Adapted problem adaptation therapy for depression in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Trials of effectiveness of treatment options for depression in dementia are an important priority. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial to assess adapted Problem Adaptation Therapy (PATH) for depression in mild/moderate dementia caused by Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six participants with mild or moderate dementia, >7 on Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), randomized to adapted PATH or treatment as usual. Mean age 77.0 years, 39.0% males, mean Mini-Mental State Examination 21.6, mean CSDD 12.9. For primary outcome (CSDD at 6 months), no statistically significant benefit with adapted PATH on the CSDD (6 months: -0.58; 95% CI -1.71 to 0.54). The CSDD at 3 months showed a small benefit with adapted PATH (-1.38; 95% CI -2.54 to -0.21) as did the EQ-5D (-4.97; 95% CI -9.46 to -0.48). DISCUSSION: An eight-session course of adapted PATH plus two booster sessions administered within NHS dementia services was not effective treatment for depression in people with mild and moderate dementia. Future studies should examine the effect of more intensive and longer-term therapy.

Development, feasibility, and acceptability of an intervention to improve care for agitation in people living in nursing homes with dementia nearing the end-of-life.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a staff training intervention for agitation in people with severe dementia, reaching end-of-life, residing in nursing homes (NHs), test feasibility, acceptability, and whether a trial is warranted. DESIGN: Feasibility study with pre- and post-intervention data collection, qualitative interviews, and focus groups. SETTING: Three NHs in South East England with dementia units, diverse in terms of size, ownership status, and location. PARTICIPANTS: Residents with a dementia diagnosis or scoring ≥2 on the Noticeable Problems Checklist, rated as "severe" on Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, family carers, and staff (healthcare assistants and nurses). INTERVENTION: Manualized training, delivered by nonclinical psychology graduates focusing on agitation in severe dementia, underpinned by a palliative care framework. MEASUREMENTS: Main outcomes were feasibility of recruitment, data collection, follow-up, and intervention acceptability. We collected resident, family carer, and staff demographics. Staff provided data on resident's agitation, pain, quality of life, and service receipt. Staff reported their sense of competence in dementia care. Family carers reported on satisfaction with end-of-life care. In qualitative interviews, we explored staff and family carers' views on the intervention. RESULTS: The target three NHs participated: 28 (49%) residents, 53 (74%) staff, and 11 (85%) family carers who were eligible to participate consented. Eight-four percent of staff attended ≥3 sessions, and we achieved 93% follow-up. We were able to complete quantitative interviews. Staff and family carers reported the intervention and delivery were acceptable and helpful. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was feasible and acceptable indicating a larger trial for effectiveness may be warranted.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of a parent mediated intervention to reduce challenging behaviour in pre-schoolers with moderate to severe intellectual disability (EPICC-ID) study protocol: a multi-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Children with intellectual disabilities are likely to present with challenging behaviour. Parent mediated interventions have shown utility in influencing child behaviour, although there is a paucity of UK research into challenging behaviour interventions in this population. NICE guidelines favour Stepping Stones Triple P (SSTP) as a challenging behaviour intervention and this trial aims to evaluate its clinical and cost effectiveness in preschool children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. METHODS: This trial launched in 2017 at four sites across England, with the aim of recruiting 258 participants (aged 30-59 months). The Intervention Group receive nine weeks of SSTP parenting therapy (six group sessions and three individualised face to face or telephone sessions) in addition to Treatment as Usual, whilst the Treatment as Usual only group receive other available services in each location. Both study groups undergo the study measurements at baseline and at four and twelve months. Outcome measures include parent reports and structured observations of behaviour. Service use and health related quality of life data will also be collected to carry out a cost effectiveness and utility evaluation. DISCUSSION: Findings from this study will inform policy regarding interventions for challenging behaviour in young children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03086876. Registered 22nd March 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03086876.

Cost-effectiveness of using Polyheal compared with surgery in the management of chronic wounds with exposed bones and/or tendons due to trauma in France, Germany and the UK.

