Optimising the analysis of vascular prevention trials: Re-Assessment of the TARDIS trial, the first prevention trial to adopt an ordinal primary outcome measure.

Background: Ordinalised vascular outcomes incorporating event severity are more informative than binary outcomes that just include event numbers. The TARDIS trial was the first vascular prevention study to use an ordinalised vascular outcome as its primary efficacy and safety measures and collected severity information for other vascular events. Methods: TARDIS was an international prospective randomised open-label blinded-endpoint trial assessing one month of intensive versus guideline antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute non-cardioembolic stroke or TIA. Vascular events and their severity were recorded up to final follow-up at 90 days post randomisation. For each outcome, statistical techniques compared ordinal/continuous (10 models) and dichotomous (5 models) analyses; results were then ranked with the smallest p-value being given the smallest rank. Outcomes were also assessed within the pre-defined subgroup of participants with mild stroke (NIHSS≤3), or TIA recruited within 24 h. Results: Ordinal versions of vascular event outcomes were created in 3096 participants for stroke, myocardial infarction, major cardiac events, bleeding events, serious adverse events and venous thromboembolism (VTE), with 32 outcomes being created overall (29 in the subgroup population due to the absence of VTE events). Overall, the tests run on ordinal outcomes tended to rank higher than tests performed on binary outcomes. 764 (24.7%) participants were recruited within 24 h of a mild stroke/TIA; again, tests run on ordinal outcomes ranked higher. Conclusions: In TARDIS, tests performed on ordinal vascular outcomes tended to attain a higher rank than those performed on binary outcomes. Trial registration: ISRCTN47823388.

Emollients for preventing atopic eczema: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the BEEP trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent discoveries have led to the suggestion that enhancing skin barrier from birth might prevent eczema and food allergy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children at 2 years from a health service perspective. We also considered a 5-year time horizon as a sensitivity analysis. METHODS: A within-trial economic evaluation using data on health resource use and quality of life captured as part of the BEEP trial alongside the trial data. Parents/carers of 1394 infants born to families at high risk of atopic disease were randomised 1:1 to the emollient group, which were advised to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel or Diprobase Cream) to their child at least once daily to the whole body during the first year of life or usual care. Both groups received advice on general skin care. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema in the primary cost-effectiveness analysis. Secondary analysis, undertaken as a cost-utility analysis, reports incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) where child utility was elicited using the proxy CHU-9D at 2 years. RESULTS: At 2 years, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI -54.31, 229.27) per participant, whilst the adjusted proportion without eczema was 0.0164 (95% CI -0.0329, 0.0656). The ICER was £5337 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. Adjusted incremental QALYs were very slightly improved in the emollient group, 0.0010 (95% CI -0.0069, 0.0089). At 5 years, adjusted incremental costs were lower for the emollient group, -£106.89 (95% CI -354.66, 140.88) and the proportion without eczema was -0.0329 (95% CI -0.0659, 0.0002). The 5-year ICER was £3201 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. However, when inpatient costs due to wheezing were excluded, incremental costs were lower and incremental effects greater in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: In line with effectiveness endpoints, advice given in the BEEP trial to apply daily emollient during infancy for eczema prevention in high-risk children does not appear cost-effective.

Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS: Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS: In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS: Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK: Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. 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. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Home Interventions and Light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo) trial aimed to find out whether or not treating vitiligo at home with a narrowband ultraviolet B light, either by itself or with a steroid ointment, is better than treatment using a steroid ointment only. We enrolled 517 children (aged ≥ 5 years) and adults who had small, active (i.e. recently changing) patches of vitiligo into the study. Participants received one of three possible treatment options: steroid ointment (plus dummy light), hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy (plus placebo ointment) or both treatments used together. We asked participants to judge how noticeable their target vitiligo patch was after 9 months of treatment. We considered the treatment to be successful if the participants' responses were either 'a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable'. The results showed that using both treatments together was better than using a steroid ointment on its own. Around one-quarter of participants (27%) who used both treatments together said that their vitiligo was either 'no longer noticeable' or 'a lot less noticeable' after 9 months of treatment. This was compared with 17% of those using steroid ointment on its own and 22% of those using narrowband ultraviolet B light on its own. All treatments were able to stop the vitiligo from spreading. Patches on the hands and feet were less likely to respond to treatment than patches on other parts of the body. The trial found that the vitiligo tended to return once treatments were stopped, so ongoing intermittent treatment may be needed to maintain the treatment response. The treatments were found to be relatively safe and easy to use, but light treatment required a considerable time commitment (approximately 20 minutes per session, two or three times per week). This trial showed that using steroid ointment and narrowband ultraviolet B light together is likely to be better than steroid ointment alone for people with small patches of vitiligo. Steroid ointment alone can still be effective for some people and remains a useful treatment that is able to stop vitiligo from spreading. The challenge is to make hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment available as normal care in the NHS for people with vitiligo.

