Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT.

Background: Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. Objective: The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. Design: This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants: Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Interventions: Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. Results: A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014). Conclusions: The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Urinary problems among men become more common with age. Nearly one-third of all men aged > 65 years experience some urinary symptoms, which can have a substantial effect on their daily lives. Symptoms include needing to pass urine more often, urgently or during the night, and difficulties in passing urine. Men are usually diagnosed and treated by their general practitioner, and should be offered advice on controlling their symptoms themselves (e.g. lifestyle changes and exercises) before trying tablets or surgery. However, it is not known how helpful such advice is, and how general practices can effectively provide it. Thirty general practices in the West of England and Wessex took part in the study. Practices were split into two groups, with each practice providing either the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package or the practice's usual care to all of its patients in the trial. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package included a booklet of advice to help control urinary symptoms, with a nurse or healthcare assistant directing men to relevant sections according to their symptoms, and providing follow-up contacts. We mainly assessed the benefits of the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package, compared with usual care, by using a questionnaire on urinary symptoms completed by participants. A total of 1077 men with urinary symptoms that bothered them joined the study. The main result was that men reported greater improvement in urinary symptoms with the TRIUMPH care package than with usual care, 12 months after joining the study. We also found that men receiving the TRIUMPH care package had a slight improvement in quality of life and outlook on their urinary symptoms. There was no difference between the two groups in the number of patients referred to hospital for treatment, the type, number and severity of side effects or cost to the NHS. Overall, the TRIUMPH care package was more effective in treating men with urinary symptoms than usual care by their general practice.

Cost-effectiveness of a primary healthcare intervention to treat male lower urinary tract symptoms: the TRIUMPH cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a primary care intervention for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective with a 12-month time horizon. SETTING: Thirty NHS general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: 1077 men aged 18 or older identified in primary care with bothersome LUTS. INTERVENTIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention for the treatment of bothersome LUTS was compared with usual care. The intervention group (n=524) received a standardised information booklet with guidance on conservative treatment for LUTS, urinary symptom assessment and follow-up contacts for 12 weeks. The usual care group (n=553) followed local guidelines between general practice sites. MEASURES: Resource use was obtained from electronic health records, trial staff and participants, and valued using UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Adjusted mean differences in costs and QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit were estimated. RESULTS: 866 of 1077 (80.4%) participants had complete data and were included in the base-case analysis. Over the 12-month follow-up period, intervention and usual care arms had similar mean adjusted costs and QALYs. Mean differences were lower in the intervention arm for adjusted costs -£29.99 (95% CI -£109.84 to £22.63) while higher in the intervention arm for adjusted QALYs 0.001 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.014). The incremental net monetary benefit statistic was £48.01 (95% CI -£225.83 to £321.85) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence UK threshold of £20 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a 63% probability of the intervention arm being cost-effective at this threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and QALYs were similar between the two arms at 12 months follow-up. This indicates that the intervention can be implemented in general practice at neutral cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11669964.

Sertraline for anxiety in adults with a diagnosis of autism (STRATA): study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are commonly prescribed to manage anxiety in adults with an autism diagnosis. However, their effectiveness and adverse effect profile in the autistic population are not well known. This trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SSRI sertraline in reducing symptoms of anxiety and improving quality of life in adults with a diagnosis of autism compared with placebo and to quantify any adverse effects. METHODS: STRATA is a two-parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial with allocation at the level of the individual. It will be delivered through recruiting sites with autism services in 4 regional centres in the United Kingdom (UK) and 1 in Australia. Adults with an autism diagnosis and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) score ≥ 10 at screening will be randomised 1:1 to either 25 mg sertraline or placebo, with subsequent flexible dose titration up to 200 mg. The primary outcome is GAD-7 scores at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, proportionate change in GAD-7 scores including 50% reduction, social anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, panic attacks, repetitive behaviours, meltdowns, depressive symptoms, composite depression and anxiety, functioning and disability and quality of life. Carer burden will be assessed in a linked carer sub-study. Outcome data will be collected using online/paper methods via video call, face-to-face or telephone according to participant preference at 16, 24 and 52 weeks post-randomisation, with brief safety checks and data collection at 1-2, 4, 8, 12 and 36 weeks. An economic evaluation to study the cost-effectiveness of sertraline vs placebo and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment and informed consent are embedded within the trial. Qualitative interviews at various times during the study will explore experiences of participating and taking the trial medication. DISCUSSION: Results from this study should help autistic adults and their clinicians make evidence-based decisions on the use of sertraline for managing anxiety in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15984604 . Registered on 08 February 2021. EudraCT 2019-004312-66. ANZCTR ACTRN12621000801819. Registered on 07 April 2021.

Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men in primary care using a conservative intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention in men in primary care could achieve superior improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 30 National Health Service general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Sites were randomised 1:1 to the intervention and control arms. 1077 men (≥18 years) with bothersome LUTS recruited between June 2018 and August 2019: 524 were assigned to the intervention arm (n=17 sites) and 553 were assigned to the usual care arm (n=13 sites). INTERVENTION: Standardised information booklet developed with patient and expert input, providing guidance on conservative and lifestyle interventions for LUTS in men. After assessment of urinary symptoms (manualised element), general practice nurses and healthcare assistants or research nurses directed participants to relevant sections of the manual and provided contact over 12 weeks to assist with adherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) measured 12 months after participants had consented to take part in the study. The target reduction of 2.0 points on which the study was powered reflects the minimal clinically important difference where baseline IPSS is <20. Secondary outcomes were patient reported quality of life, urinary symptoms and perception of LUTS, hospital referrals, and adverse events. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included 887 participants (82% of those recruited) and used a mixed effects multilevel linear regression model adjusted for site level variables used in the randomisation and baseline scores. RESULTS: Participants in the intervention arm had a lower mean IPSS at 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95) indicating less severe urinary symptoms than those in the usual care arm. LUTS specific quality of life, incontinence, and perception of LUTS also improved more in the intervention arm than usual care arm at 12 months. The proportion of urology referrals (intervention 7.3%, usual care 7.9%) and adverse events (intervention seven events, usual care eight events) were comparable between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention in primary care showed a sustained reduction in LUTS in men at 12 months. The mean difference of -1.81 points (95% confidence interval -0.95 to -2.66) on the IPSS was less than the predefined target reduction of 2.0 points. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11669964.

Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT.

