Primary prevention of gestational diabetes for women who are overweight and obese: a randomised controlled trial

Background: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) has well recognised adverse health implications for the mother and her newborn that are both short and long term. Obesity is a significant risk factor for developing GDM and the prevalence of obesity is increasing globally. It is a matter of public health importance that clinicians have evidence based strategies to inform practice and currently there is insufficient evidence regarding the impact of dietary and lifestyle interventions on improving maternal and newborn outcomes. The primary aim of this study is to measure the impact of a telephone based intervention that promotes positive lifestyle modifications on the incidence of GDM. Secondary aims include: the impact on gestational weight gain; large for gestational age babies; differences in blood glucose levels taken at the Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) and selected factors relating to self-efficacy and psychological wellbeing. Method/design: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted involving pregnant women who are overweight (BMI > 25 to 29.9 k/gm(2)) or obese (BMI > 30 kgm/(2)), less than 14 weeks gestation and recruited from the Barwon South West region of Victoria, Australia. From recruitment until birth, women in the intervention group will receive a program informed by the Theory of Self-efficacy and employing Motivational Interviewing. Brief (less than 5 minute) phone contact will alternate with a text message/email and will involve goal setting, behaviour change reinforcement with weekly weighing and charting, and the provision of health information. Those in the control group will receive usual care. Data for primary and secondary outcomes will be collected from medical record review and a questionnaire at 36 weeks gestation. Discussion: Evidence based strategies that reduce the incidence of GDM are a priority for contemporary maternity care. Changing health behaviours is a complex undertaking and trialling a composite intervention that can be adopted in various primary health settings is required so women can be accessed as early in pregnancy as possible. Using a sound theoretical base to inform such an intervention will add depth to our understanding of this approach and to the interpretation of results, contributing to the evidence base for practice and policy

What is the evidence-base for atopic eczema treatments? A summary of published randomised controlled trials

Atopic eczema (AE) is a common chronic inflammatory skin condition. Whilst many AE treatment options are available, the evidence to support their efficacy varies in depth and quality. In 2000, an NIHR HTA systematic review identified and evaluated existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AE treatments. To ensure continuing utility, the NIHR commissioned an update to the review. Here, we present an overview of the updated report and key findings. Systematic reviews and RCTs of AE treatments that included participants with AE (criteria based or diagnosed) were identified using: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, AMED, CINAHL and Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (searched to August 31st 2013 (RCTs) and 31st December 2015 (systematic reviews)). Outcome measures included: symptoms, AE severity, quality-of-life, and adverse effects. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Of the 287 new RCTs identified, only 22 (8%) were judged to be low risk of bias. When combined with RCTs from the previous review (n= 254), we found ‘reasonable evidence of benefit’ for corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Atopiclair™, ciclosporin, azathioprine, ultraviolet light and education programmes. Interventions with reasonable evidence of ‘no benefit’ included some dietary interventions, ion exchange water softeners, multiple daily applications of topical corticosteroids and antibiotic-containing corticosteroids for non-infected AE. Many common treatments lack evidence of efficacy and warrant further evaluation. The evidence base for AE is still hampered by poor trial design and reporting. The trials included in this review were used to establish the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) Database

Mapping randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema - The GREAT database (The Global Resource of Eczema Trials: a collection of key data on randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema from 2000 to 2010)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Massive duplication of effort occurs when researchers all over the world undertake extensive searches for randomized controlled trials when preparing systematic reviews, when developing evidence-based guidelines and when applying for research funding for eczema treatments. Such duplication wastes valuable resources.</p> <p>Searching for randomized controlled trials of eczema is a laborious task involving scrutiny of thousands of individual references from diverse electronic databases in order to obtain a few papers of interest. Clinicians and patients who wish to find out more about a particular treatment are at risk of missing the relevant evidence if they are not trained in electronic bibliographic searching. Systematic reviews cannot be relied upon to comprehensively inform current optimal eczema treatments due to incomplete coverage and because many may be out of date.</p> <p>An international, publically available and comprehensive resource which brings together all randomized controlled trials on eczema treatment using a highly sensitive search has the potential to release more filtered knowledge about patient care to those who need it most and to significantly shorten the duration and costs of many clinical eczema research and guideline projects.</p> <p>Description</p> <p>The Global Resource of EczemA Trials brings together information on all randomized controlled trials of eczema treatments published from the beginning of 2000 up to the end of 2010 and will be updated every month.</p> <p>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in <it>The Cochrane Library </it>and the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, AMED and CINHAL databases. We included 268 RCTs (24^thMarch 2011) covering over 70 different treatment interventions.</p> <p>The structure of the Global Resource of Eczema Trials allows the user as much, or as little, specificity when retrieving information on trials as they wish, in an easy to use format. For each trial, the database gives the citation for the published report and also provides enough information to enable a user to decide whether the trial is worth further scrutiny.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The Global Resource of Eczema Trials has been created to facilitate knowledge mobilization into healthcare and to reduce wastage of research time through unnecessary duplication. The collective time saved by research groups around the world can now be used to make strides in optimising the treatment of eczema, in order to further benefit people with eczema. The database can be accessed free of charge at <url>http://www.greatdatabase.org.uk</url></p

