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

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

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

scholarly journals Self-Management education for adults with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)]: a randomised controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (21) ◽  
pp. 1-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leone Ridsdale ◽  
Alison McKinlay ◽  
Gabriella Wojewodka ◽  
Emily J Robinson ◽  
Iris Mosweu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Management Education ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Depression Symptoms ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundEpilepsy is a common neurological condition resulting in recurrent seizures. Research evidence in long-term conditions suggests that patients benefit from self-management education and that this may improve quality of life (QoL). Epilepsy self-management education has yet to be tested in a UK setting.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Self-Management education for people with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)].DesignA parallel pragmatic randomised controlled trial.SettingParticipants were recruited from eight hospitals in London and south-east England.ParticipantsAdults aged ≥ 16 years with epilepsy and two or more epileptic seizures in the past year, who were currently being prescribed antiepileptic drugs.InterventionA 2-day group self-management course alongside treatment as usual (TAU). The control group received TAU.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome is QoL in people with epilepsy at 12-month follow-up using the Quality Of Life In Epilepsy 31-P (QOLIE-31-P) scale. Other outcomes were seizure control, impact of epilepsy, medication adverse effects, psychological distress, perceived stigma, self-mastery and medication adherence. Cost-effectiveness analyses and a process evaluation were undertaken.RandomisationA 1 : 1 ratio between trial arms using fixed block sizes of two.BlindingParticipants were not blinded to their group allocation because of the nature of the study. Researchers involved in data collection and analysis remained blinded throughout.ResultsThe trial completed successfully. A total of 404 participants were enrolled in the study [SMILE (UK),n = 205; TAU,n = 199] with 331 completing the final follow-up at 12 months [SMILE (UK),n = 163; TAU,n = 168]. In the intervention group, 61.5% completed all sessions of the course. No adverse events were found to be related to the intervention. At baseline, participants had a mean age of 41.7 years [standard deviation (SD) 14.1 years], and had epilepsy for a median of 18 years. The mean QOLIE-31-P score for the whole group at baseline was 66.0 out of 100.0 (SD 14.2). Clinically relevant levels of anxiety symptoms were reported in 53.6% of the group and depression symptoms in 28.0%. The results following an intention-to-treat analysis showed no change in any measures at the 12-month follow-up [QOLIE-31-P: SMILE (UK) mean: 67.4, SD 13.5; TAU mean: 69.5, SD 14.8]. The cost-effectiveness study showed that SMILE (UK) was possibly cost-effective but was also associated with lower QoL. The process evaluation with 20 participants revealed that a group course increased confidence by sharing with others and improved self-management behaviours.ConclusionsFor people with epilepsy and persistent seizures, a 2-day self-management education course is cost-saving, but does not improve QoL after 12-months or reduce anxiety or depression symptoms. A psychological intervention may help with anxiety and depression. Interviewed participants reported attending a group course increased their confidence and helped them improve their self-management.Future workMore research is needed on self-management courses, with psychological components and integration with routine monitoring.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN57937389.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. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals SOMA-trial: surgery or medication for women with an endometrioma? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial and cohort study

