Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Journeying through Dementia (JtD) intervention compared to usual care

Introduction Services are being encouraged to provide postdiagnostic treatment to those with dementia but the availability of evidence-based interventions following diagnosis has not kept pace with increase in demand. To address this need, the Journeying through Dementia (JtD) intervention was created. A randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress. Methods and analysis The RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel group trial designed to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of JtD compared with usual care. Recruitment will be through NHS services, third sector organisations and Join Dementia Research. The sample size is 486 randomised (243 to usual care and 243 to the intervention usual care). Participants can choose to ask a friend or relative (supporter) to become involved in the study. The primary outcome measure for participants is Dementia-Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL), collected at baseline and at 8 months’ postrandomisation. Secondary outcome measures will be collected from participants and supporters at those visits. Participants will also be followed up at 12 months’ postrandomisation with a reduced set of measures. A process evaluation will be conducted through qualitative and fidelity substudies. Analyses will compare the two arms of the trial on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analyses will compare the mean DEMQOL scores of the participants at 8 months between the two study arms. A cost-effectiveness analysis will consider the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years of the intervention compared with usual care. Qualitative and fidelity substudies will be analysed through framework analysis and fidelity assessment tools respectively. Ethics and dissemination REC and HRA approval were obtained. A Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee has been constituted. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences and social media. Intervention materials will be made open access. Trial registration number ISRCTN17993825

Cohort Profile: The Yorkshire Health Study

The Yorkshire Health Study is a longitudinal observational regional health study collecting health information on the residents from the Yorkshire and Humberside region in England. The second wave of data collection is currently under way. The study aims to inform National Health Service (NHS) and local authority health-related decision making in Yorkshire, with wider implications from findings as well. The first wave contains records for 27 806 individuals (2010–12), aged between 16 and 85, from one part of Yorkshire (South Yorkshire), with the second wave expanding data collection to the whole of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Data were collected on current and long-standing health, health care usage and health-related behaviours, with a particular focus on weight and weight management. The majority of individuals have also given consent for record linkage with routine clinical data, allowing the linking to disease diagnosis, medication use and health care usage. The study encourages researchers to utilize the sample through the embedding of randomized controlled trials, other controlled trials and qualitative studies. To access the anonymized data or use the sample to recruit participants to studies, researchers should contact Clare Relton ( [email protected] )

The Journeying through Dementia psychosocial intervention versus usual care study: a two-arm, phase 3, superiority randomised controlled trial

Background There is an urgent clinical need for evidence based psychosocial interventions for people with mild dementia. We aimed to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of Journeying through Dementia (JtD), an intervention designed to promote wellbeing and independence in people with mild dementia. Methods We conducted a phase 3, two-arm parallel group, superiority, individually randomised controlled trial. Thirteen NHS sites across England recruited community-dwelling people with mild dementia and Mini-Mental State Examination score of ≥18. Centralised randomisation (1:1) was conducted for participants to receive JtD plus usual care or usual care (control), stratified by site. The JtD Intervention comprised 12 group and four one-to-one sessions, delivered in the community at each site. The primary endpoint was Dementia Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL), eight-months postrandomisation. Only outcome assessors were blinded. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Costeffectiveness analysis reported cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) from a UK NHS and social care perspective. Findings In total 480 people were randomised to intervention (241) or control (239) arms. Intervention adherence was very good. Mean DEMQOL scores at eight months were intervention arm 93·3 (SD 13·0, n=191) and control 91·9 (SD 14·6, n=197). Difference in means was 0·9 (95% CI -1·2 to 3·0) after adjustment for covariates, lower than that identified as clinically meaningful. Incremental cost per QALY ranged from £88K to -£205K, indicating that JtD was not cost-effective. Unrelated serious adverse events were experienced by 17% (40/241) of intervention and 15% (35/239) of control participants. Interpretation In common with other recently reported studies the JtD intervention was not provenly effective. However, this complex trial successfully recruited and retained people with dementia without necessarily involving carers, and people with dementia they were actively involved as participants and study advisors throughout. Further research into methods of measuring small, meaningful changes in this population is needed. Questions remain regarding how services can match the complex, diverse and individual needs of people with mild dementia, and how interventions to meet such needs can be delivered at scale

