life and work ability. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment and retention rates. Follow-up was by postal questionnaires in two centres and face to face in one centre. Those collecting data were blind to treatment allocation.ResultsOut of 102 target participants, 78 were recruited (39 randomised to each arm), representing 39% of those eligible and 5% of those screened. Approximately 2.2 patients were recruited per site per month. Of those, 56% had mild injuries, 18% had moderate injuries and 26% had severe injuries. A total of 32 out of 45 nominated carers were recruited. A total of 52 out of 78 (67%) TBI participants responded at 12 months (UC,n = 23; intervention,n = 29), completing 90% of the work questions; 21 out of 23 (91%) UC respondents and 20 out of 29 (69%) intervention participants returned to work at 12 months. Two participants disengaged from the intervention. Face-to-face follow-up was no more effective than postal follow-up. RTW was most strongly related to social participation and work self-efficacy. It is feasible to assess the cost-effectiveness of VR. Intervention was delivered as intended and valued by participants. Factors likely to affect a definitive trial include deploying experienced OTs, no clear TBI definition or TBI registers, and repatriation of more severe TBI from MTCs, affecting recruitment of those most likely to benefit/least likely to drop out.LimitationsTarget recruitment was not reached, but mechanisms to achieve this in future studies were identified. Retention was lower than expected, particularly in UC, potentially biasing estimates of the 12-month RTW rate.ConclusionsThis study met most feasibility objectives. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. When objectives were not met, strategies to ensure feasibility of a full trial were identified. Future work should test two-stage recruitment and include resources to recruit from ‘spokes’. A broader measure covering work ability, self-efficacy and participation may be a more sensitive outcome.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN38581822.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. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Prophylactic levofloxacin to prevent infections in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma: the TEAMM RCT

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (62) ◽  
pp. 1-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark T Drayson ◽  
Stella Bowcock ◽  
Tim Planche ◽  
Gulnaz Iqbal ◽  
Guy Pratt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Febrile Episodes

Background Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent serious infections. There are approximately 5500 new UK cases of myeloma per annum, and one-quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. Newly diagnosed patients may benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection. However, the use of prophylaxis has not been established in myeloma and may be associated with health-care-associated infections (HCAIs), such as Clostridium difficile. There is a need to assess the benefits and cost-effectiveness of the use of antibacterial prophylaxis against any risks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial. Objectives To assess the risks, benefits and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic levofloxacin in newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma patients. Design Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A central telephone randomisation service used a minimisation computer algorithm to allocate treatments in a 1 : 1 ratio. Setting A total of 93 NHS hospitals throughout England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Participants A total of 977 patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic myeloma. Intervention Patients were randomised to receive levofloxacin or placebo tablets for 12 weeks at the start of antimyeloma treatment. Treatment allocation was blinded and balanced by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate and intention to give high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. Follow-up was at 4-week intervals up to 16 weeks, with a further follow-up at 1 year. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was to assess the number of febrile episodes (or deaths) in the first 12 weeks from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included number of deaths and infection-related deaths, days in hospital, carriage and invasive infections, response to antimyeloma treatment and its relation to infection, quality of life and overall survival within the first 12 weeks and beyond. Results In total, 977 patients were randomised (levofloxacin, n = 489; placebo, n = 488). A total of 134 (27%) events (febrile episodes, n = 119; deaths, n = 15) occurred in the placebo arm and 95 (19%) events (febrile episodes, n = 91; deaths, n = 4) occurred in the levofloxacin arm; the hazard ratio for time to first event (febrile episode or death) within the first 12 weeks was 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.86; p = 0.002). Levofloxacin also reduced other infections (144 infections from 116 patients) compared with placebo (179 infections from 133 patients; p-trend of 0.06). There