Specialist physiotherapy for functional motor disorder in England and Scotland (Physio4FMD): a pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional motor disorder-the motor variant of functional neurological disorder-is a disabling condition that is commonly associated with poor health outcomes. Pathophysiological models have inspired new treatment approaches such as specialist physiotherapy, although evidence from large randomised controlled trials is absent. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of a specialist physiotherapy intervention for functional motor disorder compared with treatment as usual. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 11 hospitals in England and Scotland, adults with a clinically definite diagnosis of functional motor disorder, diagnosed by a neurologist, were included. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1, stratified by site) using a remote web-based application to either specialist physiotherapy (a protocolised intervention of nine sessions plus follow-up) or treatment as usual (referral to local community neurological physiotherapy). Individuals working on data collection and analysis were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the physical functioning domain of the 36-item short form health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months after randomisation. The primary analysis followed a modified intention-to-treat principle, using a complete case approach; participants who were unable to receive their randomised treatment due to the suspension of health-care services during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the primary analysis. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN56136713, and is completed. FINDINGS: Recruitment occurred between Oct 19, 2018, and March 11, 2020, pausing during the COVID-19 lockdown, and resuming from Aug 3, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022. Of 355 participants who were enrolled, 179 were randomly assigned to specialist physiotherapy and 176 to treatment as usual. 89 participants were excluded from the primary analysis due to COVID-19 interruption to treatment (27 were assigned to specialist physiotherapy and 62 to treatment as usual). After accounting for withdrawals (n=11) and loss to follow-up (n=14), the primary analysis included data from 241 participants (138 [91%] assigned specialist physiotherapy and 103 [90%] assigned treatment as usual). Physical functioning, as assessed by SF36, did not differ significantly between groups (adjusted mean difference 3·5, 95% CI -2·3 to 9·3; p=0·23). There were no serious adverse events related to the trial interventions. 35 serious adverse events were recorded in the specialist physiotherapy group by 24 participants (17·0%), and 24 serious adverse events were recorded in the treatment as usual group by 18 participants (17·0%); one death occurred in the specialist physiotherapy group (cause of death was recorded as suicide). All were considered unrelated to specialist physiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Although more participants who were assigned specialist physiotherapy self-rated their motor symptoms as improved and had better scores on subjective measures of mental health, the intervention did not result in better self-reported physical functioning at 12 months. Both the specialist and community neurological physiotherapy appeared to be a safe and a valued treatment for selected patients with functional motor disorder. Future research should continue to refine interventions for people with functional motor disorder and develop evidence-based methods to guide treatment triage decisions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research and Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy plus usual care for improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease (COMMEND): a multicentre, parallel, randomised controlled trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Motor neuron disease is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease for which there is no cure. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a psychological therapy incorporating acceptance, mindfulness, and behaviour change techniques. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ACT plus usual care, compared with usual care alone, for improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease. METHODS: We conducted a parallel, multicentre, two-arm randomised controlled trial in 16 UK motor neuron disease care centres or clinics. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of definite or laboratory-supported probable, clinically probable, or possible familial or sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; progressive muscular atrophy; or primary lateral sclerosis; which met the World Federation of Neurology's El Escorial diagnostic criteria. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive up to eight sessions of ACT adapted for people with motor neuron disease plus usual care or usual care alone by a web-based system, stratified by site. Participants were followed up at 6 months and 9 months post-randomisation. Outcome assessors and trial statisticians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was quality of life using the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised (MQOL-R) at 6 months post-randomisation. Primary analyses were multi-level modelling and modified intention to treat among participants with available data. This trial was pre-registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN12655391). FINDINGS: Between Sept 18, 2019, and Aug 31, 2022, 435 people with motor neuron disease were approached for the study, of whom 206 (47%) were assessed for eligibility, and 191 were recruited. 97 (51%) participants were randomly assigned to ACT plus usual care and 94 (49%) were assigned to usual care alone. 80 (42%) of 191 participants were female and 111 (58%) were male, and the mean age was 63·1 years (SD 11·0). 155 (81%) participants had primary outcome data at 6 months post-randomisation. After controlling for baseline scores, age, sex, and therapist clustering, ACT plus usual care was superior to usual care alone for quality of life at 6 months (adjusted mean difference on the MQOL-R of 0·66 [95% CI 0·22-1·10]; d=0·46 [0·16-0·77]; p=0·0031). Moderate effect sizes were clinically meaningful. 75 adverse events were reported, 38 of which were serious, but no adverse events were deemed to be associated with the intervention. INTERPRETATION: ACT plus usual care is clinically effective for maintaining or improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease. As further evidence emerges confirming these findings, health-care providers should consider how access to ACT, adapted for the specific needs of people with motor neuron disease, could be provided within motor neuron disease clinical services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment and Motor Neurone Disease Association.

