Preoperative botulinum neurotoxin A for children with bilateral cerebral palsy undergoing major hip surgery: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: To assess whether preoperative botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT-A) affects pain after major hip surgery for children with bilateral cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: This was a randomized, parallel arms, placebo-contolled trial. Children with hypertonic CP aged 2 to 15 years awaiting bony hip surgery at a tertiary hospital were randomized to receive either BoNT-A or placebo injections into the muscles of the hip on a single occasion immediately before surgery. The primary outcome was the paediatric pain profile (PPP), which was assessed at baseline and weekly for 6 weeks. Treatment allocation was by minimization. Participants, clinicians, and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants (17 males, 10 females; mean 8y 8mo [SD 3y 9mo], range 3y 4mo-15y 10mo) were allocated to BoNT-A and 27 participants (14 males, 13 females; mean 8y 11mo [SD 3y 5mo], range 4y 1mo-15y 2mo) to placebo. Mean (SD) PPP at 6 weeks for the BoNT-A group (n=24 followed up) was 10.96 (7.22) and for the placebo group (n=26) was 10.04 (8.54) (p=0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.82, 3.18). There were 16 serious adverse events in total during 6 months of follow-up (n=6 in BoNT-A group). INTERPRETATION: Use of BoNT-A immediately before bony hip surgery for reducing postoperative pain for children with CP was not supported. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT-A) does not reduce postoperative pain following bony hip surgery. BoNT-A also does not affect postoperative quality of life

A scoping review of the problems and solutions associated with contamination in trials of complex interventions in mental health.

BACKGROUND: In a randomised controlled trial, contamination is defined as the receipt of active intervention amongst participants in the control arm. This review assessed the processes leading to contamination, its typical quantity, methods used to mitigate it, and impact of use of cluster randomisation to prevent it on study findings in trials of complex interventions in mental health. METHODS: This is a scoping review of trial design approaches and methods of study conduct to address contamination. Studies included were randomised controlled trials of complex interventions in mental health that described the process leading to, amount of, or solution used to counter contamination. The Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo databases were searched for trials published between 2000 and 2015. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad score and domains recommended by Cochrane plus some relevant to cluster randomised trials. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four articles were included in the review. The main processes that led to contamination were health professionals delivering both active and comparator treatments and communication among clinicians and participants from the different trial arms. Twenty-three trials (10%) measured binary treatment receipt in the control arm with median 13% of participants found to be contaminated (IQR 5-33%). The most common design approach for dealing with contamination was the use of cluster randomisation (n = 93). In addition, many researchers used simple trial conduct methods to minimise contamination due to suspected contamination processes, such as organising for each clinician to provide only one treatment and separating trial arms spatially or temporally. There was little evidence for a relationship between cluster randomisation to avoid contamination and size of treatment effect estimate. CONCLUSION: There was some evidence of modest levels of treatment contamination with a large range, although a minority of studies reported the amount of contamination. A limitation was that many trials described the problem in little detail. Overall there is a need for greater measurement and reporting of treatment receipt in the control arm of trials. Researchers should be aware of trial conduct methods that can be used to minimise contamination without resorting to cluster randomisation

The HOME Study: Statistical and economic analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial comparing the addition of Proactive Psychological Medicine to usual care, with usual care alone, on the time spent in hospital by older acute hospital inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged acute hospital stays are a problem for older people and for health services. Failure to effectively manage the psychological and social aspects of illness is an important cause of prolonged hospital stay. Proactive Psychological Medicine (PPM) is a new way of providing psychiatry services to medical wards which is proactive, focussed, intensive and integrated with medical care. The primary aim of PPM is to reduce the time older people spend in hospital because of unmanaged psychological and social problems. The HOME Study will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PPM. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised, controlled superiority trial with linked health economic analysis and an embedded process evaluation. The target population is people aged 65 years and older admitted to acute hospitals. Participants will be randomly allocated to either usual care plus PPM or usual care alone. The primary outcome is the number of days spent as an inpatient in a general hospital in the month following randomisation. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, cognitive function, independent functioning, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and experience of hospital stay. The cost-effectiveness of usual care plus PPM compared with usual care alone will be assessed using quality-adjusted life-years as an outcome as well as costs from the NHS perspective. DISCUSSION: This update to the published trial protocol gives a detailed plan of the statistical and economic analysis of The HOME Study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN86120296. Registered on 3 January 2018

