The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a ‘stepping into day treatment’ approach versus inpatient treatment as usual for anorexia nervosa in adult specialist eating disorder services (DAISIES trial): a study protocol of a randomised controlled multi-centre open-label parallel group non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious and disabling mental disorder with a high disease burden. In a proportion of cases, intensive hospital-based treatments, i.e. inpatient or day patient treatment, are required, with day patient treatment often being used as a 'step-down' treatment after a period of inpatient treatment. Demand for such treatment approaches has seen a sharp rise. Despite this, the relative merits of these approaches for patients, their families, and the NHS and wider society are relatively unknown. This paper describes the rationale for, and protocol of, a two-arm multi-centre open-label parallel group non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two intensive treatments for adults with severe AN: inpatient treatment as usual and a stepped care day patient approach (the combination of day patient treatment with the option of initial inpatient treatment for medical stabilisation). The main aim of this trial is to establish whether, in adults with severe AN, a stepped care day patient approach is non-inferior to inpatient treatment as usual in relation to improving body mass index (BMI) at 12 months post-randomisation. METHODS: 386 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th edition diagnosis of severe AN or related disorder, with a BMI of ≤16 kg/m2 and in need of intensive treatment will be randomly allocated to either inpatient treatment as usual or a stepped care day patient approach. Patients in both groups will receive treatment until they reach a healthy weight or get as close to this point as possible. Assessments will be conducted at baseline (prior to randomisation), and at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation, with additional monthly symptom monitoring. The primary outcome will be BMI at the 12-month post-randomisation assessment. Other outcomes will include psychosocial adjustment; treatment motivation, expectations and experiences; cost-effectiveness; and carer burden. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide a rigorous evaluation of two intensive treatment approaches which will inform future national and international treatment guidelines and service provision

Can treatment trial samples be representative?

A catchment area-based sample of patients recruited for an eating disorder treatment trial was compared with patients from the same geographical area seen in the 12 months before and after the trial. The three samples were very similar. The research sample was representative of the usual clinic sample from which it had been selected and thus the results could be extrapolated with some confidence to other similar clinical settings. It is concluded that whilst treatment trials, by their very nature, have explicit and implicit inclusion and exclusion criteria with appropriate designs they can be usefully representative

Transdiagnostic Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Patients With Eating Disorders: A Two-Site Trial With 60-Week Follow-Up

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare two cognitive-behavioral treatments for outpatients with eating disorders, one focusing solely on eating disorder features and the other a more complex treatment that also addresses mood intolerance, clinical perfectionism, low self-esteem, or interpersonal difficulties. Method: A total of 154 patients who had a DSM-IV eating disorder but were not markedly underweight (body mass index over 17.5), were enrolled in a two-site randomized controlled trial involving 20 weeks of treatment and a 60-week closed period of follow-up. The control condition was an 8-week waiting list period preceding treatment. Outcomes were measured by independent assessors who were blind to treatment condition. Results: Patients in the waiting list control condition exhibited little change in symptom severity, whereas those in the two treatment conditions exhibited substantial and equivalent change, which was well maintained during follow-up. At the 60-week follow-up assessment, 51.3% of the sample had a level of eating disorder features less than one standard deviation above the community mean. Treatment outcome did not depend on eating disorder diagnosis. Patients with marked mood intolerance, clinical perfectionism, low self-esteem, or interpersonal difficulties appeared to respond better to the more complex treatment, with the reverse pattern evident among the remaining patients. Conclusions: These two transdiagnostic treatments appear to be suitable for the majority of outpatients with an eating disorder. The simpler treatment may best be viewed as the default version, with the more complex treatment reserved for patients with marked additional psychopathology of the type targeted by the treatment

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable