Health Technology Assessment Programme Research Articles

Sodium bicarbonate to improve physical function in patients over 60 years with advanced chronic kidney disease: the BiCARB RCT.

Advanced chronic kidney disease is common in older people and is frequently accompanied by metabolic acidosis. Oral sodium bicarbonate is used to treat this acidosis, but evidence is lacking on whether or not this provides a net gain in health or quality of life for older people. The objectives were to determine whether or not oral bicarbonate therapy improves physical function, quality of life, markers of renal function, bone turnover and vascular health compared with placebo in older people with chronic kidney disease and mild acidosis; to assess the safety of oral bicarbonate; and to establish whether or not oral bicarbonate therapy is cost-effective in this setting. A parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. The setting was nephrology and geriatric medicine outpatient departments in 27 UK hospitals. Participants were adults aged ≥ 60 years with advanced chronic kidney disease (glomerular filtration rate category 4 or 5, not on dialysis) with a serum bicarbonate concentration of < 22 mmol/l. Eligible participants were randomised 1 : 1 to oral sodium bicarbonate or matching placebo. Dosing started at 500 mg three times daily, increasing to 1 g three times daily if the serum bicarbonate concentration was < 22 mmol/l at 3 months. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the Short Physical Performance Battery score at 12 months, adjusted for baseline. Other outcome measures included generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life, anthropometry, 6-minute walk speed, grip strength, renal function, markers of bone turnover, blood pressure and brain natriuretic peptide. All adverse events were recorded, including commencement of renal replacement therapy. For the health economic analysis, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was the main outcome. In total, 300 participants were randomised, 152 to bicarbonate and 148 to placebo. The mean age of participants was 74 years and 86 (29%) were female. Adherence to study medication was 73% in both groups. A total of 220 (73%) participants were assessed at the 12-month visit. No significant treatment effect was evident for the primary outcome of the between-group difference in the Short Physical Performance Battery score at 12 months (-0.4 points, 95% confidence interval -0.9 to 0.1 points; p = 0.15). No significant treatment benefit was seen for any of the secondary outcomes. Adverse events were more frequent in the bicarbonate arm (457 vs. 400). Time to commencement of renal replacement therapy was similar in both groups (hazard ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 2.02; p = 0.43). Health economic analysis showed higher costs and lower quality of life in the bicarbonate arm at 1 year, with additional costs of £564 (95% confidence interval £88 to £1154) and a quality-adjusted life-year difference of -0.05 (95% confidence interval -0.08 to -0.01); placebo dominated bicarbonate under all sensitivity analyses for incremental cost-effectiveness. The trial population was predominantly white and male, limiting generalisability. The increment in serum bicarbonate concentrations achieved was small and a benefit from larger doses of bicarbonate cannot be excluded. Oral sodium bicarbonate did not improve a range of health measures in people aged ≥ 60 years with chronic kidney disease category 4 or 5 and mild acidosis, and is unlikely to be cost-effective for use in the NHS in this patient group. Once other current trials of bicarbonate therapy in chronic kidney disease are complete, an individual participant meta-analysis would be helpful to determine which subgroups, if any, are more likely to benefit and which treatment regimens are more beneficial. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09486651 and EudraCT 2011-005271-16. The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018112908. 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. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effects of a high-dose 24-h infusion of tranexamic acid on death and thromboembolic events in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (HALT-IT): an international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

SummaryBackgroundTranexamic acid reduces surgical bleeding and reduces death due to bleeding in patients with trauma. Meta-analyses of small trials show that tranexamic acid might decrease deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding. We aimed to assess the effects of tranexamic acid in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding.MethodsWe did an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 164 hospitals in 15 countries. Patients were enrolled if the responsible clinician was uncertain whether to use tranexamic acid, were aged above the minimum age considered an adult in their country (either aged 16 years and older or aged 18 years and older), and had significant (defined as at risk of bleeding to death) upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients were randomly assigned by selection of a numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight packs that were identical apart from the pack number. Patients received either a loading dose of 1 g tranexamic acid, which was added to 100 mL infusion bag of 0·9% sodium chloride and infused by slow intravenous injection over 10 min, followed by a maintenance dose of 3 g tranexamic acid added to 1 L of any isotonic intravenous solution and infused at 125 mg/h for 24 h, or placebo (sodium chloride 0·9%). Patients, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation; analysis excluded patients who received neither dose of the allocated treatment and those for whom outcome data on death were unavailable. This trial was registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN11225767, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01658124.FindingsBetween July 4, 2013, and June 21, 2019, we randomly allocated 12 009 patients to receive tranexamic acid (5994, 49·9%) or matching placebo (6015, 50·1%), of whom 11 952 (99·5%) received the first dose of the allocated treatment. Death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation occurred in 222 (4%) of 5956 patients in the tranexamic acid group and in 226 (4%) of 5981 patients in the placebo group (risk ratio [RR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·82–1·18). Arterial thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) were similar in the tranexamic acid group and placebo group (42 [0·7%] of 5952 vs 46 [0·8%] of 5977; 0·92; 0·60 to 1·39). Venous thromboembolic events (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) were higher in tranexamic acid group than in the placebo group (48 [0·8%] of 5952 vs 26 [0·4%] of 5977; RR 1·85; 95% CI 1·15 to 2·98).InterpretationWe found that tranexamic acid did not reduce death from gastrointestinal bleeding. On the basis of our results, tranexamic acid should not be used for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding outside the context of a randomised trial.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

An extended stroke rehabilitation service for people who have had a stroke: the EXTRAS RCT.