Cost-effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy for people living with motor neuron disease, and their health-related quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Given the degenerative nature of the condition, people living with motor neuron disease (MND) experience high levels of psychological distress. The purpose of this research was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), adapted for the specific needs of this population, for improving quality of life. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis over a 9-month period was conducted comparing ACT plus usual care (n = 97) versus usual care alone (n = 94) from the perspective of the National Health Service. In the primary analysis, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were computed using health utilities generated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were also carried out. RESULTS: Difference in costs was statistically significant between the two arms, driven mainly by the intervention costs. Effects measured by EQ-5D-5L were not statistically significantly different between the two arms. The incremental cost-effectiveness was above the £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained threshold used in the UK. However, the difference in effects was statistically significant when measured by the McGill Quality of Life-Revised (MQOL-R) questionnaire. The intervention was cost-effective in a subgroup experiencing medium deterioration in motor neuron symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the intervention being cost-ineffective in the primary analysis, the significant difference in the effects measured by MQOL-R, the low costs of the intervention, the results in the subgroup analysis, and the fact that ACT was shown to improve the quality of life for people living with MND, suggest that ACT could be incorporated into MND clinical services.

A randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy plus usual care compared to usual care alone for improving psychological health in people with motor neuron disease (COMMEND): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Motor neuron disease (MND) is a rapidly progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease that predominantly affects motor neurons from the motor cortex to the spinal cord and causes progressive wasting and weakening of bulbar, limb, abdominal and thoracic muscles. Prognosis is poor and median survival is 2-3 years following symptom onset. Psychological distress is relatively common in people living with MND. However, formal psychotherapy is not routinely part of standard care within MND Care Centres/clinics in the UK, and clear evidence-based guidance on improving the psychological health of people living with MND is lacking. Previous research suggests that Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) may be particularly suitable for people living with MND and may help improve their psychological health. AIMS: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ACT modified for MND plus usual multidisciplinary care (UC) in comparison to UC alone for improving psychological health in people living with MND. METHODS: The COMMEND trial is a multi-centre, assessor-blind, parallel, two-arm RCT with a 10-month internal pilot phase. 188 individuals aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of definite, laboratory-supported probable, clinically probable, or possible familial or sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and additionally the progressive muscular atrophy and primary lateral sclerosis variants, will be recruited from approximately 14 UK-based MND Care Centres/clinics and via self-referral. Participants will be randomly allocated to receive up to eight 1:1 sessions of ACT plus UC or UC alone by an online randomisation system. Participants will complete outcome measures at baseline and at 6- and 9-months post-randomisation. The primary outcome will be quality of life at six months. Secondary outcomes will include depression, anxiety, psychological flexibility, health-related quality of life, adverse events, ALS functioning, survival at nine months, satisfaction with therapy, resource use and quality-adjusted life years. Primary analyses will be by intention to treat and data will be analysed using multi-level modelling. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide definitive evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ACT plus UC in comparison to UC alone for improving psychological health in people living with MND. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN12655391. Registered 17 July 2017, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12655391 . PROTOCOL VERSION: 3.1 (10/06/2020).

Cognitive-behavioural therapy compared with standardised medical care for adults with dissociative non-epileptic seizures: the CODES RCT.