Background: Emollients are recommended for children with eczema (atopic eczema/dermatitis). A lack of head-to-head comparisons of the effectiveness and acceptability of the different types of emollients has resulted in a 'trial and error' approach to prescribing. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of four commonly used types of emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema. Design: Four group, parallel, individually randomised, superiority randomised clinical trials with a nested qualitative study, completed in 2021. A purposeful sample of parents/children was interviewed at ≈ 4 and ≈ 16 weeks. Setting: Primary care (78 general practitioner surgeries) in England. Participants: Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema, of at least mild severity, and with no known sensitivity to the study emollients or their constituents. Interventions: Study emollients sharing the same characteristics in the four types of lotion, cream, gel or ointment, alongside usual care, and allocated using a web-based randomisation system. Participants were unmasked and the researcher assessing the Eczema Area Severity Index scores was masked. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 52 weeks, Eczema Area Severity Index score at 16 weeks, quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, scores), Dermatitis Family Impact and satisfaction levels at 16 weeks. Results: A total of 550 children were randomised to receive lotion (analysed for primary outcome 131/allocated 137), cream (137/140), gel (130/135) or ointment (126/138). At baseline, 86.0% of participants were white and 46.4% were female. The median (interquartile range) age was 4 (2-8) years and the median Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure score was 9.3 (SD 5.5). There was no evidence of a difference in mean Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over the first 16 weeks between emollient types (global p = 0.765): adjusted Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure pairwise differences - cream-lotion 0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.48 to 1.32), gel-lotion 0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.75 to 1.09), ointment-lotion -0.01 (95% confidence interval -0.93 to 0.91), gel-cream -0.25 (95% confidence interval -1.15 to 0.65), ointment-cream -0.43 (95% confidence interval -1.34 to 0.48) and ointment-gel -0.18 (95% confidence interval -1.11 to 0.75). There was no effect modification by parent expectation, age, disease severity or the application of UK diagnostic criteria, and no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes. Median weekly use of allocated emollient, non-allocated emollient and topical corticosteroids was similar across groups. Overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. There was no difference in the number of adverse reactions and there were no significant adverse events. In the nested qualitative study (n = 44 parents, n = 25 children), opinions about the acceptability of creams and ointments varied most, yet problems with all types were reported. Effectiveness may be favoured over acceptability. Parents preferred pumps and bottles over tubs and reported improved knowledge about, and use of, emollients as a result of taking part in the trial. Limitations: Parents and clinicians were unmasked to allocation. The findings may not apply to non-study emollients of the same type or to children from more ethnically diverse backgrounds. Conclusions: The four emollient types were equally effective. Satisfaction with the same emollient types varies, with different parents/children favouring different ones. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollient types to find one that suits them. Future work: Future work could focus on how best to support shared decision-making of different emollient types and evaluations of other paraffin-based, non-paraffin and 'novel' emollients. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84540529 and EudraCT 2017-000688-34. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 15/130/07) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

One in five children in the UK have eczema, a long-term, itchy, dry skin condition. It can significantly affect both the child and their family. Most children are diagnosed and looked after by their family doctor (general practitioner) and are prescribed moisturisers (also called emollients) to relieve skin dryness and other creams (topical corticosteroids) to control flare-ups. However, there are many different types of emollients and, to our knowledge, limited research to show which is better. In the Best Emollients for Eczema clinical trial, we compared the four main types of moisturisers ­ lotions, creams, gels and ointments. These types vary in their consistency, from thin to thick. We recruited 550 children (most of whom were white and had moderate eczema) and randomly assigned them to use one of the four different types as their main moisturiser for 16 weeks. We found no difference in effectiveness. Parent-reported eczema symptoms, eczema severity and quality of life were the same for all the four types of moisturisers. However, overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. Ointments may need to be used less and cause less stinging. We interviewed 44 parents and 25 children who took part. Opinions of all four types of moisturisers varied. What one family liked about a moisturiser was not necessarily the same for another and preferences were individual to each user. Sometimes there was a tension between how well a moisturiser worked (effectiveness) and how easy it was to use (acceptability). In these cases, effectiveness tended to decide whether or not parents kept using it. People found moisturisers in pumps and bottles easier to use than those in tubs. A number of participants valued the information they were given about how to use moisturisers. Our results suggest that the type of moisturiser matters less than finding one that suits the child and family.