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of Polyheal compared with surgery in treating chronic wounds with exposed bones and/or tendons (EB&T) due to trauma in France, Germany and the UK, from the perspective of the payers. Decision models were constructed depicting the management of chronic wounds with EB&T and spanned the period up to healing or up to 1 year. The models considered the decision by a plastic surgeon to treat these wounds with Polyheal or surgery and was used to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of Polyheal at 2010/2011 prices. Using Polyheal instead of surgery is expected to increase the probability of healing from 0·93 to 0·98 and lead to a total health-care cost of €7984, €7517 and €8860 per patient in France, Germany and the UK, respectively. Management with surgery is expected to lead to a total health-care cost of €12 300, €18 137 and €11 330 per patient in France, Germany and the UK, respectively. Hence, initial treatment with Polyheal instead of surgery is expected to lead to a 5% improvement in the probability of healing and a substantial decrease in health-care costs of 35%, 59% and 22% in France, Germany and the UK, respectively. Within the models' limitations, Polyheal potentially affords the public health-care system in France, Germany and the UK a cost-effective treatment for chronic wounds with EB&T due to trauma, when compared with surgery. However, this will be dependent on Polyheal's healing rate in clinical practice when it becomes routinely available.

Evaluation of adapted parent training for challenging behaviour in pre-school children with moderate to severe intellectual developmental disabilities: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of parenting interventions to improve disruptive behaviour in children with intellectual developmental disabilities. This clinical trial evaluated whether an adapted group parenting intervention for preschool children with intellectual developmental disabilities who display challenging behaviour is superior to treatment as usual in England. STUDY DESIGN: 261 children aged 30-59 months with moderate to severe intellectual developmental disabilities and challenging behaviour were randomised to either the intervention (Stepping Stones Triple P) and treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. The primary outcome was the parent-rated Child Behaviour Checklist at 52 weeks after randomisation. A health economic evaluation was also completed. RESULTS: We found no significant difference between arms on the primary outcome (mean difference -4.23; 95% CI: -9.99 to 1.53; p = 0.147). However, a subgroup analysis suggests the intervention was effective for participants randomised before the COVID-19 pandemic (mean difference -7.12; 95% CI: -13.44 to -0.81; p = 0.046). Furthermore, a complier average causal effects analysis (mean difference -11.53; 95% CI: -26.97 to 3.91; p = 0.143) suggests the intervention requires participants to receive a sufficient intervention dose. The intervention generated statistically significant cost savings (-£1,057.88; 95% CI -£3,218.6 to -£46.67) but the mean point estimate in Quality Adjusted Life Years was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: This study did not find an effect of the intervention on reducing challenging behaviour, but this may have been influenced by problems with engagement. The intervention could be considered by services as an early intervention if families are supported to attend, especially given its low cost.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an adapted intervention for preschoolers with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities displaying behaviours that challenge: the EPICC-ID RCT.

