Integrated Short-term Palliative Rehabilitation to improve quality of life and equitable care access in incurable cancer (INSPIRE): a multinational European research project.

Background: Disability related to incurable cancer affects over a million Europeans each year and people with cancer rank loss of function among the most common unmet supportive care needs. Objectives: To test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an integrated short-term palliative rehabilitation intervention, to optimise function and quality of life in people affected by incurable cancer. Design: This is a multinational, parallel group, randomised, controlled, assessor blind, superiority trial. Methods: The INSPIRE consortium brings together leaders in palliative care, oncology and rehabilitation from partner organisations across Europe, with complementary expertise in health service research, trials of complex interventions, mixed-method evaluations, statistics and economics. Partnership with leading European civil society organisations ensures citizen engagement and dissemination at the highest level. We will conduct a multinational randomised controlled trial across five European countries, recruiting participants to assess the effectiveness of palliative rehabilitation for people with incurable cancer on the primary outcome - quality of life - and secondary outcomes including disability, symptom burden and goal attainment. To support trial conduct and enhance analysis of trial data, we will also conduct: comparative analysis of current integration of rehabilitation across oncology and palliative care services; mixed-method evaluations of equity and inclusivity, processes and implementation for the intervention, at patient, health service and health system levels. Finally, we will conduct an evidence synthesis, incorporating INSPIRE findings, and a Delphi consensus to develop an international framework for palliative rehabilitation practice and policy, incorporating indicators, core interventions, outcomes and integration methods. Scientific contribution: If positive, the trial could produce a scalable and equitable intervention to improve function and quality of life in people with incurable cancer and reduce the burden of care for their families. It could also upskill the practitioners involved and motivate future research questions. The intervention could be adapted and integrated into different health systems using existing staff and services, with little or no additional cost.

The RIO trial: rationale, design, and the role of community involvement in a randomised placebo-controlled trial of antiretroviral therapy plus dual long-acting HIV-specific broadly neutralising antibodies (bNAbs) in participants diagnosed with recent HIV infection-study protocol for a two-stage randomised phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) has led to dramatic improvements in survival for people living with HIV, but is unable to cure infection, or induce viral control off therapy. Designing intervention trials with novel agents with the potential to confer a period of HIV remission without ART remains a key scientific and community goal. We detail the rationale, design, and outcomes of a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of two HIV-specific long-acting broadly neutralising antibodies (bNAbs): 3BNC117-LS and 10-1074-LS, which target CD4 binding site and V3 loop respectively, on post-treatment viral control. METHODS: RIO is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded prospective phase II study. Eligible individuals will have started ART within 3 months of primary HIV infection and have viral sequences that appear to be sensitive to both bNAbs. It will randomise 72 eligible participants 1:1 to the following arms via a two-stage design. In Stage 1, arm A participants are given dual long-acting (LS-variants) bNAbs infusions, followed by intensively monitored Analytical Treatment Interruption (ATI) (n = 36); in arm B, participants receive placebo infusions followed by ATI. The primary endpoint will be time to viral rebound within 36 weeks after ATI. Upon viral rebound, the participant and researcher are unblinded. Participants in arm A recommence ART and complete the study. Participants in arm B are invited to restart ART and enroll into Stage 2 where they will receive open-label LS bNAbs, followed by a second ATI 24 weeks after. Secondary and exploratory endpoints include adverse events, time to undetectable viraemia after restarting ART, immunological markers, HIV proviral DNA, serum bNAb concentrations in blood, bNAb resistance at viral rebound, and quality of life measures. DISCUSSION: The two-stage design was determined in collaboration with community involvement. This design allows all participants the option to receive bNAbs. It also tests the hypothesis that bNAbs may drive sustained HIV control beyond the duration of detectable bNAb concentrations. Community representatives were involved at all stages. This included the two-stage design, discussion on the criteria to restart ART, frequency of monitoring visits off ART, and reducing the risk of onward transmission to HIV-negative partners. It also included responding to the challenges of COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered on Clinical. TRIALS: gov and EudraCT and has approval from UK Ethics and MHRA.