There is limited evidence about the effectiveness of rehabilitation in meeting the longer-term needs of stroke patients and their carers. To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS). A pragmatic, observer-blind, parallel-group, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive EXTRAS or usual care. Nineteen NHS study centres. Patients with a new stroke who received early supported discharge and their informal carers. Five EXTRAS reviews provided by an early supported discharge team member between 1 and 18 months post early supported discharge, usually over the telephone. Reviewers assessed rehabilitation needs, with goal-setting and action-planning. Control treatment was usual care post early supported discharge. The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale) at 24 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 12 and 24 months included patient mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), health status (Oxford Handicap Scale), experience of services and adverse events. For carers, secondary outcomes included carers' strain (Caregiver Strain Index) and experience of services. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilisation costs (adaptation of the Client Service Receipt Inventory) and quality-adjusted life-years. A total of 573 patients (EXTRAS, n = 285; usual care, n = 288) with 194 carers (EXTRAS, n = 103; usual care, n = 91) were randomised. Mean 24-month Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale scores were 40.0 (standard deviation 18.1) for EXTRAS (n = 219) and 37.2 (standard deviation 18.5) for usual care (n = 231), giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% confidence interval -0.7 to 4.2). The mean intervention group Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were not significantly different at 12 and 24 months. The intervention did not improve patient health status or carer strain. EXTRAS patients and carers reported greater satisfaction with some aspects of care. The mean cost of resource utilisation was lower in the intervention group: -£311 (95% confidence interval -£3292 to £2787), with a 68% chance of EXTRAS being cost-saving. EXTRAS was associated with 0.07 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.12) additional quality-adjusted life-years. At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year, there is a 90% chance that EXTRAS is cost-effective. EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors' performance in extended activities of daily living but did improve their overall satisfaction with services. Given the impact on costs and quality-adjusted life-years, there is a high chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. Further research is required to identify whether or not community-based interventions can improve performance of extended activities of daily living, and to understand the improvements in health-related quality of life and costs seen by provision of intermittent longer-term specialist review. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45203373. 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. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Carer administration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for breakthrough symptoms in people dying at home: the CARiAD feasibility RCT

Most people who are dying want to be cared for at home, but only half of them achieve this. The likelihood of a home death often depends on the availability of able and willing lay carers. When people who are dying are unable to take oral medication, injectable medication is used. When top-up medication is required, a health-care professional travels to the dying person's home, which may delay symptom relief. The administration of subcutaneous medication by lay carers, although not widespread UK practice, has proven to be key in achieving better symptom control for those dying at home in other countries. To determine if carer administration of as-needed subcutaneous medication for common breakthrough symptoms in people dying at home is feasible and acceptable in the UK, and if it would be feasible to test this intervention in a future definitive randomised controlled trial. We conducted a two-arm, parallel-group, individually randomised, open pilot trial of the intervention versus usual care, with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio, using convergent mixed methods. Home-based care without 24/7 paid care provision, in three UK sites. Participants were dyads of adult patients and carers: patients in the last weeks of their life who wished to die at home and lay carers who were willing to be trained to give subcutaneous medication. Strict risk assessment criteria needed to be met before approach, including known history of substance abuse or carer ability to be trained to competency. Intervention-group carers received training by local nurses using a manualised training package. Quantitative data were collected at baseline and 6-8 weeks post bereavement and via carer diaries. Interviews with carers and health-care professionals explored attitudes to, experiences of and preferences for giving subcutaneous medication and experience of trial processes. The main outcomes of interest were feasibility, acceptability, recruitment rates, attrition and selection of the most appropriate outcome measures. In total, 40 out of 101 eligible dyads were recruited (39.6%), which met the feasibility criterion of recruiting > 30% of eligible dyads. The expected recruitment target (≈50 dyads) was not reached, as fewer than expected participants were identified. Although the overall retention rate was 55% (22/40), this was substantially unbalanced [30% (6/20) usual care and 80% (16/20) intervention]. The feasibility criterion of > 40% retention was, therefore, considered not met. A total of 12 carers (intervention, n = 10; usual care, n = 2) and 20 health-care professionals were interviewed. The intervention was considered acceptable, feasible and safe in the small study population. The context of the feasibility study was not ideal, as district nurses were seriously overstretched and unfamiliar with research methods. A disparity in readiness to consider the intervention was demonstrated between carers and health-care professionals. Findings showed that there were methodological and ethics issues pertaining to researching last days of life care. The success of a future definitive trial is uncertain because of equivocal results in the progression criteria, particularly poor recruitment overall and a low retention rate in the usual-care group. Future work regarding the intervention should include understanding the context of UK areas where this has been adopted, ascertaining wider public views and exploring health-care professional views on burden and risk in the NHS context. There should be consideration of the need for national policy and of the most appropriate quantitative outcome measures to use. This will help to ascertain if there are unanswered questions to be studied in a trial. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11211024. 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. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

PCN259 USING LONGITUDINAL PATIENT LEVEL DATA TO ASSESS THE VALUE OF NEW PANCREATIC CANCER TREATMENTS ON TOTAL HEALTH SPENDING

Health technology assessment programs are increasingly using longitudinal, patient-level data to assess the effect of new medicines on total cost of care. We analyzed such data to measure the impact of new pancreatic cancer therapies on other, non-drug medical expenditures. The latest update of the MEPS data, including the 21 Longitudinal Data Files which track subjects across the 5 rounds of interviews over 2 years, were obtained. The Medical Conditions File was used to identify all patients who were diagnosed with a cancer of the pancreas, including International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes 157.0, 157.1, 157.2, 157.3, 157.4, 157.8, 157.9. Included subjects (N = 80) had a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and available prescription data. Individual age, type of insurance coverage, and employment status were accounted for as covariates. All analyses were performed using R version 3.6.1 on Ubuntu 19.04. Means and standard deviations were computed for the raw and inflation-adjusted total health care costs (excluding drug spending). Prescription drug costs for the period between 2009-2016 to include approval and use of (nab)-paclitaxel and erlotinib were also obtained and adjusted for inflation. The prescription drug expenses and proportion of healthcare spending were plotted along with a LOESS curve using the same parameters. Between 2009 and 2016, inflation-adjusted per patient spending on pancreatic cancer care declined from $37,500 to $10,000, respectively. Prescription drug spending increased during the same time period from $2,100 to $6,100 per person (inflation-adjusted). In effect, for every additional dollar spent on drugs for pancreatic cancer in 2016, there was a reduction in non-drug spending of $9. Analysis of longitudinal, patient-level, real-world data provides a dynamic assessment of the impact of new medicines on well-being and medical utilization in those with pancreatic cancers.