Background: Stepping Stones Triple P is an adapted intervention for parents of young children with developmental disabilities who display behaviours that challenge, aiming at teaching positive parenting techniques and promoting a positive parent-child relationship. Objective: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P in reducing behaviours that challenge in children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Design, setting, participants: A parallel two-arm pragmatic multisite single-blind randomised controlled trial recruited a total of 261 dyads (parent and child). The children were aged 30-59 months and had moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Participants were randomised, using a 3 : 2 allocation ratio, into the intervention arm (Stepping Stones Triple P; n = 155) or treatment as usual arm (n = 106). Participants were recruited from four study sites in Blackpool, North and South London and Newcastle. Intervention: Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P consists of six group sessions and three individual phone or face-to-face contacts over 9 weeks. These were changed to remote sessions after 16 March 2020 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome measure was the parent-reported Child Behaviour Checklist, which assesses the severity of behaviours that challenge. Results: We found a small non-significant difference in the mean Child Behaviour Checklist scores (-4.23, 95% CI -9.98 to 1.52, p = 0.146) in the intervention arm compared to treatment as usual at 12 months. Per protocol and complier average causal effect sensitivity analyses, which took into consideration the number of sessions attended, showed the Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference at 12 months was lower in the intervention arm by -10.77 (95% CI -19.12 to -2.42, p = 0.014) and -11.53 (95% CI -26.97 to 3.91, p = 0.143), respectively. The Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference between participants who were recruited before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was estimated as -7.12 (95% CI -13.44 to -0.81) and 7.61 (95% CI -5.43 to 20.64), respectively (p = 0.046), suggesting that any effect pre-pandemic may have reversed during the pandemic. There were no differences in all secondary measures. Stepping Stones Triple P is probably value for money to deliver (-£1057.88; 95% CI -£3218.6 to -£46.67), but decisions to roll this out as an alternative to existing parenting interventions or treatment as usual may be dependent on policymaker willingness to invest in early interventions to reduce behaviours that challenge. Parents reported the intervention boosted their confidence and skills, and the group format enabled them to learn from others and benefit from peer support. There were 20 serious adverse events reported during the study, but none were associated with the intervention. Limitations: There were low attendance rates in the Stepping Stones Triple P arm, as well as the coronavirus disease 2019-related challenges with recruitment and delivery of the intervention. Conclusions: Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P did not reduce early onset behaviours that challenge in very young children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. However, there was an effect on child behaviours for those who received a sufficient dose of the intervention. There is a high probability of Stepping Stones Triple P being at least cost neutral and therefore worth considering as an early therapeutic option given the long-term consequences of behaviours that challenge on people and their social networks. Future work: Further research should investigate the implementation of parenting groups for behaviours that challenge in this population, as well as the optimal mode of delivery to maximise engagement and subsequent outcomes. Study registration: This study is registered as NCT03086876 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03086876?term=Hassiotis±Angela&draw=1&rank=1). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: HTA 15/162/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Research shows that in children without learning disabilities, parenting groups which support parents to develop skills to manage behaviours that challenge in their child can be helpful. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommended that more research was needed to strengthen the evidence for such interventions for children with moderate to severe learning disability who are more likely to display behaviours that challenge in England. In this study, we tested in real-world conditions a programme called level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P, which has shown positive results in trials outside of the United Kingdom. Trained therapists delivered six groups and three individual sessions over 9 weeks to parents of children aged 30­59 months with moderate to severe learning disabilities. Two hundred and sixty-one parents were allocated to one of two arms by chance (randomisation): one received Stepping Stones Triple P and treatment as usual and the other treatment as usual only. Treatment as usual included support and advice by general practitioners or community child development teams. Our primary outcome was parent-reported child behaviour at 12 months after randomisation. We also collected data on other outcomes and carried out interviews with parents, service managers and therapists to find out their views about Stepping Stones Triple P. We did not find that Stepping Stones Triple P reduces behaviours that challenge in the child more than treatment as usual at 12 months. However, when we looked at people who received more than half of the sessions, there was a larger reduction in behaviours which suggests that Stepping Stones Triple P works for families if they attend the full programme. Stepping Stones Triple P seems to be good value for money, as we found that at 12 months (covering 10 months of costs), the Stepping Stones Triple P cost £1058 less than treatment as usual from a health and social care perspective. As such, Stepping Stones Triple P is fairly cheap to deliver and a suitable early intervention for behaviours that challenge especially because of positive feedback from parents. Throughout the trial, we included a Parent Advisory Group that oversaw study materials, interview topic guides and promotion of the study.

The time of equipoise on the use of biological DMARDs in for inflammatory arthritis during pregnancy is finally over: a reappraisal of evidence to optimise pregnancy management.

Active inflammatory arthritis in pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Treatment of active inflammation and maintenance of low disease activity with medication reduces these risks. Therapeutic decisions on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in pregnancy are complicated by safety concerns, which have led to inappropriate withdrawal of treatment and consequential harm to mother and fetus. Studies of inflammatory arthritis in pregnancy have consistently shown minimal safety concerns with the use of biological DMARDs and an increased risk of disease flare with discontinuation of biological DMARDs. It is our opinion that during pregnancy, the benefits of disease control with biological DMARDs, when required in addition to conventional synthetic DMARDs, outweigh the risks. In this Series paper, we review the reasons for reconsideration of equipoise and propose an agenda for future research to optimise the use of biological DMARDs in inflammatory arthritis during pregnancy.

WAFER trial: a study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing wide-awake local anaesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) to general and regional anaesthesia with tourniquet for flexor tendon repair.