Ethnic Disparities in the Development of Sight-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy in a UK Multi-Ethnic Population with Diabetes: An Observational Cohort Study.

There is little data on ethnic differences in incidence of DR and sight threatening DR (STDR) in the United Kingdom. We aimed to determine ethnic differences in the development of DR and STDR and to identify risk factors of DR and STDR in people with incident or prevalent type II diabetes (T2DM). We used electronic primary care medical records of people registered with 134 general practices in East London during the period from January 2007-January 2017. There were 58,216 people with T2DM eligible to be included in the study. Among people with newly diagnosed T2DM, Indian, Pakistani and African ethnic groups showed an increased risk of DR with Africans having highest risk of STDR compared to White ethnic groups (HR: 1.36 95% CI 1.02-1.83). Among those with prevalent T2DM, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Caribbean ethnic groups showed increased risk of DR and STDR with Indian having the highest risk of any DR (HR: 1.24 95% CI 1.16-1.32) and STDR (HR: 1.38 95% CI 1.17-1.63) compared with Whites after adjusting for all covariates considered. It is important to optimise prevention, screening and treatment options in these ethnic minority groups to avoid health inequalities in diabetes eye care.

Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Licensed ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) and unlicensed bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) are used to treat macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion, but their relative clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and impact on the UK NHS and Personal Social Services have never been directly compared over the typical disease treatment period. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor agents for the management of macula oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. DESIGN: This was a three-arm, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: The trial was set in 44 UK NHS ophthalmology departments, between 2014 and 2018. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 463 patients with visual impairment due to macula oedema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion were included in the trial. INTERVENTIONS: The participants were treated with repeated intravitreal injections of ranibizumab (n = 155), aflibercept (n = 154) or bevacizumab (n = 154). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was an increase in the best corrected visual acuity letter score from baseline to 100 weeks in the trial eye. The null hypothesis that aflibercept and bevacizumab are each inferior to ranibizumab was tested with a non-inferiority margin of -5 visual acuity letters over 100 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional visual acuity, and imaging outcomes, Visual Function Questionnaire-25, EuroQol-5 Dimensions with and without a vision bolt-on, and drug side effects. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index to measure quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: The adjusted mean changes at 100 weeks in the best corrected visual acuity letter scores were as follows - ranibizumab, 12.5 letters (standard deviation 21.1 letters); aflibercept, 15.1 letters (standard deviation 18.7 letters); and bevacizumab, 9.8 letters (standard deviation 21.4 letters). Aflibercept was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference 2.23 letters, 95% confidence interval -2.17 to 6.63 letters; p = 0.0006), but not superior. The study was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to ranibizumab in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference -1.73 letters, 95% confidence interval -6.12 to 2.67 letters; p = 0.071). A post hoc analysis was unable to demonstrate that bevacizumab was non-inferior to aflibercept in the intention-to-treat population (adjusted mean best corrected visual acuity difference was -3.96 letters, 95% confidence interval -8.34 to 0.42 letters; p = 0.32). All per-protocol population results were the same. Fewer injections were required with aflibercept (10.0) than with ranibizumab (11.8) (difference in means -1.8, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to -0.8). A post hoc analysis showed that more bevacizumab than aflibercept injections were required (difference in means 1.6, 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 2.7). There were no new safety concerns. The model- and trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses estimated that bevacizumab was the most cost-effective treatment at a threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: The comparison of aflibercept and bevacizumab was a post hoc analysis. CONCLUSION: The study showed aflibercept to be non-inferior to ranibizumab. However, the possibility that bevacizumab is worse than ranibizumab and aflibercept by 5 visual acuity letters cannot be ruled out. Bevacizumab is an economically attractive treatment alternative and would lead to substantial cost savings to the NHS and other health-care systems. However, uncertainty about its relative effectiveness should be discussed comprehensively with patients, their representatives and funders before treatment is considered. FUTURE WORK: To obtain extensive patient feedback and discuss with all stakeholders future bevacizumab NHS use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13623634. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The eye functions like a camera. The retina, at the back of the eye, is the camera film, and the centre, the macula, allows us to see fine details. Approximately 6500 people each year in England and Wales are affected by fluid leaking out of congested tiny blood vessels, causing macular swelling or oedema. The cause is blockage of the main vein that normally drains blood from the retina. Three drugs, injected into the eye in tiny amounts every 4­8 weeks, have been shown to improve the vision of people with this condition. Two drugs, ranibizumab (0.5 mg/0.05 ml Lucentis^®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland) and aflibercept (2 mg/0.05 ml Eylea^®; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany), are licensed for UK use, but the third, bevacizumab (1.25 mg/0.05 ml Avastin^®; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland), is not, even though it is much cheaper and used extensively worldwide. To our knowledge, no trials have compared the three drugs over the typical 2-year treatment period. This multicentre, Phase III, double-masked, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of intravitreal therapy with ranibizumab (Lucentis) versus aflibercept (Eylea) versus bevacizumab (Avastin) for macular oedema due to central retinal Vein Occlusion (LEAVO) was designed to compare ranibizumab, aflibercept and bevacizumab in this type of macular oedema. The trial showed that all three drugs improved vision a lot, but bevacizumab improved vision to a slightly lesser degree than the other two drugs. All patients should be aware of these findings before considering their treatment options. A comparison of the costs and benefits of ranibizumab, aflibercept and bevacizumab, using data from the trial and other sources, found that all three led to similar improvements in quality of life. Because aflibercept and ranibizumab are so much more expensive, they may be poor value for money. If patients, their representatives and funders all agree, it may be possible to treat this type of macular oedema with bevacizumab, which is cheaper, keeping the other agents available if needed.

Cost Effectiveness of Ranibizumab vs Aflibercept vs Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Macular Oedema Due to Central Retinal Vein Occlusion: The LEAVO Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of intravitreal ranibizumab (Lucentis), aflibercept (Eylea) and bevacizumab (Avastin) for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion. METHODS: We calculated costs and quality-adjusted life-years from the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. We performed a within-trial analysis using the efficacy, safety, resource use and health utility data from a randomised controlled trial (LEAVO) over 100 weeks. We built a discrete event simulation to model long-term outcomes. We estimated utilities using the Visual-Functioning Questionnaire-Utility Index, EQ-5D and EQ-5D with an additional vision question. We used standard UK costs sources for 2018/19 and a cost of £28 per bevacizumab injection. We discounted costs and quality-adjusted life-years at 3.5% annually. RESULTS: Bevacizumab was the least costly intervention followed by ranibizumab and aflibercept in both the within-trial analysis (bevacizumab: £6292, ranibizumab: £13,014, aflibercept: £14,328) and long-term model (bevacizumab: £18,353, ranibizumab: £30,226, aflibercept: £35,026). Although LEAVO did not demonstrate bevacizumab to be non-inferior for the visual acuity primary outcome, the three interventions generated similar quality-adjusted life-years in both analyses. Bevacizumab was always the most cost-effective intervention at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, even using the list price of £243 per injection. CONCLUSIONS: Wider adoption of bevacizumab for the treatment of macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion could result in substantial savings to healthcare systems and deliver similar health-related quality of life. However, patients, funders and ophthalmologists should be fully aware that LEAVO could not demonstrate that bevacizumab is non-inferior to the licensed agents.

Protocol on a multicentre statistical and economic modelling study of risk-based stratified and personalised screening for diabetes and its complications in India (SMART India).

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to develop practical and affordable models to (a) diagnose people with diabetes and prediabetes and (b) identify those at risk of diabetes complications so that these models can be applied to the population in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) where laboratory tests are unaffordable. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This statistical and economic modelling study will be done on at least 48 000 prospectively recruited participants aged 40 years or above through community screening across 20 predefined regions in India. Each participant will be tested for capillary random blood glucose (RBG) and complete a detailed health-related questionnaire. People with known diabetes and all participants with predefined levels of RBG will undergo further tests, including point-of-care (POC) glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), POC lipid profile and POC urine test for microalbuminuria, retinal photography using non-mydriatic hand-held retinal camera, visual acuity assessment in both eyes and complete quality of life questionnaires. The primary aim of the study is to develop a model and assess its diagnostic performance to predict HbA1c diagnosed diabetes from simple tests that can be applied in resource-limited settings; secondary outcomes include RBG cut-off for definition of prediabetes, diagnostic accuracy of cost-effective risk stratification models for diabetic retinopathy and models for identifying those at risk of complications of diabetes. Diagnostic accuracy inter-tests agreement, statistical and economic modelling will be performed, accounting for clustering effects. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Indian Council of Medical Research/Health Ministry Screening Committee (HMSC/2018-0494 dated 17 December 2018 and institutional ethics committees of all the participating institutions approved the study. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57962668 V1.0 24/09/2018.

Assessment of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Tailored Web- and Text-Based Smoking Cessation Support in Primary Care (iQuit in Practice II): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of smoking is declining; however, it continues to be a major public health burden. In England, primary care is the health setting that provides smoking cessation support to most smokers. However, this setting has one of the lowest success rates. The iQuit in practice intervention (iQuit) is a tailored web-based and text message intervention developed for use in primary care consultations as an adjunct to routine smoking cessation support with the aim of increasing success rates. iQuit has demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and potential effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This definitive trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of iQuit when used as an adjunct to the usual support provided to patients who wish to quit smoking, compared with usual care alone. METHODS: The iQuit in Practice II trial is a two-arm, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a 1:1 individual allocation comparing usual care (ie, pharmacotherapy combined with multisession behavioral support)-the control-with usual care plus iQuit-the intervention. Participants were recruited through primary care clinics and talked to a smoking cessation advisor. Participants were randomized during the initial consultation, and those allocated to the intervention group received a tailored advice report and 90 days of text messaging in addition to the standard support provided to all patients. RESULTS: The primary outcome is self-reported prolonged abstinence biochemically verified using saliva cotinine at 6 months after the quit date. A sample size of 1700 participants, with 850 per arm, would yield 90% power to detect a 4.3% difference in validated quit rates between the groups at the two-sided 5% level of significance. The Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee approved the study in February 2016, and funding for the study was granted from May 2016. In total, 1671 participants were recruited between August 2016 and July 2019. Follow-up for all participants was completed in January 2020. Data analysis will begin in the summer of 2020. CONCLUSIONS: iQuit in Practice II is a definitive, pragmatic RCT assessing whether a digital intervention can augment the impact of routine smoking cessation support in primary care. Previous research has found good acceptability and feasibility for delivering iQuit among smoking cessation advisors working in primary care. If demonstrated to be cost-effective, iQuit could be delivered across primary care and other settings, such as community pharmacies. The potential benefit would likely be highest where less behavioral support is delivered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 44559004; http://www.isrctn.com /ISRCTN44559004. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17160.

