Pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer: a research programme including the IMPACCT RCT

Background Each year in England and Wales, 150,000 people die from cancer, of whom 110,000 will suffer from cancer pain. Research highlights that cancer pain remains common, severe and undertreated, and may lead to hospital admissions. Objective To develop and evaluate pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer. Design A programme of mixed-methods intervention development work leading to a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention for pain management compared with usual care, including an assessment of cost-effectiveness. Participants Patients, including those with metastatic solid cancer (histological, cytological or radiological evidence) and/or those receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, and health professionals involved in the delivery of community-based palliative care. Setting For the randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and were randomly allocated to intervention or control and followed up at home. Interventions The Supported Self-Management intervention comprised an educational component called Tackling Cancer Pain, and an eHealth component for routine pain assessment and monitoring called PainCheck. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was pain severity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). The secondary outcomes included pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory), participants’ pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. We estimated costs and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using decision modelling and a separate within-trial economic analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year for the trial period. Results Work package 1 – We found barriers to and variation in the co-ordination of advanced cancer care by oncology and primary care professionals. We identified that the median time between referral to palliative care services and death for 42,758 patients in the UK was 48 days. We identified key components for self-management and developed and tested our Tackling Cancer Pain resource for acceptability. Work package 2 – Patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals recognised the benefits of an electronic system to monitor pain, but had reservations about how such a system might work in practice. We developed and tested a prototype PainCheck system. Work package 3 – We found that strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life at a median of 9 weeks before death. We delivered Medicines Use Reviews to patients, in which many medicines-related problems were identified. Work package 4 – A total of 161 oncology outpatients were randomised in our clinical trial, receiving either supported self-management (n = 80) or usual care (n = 81); their median survival from randomisation was 53 weeks. Primary and sensitivity analyses found no significant treatment differences for the primary outcome or for other secondary outcomes of pain severity or health-related quality of life. The literature-based decision modelling indicated that information and feedback interventions similar to the supported self-management intervention could be cost-effective. This model was not used to extrapolate the outcomes of the trial over a longer time horizon because the statistical analysis of the trial data found no difference between the trial arms in terms of the primary outcome measure (pain severity). The within-trial economic evaluation base-case analysis found that supported self-management reduced costs by £587 and yielded marginally higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.0018) than usual care. However, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two trial arms was negligible and this was not in line with the decision model that had been developed. Our process evaluation found low fidelity of the interventions delivered by clinical professionals. Limitations In the randomised controlled trial, the low fidelity of the interventions and the challenge of the study design, which forced the usual-care arm to have earlier access to palliative care services, might explain the lack of observed benefit. Overall, 71% of participants returned outcome data at 6 or 12 weeks and so we used administrative data to estimate costs. Our decision model did not include the negative trial results from our randomised controlled trial and, therefore, may overestimate the likelihood of cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Our programme of research has revealed new insights into how patients with advanced cancer manage their pain and the challenges faced by health professionals in identifying those who need more help. Our clinical trial failed to show an added benefit of our interventions to enhance existing community palliative care support, although both the decision model and the economic evaluation of the trial indicated that supported self-management could result in lower health-care costs. Future work There is a need for further research to (1) understand and facilitate triggers that prompt earlier integration of palliative care and pain management within oncology services; (2) determine the optimal timing of technologies for self-management; and (3) examine prescriber and patient behaviour to achieve the earlier initiation and use of strong opioid treatment. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18281271. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Non-drug therapies for the management of chronic constipation in adults: the CapaCiTY research programme including three RCTs

Background Chronic constipation affects 1–2% of adults and significantly affects quality of life. Beyond the use of laxatives and other basic measures, there is uncertainty about management, including the value of specialist investigations, equipment-intensive therapies using biofeedback, transanal irrigation and surgery. Objectives (1) To determine whether or not standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback is more clinically effective than standardised specialist-led habit training alone, and whether or not outcomes of such specialist-led interventions are improved by stratification to habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback or habit training alone based on prior knowledge of anorectal and colonic pathophysiology using standardised radiophysiological investigations; (2) to compare the impact of transanal irrigation initiated with low-volume and high-volume systems on patient disease-specific quality of life; and (3) to determine the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy compared with controls at short-term follow-up. Design The Chronic Constipation Treatment Pathway (CapaCiTY) research programme was a programme of national recruitment with a standardised methodological framework (i.e. eligibility, baseline phenotyping and standardised outcomes) for three randomised trials: a parallel three-group trial, permitting two randomised comparisons (CapaCiTY trial 1), a parallel two-group trial (CapaCiTY trial 2) and a stepped-wedge (individual-level) three-group trial (CapaCiTY trial 3). Setting Specialist hospital centres across