BACKGROUND: Dissociative (non-epileptic) seizures are potentially treatable by psychotherapeutic interventions; however, the evidence for this is limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-arm, mixed-methods randomised controlled trial. SETTING: This took place in 27 UK-based neurology/epilepsy services, 17 liaison psychiatry/neuropsychiatry services and 18 cognitive-behavioural therapy services. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous year and meeting other eligibility criteria were recruited to a screening phase from neurology/epilepsy services between October 2014 and February 2017. After psychiatric assessment around 3 months later, eligible and interested participants were randomised between January 2015 and May 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Standardised medical care consisted of input from neurologists and psychiatrists who were given guidance regarding diagnosis delivery and management; they provided patients with information booklets. The intervention consisted of 12 dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy 1-hour sessions (plus one booster session) that were delivered by trained therapists, in addition to standardised medical care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was monthly seizure frequency at 12 months post randomisation. The secondary outcomes were aspects of seizure occurrence, quality of life, mood, anxiety, distress, symptoms, psychosocial functioning, clinical global change, satisfaction with treatment, quality-adjusted life-years, costs and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In total, 698 patients were screened and 368 were randomised (standardised medical care alone, n = 182; and cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care, n = 186). Primary outcome data were obtained for 85% of participants. An intention-to-treat analysis with multivariate imputation by chained equations revealed no significant between-group difference in dissociative seizure frequency at 12 months [standardised medical care: median of seven dissociative seizures (interquartile range 1-35 dissociative seizures); cognitive-behavioural therapy and standardised medical care: median of four dissociative seizures (interquartile range 0-20 dissociative seizures); incidence rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.09; p = 0.144]. Of the 16 secondary outcomes analysed, nine were significantly better in the arm receiving cognitive-behavioural therapy at a p-value < 0.05, including the following at a p-value ≤ 0.001: the longest dissociative seizure-free period in months 7-12 inclusive post randomisation (incidence rate ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.20; p = 0.001); better psychosocial functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale, standardised treatment effect -0.39, 95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.18; p < 0.001); greater self-rated and clinician-rated clinical improvement (self-rated: standardised treatment effect 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.62; p = 0.001; clinician rated: standardised treatment effect 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.57; p < 0.001); and satisfaction with treatment (standardised treatment effect 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.73; p < 0.001). Rates of adverse events were similar across arms. Cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care produced 0.0152 more quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval -0.0106 to 0.0392 quality-adjusted life-years) than standardised medical care alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life-year) for cognitive-behavioural therapy plus standardised medical care versus standardised medical care alone based on the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, and imputed data was £120,658. In sensitivity analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between £85,724 and £206,067. Qualitative and quantitative process evaluations highlighted useful study components, the importance of clinical experience in treating patients with dissociative seizures and potential benefits of our multidisciplinary care pathway. LIMITATIONS: Unlike outcome assessors, participants and clinicians were not blinded to the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant additional benefit of dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy in reducing dissociative seizure frequency, and cost-effectiveness over standardised medical care was low. However, this large, adequately powered, multicentre randomised controlled trial highlights benefits of adjunctive dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy for several clinical outcomes, with no evidence of greater harm from dissociative seizure-specific cognitive-behavioural therapy. FUTURE WORK: Examination of moderators and mediators of outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05681227 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02325544. 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. 25, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Dissociative seizures resemble epileptic seizures or faints, but can be distinguished from them by trained doctors. Dissociation is the medical word for a 'trance-like' or 'switching off' state. People with dissociative seizures commonly have other psychological or physical problems. Quality of life may be low. The condition accounts for about one in every six patients seen in hospitals because of seizures. We wanted to find out if people with dissociative seizures receiving standardised treatment would also benefit from a talking therapy, called cognitive­behavioural therapy, made specific to this disorder. We did a randomised controlled trial to find out if people with dissociative seizures given standardised treatment and cognitive­behavioural therapy (talking therapy) would do better than those given standardised treatment alone. Standardised treatment of dissociative seizures began with careful diagnosis from a neurologist and then further assessment and treatment from a psychiatrist. In total, 368 people with dissociative seizures participated, with half receiving standardised treatment alone and half having talking therapy plus standardised treatment. We measured seizures and psychological and physical health in both trial groups. We also investigated whether or not cognitive­behavioural therapy was good value for money. After 12 months, patients in both trial groups seemed to have fewer monthly seizures, but there was no advantage in the talking therapy group. Patients in the talking therapy group had more consecutive days without seizures, reporting less impact from them in everyday situations. Patients in the talking therapy group, and their doctors, considered improvements to be better, and patients in this group reported greater satisfaction with treatment. However, the talking therapy was expensive and not as cost-effective as hoped. Interviews with patients and study clinicians showed that they valued aspects of both treatments and of the care provided by the multidisciplinary teams. Overall, cognitive­behavioural therapy designed for dissociative seizures plus standardised treatment was not better at reducing the total numbers of seizures reported, but did produce several positive benefits for participants compared with standardised treatment alone.

Cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures (CODES): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dissociative seizures are paroxysmal events resembling epilepsy or syncope with characteristic features that allow them to be distinguished from other medical conditions. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of dissociative seizure frequency. METHODS: In this pragmatic, parallel-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, we initially recruited participants at 27 neurology or epilepsy services in England, Scotland, and Wales. Adults (≥18 years) who had dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous 12 months were subsequently randomly assigned (1:1) from 17 liaison or neuropsychiatry services following psychiatric assessment, to receive standardised medical care or CBT plus standardised medical care, using a web-based system. Randomisation was stratified by neuropsychiatry or liaison psychiatry recruitment site. The trial manager, chief investigator, all treating clinicians, and patients were aware of treatment allocation, but outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of treatment allocation. Patients were followed up 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was monthly dissociative seizure frequency (ie, frequency in the previous 4 weeks) assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes assessed at 12 months were: seizure severity (intensity) and bothersomeness; longest period of seizure freedom in the previous 6 months; complete seizure freedom in the previous 3 months; a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline; changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others); health-related quality of life; psychosocial functioning; psychiatric symptoms, psychological distress, and somatic symptom burden; and clinical impression of improvement and satisfaction. p values and statistical significance for outcomes were reported without correction for multiple comparisons as per our protocol. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing observations. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN05681227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325544. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2015, and May 31, 2017, we randomly assigned 368 patients to receive CBT plus standardised medical care (n=186) or standardised medical care alone (n=182); of whom 313 had primary outcome data at 12 months (156 [84%] of 186 patients in the CBT plus standardised medical care group and 157 [86%] of 182 patients in the standardised medical care group). At 12 months, no significant difference in monthly dissociative seizure frequency was identified between the groups (median 4 seizures [IQR 0-20] in the CBT plus standardised medical care group vs 7 seizures [1-35] in the standardised medical care group; estimated incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·56-1·09]; p=0·144). Dissociative seizures were rated as less bothersome in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference -0·53 [95% CI -0·97 to -0·08]; p=0·020). The CBT plus standardised medical care group had a longer period of dissociative seizure freedom in the previous 6 months (estimated IRR 1·64 [95% CI 1·22 to 2·20]; p=0·001), reported better health-related quality of life on the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Level Health Today visual analogue scale (estimated mean difference 6·16 [95% CI 1·48 to 10·84]; p=0·010), less impairment in psychosocial functioning on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (estimated mean difference -4·12 [95% CI -6·35 to -1·89]; p<0·001), less overall psychological distress than the standardised medical care group on the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10 scale (estimated mean difference -1·65 [95% CI -2·96 to -0·35]; p=0·013), and fewer somatic symptoms on the modified Patient Health Questionnaire-15 scale (estimated mean difference -1·67 [95% CI -2·90 to -0·44]; p=0·008). Clinical improvement at 12 months was greater in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care alone group as reported by patients (estimated mean difference 0·66 [95% CI 0·26 to 1·04]; p=0·001) and by clinicians (estimated mean difference 0·47 [95% CI 0·21 to 0·73]; p<0·001), and the CBT plus standardised medical care group had greater satisfaction with treatment than did the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference 0·90 [95% CI 0·48 to 1·31]; p<0·001). No significant differences in patient-reported seizure severity (estimated mean difference -0·11 [95% CI -0·50 to 0·29]; p=0·593) or seizure freedom in the last 3 months of the study (estimated odds ratio [OR] 1·77 [95% CI 0·93 to 3·37]; p=0·083) were identified between the groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were identified in the proportion of patients who had a more than 50% reduction in dissociative seizure frequency compared with baseline (OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·80 to 2·02]; p=0·313). Additionally, the 12-item Short Form survey-version 2 scores (estimated mean difference for the Physical Component Summary score 1·78 [95% CI -0·37 to 3·92]; p=0·105; estimated mean difference for the Mental Component Summary score 2·22 [95% CI -0·30 to 4·75]; p=0·084), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 scale score (estimated mean difference -1·09 [95% CI -2·27 to 0·09]; p=0·069), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scale depression score (estimated mean difference -1·10 [95% CI -2·41 to 0·21]; p=0·099) did not differ significantly between groups. Changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others) could not be assessed due to insufficient data. During the 12-month period, the number of adverse events was similar between the groups: 57 (31%) of 186 participants in the CBT plus standardised medical care group reported 97 adverse events and 53 (29%) of 182 participants in the standardised medical care group reported 79 adverse events. INTERPRETATION: CBT plus standardised medical care had no statistically significant advantage compared with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of monthly seizures. However, improvements were observed in a number of clinically relevant secondary outcomes following CBT plus standardised medical care when compared with standardised medical care alone. Thus, adults with dissociative seizures might benefit from the addition of dissociative seizure-specific CBT to specialist care from neurologists and psychiatrists. Future work is needed to identify patients who would benefit most from a dissociative seizure-specific CBT approach. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme.

