Feasibility randomised controlled trial of face-to-face counselling and mobile phone messages compared to usual care for smokeless tobacco cessation in Indian primary care: Project CERTAIN.

INTRODUCTION: Smokeless tobacco (SLT) use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has adverse health consequences. We hypothesize that it is feasible to test an intervention of mobile phone messages and face-to-face counselling session for SLT cessation in India. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory, individual parallel two group, randomised controlled trial (RCT), with baseline -and end-point (three months from randomisation) assessments in urban primary health centres in Odisha, India. A total of 250 current (i.e., users in the last three months) SLT users or dual users (i.e., smokers and SLT users) were recruited to the trial (125 in each group). Participants were randomised to either routine care, face-to-face counselling, and reminder mobile messages or routine care only. The primary outcomes were to assess the feasibility of running a full RCT including recruitment, compliance, and retention. RESULTS: A total seven (77.8%) out of nine primary care centres took part in the trial. Out of the 315 SLT users invited to participate, 250 provided consent and were randomised [79.4% (95% CI: 74.5, 83.7)]. Out of the 250 randomised SLT users, 238 [95% (95% CI: 91.8, 97.5)] were followed up at three months (117 in the intervention group and 121 in the control group). Of the participants in the intervention group, 74 (63.8%) reported that they received the mobile messages. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory trial demonstrated the feasibility of delivering and evaluating an intervention of mobile phone messages and face-to-face counselling for SLT users in Indian primary care in a full randomised trial. IMPLICATIONS: This study found that combining mobile messages with face-to-face counselling for smokeless tobacco users visiting primary health care settings in India is feasible in terms of recruitment of users, compliance with the intervention, and retention of study participants within the trial.The biochemically verified smokeless tobacco abstinence rate was higher in the intervention group compared with the control groupThere was poor agreement between self-reported tobacco cessation and the measured salivary cotinine in smokeless tobacco users.The findings support the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention signalling the need for a larger clinical trial to test effectiveness of the intervention.

Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of inpatient mental health rehabilitation services provided by the NHS and independent sector (ACER): protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mental health rehabilitation services provide specialist treatment to people with particularly severe and complex problems. In 2018, the Care Quality Commission reported that over half the 4,400 mental health inpatient rehabilitation beds in England were provided by the independent sector. They raised concerns that the length of stay and cost of independent sector care was double that of the NHS and that their services tended to be provided much further from people's homes. However, there has been no research comparing the two sectors and we therefore do not know if these concerns are justified. The ACER Study (Assessing the Clinical and cost-Effectiveness of inpatient mental health Rehabilitation services provided by the NHS and independent sector) is a national programme of research in England, funded from 2021 to 2026, that aims to investigate differences in inpatient mental health rehabilitation provided by the NHS and independent sector in terms of: patient characteristics; service quality; patient, carer and staff experiences; clinical and cost effectiveness. METHODS: ACER comprises a:1) detailed survey of NHS and independent sector inpatient mental health rehabilitation services across England; 2) qualitative investigation of patient, family, staff and commissioners' experiences of the two sectors; 3) cohort study comparing clinical outcomes in the two sectors over 18 months; 4) comprehensive national comparison of inpatient service use in the two sectors, using instrumental variable analysis of routinely collected healthcare data over 18 months; 5) health economic evaluation of the relative cost-effectiveness of the two sectors. In Components 3 and 4, our primary outcome is 'successful rehabilitation' defined as a) being discharged from the inpatient rehabilitation unit without readmission and b) inpatient service use over the 18 months. DISCUSSION: The ACER study will deliver the first empirical comparison of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of NHS and independent sector inpatient mental health rehabilitation services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17381762 retrospectively registered.

Penalized Regression Methods With Modified Cross-Validation and Bootstrap Tuning Produce Better Prediction Models.

Risk prediction models fitted using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) are often overfitted resulting in predictions that are too extreme and a calibration slope (CS) less than 1. Penalized methods, such as Ridge and Lasso, have been suggested as a solution to this problem as they tend to shrink regression coefficients toward zero, resulting in predictions closer to the average. The amount of shrinkage is regulated by a tuning parameter, λ , $\lambda ,$ commonly selected via cross-validation ("standard tuning"). Though penalized methods have been found to improve calibration on average, they often over-shrink and exhibit large variability in the selected λ $\lambda $ and hence the CS. This is a problem, particularly for small sample sizes, but also when using sample sizes recommended to control overfitting. We consider whether these problems are partly due to selecting λ $\lambda $ using cross-validation with "training" datasets of reduced size compared to the original development sample, resulting in an over-estimation of λ $\lambda $ and, hence, excessive shrinkage. We propose a modified cross-validation tuning method ("modified tuning"), which estimates λ $\lambda $ from a pseudo-development dataset obtained via bootstrapping from the original dataset, albeit of larger size, such that the resulting cross-validation training datasets are of the same size as the original dataset. Modified tuning can be easily implemented in standard software and is closely related to bootstrap selection of the tuning parameter ("bootstrap tuning"). We evaluated modified and bootstrap tuning for Ridge and Lasso in simulated and real data using recommended sample sizes, and sizes slightly lower and higher. They substantially improved the selection of λ $\lambda $ , resulting in improved CS compared to the standard tuning method. They also improved predictions compared to MLE.

External validation of a risk model predicting failure of salvage focal ablation for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate a published model predicting failure within 2 years after salvage focal ablation in men with localised radiorecurrent prostate cancer using a prospective, UK multicentre dataset. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with biopsy-confirmed ≤T3bN0M0 cancer after previous external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy were included from the FOcal RECurrent Assessment and Salvage Treatment (FORECAST) trial (NCT01883128; 2014-2018; six centres), and from the high-intensity focussed ultrasound (HIFU) Evaluation and Assessment of Treatment (HEAT) and International Cryotherapy Evaluation (ICE) UK-based registries (2006-2022; nine centres). Eligible patients underwent either salvage focal HIFU or cryotherapy, with the choice based predominantly on anatomical factors. Per the original multivariable Cox regression model, the predicted outcome was a composite failure outcome. Model performance was assessed at 2 years post-salvage with discrimination (concordance index [C-index]), calibration (calibration curve and slope), and decision curve analysis. For the latter, two clinically-reasonable risk threshold ranges of 0.14-0.52 and 0.26-0.36 were considered, corresponding to previously published pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates for salvage local treatments. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, of whom 84/168 (50%) experienced the primary outcome in all follow-ups, and 72/168 (43%) within 2 years. The C-index was 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.71). On graphical inspection, there was close agreement between predicted and observed failure. The calibration slope was 1.01. In decision curve analysis, there was incremental net benefit vs a 'treat all' strategy at risk thresholds of ≥0.23. The net benefit was therefore higher across the majority of the 0.14-0.52 risk threshold range, and all of the 0.26-0.36 range. CONCLUSION: In external validation using prospective, multicentre data, this model demonstrated modest discrimination but good calibration and clinical utility for predicting failure of salvage focal ablation within 2 years. This model could be reasonably used to improve selection of appropriate treatment candidates for salvage focal ablation, and its use should be considered when discussing salvage options with patients. Further validation in larger, international cohorts with longer follow-up is recommended.

Outlier identification and monitoring of institutional or clinician performance: an overview of statistical methods and application to national audit data.