Cost-benefit of outcome adjudication in nine randomised stroke trials.

BACKGROUND: Central adjudication of outcomes is common for randomised trials and should control for differential misclassification. However, few studies have estimated the cost of the adjudication process. METHODS: We estimated the cost of adjudicating the primary outcome in nine randomised stroke trials (25,436 participants). The costs included adjudicators' time, direct payments to adjudicators, and co-ordinating centre costs (e.g. uploading cranial scans and general set-up costs). The number of events corrected after adjudication was our measure of benefit. We calculated cost per corrected event for each trial and in total. RESULTS: The primary outcome in all nine trials was either stroke or a composite that included stroke. In total, the adjudication process associated with this primary outcome cost in excess of £100,000 for a third of the trials (3/9). Mean cost per event corrected by adjudication was £2295.10 (SD: £1482.42). CONCLUSIONS: Central adjudication is a time-consuming and potentially costly process. These costs need to be considered when designing a trial and should be evaluated alongside the potential benefits adjudication brings to determine whether they outweigh this expense.

Outcome assessment by central adjudicators in randomised stroke trials: Simulation of differential and non-differential misclassification.

INTRODUCTION: Adjudication of the primary outcome in randomised trials is thought to control misclassification. We investigated the amount of misclassification needed before adjudication changed the primary trial results.Patients (or materials) and methods: We included data from five randomised stroke trials. Differential misclassification was introduced for each primary outcome until the estimated treatment effect was altered. This was simulated 1000 times. We calculated the between-simulation mean proportion of participants that needed to be differentially misclassified to alter the treatment effect. In addition, we simulated hypothetical trials with a binary outcome and varying sample size (1000-10,000), overall event rate (10%-50%) and treatment effect (0.67-0.90). We introduced non-differential misclassification until the treatment effect was non-significant at 5% level. RESULTS: For the five trials, the range of unweighted kappa values were reduced from 0.89-0.97 to 0.65-0.85 before the treatment effect was altered. This corresponded to 2.1%-6% of participants misclassified differentially for trials with a binary outcome. For the hypothetical trials, those with a larger sample size, stronger treatment effect and overall event rate closer to 50% needed a higher proportion of events non-differentially misclassified before the treatment effect became non-significant. DISCUSSION: We found that only a small amount of differential misclassification was required before adjudication altered the primary trial results, whereas a considerable proportion of participants needed to be misclassified non-differentially before adjudication changed trial conclusions. Given that differential misclassification should not occur in trials with sufficient blinding, these results suggest that central adjudication is of most use in studies with unblinded outcome assessment. CONCLUSION: For trials without adequate blinding, central adjudication is vital to control for differential misclassification. However, for large blinded trials, adjudication is of less importance and may not be necessary.

Daily emollient during infancy for prevention of eczema: the BEEP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children. METHODS: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: 1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Group cognitive rehabilitation to reduce the psychological impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life: the CRAMMS RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis have problems with memory and attention. The effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation has not been established. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cognitive rehabilitation programme for people with multiple sclerosis. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomised in a ratio of 6 : 5 to receive cognitive rehabilitation plus usual care or usual care alone. Participants were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. SETTING: The trial was set in hospital neurology clinics and community services. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were people with multiple sclerosis who had cognitive problems, were aged 18-69 years, could travel to attend group sessions and gave informed consent. INTERVENTION: The intervention was a group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered weekly by an assistant psychologist to between four and six participants for 10 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included results from the Everyday Memory Questionnaire, the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version and a service use questionnaire from participants, and the Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and the Modified Carer Strain Index from a relative or friend of the participant. RESULTS: Of the 449 participants randomised, 245 were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation (intervention group) and 204 were allocated to usual care (control group). Of these, 214 in the intervention group and 173 in the control group were included in the primary analysis. There was no clinically important difference in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score between the two groups at the 12-month follow-up (adjusted difference in means -0.6, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 0.3; p = 0.20). There were no important differences between the groups in relation to cognitive abilities, fatigue, employment, or carer strain at follow-up. However, there were differences, although small, between the groups in the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale - Psychological subscale score at 6 months (adjusted difference in means -0.9, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to -0.1; p = 0.03) and in everyday memory on the Everyday Memory Questionnaire as reported by participants at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.3, 95% confidence interval -8.7 to -1.9) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -4.4, 95% confidence interval -7.8 to -0.9) and by relatives at 6 (adjusted difference in means -5.4, 95% confidence interval -9.1 to -1.7) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -5.5, 95% confidence interval -9.6 to -1.5) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. There were also differences in mood on the 30-Item General Health Questionnaire at 6 (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -5.9 to -0.8) and 12 months (adjusted difference in means -3.4, 95% confidence interval -6.2 to -0.6) in favour of the cognitive rehabilitation group. A qualitative analysis indicated perceived benefits of the intervention. There was no evidence of a difference in costs (adjusted difference in means -£574.93, 95% confidence interval -£1878.93 to £729.07) or quality-adjusted life-year gain (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.02). No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. LIMITATIONS: The trial included a sample of participants who had relatively severe cognitive problems in daily life. The trial was not powered to perform subgroup analyses. Participants could not be blinded to treatment allocation. CONCLUSIONS: This cognitive rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on quality of life for people with multiple sclerosis. FUTURE WORK: Future research should evaluate the selection of those who may benefit from cognitive rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09697576. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 4. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Cognitive (or mental processing) problems, particularly those affecting memory and attention, are common in people with multiple sclerosis. Multiple sclerosis is a condition that affects the brain and causes nerve damage. Cognitive rehabilitation can involve: retraining cognitive skills, which are the core skills your brain uses to think, read, learn, remember, reason and concentrateteaching strategies to cope in daily life. Cognitive rehabilitation is rarely provided for people with multiple sclerosis. A trial was carried out to determine whether or not providing a group cognitive rehabilitation programme improved quality of life more than usual clinical care, which did not involve any cognitive rehabilitation. The effects on daily memory problems, mood, fatigue and employment were examined and also the cost-effectiveness of the treatment. A total of 449 people with multiple sclerosis took part in the trial. They all agreed to be part of the research trial, had cognitive problems, were aged 18­69 years and could travel to attend group sessions. Participants were then allocated to receive cognitive rehabilitation or not, on the basis of chance (i.e. randomly). All participants were followed up for 1 year. Although both groups showed no differences in quality of life after 1 year, those who received cognitive rehabilitation had fewer memory problems in daily life and reported better mood than those who received only their usual clinical care. There were no differences in their levels of fatigue or disability, or in employment status. The qualitative results indicated that participants found the intervention useful. Treatment cost slightly less than usual care but had modest benefits. Overall, the results suggest that there may be modest short-term benefits of cognitive rehabilitation, and future studies will consider how such benefits can be maintained and whether or not some people benefit more than others.

Cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial (CRAMMS).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for attention and memory problems in people with multiple sclerosis. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with multiple sclerosis aged 18-69 years, who reported cognitive problems in daily life and had cognitive problems on standardized assessment. INTERVENTIONS: A group cognitive rehabilitation programme delivered in 10 weekly sessions in comparison with usual care. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological subscale at 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included measures of everyday memory problems, mood, fatigue, cognitive abilities and employment at 6 and 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: In all, 245 participants were allocated to cognitive rehabilitation and 204 to usual care. Mean Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 12 months was 22.2 (SD = 6.1) for cognitive rehabilitation and 23.4 (SD = 6.0) for usual care group; adjusted difference -0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.5 to 0.3, P = 0.20. No differences were observed in cognitive abilities, fatigue or employment. There were small differences in favour of cognitive rehabilitation for the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale Psychological at 6 months and everyday memory and mood at 6 and 12 months. There was no evidence of an effect on costs (-£808; 95% CI = -£2248 to £632) or on quality-adjusted life year gain (0.00; 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.02). CONCLUSION: This rehabilitation programme had no long-term benefits on the impact of multiple sclerosis on quality of life, but there was some evidence of an effect on everyday memory problems and mood.

Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Memory services often see people with early stage dementia who are largely independent and able to participate in community activities but who run the risk of reducing activities and social networks. PRIDE is a self-management intervention designed to promote living well and enhance independence for people with mild dementia. This study aims to examine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care or with usual care alone. METHODS/DESIGN: PRIDE is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible participants aged 18 or over who have mild dementia (defined as a score of 0.5 or 1 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale) who can participate in the intervention and provide informed consent will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with the PRIDE intervention delivered in addition to usual care, or usual care only. Participants will be followed-up at 3 and 6 month's post-randomisation. There will be an option for a supporter to join each participant. Each supporter will be provided with questionnaires at baseline and follow-ups at 3 to 6 months. Embedded qualitative research with both participants and supporters will explore their perspectives on the intervention investigating a range of themes including acceptability and barriers and facilitators to delivery and participation. The feasibility of conducting a full RCT associated with participant recruitment and follow-up of both conditions, intervention delivery including the recruitment, training, retention of PRIDE trained facilitators, clinical outcomes, intervention and resource use costs and the acceptability of the intervention and study related procedures will be examined. DISCUSSION: This study will assess whether a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whether the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care is feasible in comparison to usual care alone, and if so, will provide data to inform the design and conduct of a future trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN11288961, registered on 23 October 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12345678 Protocol V2.1 dated 19 June 2019.