INTRODUCTION: Flexor tendons are traditionally repaired under either general anaesthesia (GA) or regional anaesthesia (RA), allowing for the use of an arm tourniquet to minimise blood loss and establish a bloodless surgical field. However, the use of tourniquets exposes the patient to certain risks, including skin, muscle and nerve injuries. A recent advancement in anaesthesia delivery involves the use of a wide-awake approach where no sedation nor tourniquets are used (wide-awake local anaesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT)). WALANT uses local anaesthetic with epinephrine to provide pain relief and vasoconstriction, reducing operative bleeding. Several studies revealed potential benefits for WALANT compared with GA or RA. However, there remains a paucity of high-quality evidence to support the use of WALANT. As a result of this uncertainty, the clinical practice varies considerably. We aim to evaluate the feasibility of WALANT as an alternative to GA and RA in patients undergoing surgical repair of flexor tendon injuries. This involves addressing factors such as clinician and patient support for a trial, clinical equipoise, trial recruitment and dropout and the most relevant outcomes measures for a future definitive trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: WAFER is a multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess the feasibility of WALANT versus RA and GA. The target population is patients with acute traumatic flexor tendon injuries, across 3 major hand surgery units in England involving a total of 60 participants. Outcome assessors will be blinded. The primary outcome will be the ability to recruit patients into the trial, while secondary outcomes include difference in functional outcome, patient-reported outcome measures, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and complication rates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the London-City and East Research Ethics Committee (22/PR/1197). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conferences, patient information websites and social media networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN identifier: 15052559.

Cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolysed formula compared to an amino acid formula as first-line treatment for cow milk allergy in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolysed formula (eHF; Nutramigen) compared with an amino acid formula (AAF; Neocate) as first-line treatment for cow milk allergy (CMA) in the UK, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). METHOD: A decision model was constructed depicting the treatment paths and associated resource use attributable to first-line management of CMA with the two formulae. The model was based on the case records of 145 AAF-treated infants and 150 matched eHF-treated patients from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database [a nationally representative database of patients registered with general practitioners (GPs) in the UK]. The model estimated the costs and consequences of patient management over 12 months following their initial GP visit for CMA. RESULTS: Patients presenting with a combination of gastrointestinal symptoms and eczema accounted for 44% of all patients in both groups. Those with gastrointestinal symptoms alone and eczema alone accounted for up to a further 39% and 13%, respectively. Those with urticaria and faltering growth accounted for <5% and ≤6% of all patients, respectively. Patients' age and weight at presentation was a mean 2.6-2.8 months and 4.4 kg, respectively. It took a mean 2.2 months to start a formula after initially seeing a GP. Time to symptom resolution following the start of treatment was 1.2 months in both groups; hence, the mean number of symptom-free months during the 12 months following the initial GP visit was estimated to be 8.6 months in both groups. Patients treated with an eHF had a mean 13.1 GP visits over the 12 months compared to 17.5 visits made by AAF-treated patients (p < 0.001). The NHS cost of managing a CMA infant over the first 12 months following initial presentation to a GP was estimated to be £1853 and £3161 for an eHF-treated and AAF-treated patient, respectively. CONCLUSION: Starting treatment for CMA with an eHF was the cost-effective option, as there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups. A prospective, randomized controlled trial would allow a definitive confirmation of these findings.

Protocol for the COG-UK hospital-onset COVID-19 infection (HOCI) multicentre interventional clinical study: evaluating the efficacy of rapid genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in limiting the spread of COVID-19 in UK NHS hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been a significant cause of mortality in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COG-UK Consortium Hospital-Onset COVID-19 Infections (COG-UK HOCI) study aims to evaluate whether the use of rapid whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2, supported by a novel probabilistic reporting methodology, can inform infection prevention and control (IPC) practice within NHS hospital settings. DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, interventional, superiority study. SETTING: 14 participating NHS hospitals over winter-spring 2020/2021 in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients must be admitted to hospital with first-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive test result >48 hour from time of admission, where COVID-19 diagnosis not suspected on admission. The projected sample size is 2380 patients. INTERVENTION: The intervention is the return of a sequence report, within 48 hours in one phase (rapid local lab processing) and within 5-10 days in a second phase (mimicking central lab), comparing the viral genome from an eligible study participant with others within and outside the hospital site. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes are incidence of Public Health England (PHE)/IPC-defined SARS-CoV-2 hospital-acquired infection during the baseline and two interventional phases, and proportion of hospital-onset cases with genomic evidence of transmission linkage following implementation of the intervention where such linkage was not suspected by initial IPC investigation. Secondary outcomes include incidence of hospital outbreaks, with and without sequencing data; actual and desirable changes to IPC actions; periods of healthcare worker (HCW) absence. Health economic analysis will be conducted to determine cost benefit of the intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews with HCWs will be conducted alongside the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN50212645. Pre-results stage. This manuscript is based on protocol V.6.0. 2 September 2021.

