Rehabilitation of older patients: day hospital compared with rehabilitation at home. Clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: to test the hypothesis that older people and their informal carers are not disadvantaged by home-based rehabilitation (HBR) relative to day hospital rehabilitation (DHR). DESIGN: pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: four geriatric day hospitals and four home rehabilitation teams in England. PARTICIPANTS: eighty-nine patients referred for multidisciplinary rehabilitation. The target sample size was 460. INTERVENTION: multidisciplinary rehabilitation either in the home or in the day hospital. MEASUREMENTS: the primary outcome measure was the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale (NEADL). Secondary outcome measures included EQ-5D, hospital anxiety and depression scale, therapy outcome measures, hospital admissions and the General Health Questionnaire for carers. RESULTS: at the primary end point of 6 months NEADL scores were not significantly in favour of HBR cf. DHR; mean difference -2.139 (95% confidence interval -6.87 to 2.59, P = 0.37). A post hoc analysis suggested non-inferiority for HBR for NEADL but there was considerable statistical uncertainty. CONCLUSION: taken together the statistical analyses and lack of power of the trial outcomes do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that patients in receipt of HBR are disadvantaged compared with those receiving DHR.

The SANAD study of effectiveness of carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate for treatment of partial epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carbamazepine is widely accepted as a drug of first choice for patients with partial onset seizures. Several newer drugs possess efficacy against these seizure types but previous randomised controlled trials have failed to inform a choice between these drugs. We aimed to assess efficacy with regards to longer-term outcomes, quality of life, and health economic outcomes. METHODS: SANAD was an unblinded randomised controlled trial in hospital-based outpatient clinics in the UK. Arm A recruited 1721 patients for whom carbamazepine was deemed to be standard treatment, and they were randomly assigned to receive carbamazepine, gabapentin, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 12-months remission, and assessment was by both intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN38354748. FINDINGS: For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was significantly better than carbamazepine (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95% CI 0.63-0.97]), gabapentin (0.65 [0.52-0.80]), and topiramate (0.64 [0.52-0.79]), and had a non-significant advantage compared with oxcarbazepine (1.15 [0.86-1.54]). For time to 12-month remission carbamazepine was significantly better than gabapentin (0.75 [0.63-0.90]), and estimates suggest a non-significant advantage for carbamazepine against lamotrigine (0.91 [0.77-1.09]), topiramate (0.86 [0.72-1.03]), and oxcarbazepine (0.92 [0.73-1.18]). In a per-protocol analysis, at 2 and 4 years the difference (95% CI) in the proportion achieving a 12-month remission (lamotrigine-carbamazepine) is 0 (-8 to 7) and 5 (-3 to 12), suggesting non-inferiority of lamotrigine compared with carbamazepine. INTERPRETATION: Lamotrigine is clinically better than carbamazepine, the standard drug treatment, for time to treatment failure outcomes and is therefore a cost-effective alternative for patients diagnosed with partial onset seizures.

The SANAD study of effectiveness of valproate, lamotrigine, or topiramate for generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an unblinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valproate is widely accepted as a drug of first choice for patients with generalised onset seizures, and its broad spectrum of efficacy means it is recommended for patients with seizures that are difficult to classify. Lamotrigine and topiramate are also thought to possess broad spectrum activity. The SANAD study aimed to compare the longer-term effects of these drugs in patients with generalised onset seizures or seizures that are difficult to classify. METHODS: SANAD was an unblinded randomised controlled trial in hospital-based outpatient clinics in the UK. Arm B of the study recruited 716 patients for whom valproate was considered to be standard treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to valproate, lamotrigine, or topiramate between Jan 12, 1999, and Aug 31, 2004, and follow-up data were obtained up to Jan 13, 2006. Primary outcomes were time to treatment failure, and time to 1-year remission, and analysis was by both intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN38354748. FINDINGS: For time to treatment failure, valproate was significantly better than topiramate (hazard ratio 1.57 [95% CI 1.19-2.08]), but there was no significant difference between valproate and lamotrigine (1.25 [0.94-1.68]). For patients with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy, valproate was significantly better than both lamotrigine (1.55 [1.07-2.24] and topiramate (1.89 [1.32-2.70]). For time to 12-month remission valproate was significantly better than lamotrigine overall (0.76 [0.62-0.94]), and for the subgroup with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy 0.68 (0.53-0.89). But there was no significant difference between valproate and topiramate in either the analysis overall or for the subgroup with an idiopathic generalised epilepsy. INTERPRETATION: Valproate is better tolerated than topiramate and more efficacious than lamotrigine, and should remain the drug of first choice for many patients with generalised and unclassified epilepsies. However, because of known potential adverse effects of valproate during pregnancy, the benefits for seizure control in women of childbearing years should be considered.

Protocol for north of England and Scotland study of tonsillectomy and adeno-tonsillectomy in children (NESSTAC). A pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing surgical intervention with conventional medical treatment in children with recurrent sore throats.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainties surrounding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of childhood tonsillectomy for recurrent sore throat led the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme to commission this research to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy and adeno-tonsillectomy in comparison with standard non-surgical management in children aged under 16 with recurrent throat infections. The aim is to evaluate if tonsillectomy and adeno-tonsillectomy reduces the number of episodes of sore throats among children to a clinically significant extent. METHODS/DESIGN: A simple prospective pragmatic randomised controlled trial with economic analysis and prospective cohort study of non-trial participants comparing surgical intervention with conventional medical treatment. The treatment arm will receive tonsillectomy and adeno-tonsillectomy while in the control arm non-surgical conventional medical treatment only will be used. The primary outcome measure will be reported number of episodes of sore throat over two years with secondary outcomes measures of reported number of episodes of sore throat, otitis media and upper respiratory tract infection which invoke a GP consultation; reported number of symptom-free days; reported severity of sore throats and surgical and anaesthetic morbidity. The study will take place in five hospitals in the UK. The trial population will be 406 children aged 4-15 on their last birthday with recurrent sore throat referred by primary care to the 5 otolaryngology departments. The duration of the study is seven years (July 2001-July 2008). DISCUSSION: As with all pragmatic randomised controlled trials it is impossible to control the external environment in which the research is taking place. Since this trial began a number of factors have arisen which could affect the outcome including; a reduction in the incidence of respiratory tract infections, marked socio-economic differences in consultation rates, the results from the National Prospective Tonsillectomy Audit and the Government's waiting list initiatives.

A randomised controlled trial of a patient based Diabetes Recall and Management System: the DREAM trial: a study protocol [ISRCTN32042030].

BACKGROUND: Whilst there is broad agreement on what constitutes high quality health care for people with diabetes, there is little consensus on the most efficient way of delivering it. Structured recall systems can improve the quality of care but the systems evaluated to date have been of limited sophistication and the evaluations have been carried out in small numbers of relatively unrepresentative settings. Hartlepool, Easington and Stockton currently operate a computerised diabetes register which has to date produced improvements in the quality of care but performance has now plateaued leaving substantial scope for further improvement. This study will evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of an area wide 'extended' system incorporating a full structured recall and management system, actively involving patients and including clinical management prompts to primary care clinicians based on locally-adapted evidence based guidelines. METHODS: The study design is a two-armed cluster randomised controlled trial of 61 practices incorporating evaluations of the effectiveness of the system, its economic impact and its impact on patient wellbeing and functioning.

A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of a Diabetes REcall And Management system: the DREAM trial.

BACKGROUND: Following the introduction of a computerised diabetes register in part of the northeast of England, care initially improved but then plateaued. We therefore enhanced the existing diabetes register to address these problems. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of an area wide 'extended,' computerised diabetes register incorporating a full structured recall and management system, including individualised patient management prompts to primary care clinicians based on locally-adapted, evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: The study design was a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial, with the general practice as the unit of randomisation. Set in 58 general practices in three Primary Care Trusts in the northeast of England, the study outcomes were the clinical process and outcome variables held on the diabetes register, patient-reported outcomes, and service and patient costs. The effect of the intervention was estimated using generalised linear models with an appropriate error structure. To allow for the clustering of patients within practices, population averaged models were estimated using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Patients in intervention practices were more likely to have at least one diabetes appointment recorded (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02, 3.91), to have a recording of a foot check (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09, 3.21), have a recording of receiving dietary advice (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.22, 6.29), and have a recording of blood pressure (BP) (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.06, 4.36). There was no difference in mean HbA1c or BP levels, but the mean cholesterol level in patients from intervention practices was significantly lower (-0.15 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.25, -0.06). There were no differences in patient-reported outcomes or in patient-reported use of drugs, or uptake of health services. The average cost per patient was not significantly different between the intervention and control groups. Costs incurred in administering the system at the register and in general practice were in addition to these. CONCLUSION: This study has shown benefits from an area-wide, computerised diabetes register incorporating a full structured recall and individualised patient management system. However, these benefits were achieved at a cost. In future, these costs may fall as electronic data exchange becomes a reliable reality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register, ISRCTN32042030.

Strategies to prevent falls and fractures in hospitals and care homes and effect of cognitive impairment: systematic review and meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the evidence for strategies to prevent falls or fractures in residents in care homes and hospital inpatients and to investigate the effect of dementia and cognitive impairment. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies grouped by intervention and setting (hospital or care home). Meta-regression to investigate the effects of dementia and of study quality and design. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database, Clinical Trials Register, and hand searching of references from reviews and guidelines to January 2005. RESULTS: 1207 references were identified, including 115 systematic reviews, expert reviews, or guidelines. Of the 92 full papers inspected, 43 were included. Meta-analysis for multifaceted interventions in hospital (13 studies) showed a rate ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.997) for falls but no significant effect on the number of fallers or fractures. For hip protectors in care homes (11 studies) the rate ratio for hip fractures was 0.67 (0.46 to 0.98), but there was no significant effect on falls and not enough studies on fallers. For all other interventions (multifaceted interventions in care homes; removal of physical restraints in either setting; fall alarm devices in either setting; exercise in care homes; calcium/vitamin D in care homes; changes in the physical environment in either setting; medication review in hospital) meta-analysis was either unsuitable because of insufficient studies or showed no significant effect on falls, fallers, or fractures, despite strongly positive results in some individual studies. Meta-regression showed no significant association between effect size and prevalence of dementia or cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that multifaceted interventions in hospital reduce the number of falls and that use of hip protectors in care homes prevents hip fractures. There is insufficient evidence, however, for the effectiveness of other single interventions in hospitals or care homes or multifaceted interventions in care homes.