Protocol for an HTA report: Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic modelling

This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/Introduction: Long-term medical conditions (LTCs) cause reduced health-related quality of life and considerable health service expenditure. Writing therapy has potential to improve physical and mental health in people with LTCs, but its effectiveness is not established. This project aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic writing in LTCs by systematic review and economic evaluation, and to evaluate context and mechanisms by which it might work, through realist synthesis. Methods: Included are any comparative study of therapeutic writing compared with no writing, waiting list, attention control or placebo writing in patients with any diagnosed LTCs that report at least one of the following: relevant clinical outcomes; quality of life; health service use; psychological, behavioural or social functioning; adherence or adverse events. Searches will be conducted in the main medical databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index. For the realist review, further purposive and iterative searches through snowballing techniques will be undertaken. Inclusions, data extraction and quality assessment will be in duplicate with disagreements resolved through discussion. Quality assessment will include using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Data synthesis will be narrative and tabular with meta-analysis where appropriate. De novo economic modelling will be attempted in one clinical area if sufficient evidence is available and performed according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reference case.National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programm

Breast cancer in lesbians and bisexual women: Systematic review of incidence, prevalence and risk studies

This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. © 2013 Meads and Moore; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: The UK Parliamentary Enquiry and USA Institute of Medicine state that lesbians may be at a higher risk of breast cancer but there is insufficient information. Lesbians and bisexual (LB) women have behavioural risk-factors at higher rates compared to heterosexuals such as increased alcohol intake and higher stress levels. Conversely, breast cancer rates are higher in more affluent women yet income levels in LB women are relatively low. This systematic review investigated all evidence on whether there is, or likely to be, higher rates of breast cancer in LB women. Methods: Cochrane library (CDSR, CENTRAL, HTA, DARE, NHSEED), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CAB abstracts, Web of Science (SCI, SSCI), SIGLE and Social Care Online databases were searched to October 2013. Unpublished research and specific lesbian, gay and bisexual websites were checked, as were citation lists of relevant papers. Included were studies in LB populations reporting breast cancer incidence or prevalence rates, risk model results or risk-factor estimates. Inclusions, data-extraction and quality assessment were by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion. Results: Searches found 198 references. No incidence rates were found. Nine studies gave prevalence estimates - two showed higher, four showed no differences, one showed mixed results depending on definitions, one had no comparison group and one gave no sample size. All studies were small with poor methodological and/or reporting quality. One incidence modelling study suggested a higher rate. Four risk modelling studies were found, one Rosner-Colditz and three Gail models. Three suggested higher and one lower rate in LB compared to heterosexual women. Six risk-factor estimates suggested higher risk and one no difference between LB and heterosexual women. Conclusions: The only realistic way to establish rates in LB women would be to collect sexual orientation within routine statistics, including cancer registry data, or from large cohort studies

Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic considerations

Background Writing therapy to improve physical or mental health can take many forms. The most researched model of therapeutic writing (TW) is unfacilitated, individual expressive writing (written emotional disclosure). Facilitated writing activities are less widely researched. Data sources Databases including: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, AMED, and CINHAL were searched from inception to March 2013. Review methods Four TW practitioners provided expert advice. Study procedures were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised comparative studies were included. Quality was appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Unfacilitated and facilitated TW studies were analysed separately under ICD-10 chapter headings. Meta-analyses were performed where possible using Revman 5.2. Costs were estimated from an NHS perspective and three cost-consequence case studies were prepared. Realist synthesis followed RAMESES guidelines. Objectives To review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of TW for people with long-term health conditions (LTCs) compared to no writing, or other controls, reporting any relevant clinical outcomes. To conduct a realist synthesis to understand how TW might work, and for whom. Results From 14,658 unique citations, 284 full text papers were reviewed and 64 studies (58 RCTs) were included in the final effectiveness reviews. Five studies examined facilitated TW, these were extremely heterogeneous with unclear or high risk of bias, but suggested that facilitated TW interventions may be beneficial in individual LTCs. Unfacilitated expressive writing was examined in 59 studies of variable, or unreported, quality. Overall there was very little or no evidence of any benefit reported in the following conditions (number of studies): HIV (six); breast cancer (eight); gynaecological and genitourinary cancers (five); mental health (five); asthma (four); psoriasis (three); chronic pain (four). In inflammatory arthropathies (six) there was a reduction in disease severity (n= 191, standardised mean difference (SMD) - 0.61 [95% confidence intervals (95% CI) -0.96, -0.26]) in the short term on meta-analysis of four studies. For all other LTCs there was either no, or sparse, data with no, or inconsistent, evidence of benefit. Meta-analyses conducted across all the LTCs provided no evidence that unfacilitated EW had any effect on depression at short term (n= 1,563, SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.17, substantial heterogeneity), or long term (n= 778, SMD-0.04 95% CI -0.18 to 0.10, little heterogeneity) follow up, or on anxiety, physiological or biomarker-based outcomes. One study reported costs, none reported cost-effectiveness, twelve reported resource use; meta-analysis suggested reduced medication use but no impact on health centre visits. Estimated costs of intervention were low, but there was insufficient evidence to judge cost-effectiveness. Realist review findings suggested that facilitated TW is a complex intervention and group interaction contributes to the perception of benefit. It was unclear from the available data who might benefit most from facilitated TW. Limitations Difficulties with developing realist review programme theory meant that mechanisms operating during TW remain obscure. Conclusions Overall there is little evidence to support the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of unfacilitated expressive writing interventions in people with LTCs. Further research focussed on facilitated TW in people with LTCs could be informative.The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: the EPIC cluster RCT

Background The quality of care for people with dementia in care homes is of concern. Interventions that can improve care outcomes are required. Objective To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation and improving care outcomes for people living with dementia in care homes, versus usual care. Design A pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with an open-cohort design, follow-up at 6 and 16 months, integrated cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation. Clusters were not blinded to allocation. The primary end point was completed by staff proxy and independent assessors. Setting Stratified randomisation of 50 care homes to the intervention and control groups on a 3 : 2 ratio by type, size, staff exposure to dementia training and recruiting hub. Participants Fifty care homes were randomised (intervention, n = 31; control, n = 19), with 726 residents recruited at baseline and a further 261 recruited after 16 months. Care homes were eligible if they recruited a minimum of 10 residents, were not subject to improvement notices, had not used DCM in the previous 18 months and were not participating in conflicting research. Residents were eligible if they lived there permanently, had a formal diagnosis of dementia or a score of 4+ on the Functional Assessment Staging Test of Alzheimer’s Disease, were proficient in English and were not terminally ill or permanently cared for in bed. All homes were audited on the delivery of dementia and person-centred care awareness training. Those not reaching a minimum standard were provided training ahead of randomisation. Eighteen homes took part in the process evaluation. Intervention Two staff members from each intervention home were trained to use DCM and were asked to carry out three DCM cycles; the first was supported by an external expert. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory), measured at 16 months. Secondary outcomes included resident behaviours and quality of life. Results There were 675 residents in the final analysis (intervention, n = 388; control, n = 287). There was no evidence of a difference in agitation levels between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score was –2.11 points, being lower in the intervention group than in the control (95% confidence interval –4.66 to 0.44; p = 0.104; adjusted intracluster correlation coefficient: control = 0, intervention = 0.001). The sensitivity analyses results supported the primary analysis. No differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. The health economic analyses indicated that DCM was not cost-effective. Intervention adherence was problematic; only 26% of homes completed more than their first DCM cycle. Impacts, barriers to and facilitators of DCM implementation were identified. Limitations The primary completion of resident outcomes was by staff proxy, owing to self-report difficulties for residents with advanced dementia. Clusters were not blinded to allocation, although supportive analyses suggested that any reporting bias was not clinically important. Conclusions There was no benefit of DCM over control for any outcomes. The implementation of DCM by care home staff was suboptimal compared with the protocol in the majority of homes. Future work Alternative models of DCM implementation should be considered that do not rely solely on leadership by care home staff. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Methods of prediction and prevention of pre-eclampsia: systematic reviews of accuracy and effectiveness literature with economic modelling.