Effectiveness of rapid SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing in supporting infection control for hospital-onset COVID-19 infection: Multicentre, prospective study.

Background: Viral sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 has been used for outbreak investigation, but there is limited evidence supporting routine use for infection prevention and control (IPC) within hospital settings. Methods: We conducted a prospective non-randomised trial of sequencing at 14 acute UK hospital trusts. Sites each had a 4-week baseline data collection period, followed by intervention periods comprising 8 weeks of 'rapid' (<48 hr) and 4 weeks of 'longer-turnaround' (5-10 days) sequencing using a sequence reporting tool (SRT). Data were collected on all hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs; detected ≥48 hr from admission). The impact of the sequencing intervention on IPC knowledge and actions, and on the incidence of probable/definite hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), was evaluated. Results: A total of 2170 HOCI cases were recorded from October 2020 to April 2021, corresponding to a period of extreme strain on the health service, with sequence reports returned for 650/1320 (49.2%) during intervention phases. We did not detect a statistically significant change in weekly incidence of HAIs in longer-turnaround (incidence rate ratio 1.60, 95% CI 0.85-3.01; p=0.14) or rapid (0.85, 0.48-1.50; p=0.54) intervention phases compared to baseline phase. However, IPC practice was changed in 7.8 and 7.4% of all HOCI cases in rapid and longer-turnaround phases, respectively, and 17.2 and 11.6% of cases where the report was returned. In a 'per-protocol' sensitivity analysis, there was an impact on IPC actions in 20.7% of HOCI cases when the SRT report was returned within 5 days. Capacity to respond effectively to insights from sequencing was breached in most sites by the volume of cases and limited resources. Conclusions: While we did not demonstrate a direct impact of sequencing on the incidence of nosocomial transmission, our results suggest that sequencing can inform IPC response to HOCIs, particularly when returned within 5 days. Funding: COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) (grant code: MC_PC_19027), and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. Clinical trial number: NCT04405934.

Pilot cluster randomised trial of an evidence-based intervention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions in nursing home residents (Better Health in Residents of Care Homes with Nursing-BHiRCH-NH Study).

OBJECTIVES: To pilot a complex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment for common health conditions experienced by nursing home (NH) residents. DESIGN: Pilot cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 14 NHs (7 intervention, 7 control) in London and West Yorkshire. PARTICIPANTS: NH residents, their family carers and staff. INTERVENTION: Complex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment of urinary tract and respiratory infections, chronic heart failure and dehydration, comprising: (1) 'Stop and Watch (S&W)' early warning tool for changes in physical health, (2) condition-specific care pathway and (3) Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation tool to enhance communication with primary care. Implementation was supported by Practice Development Champions, a Practice Development Support Group and regular telephone coaching with external facilitators. OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on NH (quality ratings, size, ownership), residents, family carers and staff demographics during the month prior to intervention and subsequently, numbers of admissions, accident and emergency visits, and unscheduled general practitioner visits monthly for 6 months during intervention. We collected data on how the intervention was used, healthcare resource use and quality of life data for economic evaluation. We assessed recruitment and retention, and whether a full trial was warranted. RESULTS: We recruited 14 NHs, 148 staff, 95 family carers and 245 residents. We retained the majority of participants recruited (95%). 15% of residents had an unplanned hospital admission for one of the four study conditions. We were able to collect sufficient questionnaire data (all over 96% complete). No NH implemented intervention tools as planned. Only 16 S&W forms and 8 care pathways were completed. There was no evidence of harm. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment, retention and data collection processes were effective but the intervention not implemented. A full trial is not warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN74109734 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74109734). ORIGINAL PROTOCOL: BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026510. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026510.