Fluoxetine to improve functional outcomes in patients after acute stroke: the FOCUS RCT.

Our Cochrane review of selective serotonin inhibitors for stroke recovery indicated that fluoxetine may improve functional recovery, but the trials were small and most were at high risk of bias. The Fluoxetine Or Control Under Supervision (FOCUS) trial tested the hypothesis that fluoxetine improves recovery after stroke. The FOCUS trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial. This trial took place in 103 UK hospitals. Patients were eligible if they were aged ≥ 18 years, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, with focal neurological deficits, between 2 and 15 days after onset. Patients were randomly allocated 20 mg of fluoxetine once per day or the matching placebo for 6 months via a web-based system using a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Outcome was assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed by their treatment allocation as specified in a published statistical analysis plan. Between 10 September 2012 and 31 March 2017, we recruited 3127 patients, 1564 of whom were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 of whom were allocated placebo. The modified Rankin Scale score at 6 months was available for 1553 out of 1564 (99.3%) of those allocated fluoxetine and 1553 out of 1563 (99.4%) of those allocated placebo. The distribution across modified Rankin Scale categories at 6 months was similar in the two groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0.951, 95% confidence interval 0.839 to 1.079; p = 0.439). Compared with placebo, patients who were allocated fluoxetine were less likely to develop a new episode of depression by 6 months [210 (13.0%) vs. 269 (16.9%), difference -3.78%, 95% confidence interval -1.26% to -6.30%; p = 0.003], but had more bone fractures [45 (2.9%) vs. 23 (1.5%), difference 1.41%, 95% confidence interval 0.38% to 2.43%; p = 0.007]. There were no statistically significant differences in any other recorded events at 6 or 12 months. Health economic analyses showed no differences between groups in health-related quality of life, hospital bed usage or health-care costs. Some non-adherence to trial medication, lack of face-to-face assessment of neurological status at follow-up and lack of formal psychiatric diagnosis during follow-up. 20 mg of fluoxetine daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve patients' functional outcome but decreased the occurrence of depression and increased the risk of fractures. These data inform decisions about using fluoxetine after stroke to improve functional outcome or to prevent or treat mood disorders. The Assessment oF FluoxetINe In sTroke recoverY (AFFINITY) (Australasia/Vietnam) and Efficacy oF Fluoxetine - a randomisEd Controlled Trial in Stroke (EFFECTS) (Sweden) trials recruited an additional 2780 patients and will report their results in 2020. These three trials have an almost identical protocol, which was collaboratively developed. Our planned individual patient data meta-analysis will provide more precise estimates of the effects of fluoxetine after stroke and indicate whether or not effects vary depending on patients' characteristics and health-care setting. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83290762. 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. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Stroke Association (reference TSA 2011101) funded the start-up phase.

Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy for 1 week versus 3 weeks (FAST-Forward): 5-year efficacy and late normal tissue effects results from a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial

SummaryBackgroundWe aimed to identify a five-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy (radiation therapy) delivered in 1 week that is non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and is as safe as an international standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Here, we present 5-year results of the FAST-Forward trial.MethodsFAST-Forward is a multicentre, phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial done at 97 hospitals (47 radiotherapy centres and 50 referring hospitals) in the UK. Patients aged at least 18 years with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1–3, pN0–1, M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy were eligible. We randomly allocated patients to either 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks), 27 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week), or 26 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week) to the whole breast or chest wall. Allocation was not masked because of the nature of the intervention. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming a 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority was predefined as ≤1·6% excess for five-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio [HR] of 1·81). Normal tissue effects were assessed by clinicians, patients, and from photographs. This trial is registered at isrctn.com, ISRCTN19906132.FindingsBetween Nov 24, 2011, and June 19, 2014, we recruited and obtained consent from 4096 patients from 97 UK centres, of whom 1361 were assigned to the 40 Gy schedule, 1367 to the 27 Gy schedule, and 1368 to the 26 Gy schedule. At a median follow-up of 71·5 months (IQR 71·3 to 71·7), the primary endpoint event occurred in 79 patients (31 in the 40 Gy group, 27 in the 27 Gy group, and 21 in the 26 Gy group); HRs versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 0·86 (95% CI 0·51 to 1·44) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 0·67 (0·38 to 1·16) for 26 Gy in five fractions. 5-year incidence of ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy was 2·1% (1·4 to 3·1); estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were −0·3% (−1·0 to 0·9) for 27 Gy in five fractions (probability of incorrectly accepting an inferior five-fraction schedule: p=0·0022 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions) and −0·7% (−1·3 to 0·3) for 26 Gy in five fractions (p=0·00019 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions). At 5 years, any moderate or marked clinician-assessed normal tissue effects in the breast or chest wall was reported for 98 of 986 (9·9%) 40 Gy patients, 155 (15·4%) of 1005 27 Gy patients, and 121 of 1020 (11·9%) 26 Gy patients. Across all clinician assessments from 1–5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 1·55 (95% CI 1·32 to 1·83, p<0·0001) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 1·12 (0·94 to 1·34, p=0·20) for 26 Gy in five fractions. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effect risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy versus 40 Gy.Interpretation26 Gy in five fractions over 1 week is non-inferior to the standard of 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for local tumour control, and is as safe in terms of normal tissue effects up to 5 years for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT.

