How pragmatic are the randomised trials used in recommendations for control of glycosylated haemoglobin levels in type 2 diabetic patients in general practice: an application of the PRECIS II tool.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations for good clinical practice have been reported to be difficult to apply in real life by primary care clinicians. This could be because the clinical trials at the origin of the guidelines are based on explanatory trials, conducted under ideal conditions not reflecting the reality of primary care, rather than pragmatic trials conducted under real-life conditions. The objective of this study was to evaluate how pragmatic are the clinical trials used to build the French High Authority of Health's recommendations on the management of type II diabetes. METHODS: Trials from the 2013 Cochrane meta-analysis that led to the 2013 French High Authority of Health's recommendations on the management of type II diabetes were selected. Each trial was analysed by applying the PRECIS-2 tool to evaluate whether the trial was pragmatic or explanatory, according to the nine domains of PRECIS-2. Each domain was scored between 1 (very explanatory) and 5 (very pragmatic) by two blinded researchers, and consensus was reached with a third researcher in case of discrepancy. Median scores were calculated for each of the nine domains. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were analysed. Eight out of nine domains - namely eligibility, recruitment, setting, organisation, flexibility of delivery, flexibility of adherence, follow-up, and primary outcome - had a median score of less than 3, indicating a more explanatory design. Only the primary analysis domain had a score indicating a more pragmatic approach (median score of 4). In more than 25% of the articles, data to score the domains of recruitment, flexibility of delivery, flexibility of adherence, and primary analysis were missing. CONCLUSIONS: Trials used to build French recommendations for good clinical practice for the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care were more explanatory than pragmatic. Policy-makers should encourage the funding of pragmatic trials to evaluate the different strategies proposed for managing the patient's treatment according to HbA1C levels and give clinicians feasible recommendations

The TANDEM trial: protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial of a complex intervention for anxiety and/or depression in people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Background: TANDEM is a randomised controlled trial of a complex healthcare intervention to improve the psychological and physical health of people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and anxiety and/or depression. Based on health psychology theory set out in a logic model, respiratory health professionals were recruited and trained to deliver a cognitive behavioural approach intervention (The TANDEM intervention) under the supervision of senior cognitive behavioural practitioners. Here, we describe the protocol for the process evaluation commissioned alongside the trial. A realist approach that includes attention to describing contexts and mechanisms has been adopted. Methods: We set up a multi-disciplinary team to develop and deliver the process evaluation. The mixed-methods design incorporates quantitative process data; monitoring of intervention fidelity; qualitative interviews with patients, carers, health professionals (facilitators) and clinical supervisors about their perspectives on acceptability of the intervention; and exploration with all stakeholders (including management/policy-makers) on future implementation. Normalisation process theory (NPT) will inform data collection and interpretation with a focus on implementation. Quantitative process data will be analysed descriptively. Qualitative interview data will be analysed before the trial outcomes are known using analytic induction and constant comparison to develop themes. Findings from the different elements will be reported separately and then integrated. Conclusion: Detailed description and analysis of study processes in a research trial such as TANDEM enables research teams to describe study contexts and mechanisms and to examine the relationship with outcomes. In this way, learning from the trial goes beyond the randomised control trial (RCT) model where effectiveness is prioritised and makes it possible to explore issues arising for post-trial study implementation. Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN59537391. Registered on 20 March 2017. Trial protocol version 6.0, 22 April 2018. Process evaluation protocol version 4.0, 1 November 2020

A tailored psychological intervention for anxiety and depression management in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: TANDEM RCT and process evaluation

Background: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have high levels of anxiety and depression, which is associated with increased morbidity and poor uptake of effective treatments, such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Cognitive-behavioural therapy improves mental health of people with long-term conditions and could potentially increase uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation, enabling synergies that could enhance the mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Aim: Our aim was to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, which links into, and optimises the benefits of, routine pulmonary rehabilitation. Design: We carried out a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial using a 1.25 : 1 ratio (intervention : control) with a parallel process evaluation, including assessment of fidelity. Setting: Twelve NHS trusts and five Clinical Commissioning Groups in England were recruited into the study. The intervention was delivered in participant\u27s own home or at a local NHS facility, and by telephone. Participants: Between July 2017 and March 2020 we recruited adults with moderate/very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mild/moderate anxiety and/or depression, meeting eligibility criteria for assessment for pulmonary rehabilitation. Carers of participants were invited to participate. Intervention: The cognitive-behavioural approach intervention (i.e. six to eight 40- to 60-minute sessions plus telephone support throughout pulmonary rehabilitation) was delivered by 31 trained respiratory healthcare professionals to participants prior to commencing pulmonary rehabilitation. Usual care included routine pulmonary rehabilitation referral. Main outcome measures: Co-primary outcomes were Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression at 6 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included health-related quality of life, smoking status, uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use. Results: We analysed results from 423 randomised participants (intervention, n = 242; control, n = 181). Forty-three carers participated. Follow-up at 6 and 12 months was 93% and 82%, respectively. Despite good fidelity for intervention delivery, mean between-group differences in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months ruled out clinically important effects (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety mean difference -0.60, 95% confidence interval -1.40 to 0.21; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression mean difference -0.66, 95% confidence interval -1.39 to 0.07), with similar results at 12 months. There were no between-group differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses did not alter these conclusions. More adverse events were reported for intervention participants than for control participants, but none related to the trial. The intervention did not generate quality-of-life improvements to justify the additional cost (adjusted mean difference \ua3770.24, 95% confidence interval -\ua327.91 to \ua31568.39) to the NHS. The intervention was well received and many participants described positive affects on their quality of life. Facilitators highlighted the complexity of participants\u27 lives and considered the intervention to be of potential valuable; however, the intervention would be difficult to integrate within routine clinical services. Our well-powered trial delivered a theoretically designed intervention with good fidelity. The respiratory-experienced facilitators were trained to deliver a low-intensity cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, but high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy might have been more effective. Our broad inclusion criteria specified objectively assessed anxiety and/or depression, but participants were likely to favour talking therapies. Randomisation was concealed and blinding of outcome assessment was breached in only 15 participants. Conclusions: The tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention delivered with fidelity by trained respiratory healthcare professionals to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Alternative approaches that are integrated with routine long-term condition care are needed to address the unmet, complex clinical and psychosocial needs of this group of patients. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN59537391. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/146/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.People with long-standing lung problems, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, often also have anxiety and depression, which further reduces their quality of life. Two existing treatments could help. Pulmonary rehabilitation (a programme of exercise and education) improves both the physical and mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cognitive–behavioural therapy (a talking therapy) may reduce anxiety and depression. The TANDEM [Tailored intervention for Anxiety and Depression Management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)] intervention linked these two treatments by providing talking therapy based on cognitive–behavioural therapy during the waiting time following referral for pulmonary rehabilitation. The TANDEM treatment was delivered by respiratory healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses or physiotherapists) trained to deliver the talking therapy in six to eight weekly sessions. The sessions were conducted in the participant’s home (or another convenient location), with brief telephone support during the pulmonary rehabilitation. Of 423 participants recruited to the study, 242 participants received TANDEM talking therapy and 181 participants received usual care (including a referral to pulmonary rehabilitation). We measured mental health, quality of life, social life, attendance at pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use in both groups at 6 and 12 months. Forty-three carers joined the study and we assessed their mental well-being. We interviewed patients, carers and health professionals to find out their views and experience of the TANDEM treatment. We also examined whether or not the TANDEM treatment was good value for money. The TANDEM treatment did not improve the mental or the physical health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, the TANDEM treatment cost the NHS an extra \ua3770 per patient, which was not good value for money. The TANDEM treatment was well received, and many participants told us how it had helped them. Heath-care professionals noted how participants did not just have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but were coping with many physical, mental and social problems. The TANDEM intervention was not effective and, therefore, other strategies will be needed to help people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mental health problems live with their condition

Intermediate care in caring for dementia, the point of view of general practitioners: A key informant survey across Europe.

Background: Intermediate care is often defined as healthcare occurring somewhere between traditional primary (community) and secondary (hospital) care settings. High quality intermediate care is important in dementia, may prevent caregiver burnout and also lead to optimal care for people with dementia. However, very little is known about the point of intermediate care for persons with dementia in Europe. Research questions: What intermediate care services exist and how are they utilized in the care of people with dementia in Europe? Objective: This study aims at describing the point of view of General Practitioners on intermediate care services for people with dementia across Europe. Methods: Key informant survey was sent to GPs via a self-developed questionnaire with space for open ended comments. 16 European countries participated to this cross-sectional mixed method study. Given the volunteer nature of the study, no minimum sample size requirements were applied to participation. Convenience sampling technique was used to address variations due to regional variations and regulations within the same country. Descriptive analyses of all intermediate care facilities groups by countries were performed. Qualitative analyses approach was used for the optional-free text to exemplify and/or complete the reasons contained in the closed response categories. Results: The questionnaire was sent to 16 European countries. 583 questionnaires were analyzed. The responding physicians were 48 (± 11) years old on average and they had been in practice for an average of 18 (+ /11) years. The types of intermediate care considered were integrated at-home services, respite and relief services, day care centers and nursing homes. Their availability was considered very inhomogeneous by the majority of respondents. The main benefits of intermediate care cited were better medical care for the patient (78%), better quality of life for the caregiver (67%), prevention of the caregiver burden (73%) and a break for the caregiver (59%). The reported difficulties were: accessing these facilities due to limited financial support (76%) and cumbersome administrative procedures (67%). Many other facets of our findings were captured in the qualitative themes that emerged. Conclusion: Intermediate care in Europe is diverse and heterogeneous. Major concerns of GPs are about the cost issues and the cumbersome administrative procedures to access them