Needs and preferences for psychological interventions of people with motor neuron disease.

Background: There is a lack of knowledge about what factors may impede or facilitate engagement in psychological interventions in people with motor neuron disease (pwMND) and how such interventions can be adapted to best meet the needs of this population. Objectives: To explore the needs and preferences of pwMND with respect to psychological interventions, and how best to adapt such interventions for pwMND. Methods: A series of semi-structured interviews (n = 22) and workshops (n = 3) were conducted with pwMND (n = 15), informal caregivers of pwMND (n = 10), and MND healthcare professionals (n = 12). These explored preferences and concerns that would need to be considered when delivering a psychological intervention for pwMND. Three areas were explored: (i) perceived factors that may hinder or facilitate pwMND engaging with psychological interventions; (ii) ways in which such interventions could be adapted to meet the individual needs of pwMND; and (iii) views regarding the main psychological issues that would need to be addressed. Workshops and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed and thematic analysis was used to inductively derive themes. Findings: Data could be classified within four overarching themes: unfamiliar territory; a series of losses; variability and difficulty meeting individual needs; and informal support. Conclusions: Flexibility, tailoring interventions to the individual needs of pwMND, and encouraging autonomy are key attributes for psychological interventions with pwMND. Psychological interventions such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) could be acceptable for pwMND if adapted to their specific needs.

Self-Management education for adults with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)]: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition resulting in recurrent seizures. Research evidence in long-term conditions suggests that patients benefit from self-management education and that this may improve quality of life (QoL). Epilepsy self-management education has yet to be tested in a UK setting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Self-Management education for people with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)]. DESIGN: A parallel pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from eight hospitals in London and south-east England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years with epilepsy and two or more epileptic seizures in the past year, who were currently being prescribed antiepileptic drugs. INTERVENTION: A 2-day group self-management course alongside treatment as usual (TAU). The control group received TAU. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is QoL in people with epilepsy at 12-month follow-up using the Quality Of Life In Epilepsy 31-P (QOLIE-31-P) scale. Other outcomes were seizure control, impact of epilepsy, medication adverse effects, psychological distress, perceived stigma, self-mastery and medication adherence. Cost-effectiveness analyses and a process evaluation were undertaken. RANDOMISATION: A 1 : 1 ratio between trial arms using fixed block sizes of two. BLINDING: Participants were not blinded to their group allocation because of the nature of the study. Researchers involved in data collection and analysis remained blinded throughout. RESULTS: The trial completed successfully. A total of 404 participants were enrolled in the study [SMILE (UK), n = 205; TAU, n = 199] with 331 completing the final follow-up at 12 months [SMILE (UK), n = 163; TAU, n = 168]. In the intervention group, 61.5% completed all sessions of the course. No adverse events were found to be related to the intervention. At baseline, participants had a mean age of 41.7 years [standard deviation (SD) 14.1 years], and had epilepsy for a median of 18 years. The mean QOLIE-31-P score for the whole group at baseline was 66.0 out of 100.0 (SD 14.2). Clinically relevant levels of anxiety symptoms were reported in 53.6% of the group and depression symptoms in 28.0%. The results following an intention-to-treat analysis showed no change in any measures at the 12-month follow-up [QOLIE-31-P: SMILE (UK) mean: 67.4, SD 13.5; TAU mean: 69.5, SD 14.8]. The cost-effectiveness study showed that SMILE (UK) was possibly cost-effective but was also associated with lower QoL. The process evaluation with 20 participants revealed that a group course increased confidence by sharing with others and improved self-management behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: For people with epilepsy and persistent seizures, a 2-day self-management education course is cost-saving, but does not improve QoL after 12-months or reduce anxiety or depression symptoms. A psychological intervention may help with anxiety and depression. Interviewed participants reported attending a group course increased their confidence and helped them improve their self-management. FUTURE WORK: More research is needed on self-management courses, with psychological components and integration with routine monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN57937389. 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. 22, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

