Long-term evaluation of anterior thalamic deep brain stimulation for epilepsy in the European MORE registry.

OBJECTIVE: Short-term outcomes of deep brain stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus (ANT-DBS) were reported for people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy (PwE). Because long-term data are still scarce, the Medtronic Registry for Epilepsy (MORE) evaluated clinical routine application of ANT-DBS. METHODS: In this multicenter registry, PwE with ANT-DBS were followed up for safety, efficacy, and battery longevity. Follow-up ended after 5 years or upon study closure. Clinical characteristics and stimulation settings were compared between PwE with no benefit, improvers, and responders, that is, PwE with average monthly seizure frequency reduction rates of ≥50%. RESULTS: Of 170 eligible PwE, 104, 62, and 49 completed the 3-, 4-, and 5-year follow-up, respectively. Most discontinuations (68%) were due to planned study closure as follow-up beyond 2 years was optional. The 5-year follow-up cohort had a median seizure frequency reduction from 16 per month at baseline to 7.9 per month at 5-year follow-up (p < .001), with most-pronounced effects on focal-to-bilateral tonic-clonic seizures (n = 15, 77% reduction, p = .008). At last follow-up (median 3.5 years), 41% (69/170) of PwE were responders. Unifocal epilepsy (p = .035) and a negative history of epilepsy surgery (p = .002) were associated with larger average monthly seizure frequency reductions. Stimulation settings did not differ between response groups. In 179 implanted PwE, DBS-related adverse events (AEs, n = 225) and serious AEs (n = 75) included deterioration in epilepsy or seizure frequency/severity/type (33; 14 serious), memory/cognitive impairment (29; 3 serious), and depression (13; 4 serious). Five deaths occurred (none were ANT-DBS related). Most AEs (76.3%) manifested within the first 2 years after implantation. Activa PC depletion (n = 37) occurred on average after 45 months. SIGNIFICANCE: MORE provides further evidence for the long-term application of ANT-DBS in clinical routine practice. Although clinical benefits increased over time, side effects occurred mainly during the first 2 years. Identified outcome modifiers can help inform PwE selection and management.

Psychological interventions for depression and anxiety in patients with coronary heart disease, heart failure or atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety occur frequently (with reported prevalence rates of around 40%) in individuals with coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF) or atrial fibrillation (AF) and are associated with a poor prognosis, such as decreased health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and increased morbidity and mortality. Psychological interventions are developed and delivered by psychologists or specifically trained healthcare workers and commonly include cognitive behavioural therapies and mindfulness-based stress reduction. They have been shown to reduce depression and anxiety in the general population, though the exact mechanism of action is not well understood. Further, their effects on psychological and clinical outcomes in patients with CHD, HF or AF are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions (alone, or with cardiac rehabilitation or pharmacotherapy, or both) in adults who have a diagnosis of CHD, HF or AF, compared to no psychological intervention, on psychological and clinical outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2009 to July 2022. We also searched three clinical trials registers in September 2020, and checked the reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological interventions with no psychological intervention for a minimum of six months follow-up in adults aged over 18 years with a clinical diagnosis of CHD, HF or AF, with or without depression or anxiety. Studies had to report on either depression or anxiety or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were depression and anxiety, and our secondary outcomes of interest were HRQoL mental and physical components, all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (2591 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies included people with CHD, five with HF and none with AF. Study sample sizes ranged from 29 to 430. Twenty and 17 studies reported the primary outcomes of depression and anxiety, respectively. Despite the high heterogeneity and variation, we decided to pool the studies using a random-effects model, recognising that the model does not eliminate heterogeneity and findings should be interpreted cautiously. We found that psychological interventions probably have a moderate effect on reducing depression (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.65 to -0.06; 20 studies, 2531 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and anxiety (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.18; 17 studies, 2235 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention. Psychological interventions may have little to no effect on HRQoL physical component summary scores (PCS) (SMD 0.48, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.98; 12 studies, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may have a moderate effect on improving HRQoL mental component summary scores (MCS) (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.26; 12 studies, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention. Psychological interventions probably have little to no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.69; 3 studies, 615 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have little to no effect on MACE (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.92; 4 studies, 450 participants; low-certainty evidence), compared to no psychological intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that psychological interventions for depression and anxiety probably result in a moderate reduction in depression and anxiety and may result in a moderate improvement in HRQoL MCS, compared to no intervention. However, they may have little to no effect on HRQoL PCS and MACE, and probably do not reduce mortality (all-cause) in adults who have a diagnosis of CHD or HF, compared with no psychological intervention. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity identified across studies. Thus, evidence of treatment effects on these outcomes warrants careful interpretation. As there were no studies of psychological interventions for patients with AF included in our review, this is a gap that needs to be addressed in future studies, particularly in view of the rapid growth of research on management of AF. Studies investigating cost-effectiveness, return to work and cardiovascular morbidity (revascularisation) are also needed to better understand the benefits of psychological interventions in populations with heart disease.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: People with heart failure experience substantial disease burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous 2018 Cochrane review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission amongst people with heart failure, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with heart failure with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with heart failure with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in a hospital or centre-based setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ExCR on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of adults with heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science without language restriction on 13 December 2021. We also checked the bibliographies of included studies, identified relevant systematic reviews, and two clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ExCR interventions (either exercise only or exercise as part of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation) with a follow-up of six months or longer versus a no-exercise control (e.g. usual medical care). The study population comprised adults (≥ 18 years) with heart failure - either HFrEF or HFpEF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, mortality due to heart failure, all-cause hospital admissions, heart failure-related hospital admissions, and HRQoL. Secondary outcomes were costs and cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 trials (8728 participants) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 16 new trials (2945 new participants), in addition to the previously identified 44 trials (5783 existing participants). Although the existing evidence base predominantly includes patients with HFrEF, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II and III receiving centre-based ExCR programmes, a growing body of trials includes patients with HFpEF with ExCR undertaken in a home-based setting. All included trials employed a usual care comparator with a formal no-exercise intervention as well as a wide range of active comparators, such as education, psychological intervention, or medical management. The overall risk of bias in the included trials was low or unclear, and we mostly downgraded the certainty of evidence of outcomes upon GRADE assessment. There was no evidence of a difference in the short term (up to 12 months' follow-up) in the pooled risk of all-cause mortality when comparing ExCR versus usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.21; absolute effects 5.0% versus 5.8%; 34 trials, 36 comparisons, 3941 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only a few trials reported information on whether participants died due to heart failure. Participation in ExCR versus usual care likely reduced the risk of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; absolute effects 15.9% versus 23.8%; 23 trials, 24 comparisons, 2283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and heart failure-related hospital admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.35; absolute effects 5.6% versus 6.4%; 10 trials; 10 comparisons, 911 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in the short term. Participation in ExCR likely improved short-term HRQoL as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire (lower scores indicate better HRQoL and a difference of 5 points or more indicates clinical importance; mean difference (MD) -7.39 points, 95% CI -10.30 to -4.77; 21 trials, 22 comparisons, 2699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When pooling HRQoL data measured by any questionnaire/scale, we found that ExCR may improve HRQoL in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (33 trials, 37 comparisons, 4769 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.34; very-low certainty evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent across different models of ExCR delivery: centre- versus home-based, exercise dose, exercise only versus comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone versus aerobic plus resistance programmes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane review provides additional randomised evidence (16 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous 2018 version of the review. Compared to no exercise control, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with heart failure, ExCR participation likely reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and heart failure-related hospital admissions, and may result in important improvements in HRQoL. Importantly, this updated review provides additional evidence supporting the use of alternative modes of ExCR delivery, including home-based and digitally-supported programmes. Future ExCR trials need to focus on the recruitment of traditionally less represented heart failure patient groups including older patients, women, and those with HFpEF.

Cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure: 'Cinderella' or evidence-based pillar of care?

Cardiac rehabilitation remains the 'Cinderella' of treatments for heart failure. This state-of-the-art review provides a contemporary update on the evidence base, clinical guidance, and status of cardiac rehabilitation delivery for patients with heart failure. Given that cardiac rehabilitation participation results in important improvements in patient outcomes, including health-related quality of life, this review argues that an exercise-based rehabilitation is a key pillar of heart failure management alongside drug and medical device provision. To drive future improvements in access and uptake, health services should offer heart failure patients a choice of evidence-based modes of rehabilitation delivery, including home, supported by digital technology, alongside traditional centre-based programmes (or combinations of modes, 'hybrid') and according to stage of disease and patient preference.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: Coronary heart disease is the most common reason for referral to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) globally. However, the generalizability of previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is questioned. Therefore, a contemporary updated meta-analysis was undertaken. METHODS AND RESULTS: Database and trial registry searches were conducted to September 2020, seeking RCTs of exercise-based interventions with ≥6-month follow-up, compared with no-exercise control for adults with myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, or following coronary artery bypass graft, or percutaneous coronary intervention. The outcomes of mortality, recurrent clinical events, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness data were narratively synthesized. Meta-regression was used to examine effect modification. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A total of 85 RCTs involving 23 430 participants with a median 12-month follow-up were included. Overall, exercise-based CR was associated with significant risk reductions in cardiovascular mortality [risk ratio (RR): 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-0.86, number needed to treat (NNT): 37], hospitalizations (RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.89, NNT: 37), and myocardial infarction (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.96, NNT: 100). There was some evidence of significantly improved HRQoL with CR participation, and CR is cost-effective. There was no significant impact on overall mortality (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.89-1.04), coronary artery bypass graft (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.80-1.15), or percutaneous coronary intervention (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.69-1.02). No significant difference in effects was found across different patient groups, CR delivery models, doses, follow-up, or risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This review confirms that participation in exercise-based CR by patients with coronary heart disease receiving contemporary medical management reduces cardiovascular mortality, recurrent cardiac events, and hospitalizations and provides additional evidence supporting the improvement in HRQoL and the cost-effectiveness of CR.

Global perspectives on heart disease rehabilitation and secondary prevention: a scientific statement from the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions, European Association of Preventive Cardiology, and International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation.

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death, morbidity, disability, and reduced health-related quality of life, as well as economic burden worldwide, with some 80% of disease burden occurring in the low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. With increasing numbers of people living longer with symptomatic disease, the effectiveness and accessibility of secondary preventative and rehabilitative health services have never been more important. Whilst LMICs experience the highest prevalence and mortality rates, the global approach to secondary prevention and cardiac rehabilitation, which mitigates this burden, has traditionally been driven from clinical guidelines emanating from high-income settings. This state-of-the art review provides a contemporary global perspective on cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention, contrasting the challenges of and opportunities for high vs. lower income settings. Actionable solutions to overcome system, clinician, programme, and patient level barriers to cardiac rehabilitation access in LMICs are provided.

Associations Between Surrogate Markers and Clinical Outcomes for Nononcologic Chronic Disease Treatments.

Importance: Surrogate markers are increasingly used as primary end points in clinical trials supporting drug approvals. Objective: To systematically summarize the evidence from meta-analyses, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and pooled analyses (hereafter, meta-analyses) of clinical trials examining the strength of association between treatment effects measured using surrogate markers and clinical outcomes in nononcologic chronic diseases. Data sources: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table and MEDLINE from inception to March 19, 2023. Study Selection: Three reviewers selected meta-analyses of clinical trials; meta-analyses of observational studies were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers extracted correlation coefficients, coefficients of determination, slopes, effect estimates, or results from meta-regression analyses between surrogate markers and clinical outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Correlation coefficient or coefficient of determination, when reported, was classified as high strength (r ≥ 0.85 or R2 ≥ 0.72); primary findings were otherwise summarized. Results: Thirty-seven surrogate markers listed in FDA's table and used as primary end points in clinical trials across 32 unique nononcologic chronic diseases were included. For 22 (59%) surrogate markers (21 chronic diseases), no eligible meta-analysis was identified. For 15 (41%) surrogate markers (14 chronic diseases), at least 1 meta-analysis was identified, 54 in total (median per surrogate marker, 2.5; IQR, 1.3-6.0); among these, median number of trials and patients meta-analyzed was 18.5 (IQR, 12.0-43.0) and 90 056 (IQR, 20 109-170 014), respectively. The 54 meta-analyses reported 109 unique surrogate marker-clinical outcome pairs: 59 (54%) reported at least 1 r or R2, 10 (17%) of which reported at least 1 classified as high strength, whereas 50 (46%) reported slopes, effect estimates, or results of meta-regression analyses only, 26 (52%) of which reported at least 1 statistically significant result. Conclusions and Relevance: Most surrogate markers used as primary end points in clinical trials to support FDA approval of drugs treating nononcologic chronic diseases lacked high-strength evidence of associations with clinical outcomes from published meta-analyses.

Evaluation of a complex intervention for prisoners with common mental health problems, near to and after release: the Engager randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many male prisoners have significant mental health problems, including anxiety and depression. High proportions struggle with homelessness and substance misuse. AIMS: This study aims to evaluate whether the Engager intervention improves mental health outcomes following release. METHOD: The design is a parallel randomised superiority trial that was conducted in the North West and South West of England (ISRCTN11707331). Men serving a prison sentence of 2 years or less were individually allocated 1:1 to either the intervention (Engager plus usual care) or usual care alone. Engager included psychological and practical support in prison, on release and for 3-5 months in the community. The primary outcome was the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), 6 months after release. Primary analysis compared groups based on intention-to-treat (ITT). RESULTS: In total, 280 men were randomised out of the 396 who were potentially eligible and agreed to participate; 105 did not meet the mental health inclusion criteria. There was no mean difference in the ITT complete case analysis between groups (92 in each arm) for change in the CORE-OM score (1.1, 95% CI -1.1 to 3.2, P = 0.325) or secondary analyses. There were no consistent clinically significant between-group differences for secondary outcomes. Full delivery was not achieved, with 77% (108/140) receiving community-based contact. CONCLUSIONS: Engager is the first trial of a collaborative care intervention adapted for prison leavers. The intervention was not shown to be effective using standard outcome measures. Further testing of different support strategies for prison with mental health problems is needed.

Social network interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in the management of people with heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Globally, cardiovascular diseases (CVD, that is, coronary heart (CHD) and circulatory diseases combined) contribute to 31% of all deaths, more than any other cause. In line with guidance in the UK and globally, cardiac rehabilitation programmes are widely offered to people with heart disease, and include psychosocial, educational, health behaviour change, and risk management components. Social support and social network interventions have potential to improve outcomes of these programmes, but whether and how these interventions work is poorly understood.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of social network and social support interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention in the management of people with heart disease. The comparator was usual care with no element of social support (i.e. secondary prevention alone or with cardiac rehabilitation).  SEARCH METHODS: We undertook a systematic search of the following databases on 9 August 2022: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We reviewed the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and included primary studies, and we contacted experts to identify additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of social network or social support interventions for people with heart disease. We included studies regardless of their duration of follow-up, and included those reported as full text, published as abstract only, and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened all identified titles. We retrieved full-text study reports and publications marked 'included', and two review authors independently screened these, and conducted data extraction. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, all-cause hospital admission, cardiovascular-related hospital admission, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured at > 12 months follow-up.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 54 RCTs (126 publications) reporting data for a total of 11,445 people with heart disease. The median follow-up was seven months and median sample size was 96 participants. Of included study participants, 6414 (56%) were male, and the mean age ranged from 48.6 to 76.3 years. Studies included heart failure (41%), mixed cardiac disease (31%), post-myocardial infarction (13%), post-revascularisation (7%), CHD (7%), and cardiac X syndrome (1%) patients. The median intervention duration was 12 weeks. We identified notable diversity in social network and social support interventions, across what was delivered, how, and by whom.  We assessed risk of bias (RoB) in primary outcomes at > 12 months follow-up as either 'low' (2/15 studies), 'some concerns' (11/15), or 'high' (2/15). 'Some concerns' or 'high' RoB resulted from insufficient detail on blinding of outcome assessors, data missingness, and absence of pre-agreed statistical analysis plans. In particular, HRQoL outcomes were at high RoB. Using the GRADE method, we assessed the certainty of evidence as low or very low across outcomes. Social network or social support interventions had no clear effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.13, I2 = 40%) or cardiovascular-related mortality (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.10, I2 = 0%) at > 12 months follow-up. The evidence suggests that social network or social support interventions for heart disease may result in little to no difference in all-cause hospital admission (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), or cardiovascular-related hospital admission (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10, I2 = 16%), with a low level of certainty. The evidence was very uncertain regarding the impact of social network interventions on HRQoL at > 12 months follow-up (SF-36 physical component score: mean difference (MD) 31.53, 95% CI -28.65 to 91.71, I2 = 100%, 2 trials/comparisons, 166 participants; mental component score MD 30.62, 95% CI -33.88 to 95.13, I2 = 100%, 2 trials/comparisons, 166 participants).  Regarding secondary outcomes, there may be a decrease in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure with social network or social support interventions. There was no evidence of impact found on psychological well-being, smoking, cholesterol, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, return to work/education, social isolation or connectedness, patient satisfaction, or adverse events.  Results of meta-regression did not suggest that the intervention effect was related to risk of bias, intervention type, duration, setting, and delivery mode, population type, study location, participant age, or percentage of male participants.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no strong evidence for the effectiveness of such interventions, although modest effects were identified in relation to blood pressure. While the data presented in this review are indicative of potential for positive effects, the review also highlights the lack of sufficient evidence to conclusively support such interventions for people with heart disease. Further high-quality, well-reported RCTs are required to fully explore the potential of social support interventions in this context. Future reporting of social network and social support interventions for people with heart disease needs to be significantly clearer, and more effectively theorised, in order to ascertain causal pathways and effect on outcomes.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based and technology-supported cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation, especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009, 2015, and 2017. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of home-based (which may include digital/telehealth interventions) and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 16 September 2022. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, sports/community centre) with home-based programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms) in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on predefined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included three new trials in this update, bringing a total of 24 trials that have randomised a total of 3046 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. A further nine studies were identified and are awaiting classification. Manual searching of trial registers until 16 September 2022 revealed a further 14 clinical trial registrations - these are ongoing. Participants had a history of acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation, or heart failure. Although there was little evidence of high risk of bias, a number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias; in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported. No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in our primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow-up: total mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1647; studies = 12/comparisons = 14; low-certainty evidence) or exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.04; participants = 2343; studies = 24/comparisons = 28; low-certainty evidence). The majority of evidence (N=71 / 77 comparisons of either total or domain scores) showed no significant difference in health-related quality of life up to 24 months follow-up between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a similar level of trial completion (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; participants = 2638; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low-certainty evidence) between home-based and centre-based participants. The cost per patient of centre- and home-based programmes was similar. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update supports previous conclusions that home- (± digital/telehealth platforms) and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation formally supported by healthcare staff seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction, or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of healthcare professional supervised home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms), especially important in the context of the ongoing global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that has much limited patients in face-to-face access of hospital and community health services. Where settings are able to provide both supervised centre- and home-based programmes, consideration of the preference of the individual patient would seem appropriate. Although not included in the scope of this review, there is an increasing evidence base supporting the use of hybrid models that combine elements of both centre-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation delivery. Further data are needed to determine: (1) whether the short-term effects of home/digital-telehealth and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation models of delivery can be confirmed in the longer term; (2) the relative clinical effectiveness and safety of home-based programmes for other heart patients, e.g. post-valve surgery and atrial fibrillation.