was no difference in new acquisitions of C. difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Gram-negative organisms when assessed up to 16 weeks. Levofloxacin produced slightly higher quality-adjusted life-year gains over 16 weeks, but had associated higher costs for health resource use. With a median follow-up of 52 weeks, there was no significant difference in overall survival (p = 0.94). Limitations Short duration of prophylactic antibiotics and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions During the 12 weeks from new diagnosis, the addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths without increasing HCAIs or carriage. Future work should aim to establish the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis and should involve the laboratory investigation of immunity, inflammation and disease activity on stored samples funded by the TEAMM (Tackling Early Morbidity and Mortality in Myeloma) National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation grant (reference number 14/24/04). Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51731976. Funding details This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Enhanced motivational interviewing for reducing weight and increasing physical activity in adults with high cardiovascular risk: the MOVE IT three-arm RCT

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (69) ◽  
pp. 1-144
Author(s):  
Khalida Ismail ◽  
Daniel Stahl ◽  
Adam Bayley ◽  
Katherine Twist ◽  
Kurtis Stewart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Motivational Interviewing ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Objective Evidence

Background Motivational interviewing (MI) enhanced with behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and deployed by health trainers targeting multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) may be more effective than interventions targeting a single risk factor. Objectives The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced lifestyle motivational interviewing intervention for patients at high risk of CVD in group settings versus individual settings and usual care (UC) in reducing weight and increasing physical activity (PA) were tested. Design This was a three-arm, single-blind, parallel randomised controlled trial. Setting A total of 135 general practices across all 12 South London Clinical Commissioning Groups were recruited. Participants A total of 1742 participants aged 40–74 years with a ≥ 20.0% risk of a CVD event in the following 10 years were randomised. Interventions The intervention was designed to integrate MI and cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT), delivered by trained healthy lifestyle facilitators in 10 sessions over 1 year, in group or individual format. The control group received UC. Randomisation Simple randomisation was used with computer-generated randomisation blocks. In each block, 10 participants were randomised to the group, individual or UC arm in a 4 : 3 : 3 ratio. Researchers were blind to the allocation. Main outcome measures The primary outcomes are change in weight (kg) from baseline and change in PA (average number of steps per day over 1 week) from baseline at the 24-month follow-up, with an interim follow-up at 12 months. An economic evaluation estimates the relative cost-effectiveness of each intervention. Secondary outcomes include changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and CVD risk score. Results The mean age of participants was 69.75 years (standard deviation 4.11 years), 85.5% were male and 89.4% were white. At the 24-month follow-up, the group and individual intervention arms were not more effective than UC in increasing PA [mean 70.05 steps, 95% confidence interval (CI) –288 to 147.9 steps, and mean 7.24 steps, 95% CI –224.01 to 238.5 steps, respectively] or in reducing weight (mean –0.03 kg, 95% CI –0.49 to 0.44 kg, and mean –0.42 kg, 95% CI –0.93 to 0.09 kg, respectively). At the 12-month follow-up, the group and individual intervention arms were not more effective than UC in increasing PA (mean 131.1 steps, 95% CI –85.28 to 347.48 steps, and mean 210.22 steps, 95% CI –19.46 to 439.91 steps, respectively), but there were reductions in weight for the group and individual intervention arms compared with UC (mean –0.52 kg, 95% CI –0.90 to –0.13 kg, and mean –0.55 kg, 95% CI –0.95 to –0.14 kg, respectively). The group intervention arm was not more effective than the individual intervention arm in improving outcomes at either follow-up point. The group and individual interventions were not cost-effective. Conclusions Enhanced MI, in group or individual formats, targeted at members of the general population with high CVD risk is not effective in reducing weight or increasing PA compared with UC. Future work should focus on ensuring objective evidence of high competency in BCTs, identifying those with modifiable factors for CVD risk and improving engagement of patients and primary care. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84864870. 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. 23, No. 69. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This research was part-funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London.