COgnitive behavioural therapy versus standardised medical care for adults with Dissociative non-Epileptic Seizures (CODES): statistical and economic analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dissociative seizures (DSs), also called psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, are a distressing and disabling problem for many patients in neurological settings with high and often unnecessary economic costs. The COgnitive behavioural therapy versus standardised medical care for adults with Dissociative non-Epileptic Seizures (CODES) trial is an evaluation of a specifically tailored psychological intervention with the aims of reducing seizure frequency and severity and improving psychological well-being in adults with DS. The aim of this paper is to report in detail the quantitative and economic analysis plan for the CODES trial, as agreed by the trial steering committee. METHODS: The CODES trial is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial performed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 13 sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone for adult outpatients with DS. DISCUSSION: The objectives and design of the trial are summarised, and the aims and procedures of the planned analyses are illustrated. The proposed analysis plan addresses statistical considerations such as maintaining blinding, monitoring adherence with the protocol, describing aspects of treatment and dealing with missing data. The formal analysis approach for the primary and secondary outcomes is described, as are the descriptive statistics that will be reported. This paper provides transparency to the planned inferential analyses for the CODES trial prior to the extraction of outcome data. It also provides an update to the previously published trial protocol and guidance to those conducting similar trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN05681227 (registered on 5 March 2014); ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02325544 (registered on 15 December 2014).

Self-management education for adults with poorly controlled epilepsy (SMILE (UK)): statistical, economic and qualitative analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to test the effectiveness of new educational interventions for people with poorly controlled epilepsy. The SMILE (self-management education for adults with poorly controlled epilepsy) trial evaluates a complex service intervention that involves a 2-day self-management course with the aim of improving quality of life and clinical outcomes. This article describes the statistical, economic, and qualitative analysis plan for the trial. METHODS AND DESIGN: SMILE is a pragmatic, parallel design, two-arm, multi-centre randomised controlled superiority trial of a group-based interactive course compared with treatment as usual for people who have experienced two or more seizures in the past 12 months. RESULTS: A summary of the objectives and design of the trial are reported as well as the manner in which the data will be summarised and inferentially analysed. This includes the type of modelling that will be employed for each of the primary and secondary outcomes and the methods by which the assumptions of these models will be checked. Strategies are described for handling clustering of outcome data, missing observations, and treatment non-compliance. CONCLUSION: This update to the previously published trial protocol provides a description of the trial analysis which is transparent and specified before any outcome data are available. It also provides guidance to those planning the analysis of similar trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN57937389; date assigned: 27 March 2013.

COgnitive behavioural therapy vs standardised medical care for adults with Dissociative non-Epileptic Seizures (CODES): a multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: The evidence base for the effectiveness of psychological interventions for patients with dissociative non-epileptic seizures (DS) is currently extremely limited, although data from two small pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including from our group, suggest that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) may be effective in reducing DS occurrence and may improve aspects of psychological status and psychosocial functioning. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a multicentre, pragmatic parallel group RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of specifically-tailored CBT plus standardised medical care (SMC) vs SMC alone in reducing DS frequency and improving psychological and health-related outcomes. In the initial screening phase, patients with DS will receive their diagnosis from a neurologist/epilepsy specialist. If patients are eligible and interested following the provision of study information and a booklet about DS, they will consent to provide demographic information and fortnightly data about their seizures, and agree to see a psychiatrist three months later. We aim to recruit ~500 patients to this screening stage. After a review three months later by a psychiatrist, those patients who have continued to have DS in the previous eight weeks and who meet further eligibility criteria will be told about the trial comparing CBT + SMC vs SMC alone. If they are interested in participating, they will be given a further booklet on DS and study information. A research worker will see them to obtain their informed consent to take part in the RCT. We aim to randomise 298 people (149 to each arm). In addition to a baseline assessment, data will be collected at 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Our primary outcome is monthly seizure frequency in the preceding month. Secondary outcomes include seizure severity, measures of seizure freedom and reduction, psychological distress and psychosocial functioning, quality of life, health service use, cost effectiveness and adverse events. We will include a nested qualitative study to evaluate participants' views of the intervention and factors that acted as facilitators and barriers to participation. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first adequately powered evaluation of CBT for this patient group and offers the potential to provide an evidence base for treating this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN05681227 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02325544.

