The Journeying through Dementia psychosocial intervention versus usual care study: a single-blind, parallel group, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent clinical need for evidence-based psychosocial interventions for people with mild dementia. We aimed to determine the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of Journeying through Dementia (JtD), an intervention designed to promote wellbeing and independence in people with mild dementia. METHODS: We did a single-blind, parallel group, individually randomised, phase 3 trial at 13 National Health Service sites across England. People with mild dementia (Mini-Mental State Examination score of ≥18) who lived in the community were eligible for inclusion. Patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) to receive the JtD intervention plus standard care (JtD group) or standard care only (standard care group). Randomisation was stratified by study site. The JtD intervention included 12 group and four one-to-one sessions, delivered in the community at each site. The primary endpoint was Dementia Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL) 8 months after randomisation, assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Only outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. A cost-effectiveness analysis reported cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from a UK NHS and social care perspective. The study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17993825. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2016, and Aug 31, 2018, 1183 patients were screened for inclusion, of whom 480 (41%) participants were randomly assigned: 241 (50%) to the JtD group and 239 (50%) to the standard care group. Intervention adherence was very good: 165 (68%) of 241 participants in the JtD group attended at least ten of the 16 sessions. Mean DEMQOL scores at 8 months were 93·3 (SD 13·0) for the JtD group and 91·9 (SD 14·6) for the control group. Difference in means was 0·9 (95% CI -1·2 to 3·0; p=0·38) after adjustment for covariates, lower than that identified as clinically meaningful. Incremental cost per QALY ranged from £88 000 to -£205 000, suggesting that JtD was not cost-effective. Unrelated serious adverse events were reported by 40 (17%) patients in the JtD group and 35 (15%) patients in the standard care group. INTERPRETATION: In common with other studies, the JtD intervention was not proven effective. However, this complex trial successfully recruited and retained people with dementia without necessarily involving carers. Additionally, people with dementia were actively involved as participants and study advisers throughout. More research into methods of measuring small, meaningful changes in this population is needed. Questions remain regarding how services can match the complex, diverse, and individual needs of people with mild dementia, and how interventions to meet such needs can be delivered at scale. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

An intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia: the Journeying through Dementia RCT.

BACKGROUND: There are few effective interventions for dementia. AIM: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a randomised controlled trial of the Journeying through Dementia intervention compared with usual care, conduct an internal pilot testing feasibility, assess intervention delivery fidelity and undertake a qualitative exploration of participants' experiences. DESIGN: A pragmatic two-arm individually randomised trial analysed by intention to treat. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 480 people diagnosed with mild dementia, with capacity to make informed decisions, living in the community and not participating in other studies, and 350 supporters whom they identified, from 13 locations in England, took part. INTERVENTION: Those randomised to the Journeying through Dementia intervention (n = 241) were invited to take part in 12 weekly facilitated groups and four one-to-one sessions delivered in the community by secondary care staff, in addition to their usual care. The control group (n = 239) received usual care. Usual care included drug treatment, needs assessment and referral to appropriate services. Usual care at each site was recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months post randomisation, with higher scores representing higher quality of life. Secondary outcomes included resource use, psychological well-being, self-management, instrumental activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. Staff conducting outcome assessments were blinded. DATA SOURCES: Outcome measures were administered in participants' homes at baseline and at 8 and 12 months post randomisation. Interviews were conducted with participants, participating carers and interventionalists. RESULTS: The mean Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months was 93.3 (standard deviation 13.0) in the intervention arm (n = 191) and 91.9 (standard deviation 14.6) in the control arm (n = 197), with a difference in means of 0.9 (95% confidence interval -1.2 to 3.0; p = 0.380) after adjustment for covariates. This effect size (0.9) was less than the 4 points defined as clinically meaningful. For other outcomes, a difference was found only for Diener's Flourishing Scale (adjusted mean difference 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 2.3), in favour of the intervention (i.e. in a positive direction). The Journeying through Dementia intervention cost £608 more than usual care (95% confidence interval £105 to £1179) and had negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-years (-0.003, 95% confidence interval -0.044 to 0.038). Therefore, the Journeying through Dementia intervention had a mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of -£202,857 (95% confidence interval -£534,733 to £483,739); however, there is considerable uncertainty around this. Assessed fidelity was good. Interviewed participants described receiving some benefit and a minority benefited greatly. However, negative aspects were also raised by a minority. Seventeen per cent of participants in the intervention arm and 15% of participants in the control arm experienced at least one serious adverse event. None of the serious adverse events were classified as related to the intervention. LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include recruitment of an active population, delivery challenges and limitations of existing outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: The Journeying through Dementia programme is not clinically effective, is unlikely to be cost-effective and cannot be recommended in its existing format. FUTURE WORK: Research should focus on the creation of new outcome measures to assess well-being in dementia and on using elements of the intervention, such as enabling enactment in the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17993825. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

There are few services proven effective for people with mild dementia. We therefore explored the potential benefit of a programme called Journeying through Dementia. The content, devised in partnership with people living with dementia, aims to help affected individuals to live well and participate in life. The programme involves meeting in groups of about eight every week for 12 weeks. Each person also has four face-to-face meetings with a staff member. Carers are invited to 3 of the 12 group meetings to all individual meetings if the participant wanted this involvement. A total of 480 people with dementia and 350 carers from 13 locations in England took part. Just over half of the participants were randomly allocated to the new programme, whereas the others were not. This allowed us to compare the groups. We were interested in whether or not attending the Journeying through Dementia programme improved participants' quality of life. The results showed that it did not. We also measured participants' mood, self-management skills, positive attitudes and ability with daily living skills. Only one measure of positive psychology suggested even a small benefit. There was no difference between groups in the remaining measures. Although some individual participants described being more confident, enjoying social contact, trying new activities, feeling valued and having increased independence, overall, the programme is unlikely to be worth implementing. Certain aspects of the programme are worth implementing.

CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depression (CASPER plus): a multicentred randomised controlled trial of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Depression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management. OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible. SETTING: Sixty-nine general practices in the north of England. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder. INTERVENTIONS: A low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7-8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: In total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care, n = 249; usual care, n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care, n = 198; usual care, n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points; p < 0.001], equivalent to a standard effect size of 0.34. However, treatment differences were not maintained in the longer term (at 12 months: 0.19 score points, 95% CI -0.92 to 1.29 score points; p = 0.741; at 18 months: < 0.01 score points, 95% CI -1.12 to 1.12 score points; p = 0.997). The study recorded details of all serious adverse events (SAEs), which consisted of 'unscheduled hospitalisation', 'other medically important condition' and 'death'. No SAEs were related to the intervention. Collaborative care showed a small but non-significant increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 18-month period, with a higher cost. Overall, the mean cost per incremental QALY for collaborative care compared with usual care was £26,016; however, for participants attending six or more sessions, collaborative care appears to represent better value for money (£9876/QALY). LIMITATIONS: Study limitations are identified at different stages: design (blinding unfeasible, potential contamination), process (relatively low overall consent rate, differential attrition/retention rates) and analysis (no baseline health-care resource cost or secondary/social care data). CONCLUSION: Collaborative care was effective for older people with case-level depression across a range of outcomes in the short term though the reduction in depression severity was not maintained over the longer term of 12 or 18 months. Participants who received six or more sessions of collaborative care did benefit substantially more than those who received fewer treatment sessions but this difference was not statistically significant. FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for future research include investigating the longer-term effect of the intervention. Depression is a recurrent disorder and it would be useful to assess its impact on relapse and the prevention of future case-level depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.