scholarly journals TRAPEZE: a randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chemotherapy with zoledronic acid, strontium-89, or both, in men with bony metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (53) ◽  
pp. 1-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas James ◽  
Sarah Pirrie ◽  
Ann Pope ◽  
Darren Barton ◽  
Lazaros Andronis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Zoledronic Acid ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundBony metastatic castration-refractory prostate cancer is associated with a poor prognosis and high morbidity. TRAPEZE was a two-by-two factorial randomised controlled trial of zoledronic acid (ZA) and strontium-89 (Sr-89), each combined with docetaxel. All have palliative benefits, are used to control bone symptoms and are used with docetaxel to prolong survival. ZA, approved on the basis of reducing skeletal-related events (SREs), is commonly combined with docetaxel in practice, although evidence of efficacy and cost-effectiveness is lacking. Sr-89, approved for controlling metastatic pain and reducing need for subsequent bone treatments, is generally palliatively used in patients unfit for chemotherapy. Phase II analysis confirmed the safety and feasibility of combining these agents. TRAPEZE aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each agent.MethodsPatients were randomised to receive six cycles of docetaxel plus prednisolone: alone, with ZA, with a single Sr-89 dose after cycle 6, or with both. Primary outcomes were clinical progression-free survival (CPFS: time to pain progression, SRE or death) and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes were SRE-free interval (SREFI), total SREs, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL). Log-rank test and Cox regression modelling were used to determine clinical effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the NHS perspective and expressed as cost per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). An additional analysis was carried out for ZA to reflect the availability of generic ZA.ResultsPatients: 757 randomised (median age 68.7 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale score 0, 40%; 1, 52%; 2, 8%; prior radiotherapy, 45%); median prostate-specific antigen 143.78 ng/ml (interquartile range 50.8–353.9 ng/ml). Stratified log-rank analysis of CPFS was statistically non-significant for either agent (Sr-89,p = 0.11; ZA,p = 0.45). Cox regression analysis adjusted for stratification variables showed CPFS benefit for Sr-89 [hazard ratio (HR) 0.845, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.99;p = 0.036] and confirmed no effect of ZA (p = 0.46). ZA showed a significant SREFI effect (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93;p = 0.008). Neither agent affected OS (Sr-89,p = 0.74; ZA,p = 0.91), but both increased total cost (vs. no ZA and no Sr-89, respectively); decreased post-trial therapies partly offset costs [net difference: Sr-89 £1341; proprietary ZA (Zometa®, East Hanover, NJ, USA) £1319; generic ZA £251]. QoL was maintained in all trial arms; Sr-89 (0.08 additional QALYs) and ZA (0.03 additional QALYs) showed slight improvements. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for Sr-89 was £16,590, with £42,047 per QALY for Zometa and £8005 per QALY for generic ZA.ConclusionStrontium-89 improved CPFS, but not OS. ZA did not improve CPFS or OS but significantly improved SREFI, mostly post progression, suggesting a role as post-chemotherapy maintenance therapy. QoL was well maintained in all treatment arms, with differing patterns of care resulting from the effects of Sr-89 on time to progression and ZA on SREFI and total SREs. The addition of Sr-89 resulted in additional cost and a small positive increase in QALYs, with an ICER below the £20,000 ceiling per QALY. The additional costs and small positive QALY changes in favour of ZA resulted in ICERs of £42,047 (Zometa) and £8005 for the generic alternative; thus, generic ZA represents a cost-effective option. Additional analyses on the basis of data from the Hospital Episode Statistics data set would allow corroborating the findings of this study. Further research into the use of ZA (and other bone-targeting therapies) with newer prostate cancer therapies would be desirable.Study registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN12808747.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Therapeutic hypothermia to reduce intracranial pressure after traumatic brain injury: the Eurotherm3235 RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (45) ◽  
pp. 1-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter JD Andrews ◽  
H Louise Sinclair ◽  
Aryelly Rodríguez ◽  
Bridget Harris ◽  
Jonathan Rhodes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Intracranial Pressure ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Treatment Allocation ◽  
Hypothermia Group

Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a major cause of disability and death in young adults worldwide. It results in around 1 million hospital admissions annually in the European Union (EU), causes a majority of the 50,000 deaths from road traffic accidents and leaves a further ≈10,000 people severely disabled. Objective The Eurotherm3235 Trial was a pragmatic trial examining the effectiveness of hypothermia (32–35 °C) to reduce raised intracranial pressure (ICP) following severe TBI and reduce morbidity and mortality 6 months after TBI. Design An international, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting Specialist neurological critical care units. Participants We included adult participants following TBI. Eligible patients had ICP monitoring in place with an ICP of > 20 mmHg despite first-line treatments. Participants were randomised to receive standard care with the addition of hypothermia (32–35 °C) or standard care alone. Online randomisation and the use of an electronic case report form (CRF) ensured concealment of random treatment allocation. It was not possible to blind local investigators to allocation as it was obvious which participants were receiving hypothermia. We collected information on how well the participant had recovered 6 months after injury. This information was provided either by the participant themself (if they were able) and/or a person close to them by completing the Glasgow Outcome Scale – Extended (GOSE) questionnaire. Telephone follow-up was carried out by a blinded independent clinician. Interventions The primary intervention to reduce ICP in the hypothermia group after randomisation was induction of hypothermia. Core temperature was initially reduced to 35 °C and decreased incrementally to a lower limit of 32 °C if necessary to maintain ICP at < 20 mmHg. Rewarming began after 48 hours if ICP remained controlled. Participants in the standard-care group received usual care at that centre, but without hypothermia. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the GOSE [range 1 (dead) to 8 (upper good recovery)] at 6 months after the injury as assessed by an independent collaborator, blind to the intervention. A priori subgroup analysis tested the relationship between minimisation factors including being aged < 45 years, having a post-resuscitation Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) motor score of < 2 on admission, having a time from injury of < 12 hours and patient outcome. Results We enrolled 387 patients from 47 centres in 18 countries. The trial was closed to recruitment following concerns raised by the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee in October 2014. On an intention-to-treat basis, 195 participants were randomised to hypothermia treatment and 192 to standard care. Regarding participant outcome, there was a higher mortality rate and poorer functional recovery at 6 months in the hypothermia group. The adjusted common odds ratio (OR) for the primary statistical analysis of the GOSE was 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 2.31]; when the GOSE was dichotomised the OR was 1.74 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.77). Both results favoured standard care alone. In this pragmatic study, we did not collect data on adverse events. Data on serious adverse events (SAEs) were collected but were subject to reporting bias, with most SAEs being reported in the hypothermia group. Conclusions In participants following TBI and with an ICP of > 20 mmHg, titrated therapeutic hypothermia successfully reduced ICP but led to a higher mortality rate and worse functional outcome. Limitations Inability to blind treatment allocation as it was obvious which participants were randomised to the hypothermia group; there was biased recording of SAEs in the hypothermia group. We now believe that more adequately powered clinical trials of common therapies used to reduce ICP, such as hypertonic therapy, barbiturates and hyperventilation, are required to assess their potential benefits and risks to patients. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN34555414. 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. 22, No. 45. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine supported the pilot phase of this trial.

scholarly journals Amisulpride augmentation in clozapine-unresponsive schizophrenia (AMICUS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (49) ◽  
pp. 1-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas RE Barnes ◽  
Verity C Leeson ◽  
Carol Paton ◽  
Louise Marston ◽  
Linda Davies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Side Effect ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Insufficient Response ◽  
Economic Analyses

BackgroundWhen treatment-refractory schizophrenia shows an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine, clinicians commonly add a second antipsychotic, despite the lack of robust evidence to justify this practice.ObjectivesThe main objectives of the study were to establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of augmentation of clozapine medication with a second antipsychotic, amisulpride, for the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.DesignThe study was a multicentre, double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial with follow-up at 12 weeks.SettingsThe study was set in NHS multidisciplinary teams in adult psychiatry.ParticipantsEligible participants were people aged 18–65 years with treatment-resistant schizophrenia unresponsive, at a criterion level of persistent symptom severity and impaired social function, to an adequate trial of clozapine monotherapy.InterventionsInterventions comprised clozapine augmentation over 12 weeks with amisulpride or placebo. Participants received 400 mg of amisulpride or two matching placebo capsules for the first 4 weeks, after which there was a clinical option to titrate the dosage of amisulpride up to 800 mg or four matching placebo capsules for the remaining 8 weeks.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was the proportion of ‘responders’, using a criterion response threshold of a 20% reduction in total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.ResultsA total of 68 participants were randomised. Compared with the participants assigned to placebo, those receiving amisulpride had a greater chance of being a responder by the 12-week follow-up (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 3.42) and a greater improvement in negative symptoms, although neither finding had been present at 6-week follow-up and neither was statistically significant. Amisulpride was associated with a greater side effect burden, including cardiac side effects. Economic analyses indicated that amisulpride augmentation has the potential to be cost-effective in the short term [net saving of between £329 and £2011; no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] and possibly in the longer term.LimitationsThe trial under-recruited and, therefore, the power of statistical analysis to detect significant differences between the active and placebo groups was limited. The economic analyses indicated high uncertainty because of the short duration and relatively small number of participants.ConclusionsThe risk–benefit of amisulpride augmentation of clozapine for schizophrenia that has shown an insufficient response to a trial of clozapine monotherapy is worthy of further investigation in larger studies. The size and extent of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride–clozapine combination may partly reflect the comprehensive assessment of side effects in this study. The design of future trials of such a treatment strategy should take into account that a clinical response may be not be evident within the 4- to 6-week follow-up period usually considered adequate in studies of antipsychotic treatment of acute psychotic episodes. Economic evaluation indicated the need for larger, longer-term studies to address uncertainty about the extent of savings because of amisulpride and impact on QALYs. The extent and nature of the side effect burden identified for the amisulpride–clozapine combination has implications for the nature and frequency of safety and tolerability monitoring of clozapine augmentation with a second antipsychotic in both clinical and research settings.Trial registrationEudraCT number 2010-018963-40 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68824876.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. 21, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Active Treatment for Idiopathic Adolescent Scoliosis (ACTIvATeS): a feasibility study

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (55) ◽  
pp. 1-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A Williams ◽  
Peter J Heine ◽  
Esther M Williamson ◽  
Francine Toye ◽  
Melina Dritsaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Idiopathic Scoliosis ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Study

BackgroundThe feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercises (SSEs) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is uncertain.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre trial of SSE treatment for patients with AIS, in comparison with standard care, and to refine elements of the study design. The objectives were to (1) update a systematic review of controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of SSE in AIS; (2) survey UK orthopaedic surgeons and physiotherapists to determine current practice, patient populations and equipoise; (3) randomise 50 adolescents to a feasibility trial of either usual care or SSE interventions across a range of sites; (4) develop, document and assess acceptability and adherence of interventions; (5) assess and describe training requirements of physiotherapists; and (6) gain user input in all relevant stages of treatment and protocol design.DesignMulticomponent feasibility study including UK clinician survey, systematic literature review and a randomised feasibility trial.SettingThe randomised feasibility study involved four secondary care NHS trusts providing specialist care for patients with AIS.ParticipantsThe randomised feasibility study recruited people aged 10–16 years with mild AIS (Cobb angle of < 50°).InterventionsThe randomised study allocated participants to standard practice of advice and education or a physiotherapy SSE programme supported by a home exercise plan. Our choice of intervention was informed by a systematic review of exercise interventions for AIS.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome was feasibility of recruitment to the randomised study. Other elements were to inform choice of outcomes for a definitive trial and included curve severity, quality of life, requirement for surgery/brace, adverse events, psychological symptoms, costs and health utilities.ResultsA UK survey of orthopaedic consultants and physiotherapists indicated a wide variation in current provision of exercise therapy through physiotherapy services. It also found that clinicians from at least 15 centres would be willing to have their patients involved in a full study. A systematic review update found five new studies that were generally of low quality but showed some promise of effectiveness of SSE. The randomised study recruited 58 patients from four NHS trusts over 11 months and exceeded the pre-specified target recruitment rate of 1.4 participants per centre per month, with acceptable 6-month follow-up (currently 73%). Adherence to treatment was variable (56% of participants completed treatment offered). The qualitative study found the exercise programme to be highly acceptable. We learnt important lessons from patient and public involvement during the study in terms of study and intervention presentation, as well as practical elements such as scheduling of intervention sessions.ConclusionsA definitive RCT evaluating clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SSE for idiopathic scoliosis is warranted and feasible. Such a RCT is a priority for future work in the area. There is a sufficiently large patient base, combined with willingness to be randomised within specialist UK centres. Interventions developed during the feasibility study were acceptable to patients, families and physiotherapists and can be given within the affordability envelope of current levels of physiotherapy commissioning.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN90480705.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Study of the use of antidepressants for depression in dementia: the HTA-SADD trial – a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 1-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Banerjee ◽  
J Hellier ◽  
R Romeo ◽  
M Dewey ◽  
M Knapp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveDepression is common in dementia, causing considerable distress and other negative impacts. Treating it is a clinical priority, but the evidence base is sparse and equivocal. This trial aimed to determine clinical effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine in reducing depression 13 weeks post randomisation compared with placebo.DesignMulticentre, parallel-group, double-blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine with 13- and 39-week follow-up.SettingNine English old-age psychiatry services.ParticipantsA pragmatic trial.Eligibility: probable or possible Alzheimer's disease (AD), depression (4+ weeks) and Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score of 8+.Exclusions: clinically too critical (e.g. suicide risk); contraindication to medication; taking antidepressants; in another trial; and having no carer.Interventions(1) Sertraline; (2) mirtazapine; and (3) placebo, all with normal care. Target doses: 150 mg of sertraline or 45 mg of mirtazapine daily.Main outcome measuresOutcome: CSDD score.Randomisation: Allocated 1 : 1 : 1 through Trials Unit, independently of trial team. Stratified block randomisation by centre, with randomly varying block sizes; computer-generated randomisation.Blinding: Double blind: medication and placebo identical for each antidepressant. Referring clinicians, research workers, participants and pharmacies were blind. Statisticians blind until analyses completed.ResultsNumbers randomised: 326 participants randomised (111 placebo, 107 sertraline and 108 mirtazapine).Outcome: Differences in CSDD at 13 weeks from an adjusted linear-mixed model: mean difference (95% CI) placebo–sertraline 1.17 (−0.23 to 2.78;p = 0.102); placebo–mirtazapine 0.01 (−1.37 to 1.38;p = 0.991); and mirtazapine–sertraline 1.16 (−0.27 to 2.60;p = 0.112).Harms: Placebo group had fewer adverse reactions (29/111, 26%) than sertraline (46/107, 43%) or mirtazapine (44/108, 41%;p = 0.017); 39-week mortality equal, five deaths in each group.ConclusionsThis is a trial with negative findings but important clinical implications. The data suggest that the antidepressants tested, given with normal care, are not clinically effective (compared with placebo) for clinically significant depression in AD. This implies a need to change current practice of antidepressants being the first-line treatment of depression in AD. From the data generated we formulated the following recommendations for future work. (1) The secondary analyses presented here suggest that there would be value in carrying out a placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine in the management of Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia. (2) A conclusion from this study is that it remains both ethical and essential for trials of new medication for depression in dementia to have a placebo arm. (3) Further research is required to evaluate the impact that treatments for depression in people with dementia can have on their carers not only in terms of any impacts on their quality of life, but also the time they spend care-giving. (4) There is a need for research into alternative biological and psychological therapies for depression in dementia. These could include evaluations of new classes of antidepressants (such as venlafaxine) or antidementia medication (e.g. cholinesterase inhibitors). (5) Research is needed to investigate the natural history of depression in dementia in the community when patients are not referred to secondary care services. (6) Further work is needed to investigate the cost modelling results in this rich data set, investigating carer burden and possible moderators to the treatment effects. (7) There is scope for reanalysis of the primary outcome in terms of carer and participant CSDD results.Trial registrationEudraCT Number – 2006–000105–38.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 7. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of body psychotherapy in the treatment of negative symptoms of schizophrenia: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 1-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Priebe ◽  
Mark Savill ◽  
Til Wykes ◽  
Richard Bentall ◽  
Christoph Lauber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Negative Symptoms ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Body Psychotherapy ◽  
End Of Treatment ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundThe negative symptoms of schizophrenia significantly impact on quality of life and social functioning, and current treatment options are limited. In this study the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of group body psychotherapy as a treatment for negative symptoms were compared with an active control.DesignA parallel-arm, multisite randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was conducted independently of the research team, using a 1 : 1 computer-generated sequence. Assessors and statisticians were blinded to treatment allocation. Analysis was conducted following the intention-to-treat principle. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, a health and social care perspective was adopted.ParticipantsEligibility criteria: age 18–65 years; diagnosis of schizophrenia with symptoms present at > 6 months; score of ≥ 18 on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) negative symptoms subscale; no change in medication type in past 6 weeks; willingness to participate; ability to give informed consent; and community outpatient. Exclusion criteria: inability to participate in the groups and insufficient command of English.SettingsParticipants were recruited from NHS mental health community services in five different Trusts. All groups took place in local community spaces.InterventionsControl intervention: a 10-week, 90-minute, 20-session group beginners’ Pilates class, run by a qualified Pilates instructor. Treatment intervention: a 10-week, 90-minute, 20-session manualised group body psychotherapy group, run by a qualified dance movement psychotherapist.OutcomesThe primary outcome was the PANSS negative symptoms subscale score at end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included measures of psychopathology, functional, social, service use and treatment satisfaction outcomes, both at treatment end and at 6-month follow-up.ResultsA total of 275 participants were randomised (140 body psychotherapy group, 135 Pilates group). At the end of treatment, 264 participants were assessed (137 body psychotherapy group, 127 Pilates group). The adjusted difference in means of the PANSS negative subscale at the end of treatment was 0.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) –1.11 to 1.17], showing no advantage of the intervention. In the secondary outcomes, the mean difference in the Clinical Assessment Interview for negative symptoms expression subscale at the end of treatment was 0.62 (95% CI –1.23 to 0.00), and in extrapyramidal movement disorder symptoms –0.65 (95% CI –1.13 to –0.16) at the end of treatment and –0.58 (95% CI –1.07 to –0.09) at 6 months’ follow-up, showing a small significant advantage of body psychotherapy. No serious adverse events related to the interventions were reported. The total costs of the intervention were comparable with the control, with no clear evidence of cost-effectiveness for either condition.LimitationsOwing to the absence of a treatment-as-usual arm, it is difficult to determine whether or not both arms are an improvement over routine care.ConclusionsIn comparison with an active control, group body psychotherapy does not have a clinically relevant beneficial effect in the treatment of patients with negative symptoms of schizophrenia. These findings conflict with the review that led to the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines suggesting that arts therapies may be an effective treatment for negative symptoms.Future workDetermining whether or not this lack of effectiveness extends to all types of art therapies would be informative.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN842165587.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. 20, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Improving the Quality of Dentistry (IQuaD): a cluster factorial randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost–benefit of oral hygiene advice and/or periodontal instrumentation with routine care for the prevention and management of periodontal disease in dentate adults attending dental primary care

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (38) ◽  
pp. 1-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig R Ramsay ◽  
Jan E Clarkson ◽  
Anne Duncan ◽  
Thomas J Lamont ◽  
Peter A Heasman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Oral Hygiene ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Gingival Inflammation ◽  
Dental Practices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Periodontal Instrumentation

Background Periodontal disease is preventable but remains the most common oral disease worldwide, with major health and economic implications. Stakeholders lack reliable evidence of the relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of oral hygiene advice (OHA) and the optimal frequency of periodontal instrumentation (PI). Objectives To test clinical effectiveness and assess the economic value of the following strategies: personalised OHA versus routine OHA, 12-monthly PI (scale and polish) compared with 6-monthly PI, and no PI compared with 6-monthly PI. Design Multicentre, pragmatic split-plot, randomised open trial with a cluster factorial design and blinded outcome evaluation with 3 years’ follow-up and a within-trial cost–benefit analysis. NHS and participant costs were combined with benefits [willingness to pay (WTP)] estimated from a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Setting UK dental practices. Participants Adult dentate NHS patients, regular attenders, with Basic Periodontal Examination (BPE) scores of 0, 1, 2 or 3. Intervention Practices were randomised to provide routine or personalised OHA. Within each practice, participants were randomised to the following groups: no PI, 12-monthly PI or 6-monthly PI (current practice). Main outcome measures Clinical – gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin (3 years). Patient – oral hygiene self-efficacy (3 years). Economic – net benefits (mean WTP minus mean costs). Results A total of 63 dental practices and 1877 participants were recruited. The mean number of teeth and percentage of bleeding sites was 24 and 33%, respectively. Two-thirds of participants had BPE scores of ≤ 2. Under intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in gingival inflammation/bleeding between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group [difference 0.87%, 95% confidence interval (CI) –1.6% to 3.3%; p = 0.481] or between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference 0.11%, 95% CI –2.3% to 2.5%; p = 0.929). There was also no evidence of a difference between personalised and routine OHA (difference –2.5%, 95% CI –8.3% to 3.3%; p = 0.393). There was no evidence of a difference in self-efficacy between the 6-monthly PI group and the no-PI group (difference –0.028, 95% CI –0.119 to 0.063; p = 0.543) and no evidence of a clinically important difference between the 6-monthly PI group and the 12-monthly PI group (difference –0.097, 95% CI –0.188 to –0.006; p = 0.037). Compared with standard care, no PI with personalised OHA had the greatest cost savings: NHS perspective –£15 (95% CI –£34 to £4) and participant perspective –£64 (95% CI –£112 to –£16). The DCE shows that the general population value these services greatly. Personalised OHA with 6-monthly PI had the greatest incremental net benefit [£48 (95% CI £22 to £74)]. Sensitivity analyses did not change conclusions. Limitations Being a pragmatic trial, we did not deny PIs to the no-PI group; there was clear separation in the mean number of PIs between groups. Conclusions There was no additional benefit from scheduling 6-monthly or 12-monthly PIs over not providing this treatment unless desired or recommended, and no difference between OHA delivery for gingival inflammation/bleeding and patient-centred outcomes. However, participants valued, and were willing to pay for, both interventions, with greater financial value placed on PI than on OHA. Future work Assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing multifaceted periodontal care packages in primary dental care for those with periodontitis. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56465715. 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. 22, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document