Systematic Review to Identify Predictors of Treatment Response to Neuromodulation in Patients With Neuropathic Pain-Protocol.

OBJECTIVES: Patients who suffer from long-term, neuropathic pain that proves refractory to conventional medical management are high consumers of health care resources and experience poorer physical and mental health than people with other forms of pain. Pharmacologic treatments have adverse effects; nonpharmacologic interventions have limitations. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for neuropathic pain, although 30% to 40% of patients fail to achieve acceptable levels of pain relief. There are currently no objective methods to predict the success of SCS to treat neuropathic pain, and therefore, it is important to understand which patient factors may be predictive of a lack of response to SCS, to inform future patient treatment options. This study proposes a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to examine these predictive factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Several bibliographic databases will be searched to identify relevant studies published since 2012 that provide data on patient characteristics (eg, age, gender, pain severity) as predictors of SCS outcomes of pain, function, and health-related quality of life. Two independent reviewers will screen citations; data will be extracted after full-text screening. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. RESULTS: A formal quantitative synthesis is planned in which data from studies with the same predictive factors are available; this will be considered for pooling into separate meta-analyses. In cases of high heterogeneity or inconsistency in the data, subgroup analysis will be conducted. CONCLUSIONS: This study seeks to provide a contemporary review of patient predictors of success of neuromodulation for neuropathic pain. We anticipate that findings may guide the use of neuromodulation in patient subgroups and the design and reporting of future clinical studies in this field.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain in England From 2010 to 2020: A Hospital Episode Statistics Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized intervention for the management of chronic neuropathic pain. The United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Excellence has recommended SCS as a management option for chronic neuropathic pain since 2008. The aim of this study is to undertake an assessment of SCS uptake across the National Health Service in England up to 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hospital Episode Statistics were obtained for patients with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS and patients receiving an SCS-related procedure. Data were retrieved nationally and per region from the years 2010-2011 to 2019-2020. RESULTS: There were 50,288 adults in England attending secondary care with neuropathic pain in 2010-2011, increasing to 66,376 in 2019-2020. The number of patients with neuropathic pain with an SCS procedure increased on a year-to-year basis until 2018-2019. However, less than 1% of people with neuropathic pain received an SCS device with no evidence of an increase over time when considering the background increase in neuropathic pain prevalence. CONCLUSION: Only a small proportion of patients in England with neuropathic pain potentially eligible for SCS receives this intervention. The recommendation for routine use of SCS for management of neuropathic pain has not resulted in an uptake of SCS over the last decade.