Late-stage medial compartment knee osteoarthritis can be treated using total knee replacement or partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement. There is high variation in treatment choice and insufficient evidence to guide selection. To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The findings are intended to guide surgical decision-making for patients, surgeons and health-care providers. This was a randomised, multicentre, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial that included an expertise component. The target sample size was 500 patients. A web-based randomisation system was used to allocate treatments. Twenty-seven NHS hospitals (68 surgeons). Patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The trial compared the overall management strategy of partial knee replacement treatment with total knee replacement treatment. No specified brand or subtype of implant was investigated. The Oxford Knee Score at 5 years was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, global health measures, transition items, patient satisfaction (Lund Score) and complications (including reoperation, revision and composite 'failure' - defined by minimal Oxford Knee Score improvement and/or reoperation). Cost-effectiveness was also assessed. A total of 528 patients were randomised (partial knee replacement, n = 264; total knee replacement, n = 264). The follow-up primary outcome response rate at 5 years was 88% and both operations had good outcomes. There was no significant difference between groups in mean Oxford Knee Score at 5 years (difference 1.04, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 2.50). An area under the curve analysis of the Oxford Knee Score at 5 years showed benefit in favour of partial knee replacement over total knee replacement, but the difference was within the minimal clinically important difference [mean 36.6 (standard deviation 8.3) (n = 233), mean 35.1 (standard deviation 9.1) (n = 231), respectively]. Secondary outcome measures showed consistent patterns of benefit in the direction of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement although most differences were small and non-significant. Patient-reported improvement (transition) and reflection (would you have the operation again?) showed statistically significant superiority for partial knee replacement only, but both of these variables could be influenced by the lack of blinding. The frequency of reoperation (including revision) by treatment received was similar for both groups: 22 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 28 out of 269 for total knee replacement patients. Revision rates at 5 years were 10 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 8 out of 269 for total knee replacement. There were 28 'failures' of partial knee replacement and 38 'failures' of total knee replacement (as defined by composite outcome). Beyond 1 year, partial knee replacement was cost-effective compared with total knee replacement, being associated with greater health benefits (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and lower health-care costs, reflecting lower costs of the index surgery and subsequent health-care use. It was not possible to blind patients in this study and there was some non-compliance with the allocated treatment interventions. Surgeons providing partial knee replacement were relatively experienced with the procedure. Both total knee replacement and partial knee replacement are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes and have similar reoperation and complication rates. Some patient-reported measures of treatment approval were significantly higher for partial knee replacement than for total knee replacement. Partial knee replacement was more cost-effective (more effective and cost saving) than total knee replacement at 5 years. Further (10-year) follow-up is in progress to assess the longer-term stability of these findings. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01352247. 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. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Computerised speech and language therapy or attention control added to usual care for people with long-term post-stroke aphasia: the Big CACTUS three-arm RCT.

People with aphasia may improve their communication with speech and language therapy many months/years after stroke. However, NHS speech and language therapy reduces in availability over time post stroke. This trial evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-managed computerised speech and language therapy to provide additional therapy. A pragmatic, superiority, single-blind, parallel-group, individually randomised (stratified block randomisation, stratified by word-finding severity and site) adjunct trial. Twenty-one UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. People with post-stroke aphasia (diagnosed by a speech and language therapist) with long-standing (> 4 months) word-finding difficulties. The groups were (1) usual care; (2) daily self-managed computerised word-finding therapy tailored by speech and language therapists and supported by volunteers/speech and language therapy assistants for 6 months plus usual care (computerised speech and language therapy); and (3) activity/attention control (completion of puzzles and receipt of telephone calls from a researcher for 6 months) plus usual care. Co-primary outcomes - change in ability to find treated words of personal relevance in a bespoke naming test (impairment) and change in functional communication in conversation rated on the activity scale of the Therapy Outcome Measures (activity) 6 months after randomisation. A key secondary outcome was participant-rated perception of communication and quality of life using the Communication Outcomes After Stroke questionnaire at 6 months. Outcomes were assessed by speech and language therapists using standardised procedures. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and an accessible EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, measuring quality-adjusted life-years. A total of 818 patients were assessed for eligibility and 278 participants were randomised between October 2014 and August 2016. A total of 240 participants (86 usual care, 83 computerised speech and language therapy, 71 attention control) contributed to modified intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months. The mean improvements in word-finding were 1.1% (standard deviation 11.2%) for usual care, 16.4% (standard deviation 15.3%) for computerised speech and language therapy and 2.4% (standard deviation 8.8%) for attention control. Computerised speech and language therapy improved word-finding 16.2% more than usual care did (95% confidence interval 12.7% to 19.6%; p < 0.0001) and 14.4% more than attention control did (95% confidence interval 10.8% to 18.1%). Most of this effect was maintained at 12 months (n = 219); the mean differences in change in word-finding score were 12.7% (95% confidence interval 8.7% to 16.7%) higher in the computerised speech and language therapy group (n = 74) than in the usual-care group (n = 84) and 9.3% (95% confidence interval 4.8% to 13.7%) higher in the computerised speech and language therapy group than in the attention control group (n = 61). Computerised speech and language therapy did not show significant improvements on the Therapy Outcome Measures or Communication Outcomes After Stroke scale compared with usual care or attention control. Primary cost-effectiveness analysis estimated an incremental cost per participant of £732.73 (95% credible interval £674.23 to £798.05). The incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain was 0.017 for computerised speech and language therapy compared with usual care, but its direction was uncertain (95% credible interval -0.05 to 0.10), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £42,686 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. For mild and moderate word-finding difficulty subgroups, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £22,371 and £28,898 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, for computerised speech and language therapy compared with usual care. This trial excluded non-English-language speakers, the accessible EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, was not validated and the measurement of attention control fidelity was limited. Computerised speech and language therapy enabled additional self-managed speech and language therapy, contributing to significant improvement in finding personally relevant words (as specifically targeted by computerised speech and language therapy) long term post stroke. Gains did not lead to improvements in conversation or quality of life. Cost-effectiveness is uncertain owing to uncertainty around the quality-adjusted life-year gain, but computerised speech and language therapy may be more cost-effective for participants with mild and moderate word-finding difficulties. Exploring ways of helping people with aphasia to use new words in functional communication contexts is a priority. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68798818. 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. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Tavistock Trust for Aphasia provided additional support to enable people in the control groups to experience the intervention after the trial had ended.

Liver resection surgery compared with thermal ablation in high surgical risk patients with colorectal liver metastases: the LAVA international RCT.

Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases, thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. There have been no adequately powered trials comparing surgery with thermal ablation. Main objective - to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation versus liver resection surgery in high surgical risk patients who would be eligible for liver resection. Pilot study objectives - to assess the feasibility of recruitment (through qualitative study), to assess the quality of ablations and liver resection surgery to determine acceptable standards for the main trial and to centrally review the reporting of computed tomography scan findings relating to ablation and outcomes and recurrence rate in both arms. A prospective, international (UK and the Netherlands), multicentre, open, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 1-year internal pilot study. Tertiary liver, pancreatic and gallbladder (hepatopancreatobiliary) centres in the UK and the Netherlands. Adults with a specialist multidisciplinary team diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases who are at high surgical risk because of their age, comorbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation. Thermal ablation conducted as per local policy (but centres were encouraged to recruit within Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe guidelines) versus surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol. Pilot study - patients' and clinicians' acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment. Primary outcome - disease-free survival at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes - overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, and disease-free survival measured from end of intervention. It was planned that 5-year survival data would be documented through record linkage. Randomisation was performed by minimisation incorporating a random element, and this was a non-blinded study. In the pilot study over 1 year, a total of 366 patients with colorectal liver metastases were screened and 59 were considered eligible. Only nine participants were randomised. The trial was stopped early and none of the planned statistical analyses was performed. The key issues inhibiting recruitment included fewer than anticipated patients eligible for both treatments, misconceptions about the eligibility criteria for the trial, surgeons' preference for one of the treatments ('lack of clinical equipoise' among some of the surgeons in the centre) with unconscious bias towards surgery, patients' preference for one of the treatments, and lack of dedicated research nurses for the trial. Recruitment feasibility was not demonstrated during the pilot stage of the trial; therefore, the trial closed early. In future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from an initial feasibility study or a longer period of internal pilot study to resolve these difficulties. Sufficient time should be allowed to set up arrangements through National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Networks. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52040363. This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT.

Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement. To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants. This was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents. The setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015. The participants were infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment. When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds. The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell's stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability. The results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost-consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention. The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered. No clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

FAST-Forward Phase III Randomised Controlled Trial of 1-Week Hypofractionated Breast Radiotherapy: 5-Year Results for Efficacy and Late Normal Tissue Effects

Background: FAST-Forward aims to identify a 5-fraction (Fr) schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy (radiation therapy) delivered in 1 week which is non-inferior for local cancer control and as safe as an international standard 15Fr regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Five-year results are presented. Methods: FAST-Forward (ISRCTN19906132) randomised (1:1:1) patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3 pN0-1 M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy to 40Gy in 15Fr (3 weeks), 27Gy or 26Gy in 5Fr (1 week) to whole breast/chest wall. Primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse (IBTR); assuming 2% 5-year incidence for 40Gy, non-inferiority was pre-defined as < 1.6% excess for 5Fr schedules (critical hazard ratio HR=1.81). Normal tissue effects (NTE) were assessed by clinicians, patients and photographs. Findings: 4096 consenting patients (1361 40Gy, 1367 27Gy, 1368 26Gy) were recruited November 2011-June 2014 from 97 UK centres. At 71 months median follow-up, 79 IBTR events were reported (40Gy: 31, 27Gy: 27, 26Gy: 21); HRs (95%CI) versus 40Gy/15Fr were 27Gy/5Fr: 0.86 (0.51,1.44), 26Gy/5Fr: 0.67 (0.38,1.16). Five-year incidence of IBTR after 40Gy was 2.1% (1.4,3.1); estimated absolute differences versus 40Gy/15Fr were -0.3% (-1.0,0.9) for 27Gy/5Fr (p=0.0022 for non-inferiority) and -0.7% (-1.3,0.3) for 26Gy/5Fr (p=0.00019). 5-year prevalence of any clinician-assessed moderate/marked breast NTE after 40Gy: 98/986 (9.9%), 27Gy: 155/1005 (15.4%), 26Gy: 121/1020 (11.9%). Across all clinician assessments from 1-5 years, odds ratios versus 40Gy/15Fr were 1.55 (1.32,1.83, p<0.0001) for 27Gy/5Fr and 1.12 (0.94,1.34, p=0.20) for 26Gy/5Fr. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher NTE risk for 27Gy versus 40Gy but not for 26Gy. Interpretation: 5-year local tumour incidence and NTE prevalence show 26Gy/5Fr in 1 week to be an effective and safe alternative to 40Gy/15Fr in 3 weeks for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early stage breast cancer. Trial Registration: ISRCTN19906132. Funding Statement: The FAST-Forward trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme - HTA (UK) (09/01/47), with programme grants from Cancer Research UK to support the work of ICRCTSU (C1491/A15955; C1491/A25351). We acknowledge NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research (London, UK). Declaration of Interests: JMB reports grants from NIHR HTA and grants from Cancer Research UK during the conduct of the study, and grants and non-financial support from Novartis (previously GSK), grants and non-financial support from Astra Zeneca, grants and non-financial support from Clovis Oncology, grants and non-financial support from Janssen-Cilag, grants and non-financial support from Merck Sharpe & Dohme, grants and non-financial support from Puma Biotechnology, grants and non-financial support from Pfizer, grants and non-financial support from Roche, grants from Medivation, outside the submitted work. DAW reports travel grants from Roche Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. JSH, MAS and LS report grants from NIHR HTA and grants from Cancer Research UK, during the conduct of the study. CCK reports personal fees from Roche Pharmaceutical, outside the submitted work. AA, AMB, DJB, CC, CEC, MC, AG, PH, CM, ZN, NS, IS, JRY declare no competing interests. Ethics Approval Statement: FAST-Forward was approved by the national South East Coast Kent Research Ethics Committee (11/LO/0958) and local Research and Development offices of all participating centres.

C-reactive protein point-of-care testing for safely reducing antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the PACE RCT.