BACKGROUND: Institutions or clinicians (units) are often compared according to a performance indicator such as in-hospital mortality. Several approaches have been proposed for the detection of outlying units, whose performance deviates from the overall performance. METHODS: We provide an overview of three approaches commonly used to monitor institutional performances for outlier detection. These are the common-mean model, the 'Normal-Poisson' random effects model and the 'Logistic' random effects model. For the latter we also propose a visualisation technique. The common-mean model assumes that the underlying true performance of all units is equal and that any observed variation between units is due to chance. Even after applying case-mix adjustment, this assumption is often violated due to overdispersion and a post-hoc correction may need to be applied. The random effects models relax this assumption and explicitly allow the true performance to differ between units, thus offering a more flexible approach. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and illustrate their application using audit data from England and Wales on Adult Cardiac Surgery (ACS) and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). RESULTS: In general, the overdispersion-corrected common-mean model and the random effects approaches produced similar p-values for the detection of outliers. For the ACS dataset (41 hospitals) three outliers were identified in total but only one was identified by all methods above. For the PCI dataset (88 hospitals), seven outliers were identified in total but only two were identified by all methods. The common-mean model uncorrected for overdispersion produced several more outliers. The reason for observing similar p-values for all three approaches could be attributed to the fact that the between-hospital variance was relatively small in both datasets, resulting only in a mild violation of the common-mean assumption; in this situation, the overdispersion correction worked well. CONCLUSION: If the common-mean assumption is likely to hold, all three methods are appropriate to use for outlier detection and their results should be similar. Random effect methods may be the preferred approach when the common-mean assumption is likely to be violated.

Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric MRI of the prostate followed by targeted biopsy is recommended for patients at risk of prostate cancer. However, multiparametric ultrasound is more readily available than multiparametric MRI. Data from paired-cohort validation studies and randomised, controlled trials support the use of multiparametric MRI, whereas the evidence for individual ultrasound methods and multiparametric ultrasound is only derived from case series. We aimed to establish the overall agreement between multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study in seven hospitals in the UK. Patients at risk of prostate cancer, aged 18 years or older, with an elevated prostate-specific antigen concentration or abnormal findings on digital rectal examination underwent both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI. Multiparametric ultrasound consisted of B-mode, colour Doppler, real-time elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Multiparametric MRI included high-resolution T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging (dedicated high B 1400 s/mm2 or 2000 s/mm2 and apparent diffusion coefficient map), and dynamic contrast-enhanced axial T1-weighted images. Patients with positive findings on multiparametric ultrasound or multiparametric MRI underwent targeted biopsies but were masked to their test results. If both tests yielded positive findings, the order of targeting at biopsy was randomly assigned (1:1) using stratified (according to centre only) block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of positive lesions on, and agreement between, multiparametric MRI and multiparametric ultrasound in identifying suspicious lesions (Likert score of ≥3), and detection of clinically significant cancer (defined as a Gleason score of ≥4 + 3 in any area or a maximum cancer core length of ≥6 mm of any grade [PROMIS definition 1]) in those patients who underwent a biopsy. Adverse events were defined according to Good Clinical Practice and trial regulatory guidelines. The trial is registered on ISRCTN, 38541912, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02712684, with recruitment and follow-up completed. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2016, and Nov 7, 2019, 370 eligible patients were enrolled; 306 patients completed both multiparametric ultrasound and multiparametric MRI and 257 underwent a prostate biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound was positive in 272 (89% [95% CI 85-92]) of 306 patients and multiparametric MRI was positive in 238 patients (78% [73-82]; difference 11·1% [95% CI 5·1-17·1]). Positive test agreement was 73·2% (95% CI 67·9-78·1; κ=0·06 [95% CI -0·56 to 0·17]). Any cancer was detected in 133 (52% [95% CI 45·5-58]) of 257 patients, with 83 (32% [26-38]) of 257 being clinically significant by PROMIS definition 1. Each test alone would result in multiparametric ultrasound detecting PROMIS definition 1 cancer in 66 (26% [95% CI 21-32]) of 257 patients who had biopsies and multiparametric MRI detecting it in 77 (30% [24-36]; difference -4·3% [95% CI -8·3% to -0·3]). Combining both tests detected 83 (32% [95% CI 27-38]) of 257 clinically significant cancers as per PROMIS definition 1; of these 83 cancers, six (7% [95% CI 3-15]) were detected exclusively with multiparametric ultrasound, and 17 (20% [12-31]) were exclusively detected by multiparametric MRI (agreement 91·1% [95% CI 86·9-94·2]; κ=0·78 [95% CI 0·69-0·86]). No serious adverse events were related to trial activity. INTERPRETATION: Multiparametric ultrasound detected 4·3% fewer clinically significant prostate cancers than multiparametric MRI, but it would lead to 11·1% more patients being referred for a biopsy. Multiparametric ultrasound could be an alternative to multiparametric MRI as a first test for patients at risk of prostate cancer, particularly if multiparametric MRI cannot be carried out. Both imaging tests missed clinically significant cancers detected by the other, so the use of both would increase the detection of clinically significant prostate cancers compared with using each test alone. FUNDING: The Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Prostate Cancer UK, and UCLH Charity and Barts Charity.