One-to-one befriending for people with intellectual disability and symptoms of depression: protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: People with intellectual disability (ID) are more likely to experience loneliness and have smaller social networks, which increases vulnerability to depression. Befriending may reduce depressive symptoms in other populations, but randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have not been carried out in this population. This pilot study aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of carrying out a full RCT of one-to-one befriending by volunteers for people with ID, compared with an active control group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The trial aims to recruit 40 participants with ID. Participants in the intervention arm will receive weekly visits from a volunteer over 6 months. Community befriending schemes will recruit, train, supervise volunteers and match them to individuals with ID. Both groups will receive a booklet about local activities and have access to usual care. Health and social outcomes will be measured at the end of the intervention and 6 months' follow-up. The following outcomes will be assessed: (1) recruitment and retention of individuals with ID and volunteers in the trial, (2) adverse events related to the intervention, (3) the acceptability of the intervention, (4) whether the intervention is delivered as intended, (5) changes in health and social outcomes and (6) the feasibility of carrying out a cost-effectiveness analysis in a full trial. Qualitative data from participants, volunteers, staff and carers will identify barriers and facilitators of a future full trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the London City and East Research Ethics Committee (reference 18/LO/2188). The findings will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal and in the National Institute of Health Research journals library. A public engagement seminar will be held at the end of the study aimed at key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN63779614.

Healthcare resource utilisation and costs of agitation in people with dementia living in care homes in England - The Managing Agitation and Raising QUality of LifE in Dementia (MARQUE) study.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia living in care homes often experience clinically significant agitation; however, little is known about its economic impact. OBJECTIVE: To calculate the cost of agitation in people with dementia living in care homes. METHODS: We used the baseline data from 1,424 residents with dementia living in care homes (part of Managing Agitation and Raising QUality of lifE in dementia (MARQUE) study) that had Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) scores recorded. We investigated the relationship between residents' health and social care costs and severity of agitation based on the CMAI total score. In addition, we assessed resource utilisation and compared costs of residents with and without clinically significant symptoms of agitation using the CMAI over and above the cost of the care home. RESULTS: Agitation defined by the CMAI was a significant predictor of costs. On average, a one-point increase in the CMAI will lead to a 0.5 percentage points (cost ratio 1.005, 95%CI 1.001 to 1.010) increase in the annual costs. The excess annual cost associated with agitation per resident with dementia was £1,125.35. This suggests that, on average, agitation accounts for 44% of the annual health and social care costs of dementia in people living in care homes. CONCLUSION: Agitation in people with dementia living in care homes contributes significantly to the overall costs increasing as the level of agitation increases. Residents with the highest level of agitation cost nearly twice as much as those with the lowest levels of agitation, suggesting that effective strategies to reduce agitation are likely to be cost-effective in this setting.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Managing Agitation and Raising Quality of Life (MARQUE) intervention for agitation in people with dementia in care homes: a single-blind, cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many people with dementia living in care homes have distressing and costly agitation symptoms. Interventions should be efficacious, scalable, and feasible. METHODS: We did a parallel-group, cluster-randomised controlled trial in 20 care homes across England. Care homes were eligible if they had 17 residents or more with dementia, agreed to mandatory training for all eligible staff and the implementation of plans, and more than 60% of eligible staff agreed to participate. Staff were eligible if they worked during the day providing face-to-face care for residents with dementia. Residents were eligible if they had a known dementia diagnosis or scored positive on screening with the Noticeable Problems Checklist. A statistician independent of the study randomised care homes (1:1) to the Managing Agitation and Raising Quality of Life (MARQUE) intervention or treatment as usual (TAU) using computer-generated randomisation in blocks of two, stratified by type of home (residential or nursing). Care home staff were not masked to the intervention but were asked not to inform assessors. Residents with dementia, family carers, outcome assessors, statisticians, and health economists were masked to allocation until the data were analysed. MARQUE is an evidence-based manualised intervention, delivered by supervised graduate psychologists to staff in six interactive sessions. The primary outcome was agitation score at 8 months, measured using the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). Analysis of the primary outcome was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned residents for whom CMAI data was available at 8 months. Mortality was assessed in all randomly assigned residents. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN96745365. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2016, and July 4, 2017, we randomised ten care homes (189 residents) to the MARQUE intervention and ten care homes (215 residents) to TAU. At 8 months, primary outcome data were available for 155 residents in the MARQUE group and 163 residents in the TAU group. At 8 months, no significant differences in mean CMAI scores were identified between the MARQUE and TAU groups (adjusted difference -0·40 [95% CI -3·89 to 3·09; p=0·8226]). In the intervention care homes, 84% of all eligible staff completed all sessions. The mean difference in cost between the MARQUE and TAU groups was £204 (-215 to 623; p=0·320) and mean difference in quality-adjusted life-years was 0·015 (95% CI -0·004 to 0·034; p=0·127). At 8 months, 27 (14%) of 189 residents in the MARQUE group and 41 (19%) of 215 residents in the TAU group had died. The prescription of antipsychotic drugs was not significantly different between the MARQUE group and the TAU group (odds ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·26 to 1·69, p=0·3880). INTERPRETATION: The MARQUE intervention was not efficacious for agitation although feasible and cost-effective in terms of quality of life. Addressing agitation in care homes might require resourcing for delivery by professional staff of a more intensive intervention, implementing social and activity times, and a longer time to implement change. FUNDING: UK Economic and Social Research Council and the National Institute of Health Research.