Most patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care are prescribed antibiotics, but these may not be beneficial, and they can cause side effects and increase the risk of subsequent resistant infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) could safely reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance. To determine whether or not the use of a C-reactive protein (CRP) POCT to guide prescribing decisions for AECOPD reduces antibiotic consumption without having a negative impact on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) health status and is cost-effective. A multicentre, parallel-arm, randomised controlled open trial with an embedded process, and a health economic evaluation. General practices in Wales and England. A UK NHS perspective was used for the economic analysis. Adults (aged ≥ 40 years) with a primary care diagnosis of COPD, presenting with an AECOPD (with at least one of increased dyspnoea, increased sputum volume and increased sputum purulence) of between 24 hours' and 21 days' duration. CRP POCTs to guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for AECOPD, compared with usual care (no CRP POCT), using remote online randomisation. Patient-reported antibiotic consumption for AECOPD within 4 weeks post randomisation and COPD health status as measured with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) at 2 weeks. For the economic evaluation, patient-reported resource use and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions were included. In total, 653 participants were randomised from 86 general practices. Three withdrew consent and one was randomised in error, leaving 324 participants in the usual-care arm and 325 participants in the CRP POCT arm. Antibiotics were consumed for AECOPD by 212 out of 274 participants (77.4%) and 150 out of 263 participants (57.0%) in the usual-care and CRP POCT arm, respectively [adjusted odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.47]. The CCQ analysis comprised 282 and 281 participants in the usual-care and CRP POCT arms, respectively, and the adjusted mean CCQ score difference at 2 weeks was 0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI -0.33 to -0.05 points). The upper limit of the CI did not contain the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.3. The total cost from a NHS perspective at 4 weeks was £17.59 per patient higher in the CRP POCT arm (95% CI -£34.80 to £69.98; p = 0.408). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £222 per 1% reduction in antibiotic consumption compared with usual care at 4 weeks and £15,251 per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months with no significant changes in sensitivity analyses. Patients and clinicians were generally supportive of including CRP POCT in the assessment of AECOPD. A CRP POCT diagnostic strategy achieved meaningful reductions in patient-reported antibiotic consumption without impairing COPD health status or increasing costs. There were no associated harms and both patients and clinicians valued the diagnostic strategy. Implementation studies that also build on our qualitative findings could help determine the effect of this intervention over the longer term. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24346473. 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. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Silver-impregnated, antibiotic-impregnated or non-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunts to prevent shunt infection: the BASICS three-arm RCT.

Insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt to treat hydrocephalus is one of the most common neurosurgical procedures worldwide. Shunt infection affects up to 15% of patients, resulting in long hospital stays, multiple surgeries and reduced cognition and quality of life. The aim of this trial was to determine whether or not antibiotic-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunts (hereafter referred to as antibiotic shunts) (e.g. impregnated with rifampicin and clindamycin) or silver-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunts (hereafter referred to as silver shunts) reduce infection compared with standard ventriculoperitoneal shunts (hereafter referred to as standard shunts). This was a three-arm, superiority, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Patients and a central primary outcome review panel, but not surgeons or operating staff, were blinded to the type of ventriculoperitoneal shunt inserted. The trial was set in 21 neurosurgical wards across the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Participants were patients with hydrocephalus of any aetiology who were undergoing insertion of their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt. Participants were allocated 1 : 1 : 1 by pressure-sealed envelope to receive a standard non-impregnated, silver-impregnated or antibiotic-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunt at the time of insertion. Ventriculoperitoneal shunts are medical devices, and were used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for their intended purpose. The primary outcome was time to ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure due to infection. Secondary outcomes were time to failure for any cause, reason for failure (infection, mechanical), types of ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection, rate of infection after first clean (non-infected) revision and health economics. Outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Between 26 June 2013 and 9 October 2017, 1605 patients from neonate to 91 years of age were randomised to the trial: n = 36 to the standard shunt, n = 538 to the antibiotic shunt and n = 531 to the silver shunt. Patients who did not receive a ventriculoperitoneal shunt (n = 4) or who had an infection at the time of insertion (n = 7) were not assessed for the primary outcome. Infection occurred in 6.0% (n = 32/533) of those who received the standard shunt, in 2.2% (n = 12/535) of those who received the antibiotic shunt and in 5.9% (n = 31/526) of those who received the silver shunt. Compared with the standard shunt, antibiotic shunts were associated with a lower rate of infection (cause-specific hazard ratio 0.38, 97.5% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.80) and a decreased probability of infection (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.38, 97.5% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.80). Silver shunts were not associated with a lower rate of infection than standard shunts (cause-specific hazard ratio 0.99, 97.5% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.74). The ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure rate attributable to any cause was 25.0% overall and did not differ between arms. Antibiotic shunts save £135,753 per infection avoided. There were no serious adverse events. It was not possible to blind treating neurosurgeons to the ventriculoperitoneal shunt type. The return rate for patient-reported outcomes was low. Limitations to the economic evaluation included failure to obtain Hospital Episode Statistics data from NHS Digital, as per protocol. Reliance on patient-level information and costing systems data mitigated these limitations. Antibiotic shunts have a reduced infection rate compared with standard shunts, whereas silver shunts do not. Antibiotic shunts are cost-saving. A sample collection has been established that will enable the study of surrogate markers of ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection in cerebrospinal fluid or blood using molecular techniques. A post hoc analysis to study factors related to shunt failure will be performed as part of a future study. An impact analysis to assess change in practice is planned. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49474281. 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. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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

The quality of care for people with dementia in care homes is of concern. Interventions that can improve care outcomes are required. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The primary outcome was agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory), measured at 16 months. Secondary outcomes included resident behaviours and quality of life. 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. 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. 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. Alternative models of DCM implementation should be considered that do not rely solely on leadership by care home staff. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. 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.

An intervention for parents with severe personality difficulties whose children have mental health problems: a feasibility RCT.

