Testing a workplace physical activity intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Increased physical activity levels benefit both an individuals' health and productivity at work. The purpose of the current study was to explore the impact and cost-effectiveness of a workplace physical activity intervention designed to increase physical activity levels.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 1260 participants from 44 UK worksites (based within 5 organizations) were recruited to a cluster randomized controlled trial with worksites randomly allocated to an intervention or control condition. Measurement of physical activity and other variables occurred at baseline, and at 0 months, 3 months and 9 months post-intervention. Health outcomes were measured during a 30 minute health check conducted in worksites at baseline and 9 months post intervention. The intervention consisted of a 3 month tool-kit of activities targeting components of the Theory of Planned Behavior, delivered in-house by nominated facilitators. Self-reported physical activity (measured using the IPAQ short-form) and health outcomes were assessed.</p> <p>Results and discussion</p> <p>Multilevel modelling found no significant effect of the intervention on MET minutes of activity (from the IPAQ) at any of the follow-up time points controlling for baseline activity. However, the intervention did significantly reduce systolic blood pressure (B = -1.79 mm/Hg) and resting heart rate (B = -2.08 beats) and significantly increased body mass index (B = .18 units) compared to control. The intervention was found not to be cost-effective, however the substantial variability round this estimate suggested that further research is warranted.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The current study found mixed support for this worksite physical activity intervention. The paper discusses some of the tensions involved in conducting rigorous evaluations of large-scale randomized controlled trials in real-world settings.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current controlled trials <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN08807396">ISRCTN08807396</a></p

Patterns and predictors of e-cigarette, cigarette and dual use uptake in UK adolescents: Evidence from a 24-month Prospective Study

Background and Aims: To assess prevalence and predictors of e-cigarettes/cigarettes patterns of use in adolescents in England. Design: Prospective study with 24-month follow-up of e-cigarette/cigarette ever/regular use with data from an intervention evaluation. Setting: Forty-five schools in England (Staffordshire and Yorkshire). Participants: 3,210 adolescents who, at baseline, were aged 13-14 years and had never used e-cigarettes/cigarettes. Measurements: Based on e-cigarette/cigarette ever use at follow-up, six groups were created: (a) never user, (b) e-cigarette only, (c) cigarette only, (d) dual use – order of use unclear, (e) dual use – e-cigarettes used first, (f) dual use – cigarettes used first. Baseline measures were: gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, impulsivity, family plus friend smoking, and smoking-related beliefs (attitude and perceived behavioural control). Findings: In groups (a) through (f), there were 71·5%, 13·3%, 3·3%, 5·7%, 2·9%, and 3·4% adolescents, respectively. Among groups using cigarettes, regular smoking was more prevalent in group (f) (dual use – cigarettes used first) (17·6%, 95%CI 10·4, 24·8) than in groups (c), (d) and (e) combined (7·3%, 95%CI 4·7, 9·9). Among groups using e-cigarettes, regular use was less prevalent in group (b) (e-cigarette only) (1·9%, 95%CI 0·6, 3·2) than in groups (d), (e) and (f) combined (12·2%, 95%CI 8·9, 15·5). Higher impulsivity plus friends and family smoking were predictive of being in groups (b) to (f) compared with group (a) (never users). Males were more likely to be in group (b) compared to group (a); females were more likely to be in groups (c) to (f) compared to group (a). Conclusions: Regular use of e-cigarettes/cigarettes varies across groups defined by ever use of e-cigarettes/cigarettes. Interventions targeted at tackling impulsivity or adolescents whose friends and family members smoke may represent fruitful avenues for future research

Levofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma (TEAMM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Myeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent, serious infections. Around 5500 new cases of myeloma are diagnosed per year in the UK, and a quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. We aimed to assess whether patients newly diagnosed with myeloma benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection, and to investigate the effect on antibiotic-resistant organism carriage and health care-associated infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. METHODS: TEAMM was a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 21 years and older with newly diagnosed myeloma in 93 UK hospitals. All enrolled patients were within 14 days of starting active myeloma treatment. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to levofloxacin or placebo with a computerised minimisation algorithm. Allocation was stratified by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and intention to proceed to high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. All investigators, patients, laboratory, and trial co-ordination staff were masked to the treatment allocation. Patients were given 500 mg of levofloxacin (two 250 mg tablets), orally once daily for 12 weeks, or placebo tablets (two tablets, orally once daily for 12 weeks), with dose reduction according to estimated glomerular filtration rate every 4 weeks. Follow-up visits occurred every 4 weeks up to week 16, and at 1 year. The primary outcome was time to first febrile episode or death from all causes within the first 12 weeks of trial treatment. All randomised patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis of the primary endpoint. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN51731976, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, number 2011-000366-35. FINDINGS: Between Aug 15, 2012, and April 29, 2016, we enrolled and randomly assigned 977 patients to receive levofloxacin prophylaxis (489 patients) or placebo (488 patients). Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 8-13). 95 (19%) first febrile episodes or deaths occurred in 489 patients in the levofloxacin group versus 134 (27%) in 488 patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·51-0·86; p=0·0018. 597 serious adverse events were reported up to 16 weeks from the start of trial treatment (308 [52%] of which were in the levofloxacin group and 289 [48%] of which were in the placebo group). Serious adverse events were similar between the two groups except for five episodes (1%) of mostly reversible tendonitis in the levofloxacin group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment during the first 12 weeks of therapy significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths compared with placebo without increasing health care-associated infections. These results suggest that prophylactic levofloxacin could be used for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma undergoing anti-myeloma therapy. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research

Cost-effectiveness of recurrence risk guided care versus care as usual in women who suffered from early-onset preeclampsia including HELLP syndrome in their previous pregnancy (the PreCare study)

Contains fulltext : 87321.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Frailty-adjusted therapy in Transplant Non-Eligible patients with newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (FiTNEss (UK-MRA Myeloma XIV Trial)): a study protocol for a randomised phase III trial

INTRODUCTION: Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow cancer, which predominantly affects older people. The incidence is increasing in an ageing population.Over the last 10 years, patient outcomes have improved. However, this is less apparent in older, less fit patients, who are ineligible for stem cell transplant. Research is required in this patient group, taking into account frailty and aiming to improve: treatment tolerability, clinical outcomes and quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Frailty-adjusted therapy in Transplant Non-Eligible patients with newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma is a national, phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing standard (reactive) and frailty-adjusted (adaptive) induction therapy delivery with ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD), and to compare maintenance lenalidomide to lenalidomide+ixazomib, in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma not suitable for stem cell transplant. Overall, 740 participants will be registered into the trial to allow 720 and 478 to be randomised at induction and maintenance, respectively.All participants will receive IRD induction with the dosing strategy randomised (1:1) at trial entry. Patients randomised to the standard, reactive arm will commence at the full dose followed by toxicity dependent reactive modifications. Patients randomised to the adaptive arm will commence at a dose level determined by their International Myeloma Working Group frailty score. Following 12 cycles of induction treatment, participants alive and progression free will undergo a second (double-blind) randomisation on a 1:1 basis to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide+placebo versus lenalidomide+ixazomib until disease progression or intolerance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the North East-Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee (19/NE/0125) and capacity and capability confirmed by local research and development departments for each participating centre prior to opening to recruitment. Participants are required to provide written informed consent prior to trial registration. Trial results will be disseminated by conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications

Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies.

Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing 'translational gaps' through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored 'roadmap'. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use.Development of this roadmap received support from Cancer Research UK and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grant references A/15267, A/16463, A/16464, A/16465, A/16466 and A/18097), the EORTC Cancer Research Fund, and the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (grant agreement number 115151), resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) companies' in kind contribution

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P &lt; 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely