The effect of two speech and language approaches on speech problems in people with Parkinson's disease: the PD COMM RCT.

Background: Speech impairments are common with Parkinson's disease (reported prevalence 68%), increasing conversational demands, reliance on family and social withdrawal. Objective(s): The PD COMM trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD and National Health Service speech and language therapy for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with Parkinson's disease to no speech and language therapy (control) and against each other. Design: PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to control, National Health Service speech and language therapy or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations were conducted. Setting: United Kingdom outpatient and home settings. Participants: People with idiopathic Parkinson's disease, with self-reported or carer-reported speech or voice problems. We excluded people with dementia, laryngeal pathology and those within 24 months of previous speech and language therapy. Interventions: The Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD intervention included maximum effort drills and high-effort speech production tasks delivered over four 50-minute therapist-led personalised sessions per week, for 4 weeks with prescribed daily home practice. National Health Service speech and language therapy content and dosage reflected local non-Lee Silverman Voice Treatment speech and language therapy practices, usually 1 hour, once weekly, for 6 weeks. Trained, experienced speech and language therapists or assistants provided interventions. The control was no speech and language therapy until the trial was completed. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes: Voice Handicap Index subscales, Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5L; ICEpop Capabilities Measure for Older Adults; Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire - Carers; resource utilisation; and adverse events. Assessments were completed pre-randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Results: Three hundred and eighty-eight participants were randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD (n = 130), National Health Service speech and language therapy (n = 129) and control (n = 129). The impact of voice problems at 3 months after randomisation was lower for Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD participants than control [-8.0 (99% confidence interval: -13.3, -2.6); p = 0.001]. There was no evidence of improvement for those with access to National Health Service speech and language therapy when compared to control [1.7 (99% confidence interval: -3.8, 7.1); p = 0.4]. Participants randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD reported a lower impact of their voice problems than participants randomised to National Health Service speech and language therapy [99% confidence interval: -9.6 (-14.9, -4.4); p < 0.0001]. There were no reports of serious adverse events. Staff were confident with the trial interventions; a range of patient and therapist enablers of implementing Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD were identified. The economic evaluation results suggested Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD was more expensive and more effective than control or National Health Service speech and language therapy but was not cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £197,772 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and £77,017 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Limitations: The number of participants recruited to the trial did not meet the pre-specified power. Conclusions: People that had access to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD described a significantly greater reduction in the impact of their Parkinson's disease-related speech problems 3 months after randomisation compared to people that had no speech and language therapy. There was no evidence of a difference between National Health Service speech and language therapy and those that received no speech and language therapy. Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD resulted in a significantly lower impact of voice problems compared to National Health Service speech and language therapy 3 months after randomisation which was still present after 12 months; however, Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD was not found to be cost-effective. Future work: Implementing Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD in the National Health Service and identifying alternatives to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD for those who cannot tolerate it. Investigation of less costly alternative options for Lee Silverman Voice Treatment delivery require investigation, with economic evaluation using a preference-based outcome measure that captures improvement in communication. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN12421382. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 10/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 58. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Most people with Parkinson's disease develop difficulties with their speech and voice. Communicating becomes difficult. This affects their relationships, work, social life and how they feel about themselves. Our PD COMM trial compared two types of speech and language therapy to find out if they helped the speech and voice problems people with Parkinson's have. We measured changes in the way their voice and speech problems affected their lives and how much therapy cost the National Health Service and families. Everyone taking part had speech or voice problems because of their Parkinson's disease. People could not take part if they had dementia, evidence of laryngeal pathology or previous laryngeal surgery or received speech and therapy for Parkinson's disease in the last 2 years. People who agreed to take part joined one of three groups, which were alike except for the therapy they received. A computer decided which group they joined by chance. National Health Service speech and language therapy Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD No speech and language therapy for 12 months The 388 people who took part came from 41 outpatient clinics in Scotland, England and Wales. Most were older men. The people that received Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD felt better about their speech and voice after 3 months compared to people in the other groups. A year later, they still felt better about it. People that received National Health Service therapy had no benefit compared to people with no access to therapy. Analysis of cost-effectiveness indicated that Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD did not offer value for money and the intervention cost more because more speech and language therapy time was needed to deliver it. Our next question is to ask how we can provide Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD in a way that costs less, for example, using therapy assistants and computer packages or at home. Clear speech and language therapy approaches for people with Parkinson's disease and speech or voice problems should be tested in trials that measure changes in people's lives.

Vein bypass first vs. best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to infra-popliteal disease: the BASIL-2 RCT.

Background: Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia with ischaemic pain and/or tissue loss. Objective: To examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a vein bypass-first compared to a best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy in preventing major amputation or death. Design: Superiority, open, pragmatic, multicentre, phase III randomised trial. Setting: Thirty-nine vascular surgery units in the United Kingdom, and one each in Sweden and Denmark. Participants: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to atherosclerotic peripheral arterial disease who required an infra-popliteal revascularisation, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure, to restore limb perfusion. Interventions: A vein bypass-first or a best endovascular treatment-first infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation strategy. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was amputation-free survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival, major amputation, further revascularisation interventions, major adverse limb event, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Methods: Participants were randomised to a vein bypass-first or a best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy. The original sample size of 600 participants (247 events) was based on a hazard ratio of 0.66 with amputation-free survival rates of 0.72, 0.62, 0.53, 0.47 and 0.35 in years 1-5 in the best endovascular treatment-first group with 90% power and alpha at p = 0.05. The sample size was revised to an event-based approach as a result of increased follow-up time due to slower than anticipated recruitment rates. Participants were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. A cost-effectiveness analysis was employed to estimate differences in total hospital costs and amputation-free survival between the groups. Additionally, a cost-utility analysis was carried out and the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years, 2 and 3 years after randomisation were used. Results: Between 22 July 2014 and 30 November 2020, 345 participants were randomised, 172 to vein bypass-first and 173 to best endovascular treatment-first. Non-amputation-free survival occurred in 108 (63%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass-first group and 92 (53%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment-first group [adjusted hazard ratio 1.35 (95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.80); p = 0.037]. Ninety-one (53%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass-first group and 77 (45%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment-first group died [adjusted hazard ratio 1.37 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.87)]. Over follow-up, the economic evaluation discounted results showed that best endovascular treatment-first was associated with £1690 less hospital costs compared to vein bypass-first. The cost utility analysis showed that compared to vein bypass-first, best endovascular treatment-first was associated with £224 and £2233 less discounted hospital costs and 0.016 and 0.085 discounted quality-adjusted life-year gain after 2 and 3 years from randomisation. Limitations: Recruiting patients to the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 trial was difficult and the target number of events was not achieved. Conclusions: A best endovascular treatment-first revascularisation strategy was associated with better amputation-free survival, which was largely driven by fewer deaths. Overall, the economic evaluation results suggest that best endovascular treatment-first dominates vein bypass-first in the cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis as it was less costly and more effective than a vein bypass-first strategy. Future work: The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 investigators have a data sharing agreement with the BEst Surgical Therapy in patients with Chronic Limb threatening Ischaemia investigators. One output of this collaboration will be an individual patient data meta-analysis. Study registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27728689. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/35/45) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 65. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Atherosclerosis, or narrowing of the arteries, can occur as a result of smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes, or high cholesterol in the blood. Atherosclerosis can affect any artery, including those supplying the legs, where the condition is called peripheral arterial disease. The most severe form of peripheral arterial disease is chronic limb-threatening ischaemia which can cause severe pain in the foot as well as ulcers and gangrene. Unless the blood supply to the leg and foot is improved, by a process called revascularisation, people with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia are at high risk of amputation and death. The blood supply can be improved by using a vein from the leg to bypass around the blockages (vein bypass) or by using a balloon (angioplasty) or small metal tubes (stents) to reopen the blocked arteries (best endovascular treatment). There is debate about which type of revascularisation is best in terms of preventing amputation and death, especially in people who need revascularisation of the arteries below the knee. Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 is the first randomised controlled trial to compare vein bypass-first and best endovascular treatment-first in this group of patients. Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg Trial-2 found that people randomised to a vein bypass-first revascularisation strategy were 35% more likely to require a major amputation or die than those randomised to a best endovascular treatment-first strategy. Most of this difference in favour of best endovascular treatment-first was due to a higher number of patients dying in the vein bypass-first group. Best endovascular treatment-first was also cheaper for the National Health Service. The results of this study suggest that in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to peripheral arterial disease in the arteries below the knee, who are suitable for both vein bypass and best endovascular treatment and where there is uncertainty as to which is best, best endovascular treatment should be offered first rather than vein bypass.

Lee Silverman voice treatment versus NHS speech and language therapy versus control for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease (PD COMM): pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson's disease. DESIGN: Pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings between 26 September 2016 and 16 March 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 388 people with Parkinson's disease and dysarthria. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (1:1:1): 130 to Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT LOUD), 129 to NHS speech and language therapy, and 129 to no speech and language therapy. LSVT LOUD consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50 min sessions each week delivered over four weeks. Home based practice activities were set for up to 5-10 mins daily on treatment days and 15 mins twice daily on non-treatment days. Dosage for the NHS speech and language therapy was determined by the local therapist in response to the participants' needs (estimated from prior research that NHS speech and language therapy participants would receive an average of one session per week over six to eight weeks). Local practices for NHS speech and language therapy were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD protocol. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total score at three months of self-reported voice handicap index. RESULTS: People who received LSVT LOUD reported lower voice handicap index scores at three months after randomisation than those who did not receive speech and language therapy (-8.0 points (99% confidence interval -13.3 to -2.6); P<0.001). No evidence suggests a difference in voice handicap index scores between NHS speech and language therapy and no speech and language therapy (1.7 points (-3.8 to 7.1); P=0.43). Patients in the LSVT LOUD group also reported lower voice handicap index scores than did those randomised to NHS speech and language therapy (-9.6 points (-14.9 to -4.4); P<0.001). 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) were reported in the LSVT LOUD group, 46 in the NHS speech and language therapy group, and none in the no speech and language therapy group. No serious adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: LSVT LOUD was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than was no speech and language therapy and NHS speech and language therapy. NHS speech and language therapy showed no evidence of benefit compared with no speech and language therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN12421382.

The impact of obstructive sleep apnea treatment on microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes: a feasibility randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with an increased risk of diabetes-related complications. Hence, it is plausible that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) could have a favorable impact on these complications. We assessed the feasibility of conducting a randomized control trial in patients with type 2 diabetes and OSA over 2 years. METHODS: We conducted an open-label multicenter feasibility randomized control trial of CPAP vs no CPAP in patients with type 2 diabetes and OSA. Patients with resting oxygen saturation < 90%, central apnea index > 15 events/h, or Epworth Sleepiness Scale ≥ 11 were excluded. OSA was diagnosed using a multichannel portable device (ApneaLink Air, ResMed). The primary outcome measures were related to feasibility and the secondary outcomes were changes in various clinical and biochemical parameters related to diabetes outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty-three (40 CPAP vs 43 no CPAP) patients were randomly assigned, with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 645 (545, 861) days. CPAP compliance was inadequate, with a median usage of approximately 3.5 hours/night. Early CPAP use predicted longer-term compliance. The adjusted analysis showed a possible favorable association between being randomly assigned to CPAP and several diabetes-related end points (chronic kidney disease, neuropathy, and quality of life). CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to recruit, randomly assign, and achieve a high follow-up rate over 2 years in patients with OSA and type 2 diabetes. CPAP compliance might improve by a run-in period before randomization. A full randomized control trial is necessary to assess the observed favorable association between CPAP and chronic kidney disease , neuropathy, and quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ISRCTN; Name: The impact of sleep disorders in patients with type 2 diabetes; URL: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12361838; Identifier: ISRCTN12361838. CITATION: Makhdom EA, Maher A, Ottridge R, et al. The impact of obstructive sleep apnea treatment on microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes: a feasibility randomized controlled trial. J Clin Sleep Med. 2024;20(6):947-957.

Antidepressants for the prevention of depression following first-episode psychosis (ADEPP): study protocol for a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depressive episodes are common after first-episode psychosis (FEP), affecting more than 40% of people, adding to individual burden, poor outcomes, and healthcare costs. If the risks of developing depression were lower, this could have a beneficial effect on morbidity and mortality, as well as improving outcomes. Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a common first-line medication for the treatment of depression in adults. It has been shown to be safe when co-prescribed with antipsychotic medication, and there is evidence that it is an effective treatment for depression in established schizophrenia. We present a protocol for a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial called ADEPP that aims to investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of sertraline in preventing depression after FEP. METHODS: The recruitment target is 452 participants between the ages of 18 and 65 years who are within 12 months of treatment initiation for FEP. Having provided informed consent, participants will be randomised to receive either 50 mg of sertraline daily or matched placebo for 6 months, in addition to treatment as usual. The primary outcome measure will be a comparison of the number of new cases of depression between the treatment and placebo arms over the 6-month intervention phase. Secondary outcomes include suicidal behaviour, anxiety, rates of relapse, functional outcome, quality of life, and resource use. DISCUSSION: The ADEPP trial will test whether the addition of sertraline following FEP is a clinically useful, acceptable, and cost-effective way of improving outcomes following FEP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12682719 registration date 24/11/2020.

A vein bypass first versus a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion (BASIL-2): an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic limb-threatening ischaemia is the severest manifestation of peripheral arterial disease and presents with ischaemic pain at rest or tissue loss (ulceration, gangrene, or both), or both. We compared the effectiveness of a vein bypass first with a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy in terms of preventing major amputation and death in patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. METHODS: Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-2 was an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, randomised trial done at 41 vascular surgery units in the UK (n=39), Sweden (n=1), and Denmark (n=1). Eligible patients were those who presented to hospital-based vascular surgery units with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia due to atherosclerotic disease and who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either vein bypass (vein bypass group) or best endovascular treatment (best endovascular treatment group) as their first revascularisation procedure through a secure online randomisation system. Participants were excluded if they had ischaemic pain or tissue loss considered not to be primarily due to atherosclerotic peripheral artery disease. Most vein bypasses used the great saphenous vein and originated from the common or superficial femoral arteries. Most endovascular interventions comprised plain balloon angioplasty with selective use of plain or drug eluting stents. Participants were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Data were collected locally at participating centres. In England, Wales, and Sweden, centralised databases were used to collect information on amputations and deaths. Data were analysed centrally at the Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit. The primary outcome was amputation-free survival defined as time to first major (above the ankle) amputation or death from any cause measured in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by monitoring serious adverse events up to 30-days after first revascularisation. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27728689. FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2014, and Nov 30, 2020, 345 participants (65 [19%] women and 280 [81%] men; median age 72·5 years [62·7-79·3]) with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned: 172 (50%) to the vein bypass group and 173 (50%) to the best endovascular treatment group. Major amputation or death occurred in 108 (63%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 92 (53%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·35 [95% CI 1·02-1·80]; p=0·037). 91 (53%) of 172 patients in the vein bypass group and 77 (45%) of 173 patients in the best endovascular treatment group died (adjusted HR 1·37 [95% CI 1·00-1·87]). In both groups the most common causes of morbidity and death, including that occurring within 30 days of their first revascularisation, were cardiovascular (61 deaths in the vein bypass group and 49 in the best endovascular treatment group) and respiratory events (25 deaths in the vein bypass group and 23 in the best endovascular treatment group; number of cardiovascular and respiratory deaths were not mutually exclusive). INTERPRETATION: In the BASIL-2 trial, a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy was associated with a better amputation-free survival, which was largely driven by fewer deaths in the best endovascular treatment group. These data suggest that more patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia who required an infra-popliteal, with or without an additional more proximal infra-inguinal, revascularisation procedure to restore limb perfusion should be considered for a best endovascular treatment first revascularisation strategy. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Programme.

Structured follow-up pathway to support people after transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke (SUPPORT TIA): protocol for a feasibility study and process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: People who experience transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke have limited follow-up despite rapid specialist review in hospital. This means they often have unmet needs and feel abandoned following discharge. Care needs after TIA/minor stroke include information provision (diagnosis and stroke risk), stroke prevention (medication and lifestyle change) and holistic care (residual problems and return to work or usual activities). This protocol describes a feasibility study and process evaluation of an intervention to support people after TIA/minor stroke. The study aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of (1) the intervention and (2) the trial procedures for a future randomised controlled trial of this intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, randomised (1:1) feasibility study with a mixed-methods process evaluation. Sixty participants will be recruited from TIA clinics or stroke wards at three hospital sites (England). Intervention arm participants will be offered a nurse or allied health professional-led follow-up appointment 4 weeks after TIA/minor stroke. The multifaceted intervention includes: a needs checklist, action plan, resources to support management of needs, a general practitioner letter and training to deliver the intervention. Control arm participants will receive usual care. Follow-up will be self-completed questionnaires (12 weeks and 24 weeks) and a clinic appointment (24 weeks). Follow-up questionnaires will measure anxiety, depression, fatigue, health related quality of life, self-efficacy and medication adherence. The clinic appointment will collect body mass index, blood pressure, cholesterol and medication. Assessment of feasibility and acceptability will include quantitative process variables (such as recruitment and questionnaire response rates), structured observations of study processes, and interviews with a subsample of participants and clinical staff. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Favourable ethical opinion was gained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee (REC) 1 (23 February 2021, REC reference: 21/WA/0036). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. A lay summary and dissemination strategy will be codesigned with consumers. The lay summary and journal publication will be distributed on social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN39864003.

Long-term Effectiveness of Adjuvant Treatment With Catechol-O-Methyltransferase or Monoamine Oxidase B Inhibitors Compared With Dopamine Agonists Among Patients With Parkinson Disease Uncontrolled by Levodopa Therapy: The PD MED Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many people with Parkinson disease (PD) develop motor complications that are uncontrolled by levodopa dose adjustment. Among these patients, it is uncertain which drug class is more effective as adjuvant therapy. Objective: To compare the long-term effects on patient-rated quality of life of adding a dopamine agonist vs a dopamine reuptake inhibitor (DRI), either a monoamine oxidase type B (MAO-B) inhibitor or a catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitor, to levodopa therapy for the treatment of patients with motor complications of PD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic semifactorial (2 × 1) randomized clinical trial recruited from 64 neurology and geriatric clinics (62 in the United Kingdom, 1 in the Czech Republic, and 1 in Russia) between February 23, 2001, and December 15, 2009. A total of 500 patients with idiopathic PD who developed uncontrolled motor complications and did not have dementia were randomly assigned on a 1:1:1 basis using a computerized minimization program. Data were analyzed between 2017 and 2020. Interventions: Open-label dopamine agonist, MAO-B inhibitor, or COMT inhibitor. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were scores on the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) mobility domain and cost-effectiveness. Outcomes were assessed before study entry, at 6 and 12 months after randomization, and annually thereafter. Repeated-measures and log rank analyses were used in an intention-to-treat approach. Results: Among 500 participants, the mean (SD) age was 73.0 (8.2) years; 314 participants (62.8%) were men. Over a median of 4.5 years (range, 0-13.3 years) of follow-up, the participants in the dopamine agonist group had a mean PDQ-39 mobility score that was 2.4 points (95% CI, -1.3 to 6.0 points) better than that of the combined MAO-B and COMT groups; however, this difference was not significant (P=.20). With regard to DRIs, participants in the MAO-B group had mean PDQ-39 mobility scores that were 4.2 points (95% CI, 0.4-7.9 points; P=.03) better than those of the COMT group and EuroQol 5-dimension 3-level (EQ-5D-3L) utility scores that were 0.05 points (95% CI, 0.003-0.09 points; P=.04) better than the COMT group. Nonsignificant improvements were found in the PDQ-39 summary index (mean difference, 2.2 points; 95% CI, -0.2 to 4.5 points; P=.07) along with nonsignificant reductions in dementia (rate ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47-1.03; P = .07) and mortality (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56-1.03; P=.07). When dopamine agonists were compared with MAO-B inhibitors only, the outcomes were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patient-rated quality of life was inferior when COMT inhibitors were used as adjuvant treatment compared with MAO-B inhibitors or dopamine agonists among people with PD who experienced motor complications that were uncontrolled by levodopa therapy. The MAO-B inhibitors produced equivalent disease control, suggesting that these agents may be underused as adjuvant therapy. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN69812316; EU Clinical Trials Register Identifier: 2005-001813-16.

Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals.

OBJECTIVES: To examine current practices in late-phase trials published in major medical journals and examine trialists' views about core outcome set (COS) use. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A sequential multi-methods study was conducted. We examined late-phase trials published between October 2019 and March 2020 in JAMA, NEJM, The Lancet, BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine. The COMET database was searched for COS potentially relevant to trials not reporting using a COS; overlap of trial and COS outcomes was examined. An online survey examined awareness of, and decisions to search for and use a COS. RESULTS: Ninety-five trials were examined; 93 (98%) did not report using a COS. Relevant COS were identified for 31 trials (33%). Core outcomes were measured in 9 (23%) studies; all trials measured at least one core outcome. Thirty-one trialists (33%) completed our survey. The most common barrier to COS use was trialist's own outcome preferences and choice (68%). The most common perceived facilitator was awareness and knowledge about COS (90%). CONCLUSION: COS use in this cohort of trials was low, even when relevant COS were available. Increased use of COS in clinical trials can improve evaluation of intervention effects and evidence synthesis and reduce research waste.

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial compared Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT® LOUD) with standard NHS speech and language therapy (SLT) and a control arm in people with Parkinson's disease (PwPD) with self-reported problems with voice or speech. This analysis compares costs and quality of life outcomes between the trial arms, and considers the validity of the alternative outcome measures for economic evaluations. METHODS: A comparison of costs and outcomes was undertaken alongside the PD COMM pilot trial involving three arms: LSVT® LOUD treatment (n = 30); standard NHS SLT (n = 30); and a control arm (n = 29) excluded from receiving therapy for at least 6 months after randomisation unless deemed medically necessary. For all trial arms, resource use and NHS, social care and patient costs and quality of life were collected prospectively at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Total economic costs and outcomes (EQ-5D-3L, ICECAP-O) were considered over the 12-month follow-up period from an NHS payer perspective. Quality of life measures for economic evaluation of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease were compared. RESULTS: Whilst there was no difference between arms in voice or quality of life outcomes at 12 months, there were indications of differences at 3 months in favour of SLT, which need to be confirmed in the main trial. The estimated mean cost of NHS care was £3288 per patient per year for the LSVT® LOUD arm, £2033 for NHS SLT, and £1788 for the control arm. EQ-5D-3L was more strongly correlated to voice impairment than ICECAP-O, and was sensitive to differences in voice impairment between arms. CONCLUSIONS: The pilot did not identify an effect of SLT on disease-specific or economic outcomes for PwPD at 12 months; however, there appeared to be improvements at 3 months. In addition to the sample size not powered to detect difference in cost-consequence analysis, many patients in the control arm started SLT during the 12-month period used for economic analysis, in line with the study protocol. The LSVT® LOUD intervention was more intense and therefore more costly. Early indications suggest that the preferred economic outcome measure for the full trial is EQ-5D-3L; however, the ICECAP-O should still be included to capture a broader measure of wellbeing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN75223808. Registered 22 March 2012.

Comparison of femoropopliteal plain balloon angioplasty for chronic limb-threatening ischemia in the BASIL trial and in a UK contemporary series.

BACKGROUND: Since the turn of the millennium, there has been a worldwide trend towards an endovascular-first strategy where possible revascularization strategy for chronic limb-threatening ischemia. There is concern that this may be inappropriate and can result in net patient harm. The aim of this study, therefore, is to compare important clinical outcomes following femoropopliteal plain balloon angioplasty (FP-PBA), with selective use of bare metal stents (BMSs), in a contemporary series (CS) of patients treated in our unit between 2009 and 2014 with those observed following FP-PBA ± BMS in the United Kingdom National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment-funded Bypass vs Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL-1 [B1]) trial (treated 1999-2004). METHODS: Baseline and clinical outcome data (amputation-free survival [AFS], overall survival [OS], limb salvage, freedom from reintervention, and freedom from major adverse limb events) were obtained from prospectively gathered hospital data and B1 trial case record forms. RESULTS: There were 237 CS and 218 B1 patients. CS patients were older (77 vs 73 years; P = .0002). B1 patients were more likely to be current smokers, less likely to be on best medical therapy, and underwent more extensive endovascular interventions. CS had more hospital admissions (4 vs 2; P < .0001) before they reached their primary endpoint (AFS). Immediate technical success was nonsignificantly higher in the CS patients (87% vs 83%; P = .2). BMS were used in 20 CS (8%) and 2 B1 (1%) patients (P = .0002). AFS (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.82; P = .0005) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.76; P = .0001) were significantly worse in the CS cohort. There was no significant difference in limb salvage, freedom from reintervention, or freedom from major adverse limb events. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia managed in our unit (2009-2014) by means of a FP-PBA ± BMS first (where possible) revascularization strategy experienced significantly worse AFS and OS than patients treated with FP-PBA ± BMS in the B1 trial 10 years earlier (1999-2004).

Cost-Effectiveness of Dopamine Agonists and Monoamine Oxidase B Inhibitors in Early Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: The PD MED study reported small but persistent benefits in patient-rated mobility scores and quality of life from initiating therapy with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapies in early Parkinson's disease (PD). OBJECTIVES: The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors compared with levodopa alone. METHODS: PD MED is a pragmatic, open-label randomized, controlled trial in which patients newly diagnosed with PD were randomly assigned between levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors ) and levodopa alone. Mean quality-adjusted life-years and costs were calculated for each participant. Differences in mean quality-adjusted life-years and costs between levodopa and levodopa-sparing therapies and between dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors were estimated using linear regression. RESULTS: Over a mean observation period of 4 years, levodopa was associated with significantly higher quality-adjusted life-years (difference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05-0.30; P < 0.01) and lower mean costs (£3390; £2671-£4109; P < 0.01) than levodopa-sparing therapies, the difference in costs driven by the higher costs of levodopa-sparing therapies. There were no significant differences in the costs of inpatient, social care, and institutional care between arms. There was no significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between those allocated dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (0.02; -0.17 to 0.13 in favor of dopamine agonists; P = 0.81); however costs were significantly lower for those allocated monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (£2321; £1628-£3015; P < 0.01) because of the higher costs of dopamine agonists. There were no significant differences between arms for other costs. CONCLUSIONS: Initial treatment with levodopa is highly cost-effective compared with levodopa-sparing therapies. Monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors, as initial levodopa-sparing therapy was more cost-effective, with similar quality-adjusted life-years but lower costs than dopamine agonists. © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

A Comparison of Contemporary Clinical Outcomes Following Femoro-Popliteal Plain Balloon Angioplasty and Bypass Surgery for Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the BASIL-1 trial concluding that bypass surgery (BS) was superior to plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) in terms of longer-term amputation free (AFS) and overall survival (OS), CLTI patients are increasingly offered an endovascular-first revascularization strategy. This study investigates whether the results of BASIL-1 are still relevant to current practice by comparing femoro-popliteal (FP) BS with PBA in a series of CLTI patients treated in our unit 10 years after BASIL-1 (1999-2004). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively gathered hospital data pertaining to 279 patients undergoing primary FP BS or PBA for CLTI in the period 2009 to 2014. We report baseline characteristics, 30-day morbidity and mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and long-term AFS, limb salvage (LS), OS, major adverse limb events (MALE), and freedom from re-intervention (FFR). RESULTS: 234 (84%) and 45 (16%) patients underwent PBA and BS respectively. PBA patients were significantly older (77 vs 71 years, P = 0.001) and more likely to be female (45% vs 28%, P = 0.026). Bollinger and GLASS anatomic scores were significantly more severe in the BS group. Technical success was better for BS (100% vs 87%, P = 0.007). Index hospital stay was shorter for PBA (9.1 vs 15.6 days, P = 0.035) but there was no difference in hospital days or admissions over the next 12 months. AFS (HR 1.00), LS (HR 1.44), OS (HR 0.81), MALE (HR 1.25) and FFR (HR = 1.00) were not significantly different between PBA and BS. CONCLUSION: Important clinical outcomes following FP BS and PBA for CLTI have not changed significantly in our unit in the 10 years following the BASIL-1 trial. BASIL-1 therefore remains relevant to our current practice and should inform our approach to the management of CLTI going forward.

The impact of sleep disorders on microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (SLEEP T2D): the protocol of a cohort study and feasibility randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is very common in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We and others have shown that OSA was associated with diabetes-related microvascular complications in patients with T2D in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies and that compliance with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) reduced the progression of microvascular complications. Hence, we hypothesised that adequate CPAP reduces the development of microvascular complication in patients with T2D. METHODS: SLEEP T2D is a cohort study with embedded feasibility, open-label, parallel-arm, randomised control trial (RCT) over 2 years. The primary aim is the feasibility of conducting a definitive RCT assessing the impact of CPAP on chronic kidney disease and other microvascular complications in patients with T2D. The main parameters are to assess willingness of participants to be randomised, follow-up rates, CPAP adherence/compliance, to optimise the choice of outcome measures for a substantive trial, and to identify the parameters for sample size calculations. The secondary aims of the study are related to the impact of CPAP, sleep-related disorders, and sleep chronotype on a variety of diabetes-related end points. The study participants were recruited from the T2D services in multiple NHS trusts across England. The main exclusion criteria for the cohort study are as follows: T1D, eGFR < 15 mL/min/1.73 m2, known OSA, active malignancy or chronic kidney disease from reasons other than diabetes, pregnancy, professional drivers, and a history of falling asleep whilst driving within last 2 years. The main exclusion criteria from the RCT were as follows: Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index < 10 and Epworth Sleepiness Score ≥ 11. Study participants were extensively phenotyped clinically and biochemically. The OSA diagnosis was based on multichannel portable device (ApneaLink AirTM, Resmed). DISCUSSION: The feasibility RCT will help us design the future RCT to assess the impact of CPAP on diabetes-related microvascular complications. The cohort study will generate preliminary data regarding the impact of sleep quality, duration, and chronotype on diabetes-related outcomes which could lead to further mechanistic and interventional studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12361838 . Registered 04 April 2018, Protocol version: v5.0 02.12.19.

Comparison of Outcomes Following Infrapopliteal Plain Balloon Angioplasty in the BASIL Trial (1999-2004) and in a Contemporary Series (2009-2013).

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes in patients randomized to infrapopliteal (IP) plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) for chronic limb-threatening ischemia within the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial between 1999 and 2004 with outcomes in consecutive patients undergoing IP PBA at an academic vascular unit a decade later (2009-2013, Contemporary series [CS]). METHODS: Individual patient data were obtained from prospective BASIL-1 (48 patients) and CS databases (73 patients). All had a minimum of 3-years of follow-up. Outcomes studied were amputation-free survival (AFS), overall survival (OS), major (above ankle) limb amputation, arterial reintervention, immediate technical success, and length of hospital stay for the index procedure and during the following 12-month period. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS version 9.4. RESULTS: The BASIL and CS cohorts were well matched for gender, age, diabetes, previous stroke, myocardial infarction and arterial intervention, and presence of tissue loss. More patients in BASIL-1 underwent concomitant treatment of the superficial femoral (60% vs 37%, P = .01) and above knee popliteal (60% vs 34%, P = .005) arteries. Immediate technical success increased from 73% in BASIL-1 to 90% in the CS (P = .01). Between the two cohorts, there were no differences in AFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-1.54, P = 1.0), OS (HR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.66-1.62, P = .9), major amputation (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.37-1.97, P = .7), or reintervention (HR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.29-1.27, P = .2). Contemporary series patients spent significantly fewer days in hospital following the index procedure (P = .02) and also over the following 12 months (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements in the immediate technical angiographic success of IP PBA between BASIL and the CS, there were no significant improvements in survival outcomes. Results from BASIL-2 and BEST-CLI are required in order to properly define the clinical and cost-effectiveness of endovascular treatment in such patients.

Rating the intelligibility of dysarthic speech amongst people with Parkinson's Disease: a comparison of trained and untrained listeners.

Intelligibility of speech is a key outcome in speech and language therapy (SLT) and research. SLT students frequently participate as raters of intelligibility but we lack information about whether they rate intelligibility in the same way as the general public. This paper aims to determine if there is a difference in the intelligibility ratings made by SLT students (trained in speech related topics) compared to individuals from the general public (untrained). The SLT students were in year 2 of a BSc programme or the first 6 months of a MSc programme. We recorded 10 speakers with Parkinson's disease (PD) related speech reading aloud the words and sentences from the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech. These speech recordings were rated for intelligibility by 'trained' raters and 'untrained' raters. The effort required to understand the speech was also reported. There were no significant differences in the measures of intelligibility from the trained and untrained raters for words or sentences after adjusting for speaker by including them as a covariate in the model. There was a slight increase in effort reported by the untrained raters for the sentences. This difference in reported effort was not evident with the words. SLT students can be recruited alongside individuals from the general public as naïve raters for evaluating intelligibility in people with speech disorders.

Contemporary (2009-2014) clinical outcomes after femoropopliteal bypass surgery for chronic limb threatening ischemia are inferior to those reported in the UK Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial (1999-2004).

BACKGROUND: Bypass surgery (BS) remains the gold standard revascularization strategy in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) owing to infrainguinal disease. The Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL)-1 trial showed that, in patients with CLTI who survived for 2 years or more, BS resulted in better clinical outcomes. Despite this finding, there has been an increasing trend toward an endovascular-first approach to infrainguinal CLTI. Our aim was to investigate whether changes in practice have impacted the clinical outcomes of BS in our unit 10 years after BASIL-1. METHODS: Data for patients who underwent femoropopliteal (FP) BS in BASIL-1 (1999-2004) were retrieved from trial case record forms. The comparator contemporary series (CS) comprised all patients undergoing FP BS for CLTI in our unit between 2009 and 2014. Demographic and clinical outcome data on patients in the CS were collected from the prospectively collected hospital electronic notes. Anatomic patterns of disease in the BASIL-1 and CS cohorts were scored using the Bollinger and GLASS criteria. Statistical analysis was performed in SAS v9.4. RESULTS: There were 128 patients from BASIL-1 and 50 patients in the CS. Baseline age, gender, affected limb, and diabetes prevalence were similar, as were days spent in hospital out to 12 months and length of follow-up. BASIL-1 patients were more likely to be current smokers (P = .000) and had a higher creatinine (P = .04). The 30-day morbidity and mortality were higher in BASIL-1 (45.3% vs 22%; P = .004). There was no significant difference between BASIL-1 and CS with regard to run-off Bollinger (37.7 vs 32.1; P = .167) and IP GLASS (0 vs 0; P = .390) scores, with both groups having a median of two runoff vessels. Amputation-free survival (62% vs 28%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.93; P = .007), limb salvage (85% vs 69%; HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.14-4.68; P = .02), overall survival (69% vs 35%; HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.00-2.74; P = .05) and major adverse limb events (67% vs 47%; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.15-3.22; P = .01) were all significantly better in BASIL-1. CONCLUSIONS: Although 30-day mortality and morbidity were significantly lower, all of the examined longer term clinical outcomes after FP BS were significantly worse in the CS group a decade on from BASIL-1. Further research in the form of prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials is urgently required to determine if the CS data reported herein are generalizable to current vascular surgical practice and, if so, to determine the reasons for these unexpected outcomes.

A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Following Femoropopliteal Bypass or Plain Balloon Angioplasty with Selective Bare Metal Stenting in the Bypass Versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Limb (BASIL) Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) due to femoropopliteal (FP), with or without infrapopliteal (IP), disease who underwent FP (vein or synthetic) open surgical bypass (OSB), or plain balloon angioplasty (PBA), with or without bare metal stenting (BMS), in the Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Limb (BASIL-1) trial. METHODS: Data were extracted from BASIL-1 case record forms. Outcomes reported include immediate technical success, freedom from major adverse limb events (FF-MALE) and further re-intervention (FF-R), amputation free survival (AFS), overall survival (OS), and limb salvage (LS). RESULTS: Patients underwent primary OSB (n = 128; 89 vein, 39 synthetic) or primary PBA (n = 183; six had BMS). Mean follow up was 46.2 and 43.6 months respectively. Patients were well matched at baseline except that PBA ± BMS patients were significantly more likely to be current smokers. There was no difference in overall or IP (runoff) Bollinger angiogram scores between groups. Immediate technical success was significantly higher for OSB (98% vs. 81%; p < .001). OSB was associated with a longer mean index hospital admission (p = .001), but there was no difference in hospital days at 12 months. FF-MALE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.51; p = .04) and FF-R (HR 1.68; p = .02) but not AFS (HR 1.18; p = .4), OS (HR 1.14; p = .5), and LS (HR 1.09; p = .8) were significantly better after OSB. CONCLUSION: Although AFS, OS, and LS were similar in the two groups, OSB was associated with significantly fewer MALE and re-interventions. So, while PBA ± BMS may be a less resource intensive (expensive) and morbid option in the short term, this appears unlikely to be the case in the longer term. Present data add further weight to the argument that, where possible, patients presenting with CLTI due to FP disease should be offered OSB as their primary revascularisation procedure.

Editor's Choice - A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Primary Bypass and Secondary Bypass After Failed Plain Balloon Angioplasty in the Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Limb (BASIL) Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) is a growing global health problem. The UK NIHR HTA funded BASIL trial is still the only randomised controlled trial to have compared a "bypass surgery first" with a "plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) first" strategy for the management of CLTI. In patients who were likely to survive for 2 years and had a suitable vein, primary bypass (PB) was associated with better clinical outcomes. Furthermore, PBA was associated with a high technical and clinical failure rate and many went on to have secondary bypass (SB). This study aimed at comparing clinical outcomes following PB and SB in the BASIL trial. METHODS: Demographic, procedural, and outcome data were obtained from the BASIL case report forms. Outcomes were amputation free survival (AFS), limb salvage (LS), overall survival (OS), and freedom from revascularisation (FFR). The SB cohort comprises patients whose first trial intervention was PBA and who subsequently underwent bypass during follow up. The PB cohort comprises those patients whose first trial intervention was bypass. RESULTS: The 190 PB and 49 SB patients were well matched except that the SB patients were more likely to be current smokers. At a median of 7 years, PB was associated with better AFS (PB 60% vs. SB 40%; HR 1.58, p = .04), LS (PB 85% vs. SB 73%, p = .06), and OS (PB 68% vs. 51%, p = .06). FFR was equivalent (PB 53% vs. 53%, p = .3). CONCLUSION: In the BASIL trial, clinical outcomes following PB were significantly better than in patients undergoing SB after failed PBA. Prior to treating patients with CLTI with primary PBA, clinicians should consider that if this should fail, the outcome of attempted subsequent bypass is likely to be significantly worse than if PB were attempted.

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease: a pilot randomised controlled trial (PD COMM pilot).

BACKGROUND: Speech-related problems are common in Parkinson's disease (PD), but there is little evidence for the effectiveness of standard speech and language therapy (SLT) or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). METHODS: The PD COMM pilot was a three-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of LSVT LOUD®, SLT and no intervention (1:1:1 ratio) to assess the feasibility and to inform the design of a full-scale RCT. Non-demented patients with idiopathic PD and speech problems and no SLT for speech problems in the past 2 years were eligible. LSVT LOUD® is a standardised regime (16 sessions over 4 weeks). SLT comprised individualised content per local practice (typically weekly sessions for 6-8 weeks). Outcomes included recruitment and retention, treatment adherence, and data completeness. Outcome data collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months included patient-reported voice and quality of life measures, resource use, and assessor-rated speech recordings. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were randomised with 90% in the therapy groups and 100% in the control group completing the trial. The response rate for Voice Handicap Index (VHI) in each arm was ≥ 90% at all time-points. VHI was highly correlated with the other speech-related outcome measures. There was a trend to improvement in VHI with LSVT LOUD® (difference at 3 months compared with control: - 12.5 points; 95% CI - 26.2, 1.2) and SLT (difference at 3 months compared with control: - 9.8 points; 95% CI - 23.2, 3.7) which needs to be confirmed in an adequately powered trial. CONCLUSION: Randomisation to a three-arm trial of speech therapy including a no intervention control is feasible and acceptable. Compliance with both interventions was good. VHI and other patient-reported outcomes were relevant measures and provided data to inform the sample size for a substantive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN75223808. registered 22 March 2012.