A manualised weight management programme for adults with mild-moderate intellectual disabilities affected by excess weight: A randomised controlled feasibility trial (Shape Up-LD).

BACKGROUND: The aim was to pilot an adapted manualised weight management programme for persons with mild-moderate intellectual disabilities affected by overweight or obesity ('Shape Up-LD'). METHOD: Adults with intellectual disabilities were enrolled in a 6-month trial (3-month active intervention and 3-month follow-up) and were individually randomised to Shape Up-LD or a usual care control. Feasibility outcomes included recruitment, retention, initial effectiveness and cost. RESULTS: Fifty people were enrolled. Follow-up rates were 78% at 3 months and 74% at 6 months. At 3 and 6 months, controlling for baseline weight, no difference was observed between groups (3 months: ß: -0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.38, 1.69, 6 months: ß: -0.55, 95%CI -4.34, 3.24). CONCLUSION: It may be possible to carry out a trial of Shape Up-LD, although barriers to recruitment, carer engagement and questionnaire completion need to be addressed, alongside refinements to the intervention.

Community Occupational Therapy for people with dementia and family carers (COTiD-UK) versus treatment as usual (Valuing Active Life in Dementia [VALID]) study: A single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness of Community Occupational Therapy for people with dementia and family carers-UK version (Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia-UK version [COTiD-UK]) relative to treatment as usual (TAU). We hypothesised that COTiD-UK would improve the ability of people with dementia to perform activities of daily living (ADL), and family carers' sense of competence, compared with TAU. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The study design was a multicentre, 2-arm, parallel-group, assessor-masked, individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) with internal pilot. It was conducted in 15 sites across England from September 2014 to January 2018. People with a diagnosis of mild to moderate dementia living in their own home were recruited in pairs with a family carer who provided domestic or personal support for at least 4 hours per week. Pairs were randomised to either receive COTiD-UK, which comprised 10 hours of occupational therapy delivered over 10 weeks in the person with dementia's home or TAU, which comprised the usual local service provision that may or may not include standard occupational therapy. The primary outcome was the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS) score at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes for the person with dementia included the following: the BADLS scores at 52 and 78 weeks, cognition, quality of life, and mood; and for the family carer: sense of competence and mood; plus the number of social contacts and leisure activities for both partners. Participants were analysed by treatment allocated. A total of 468 pairs were recruited: people with dementia ranged from 55 to 97 years with a mean age of 78.6 and family carers ranged from 29 to 94 with a mean of 69.1 years. Of the people with dementia, 74.8% were married and 19.2% lived alone. Of the family carers, 72.6% were spouses, and 22.2% were adult children. On randomisation, 249 pairs were assigned to COTiD-UK (62% people with dementia and 23% carers were male) and 219 to TAU (52% people with dementia and 32% carers were male). At the 26 weeks follow-up, data were available for 364 pairs (77.8%). The BADLS score at 26 weeks did not differ significantly between groups (adjusted mean difference estimate 0.35, 95% CI -0.81 to 1.51; p = 0.55). Secondary outcomes did not differ between the groups. In total, 91% of the activity-based goals set by the pairs taking part in the COTiD-UK intervention were fully or partially achieved by the final COTiD-UK session. Study limitations include the following: Intervention fidelity was moderate but varied across and within sites, and the reliance on primarily proxy data focused on measuring the level of functional or cognitive impairment which may not truly reflect the actual performance and views of the person living with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Providing community occupational therapy as delivered in this study did not improve ADL performance, cognition, quality of life, or mood in people with dementia nor sense of competence or mood in family carers. Future research should consider measuring person-centred outcomes that are more meaningful and closely aligned to participants' priorities, such as goal achievement or the quantity and quality of activity engagement and participation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10748953.