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E van Barneveld ◽  
V B Veth ◽  
J M Sampat ◽  
A M F Schreurs ◽  
M van Wely ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pain Reduction ◽  
Deep Endometriosis ◽  
Ovarian Endometrioma ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract STUDY QUESTIONS The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of women suffering from pain due to an ovarian endometrioma when compared to treatment with medication (analgesia and/or hormones). The primary outcome is defined as successful pain reduction (−30% reduction of pain) measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life, affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness, recurrence rate, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve, adjuvant surgery and budget impact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Evidence suggests that both medication and surgical treatment of an ovarian endometrioma are effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life. However, there are no randomised studies that compare surgery to treatment with medication. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This study will be performed in a research network of university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and parallel prospective cohort study in patients with an ovarian endometrioma, with the exclusion of patients with deep endometriosis, will be conducted. After obtaining informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either treatment arm (medication or surgery) by using web-based block randomisation stratified per centre. A successful pain reduction is set at a 30% decrease on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Based on a power of 80% and an alpha of 5% and using a continuity correction, a sample size of 69 patients in each treatment arm is needed. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 25% (i.e. loss to follow up), we need to include 92 patients in each treatment arm, i.e. 184 in total. Simultaneously, a cohort study will be performed for eligible patients who are not willing to be randomised because of a distinct preference for one of the two treatment arms. We intend to include 100 women in each treatment arm to enable standardization by inverse probability weighting, which means 200 patients in total. The expected inclusion period is 24 months with a follow-up of 18 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Premenopausal women (age ≥ 18 years) with pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain or dyspareunia) and an ovarian endometrioma (cyst diameter ≥ 3 cm) who visit the outpatient clinic will make up the study population. Patients with signs of deep endometriosis will be excluded. The primary outcome is successful pain reduction, which is defined as a 30% decrease of pain on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life and affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness (from a healthcare and societal perspective), number of participants needing additional surgery, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve and recurrence rate of endometriomas. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-85200-98-91041. The Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck KGaA and Ferring not related to the submitted work. B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet. V. Mijatovic reports grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7447, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 2 January 2019 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT First inclusion in randomised controlled trial October 4, 2019. First inclusion in cohort May 22, 2019.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a structured social coaching intervention for people with psychosis (SCENE): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e050627
Author(s):  
Domenico Giacco ◽  
Agnes Chevalier ◽  
Megan Patterson ◽  
Thomas Hamborg ◽  
Rianna Mortimer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Social Activities ◽  
Social Contacts ◽  
Coaching Intervention ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPeople with psychosis tend to have smaller social networks than both people in the general population and other people with long-term health conditions. Small social networks are associated with poor quality of life. Preliminary evidence suggests that coaching patients to increase their social contacts may be effective. In this study, we assessed whether structured social coaching improves the quality of life of patients with psychosis (primary outcome) compared with an active control group, receiving information on local social activities.Methods and analysisA structured social coaching intervention was developed based on the literature and refined through stakeholder involvement. It draws on principles from motivational interviewing, solution focused therapy and structured information giving. It is provided over a 6-month period and can be delivered by a range of different mental health professionals. Its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are assessed in a randomised controlled trial, compared with an active control group, in which participants are given an information booklet on local social activities. Participants are aged 18 or over, have a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder (International Classification of Disease: F20–29) and capacity to provide informed consent. Participants are assessed at baseline and at 6, 12 and 18 months after individual randomisation. The primary outcome is quality of life at 6 months (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life). We hypothesise that the effects on quality of life are mediated by an increase in social contacts. Secondary outcomes are symptoms, social situation and time spent in social activities. Costs and cost-effectiveness analyses will consider service use and health-related quality of life.Ethics and disseminationNational Health Service REC London Hampstead (19/LO/0088) provided a favourable opinion. Findings will be disseminated through a website, social media, scientific papers and user-friendly reports, in collaboration with a lived experience advisory panel.Trial registration numberISRCTN15815862.

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

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

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

scholarly journals A pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing stapled haemorrhoidopexy with traditional excisional surgery for haemorrhoidal disease: the eTHoS study

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (70) ◽  
pp. 1-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angus JM Watson ◽  
Jonathan Cook ◽  
Jemma Hudson ◽  
Mary Kilonzo ◽  
Jessica Wood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Stapled Haemorrhoidopexy ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Haemorrhoidal Disease ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk ◽  
To Receive

BackgroundHaemorrhoids are a benign anorectal condition and are highly prevalent in the UK population. Treatments involve clinic-based procedures and surgery. The surgical procedures available include stapled haemorrhoidopexy (SH) and traditional haemorrhoidectomy (TH), and over 25,000 operations are performed for haemorrhoids annually in the UK. The disease is therefore important both to patients and to health service commissioners. Debate remains as to which of these surgical procedures is the most clinically effective and cost-effective.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SH with that of TH.DesignA large, open two-arm parallel-group pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial involving 32 UK hospitals and a within-trial cost–benefit analysis. A discrete choice experiment was conducted to estimate benefits (willingness to pay).ParticipantsPatients with grades II–IV haemorrhoids who had not previously undergone SH or TH were included in the study.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to receive either SH or TH. Randomisation was minimised at 1 : 1, in accordance with baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) score, haemorrhoid grade, sex and centre, via an automated system.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was area under the quality-of-life curve measured using the EQ-5D-3L descriptive system over 24 months, and the primary economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Secondary outcomes included disease-specific quality of life, recurrence, complications, further interventions and costs.ResultsBetween January 2011 and August 2014, 777 patients were randomised (389 to receive SH and 388 to receive TH). There were 774 participants included in the analysis as a result of one post-randomisation exclusion in the SH arm and two in the TH arm. SH was less painful than TH in the short term. Surgical complications were similar in both arms. EQ-5D-3L score was higher for the SH arm in the first 6 weeks after surgery, but over 24 months the TH group had significantly better EQ-5D-3L scores (–0.073, 95% confidence interval –0.140 to –0.006;p = 0.0342). Symptoms and further interventions were significantly fewer in the TH arm at 24 months. Continence was better in the TH arm and tenesmus occurred less frequently. The number of serious adverse events reported was 24 out of 337 (7.1%) for participants who received SH and 33 out of 352 (9.4%) for those who received TH. There were two deaths in the SH arm, both unrelated to the eTHoS (either Traditional Haemorrhoidectomy or Stapled haemorrhoidopexy for haemorrhoidal disease) study. Patient preference did not seem to influence the treatment difference. SH was dominated by TH as it cost more and was less effective. The net benefit for the TH arm was higher than that for the SH arm.LimitationsNeither the participants nor the assessors were masked to treatment assignment and final recruitment was slightly short of the total target of 800. There were also substantial missing follow-up data.ConclusionsWhile patients who received SH had less short-term pain, after 6 weeks, recurrence rates, symptoms, re-interventions and quality-of-life measures all favoured TH. In addition, TH is cheaper. As part of a tailored management plan for haemorrhoids, TH should be considered over SH as the surgical treatment of choice for haemorrhoids refractory to clinic-based interventions.Future workPerform an updated meta-analysis incorporating recently conducted European trials [eTHoS, HubBLe (haemorrhoidal artery ligation versus rubber band ligation for the management of symptomatic second-degree and third-degree haemorrhoids) and LingaLongo (Cost-effectiveness of New Surgical Treatments for Haemorrhoidal Disease)].Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN80061723.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. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy and occupational therapy versus no therapy in mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease: a large pragmatic randomised controlled trial (PD REHAB)