The children of parents with severe personality difficulties have greater risk of significant mental health problems. Existing care is poorly co-ordinated, with limited effectiveness. A specialised parenting intervention may improve child and parenting outcomes, reduce family morbidity and lower the service costs. To develop a specialised parenting intervention for parents affected by severe personality difficulties who have children with mental health problems and to conduct a feasibility trial. A pragmatic, mixed-methods design to develop and pilot a specialised parenting intervention, Helping Families Programme-Modified, and to conduct a randomised feasibility trial with process evaluation. Initial cost-effectiveness was assessed using UK NHS/Personal Social Services and societal perspectives, generating quality-adjusted life-years. Researchers collecting quantitative data were masked to participant allocation. Two NHS mental health trusts and concomitant children's social care services. Parents who met the following criteria: (1) the primary caregiver of the index child, (2) aged 18-65 years, (3) have severe personality difficulties, (4) proficient in English and (5) capable of providing informed consent. Index children who met the following criteria: (1) aged 3-11 years, (2) living with index parent and (3) have significant emotional/behavioural difficulties. Exclusion criteria were (1) having coexisting psychosis, (2) participating in another parenting intervention, (3) receiving inpatient care, (4) having insufficient language/cognitive abilities, (5) having child developmental disorder, (6) care proceedings and (7) index child not residing with index parent. The Helping Families Programme-Modified - a 16-session intervention using structured, goal-orientated strategies and collaborative therapeutic methods to improve parenting, and child and parent functioning. Usual care - standard care augmented by a single psychoeducational session. Trial feasibility - rates of recruitment, eligibility, allocation, retention, data completion and experience. Intervention acceptability - rates of acceptance, completion, alliance (Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised) and experience. Outcomes - child (assessed via Concerns About My Child, Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory, Child Behaviour Checklist-Internalising Scale), parenting (assessed via the Arnold-O'Leary Parenting Scale, Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale), parent (assessed via the Symptom Checklist-27), and health economics (assessed via the Client Service Receipt Inventory, EuroQol-5 Dimensions). The findings broadly supported trial feasibility using non-diagnostic screening criteria. Parents were mainly referred from one site (75.0%). Site and participant factors delayed recruitment. An estimate of eligible parents was not obtained. Of the 86 parents referred, 60 (69.7%) completed screening and 48 of these (80.0%) were recruited. Participants experienced significant disadvantage and multiple morbidity. The Helping Families Programme-Modified uptake (87.5%) was higher than usual-care uptake (62.5%). Trial retention (66.7%, 95% confidence interval 51.6% to 79.6%) exceeded the a priori rate. Process findings highlighted the impact of random allocation and the negative effects on retention. The Helping Families Programme-Modified was acceptable, with duration of delivery longer than planned, whereas the usual-care condition was less acceptable. At initial follow-up, effects on child and parenting outcomes were detected across both arms, with a potential outcome advantage for the Helping Families Programme-Modified (effect size range 0.0-1.3). For parental quality-adjusted life-years, the Helping Families Programme-Modified dominated usual care, and child quality-adjusted life-years resulted in higher costs and more quality-adjusted life-years. At second follow-up, the Helping Families Programme-Modified was associated with higher costs and more quality-adjusted life-years than usual care. For child quality-adjusted life-years, when controlled for baseline EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, usual care dominated the Helping Families Programme-Modified. No serious adverse events were reported. The Helping Families Programme-Modified is an acceptable specialised parenting intervention. Trial methods using non-diagnostic criteria were largely supported. For future work, a definitive efficacy trial should consider site selection, recruitment methods, intervention efficiency and revised comparator condition. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14573230. 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. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Preoperative behavioural intervention to reduce drinking before elective orthopaedic surgery: the PRE-OP BIRDS feasibility RCT.

Heavy alcohol consumption is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and extended hospital stay. Alcohol consumption therefore represents a modifiable risk factor for surgical outcomes. Brief behavioural interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption among increased risk and risky drinkers in other health-care settings and may offer a method of addressing preoperative alcohol consumption. To investigate the feasibility of introducing a screening process to assess adult preoperative drinking levels and to deliver a brief behavioural intervention adapted for the target population group. To conduct a two-arm (brief behavioural intervention plus standard preoperative care vs. standard preoperative care alone), multicentre, pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility of proceeding to a definitive trial. To conduct focus groups and a national web-based survey to establish current treatment as usual for alcohol screening and intervention in preoperative assessment. A single-centre, qualitative, feasibility study was followed by a multicentre, two-arm (brief behavioural intervention vs. treatment as usual), individually randomised controlled pilot trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. Focus groups and a quantitative survey were employed to characterise treatment as usual in preoperative assessment. The feasibility study took place at a secondary care hospital in the north-east of England. The pilot trial was conducted at three large secondary care centres in the north-east of England. Nine health-care professionals and 15 patients (mean age 70.5 years, 86.7% male) participated in the feasibility study. Eleven health-care professionals and 68 patients (mean age 66.2 years, 80.9% male) participated in the pilot randomised trial. An additional 19 health-care professionals were recruited to one of three focus groups, while 62 completed an electronic survey to characterise treatment as usual. The brief behavioural intervention comprised two sessions. The first session, delivered face to face in the preoperative assessment clinic, involved 5 minutes of structured brief advice followed by 15-20 minutes of behaviour change counselling, including goal-setting, problem-solving and identifying sources of social support. The second session, an optional booster, took place approximately 1 week before surgery and offered the opportunity to assess progress and boost self-efficacy. Feasibility was assessed using rates of eligibility, recruitment and retention. The progression criteria for a definitive trial were recruitment of ≥ 40% of eligible patients and retention of ≥ 70% at 6-month follow-up. Acceptability was assessed using themes identified in qualitative data. The initial recruitment of eligible patients was low but improved with the optimisation of recruitment processes. The recruitment of eligible participants to the pilot trial (34%) fell short of the progression criteria but was mitigated by very high retention (96%) at the 6-month follow-up. Multimethod analyses identified the methods as acceptable to the patients and professionals involved and offers recommendations of ways to further improve recruitment. The evidence supports the feasibility of a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of brief behavioural intervention in reducing preoperative alcohol consumption and for secondary outcomes of surgical complications if recommendations for further improvements are adopted. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36257982. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 12. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.