addresses: Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, UK.types: Journal Article; ReviewPublished version. Copyright © 2008 NIHR Health Technology Assessment ProgrammeTo investigate the accuracy of predictive tests for pre-eclampsia and the effectiveness of preventative interventions for pre-eclampsia. Also to assess the cost-effectiveness of strategies (test-intervention combinations) to predict and prevent pre-eclampsia

External validation, update and development of prediction models for pre-eclampsia using an Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analysis: the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complication Network (IPPIC pre-eclampsia) protocol.

Background: Pre-eclampsia, a condition with raised blood pressure and proteinuria is associated with an increased risk of maternal and offspring mortality and morbidity. Early identification of mothers at risk is needed to target management. Methods/design: We aim to systematically review the existing literature to identify prediction models for pre-eclampsia. We have established the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complication Network (IPPIC), made up of 72 researchers from 21 countries who have carried out relevant primary studies or have access to existing registry databases, and collectively possess data from more than two million patients. We will use the individual participant data (IPD) from these studies to externally validate these existing prediction models and summarise model performance across studies using random-effects meta-analysis for any, late (after 34 weeks) and early (before 34 weeks) onset pre-eclampsia. If none of the models perform well, we will recalibrate (update), or develop and validate new prediction models using the IPD. We will assess the differential accuracy of the models in various settings and subgroups according to the risk status. We will also validate or develop prediction models based on clinical characteristics only; clinical and biochemical markers; clinical and ultrasound parameters; and clinical, biochemical and ultrasound tests. Discussion: Numerous systematic reviews with aggregate data meta-analysis have evaluated various risk factors separately or in combination for predicting pre-eclampsia, but these are affected by many limitations. Our large-scale collaborative IPD approach encourages consensus towards well developed, and validated prognostic models, rather than a number of competing non-validated ones. The large sample size from our IPD will also allow development and validation of multivariable prediction model for the relatively rare outcome of early onset pre-eclampsia. Trial registration: The project was registered on Prospero on the 27 November 2015 with ID: CRD42015029349

GM-CSF Signalling Boosts Dramatically IL-1Production

GM-CSF is mostly known for its capacity to promote bone marrow progenitor differentiation, to mobilize and mature myeloid cells as well as to enhance host immune responses. However the molecular actions of GM-CSF are still poorly characterized. Here we describe a new surprising facet of this “old” growth factor as a key regulator involved in IL-1βsecretion. We found that IL-1β release, a pivotal component of the triggered innate system, is heavily dependent on the signaling induced by GM-CSF in such an extent that in its absence IL-1β is only weakly secreted. GM-CSF synergizes with LPS for IL-1β secretion mainly at the level of pro-IL-1β production via strengthening the NF-κB signaling. In addition, we show that expression of Rab39a, a GTPase required for caspase-1 dependent IL-1β secretion is greatly augmented by LPS and GM-CSF co-stimulation suggesting a potential GM-CSF contribution in enhancing IL-1β exocytosis. The role of GM-CSF in regulating IL-1β secretion is extended also in vivo, since GM-CSF R−/− mice are more resistant to LPS-mediated septic shock. These results identify GM-CSF as a key regulator of IL-1β production and indicate GM-CSF as a previously underestimated target for therapeutic intervention