Risk prediction in multicentre studies when there is confounding by cluster or informative cluster size.

BACKGROUND: Clustered data arise in research when patients are clustered within larger units. Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) and Generalised Linear Models (GLMM) can be used to provide marginal and cluster-specific inference and predictions, respectively. METHODS: Confounding by Cluster (CBC) and Informative cluster size (ICS) are two complications that may arise when modelling clustered data. CBC can arise when the distribution of a predictor variable (termed 'exposure'), varies between clusters causing confounding of the exposure-outcome relationship. ICS means that the cluster size conditional on covariates is not independent of the outcome. In both situations, standard GEE and GLMM may provide biased or misleading inference, and modifications have been proposed. However, both CBC and ICS are routinely overlooked in the context of risk prediction, and their impact on the predictive ability of the models has been little explored. We study the effect of CBC and ICS on the predictive ability of risk models for binary outcomes when GEE and GLMM are used. We examine whether two simple approaches to handle CBC and ICS, which involve adjusting for the cluster mean of the exposure and the cluster size, respectively, can improve the accuracy of predictions. RESULTS: Both CBC and ICS can be viewed as violations of the assumptions in the standard GLMM; the random effects are correlated with exposure for CBC and cluster size for ICS. Based on these principles, we simulated data subject to CBC/ICS. The simulation studies suggested that the predictive ability of models derived from using standard GLMM and GEE ignoring CBC/ICS was affected. Marginal predictions were found to be mis-calibrated. Adjusting for the cluster-mean of the exposure or the cluster size improved calibration, discrimination and the overall predictive accuracy of marginal predictions, by explaining part of the between cluster variability. The presence of CBC/ICS did not affect the accuracy of conditional predictions. We illustrate these concepts using real data from a multicentre study with potential CBC. CONCLUSION: Ignoring CBC and ICS when developing prediction models for clustered data can affect the accuracy of marginal predictions. Adjusting for the cluster mean of the exposure or the cluster size can improve the predictive accuracy of marginal predictions.

A comparison of methods for analysing multiple outcome measures in randomised controlled trials using a simulation study.

Multiple primary outcomes are sometimes collected and analysed in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and are used in favour of a single outcome. By collecting multiple primary outcomes, it is possible to fully evaluate the effect that an intervention has for a given disease process. A simple approach to analysing multiple outcomes is to consider each outcome separately, however, this approach does not account for any pairwise correlations between the outcomes. Any cases with missing values must be ignored, unless an additional imputation step is performed. Alternatively, multivariate methods that explicitly model the pairwise correlations between the outcomes may be more efficient when some of the outcomes have missing values. In this paper, we present an overview of relevant methods that can be used to analyse multiple outcome measures in RCTs, including methods based on multivariate multilevel (MM) models. We perform simulation studies to evaluate the bias in the estimates of the intervention effects and the power of detecting true intervention effects observed when using selected methods. Different simulation scenarios were constructed by varying the number of outcomes, the type of outcomes, the degree of correlations between the outcomes and the proportions and mechanisms of missing data. We compare multivariate methods to univariate methods with and without multiple imputation. When there are strong correlations between the outcome measures (ρ > .4), our simulation studies suggest that there are small power gains when using the MM model when compared to analysing the outcome measures separately. In contrast, when there are weak correlations (ρ < .4), the power is reduced when using univariate methods with multiple imputation when compared to analysing the outcome measures separately.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in people with an acute loss in their sense of smell and/or taste in a community-based population in London, UK: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Loss of smell and taste are commonly reported symptoms associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in people with acute loss of smell and/or taste is unknown. The study aimed to determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a community-based population with acute loss of smell and/or taste and to compare the frequency of COVID-19 associated symptoms in participants with and without SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. It also evaluated whether smell or taste loss are indicative of COVID-19 infection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Text messages, sent via primary care centers in London, United Kingdom, invited people with loss of smell and/or taste in the preceding month, to participate. Recruitment took place between 23 April 2020 and 14 May 2020. A total of 590 participants enrolled via a web-based platform and responded to questions about loss of smell and taste and other COVID-19-related symptoms. Mean age was 39.4 years (SD ± 12.0) and 69.1% (n = 392) of participants were female. A total of 567 (96.1%) had a telemedicine consultation during which their COVID-19-related symptoms were verified and a lateral flow immunoassay test that detected SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies was undertaken under medical supervision. A total of 77.6% of 567 participants with acute smell and/or taste loss had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; of these, 39.8% (n = 175) had neither cough nor fever. New loss of smell was more prevalent in participants with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, compared with those without antibodies (93.4% versus 78.7%, p < 0.001), whereas taste loss was equally prevalent (90.2% versus 89.0%, p = 0.738). Seropositivity for SARS-CoV-2 was 3 times more likely in participants with smell loss (OR 2.86; 95% CI 1.27-6.36; p < 0.001) compared with those with taste loss. The limitations of this study are the lack of a general population control group, the self-reported nature of the smell and taste changes, and the fact our methodology does not take into account the possibility that a population subset may not seroconvert to develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies post-COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that recent loss of smell is a highly specific COVID-19 symptom and should be considered more generally in guiding case isolation, testing, and treatment of COVID-19. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04377815.