Association Between Levels of Functional Disability and Health-Related Quality of Life With Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Pain score, functional disability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials. Although greater levels of pain reduction have been shown to be linked to larger gains in HRQoL, little is known of the association between HRQoL and disability in the setting of chronic pain. The aims of this study were to 1) investigate the association between functional disability and HRQoL and 2) estimate the utility values associated with levels of functional disability in patients treated with evoked compound action potential (ECAP) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on functional disability assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L) were collected from 204 patients with an Evoke ECAP-SCS device and followed up to 12 months. SF-6D utility scores also were retrieved for 134 of these patients. Multivariable linear regression models adjusted for baseline utility values and patient demographics were used to compare differences in utility values across ODI categories. RESULTS: Significant improvements in functional disability and HRQoL were observed at three- and 12-month follow-up after SCS. Patients reporting "minimum disability," "moderate disability," "severe disability," and "crippled" had mean EQ-5D scores of 0.82, 0.73, 0.59, and 0.45, respectively. The mean change in EQ-5D score was 0.007 per unit change in total ODI score. The R2 statistic showed a moderate level association (49%-64% of variance in EQ-5D explained by ODI). CONCLUSION: ECAP-SCS results in significant improvements in functional disability and HRQoL. This study shows that improvement in function of people with chronic pain before and after ECAP-SCS is associated with improvement in HRQoL.

Holistic Treatment Response: An International Expert Panel Definition and Criteria for a New Paradigm in the Assessment of Clinical Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is focused on the magnitude of effects on pain intensity. However, chronic pain is a multidimensional condition that may affect individuals in different ways and as such it seems reductionist to evaluate treatment response based solely on a unidimensional measure such as pain intensity. AIM: The aim of this article is to add to a framework started by IMMPACT for assessing the wider health impact of treatment with SCS for people with chronic pain, a "holistic treatment response". DISCUSSION: Several aspects need consideration in the assessment of a holistic treatment response. SCS device data and how it relates to patient outcomes, is essential to improve the understanding of the different types of SCS, improve patient selection, long-term clinical outcomes, and reproducibility of findings. The outcomes to include in the evaluation of a holistic treatment response need to consider clinical relevance for patients and clinicians. Assessment of the holistic response combines two key concepts of patient assessment: (1) patients level of baseline (pre-treatment) unmet need across a range of health domains; (2) demonstration of patient-relevant improvements in these health domains with treatment. The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) is an established approach to reflect changes after a clinical intervention that are meaningful for the patient and can be used to identify treatment response to each individual domain. A holistic treatment response needs to account for MCIDs in all domains of importance for which the patient presents dysfunctional scores pre-treatment. The number of domains included in a holistic treatment response may vary and should be considered on an individual basis. Physiologic confirmation of therapy delivery and utilisation should be included as part of the evaluation of a holistic treatment response and is essential to advance the field of SCS and increase transparency and reproducibility of the findings.