Effect of a stepped-care intervention delivered by lay health workers on major depressive disorder among primary care patients in Nigeria (STEPCARE): a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how to scale up care for depression in settings where non-physician lay workers constitute the bulk of frontline providers. We aimed to compare a stepped-care intervention package for depression with usual care enhanced by use of the WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme intervention guide (mhGAP-IG). METHODS: We did a cluster-randomised trial in primary care clinics in Ibadan, Nigeria. Eligible clinics were those with adequate staffing to provide various 24-h clinical services and with regular physician supervision. Clinics (clusters), anonymised and stratified by local government area, were randomly allocated (1:1) with a computer-generated random number sequence to one of two groups: an intervention group in which patients received a stepped-care intervention (eight sessions of individual problem-solving therapy, with an extra two to four sessions if needed) plus enhanced usual care, and a control group in which patients received enhanced usual care only. Patients from enrolled clinics could participate if they were aged 18 years or older, not pregnant, and had moderate to severe depression (scoring ≥11 on the nine-item patient health questionnaire [PHQ-9]). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with remission of depression at 12 months (a score of ≤6 on the PHQ-9, with assessors masked to group allocation) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN46754188) and is completed. FINDINGS: 35 of 97 clinics approached were eligible and agreed to participate, of which 18 were allocated to the intervention group and 17 to the control group. 1178 patients (631 [54%] in the intervention group and 547 [46%] in the control group) were recruited between Dec 2, 2013, and June 29, 2015, among whom 976 (83%) were female and baseline mean PHQ-9 score was 13·7 (SD 2·6). Of the 562 (89%) patients in the intervention group and 473 (86%) in the control group who completed 12-month follow-up, similar proportions in each group had remission of depression (425 [76%] in the intervention group vs 366 [77%] in the control group; adjusted odds ratio 1·0 [95% CI 0·70-1·40]). At 12 months, 17 (3%) deaths, one (<1%) psychotic illness, and one (<1%) case of bipolar disorder in the intervention group, and 16 deaths (3%) and one (<1%) case of bipolar disorder in the control group were recorded. No adverse events were judged to be related to the study procedures. INTERPRETATION: For patients with moderate to severe depression receiving care from non-physician primary health-care workers in Nigeria, a stepped-care, problem-solving intervention combined with enhanced usual care is similarly effective to enhanced usual care alone. Enhancing usual care with mhGAP-IG might provide simple and affordable approach to scaling up depression care in sub-Saharan Africa. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.