England, with a mix of urban and rural referral bases. Participants The main inclusion criteria were as follows: age 18–70 years, participant self-reported problematic constipation, symptom onset > 6 months before recruitment, symptoms meeting the American College of Gastroenterology’s constipation definition and constipation that failed treatment to a minimum basic standard. The main exclusion criteria were secondary constipation and previous experience of study interventions. Interventions CapaCiTY trial 1: group 1 – standardised specialist-led habit training alone (n = 68); group 2 – standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (n = 68); and group 3 – standardised radiophysiological investigations-guided treatment (n = 46) (allocation ratio 3 : 3 : 2, respectively). CapaCiTY trial 2: transanal irrigation initiated with low-volume (group 1, n = 30) or high-volume (group 2, n = 35) systems (allocation ratio 1 : 1). CapaCiTY trial 3: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy performed immediately (n = 9) and after 12 weeks’ (n = 10) and after 24 weeks’ (n = 9) waiting time (allocation ratio 1 : 1 : 1, respectively). Main outcome measures The main outcome measures were standardised outcomes for all three trials. The primary clinical outcome was mean change in Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score at the 6-month, 3-month or 24-week follow-up. The secondary clinical outcomes were a range of validated disease-specific and psychological scoring instrument scores. For cost-effectiveness, quality-adjusted life-year estimates were determined from individual participant-level cost data and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, data. Participant experience was investigated through interviews and qualitative analysis. Results A total of 275 participants were recruited. Baseline phenotyping demonstrated high levels of symptom burden and psychological morbidity. CapaCiTY trial 1: all interventions (standardised specialist-led habit training alone, standardised specialist-led habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback and standardised radiophysiological investigations-guided habit training alone or habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback) led to similar reductions in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score (approximately –0.8 points), with no statistically significant difference between habit training alone and habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback (–0.03 points, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.27 points; p = 0.8445) or between standardised radiophysiological investigations and no standardised radiophysiological investigations (0.22 points, 95% confidence interval –0.11 to 0.55 points; p = 0.1871). Secondary outcomes reflected similar levels of benefit for all interventions. There was no evidence of greater cost-effectiveness of habit training plus pelvic floor retraining using computer-assisted direct visual biofeedback or stratification by standardised radiophysiological investigations compared with habit training alone (with the probability that habit training alone is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gain; p = 0.83). Participants reported mixed experiences and similar satisfaction in all groups in the qualitative interviews. CapaCiTY trial 2: at 3 months, there was a modest reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score, from a mean of 2.4 to 2.2 points (i.e. a reduction of 0.2 points), in the low-volume transanal irrigation group compared with a larger mean reduction of 0.6 points in the high-volume transanal irrigation group (difference –0.37 points, 95% confidence interval –0.89 to 0.15 points). The majority of participants preferred high-volume transanal irrigation, with substantial crossover to high-volume transanal irrigation during follow-up. Compared with low-volume transanal irrigation, high-volume transanal irrigation had similar costs (median difference –£8, 95% confidence interval –£240 to £221) and resulted in significantly higher quality of life (0.093 quality-adjusted life-years, 95% confidence interval 0.016 to 0.175 quality-adjusted life-years). CapaCiTY trial 3: laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy resulted in a substantial short-term mean reduction in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life score (–1.09 points, 95% confidence interval –1.76 to –0.41 points) and beneficial changes in all other outcomes; however, significant increases in cost (£5012, 95% confidence interval £4446 to £5322) resulted in only modest increases in quality of life (0.043 quality-adjusted life-years, 95% confidence interval –0.005 to 0.093 quality-adjusted life-years), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £115,512 per quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusions Excluding poor recruitment and underpowering of clinical effectiveness analyses, several themes emerge: (1) all interventions studied have beneficial effects on symptoms and disease-specific quality of life in the short term; (2) a simpler, cheaper approach to nurse-led behavioural interventions appears to be at least as clinically effective as and more cost-effective than more complex and invasive approaches (including prior investigation); (3) high-volume transanal irrigation is preferred by participants and has better clinical effectiveness than low-volume transanal irrigation systems; and (4) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in highly selected participants confers a very significant short-term reduction in symptoms, with low levels of harm but little effect on general quality of life. Limitations All three trials significantly under-recruited [CapaCiTY trial 1, n = 182 (target 394); CapaCiTY trial 2, n = 65 (target 300); and CapaCiTY trial 3, n = 28 (target 114)]. The numbers analysed were further limited by loss before primary outcome. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11791740, ISRCTN11093872 and ISRCTN11747152. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Case-finding and improving patient outcomes for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the BLISS research programme including cluster RCT