Integrated therapist and online CBT for depression in primary care (INTERACT): study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. Self-directed online CBT interventions have made CBT more accessible at a lower cost. However, adherence is often poor and, in the absence of therapist support, effects are modest and short-term. Delivering CBT online using instant messaging is clinically and cost-effective; however, most existing platforms are limited to instant messaging sessions, without the support of between-session "homework" activities. The INTERACT intervention integrates online CBT materials and 'high-intensity' therapist-led CBT, delivered remotely in real-time. The INTERACT trial will evaluate this novel integration in terms of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and acceptability to therapists and clients. METHODS: Pragmatic, two parallel-group multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, with 434 patients recruited from primary care practices in Bristol, London and York. Participants with depression will be identified via General Practitioner record searches and direct referrals. INCLUSION CRITERIA: aged ≥ 18 years; score ≥ 14 on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II); meeting International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) criteria for depression. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: alcohol or substance dependency in the past year; bipolar disorder; schizophrenia; psychosis; dementia; currently under psychiatric care for depression (including those referred but not yet seen); cannot complete questionnaires unaided or requires an interpreter; currently receiving CBT/other psychotherapy; received high-intensity CBT in the past four years; participating in another intervention trial; unwilling/unable to receive CBT via computer/laptop/smartphone. Eligible participants will be randomised to integrated CBT or usual care. Integrated CBT utilises the standard Beckian intervention for depression and comprises nine live therapist-led sessions, with (up to) a further three if clinically appropriate. The first session is 60-90 min via videocall, with subsequent 50-min sessions delivered online, using instant messaging. Participants allocated integrated CBT can access integrated online CBT resources (worksheets/information sheets/videos) within and between sessions. Outcome assessments at 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month post-randomisation. The primary outcome is the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) score at 6 months (as a continuous variable). A nested qualitative study and health economic evaluation will be conducted. DISCUSSION: If clinically and cost-effective, this model of integrated CBT could be introduced into existing psychological services, increasing access to, and equity of, CBT provision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN13112900. Registered on 11/11/2020. Currently recruiting participants. Trial registration data are presented in Table 1.

The high-volume haemodiafiltration vs high-flux haemodialysis registry trial (H4RT): a multi-centre, unblinded, randomised, parallel-group, superiority study to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of high-volume haemodiafiltration and high-flux haemodialysis in people with kidney failure on maintenance dialysis using linkage to routine healthcare databases for outcomes.

BACKGROUND: More than a third of the 65,000 people living with kidney failure in the UK attend a dialysis unit 2-5 times a week to have their blood cleaned for 3-5 h. In haemodialysis (HD), toxins are removed by diffusion, which can be enhanced using a high-flux dialyser. This can be augmented with convection, as occurs in haemodiafiltration (HDF), and improved outcomes have been reported in people who are able to achieve high volumes of convection. This study compares the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of high-volume HDF compared with high-flux HD in the treatment of kidney failure. METHODS: This is a UK-based, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Adult patients already receiving HD or HDF will be randomised 1:1 to high-volume HDF (aiming for 21+ L of substitution fluid adjusted for body surface area) or high-flux HD. Exclusion criteria include lack of capacity to consent, life expectancy less than 3 months, on HD/HDF for less than 4 weeks, planned living kidney donor transplant or home dialysis scheduled within 3 months, prior intolerance of HDF and not suitable for high-volume HDF for other clinical reasons. The primary outcome is a composite of non-cancer mortality or hospital admission with a cardiovascular event or infection during follow-up (minimum 32 months, maximum 91 months) determined from routine data. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular- and infection-related morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and environmental impact. Baseline data will be collected by research personnel on-site. Follow-up data will be collected by linkage to routine healthcare databases - Hospital Episode Statistics, Civil Registration, Public Health England and the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) in England, and equivalent databases in Scotland and Wales, as necessary - and centrally administered patient-completed questionnaires. In addition, research personnel on-site will monitor for adverse events and collect data on adherence to the protocol (monthly during recruitment and quarterly during follow-up). DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HD as compared to HDF for adults with kidney failure in-centre HD or HDF. It will inform management for this patient group in the UK and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10997319 . Registered on 10 October 2017.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PLAN-A intervention, a peer led physical activity program for adolescent girls: results of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is associated with improved health. Girls are less active than boys. Pilot work showed that a peer-led physical activity intervention called PLAN-A was a promising method of increasing physical activity in secondary school age girls. This study examined the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PLAN-A intervention. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial with Year 9 (13-14 year old) girls recruited from 20 secondary schools. Schools were randomly assigned to the PLAN-A intervention or a non-intervention control group after baseline data collection. Girls nominated students to be peer leaders. The top 18 % of girls nominated by their peers in intervention schools received three days of training designed to prepare them to support physical activity. Data were collected at two time points, baseline (T0) and 5-6 months post-intervention (T1). Participants wore an accelerometer for seven days to assess the primary outcome of mean weekday minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Multivariable mixed effects linear regression was used to estimate differences in the primary outcome between the two arms on an Intention-to-Treat (ITT) basis. Resource use and quality of life were measured and a within trial economic evaluation from a public sector perspective was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 1558 girls were recruited to the study. At T0, girls in both arms engaged in an average of 51 min of MVPA per weekday. The adjusted mean difference in weekday MVPA at T1 was - 2.84 min per day (95 % CI = -5.94 to 0.25) indicating a slightly larger decline in weekday MVPA in the intervention group. Results were broadly consistent when repeated using a multiple imputation approach and for pre-specified secondary outcomes and sub-groups. The mean cost of the PLAN-A intervention was £2817 per school, equivalent to £31 per girl. Economic analyses indicated that PLAN-A did not lead to demonstrable cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per unit change in QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that the PLAN-A intervention did not result in higher levels of weekday MVPA or associated secondary outcomes among Year 9 girls. The PLAN-A intervention should not be disseminated as a public health strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14539759 -31 May, 2018.

Investigating Ethnic Disparity in Living-Donor Kidney Transplantation in the UK: Patient-Identified Reasons for Non-Donation among Family Members.

There is ethnic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplants in the UK. This study asked kidney patients from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups why members of their family were not able to be living kidney donors. Responses were compared with responses from White individuals. This questionnaire-based mixed-methods study included adults transplanted between 1/4/13-31/3/17 at 14 UK hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate why relatives could not donate, selecting all options applicable from: Age; Health; Weight; Location; Financial/Cost; Job; Blood group; No-one to care for them after donation. A box entitled 'Other-please give details' was provided for free-text entries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse the association between the likelihood of selecting each reason for non-donation and the participant's self-reported ethnicity. Qualitative responses were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. In total, 1240 questionnaires were returned (40% response). There was strong evidence that Black, Asian and minority ethnic group individuals were more likely than White people to indicate that family members lived too far away to donate (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.25, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.30-4.58), were prevented from donating by financial concerns (aOR = 2.95, 95% CI 2.02-4.29), were unable to take time off work (aOR = 1.88, 95% CI 1.18-3.02), were "not the right blood group" (aOR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.35-2.01), or had no-one to care for them post-donation (aOR = 3.73, 95% CI 2.60-5.35). Four qualitative themes were identified from responses from Black, Asian and minority ethnic group participants: 'Burden of disease within the family'; 'Differing religious interpretations'; 'Geographical concerns'; and 'A culture of silence'. Patients perceive barriers to living kidney donation in the UK Black, Asian and minority ethnic population. If confirmed, these could be targeted by interventions to redress the observed ethnic inequity.

Mediators of Socioeconomic Inequity in Living-donor Kidney Transplantation: Results From a UK Multicenter Case-Control Study.

There is evidence of socioeconomic inequity in access to living-donor kidney transplantation, but limited evidence as to why. We investigated possible mediators of the inequity. METHODS: This questionnaire-based case-control study included 14 UK hospitals. Participants were adults transplanted between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2017. Living-donor kidney transplant (LDKT) recipients (cases) were compared with deceased-donor kidney transplant recipients (controls). We collected data on mediators identified in earlier qualitative work: perceived social support (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12), patient activation (Patient Activation Measure 13), and LDKT knowledge (Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test). We performed mediation analyses to investigate what proportion of the effect of socioeconomic position (education and income) on case-control status was mediated by these variables. RESULTS: One thousand two-hundred and forty questionnaires were returned (40% response). Receipt of an LDKT over a deceased-donor kidney transplant was associated with higher socioeconomic position [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) university degree versus no degree aOR = 1.48 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.84), P = 0.001 and aOR per +£1000 increase in monthly household income after tax 1.14 (95% CI, 1.11-1.17), P < 0.001] higher perceived social support (aOR per +1-point Interpersonal Support Evaluation List shortened version-12 score = 1.05 (95% CI, 1.03-1.08), P < 0.001), higher levels of patient activation (aOR per +1 patient activation measure level = 1.35 (95% CI, 1.24-1.48), P < 0.001), and greater LDKT knowledge (aOR per + 1-point Rotterdam Renal Replacement Knowledge Test score = 1.59 (95% CI, 1.49-1.69), P < 0.001). Mediation analyses revealed that perceived social support, patient activation, and LDKT knowledge together mediate 48.5% (95% CI, 12.7-84.3, P = 0.008) of the association between university education and LDKT status, and 46.0% (95% CI, 28.7-63.4, P < 0.001) of the association between income and LDKT status. CONCLUSIONS: LDKT knowledge, perceived social support, and patient activation are associated with the socioeconomic position of people with kidney disease, and mediate approximately 50% of the association between the socioeconomic position and receipt of an LDKT. Interventions that target these factors may redress observed socioeconomic inequity.