Gentamicin as an alternative to ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea: the G-TOG non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Gonorrhoea is a common sexually transmitted infection that can cause pain and discomfort, affect fertility in women and lead to epididymo-orchitis in men. Current treatment is with ceftriaxone, but there is increasing evidence of antimicrobial resistance reducing its effectiveness. Gentamicin is a potential alternative treatment requiring further evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gentamicin as an alternative treatment to ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea. DESIGN: A multicentre, parallel-group, blinded, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Fourteen sexual health clinics in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 16-70 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated, untreated genital, pharyngeal or rectal gonorrhoea based on a positive Gram-stained smear on microscopy or a positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT). RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Participants were randomised using a secure web-based system, stratified by clinic. Participants, investigators and research staff assessing participants were blinded to treatment allocation. INTERVENTIONS: Allocation was to either 240 mg of gentamicin (intervention) or 500 mg of ceftriaxone (standard treatment), both administered as a single intramuscular injection. All participants also received 1 g of oral azithromycin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was clearance of Neisseria gonorrhoeae at all infected sites, confirmed by a negative Aptima Combo 2® (Hologic Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA) NAAT, at 2 weeks post treatment. RESULTS: We randomised 720 participants, of whom 81% were men. There were 358 participants in the gentamicin group and 362 in the ceftriaxone group; 292 (82%) and 306 (85%) participants, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. Non-inferiority of gentamicin to ceftriaxone could not be demonstrated [adjusted risk difference for microbiological clearance -6.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4% to -2.4%]. Clearance of genital infection was similar in the two groups, at 94% in the gentamicin group and 98% in the ceftriaxone group, but clearance of pharyngeal infection and rectal infection was lower in the gentamicin group (80% vs. 96% and 90% vs. 98%, respectively). Reported pain at the injection site was higher for gentamicin than for ceftriaxone. The side-effect profiles were comparable between the groups. Only one serious adverse event was reported and this was deemed not to be related to the trial medication. The economic analysis found that treatment with gentamicin is not cost neutral compared with standard care, with average patient treatment costs higher for those allocated to gentamicin (£13.90, 95% CI £2.47 to £37.34) than to ceftriaxone (£6.72, 95% CI £1.36 to £17.84). LIMITATIONS: Loss to follow-up was 17% but was similar in both treatment arms. Twelve per cent of participants had a negative NAAT for gonorrhoea at their baseline visit but this was balanced between treatment groups and unlikely to have biased the trial results. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was unable to demonstrate non-inferiority of gentamicin compared with ceftriaxone in the clearance of gonorrhoea at all infected sites. Clearance at pharyngeal and rectal sites was lower for participants allocated to gentamicin than for those allocated to ceftriaxone, but was similar for genital sites in both groups. Gentamicin was associated with more severe injection site pain. However, both gentamicin and ceftriaxone appeared to be well tolerated. FUTURE WORK: Exploration of the genetic determinants of antibiotic resistance in N. gonorrhoeae will help to identify accurate markers of decreased susceptibility. Greater understanding of the immune response to infection can assist gonococcal vaccine development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51783227. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Gonorrhoea is a common infection, spread by having sex, that causes genital pain and discomfort. In women it can lead to pelvic inflammation and infertility, and in men it can lead to swelling and pain in the testicles. Currently, an antibiotic called ceftriaxone is used to treat gonorrhoea. However, there is evidence that this is becoming less effective over time and it could stop curing patients with gonorrhoea within the next few years. In this study, we wanted to find out if another antibiotic called gentamicin is as good as ceftriaxone in the treatment of gonorrhoea and whether or not gentamicin could be used to treat gonorrhoea if ceftriaxone stops being effective. We recruited 720 adults with gonorrhoea and randomly allocated them (by chance) to receive treatment with an injection of either gentamicin (240 mg) or ceftriaxone (500 mg). They all also received a single dose of azithromycin (1 g) taken by mouth. Overall, 98% of participants given ceftriaxone had their gonorrhoea cured, compared with 91% of participants given gentamicin, a difference of 7%. Therefore, it is likely that doctors will continue to use ceftriaxone (plus azithromycin) as the preferred treatment. Gentamicin did have a cure rate of 94% for genital gonorrhoea and so it might be useful when ceftriaxone is not available or appropriate to use. Cure rates using gentamicin were lower than cure rates using ceftriaxone for gonorrhoea infecting the rectum (90%) and throat (80%), so it may be less useful for patients with infections at these sites. We also found that gentamicin is likely to cost the NHS more than ceftriaxone. Gentamicin caused few side effects and seems to be as safe as ceftriaxone, which is reassuring.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of memory rehabilitation following traumatic brain injury: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of a group-based memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injury. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blinded, randomized controlled trial in England. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: People with memory problems following traumatic brain injury, aged 18-69 years, able to travel to group sessions, communicate in English, and give consent. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 10 weekly group sessions of manualized memory rehabilitation plus usual care (intervention) vs. usual care alone (control). MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the patient-reported Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ-p) at six months post randomization. Secondary outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months post randomization. RESULTS: We randomized 328 participants. There were no clinically important differences in the primary outcome between arms at six-month follow-up (mean EMQ-p score: 38.8 (SD 26.1) in intervention and 44.1 (SD 24.6) in control arms, adjusted difference in means: -2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): -6.7 to 2.5, p = 0.37) or 12-month follow-up. Objectively assessed memory ability favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at the 6-month, but not at the 12-month outcome. There were no between-arm differences in mood, experience of brain injury, or relative/friend assessment of patient's everyday memory outcomes, but goal attainment scores favoured the memory rehabilitation arm at both outcome time points. Health economic analyses suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be cost effective. No safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: This memory rehabilitation programme did not lead to reduced forgetting in daily life for a heterogeneous sample of people with traumatic brain injury. Further research will need to examine who benefits most from such interventions.