Self-Management education for adults with poorly controlled epILEpsy (SMILE (UK)): a randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Teaching people with epilepsy to identify and manage seizure triggers, implement strategies to remember to take antiepileptic drugs, implement precautions to minimize risks during seizures, tell others what to do during a seizure and learn what to do during recovery may lead to better self-management. No teaching programme exists for adults with epilepsy in the United Kingdom although a number of surveys have shown patients want more information. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a two-day Self-Management education for epILEpsy (SMILE (UK)), which was originally developed in Germany (MOSES).Four hundred and twenty eight adult patients who attended specialist epilepsy outpatient clinics at 15 NHS participating sites in the previous 12 months, and who fulfil other eligibility criteria will be randomised to receive the intervention (SMILE (UK) course with treatment as usual- TAU) or to have TAU only (control). The primary outcome is the effect on patient reported quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes are seizure frequency and psychological distress (anxiety and depression), perceived impact of epilepsy, adherence to medication, management of adverse effects from medication, and improved self-efficacy in management (mastery/control) of epilepsy.Within the trial there will be a nested qualitative study to explore users' views of the intervention, including barriers to participation and the perceived benefits of the intervention. The cost-effectiveness of the intervention will also be assessed. DISCUSSION: This study will provide quantitative and qualitative evidence of the impact of a structured self management programme on quality of life and other aspects of clinical and cost effectiveness in adults with poorly controlled epilepsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN57937389.

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a nurse led self-management intervention to reduce emergency visits by people with epilepsy.

People with chronic epilepsy (PWE) often make costly, and clinically unnecessary emergency department (ED) visits. Some do it frequently. No studies have examined interventions to reduce them. An intervention delivered by an epilepsy nurse specialist (ENS) might reduce visits. The rationale is it may optimize patients' self-management skills and knowledge of appropriate ED use. We examined such an intervention's clinical- and cost-effectiveness. Eighty-five adults with epilepsy were recruited from three London EDs with similar catchment populations. Forty-one PWE recruited from two EDs received treatment-as-usual (TAU) and formed the comparison group. The remaining 44 PWE were recruited from the ED of a hospital that had implemented a new ENS service for PWE attending ED. These participants formed the intervention group. They were offered 2 one-to-one sessions with an ENS, plus TAU. Participants completed questionnaires on health service use and psychosocial well-being at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-up. Covariates were identified and adjustments made. Sixty-nine (81%) participants were retained at follow-up. No significant effect of the intervention on ED visits at 12 months or on other outcomes was found. However, due to less time as inpatients, the average service cost for intervention participants over follow-up was less than for TAU participants' (adjusted difference £558, 95% CI, -£2409, £648). Covariates most predictive of subsequent ED visits were patients' baseline feelings of stigmatization due to epilepsy and low confidence in managing epilepsy. The intervention did not lead to a reduction in ED use, but did not cost more, partly because those receiving the intervention had shorter hospital admissions. Our findings on long-term ED predictors clarifies what causes ED use, and suggests that future interventions might focus more on patients' perceptions of stigma and on their confidence in managing epilepsy. If addressed, ED visits might be reduced and efficiency-savings generated.

Changes in cognition and behaviour in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: nature of impairment and implications for assessment.

Increased awareness of cognitive and behavioural change in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis has been driven by various clinic-based and population-based studies. A frontotemporal syndrome occurs in a substantial proportion of patients, a subgroup of whom present with frontotemporal dementia. Deficits are characterised by executive and working-memory impairments, extending to changes in language and social cognition. Behaviour and social cognition abnormalities are closely similar to those reported in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, implying a clinical spectrum linking amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and frontotemporal dementia. Cognitive impairment should be considered in clinical management, but few specialist assessment resources are available, and thus the cognitive status of most patients is unknown. Standard assessment procedures are not appropriate to detect dysfunction due to progressive physical disability; techniques that better measure the problems encountered by this group of patients are needed to further establish disease effects. Screening instruments are needed that are validated specifically for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, encompass the heterogeneity of impairment, and accommodate physical disability.