Using patient management as a surrogate for patient health outcomes in diagnostic test evaluation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Before a new test is introduced in clinical practice, evidence is needed to demonstrate that its use will lead to improvements in patient health outcomes. Studies reporting test accuracy may not be sufficient, and clinical trials of tests that measure patient health outcomes are rarely feasible. Therefore, the consequences of testing on patient management are often investigated as an intermediate step in the pathway. There is a lack of guidance on the interpretation of this evidence, and patient management studies often neglect a discussion of the limitations of measuring patient management as a surrogate for health outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We discuss the rationale for measuring patient management, describe the common study designs and provide guidance about how this evidence should be reported.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Interpretation of patient management studies relies on the condition that patient management is a valid surrogate for downstream patient benefits. This condition presupposes two critical assumptions: the test improves diagnostic accuracy; and the measured changes in patient management improve patient health outcomes. The validity of this evidence depends on the certainty around these critical assumptions and the ability of the study design to minimise bias. Three common designs are test RCTs that measure patient management as a primary endpoint, diagnostic before-after studies that compare planned patient management before and after testing, and accuracy studies that are extended to report on the actual treatment or further tests received following a positive and negative test result.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Patient management can be measured as a surrogate outcome for test evaluation if its limitations are recognised. The potential consequences of a positive and negative test result on patient management should be pre-specified and the potential patient benefits of these management changes clearly stated. Randomised comparisons will provide higher quality evidence about differences in patient management using the new test than observational studies. Regardless of the study design used, the critical assumption that patient management is a valid surrogate for downstream patient benefits or harms must be discussed in these studies.</p

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

Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: The DCM™ EPIC cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Quality of care for people with dementia in care homes is of concern. Interventions that can improve care outcomes are required. Objective: To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care MappingTM (DCM™) for reducing agitation, and improving care outcomes for people living with dementia in care homes, versus usual care. Design: A pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with open-cohort design, follow-up at 6- and 16-months, integrated cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation. Clusters were not blinded to allocation. Primary endpoint was completed by staff-proxy and independent assessors. Setting: Stratified randomisation of 50 care homes to intervention/control on a 3:2 ratio by type, size, staff exposure to dementia training and recruiting hub. Participants: Fifty care homes were randomised (31 intervention, 19 control), with 726 residents recruited at baseline and a further 261 at 16-months. Care homes were eligible if they recruited a minimum of 10 residents, were not subject to improvement notices, had not used DCM™ in the previous 18-months and were not participating in conflicting research. Residents were eligible if they lived there permanently, had a formal diagnosis of dementia/score of 4+ on the Functional Assessment Staging of Alzheimer’s Disease, were proficient in English, not at end-of-life/permanently cared for in bed. All homes were audited on delivery of dementia and person-centred care awareness training. Those not reaching a minimum standard were provided training ahead of randomisation. Eighteen homes took part in the process evaluation. Intervention: Two staff from each intervention home were trained to use DCM™ and requested to carry out three DCM™ cycles; the first supported by an external expert. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory) at 16-months. Secondary outcomes included resident behaviours and quality of life. Results: There were 675 residents in the final analysis (287 control, 388 intervention). There was no evidence of difference in agitation levels between arms. The adjusted mean difference in CMAI score was -2.11 points, lower in the intervention group than control (95% CI -4.66 to 0.44, p=0.104, adjusted ICC control=0, intervention 0.001). The sensitivity analyses results supported the primary analysis. No differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. The health economic analyses indicated DCM™ was not cost-effective. Intervention adherence was problematic; only 26% of homes completed more than their first DCM™ cycle. Impacts of and barriers and facilitators to DCM™ implementation were identified. Limitations: Primary completion of resident outcomes was by staff proxy due to self-report difficulties for residents with advanced dementia. Clusters were not blinded to allocation although supportive analyses suggested any reporting bias was not clinically important. Conclusions: There was no benefit of DCM™ over control on any outcomes. Implementation of DCM™ by care home staff was sub-optimal compared to protocol in the majority of homes. Future work: Alternative models of DCM™ implementation should be considered, which do not rely solely on leadership by care home staff. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852 Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 11/15/13)