A process evaluation, with mediation analysis, of a web-based intervention to augment primary care exercise referral schemes: the e-coachER randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The e-coachER trial aimed to determine whether adding web-based behavioural support to exercise referral schemes (ERS) increased long-term device-measured physical activity (PA) for patients with chronic conditions, compared to ERS alone, within a randomised controlled trial. This study explores the mechanisms of action of the e-coachER intervention using measures of the behaviour change processes integral to the intervention's logic model. METHODS: Four hundred fifty adults with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, osteoarthritis or history of depression referred to an ERS were recruited in Plymouth, Birmingham and Glasgow. The e-coachER intervention comprising 7-Steps to Health was aligned with Self-Determination Theory and mapped against evidence-based behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Participants completed questionnaires at 0, 4, and 12 months to assess PA and self-reported offline engagement with core BCTs in day-to-day life (including action planning and self-monitoring) and beliefs relating to PA (including perceived importance, confidence, competence, autonomy and support). We compared groups at 4 and 12 months, controlling for baseline measures and other covariates. Mediation analysis using the product of coefficients method was used to determine if changes in process variables mediated intervention effects on moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) recorded by accelerometer and self-report at 4- and 12-months. RESULTS: The internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha) for all multi-item scales was > 0.77. At 4-months, those randomised to e-coachER reported higher levels of PA beliefs relating to importance (1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42 to 1.61, p = 0.001), confidence (1.28, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.98, p < 0.001), competence (1.61, 95% CI: .68 to 2.54, p = 0.001), availability of support (0.77, 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.48, p = 0.031), use of action planning (1.54, 95% CI: 0.23 to 2.85, p = 0.021) and use of self-monitoring (0.76, 95% CI: 0.19 to 1.32, p = 0.009) compared to ERS alone. There were no intervention effects on autonomous beliefs or perceived frequency of support, compared to ERS alone. At the 12-month follow-up, participants belief in the importance of PA was the only process measure to remain significantly higher in the e-coachER group when compared to ERS alone (0.75, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.45). Intervention effects on perceived importance (2.52, 95% CI: 0.45 to 5.39), action planning (1.56, 95% CI: 0.10 to 3.54) and self-monitoring (1.92, 95% CI: 0.21 to 4.33) at 4-months significantly mediated change in accelerometer measured MVPA at 12-months (recorded in ≥ 10-min bouts). CONCLUSIONS: e-coachER led to some short-term changes in most process outcomes. Some of these processes also appeared to mediate e-coachER effects on changes in accelerometer measured MVPA. Further work should be carried out to understand how best to design and implement theoretically underpinned web-based physical activity promotion interventions within ERS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15644451 . Registered 12 February 2015.

Development of a framework and decision tool for the evaluation of health technologies based on surrogate endpoint evidence.

In the drive toward faster patient access to treatments, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and payers are increasingly faced with reliance on evidence based on surrogate endpoints, increasing decision uncertainty. Despite the development of a small number of evaluation frameworks, there remains no consensus on the detailed methodology for handling surrogate endpoints in HTA practice. This research overviews the methods and findings of four empirical studies undertaken as part of COMED (Pushing the Boundaries of Cost and Outcome Analysis of Medical Technologies) program work package 2 with the aim of analyzing international HTA practice of the handling and considerations around the use of surrogate endpoint evidence. We have synthesized the findings of these empirical studies, in context of wider contemporary body of methodological and policy-related literature on surrogate endpoints, to develop a web-based decision tool to support HTA agencies and payers when faced with surrogate endpoint evidence. Our decision tool is intended for use by HTA agencies and their decision-making committees together with the wider community of HTA stakeholders (including clinicians, patient groups, and healthcare manufacturers). Having developed this tool, we will monitor its use and we welcome feedback on its utility.

Benefits of cardiac rehabilitation following acute coronary syndrome for patients with and without diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are well established. However, the relative benefit of CR in those with comorbidities, including diabetes, is not well understood. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the benefit of CR on exercise capacity and secondary outcomes in ACS patients with a co-diagnosis of diabetes compared to those without. METHODS: Five databases were searched in May 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting CR outcomes in ACS patients with and without diabetes. The primary outcome of this study was exercise capacity expressed as metabolic equivalents (METs) at the end of CR and ≥ 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, cardiovascular- and diabetes-related outcomes, lifestyle-related outcomes, psychological wellbeing, and return to work. If relevant/possible, studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included, of which 20 reported exercise capacity and 18 reported secondary outcomes. Overall, the studies were judged to have a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis of exercise capacity was undertaken based on 18 studies (no RCTs) including 15,288 patients, of whom 3369 had diabetes. This analysis showed a statistically significant smaller difference in the change in METs in ACS patients with diabetes (standardised mean difference (SMD) from baseline to end of CR: - 0.15 (95% CI: - 0.24 to - 0.06); SMD at the ≥ 12-month follow-up: - 0.16 (95% CI: - 0.23 to - 0.10, four studies)). CONCLUSION: The benefit of CR on exercise capacity in ACS patients was lower in those with diabetes than in those without diabetes. Given the small magnitude of this difference and the substantial heterogeneity in the results of the study caused by diverse study designs and methodologies, further research is needed to confirm our findings. Future work should seek to eliminate bias in observational studies and evaluate CR based on comprehensive outcomes.