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a major contributor to morbidity, mortality and health service costs but is vastly underdiagnosed. Evidence on screening and how best to approach this is not clear. There are also uncertainties around the natural history (prognosis) of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and how it impacts on work performance. Objectives Work package 1: to evaluate alternative methods of screening for undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care, with clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analyses and an economic model of a routine screening programme. Work package 2: to recruit a primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort, develop a prognostic model [Birmingham Lung Improvement StudieS (BLISS)] to predict risk of respiratory hospital admissions, validate an existing model to predict mortality risk, address some uncertainties about natural history and explore the potential for a home exercise intervention. Work package 3: to identify which factors are associated with employment, absenteeism, presenteeism (working while unwell) and evaluate the feasibility of offering formal occupational health assessment to improve work performance. Design Work package 1: a cluster randomised controlled trial with household-level randomised comparison of two alternative case-finding approaches in the intervention arm. Work package 2: cohort study – focus groups. Work package 3: subcohort – feasibility study. Setting Primary care settings in West Midlands, UK. Participants Work package 1: 74,818 people who have smoked aged 40–79 years without a previous chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis from 54 general practices. Work package 2: 741 patients with previously diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from 71 practices and participants from the work package 1 randomised controlled trial. Twenty-six patients took part in focus groups. Work package 3: occupational subcohort with 248 patients in paid employment at baseline. Thirty-five patients took part in an occupational health intervention feasibility study. Interventions Work package 1: targeted case-finding – symptom screening questionnaire, administered opportunistically or additionally by post, followed by diagnostic post-bronchodilator spirometry. The comparator was routine care. Work package 2: twenty-three candidate variables selected from literature and expert reviews. Work package 3: sociodemographic, clinical and occupational characteristics; occupational health assessment and recommendations. Main outcome measures Work package 1: yield (screen-detected chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and cost-effectiveness of case-finding; effectiveness of screening on respiratory hospitalisation and mortality after approximately 4 years. Work package 2: respiratory hospitalisation within 2 years, and barriers to and facilitators of physical activity. Work package 3: work performance – feasibility and acceptability of the occupational health intervention and study processes. Results Work package 1: targeted case-finding resulted in greater yield of previously undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than routine care at 1 year [n = 1278 (4%) vs. n = 337 (1%), respectively; adjusted odds ratio 7.45, 95% confidence interval 4.80 to 11.55], and a model-based estimate of a regular screening programme suggested an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £16,596 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, long-term follow-up of the trial showed that at ≈4 years there was no clear evidence that case-finding, compared with routine practice, was effective in reducing respiratory admissions (adjusted hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to1.47) or mortality (hazard ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.61). Work package 2: 2305 patients, comprising 1564 with previously diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 741 work package 1 participants (330 with and 411 without obstruction), were recruited. The BLISS prognostic model among cohort participants with confirmed airflow obstruction (n = 1894) included 6 of 23 candidate variables (i.e. age, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test score, 12-month respiratory admissions, body mass index, diabetes and forced expiratory volume in 1 second percentage predicted). After internal validation and adjustment (uniform shrinkage factor 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.02), the model discriminated well in predicting 2-year respiratory hospital admissions (c-statistic 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.79). In focus groups, physical activity engagement was related to self-efficacy and symptom severity. Work package 3: in the occupational subcohort, increasing dyspnoea and exposure to inhaled irritants were associated with lower work productivity at baseline. Longitudinally, increasing exacerbations and worsening symptoms, but not a decline in airflow obstruction, were associated with absenteeism and presenteeism. The acceptability of the occupational health intervention was low, leading to low uptake and low implementation of recommendations and making a full trial unfeasible. Limitations Work package 1: even with the most intensive approach, only 38% of patients responded to the case-finding invitation. Management of case-found patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care was generally poor, limiting interpretation of the long-term effectiveness of case-finding on clinical outcomes. Work package 2: the components of the BLISS model may not always be routinely available and calculation of the score requires a computerised system. Work package 3: relatively few cohort participants were in paid employment at baseline, limiting the interpretation of predictors of lower work productivity. Conclusions This programme has addressed some of the major uncertainties around screening for undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and has resulted in the development of a novel, accurate model for predicting respiratory hospitalisation in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the inception of a primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort for longer-term follow-up. We have also identified factors that may affect work productivity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as potential targets for future intervention. Future work We plan to obtain data for longer-term follow-up of trial participants at 10 years. The BLISS model needs to be externally validated. Our primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort is a unique resource for addressing further questions to better understand the prognosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14930255. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Specialist cancer services for teenagers and young adults in England: BRIGHTLIGHT research programme

Background When cancer occurs in teenagers and young adults, the impact is far beyond the physical disease and treatment burden. The effect on psychological, social, educational and other normal development can be profound. In addition, outcomes including improvements in survival and participation in clinical trials are poorer than in younger children and older adults with similar cancers. These unique circumstances have driven the development of care models specifically for teenagers and young adults with cancer, often focused on a dedicated purpose-designed patient environments supported by a multidisciplinary team with expertise in the needs of teenagers and young adults. In England, this is commissioned by NHS England and delivered through 13 principal treatment centres. There is a lack of evaluation that identifies the key components of specialist care for teenagers and young adults, and any improvement in outcomes and costs associated with it. Objective To determine whether or not specialist services for teenagers and young adults with cancer add value. Design A series of multiple-methods studies centred on a prospective longitudinal cohort of teenagers and young adults who were newly diagnosed with cancer. Settings Multiple settings, including an international Delphi study of