Empowering Better End-of-Life Dementia Care (EMBED-Care): A mixed methods protocol to achieve integrated person-centred care across settings.

OBJECTIVES: Globally, the number of people with dementia who have palliative care needs will increase fourfold over the next 40 years. The Empowering Better End-of-Life Dementia Care (EMBED-Care) Programme aims to deliver a step change in care through a large sequential study, spanning multiple work streams. METHODS: We will use mixed methods across settings where people with dementia live and die: their own homes, care homes, and hospitals. Beginning with policy syntheses and reviews of interventions, we will develop a conceptual framework and underpinning theory of change. We will use linked data sets to explore current service use, care transitions, and inequalities and predict future need for end-of-life dementia care. Longitudinal cohort studies of people with dementia (including young onset and prion dementias) and their carers will describe care transitions, quality of life, symptoms, formal and informal care provision, and costs. Data will be synthesised, underpinned by the Knowledge-to-Action Implementation Framework, to design a novel complex intervention to support assessment, decision making, and communication between patients, carers, and inter-professional teams. This will be feasibility and pilot tested in UK settings. Patient and public involvement and engagement, innovative work with artists, policymakers, and third sector organisations are embedded to drive impact. We will build research capacity and develop an international network for excellence in dementia palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: EMBED-Care will help us understand current and future need, develop novel cost-effective care innovations, build research capacity, and promote international collaborations in research and practice to ensure people live and die well with dementia.

International External Validation Study of the 2014 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (EVIDENCE-HCM).