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT

Background: The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared. Objectives: To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Design: A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis. Setting: Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK. Participants: Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0–10). Interventions: Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using overencapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory – Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0–10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients’ preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A withintrial cost–utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective. Results: A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of –0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval –0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of –0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval –0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval –0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6–16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval –0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin –0.002 (95% confidence interval –0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline –0.006 (95% confidence interval –0.002 to 0.014) qualityadjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin −£113 (95% confidence interval −£381 to £90), ABSTRACT NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk viii amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval −£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval −£13 to £398)]. Limitations: Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable. Future work: Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief. Conclusions: The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients’ preference in terms of side effects. Trial registration: The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Safety and efficacy of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation with low-dose cyclophosphamide mobilisation and reduced intensity conditioning versus standard of care in refractory Crohn's disease (ASTIClite): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background: A previous controlled trial of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with refractory Crohn's disease did not meet its primary endpoint and reported high toxicity. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of HSCT with an immune-ablative regimen of reduced intensity versus standard of care in this patient population. Methods: This open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial was conducted in nine National Health Service hospital trusts across the UK. Adults (aged 18–60 years) with active Crohn's disease on endoscopy (Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease [SES-CD] ulcer sub-score of ≥2) refractory to two or more classes of biological therapy, with no perianal or intra-abdominal sepsis or clinically significant comorbidity, were recruited. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (2:1) to either HSCT with a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (intervention group) or standard care (control group). Randomisation was stratified by trial site by use of random permuted blocks of size 3 and 6. Patients in the intervention group underwent stem-cell mobilisation (cyclophosphamide 1 g/m2 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) 5 μg/kg) and stem-cell harvest (minimum 2·0 × 106 CD34+ cells per kg), before conditioning (fludarabine 125 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 120 mg/kg, and rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin [thymoglobulin] 7·5 mg/kg in total) and subsequent stem-cell reinfusion supported by G-CSF. Patients in the control group continued any available conventional, biological, or nutritional therapy. The primary outcome was absence of endoscopic ulceration (SES-CD ulcer sub-score of 0) without surgery or death at week 48, analysed in the intention-to-treat population by central reading. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 17160440. Findings: Between Oct 18, 2018, and Nov 8, 2019, 49 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 23 (47%) were randomly assigned: 13 (57%) to the intervention group and ten (43%) to the control group. In the intervention group, ten (77%) participants underwent HSCT and nine (69%) reached 48-week follow-up; in the control group, nine (90%) reached 48-week follow-up. The trial was halted in response to nine reported suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions in six (46%) patients in the intervention group, including renal failure due to proven thrombotic microangiopathy in three participants and one death due to pulmonary veno-occlusive disease. At week 48, absence of endoscopic ulceration without surgery or death was reported in three (43%) of seven participants in the intervention group and in none of six participants in the control group with available data. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the intervention group (38 in 13 [100%] patients) than in the control group (16 in four [40%] patients). A second patient in the intervention group died after week 48 of respiratory and renal failure. Interpretation: Although HSCT with an immune-ablative regimen of reduced intensity decreased endoscopic disease activity, significant adverse events deem this regimen unsuitable for future clinical use in patients with refractory Crohn's disease. Funding: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership

Multicentre, double-blind, crossover trial to identify the Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus (OPTION-DM): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The number of people with diabetes is growing rapidly. Diabetes can cause nerve damage leading to severe pain in the feet, legs and hands, which is known as diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin or gabapentin as initial treatment for DPNP. If this is not effective, adding one of the other drugs in combination with the first is recommended. NICE points out that these recommendations are not based on robust evidence. The OPTION-DM randomised controlled trial has been designed to address this evidence deficit, with the aims of determining the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for patients with DPNP. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, centre-stratified, multi-period crossover study with equal allocation to sequences (1:1:1:1:1:1) of treatment pathways. Three hundred and ninety-two participants will be recruited from secondary care DPNP centres in the UK. There are three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. All participants will receive all three pathways and randomisation will determine the order in which they are received. The primary outcome is the difference between 7-day average 24-h pain scores on an 11-point NRS scale measured during the final follow-up week of the treatment pathway. Secondary outcomes for efficacy, cost-effectiveness, safety, patient-perceived tolerability and subgroup analysis will be measured at week 6 and week 16 of each pathway. DISCUSSION: The study includes direct comparisons of the mainstay treatment for DPNP. This novel study is designed to examine treatment pathways and capture clinically relevant outcomes which will make the results generalisable to current clinical practice. The study will also provide information on health economic outcomes and will include a subgroup study to provide information on whether patient phenotypes predict response to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17545443 . Registered on 12 September 2016

Additional file 1 of Personalised versus standard text message prompts for increasing trial participant response to telephone follow-up: an embedded randomised controlled retention trial

Additional file 1: Table A. Recruitment to the SWAT, overall and by host trial treatment group

South Yorkshire Cohort: a 'cohort trials facility' study of health and weight - Protocol for the recruitment phase

Background: Growing levels of both obesity and chronic disease in the general population pose a major public health problem. In the UK, an innovative 'health and weight' cohort trials facility, the 'South Yorkshire Cohort', is being built in order to provide robust evidence to inform policy, commissioning and clinical decisions in this field. This protocol reports the design of the facility and outlines the recruitment phase methods. Method/Design: The South Yorkshire Cohort health and weight study uses the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design. This design recruits a large observational cohort of patients with the condition(s) of interest which then provides a facility for multiple randomised controlled trials (with large representative samples of participants, long term outcomes as standard, increased comparability between each trial conducted within the cohort and increased efficiency particularly for trials of expensive interventions) as well as ongoing information as to the natural history of the condition and treatment as usual. This study aims to recruit 20,000 participants to the population based South Yorkshire Cohort health and weight research trials facility. Participants are recruited by invitation letters from their General Practitioners. Data is collected using postal and/or online patient self completed Health Questionnaires. NHS numbers will be used to facilitate record linkage and access to routine data. Participants are eligible if they are: aged 16 - 85 years, registered with one of 40 practices in South Yorkshire, provide consent for further contact from the researchers and to have their information used to look at the benefit of health treatments. The first wave of data is being collected during 2010/12 and further waves are planned at 2 - 5 year intervals for the planned 20 year duration of the facility. Discussion: The South Yorkshire Cohort combines the strengths of the standard observational, longitudinal cohort study design with a population based cohort facility for multiple randomised controlled trials in a range of long term health and weight related conditions (including obesity). This infrastructure will allow the rapid and cheap identification and recruitment of patients, and facilitate the provision of robust evidence to inform the management and self-management of health and weight.</p