New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods. To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon. UK hospitals. Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery. Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension. The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year). Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041). Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach. Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Varenicline versus nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: an observational study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Smoking is the leading avoidable cause of illness and premature mortality. The first-line treatments for smoking cessation are nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline. Meta-analyses of experimental studies have shown that participants allocated to the varenicline group were 1.57 times (95% confidence interval 1.29 to 1.91 times) as likely to be abstinent 6 months after treatment as those allocated to the nicotine replacement therapy group. However, there is limited evidence about the effectiveness of varenicline when prescribed in primary care. We investigated the effectiveness and rate of adverse events of these medicines in the general population. To estimate the effect of prescribing varenicline on smoking cessation rates and health outcomes. Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We conducted an observational cohort study using electronic medical records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We extracted data on all patients who were prescribed varenicline or nicotine replacement therapy after 1 September 2006 who were aged ≥ 18 years. We investigated the effects of varenicline on smoking cessation, all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality and hospitalisation for: (1) chronic lung disease, (2) lung cancer, (3) coronary heart disease, (4) pneumonia, (5) cerebrovascular disease, (6) diabetes, and (7) external causes; primary care diagnosis of myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, or prescription for anxiety; weight in kg; general practitioner and hospital attendance. Our primary outcome was smoking cessation 2 years after the first prescription. We investigated the baseline differences between patients prescribed varenicline and patients prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. We report results using multivariable-adjusted, propensity score and instrumental variable regression. Finally, we developed methods to assess the relative bias of the different statistical methods we used. People prescribed varenicline were healthier at baseline than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy in almost all characteristics, which highlighted the potential for residual confounding. Our instrumental variable analysis results found little evidence that patients prescribed varenicline had lower mortality 2 years after their first prescription (risk difference 0.67, 95% confidence interval -0.11 to 1.46) than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy. They had similar rates of all-cause hospitalisation, incident primary care diagnoses of myocardial infarction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. People prescribed varenicline subsequently attended primary care less frequently. Patients prescribed varenicline were more likely (odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.42 to 1.50) to be abstinent 6 months after treatment than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy when estimated using multivariable-adjusted for baseline covariates. Patients from more deprived areas were less likely to be prescribed varenicline. However, varenicline had similar effectiveness for these groups. Patients prescribed varenicline in primary care were more likely to quit smoking than those prescribed nicotine replacement therapy, but there was little evidence that they had lower rates of mortality or morbidity in the 4 years following the first prescription. There was little evidence of heterogeneity in effectiveness across the population. Future research should investigate the decline in prescribing of smoking cessation products; develop an optimal treatment algorithm for smoking cessation; use methods for using instruments with survival outcomes; and develop methods for comparing multivariable-adjusted and instrumental variable estimates. Not all of our code lists were validated, body mass index and Index of Multiple Deprivation had missing values, our results may suffer from residual confounding, and we had no information on treatment adherence. This trial is registered as NCT02681848. 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. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plaster cast versus functional bracing for Achilles tendon rupture: the UKSTAR RCT.

Achilles tendon rupture affects > 11,000 people each year in the UK, leading to prolonged periods away from work, sports and social activities. Traditionally, the ruptured tendon is held still in a plaster cast for ≥ 8 weeks. Functional bracing is an alternative treatment that allows patients to mobilise earlier, but there is little evidence about how bracing affects patients' recovery. To measure the Achilles Tendon Rupture Score, quality of life, complications and resource use of patients receiving non-operative treatment for an Achilles tendon rupture treated with plaster cast compared with those treated with functional bracing. This was a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, two-group superiority trial. The setting was 39 NHS hospitals. A total of 540 adult patients treated non-operatively for Achilles tendon rupture were randomised from July 2016 to May 2018. Exclusion criteria included presenting after 14 days, having had previous rupture and being unable to complete questionnaires. A total of 266 participants had a plaster cast applied, with their toes initially pointing to the floor. The cast was changed over 8 weeks to bring the foot into a walking position. A total of 274 patients had a functional brace that facilitated immediate weight-bearing. The foot position was adjusted within the brace over the same 8-week period. Achilles Tendon Rupture Score is patient reported and assesses symptoms and physical activity related to the Achilles tendon (score 0-100, with 100 being the best possible outcome). The secondary outcomes were quality of life, complications and resource use at 8 weeks and at 3, 6 and 9 months. Participants had a mean age of 48.7 years, were predominantly male (79%) and had ruptured their tendon during sports (70%). Over 93% of participants completed follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in Achilles Tendon Rupture Score at 9 months post injury (-1.38, 95% confidence interval -4.9 to 2.1). There was a statistically significant difference in Achilles Tendon Rupture Score at 8 weeks post injury in favour of the functional brace group (5.53, 95% confidence interval 2.0 to 9.1), but not at 3 or 6 months post injury. Quality of life showed the same pattern, with a statistically significant difference at 8 weeks post injury but not at later time points. Complication profiles were similar in both groups. Re-rupture of the tendon occurred 17 times in the plaster cast group and 13 times in the functional brace group. There was no difference in resource use. This trial provides strong evidence that early weight-bearing in a functional brace provides similar outcomes to traditional plaster casting and is safe for patients receiving non-operative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. The probability that functional bracing is cost-effective exceeds 95% for the base-case imputed analysis, assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. On average, functional brace is associated with lower costs (-£103, 95% confidence interval -£290 to £84) and more quality-adjusted life-years (0.015, 95% confidence interval -0.0013 to 0.030) than plaster cast. Some patients declined to participate in the trial, but only a small proportion of these declined because they had a preference for one treatment or another. Overall, 58% of eligible patients agreed to participate, so the participants are broadly representative of the population under investigation. Although the UK Study of Tendo Achilles Rehabilitation provides guidance with regard to early management, rehabilitation following Achilles tendon rupture is prolonged and further research is required to define the optimal mode of rehabilitation after the initial cast/brace has been removed. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62639639. 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. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.