Evaluation of a very brief pedometer-based physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks in England: The VBI randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. There is a need for effective, scalable interventions to promote activity. Self-monitoring by pedometer is a potentially suitable strategy. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-based intervention ('Step It Up') delivered as part of National Health Service (NHS) Health Checks in primary care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial was a two parallel-group, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 3-month follow-up, conducted in 23 primary care practices in the East of England. Participants were 1,007 healthy adults aged 40 to 74 years eligible for an NHS Health Check. They were randomly allocated (1:1) using a web-based tool between October 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, to either intervention (505) or control group (502), stratified by primary care practice. Participants were aware of study group allocation. Control participants received the NHS Health Check only. Intervention participants additionally received Step It Up: a 5-minute face-to-face discussion, written materials, pedometer, and step chart. The primary outcome was accelerometer-based physical activity volume at 3-month follow-up adjusted for sex, 5-year age group, and general practice. Secondary outcomes included time spent in different intensities of physical activity, self-reported physical activity, and economic measures. We conducted an in-depth fidelity assessment on a subsample of Health Check consultations. Participants' mean age was 56 years, two-thirds were female, they were predominantly white, and two-thirds were in paid employment. The primary outcome was available in 859 (85.3%) participants. There was no significant between-group difference in activity volume at 3 months (adjusted intervention effect 8.8 counts per minute [cpm]; 95% CI -18.7 to 36.3; p = 0.53). We found no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes of step counts per day, time spent in moderate or vigorous activity, time spent in vigorous activity, and time spent in moderate-intensity activity (accelerometer-derived variables); as well as in total physical activity, home-based activity, work-based activity, leisure-based activity, commuting physical activity, and screen or TV time (self-reported physical activity variables). Of the 505 intervention participants, 491 (97%) received the Step it Up intervention. Analysis of 37 intervention consultations showed that 60% of Step it Up components were delivered faithfully. The intervention cost £18.04 per participant. Incremental cost to the NHS per 1,000-step increase per day was £96 and to society was £239. Adverse events were reported by 5 intervention participants (of which 2 were serious) and 5 control participants (of which 2 were serious). The study's limitations include a participation rate of 16% and low return of audiotapes by practices for fidelity assessment. CONCLUSIONS: In this large well-conducted trial, we found no evidence of effect of a plausible very brief pedometer intervention embedded in NHS Health Checks on objectively measured activity at 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN72691150).