BACKGROUND: Identification of people with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who are at risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and require a prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator is challenging. In 2014, the European Society of Cardiology proposed a new risk stratification method based on a risk prediction model (HCM Risk-SCD) that estimates the 5-year risk of SCD. The aim was to externally validate the 2014 European Society of Cardiology recommendations in a geographically diverse cohort of patients recruited from the United States, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 3703 patients. Seventy three (2%) patients reached the SCD end point within 5 years of follow-up (5-year incidence, 2.4% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.9-3.0]). The validation study revealed a calibration slope of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.93-1.12), C-index of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.68-0.72), and D-statistic of 1.17 (95% CI, 1.05-1.29). In a complete case analysis (n= 2147; 44 SCD end points at 5 years), patients with a predicted 5-year risk of <4% (n=1524; 71%) had an observed 5-year SCD incidence of 1.4% (95% CI, 0.8-2.2); patients with a predicted risk of ≥6% (n=297; 14%) had an observed SCD incidence of 8.9% (95% CI, 5.96-13.1) at 5 years. For every 13 (297/23) implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantations in patients with an estimated 5-year SCD risk ≥6%, 1 patient can potentially be saved from SCD. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that the HCM Risk-SCD model provides accurate prognostic information that can be used to target implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in patients at the highest risk of SCD.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of contingency management for cannabis use in early psychosis: the CIRCLE randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit substance amongst people with psychosis. Continued cannabis use following the onset of psychosis is associated with poorer functional and clinical outcomes. However, finding effective ways of intervening has been very challenging. We examined the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive contingency management (CM), which involves incentives for abstinence from cannabis use, in people with a recent diagnosis of psychosis. METHODS: CIRCLE was a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Participants were recruited via Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services across the Midlands and South East of England. They had had at least one episode of clinically diagnosed psychosis (affective or non-affective); were aged 18 to 36; reported cannabis use in at least 12 out of the previous 24 weeks; and were not currently receiving treatment for cannabis misuse, or subject to a legal requirement for cannabis testing. Participants were randomised via a secure web-based service 1:1 to either an experimental arm, involving 12 weeks of CM plus a six-session psychoeducation package, or a control arm receiving the psychoeducation package only. The total potential voucher reward in the CM intervention was £240. The primary outcome was time to acute psychiatric care, operationalised as admission to an acute mental health service (including community alternatives to admission). Primary outcome data were collected from patient records at 18 months post-consent by assessors masked to allocation. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33576045. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-one participants were recruited between June 2012 and April 2016. Primary outcome data were obtained for 272 (98%) in the CM (experimental) group and 259 (95%) in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in time to acute psychiatric care (the primary outcome) (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76, 1.40) between groups. By 18 months, 90 (33%) of participants in the CM group, and 85 (30%) of the control groups had been admitted at least once to an acute psychiatric service. Amongst those who had experienced an acute psychiatric admission, the median time to admission was 196 days (IQR 82, 364) in the CM group and 245 days (IQR 99, 382) in the control group. Cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that there is an 81% likelihood that the intervention was cost-effective, mainly resulting from higher mean inpatient costs for the control group compared with the CM group; however, the cost difference between groups was not statistically significant. There were 58 adverse events, 27 in the CM group and 31 in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these results suggest that CM is not an effective intervention for improving the time to acute psychiatric admission or reducing cannabis use in psychosis, at least at the level of voucher reward offered.

Acceptance and commitment therapy for adults with advanced cancer (CanACT): A feasibility randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the feasibility of recruiting people with advanced cancer into a randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) vs a standardised talking control (TC) and delivering ACT to this population; to explore the acceptability of outcome measures and generate normative data. METHODS: This was a feasibility two-arm randomised controlled trial. Participants were attendees with advanced cancer at one of three hospice-based day-therapy units in London, United Kingdom, who demonstrated low scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapies-General (FACT-G). The primary end point was 3 months. RESULTS: The recruitment target was 54 participants; 42 people were recruited and randomised to up to eight individual sessions of ACT (n = 20) or TC (n = 22). Eighteen out of 42 (43%) of participants completed the primary outcome at 3 months, and at least one follow-up was available in 30/42 (71%) participants. An exploratory analysis revealed a non-significant adjusted mean difference after 3 months in the main outcome FACT-G of -3.41 (CI = -18.61-11.79) with TC having better functioning. Over 6 months, the adjusted mean difference between trial arms was 2.25 (CI = -6.03-10.52) in favour of ACT. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to recruit people with advanced cancer in a trial of ACT versus TC. Future research should test the effectiveness of ACT in a fully powered trial.

Correction to: Methods to adjust for multiple comparisons in the analysis and sample size calculation of randomised controlled trials with multiple primary outcomes.

In the original publication of this article [1], "=1 - = 1 - ≈ s" was mistakenly added after the sentence " In this method, the unadjusted p-values pj are multiplied by the number of primary outcome" in the Methods section, and should be deleted.