MAJOR DEPRESSION AND SURVIVAL IN PEOPLE WITH CANCER

OBJECTIVE: The question of whether depression is associated with worse survival in people with cancer remains unanswered because of methodological criticism of the published research on the topic. We aimed to study the association in a large methodologically robust study. METHODS: We analyzed data on 20,582 patients with breast, colorectal, gynecological, lung, and prostate cancers who had attended cancer outpatient clinics in Scotland, United Kingdom. Patients had completed two-stage screening for major depression as part of their cancer care. These data on depression status were linked to demographic, cancer, and subsequent mortality data from national databases. We estimated the association of major depression with survival for each cancer using Cox regression. We adjusted for potential confounders and interactions between potentially time-varying confounders and the interval between cancer diagnosis and depression screening, and used multiple imputation for missing depression and confounder data. We pooled the cancer-specific results using fixed-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Major depression was associated with worse survival for all cancers, with similar adjusted hazard ratios (HRs): breast cancer (HR = 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15-1.75), colorectal cancer (HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.11-1.94), gynecological cancer (HR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.08-1.71), lung cancer (HR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.24-1.56), and prostate cancer (HR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.08-2.85). The pooled HR was 1.41 (95% CI = 1.29-1.54, p < .001, I2 = 0%). These findings were not materially different when we only considered the deaths (90%) that were attributed to cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Major depression is associated with worse survival in patients with common cancers. The mechanisms of this association and the clinical implications require further study

Depression and anxiety during the year before death from cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies of depression and anxiety during the year before death have reported different findings. We therefore aimed to study depression and anxiety in patients who had died from cancer and had previously attended cancer clinics. METHODS: We analysed routine data on 4869 deceased patients who had completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) as part of their routine cancer care. The HADS data were linked with demographic, cancer and mortality data from national registries. We used data from all HADS completed in the last year of life to investigate the relationships between mean depression (HADS-D) and anxiety (HADS-A) scores and the percentages of high scores (≥11 on each subscale) and time to death (Analysis 1). This analysis used multivariable linear regression with cubic splines and robust standard errors to allow for multiple HADS from the same patients. We also investigated within-patient changes in scores (Analysis 2) in a subset of patients who had completed more than one HADS. RESULTS: In Analysis 1, modelled mean HADS-D scores increased by around 2.5 and the percentage of high HADS-D scores increased from 13% at six months before death to 30% at one month before death. Changes in HADS-A were smaller and occurred later. In Analysis 2, similar patterns were observed in individual patients' HADS scores. CONCLUSION: Depression should be looked for and treated in patients with cancer and a prognosis of six months or less, in order to maximise the quality of patients' remaining life

Implementing collaborative care for major depression in a cancer center: An observational study using mixed-methods.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the implementation of a collaborative care (CC) screening and treatment program for major depression in people with cancer, found to be effective in clinical trials, into routine outpatient care of a cancer center. METHOD: A mixed-methods observational study guided by the RE-AIM implementation framework using quantitative and qualitative data collected over five years. RESULTS: Program set-up took three years and required more involvement of CC experts than anticipated. Barriers to implementation were uncertainty about whether oncology or psychiatry owned the program and the hospital's organizational complexity. Selecting and training CC team members was a major task. 90% (14,412/16,074) of patients participated in depression screening and 61% (136/224) of those offered treatment attended at least one session. Depression outcomes were similar to trial benchmarks (61%; 78/127 patients had a treatment response). After two years the program obtained long-term funding. Facilitators of implementation were strong trial evidence, effective integration into cancer care and ongoing clinical and managerial support. CONCLUSION: A CC program for major depression, designed for the cancer setting, can be successfully implemented into routine care, but requires time, persistence and involvement of CC experts. Once operating it can be an effective and valued component of medical care