Electronically delivered interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory infections in primary care: cluster RCT using electronic health records and cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics in primary care is contributing to the emergence of antimicrobial drug resistance. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a multicomponent intervention for antimicrobial stewardship in primary care, and to evaluate the safety of reducing antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting respiratory infections (RTIs). INTERVENTIONS: A multicomponent intervention, developed as part of this study, including a webinar, monthly reports of general practice-specific data for antibiotic prescribing and decision support tools to inform appropriate antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN: A parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The trial was conducted in 79 general practices in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). PARTICIPANTS: All registered patients were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of antibiotic prescriptions for self-limiting RTIs over the 12-month intervention period. COHORT STUDY: A separate population-based cohort study was conducted in 610 CPRD general practices that were not exposed to the trial interventions. Data were analysed to evaluate safety outcomes for registered patients with 45.5 million person-years of follow-up from 2005 to 2014. RESULTS: There were 41 intervention trial arm practices (323,155 patient-years) and 38 control trial arm practices (259,520 patient-years). There were 98.7 antibiotic prescriptions for RTIs per 1000 patient-years in the intervention trial arm (31,907 antibiotic prescriptions) and 107.6 per 1000 patient-years in the control arm (27,923 antibiotic prescriptions) [adjusted antibiotic-prescribing rate ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.99; p = 0.040]. There was no evidence of effect in children aged < 15 years (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12) or adults aged ≥ 85 years (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18). Antibiotic prescribing was reduced in adults aged between 15 and 84 years (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95), that is, one antibiotic prescription was avoided for every 62 patients (95% CI 40 to 200 patients) aged 15-84 years per year. Analysis of trial data for 12 safety outcomes, including pneumonia and peritonsillar abscess, showed no evidence that these outcomes might be increased as a result of the intervention. The analysis of data from non-trial practices showed that if a general practice with an average list size of 7000 patients reduces the proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotics prescribed by 10%, then 1.1 (95% CI 0.6 to 1.5) more cases of pneumonia per year and 0.9 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.3) more cases of peritonsillar abscesses per decade may be observed. There was no evidence that mastoiditis, empyema, meningitis, intracranial abscess or Lemierre syndrome were more frequent at low-prescribing practices. LIMITATIONS: The research was based on electronic health records that may not always provide complete data. The number of practices included in the trial was smaller than initially intended. CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence that, overall, general practice antibiotic prescribing for RTIs was reduced by this electronically delivered intervention. Antibiotic prescribing rates were reduced for adults aged 15-84 years, but not for children or the senior elderly. FUTURE WORK: Strategies for antimicrobial stewardship should employ stratified interventions that are tailored to specific age groups. Further research into the safety of reduced antibiotic prescribing is also needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95232781. 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. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The overuse of antibiotics to treat infections is contributing to the rise of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. A trial was carried out to evaluate whether or not interventions delivered through general practice computer systems may be used to reduce antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting respiratory tract infections (RTIs). The study was carried out in 79 UK general practices. The study tested the effect of a webinar to introduce the trial interventions, which included monthly feedback reports of data for respiratory consultations and antibiotic prescriptions, as well as computer-delivered decision support tools. These interventions were specially developed for this study and were pre-tested with general practitioners and practice nurses. Over the 12-month intervention period, the antibiotic-prescribing rate was about 12% lower in the intervention trial arm than in the control arm. There was no effect of intervention in children aged < 15 years or adults aged ≥ 85 years, but antibiotic prescribing was reduced by about 16% in adults aged between 15 and 84 years. Assuming this was caused by the intervention, one antibiotic prescription was avoided per year for every 62 patients aged between 15 and 84 years and registered with a trial practice. The study found no evidence that the intervention might increase the risk of 12 bacterial infections. In addition, a follow-up study of 610 UK general practices not included in the trial was conducted. The study found that if a general practice with an average list size of 7000 patients reduces the proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotics prescribed by 10%, then it may be possible to observe about one more case of pneumonia per year and one more case of peritonsillar abscess per decade, but no increase in other infections is likely. It can be concluded that electronically delivered interventions, including feedback of antibiotic-prescribing data for specific indications, may have the potential to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing; however, antimicrobial stewardship interventions need to be tailored to particular age groups.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention delivered in NHS Health Checks (VBI Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity interventions that are targeted at individuals can be effective in encouraging people to be more physically active. However, most such interventions are too long or complex and not scalable to the general population. This trial will test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief physical activity intervention when delivered as part of preventative health checks in primary care (National Health Service (NHS) Health Check). METHODS/DESIGN: The Very Brief Intervention (VBI) Trial is a two parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial with 1:1 individual allocation and follow-up at 3 months. A total of 1,140 participants will be recruited from 23 primary care practices in the east of England. Participants eligible for an NHS Health Check and who are considered suitable to take part by their doctor and able to provide written informed consent are eligible for the trial. Participants are randomly assigned at the beginning of the NHS Health Check to either 1) the control arm, in which they receive only the NHS Health Check, or 2) the intervention arm, in which they receive the NHS Health Check plus 'Step It Up' (a very brief intervention that can be delivered in 5 minutes by nurses and/or healthcare assistants at the end of the Health Check). 'Step It Up' includes (1) a face-to-face discussion, including feedback on current activity level, recommendations for physical activity, and information on how to use a pedometer, set step goals, and monitor progress; (2) written material supporting the discussion and tips and links to further resources to help increase physical activity; and (3) a pedometer to wear and a step chart for monitoring progress. The primary outcome is accelerometer counts per minute at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the time spent in the different levels of physical activity, self-reported physical activity and economic measures. Trial recruitment is underway. DISCUSSION: The VBI trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Step It Up intervention delivered during NHS Health Checks and will inform policy decisions about introducing very brief interventions into routine primary care practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN72691150 . Registered on 17 July 2014.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of a Breathlessness Intervention Service for patients with advanced non-malignant disease and their informal carers: mixed findings of a mixed method randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness is the most common and intrusive symptom of advanced non-malignant respiratory and cardiac conditions. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) is a multi-disciplinary complex intervention, theoretically underpinned by a palliative care approach, utilising evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to support patients with advanced disease in managing their breathlessness. Having published the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of BIS for patients with advanced cancer and their carers, we sought to establish its effectiveness, and cost effectiveness, in advanced non-malignant conditions. METHODS: This was a single-centre Phase III fast-track single-blind mixed method RCT of BIS versus standard care for breathless patients with non-malignant conditions and their carers. Randomisation was to one of two groups (randomly permuted blocks). Eighty-seven patients referred to BIS were randomised (intervention arm n = 44; control arm n = 43 received BIS after four-week wait); 79 (91 %) completed to key outcome measurement. The primary outcome measure was 0-10 numeric rating scale for patient distress due to breathlessness at four weeks. Secondary outcome measures were Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Client Service Receipt Inventory, EQ-5D and topic-guided interviews. RESULTS: Qualitative analyses showed the positive impact of BIS on patients with non-malignant conditions and their carers; quantitative analyses showed a non-significant greater reduction in the primary outcome ('distress due to breathlessness'), when compared to standard care, of -0.24 (95 % CI: -1.30, 0.82). BIS resulted in extra mean costs of £799, reducing to £100 when outliers were excluded; neither difference was statistically significant. The quantitative findings contrasted with those previously reported for patients with cancer and their carers, which showed BIS to be both clinically and cost effective. For patients with non-malignant conditions there was a notable trend of improvement over both trial arms to the key measurement point; participants may have experienced a therapeutic effect from the research interviews, diluting the intervention's impact. CONCLUSIONS: BIS had a statistically non-significant effect for patients with non-malignant conditions, and slightly increased service costs, but had a qualitatively positive impact consistent with findings for advanced cancer. Trials of palliative care interventions should consider multiple, mixed method, primary outcomes and ensure that protocols limit potential contaminating therapeutic effects in study designs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04119516 (December 2008); ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00678405 (May 2008).