Observational Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Routine Data: Admission and Discharge Care Bundles for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent respiratory disease, and accounts for a substantial proportion of unplanned hospital admissions. Care bundles for COPD are a set of standardised, evidence-based interventions that may improve outcomes in hospitalised COPD patients. We estimated the cost effectiveness of care bundles for acute exacerbations of COPD using routinely collected observational data. METHODS: Data were collected from implementation (n = 7) and comparator (n = 7) acute hospitals located in England and Wales. We conducted a difference-in-difference cost-effectiveness analysis using a secondary care (i.e. hospital) perspective to examine the effect on National Health Service (NHS) costs and 90-day mortality of implementing care bundles compared with usual care for patients admitted to hospital with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Adjusted models included as covariates patient age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity and seasonal effects and mixed effects for site. RESULTS: Outcomes and baseline characteristics of up to 12,532 patients were analysed using both complete case and multiply imputed models. Implementation of bundles varied. COPD care bundles were associated with slightly lower secondary care costs, but there was no evidence that they improved outcomes once adjustments were made for site and baseline covariates. Care bundles were unlikely to be cost effective for the NHS with an estimated net monetary benefit per 90-day death avoided from an adjusted multiply imputed model of -£1231 (95% confidence interval - £2428 to - £35) at a high cost-effectiveness threshold of £50,000 per 90-day death avoided. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Care bundles for COPD did not appear to be cost effective, although this finding may have been influenced by unmeasured variations in bundle implementation and other potential confounding factors.

Best emollients for eczema (BEE) - comparing four types of emollients in children with eczema: protocol for randomised trial and nested qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis/eczema affects around 20% of children and is characterised by inflamed, dry, itchy skin. Guidelines recommend 'leave-on' emollients that are applied directly to the skin to add or trap moisture and used regularly, they can soothe, enhance the skin barrier and may prevent disease 'flares'. However, the suitability of the many different emollients varies between people and there is little evidence to help prescribers and parents and carers decide which type to try first. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Design: pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised, parallel group superiority trial of four types of emollient (lotions, creams, gel or ointments). SETTING: general practitioner surgeries in England. PARTICIPANTS: children aged over 6 months and less than 12 years with mild-to-severe eczema and no known sensitivity to study emollients. INTERVENTIONS: study-approved lotion, cream, gel or ointment as the only leave-on emollient for 16 weeks, with directions to apply twice daily and as required. Other treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, used as standard care. FOLLOW-UP: 52 weeks. PRIMARY OUTCOME: validated patient-orientated eczema measure measured weekly for 16 weeks. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: eczema signs (Eczema Area Severity Index) by masked researcher, treatment use, parent satisfaction, adverse events, child and family quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility 9D and Dermatitis Family Impact). SAMPLE SIZE: 520 participants (130 per group). ANALYSIS: intention-to-treat using linear mixed models for repeated measures.Nested qualitative study: audio-recording of sample of baseline appointments and up to 60 interviews with participants at 4 and 16 weeks, interviews to be transcribed and analysed thematically. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval granted by the NHS REC (South West - Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee 17/SW/0089). Findings will be presented at conferences, published in open-access peer-reviewed journals and the study website; and summaries shared with key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN84540529.

