Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive–compulsive disorder: the Obsessive–Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET)

Background: The Obsessive–Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive–behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions. Design: A three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting: Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (indicative of at least moderate severity OCD) and able to read English. Interventions: Participants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale – Observer Rated. Results: Patients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference –1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.27 to –0.55; p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference –0.71, 95% CI –2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to high-intensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events. Limitations: A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period. Conclusions: Although low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways

Male tobacco smoke load and non-lung cancer mortality associations in Massachusetts

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Different methods exist to estimate smoking attributable cancer mortality rates (Peto and Ezzati methods, as examples). However, the smoking attributable estimates using these methods cannot be generalized to all population sub-groups. A simpler method has recently been developed that can be adapted and applied to different population sub-groups. This study assessed cumulative tobacco smoke damage (smoke load)/non-lung cancer mortality associations across time from 1979 to 2003 among all Massachusetts males and ages 30–74 years, using this novel methodology.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Annual lung cancer death rates were used as smoke load bio-indices, and age-adjusted lung/all other (non-lung) cancer death rates were analyzed with linear regression approach. Non-lung cancer death rates include all cancer deaths excluding lung. Smoking-attributable-fractions (SAFs) for the latest period (year 2003) were estimated as: 1-(estimated unexposed cancer death rate/observed rate).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Male lung and non-lung cancer death rates have declined steadily since 1992. Lung and non-lung cancer death rates were tightly and steeply associated across years. The slopes of the associations analyzed were 1.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35–2.04, r = 0.90), and 1.36 (CI 1.14–1.58, r = 0.94) without detected autocorrelation (Durbin-Watson statistic = 1.8). The lung/non-lung cancer death rate associations suggest that all-sites cancer death rate SAFs in year 2003 were 73% (Sensitivity Range [SR] 61–82%) for all ages and 74% (SR 61–82%) for ages 30–74 years.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The strong lung/non-lung cancer death rate associations suggest that tobacco smoke load may be responsible for most prematurely fatal cancers at both lung and non-lung sites. The present method estimates are greater than the earlier estimates. Therefore, tobacco control may reduce cancer death rates more than previously noted.</p

Facet-joint injections for non-specific low back pain: a feasibility RCT

Background: Pain of lumbar facet-joint origin is a common cause of low back pain in adults and may lead to chronic pain and disability, with associated health and socioeconomic implications. The socioeconomic burden includes an inability to return to work resulting in loss of productivity in addition to direct and indirect health-care utilisation costs. Lumbar facet-joints are paired synovial joints between the superior and inferior articular processes of consecutive lumbar vertebrae and between the fifth lumbar vertebra and the sacrum. Facet-joint pain is defined as pain that arises from any structure that is part of the facet-joints, including the fibrous capsule, synovial membrane, hyaline cartilage and bone. This pain may be treated by intra-articular injections with local anaesthetic and steroid, although this treatment is not standardised. At present, there is no definitive research to support the use of targeted lumbar facet-joint injections to manage this pain. Because of the lack of high-quality, robust clinical evidence, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on the management of chronic low back pain [NICE. Low Back Pain in Adults: Early Management. Clinical guideline (CG88). London: NICE; 2009] did not recommend the use of spinal injections despite their perceived potential to reduce pain intensity and improve rehabilitation, with NICE calling for further research to be undertaken. The updated guidelines [NICE. Low Back Pain and Sciatica in Over 16s: Assessment and Management. NICE guideline (NG59). London: NICE; 2016] again do not recommend the use of spinal injections. Objectives: To assess the feasibility of carrying out a definitive study to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lumbar facet-joint injections compared with a sham procedure in patients with non-specific low back pain of > 3 months’ duration. Design: Blinded parallel two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial. Setting: Initially planned as a multicentre study involving three NHS trusts in the UK, recruitment took place in the pain and spinal orthopaedic clinics at Barts Health NHS Trust only. Participants: Adult patients referred by their GP to the specialist clinics with non-specific low back pain of at least 3 months’ duration despite NICE-recommended best non-invasive care (education and one of a physical exercise programme, acupuncture or manual therapy). Patients who had already received lumbar facet-joint injections or who had had previous back surgery were excluded. Interventions: Participants who had a positive result following a diagnostic test (single medial branch nerve blocks) were randomised and blinded to receive either intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections with steroids (intervention group) or a sham procedure (control group). All participants were invited to attend a group-based combined physical and psychological (CPP) programme. Main outcome measures: In addition to the primary outcome of feasibility, questionnaires were used to assess a range of pain-related (including the Brief Pain Inventory and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire version 2) and disability-related (including the EuroQol-5 Dimensions five-level version and Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire) issues. Health-care utilisation and cost data were also assessed. The questionnaire visits took place at baseline and at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post randomisation. The outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation groups. Results: Of 628 participants screened for eligibility, nine were randomised to receive the study intervention (intervention group, n = 5; sham group, n = 4), six completed the CPP programme and eight completed the study. Limitations: Failure to achieve our expected recruitment targets led to early closure of the study by the funder. Conclusions: Because of the small number of participants recruited to the study, we were unable to draw any conclusions about the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of intra-articular lumbar facet-joint injections in the management of non-specific low back pain. Although we did not achieve the target recruitment rate from the pain clinics, we demonstrated our ability to develop a robust study protocol and deliver the intended interventions safely to all nine randomised participants, thus addressing many of the feasibility objectives. Future work: Stronger collaborations with primary care may improve the recruitment of patients earlier in their pain trajectory who are suitable for inclusion in a future trial. Trial registration: EudraCT 2014-003187-20 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12191542. 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. 21, No. 74. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Incidence of Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus Among White Americans by Sex, Stage, and Age

Rapid increases in the incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus have been reported among white men. We further explored the temporal patterns of this disease among white individuals by sex, stage, and age by use of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. We identified 22 759 patients from January 1, 1975, through December 31, 2004, with esophageal cancer, of whom 9526 were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Among white men, increases in the incidence of esophageal cancer were largely attributed to a 463% increase in the incidence of adenocarcinoma over this time period, from 1.01 per 100 000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.90 to 1.13) in 1975–1979 to 5.69 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI = 5.47 to 5.91) in 2000–2004. A similar rapid increase was also apparent among white women, among whom the adenocarcinoma rate increased 335%, from 0.17 (95% CI = 0.13 to 0.21) to 0.74 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI = 0.67 to 0.81), over the same time period. Adenocarcinoma rates rose among white men and women in all stage and age groups, indicating that these increases are real and not an artifact of surveillance