A group memory rehabilitation programme for people with traumatic brain injuries: the ReMemBrIn RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) commonly report memory impairments. These are persistent, debilitating and reduce quality of life, but patients do not routinely receive memory rehabilitation after discharge from hospital. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group memory rehabilitation programme for people with TBI. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. Qualitative and health economic evaluations were also undertaken. SETTING: Community settings in nine sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 18-69 years, had undergone a TBI > 3 months prior to recruitment, reported memory problems, were able to travel to a site to attend group sessions, could communicate in English and gave informed consent. RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING: Clusters of four to six participants were randomised to the memory rehabilitation arm or the usual-care arm on a 1 : 1 ratio. Randomisation was based on a computer-generated pseudo-random code using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by study site. Participants and therapists were aware of the treatment allocation whereas outcome assessors were blinded. INTERVENTIONS: In the memory rehabilitation arm 10 weekly sessions of a manualised memory rehabilitation programme were provided in addition to usual care. Participants were taught restitution strategies to retrain impaired memory functions and compensation strategies to enable them to cope with memory problems. The usual-care arm received usual care only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcome: patient-completed Everyday Memory Questionnaire - patient version (EMQ-p) at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes: Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test - third edition (RBMT-3), General Health Questionnaire 30-item version, European Brain Injury Questionnaire, Everyday Memory Questionnaire - relative version and individual goal attainment. Costs (based on a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective) were collected using a service use questionnaire, with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, used to derive quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). A Markov model was developed to explore cost-effectiveness at 5 and 10 years, with a 3.5% discount applied. RESULTS: We randomised 328 participants (memory rehabilitation, n = 171; usual care, n = 157), with 129 in the memory rehabilitation arm and 122 in the usual-care arm included in the primary analysis. We found no clinically important difference on the EMQ-p between the two arms at 6 months' follow-up (adjusted difference in mean scores -2.1, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 2.5; p = 0.37). For secondary outcomes, differences favouring the memory rehabilitation arm were observed at 6 months' follow-up for the RBMT-3 and goal attainment, but remained only for goal attainment at 12 months' follow-up. There were no differences between arms in mood or quality of life. The qualitative results suggested positive experiences of participating in the trial and of attending the groups. Participants reported that memory rehabilitation was not routinely accessible in usual care. The primary health economics outcome at 12 months found memory rehabilitation to be £26.89 cheaper than usual care but less effective, with an incremental QALY loss of 0.007. Differences in costs and effects were not statistically significant and non-parametric bootstrapping demonstrated considerable uncertainty in these findings. No safety concerns were raised and no deaths were reported. LIMITATIONS: As a pragmatic trial, we had broad inclusion criteria and, therefore, there was considerable heterogeneity within the sample. The study was not powered to perform further subgroup analyses. Participants and therapists could not be blinded to treatment allocation. CONCLUSIONS: The group memory rehabilitation delivered in this trial is very unlikely to lead to clinical benefits or to be a cost-effective treatment for people with TBI in the community. Future studies should examine the selection of participants who may benefit most from memory rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65792154. 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. 23, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People with brain injuries often report memory problems. These difficulties can continue long after the injury, causing complications in daily life. Many people do not receive specific help for these memory problems after leaving hospital. Our study explored whether receiving 'memory rehabilitation' (a group treatment to help people deal with memory difficulties) was better than the treatment that people usually receive to help reduce the frequency of forgetting in daily life. We recruited 328 people who had memory problems following brain injury. About half were allocated at random to receive memory rehabilitation and half did not have any extra memory treatments, but everyone continued to receive their usual care. Those who had memory rehabilitation were offered 10 group sessions at which strategies were taught to help them cope with memory problems. We asked all participants to complete memory tests and questionnaires at the start of the study and again 6 and 12 months afterwards to find out whether the memory rehabilitation had any effect. Some participants were also interviewed about the study. At the 6- and 12-month assessments, there were no differences between those who received memory rehabilitation and those who did not in terms of how often participants reported memory problems in their daily lives or how well they performed on memory tests. We also did not find any differences in participants' mood or quality of life. However, individual goals set by the participants at the start of the study were a little better met by those who received memory rehabilitation than by those who did not. The memory rehabilitation did not represent value for money. In interviews, participants reported positive experiences of taking part in the study and of attending the group sessions. This group memory rehabilitation programme is unlikely to help people with memory problems following a brain injury more than the usual treatment that people receive. Some people may benefit more from memory rehabilitation than others, but this needs further investigation.

High- versus low-intensity interventions for perinatal depression delivered by non-specialist primary maternal care providers in Nigeria: cluster randomised controlled trial (the EXPONATE trial).

BACKGROUND: Contextually appropriate interventions delivered by primary maternal care providers (PMCPs) might be effective in reducing the treatment gap for perinatal depression. AIM: To compare high-intensity treatment (HIT) with low-intensity treatment (LIT) for perinatal depression. METHOD: Cluster randomised clinical trial, conducted in Ibadan, Nigeria between 18 June 2013 and 11 December 2015 in 29 maternal care clinics allocated by computed-generated random sequence (15 HIT; 14 LIT). Interventions were delivered individually to antenatal women with DSM-IV (1994) major depression by trained PMCPs. LIT consisted of the basic psychosocial treatment specifications in the World Health Organization Mental Health Gap Action Programme - Intervention Guide. HIT comprised LIT plus eight weekly problem-solving therapy sessions with possible additional sessions determined by scores on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). The primary outcome was remission of depression at 6 months postpartum (EPDS < 6). RESULTS: There were 686 participants; 452 and 234 in HIT and LIT arms, respectively, with both groups similar at baseline. Follow-up assessments, completed on 85%, showed remission rates of 70% with HIT and 66% with LIT: risk difference 4% (95% CI -4.1%, 12.0%), adjusted odds ratio 1.12 (95% CI 0.73, 1.72). HIT was more effective for severe depression (odds ratio 2.29; 95% CI 1.01, 5.20; P = 0.047) and resulted in a higher rate of exclusive breastfeeding. Infant outcomes, cost-effectiveness and adverse events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Except among severely depressed perinatal women, we found no strong evidence to recommend high-intensity in preference to low-intensity psychological intervention in routine primary maternal care. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS: None.