A pragmatic effectiveness-implementation study comparing trial evidence with routinely collected outcome data for patients receiving the REACH-HF home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure continues to be greatly underused worldwide despite being a Class I recommendation in international clinical guidelines and uptake is low in women and patients with mental health comorbidities. METHODS: Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) programme was implemented in four UK National Health Service early adopter sites ('Beacon Sites') between June 2019 and June 2020. Implementation and patient-reported outcome data were collected across sites as part of the National Audit of Cardiac Rehabilitation. The change in key outcomes before and after the supervised period of REACH-HF intervention across the Beacon Sites was assessed and compared to those of the intervention arm of the REACH-HF multicentre trial. RESULTS: Compared to the REACH-HF multicentre trial, patients treated at the Beacon Site were more likely to be female (33.8% vs 22.9%), older (75.6 vs 70.1), had a more severe classification of heart failure (26.5% vs 17.7%), had poorer baseline health-related quality of life (MLHFQ score 36.1 vs 31.4), were more depressed (HADS score 6.4 vs 4.1) and anxious (HADS score 7.2 vs 4.7), and had lower exercise capacity (ISWT distance 190 m vs 274.7 m). There appeared to be a substantial heterogeneity in the implementation process across the four Beacon Sites as evidenced by the variation in levels of patient recruitment, operationalisation of the REACH-HF intervention and patient outcomes. Overall lower improvements in patient-reported outcomes at the Beacon Sites compared to the trial may reflect differences in the population studied (having higher morbidity at baseline) as well as the marked challenges in intervention delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The results of this study illustrate the challenges in consistently implementing an intervention (shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective in a multicentre trial) into real-world practice, especially in the midst of a global pandemic. Further research is needed to establish the real-world effectiveness of the REACH-HF intervention in different populations.

Long-term effects of cardiac rehabilitation after heart valve surgery - results from the randomised CopenHeartVR trial.

Aims. The CopenHeartVR trial found positive effects of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on physical capacity at 4 months. The long-term effects of CR following valve surgery remains unclear, especially regarding readmission and mortality. Using data from he CopenHeartVR Trial we investigated long-term effects on physical capacity, mental and physical health and effect on mortality and readmission rates as prespecified in the original protocol. Methods. A total of 147 participants were included after heart valve surgery and randomly allocated 1:1 to 12-weeks exercise-based CR including a psycho-educational programme (intervention group) or control. Physical capacity was assessed as peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak) measured by cardiopulmonary exercise testing, mental and physical health by Short Form-36 questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and HeartQol. Mortality and readmission were obtained from hospital records and registers. Groups were compared using mixed regression model analysis and log rank test. Results. No differences in VO2 peak at 12 months or in self-assessed mental and physical health at 24 months (68% vs 75%, p = .120) was found. However, our data demonstrated reduction in readmissions in the intervention group at intermediate time points; after 3, 6 (43% vs 59%, p = .03), and 12 (53% vs 67%, p = .04) months, respectively, but no significant effect at 24 months. Conclusions. Exercise-based CR after heart valve surgery reduces combined readmissions and mortality up to 12 months despite lack of improvement in exercise capacity, physical and mental health long-term. Exercise-based CR can ensure short-term benefits in terms of physical capacity, and lower readmission within a year, but more research is needed to sustain these effects over a longer time period. These considerations should be included in the management of patients after heart valve surgery.

Informed decision-making: Statistical methodology for surrogacy evaluation and its role in licensing and reimbursement assessments.

The desire, by patients and society, for faster access to therapies has driven a long tradition of the use of surrogate endpoints in the evaluation of pharmaceuticals and, more recently, biologics and other innovative medical technologies. The consequent need for statistical validation of potential surrogate outcome measures is a prime example on the theme of statistical support for decision-making in health technology assessment (HTA). Following the pioneering methodology based on hypothesis testing that Prentice presented in 1989, a host of further methods, both frequentist and Bayesian, have been developed to enable the value of a putative surrogate outcome to be determined. This rich methodological seam has generated practical methods for surrogate evaluation, the most recent of which are based on the principles of information theory and bring together ideas from the causal effects and causal association paradigms. Following our synopsis of statistical methods, we then consider how regulatory authorities (on licensing) and payer and HTA agencies (on reimbursement) use clinical trial evidence based on surrogate outcomes. We review existing HTA surrogate outcome evaluative frameworks. We conclude with recommendations for further steps: (1) prioritisation by regulators and payers of the application of formal surrogate outcome evaluative frameworks, (2) application of formal Bayesian decision-analytic methods to support reimbursement decisions, and (3) greater utilization of conditional surrogate-based licensing and reimbursement approvals, with subsequent reassessment of treatments in confirmatory trials based on final patient-relevant outcomes.