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Background: Eczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.Objectives: To update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.Data sources: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Review methods: Studies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.Results: Of 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; and Mycobacterium vaccae vaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control for dysarthria in Parkinson’s disease (PD COMM):a UK, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Objectives: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy (SLT) approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson’s disease. Design: This was a pragmatic, UK-wide, multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned using minimisation in a 1:1:1 ratio to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®), NHS SLT, or no SLT. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.Setting: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings.Participants: Between September 2016 and March 2020, 388 people with Parkinson’s disease and dysarthria were randomised into the trial: 130 to LSVT LOUD®, 129 to NHS SLT, and 129 to no SLT.Interventions: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®) consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50-minute sessions each week delivered over 4 weeks. Home-based practice activities were set for up to 5 to 10 minutes daily on treatment days and 15 minutes twice daily on non-treatment days. NHS Speech and language therapy (NHS SLT) dosage was determined by the local therapist in response to individual participants’ needs. Prior research suggested that NHS SLT participants would receive an average of one session per week over 6 to 8 weeks. Local practices for NHS SLT were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD® protocol. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the self-reported Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months.Results: People randomised to LSVT LOUD® reported lower VHI scores at 3 months post-randomisation than those who were randomised to no SLT (-8·0 points (99%CI: -13·3 to -2·6); p = 0·0001). There was no evidence of a difference in VHI scores between NHS SLT and no SLT (1·7 points; (99%Cl: -3·8 to 7·1); p = 0·43). Patients randomised to LSVT LOUD® also reported lower VHI scores than those randomised to NHS SLT (-9·6 points; (99%CI: -14·9 to -4·4); p &lt; 0.0001). There were 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) in the LSVT LOUD® group, 46 in the NHS SLT group, and none in the no SLT group. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: LSVT LOUD® was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than no SLT and NHS SLT. NHS SLT showed no evidence of benefit compared to no SLT. Trial registration: The completed trial registration is ISRCTN12421382. Funding: NIHR HTA Programme, project number HTA 10/135/02. <br/

The effect of two speech and language approaches on speech problems in people with Parkinson’s disease: the PD COMM RCT

Peer reviewe

Lee Silverman voice treatment versus NHS speech and language therapy versus control for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease (PD COMM): pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial

To assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease. Pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings between 26 September 2016 and 16 March 2020. 388 people with Parkinson's disease and dysarthria. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (1:1:1): 130 to Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT LOUD), 129 to NHS speech and language therapy, and 129 to no speech and language therapy. LSVT LOUD consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50 min sessions each week delivered over four weeks. Home based practice activities were set for up to 5-10 mins daily on treatment days and 15 mins twice daily on non-treatment days. Dosage for the NHS speech and language therapy was determined by the local therapist in response to the participants' needs (estimated from prior research that NHS speech and language therapy participants would receive an average of one session per week over six to eight weeks). Local practices for NHS speech and language therapy were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD protocol. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle. The primary outcome was total score at three months of self-reported voice handicap index. People who received LSVT LOUD reported lower voice handicap index scores at three months after randomisation than those who did not receive speech and language therapy (-8.0 points (99% confidence interval -13.3 to -2.6); P<0.001). No evidence suggests a difference in voice handicap index scores between NHS speech and language therapy and no speech and language therapy (1.7 points (-3.8 to 7.1); P=0.43). Patients in the LSVT LOUD group also reported lower voice handicap index scores than did those randomised to NHS speech and language therapy (-9.6 points (-14.9 to -4.4); P<0.001). 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) were reported in the LSVT LOUD group, 46 in the NHS speech and language therapy group, and none in the no speech and language therapy group. No serious adverse events were recorded. LSVT LOUD was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than was no speech and language therapy and NHS speech and language therapy. NHS speech and language therapy showed no evidence of benefit compared with no speech and language therapy. ISRCTN registry ISRCTN12421382. [Abstract copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control for dysarthria in Parkinson’s disease (PD COMM):a UK, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Objectives: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy (SLT) approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson’s disease. Design: This was a pragmatic, UK-wide, multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned using minimisation in a 1:1:1 ratio to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®), NHS SLT, or no SLT. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.Setting: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings.Participants: Between September 2016 and March 2020, 388 people with Parkinson’s disease and dysarthria were randomised into the trial: 130 to LSVT LOUD®, 129 to NHS SLT, and 129 to no SLT.Interventions: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®) consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50-minute sessions each week delivered over 4 weeks. Home-based practice activities were set for up to 5 to 10 minutes daily on treatment days and 15 minutes twice daily on non-treatment days. NHS Speech and language therapy (NHS SLT) dosage was determined by the local therapist in response to individual participants’ needs. Prior research suggested that NHS SLT participants would receive an average of one session per week over 6 to 8 weeks. Local practices for NHS SLT were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD® protocol. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the self-reported Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months.Results: People randomised to LSVT LOUD® reported lower VHI scores at 3 months post-randomisation than those who were randomised to no SLT (-8·0 points (99%CI: -13·3 to -2·6); p = 0·0001). There was no evidence of a difference in VHI scores between NHS SLT and no SLT (1·7 points; (99%Cl: -3·8 to 7·1); p = 0·43). Patients randomised to LSVT LOUD® also reported lower VHI scores than those randomised to NHS SLT (-9·6 points; (99%CI: -14·9 to -4·4); p &lt; 0.0001). There were 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) in the LSVT LOUD® group, 46 in the NHS SLT group, and none in the no SLT group. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: LSVT LOUD® was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than no SLT and NHS SLT. NHS SLT showed no evidence of benefit compared to no SLT. Trial registration: The completed trial registration is ISRCTN12421382. Funding: NIHR HTA Programme, project number HTA 10/135/02. <br/