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (63) ◽  
pp. 1-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl E Clarke ◽  
Smitaa Patel ◽  
Natalie Ives ◽  
Caroline E Rick ◽  
Rebecca Woolley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk

BackgroundCochrane reviews of physiotherapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) for Parkinson’s disease found insufficient evidence of effectiveness, but previous trials were methodologically flawed with small sample size and short-term follow-up.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individualised PT and OT in Parkinson’s disease.DesignLarge pragmatic randomised controlled trial.SettingThirty-eight neurology and geriatric medicine outpatient clinics in the UK.ParticipantsSeven hundred and sixty-two patients with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease reporting limitations in activities of daily living (ADL).InterventionPatients were randomised online to either both PT and OT NHS services (n = 381) or no therapy (n = 381). Therapy incorporated a patient-centred approach with individual assessment and goal setting.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was instrumental ADL measured by the patient-completed Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life [Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39); European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)], adverse events, resource use and carer quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-12 items). Outcomes were assessed before randomisation and at 3, 9 and 15 months after randomisation.ResultsData from 92% of the participants in each group were available at the primary time point of 3 months, but there was no difference in NEADL total score [difference 0.5 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.7 to 1.7;p = 0.4] or PDQ-39 summary index (0.007 points, 95% CI –1.5 to 1.5;p = 1.0) between groups. The EQ-5D quotient was of borderline significance in favour of therapy (–0.03, 95% CI –0.07 to –0.002;p = 0.04). Contact time with therapists was for a median of four visits of 58 minutes each over 8 weeks (mean dose 232 minutes). Repeated measures analysis including all time points showed no difference in NEADL total score, but PDQ-39 summary index (curves diverging at 1.6 points per annum, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62;p = 0.005) and EQ-5D quotient (0.02, 95% CI 0.00007 to 0.03;p = 0.04) showed significant but small differences in favour of the therapy arm. Cost-effective analysis showed that therapy was associated with a slight but not significant gain in quality-adjusted life-years (0.027, 95% CI –0.010 to 0.065) at a small incremental cost (£164, 95% CI –£141 to £468), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of under £4000 (£3493, 95% –£169,371 to £176,358). There was no difference in adverse events or serious adverse events.ConclusionsNHS PT and OT did not produce immediate or long-term clinically meaningful improvements in ADL or quality of life in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson’s disease. This evidence does not support the use of low-dose, patient-centred, goal-directed PT and OT in patients in the early stages of Parkinson’s disease. Future research should include the development and testing of more structured and intensive PT and OT programmes in patients with all stages of Parkinson’s disease.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN17452402.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, received support from the UK Department of Health up to March 2012. Catherine Sackley was supported by a NIHR senior investigator award, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England and West Midlands Strategic Health Authority Clinical Academic Training award.

scholarly journals Laser in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (LiGHT) trial. A multicentre, randomised controlled trial: design and methodology

2017 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 593-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gus Gazzard ◽  
Evgenia Konstantakopoulou ◽  
David Garway-Heath ◽  
Keith Barton ◽  
Richard Wormald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Ocular Hypertension ◽  
Medical Therapy ◽  
Initial Treatment ◽  
Open Angle Glaucoma ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled

PurposeThe Laser in Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (LiGHT) Trial aims to establish whether initial treatment with selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) is superior to initial treatment with topical medication for primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT).DesignThe LiGHT Trial is a prospective, unmasked, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. 718 previously untreated patients with POAG or OHT were recruited at six collaborating centres in the UK between 2012 and 2014. The trial comprises two treatment arms: initial SLT followed by conventional medical therapy as required, and medical therapy without laser therapy. Randomisation was provided online by a web-based randomisation service. Participants will be monitored for 3 years, according to routine clinical practice. The target intraocular pressure (IOP) was set at baseline according to an algorithm, based on disease severity and lifetime risk of loss of vision at recruitment, and subsequently adjusted on the basis of IOP control, optic disc and visual field. The primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life (HRQL) (EQ-5D five-level). Secondary outcomes are treatment pathway cost and cost-effectiveness, Glaucoma Utility Index, Glaucoma Symptom Scale, Glaucoma Quality of Life, objective measures of pathway effectiveness, visual function and safety profiles and concordance. A single main analysis will be performed at the end of the trial on an intention-to-treat basis.ConclusionsThe LiGHT Trial is a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised clinical trial that will provide valuable data on the relative HRQL, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SLT and topical IOP-lowering medication.Trial registration numberISRCTN32038223, Pre-results.

scholarly journals Protocol for a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the diabetes community exercise and education programme (DCEP) for long-term management of diabetes

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e025578
Author(s):  
Leigh Hale ◽  
Tim Stokes ◽  
Bonnie Scarth ◽  
Ramakrishnan Mani ◽  
Trudy Sullivan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Education Programme ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionType 2 diabetes is common in Māori and Pacific peoples and in those living in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation in New Zealand (NZ). People with type 2 diabetes often have multimorbidity, which makes their diabetes management more complex. The Diabetes Community Exercise and Education Programme (DCEP) is an interprofessional, patient-centred, whānau (family)-supported package of care specifically developed to engage with Māori and Pacific people and those living in deprived areas. We have previously demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the DCEP. This study aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the DCEP through a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT).Methods and analysis220 adults (age ≥35 years) with type 2 diabetes will be recruited from general practices in the lower South Island of NZ (Dunedin and Invercargill) to participate in an RCT. Participants will be randomised to intervention (DCEP) and control (usual care) groups. The DCEP participants will have their exercise goals agreed on with a physiotherapist and nurse and will attend two 90 min exercise and education sessions per week for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure is blood glucose control (glycated haemoglobin). Secondary outcome measures include quality of life assessed using the Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life questionnaire. Data will be collected at four time points: baseline, end of the 12-week intervention (3 months), 6 months postintervention (9 months) and 12 months after the intervention ends (15 months). We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a qualitative process evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Health and Disability Ethics Committee, Ministry of Health (HDEC17/CEN/241/AM01). A key output will be the development of an evidence-based training package to facilitate implementation of the DCEP in other NZ regions.Trial registration numberACTRN 12617001624370 p; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a guided internet-based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to improve chronic pain–related disability in green professions (PACT-A): study protocol of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e034271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yannik Terhorst ◽  
Lina Braun ◽  
Ingrid Titzler ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Johanna Freund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Acceptance And Commitment Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Acceptance And Commitment ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial

IntroductionChronic pain is highly prevalent, associated with substantial personal and economic burdens, and increased risk for mental disorders. Individuals in green professions (agriculturists, horticulturists, foresters) show increased prevalence of chronic pain and other risk factors for mental disorders. Available healthcare services in rural areas are limited. Acceptance towards face-to-face therapy is low. Internet and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) might be a promising alternative for this population and may enable effective treatment of chronic pain. The present study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an ACT-based IMI for chronic pain in green professions in comparison with enhanced treatment as usual (TAU+).Methods and analysisA two-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial will be conducted. Two hundred eighty-six participants will be randomised and allocated to either an intervention or TAU+ group. Entrepreneurs in green professions, collaborating spouses, family members and pensioners with chronic pain are eligible for inclusion. The intervention group receives an internet-based intervention based on ACT (7 modules, over 7 weeks) guided by a trained e-coach to support adherence (eg, by positive reinforcement). Primary outcome is pain interference (Multidimensional Pain Interference scale; MPI) at 9 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes are depression severity (Quick Inventory Depressive Symptomology; QIDS-SR16), incidence of major depressive disorder, quality of life (Assessment of Quality of Life; AQoL-8D) and possible side effects associated with the treatment (Inventory for the Assessment of Negative Effects of Psychotherapy; INEP). Psychological flexibility (Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, Committed Action Questionnaire, Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire) will be evaluated as a potential mediator of the treatment effect. Furthermore, mediation, moderation and health-economic analyses from a societal perspective will be performed. Outcomes will be measured using online self-report questionnaires at baseline, 9-week, 6-month, 12-month, 24-month and 36-month follow-ups.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Ulm, Germany (file no. 453/17—FSt/Sta; 22 February 2018). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trial Registration: DRKS00014619. Registered on 16 April 2018.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document