health-care professionals, qualitative observation in specialist services for teenagers and young adults, and NHS trusts. Participants A total of 158 international teenage and young adult experts, 42 health-care professionals from across England, 1143 teenagers and young adults, and 518 caregivers. Main outcome measures The main outcomes were specific to each project: key areas of competence for the Delphi survey; culture of teenagers and young adults care in the case study; and unmet needs from the caregiver survey. The primary outcome for the cohort participants was quality of life and the cost to the NHS and patients in the health economic evaluation. Data sources Multiple sources were used, including responses from health-care professionals through a Delphi survey and face-to-face interviews, interview data from teenagers and young adults, the BRIGHTLIGHT survey to collect patient-reported data, patient-completed cost records, hospital clinical records, routinely collected NHS data and responses from primary caregivers. Results Competencies associated with specialist care for teenagers and young adults were identified from a Delphi study. The key to developing a culture of teenage and young adult care was time and commitment. An exposure variable, the teenagers and young adults Cancer Specialism Scale, was derived, allowing categorisation of patients to three groups, which were defined by the time spent in a principal treatment centre: SOME (some care in a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults, and the rest of their care in either a children’s or an adult cancer unit), ALL (all care in a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults) or NONE (no care in a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults). The cohort study showed that the NONE group was associated with superior quality of life, survival and health status from 6 months to 3 years after diagnosis. The ALL group was associated with faster rates of quality-of-life improvement from 6 months to 3 years after diagnosis. The SOME group was associated with poorer quality of life and slower improvement in quality of life over time. Economic analysis revealed that NHS costs and travel costs were similar between the NONE and ALL groups. The ALL group had greater out-of-pocket expenses, and the SOME group was associated with greater NHS costs and greater expense for patients. However, if caregivers had access to a principal treatment centre for teenagers and young adults (i.e. in the ALL or SOME groups), then they had fewer unmet support and information needs. Limitations Our definition of exposure to specialist care using Hospital Episode Statistics-determined time spent in hospital was insufficient to capture the detail of episodes or account for the variation in specialist services. Quality of life was measured first at 6 months, but an earlier measure may have shown different baselines. Conclusions We could not determine the added value of specialist cancer care for teenagers and young adults as defined using the teenage and young adult Cancer Specialism Scale and using quality of life as a primary end point. A group of patients (i.e. those defined as the SOME group) appeared to be less advantaged across a range of outcomes. There was variation in the extent to which principal treatment centres for teenagers and young adults were established, and the case study indicated that the culture of teenagers and young adults care required time to develop and embed. It will therefore be important to establish whether or not the evolution in services since 2012–14, when the cohort was recruited, improves quality of life and other patient-reported and clinical outcomes. Future work A determination of whether or not the SOME group has similar or improved quality of life and other patient-reported and clinical outcomes in current teenage and young adult service delivery is essential if principal treatment centres for teenagers and young adults are being commissioned to provide ‘joint care’ models with other providers. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

An intervention to support adherence to inhaled medication in adults with cystic fibrosis: the ACtiF research programme including RCT

Background People with cystic fibrosis frequently have low levels of adherence to inhaled medications. Objectives The objectives were to develop and evaluate an intervention for adults with cystic fibrosis to improve adherence to their inhaled medication. Design We used agile software methods to develop an online platform. We used mixed methods to develop a behaviour change intervention for delivery by an interventionist. These were integrated to become the CFHealthHub intervention. We undertook a feasibility study consisting of a pilot randomised controlled trial and process evaluation in two cystic fibrosis centres. We evaluated the intervention using an open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with usual care as the control. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to intervention or usual care. Usual care consisted of clinic visits every 3 months. We undertook a process evaluation alongside the randomised controlled trial, including a fidelity study, a qualitative interview study and a mediation analysis. We undertook a health economic analysis using both a within-trial and model-based analysis. Setting The randomised controlled trial took place in 19 UK cystic fibrosis centres. Participants Participants were people aged ≥ 16 years with cystic fibrosis, on the cystic fibrosis registry, not post lung transplant or on the active transplant list, who were able to consent and not using dry-powder inhalers. Intervention People with cystic fibrosis used a nebuliser with electronic monitoring capabilities. This transferred data automatically to a digital platform. People with cystic fibrosis and clinicians could monitor adherence using these data, including through a mobile application (app). CFHealthHub displayed graphs of adherence data as well as educational and problem-solving information. A trained interventionist helped people with cystic fibrosis to address their adherence. Main outcome measures Randomised controlled trial – adjusted incidence rate ratio of pulmonary exacerbations meeting the modified Fuchs criteria over a 12-month follow-up period (primary outcome); change in percentage adherence; and per cent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (key secondary outcomes). Process evaluation – percentage fidelity to intervention delivery, and participant and interventionist perceptions of the intervention. Economic modelling – incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results Randomised controlled trial – 608 participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 305) or usual care (n = 303). To our knowledge, this was the largest randomised controlled trial in cystic fibrosis undertaken in the UK. The adjusted rate of exacerbations per year (primary outcome) was 1.63 in the intervention and 1.77 in the usual-care arm (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.12; p = 0.638) after adjustment for covariates. The adjusted difference in mean weekly normative adherence was 9.5% (95% confidence interval 8.6% to 10.4%) across 1 year, favouring the intervention. Adjusted mean difference in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (per cent) predicted at 12 months was 1.4% (95% confidence interval –0.2% to 3.0%). No adverse events were related to the intervention. Process evaluation – fidelity of intervention delivery was high, the intervention was acceptable to people with cystic fibrosis, participants engaged with the intervention [287/305 (94%) attended the first intervention visit], expected mechanisms of action were identified and contextual factors varied between randomised controlled trial sites. Qualitative interviews with 22 people with cystic fibrosis and 26 interventionists identified that people with cystic fibrosis welcomed the objective adherence data as proof of actions to self and others, and valued the relationship that they built with the interventionists. Economic modelling – the within-trial analysis suggests that the intervention generated 0.01 additional quality-adjusted life-years at an additional cost of £865.91 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £71,136 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. This should be interpreted with caution owing to the short time horizon. The health economic model suggests that the intervention is expected to generate 0.17 additional quality-adjusted life-years and cost savings of £1790 over a lifetime (70-year) horizon; hence, the intervention is expected to dominate usual care. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the probability that the intervention generates more net benefit than usual care is 0.89. The model results are dependent on assumptions regarding the duration over which costs and effects of the intervention apply, the impact of the intervention on forced expiratory volume in 1 second (per cent) predicted and the relationship between increased adherence and drug-prescribing levels. Limitations Number of exacerbations is a sensitive and valid measure of clinical change used in many trials. However, data collection of this outcome in this context was challenging and could have been subject to bias. It was not possible to measure baseline adherence accurately. It was not possible to quantify the impact of the intervention on the number of packs of medicines prescribed. Conclusions We developed a feasible and acceptable intervention that was delivered to fidelity in the randomised controlled trial. We observed no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of exacerbation rates over 12 months. We observed an increase in normative adherence levels in a disease where adherence levels are low. The magnitude of the increase in adherence may not have been large enough to affect exacerbations. Future work Given the non-significant difference in the primary outcome, further research is required to explore why an increase in objective normative adherence did not reduce exacerbations and to develop interventions that reduce exacerbations. Trial registration Work package 3.1: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13076797. Work packages 3.2 and 3.3: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55504164. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Strategies to enhance routine physical activity in care home residents: the REACH research programme including a cluster feasibility RCT

Background Care home residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Although exercise classes may increase activity, a more sustainable model is to engage staff and residents in increasing routine activity. Objectives The objectives were to develop and preliminarily test strategies to enhance the routine physical activity of care home residents to improve their physical, psychological and social well-being through five overlapping workstreams. Design This trial had a mixed-methods research design to develop and test the feasibility of undertaking an evaluative study consisting of gaining an understanding of the opportunities for and barriers to enhancing physical activity in care homes (workstream 1); testing physical activity assessment instruments (workstream 2); developing an intervention through a process of intervention mapping (workstream 3); refining the provisional intervention in the care home setting and clarifying outcome measurement (workstream 4); and undertaking a cluster randomised feasibility trial of the intervention [introduced via three facilitated workshops at baseline (with physiotherapist input), 2 weeks (with artist input) and 2 months], with embedded process and health economic evaluations (workstream 5). Setting The trial was set in 12 residential care homes differing in size, location, ownership and provision in Yorkshire, UK. Participants The participants were elderly residents, carers, managers and staff of care homes. Intervention The intervention was MoveMore, designed for the whole home, to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Main outcome measures The main outcome measures related to the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a full-scale trial in terms of recruitment and retention of care homes and residents, intervention delivery, completion and reporting of baseline data and outcomes (including hours of accelerometer wear, hours of sedentary behaviour and hours and type of physical activity), and safety and cost data (workstream 5). Results Workstream 1 – through a detailed understanding of life in a care home, a needs assessment was produced, and barriers to and facilitators of activity were identified. Key factors included ethos of care; organisation, management and delivery of care; use of space; and the residents’ daily routines. Workstream 2 – 22 (73.3%) out of 30 residents who wore a hip accelerometer had valid data (≥ 8 hours on ≥ 4 days of the week). Workstream 3 – practical mechanisms for increasing physical activity were developed, informed by an advisory group of stakeholders and outputs from workstreams 1 and 2, framed by the process of intervention mapping. Workstream 4 – action groups were convened in four care homes to refine the intervention, leading to further development of implementation strategies. The intervention, MoveMore, is a whole-home intervention involving engagement with a stakeholder group to implement a cyclical process of change to encourage and support the movement of residents in their daily routines. Workstream 5 – 12 care homes and 153 residents were recruited to the cluster randomised feasibility trial. Recruitment in the care homes varied (40–89%). Five care homes were randomised to the intervention and seven were randomised to usual care. Predetermined progression criteria were recruitment of care homes and residents (green); intervention delivery (amber); and data collection and follow-up – 52% of residents provided usable accelerometer data at 9 months (red), > 75% of residents had reported outcomes at 9 months (green, but self-reported resident outcomes were red), 26% loss of residents to follow-up at 9 months [just missing green criterion (no greater than 25%)] and safety concerns (green). Limitations Observations of residents’ movements were not conducted in private spaces. Working with care home residents to identify appropriate outcome measures was challenging. Take-up