Methods to adjust for multiple comparisons in the analysis and sample size calculation of randomised controlled trials with multiple primary outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Multiple primary outcomes may be specified in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). When analysing multiple outcomes it's important to control the family wise error rate (FWER). A popular approach to do this is to adjust the p-values corresponding to each statistical test used to investigate the intervention effects by using the Bonferroni correction. It's also important to consider the power of the trial to detect true intervention effects. In the context of multiple outcomes, depending on the clinical objective, the power can be defined as: 'disjunctive power', the probability of detecting at least one true intervention effect across all the outcomes or 'marginal power' the probability of finding a true intervention effect on a nominated outcome. We provide practical recommendations on which method may be used to adjust for multiple comparisons in the sample size calculation and the analysis of RCTs with multiple primary outcomes. We also discuss the implications on the sample size for obtaining 90% disjunctive power and 90% marginal power. METHODS: We use simulation studies to investigate the disjunctive power, marginal power and FWER obtained after applying Bonferroni, Holm, Hochberg, Dubey/Armitage-Parmar and Stepdown-minP adjustment methods. Different simulation scenarios were constructed by varying the number of outcomes, degree of correlation between the outcomes, intervention effect sizes and proportion of missing data. RESULTS: The Bonferroni and Holm methods provide the same disjunctive power. The Hochberg and Hommel methods provide power gains for the analysis, albeit small, in comparison to the Bonferroni method. The Stepdown-minP procedure performs well for complete data. However, it removes participants with missing values prior to the analysis resulting in a loss of power when there are missing data. The sample size requirement to achieve the desired disjunctive power may be smaller than that required to achieve the desired marginal power. The choice between whether to specify a disjunctive or marginal power should depend on the clincial objective.

A validation study of the European Society of Cardiology guidelines for risk stratification of sudden cardiac death in childhood hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

AIMS: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the most common cause of death in children with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommends consideration of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) if two or more clinical risk factors (RFs) are present, but this approach to risk stratification has not been formally validated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four hundred and eleven paediatric HCM patients were assessed for four clinical RFs in accordance with current ESC recommendations: severe left ventricular hypertrophy, unexplained syncope, non-sustained ventricular tachycardia, and family history of SCD. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of SCD or an equivalent event (aborted cardiac arrest, appropriate ICD therapy, or sustained ventricular tachycardia), defined as a major arrhythmic cardiac event (MACE). Over a follow-up period of 2890 patient years (median 5.5 years), MACE occurred in 21 patients (7.5%) with 0 RFs, 19 (16.8%) with 1 RFs, and 3 (18.8%) with 2 or more RFs. Corresponding incidence rates were 1.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.73], 2.07 (95% CI 1.25-3.23), and 2.52 (95% CI 0.53-7.35) per 100 patient years at risk. Patients with two or more RFs did not have a higher incidence of MACE (log-rank test P = 0.34), with a positive and negative predictive value of 19% and 90%, respectively. The C-statistic was 0.62 (95% CI 0.52-0.72) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of MACE is higher for patients with increasing numbers of clinical RFs. However, the current ESC guidelines have a low ability to discriminate between high- and low-risk individuals.

Clinical outcomes of staff training in positive behaviour support to reduce challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability: cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staff training in positive behaviour support (PBS) is a widespread treatment approach for challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disability. Aims To evaluate whether such training is clinically effective in reducing challenging behaviour during routine care (trial registration: NCT01680276). METHOD: We carried out a multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial involving 23 community intellectual disability services in England, randomly allocated to manual-assisted staff training in PBS (n = 11) or treatment as usual (TAU, n = 12). Data were collected from 246 adult participants. RESULTS: No treatment effects were found for the primary outcome (challenging behaviour over 12 months, adjusted mean difference = -2.14, 95% CI: -8.79, 4.51) or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Staff training in PBS, as applied in this study, did not reduce challenging behaviour. Further research should tackle implementation issues and endeavour to identify other interventions that can reduce challenging behaviour. Declaration of interest None.