Evaluation of 'care bundles' for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a multisite study in the UK.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) accounts for 10% of emergency hospital admissions in the UK annually. Nearly 33% of patients are readmitted within 28 days of discharge. We evaluated the effectiveness of implementing standardised packages of care called 'care bundles' on COPD readmission, emergency department (ED) attendance, mortality, costs and process of care. Methods: This is a mixed-methods, controlled before-and-after study with nested case studies. 31 acute hospitals in England and Wales which introduced COPD care bundles (implementation sites) or provided usual care (comparator sites) were recruited and provided monthly aggregate data. 14 sites provided additional individual patient data. Participants were adults admitted with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Results: There was no evidence that care bundles reduced 28-day COPD readmission rates: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.26). However, the rate of ED attendance was reduced in implementation sites over and above that in comparator sites (implementation: IRR=0.63 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.71); comparator: IRR=1.12 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.24); group-time interaction p<0.001). At implementation sites, delivery of all bundle elements was higher but was only achieved in 2.2% (admissions bundle) and 7.6% (discharge bundle) of cases. There was no evidence of cost-effectiveness. Staff viewed bundles positively, believing they help standardise practice and facilitate communication between clinicians. However, they lacked skills in change management, leading to inconsistent implementation. Discussion: COPD care bundles were not effectively implemented in this study. They were associated with a reduced number of subsequent ED attendances, but not with change in readmissions, mortality or reduced costs. This is unsurprising given the low level of bundle uptake in implementation sites, and it remains to be determined if COPD care bundles affect patient care and outcomes when they are effectively implemented. Trial registration number: ISRCTN13022442.

Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of a Peer-Led physical Activity iNtervention for Adolescent girls (PLAN-A).

BACKGROUND: Adolescent girls are less physically active than recommended for health, and levels decline further as they approach adulthood. Peers can influence adolescent girls' physical activity. Interventions capitalising on peer support could positively impact physical activity behaviour in this group. Building on promising feasibility work, the purpose of this cluster randomised controlled trial is to assess whether the Peer-Led physical Activity iNtervention for Adolescent girls (PLAN-A) increases adolescent girls' physical activity and is cost effective. METHODS: PLAN-A is a two-arm secondary school-based cluster randomised controlled trial, conducted with girls aged 13-14 years from twenty schools in the south west of England. The intervention requires participants to nominate influential girls within their year group to become peer supporters. The top 15% of girls nominated in each school receive three days of training designed to prepare them to support their peers to be more physically active during a ten-week intervention period. Data will be collected at two time points, at baseline (T0) and 5-6 months post-intervention (T1). Schools will be randomly allocated to the intervention (n = 10) or control (n = 10) arm after T0. At each time point, all consenting participants will wear an accelerometer for seven days to assess the primary outcome of mean weekday minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Multivariable mixed effects linear regression will be used to estimate differences in the primary outcome between the two arms and will be examined on an Intention-to-Treat (ITT) basis. A self-report psychosocial questionnaire will be completed by participants to assess self-esteem and physical activity motivation. Resource use and quality of life will be measured for the purposes of an economic evaluation. A mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted to explore intervention fidelity, acceptability and sustainability. Analysis of quantitative process evaluation data will be descriptive, and the framework method will be used to analyse qualitative data. DISCUSSION: This paper describes the protocol for the PLAN-A cluster randomised controlled trial, a novel approach to increasing adolescent girls' physical activity levels through peer support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14539759-31 May, 2018.

Combining mirtazapine with SSRIs or SNRIs for treatment-resistant depression: the MIR RCT.