of the intervention was suboptimal in some sites. It was not possible to make a reliably informed decision on the most appropriate physical activity end point(s) for future use in a definitive trial. Conclusions A whole-home intervention was developed that was owned and delivered by staff and was informed by residents and staff. The feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial was successfully tested: the target numbers of care homes and residents were recruited, demonstrating that it is possible to recruit care home residents to a cluster randomised trial, although this process was time-consuming and resource heavy. A large data set was collected, which provided a comprehensive picture of the environment, residents and staff in care homes. Extensive quantitative and qualitative work comprehensively explored a neglected area of health and social care research. Completion of ethnographic work in a range of settings enabled the production of an in-depth picture of life in care homes that will be helpful for other researchers considering organisational change in this setting. Future work The content and delivery of the intervention requires optimisation and the outcome measurement requires further refinement prior to undertaking a full trial evaluation. Consideration could be given to a recommended, simplified, core outcome set, which would facilitate data collection in this population. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16076575. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grant for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grant for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management. Objectives To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials. Design Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis. Setting Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions). Participants Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs. Interventions Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care. Main outcome measures Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments. Results Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial. Limitations The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’. Conclusion The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission. Future work Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Long-term monitoring in primary care for chronic kidney disease and chronic heart failure: a multi-method research programme

Background Long-term monitoring is important in chronic condition management. Despite considerable costs of monitoring, there is no or poor evidence on how, what and when to monitor. The aim of this study was to improve understanding, methods, evidence base and practice of clinical monitoring in primary care, focusing on two areas: chronic kidney disease and chronic heart failure. Objectives The research questions were as follows: does the choice of test affect better care while being affordable to the NHS? Can the number of tests used to manage individuals with early-stage kidney disease, and hence the costs, be reduced? Is it possible to monitor heart failure using a simple blood test? Can this be done using a rapid test in a general practitioner consultation? Would changes in the management of these conditions be acceptable to patients and carers? Design Various study designs were employed, including cohort, feasibility study, Clinical Practice Research Datalink analysis, seven systematic reviews, two qualitative studies, one cost-effectiveness analysis and one cost recommendation. Setting This study was set in UK primary care. Data sources Data were collected from study participants and sourced from UK general practice and hospital electronic health records, and worldwide literature. Participants The participants were NHS patients (Clinical Practice Research Datalink: 4.5 million patients), chronic kidney disease and chronic heart failure patients managed in primary care (including 750 participants in the cohort study) and primary care health professionals. Interventions The interventions were monitoring with blood and urine tests (for chronic kidney disease) and monitoring with blood tests and weight measurement (for chronic heart failure). Main outcome measures The main outcomes were the frequency, accuracy, utility, acceptability, costs and cost-effectiveness of monitoring. Results Chronic kidney disease: serum creatinine testing has increased steadily since 1997, with most results being normal (83% in 2013). Increases in tests of creatinine and proteinuria correspond to their introduction as indicators in the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation had 2.7% greater accuracy (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 3.8%) than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Estimated annual transition rates to the next chronic kidney disease stage are ≈ 2% for people with normal urine albumin, 3–5% for people with microalbuminuria (3–30 mg/mmol) and 3–12% for people with macroalbuminuria (> 30 mg/mmol). Variability in estimated glomerular filtration rate-creatinine leads to misclassification of chronic kidney disease stage in 12–15% of tests in primary care. Glycaemic-control and lipid-modifying drugs are associated with a 6% (95% confidence interval 2% to 10%) and 4% (95% confidence interval 0% to 8%) improvement in renal function, respectively. Neither estimated glomerular filtration rate-creatinine nor estimated glomerular filtration rate-Cystatin C have utility in predicting rate of kidney function change. Patients viewed phrases such as ‘kidney damage’ or ‘kidney failure’ as frightening, and the term ‘chronic’ was misinterpreted as serious. Diagnosis of asymptomatic conditions (chronic kidney disease) was difficult to understand, and primary care professionals often did not use ‘chronic kidney disease’ when managing patients at early stages. General practitioners relied on Clinical Commissioning Group or Quality and Outcomes Framework alerts rather than National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance for information. Cost-effectiveness modelling did not demonstrate a tangible benefit of monitoring kidney function to guide preventative treatments, except for individuals with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60–90 ml/minute/1.73 m2, aged < 70 years and without cardiovascular disease, where monitoring every 3–4 years to guide cardiovascular prevention may be cost-effective. Chronic heart failure: natriuretic peptide-guided treatment could reduce all-cause mortality by 13% and heart failure admission by 20%. Implementing natriuretic peptide-guided treatment is likely to require predefined protocols, stringent natriuretic peptide targets, relative targets and being located in a specialist heart failure setting. Remote monitoring can reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalisation, and could improve quality of life. Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide (sensitivity, 0.99; specificity, 0.60) was better than point-of-care B-type natriuretic peptide (sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.57). Within-person variation estimates for B-type natriuretic peptide and weight were as follows: coefficient of variation, 46% and coefficient of variation, 1.2%, respectively. Point-of-care N-terminal prohormone of B-type natriuretic peptide within-person variability over 12 months was 881 pg/ml (95% confidence interval 380 to 1382 pg/ml), whereas between-person variability was 1972 pg/ml (95% confidence interval 1525 to 2791 pg/ml). For individuals, monitoring provided reassurance; future changes, such as increased testing, would be acceptable. Point-of-care testing in general practice surgeries was perceived positively, reducing waiting time and anxiety. Community heart failure nurses had greater knowledge of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance than general practitioners and practice nurses. Health-care professionals believed that the cost of natriuretic peptide tests in routine monitoring would outweigh potential benefits. The review of cost-effectiveness studies suggests that natriuretic peptide-guided treatment is cost-effective in specialist settings, but with no evidence for its value in primary care settings. Limitations No randomised controlled trial evidence was generated. The pathways to the benefit of monitoring chronic kidney disease were unclear. Conclusions It is difficult to ascribe quantifiable benefits to monitoring chronic kidney disease, because monitoring is unlikely to change treatment, especially in chronic kidney disease stages G3 and G4. New approaches to monitoring chronic heart failure, such as point-of-care natriuretic peptide tests in general practice, show promise if high within-test variability can be overcome. Future work The following future work is recommended: improve general practitioner–patient communication of early-stage renal function decline, and identify strategies to reduce the variability of natriuretic peptide. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017501, CRD42019134922 and CRD42016046902. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Improving the diagnosis and management of Lewy body dementia: the DIAMOND-Lewy research programme including pilot cluster RCT

Background Lewy body dementia, comprising both dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia, is the second commonest cause of neurodegenerative dementia. Existing evidence suggests that it is underdiagnosed and without a consistent approach to management. Objectives To improve the diagnosis and management of Lewy body dementia by (1) understanding current diagnostic practice for dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia; (2) identifying barriers to and facilitators of diagnosis and management; (3) developing evidence-based assessment toolkits to improve diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia; (4) producing a management toolkit to facilitate management; and (5) undertaking a pilot cluster randomised clinical trial. Design Work package 1 assessed clinical diagnostic rates from case notes for dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia before and after (work package 1 repeated) introduction of an assessment toolkit. In work package 2, we developed a management toolkit for Lewy body dementia. In work package 3, we developed assessment toolkits for dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia and piloted these and the management toolkit in a clinical service. In work package 4, we undertook a pilot study of 23 services in nine NHS trusts that were cluster randomised to receiving and using the management toolkit or standard care. Work package 5 comprised a series of qualitative studies, examining barriers to and facilitators of diagnosis and management. Setting Secondary care memory assessment and movement disorder services in England. Interventions Assessment toolkits for Lewy body dementia consisted of questions for diagnostic symptoms, and management toolkits comprised 161 guidance statements grouped under five symptom domains. Review methods The systematic reviews of pharmacological and non-pharmacological management were based on published literature, with meta-analysis when possible, following a search of several electronic databases and the grey literature using terms related to Lewy body dementia, without restriction on time or language. Participants Participants aged ≥ 50 years diagnosed with dementia with Lewy bodies or Parkinson’s disease dementia and, for work package 1 and work package 1 repeated, non-dementia with Lewy bodies and non-Parkinson’s disease dementia controls. The qualitative studies included people with Lewy body dementia, carers and professionals. Main outcome measures For work packages 1 and 1 repeated, diagnostic rates for dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia as a proportion of all dementia or Parkinson’s disease. For work packages 2 and 3, the production of diagnostic and management toolkits. For work package 4, feasibility of undertaking a cluster randomised trial of the toolkits, measured by number of participants recruited and use of the toolkits, assessed qualitatively. Results Work package 1 – 4.6% of dementia cases in secondary care received a dementia with Lewy bodies diagnosis (with significant differences in diagnostic rates between services) and 9.7% of those with Parkinson’s disease had a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease dementia. There was evidence of delays in diagnosis for both dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia compared with control patients, and the costs of dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia were also greater than those for matched controls (p < 0.01 for both). Work package 2 – we produced 252 statements regarding Lewy body dementia management and, following a Delphi process, 161 statements were included in a management toolkit. Work package 3 – piloting indicated that separate assessment toolkits for use in memory clinic and movement disorder services were preferred, but a single toolkit for Lewy body dementia management was suitable. Work package 4 – we were able to recruit Lewy body dementia patients to target and recruited 131 patients within 6 months (target n = 120), of whom > 80% were retained in the study at 6 months. Work package 5 – barriers to diagnosis and management of Lewy body dementia were complex. Managing Lewy body dementia often requires input from a range of specialties and, therefore, care pathways may be fragmented. Positive attitudes to diagnosing Lewy body dementia, working with a team with expertise in Lewy body dementia and opportunities for cross-specialty discussion of patients with complex needs facilitated diagnosis and management. The toolkits were generally well received, particularly the management toolkit. Implementation, however, varied, reflecting differences in attitudes, skills, time and local leadership. Work package 1 repeated – following introduction of the assessment toolkit, we found that 9.7% of dementia cases had dementia with Lewy bodies (a significant increase from baseline; p = 0.0019), but Parkinson’s disease dementia rates were similar (8.2%) to baseline. Limitations We included only two geographical regions and evidence informing the management toolkit was limited. Work package 4 was a pilot study and, therefore, we did not set out to assess the extent to which use of the management toolkit altered