Evidence-based intervention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions in care home residents (the Better Health in Residents in Care Homes (BHiRCH) study): protocol for a pilot cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Acute hospital admission is distressing for care home residents. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions, such as respiratory and urinary tract infections, are conditions that can cause unplanned hospital admission but may have been avoidable with timely detection and intervention in the community. The Better Health in Residents in Care Homes (BHiRCH) programme has feasibility tested and will pilot a multicomponent intervention to reduce these avoidable hospital admissions. The BHiRCH intervention comprises an early warning tool for noting changes in resident health, a care pathway (clinical guidance and decision support system) and a structured method for communicating with primary care, adapted for use in the care home. We use practice development champions to support implementation and embed changes in care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Cluster randomised pilot trial to test study procedures and indicate whether a further definitive trial is warranted. Fourteen care homes with nursing (nursing homes) will be randomly allocated to intervention (delivered at nursing home level) or control groups. Two nurses from each home become Practice Development Champions trained to implement the intervention, supported by a practice development support group. Data will be collected for 3 months preintervention, monthly during the 12-month intervention and 1 month after. Individual-level data includes resident, care partner and staff demographics, resident functional status, service use and quality of life (for health economic analysis) and the extent to which staff perceive the organisation supports person centred care. System-level data includes primary and secondary health services contacts (ie, general practitioner and hospital admissions). Process evaluation assesses intervention acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, ease of implementation in practice and study procedures (ie, consent and recruitment rates). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by Research Ethics Committee and the UK Health Research Authority. Findings will be disseminated via academic and policy conferences, peer-reviewed publications and social media (eg, Twitter). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN74109734; Pre-results.

Cost-effectiveness of a community-delivered multicomponent intervention compared with enhanced standard care of obese adolescents: cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the HELP trial).

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a cost-utility analysis of a motivational multicomponent lifestyle-modification intervention in a community setting (the Healthy Eating Lifestyle Programme (HELP)) compared with enhanced standard care. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Community settings in Greater London, England. PARTICIPANTS: 174 young people with obesity aged 12-19 years. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention participants received 12 one-to-one sessions across 6 months, addressing lifestyle behaviours and focusing on motivation to change and self-esteem rather than weight change, delivered by trained graduate health workers in community settings. Control participants received a single 1-hour one-to-one nurse-delivered session providing didactic weight-management advice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per participant over a 1-year period using resource use data and utility values collected during the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to generate a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC). RESULTS: Mean intervention costs per participant were £918 for HELP and £68 for enhanced standard care. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean resource use per participant for any type of healthcare contact. Adjusted costs were significantly higher in the intervention group (mean incremental costs for HELP vs enhanced standard care £1003 (95% CI £837 to £1168)). There were no differences in adjusted QALYs between groups (mean QALYs gained 0.008 (95% CI -0.031 to 0.046)). The ICER of the HELP versus enhanced standard care was £120 630 per QALY gained. The CEAC shows that the probability that HELP was cost-effective relative to the enhanced standard care was 0.002 or 0.046, at a threshold of £20 000 or £30 000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that HELP was more effective than a single educational session in improving quality of life in a sample of adolescents with obesity. HELP was associated with higher costs, mainly due to the extra costs of delivering the intervention and therefore is not cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN9984011.