BACKGROUND: Depression is usually managed in primary care and antidepressants are often the first-line treatment, but only half of those treated respond to a single antidepressant. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether or not combining mirtazapine with serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants results in better patient outcomes and more efficient NHS care than SNRI or SSRI therapy alone in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). DESIGN: The MIR trial was a two-parallel-group, multicentre, pragmatic, placebo-controlled randomised trial with allocation at the level of the individual. SETTING: Participants were recruited from primary care in Bristol, Exeter, Hull/York and Manchester/Keele. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years; were taking a SSRI or a SNRI antidepressant for at least 6 weeks at an adequate dose; scored ≥ 14 points on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II); were adherent to medication; and met the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, criteria for depression. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised using a computer-generated code to either oral mirtazapine or a matched placebo, starting at a dose of 15 mg daily for 2 weeks and increasing to 30 mg daily for up to 12 months, in addition to their usual antidepressant. Participants, their general practitioners (GPs) and the research team were blind to the allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was depression symptoms at 12 weeks post randomisation compared with baseline, measured as a continuous variable using the BDI-II. Secondary outcomes (at 12, 24 and 52 weeks) included response, remission of depression, change in anxiety symptoms, adverse events (AEs), quality of life, adherence to medication, health and social care use and cost-effectiveness. Outcomes were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. A qualitative study explored patients' views and experiences of managing depression and GPs' views on prescribing a second antidepressant. RESULTS: There were 480 patients randomised to the trial (mirtazapine and usual care, n = 241; placebo and usual care, n = 239), of whom 431 patients (89.8%) were followed up at 12 weeks. BDI-II scores at 12 weeks were lower in the mirtazapine group than the placebo group after adjustment for baseline BDI-II score and minimisation and stratification variables [difference -1.83 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.92 to 0.27 points; p = 0.087]. This was smaller than the minimum clinically important difference and the CI included the null. The difference became smaller at subsequent time points (24 weeks: -0.85 points, 95% CI -3.12 to 1.43 points; 12 months: 0.17 points, 95% CI -2.13 to 2.46 points). More participants in the mirtazapine group withdrew from the trial medication, citing mild AEs (46 vs. 9 participants). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find convincing evidence of a clinically important benefit for mirtazapine in addition to a SSRI or a SNRI antidepressant over placebo in primary care patients with TRD. There was no evidence that the addition of mirtazapine was a cost-effective use of NHS resources. GPs and patients were concerned about adding an additional antidepressant. LIMITATIONS: Voluntary unblinding for participants after the primary outcome at 12 weeks made interpretation of longer-term outcomes more difficult. FUTURE WORK: Treatment-resistant depression remains an area of important, unmet need, with limited evidence of effective treatments. Promising interventions include augmentation with atypical antipsychotics and treatment using transcranial magnetic stimulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06653773; EudraCT number 2012-000090-23. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A multicenter cohort study of potential living kidney donors provides predictors of living kidney donation and non-donation.

This multicenter prospective potential living kidney donor cohort study investigated which sociodemographic and other factors predict progression to living kidney donation or donor withdrawal as little is known on this topic. Therefore, we examined data on individuals undergoing living donor assessment at seven hospitals in the United Kingdom. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the relationships between donor and recipient characteristics and likelihood of kidney donation. A total of 805 individuals presented for directed donation to 498 intended recipients, of which 112 received a transplant from a living donor. Potential donors were less likely to donate if their intended recipient was female rather than male with an odds ratio of 0.60, a friend rather than relative 0.18, or had renal failure due to a systemic disease rather than another cause 0.41. The most socioeconomically deprived quintile was less likely to donate than the least 0.49, but the trend with deprivation was consistent with chance. Higher body mass index was associated with a lower likelihood of donation (odds ratio per each kg/m2 increase, 0.92). Younger potential donors (odds ratio per each year increase 0.97), those of nonwhite ethnicity 2.98, and friend donors 2.43 were more likely to withdraw from work-up. This is the first study in the United Kingdom of potential living kidney donors to describe predictors of non-donation. Qualitative work with individuals who withdraw might identify possible ways of supporting those who wish to donate but experience difficulties doing so.