outcomes at the individual patient level. We noted implementation of the toolkits was variable. The increase in diagnostic rates in dementia with Lewy bodies following introduction of the assessment toolkits cannot be necessarily causally attributed to them. Conclusions Dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia were diagnosed in secondary care NHS services, with a lower frequency (around half) than that expected from known prevalence rates. The introduction of assessment toolkits for dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia was associated with increased diagnostic rates of dementia with Lewy bodies, but not Parkinson’s disease dementia. Qualitative studies indicated inherent complexities of the disease itself, with treatment requiring input from different specialties and the potential for fragmented services, a workforce with variable training and confidence in Lewy body dementia, and negative attitudes towards diagnosis. The cluster randomised pilot trial demonstrated that patients could be successfully recruited, and provided preliminary evidence that the toolkits could be implemented in clinical services. Future work The evidence base informing the management of Lewy body dementia is limited, especially for non-pharmacological interventions. More well-designed randomised controlled trials for both cognitive and non-cognitive symptoms are needed. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11083027. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Components, impacts and costs of dementia home support: a research programme including the DESCANT RCT

Background Over half of people with dementia live at home. We know little about what home support could be clinically effective or cost-effective in enabling them to live well. Objectives We aimed to (1) review evidence for components of home support, identify their presence in the literature and in services in England, and develop an appropriate economic model; (2) develop and test a practical memory support package in early-stage dementia, test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine home support in later-stage dementia and design a toolkit based on this evidence; and (3) elicit the preferences of staff, carers and people with dementia for home support inputs and packages, and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these approaches in early- and later-stage dementia. Design We undertook (1) an evidence synthesis, national surveys on the NHS and social care and an economic review; (2) a multicentre pragmatic randomised trial [Dementia Early Stage Cognitive Aids New Trial (DESCANT)] to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing memory aids and guidance to people with early-stage dementia (the DESCANT intervention), alongside process evaluation and qualitative analysis, an observational study of existing care packages in later-stage dementia along with qualitative analysis, and toolkit development to summarise this evidence; and (3) consultation with experts, staff and carers to explore the balance between informal and paid home support using case vignettes, discrete choice experiments to explore the preferences of people with dementia and carers between home support packages in early- and later-stage dementia, and cost–utility analysis building on trial and observational study. Setting The national surveys described Community Mental Health Teams, memory clinics and social care services across England. Recruitment to the trial was through memory services in nine NHS trusts in England and one health board in Wales. Recruitment to the observational study was through social services in 17 local authorities in England. Recruitment for the vignette and preference studies was through memory services, community centres and carers’ organisations. Participants People aged > 50 years with dementia within 1 year of first attendance at a memory clinic were eligible for the trial. People aged > 60 years with later-stage dementia within 3 months of a review of care needs were eligible for the observational study. We recruited staff, carers and people with dementia for the vignette and preference studies. All participants had to give written informed consent. Main outcome measures The trial and observational study used the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale as the primary outcome and also measured quality of life, capability, cognition, general psychological health and carers’ sense of competence. Methods Owing to the heterogeneity of interventions, methods and outcome measures, our evidence and economic reviews both used narrative synthesis. The main source of economic studies was the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. We analysed the trial and observational study by linear mixed models. We analysed the trial by ‘treatment allocated’ and used propensity scores to minimise confounding in the observational study. Results Our reviews and surveys identified several home support approaches of potential benefit. In early-stage dementia, the DESCANT trial had 468 randomised participants (234 intervention participants and 234 control participants), with 347 participants analysed. We found no significant effect at the primary end point of 6 months of the DESCANT intervention on any of several participant outcome measures. The primary outcome was the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale, for which scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores showing greater dependence. After adjustment for differences at baseline, the mean difference was 0.38, slightly but not significantly favouring the comparator group receiving treatment as usual. The 95% confidence interval ran from –0.89 to 1.65 (p = 0.56). There was no evidence that more intensive care packages in later-stage dementia were more effective than basic care. However, formal home care appeared to help keep people at home. Staff recommended informal care that cost 88% of formal care, but for informal carers this ratio was only 62%. People with dementia preferred social and recreational activities, and carers preferred respite care and regular home care. The DESCANT intervention is probably not cost-effective in early-stage dementia, and intensive care packages are probably not cost-effective in later-stage dementia. From the perspective of the third sector, intermediate intensity packages were cheaper but less effective. Certain elements may be driving these results, notably reduced use of carers’ groups. Limitations Our chosen outcome measures may not reflect subtle outcomes valued by people with dementia. Conclusions Several approaches preferred by people with dementia and their carers have potential. However, memory aids aiming to affect daily living activities in early-stage dementia or intensive packages compared with basic care in later-stage dementia were not clinically effective or cost-effective. Future work Further work needs to identify what people with dementia and their carers prefer and develop more sensitive outcome measures. Study registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12591717. The evidence synthesis is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014008890. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.