A community-based motivational personalised lifestyle intervention to reduce BMI in obese adolescents: results from the Healthy Eating and Lifestyle Programme (HELP) randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 7% of children and young people aged 5-15 years in the UK have obesity at a level likely to be associated with comorbidities. The majority of multicomponent lifestyle programmes have limited applicability and generalisability for British adolescents.The Healthy Eating and Lifestyle Programme (HELP) was a specific adolescent-focused intervention, designed for obese 12 to 18-year-olds seeking help to manage their weight. Participants were randomised to the 12-session HELP intervention or standard care. The primary outcome was difference in mean body mass index (BMI) (kg/m2) between groups at week 26 adjusted for baseline BMI, age and sex. SUBJECTS: 174 subjects were randomised (87 in each arm), of whom 145 (83%) provided primary outcome data at week 26. RESULTS: At week 26 there were no significant effects of the intervention on BMI (mean change in BMI 0.18 kg/m2 for the intervention arm, 0.25 kg/m2 for the control arm; adjusted difference between groups: -0.11 kg/m2 (95% CI -0.62 to 0.40), p=0.7). At weeks 26 and 52 there were no significant differences between groups in any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: At minimum this study reinforces the need for higher level, structured interventions to tackle the growing public health burden of obesity in the UK and internationally.The HELP intervention was no more effective than a single educational session for reducing BMI in a community sample of obese adolescents.Further work is needed to understand how weight management programmes can be delivered effectively to young people from diverse and deprived backgrounds in which childhood obesity is common. The study has significant implications in terms of informing public health interventions to tackle childhood obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: ISRCTN99840111.

Cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula plus the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG compared to an extensively hydrolyzed formula alone or an amino acid formula as first-line dietary management for cow's milk allergy in the US.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of using an extensively hydrolyzed casein formula (eHCF) plus the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (eHCF + LGG; Nutramigen LGG) compared to an eHCF alone (Nutramigen) and an amino acid formula (AAF; Neocate) as first-line dietary management for cow's milk allergy (CMA) in the US. METHODS: Using a cohort study design, the analysis was based on the case records of 136 eHCF-fed, 59 eHCF + LGG-fed, and 217 matched AAF-fed infants extracted from the Truven Health MarketScan(®) Commercial Claims Database (a nationally representative database of the commercially insured population of the US). Clinical outcomes and health care resource use (with corresponding costs at 2012 prices), following first-line dietary management with each formula, were estimated over 12 months from the start of feeding. Differences in infants' outcomes and resource use between groups were adjusted for any differences in baseline covariates. RESULTS: Infants were <6 months of age at presentation. Fifty-six percent of eHCF + LGG-fed infants were estimated to have been successfully managed by 9 months compared to 38% of eHCF-fed infants and 35% of AAF-fed infants (P<0.05 and P=0.003 respectively). Infants in the AAF group used significantly more health care resources and prescribed drugs than infants in the other two groups. The estimated cost of managing a CMA infant over the first 12 months following the start of feeding was $3,577, $3,781, and $6,255 for an eHCF + LGG-fed, eHCF-fed, and AAF-fed infant, respectively. Parents' costs accounted for up to 10% of the total costs and the remainder was incurred by insurers. The analyses were robust to plausible changes in all variables. CONCLUSION: Using real world evidence, initial dietary management with eHCF + LGG appears to afford a more cost-effective use of health care resources than initial dietary management with eHCF or AAF since it releases health care resources for alternative use within the system and reduces costs without impacting on the time needed to manage the allergy.