Characteristics of people with epilepsy who attend emergency departments: prospective study of metropolitan hospital attendees.

PURPOSE: One fifth of people with established epilepsy attend hospital emergency departments (EDs) and one half are admitted each year. These ED visits are not necessarily required, and unplanned hospitalizations are costly. Reducing avoidable ED visits and admissions is a target in most health services. The development of interventions is, however, challenging. Policymakers lack information about users' characteristics, factors associated with ED use, as well as quality of care. This study provides this information. METHODS: We prospectively recruited patients attending three London EDs for seizures. They completed questionnaires on service use and psychosocial state. KEY FINDINGS: Eighty-five patients were recruited. The mean age was 41; 53% were male. The average number of ED attendances in the prior year (mean 3.2; median 2) exceeded that of other ED users and those with most chronic conditions. ED use was not homogenous, with some patients attending frequently. Compared to the wider epilepsy population, ED attendees experienced more seizures, anxiety, had lower knowledge of epilepsy and its management and greater perceived epilepsy-related stigma. In the previous 12 months, most patients' epilepsy outpatient care was consistent with standard criteria for quality. In descending order, lower knowledge, higher perceived stigma, poorer self-medication management, and seizure frequency were associated with more emergency visits. SIGNIFICANCE: People with epilepsy presenting to EDs reattend frequently. Interventions aiming at reduced ED use by this population should address lower knowledge, stigma, suboptimal self-management, and frequent seizures reported by patients.

Service use and costs for people with headache: a UK primary care study.

This paper aims to estimate the service and social costs of headache presenting in primary care and to identify predictors of headache costs. Patients were recruited from GP practices in England and service use and lost employment recorded. Predictors of cost were identified using regression models. Service and social costs were available on 288 and 282 patients, respectively. Average service costs over 3 months were £117 whilst total costs (including lost production) were £582. Patients referred to neurologists had service costs that were £82 higher than those not referred (90% CI £36-£128). Costs including lost employment were higher by £150, but this was not significant (90% CI -£139-£439). The annual mean service and social costs, weighted to represent population rates of referral, were £468 and £2328, respectively. Higher costs were significantly related to pain. Age was linked to higher service costs and lower social costs. The figures extrapolated to the whole of the UK suggest £956 million due to service use and £4.8 billion including lost employment. These are likely to be underestimates because many people experiencing headaches do not consult their GP.

The dos and don'ts of neuropsychological assessment in epilepsy.

Neuropsychologists have a significant role in the assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation of people with epilepsy. This includes providing an assessment of an individual's cognitive strengths and weaknesses with respect to being a candidate for the surgery program, detailing intellectual and memory impairments as part of a rehabilitation service, and documenting specific antiepileptic drug effects as part of routine clinical management. Each of these specific roles requires careful consideration with respect to the potential pitfalls they can present to the neuropsychologist. In this article, we have attempted to identify the most obvious "dos and don'ts" in the neuropsychological assessment of people with epilepsy. These range from issues relating to the reliance of measures, to the failure to document patients' backgrounds, to the importance of considering the psychometric tests that we use. We have attempted to emphasize the importance or value of a well-conducted neuropsychological assessment to the management of the person with epilepsy.

Expressed emotion in the relatives of people with epileptic or nonepileptic seizures.

PURPOSE: This study investigated Expressed Emotion (EE) in relatives of people with epileptic or nonepileptic seizures (NES). METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, we used the Five-Minute Speech Sample to explore EE in the key relative of people with epilepsy (n = 36) and those with NESs (n = 21), as well as levels of anxiety and depression and use of coping strategies. RESULTS: A significantly greater proportion of relatives of NES than epilepsy patients were rated as high EE. Hostility was evident in more high-EE epilepsy than high-EE NES relatives, whereas emotional overinvolvement and positive relationship ratings tended to be more common in high-EE NES relatives. High- and low-EE epilepsy relatives used problem-focused as opposed to emotion-focused coping strategies significantly more than half the time. High EE and seizure frequency were not associated. Age at onset of the disorder was higher in epilepsy patients with high- than with low-EE relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of etiology, carers for people with seizure disorders may find it hard to adjust to the difficulties these disorders create. Interventions that encourage problem-solving, reappraisals of "loss" and education regarding the causes of some of the patients' behavioral and mood problems seem likely to be beneficial.