Outcome Assessment by Central Adjudicators Versus Site Investigators in Stroke Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Purpose- In randomized stroke trials, central adjudication of a trial's primary outcome is regularly implemented. However, recent evidence questions the importance of central adjudication in randomized trials. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes assessed by central adjudicators with outcomes assessed by site investigators. Methods- We included randomized stroke trials where the primary outcome had undergone an assessment by site investigators and central adjudicators. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar for eligible studies. We extracted information about the adjudication process as well as the treatment effect for the primary outcome, assessed both by central adjudicators and by site investigators. We calculated the ratio of these treatment effects so that a ratio of these treatment effects >1 indicated that central adjudication resulted in a more beneficial treatment effect than assessment by the site investigator. A random-effects meta-analysis model was fitted to estimate a pooled effect. Results- Fifteen trials, comprising 69 560 participants, were included. The primary outcomes included were stroke (8/15, 53%), a composite event including stroke (6/15, 40%) and functional outcome after stroke measured on the modified Rankin Scale (1/15, 7%). The majority of site investigators were blind to treatment allocation (9/15, 60%). On average, there was no difference in treatment effect estimates based on data from central adjudicators and site investigators (pooled ratio of these treatment effects=1.02; 95% CI, [0.95-1.09]). Conclusions- We found no evidence that central adjudication of the primary outcome in stroke trials had any impact on trial conclusions. This suggests that potential advantages of central adjudication may not outweigh cost and time disadvantages in stroke studies if the primary purpose of adjudication is to ensure validity of trial findings.

Doing trials within trials: a qualitative study of stakeholder views on barriers and facilitators to the routine adoption of methodology research in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials are the cornerstone of evidence-based health care, yet many trials struggle with recruitment and retention. All too often the methodologies employed to address these problems are not evidence-based, as rigorous methodological research on these issues is rare. The current research sought to identify barriers to the routine implementation of methodology research around recruitment and retention. METHODS: All registered UK clinical trials unit directors were sent a short questionnaire and invited to interview. Representatives of funding bodies and other stakeholders were also approached. Interviews were recorded and the content analysed. RESULTS: Data were grouped into four themes: acceptance of the need for methodological research; trial funding and development; trial processes; and organisational factors. The need to improve the evidence base for trials methodology is well established, but numerous barriers to implementation were perceived. CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge and expertise required to routinely implement methodology research exists within the current research structures, and there are clear opportunities to develop the evidence base. However, for this to be achieved there is also a need for clear strategic coordination within the sector and promotion of the necessary resources.

Triple versus guideline antiplatelet therapy to prevent recurrence after acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: the TARDIS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Two antiplatelet agents are better than one for preventing recurrent stroke after acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Therefore, intensive treatment with three agents might be better still, providing it does not cause undue bleeding. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of intensive therapy with guideline antiplatelet therapy for acute ischaemic stroke and TIA. DESIGN: International prospective randomised open-label blinded end-point parallel-group superiority clinical trial. SETTING: Acute hospitals at 106 sites in four countries. PARTICIPANTS: Patients > 50 years of age with acute non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or TIA within 48 hours of ictus (stroke). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were allocated at random by computer to 1 month of intensive (combined aspirin, clopidogrel and dipyridamole) or guideline (combined aspirin and dipyridamole, or clopidogrel alone) antiplatelet agents, and followed for 90 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence and severity of any recurrent stroke (ischaemic, haemorrhagic; assessed using the modified Rankin Scale) or TIA within 90 days by blinded telephone follow-up. Analysis using ordinal logistic regression was by intention to treat. Other outcomes included bleeding and its severity, death, myocardial infarction (MI), disability, mood, cognition and quality of life. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early on the recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee after recruitment of 3096 participants (intensive, n = 1556; guideline, n = 1540) from 106 hospitals in four countries between April 2009 and March 2016. The incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA did not differ between intensive and guideline therapy in 3070 (99.2%) participants with data [93 vs. 105 stroke/TIA events; adjusted common odds ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.20; p = 0.47]. Major (encompassing fatal) bleeding was increased with intensive as compared with guideline therapy [39 vs. 17 participants; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.23, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.96; p = 0.006]. There were no differences between the treatment groups in all-cause mortality, or the composite of death, stroke, MI and major bleeding (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35; p = 0.88). LIMITATIONS: Patients and investigators were not blinded to treatment. The comparator group comprised two guideline strategies because of changes in national guidelines during the trial. The trial was stopped early, thereby reducing its statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: The use of three antiplatelet agents is associated with increased bleeding without any significant reduction in recurrence of stroke or TIA. FUTURE WORK: The safety and efficacy of dual antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin and clopidogrel) versus aspirin remains to be defined. Further research is required on identifying individual patient response to antiplatelets, and the relationship between response and the subsequent risks of vascular recurrent events and bleeding complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47823388. 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. 48. See the NIHR Journal Library website for further project information. The Triple Antiplatelets for Reducing Dependency after Ischaemic Stroke (TARDIS) vanguard phase was funded by the British Heart Foundation (grant PG/08/083/25779, from 1 April 2009 to 30 September 2012) and indirect funding was provided by the Stroke Association through its funding of the Stroke Trials Unit, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. There was no commercial support for the trial and antiplatelet drugs were sourced locally at each site. The trial was sponsored by the University of Nottingham.

The Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Lamotrigine in Borderline Personality Disorder: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The authors examined whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with borderline personality disorder. METHOD: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Between July 2013 and November 2016, the authors recruited 276 people age 18 or over who met diagnostic criteria for borderline personality disorder. Individuals with coexisting bipolar affective disorder or psychosis, those already taking a mood stabilizer, and women at risk of pregnancy were excluded. A web-based randomization service was used to allocate participants randomly in a 1:1 ratio to receive either an inert placebo or up to 400 mg/day of lamotrigine. The primary outcome measure was score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcome measures included depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, side effects of treatment, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 195 (70.6%) participants were followed up at 52 weeks, at which point 49 (36%) of those in the lamotrigine group and 58 (42%) of those in the placebo group were taking study medication. The mean ZAN-BPD score was 11.3 (SD=6.6) among those in the lamotrigine group and 11.5 (SD=7.7) among those in the placebo group (adjusted difference in means=0.1, 95% CI=-1.8, 2.0). There was no evidence of any differences in secondary outcomes. Costs of direct care were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that treating people with borderline personality disorder with lamotrigine is not a clinically effective or cost-effective use of resources.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process in addition to specialist medical care for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process (LP) in addition to specialist medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone, for children with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalitis (ME). DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised controlled open trial. Participants were randomly assigned to SMC or SMC+LP. Randomisation was minimised by age and gender. SETTING: Specialist paediatric CFS/ME service. PATIENTS: 12-18 year olds with mild/moderate CFS/ME. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Function Subscale (SF-36-PFS) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pain, anxiety, depression, school attendance and cost-effectiveness from a health service perspective at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: We recruited 100 participants, of whom 51 were randomised to SMC+LP. Data from 81 participants were analysed at 6 months. Physical function (SF-36-PFS) was better in those allocated SMC+LP (adjusted difference in means 12.5(95% CI 4.5 to 20.5), p=0.003) and this improved further at 12 months (15.1 (5.8 to 24.4), p=0.002). At 6 months, fatigue and anxiety were reduced, and at 12 months, fatigue, anxiety, depression and school attendance had improved in the SMC+LP arm. Results were similar following multiple imputation. SMC+LP was probably more cost-effective in the multiple imputation dataset (difference in means in net monetary benefit at 12 months £1474(95% CI £111 to £2836), p=0.034) but not for complete cases. CONCLUSION: The LP is effective and is probably cost-effective when provided in addition to SMC for mild/moderately affected adolescents with CFS/ME. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81456207.

Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole versus clopidogrel alone or aspirin and dipyridamole in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia (TARDIS): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive antiplatelet therapy with three agents might be more effective than guideline treatment for preventing recurrent events in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole) with that of guideline-based antiplatelet therapy. METHODS: We did an international, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial in adult participants with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) within 48 h of onset. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio using computer randomisation to receive loading doses and then 30 days of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin 75 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, and dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily) or guideline-based therapy (comprising either clopidogrel alone or combined aspirin and dipyridamole). Randomisation was stratified by country and index event, and minimised with prognostic baseline factors, medication use, time to randomisation, stroke-related factors, and thrombolysis. The ordinal primary outcome was the combined incidence and severity of any recurrent stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic; assessed using the modified Rankin Scale) or TIA within 90 days, as assessed by central telephone follow-up with masking to treatment assignment, and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN47823388. FINDINGS: 3096 participants (1556 in the intensive antiplatelet therapy group, 1540 in the guideline antiplatelet therapy group) were recruited from 106 hospitals in four countries between April 7, 2009, and March 18, 2016. The trial was stopped early on the recommendation of the data monitoring committee. The incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA did not differ between intensive and guideline therapy (93 [6%] participants vs 105 [7%]; adjusted common odds ratio [cOR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·67-1·20, p=0·47). By contrast, intensive antiplatelet therapy was associated with more, and more severe, bleeding (adjusted cOR 2·54, 95% CI 2·05-3·16, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with recent cerebral ischaemia, intensive antiplatelet therapy did not reduce the incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA, but did significantly increase the risk of major bleeding. Triple antiplatelet therapy should not be used in routine clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, British Heart Foundation.