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway compared to usual care for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: study protocol for a UK randomised controlled trial.

Approximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain after total knee replacement. There is little evidence for effective interventions for the management of this pain, and current healthcare provision is patchy and inconsistent. Given the complexity of this condition, multimodal and individualised interventions matched to pain characteristics are needed. We have undertaken a comprehensive programme of work to develop a care pathway for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement. This protocol describes the design of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention care pathway compared with usual care.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Additional Link above to access the full-text via the publisher's site

Tutorat au département universitaire de médecine générale de Tours, quel bilan en fin de DES ?

International audienc

A tailored psychological intervention for anxiety and depression management in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: TANDEM RCT and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease have high levels of anxiety and depression, which is associated with increased morbidity and poor uptake of effective treatments, such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Cognitive-behavioural therapy improves mental health of people with long-term conditions and could potentially increase uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation, enabling synergies that could enhance the mental health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. AIM: Our aim was to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, which links into, and optimises the benefits of, routine pulmonary rehabilitation. DESIGN: We carried out a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial using a 1.25 : 1 ratio (intervention : control) with a parallel process evaluation, including assessment of fidelity. SETTING: Twelve NHS trusts and five Clinical Commissioning Groups in England were recruited into the study. The intervention was delivered in participant's own home or at a local NHS facility, and by telephone. PARTICIPANTS: Between July 2017 and March 2020 we recruited adults with moderate/very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mild/moderate anxiety and/or depression, meeting eligibility criteria for assessment for pulmonary rehabilitation. Carers of participants were invited to participate. INTERVENTION: The cognitive-behavioural approach intervention (i.e. six to eight 40- to 60-minute sessions plus telephone support throughout pulmonary rehabilitation) was delivered by 31 trained respiratory healthcare professionals to participants prior to commencing pulmonary rehabilitation. Usual care included routine pulmonary rehabilitation referral. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary outcomes were Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression at 6 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included health-related quality of life, smoking status, uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation and healthcare use. RESULTS: We analysed results from 423 randomised participants (intervention, n = 242; control, n = 181). Forty-three carers participated. Follow-up at 6 and 12 months was 93% and 82%, respectively. Despite good fidelity for intervention delivery, mean between-group differences in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 6 months ruled out clinically important effects (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - anxiety mean difference -0.60, 95% confidence interval -1.40 to 0.21; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - depression mean difference -0.66, 95% confidence interval -1.39 to 0.07), with similar results at 12 months. There were no between-group differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses did not alter these conclusions. More adverse events were reported for intervention participants than for control participants, but none related to the trial. The intervention did not generate quality-of-life improvements to justify the additional cost (adjusted mean difference £770.24, 95% confidence interval -£27.91 to £1568.39) to the NHS. The intervention was well received and many participants described positive affects on their quality of life. Facilitators highlighted the complexity of participants' lives and considered the intervention to be of potential valuable; however, the intervention would be difficult to integrate within routine clinical services. Our well-powered trial delivered a theoretically designed intervention with good fidelity. The respiratory-experienced facilitators were trained to deliver a low-intensity cognitive-behavioural approach intervention, but high-intensity cognitive-behavioural therapy might have been more effective. Our broad inclusion criteria specified objectively assessed anxiety and/or depression, but participants were likely to favour talking therapies. Randomisation was concealed and blinding of outcome assessment was breached in only 15 participants. CONCLUSIONS: The tailored cognitive-behavioural approach intervention delivered with fidelity by trained respiratory healthcare professionals to people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. Alternative approaches that are integrated with routine long-term condition care are needed to address the unmet, complex clinical and psychosocial needs of this group of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN59537391. FUNDING: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/146/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information