Is a specialist breathlessness service more effective and cost-effective for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care? Findings of a mixed-method randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness is common in advanced cancer. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) is a multi-disciplinary complex intervention theoretically underpinned by a palliative care approach, utilising evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to support patients with advanced disease. We sought to establish whether BIS was more effective, and cost-effective, for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care. METHODS: A single-centre Phase III fast-track single-blind mixed-method randomised controlled trial (RCT) of BIS versus standard care was conducted. Participants were randomised to one of two groups (randomly permuted blocks). A total of 67 patients referred to BIS were randomised (intervention arm n = 35; control arm n = 32 received BIS after a two-week wait); 54 completed to the key outcome measurement. The primary outcome measure was a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for patient distress due to breathlessness at two-weeks. Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Client Services Receipt Inventory, EQ-5D and topic-guided interviews. RESULTS: BIS reduced patient distress due to breathlessness (primary outcome: -1.29; 95% CI -2.57 to -0.005; P = 0.049) significantly more than the control group; 94% of respondents reported a positive impact (51/53). BIS reduced fear and worry, and increased confidence in managing breathlessness. Patients and carers consistently identified specific and repeatable aspects of the BIS model and interventions that helped. How interventions were delivered was important. BIS legitimised breathlessness and increased knowledge whilst making patients and carers feel 'not alone'. BIS had a 66% likelihood of better outcomes in terms of reduced distress due to breathlessness at lower health/social care costs than standard care (81% with informal care costs included). CONCLUSIONS: BIS appears to be more effective and cost-effective in advanced cancer than standard care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: RCT registration at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00678405 (May 2008) and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04119516 (December 2008).

Psychological impact of family history risk assessment in primary care: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Routine family history risk assessment for chronic diseases could enable primary care practitioners to efficiently identify at-risk patients and promote preventive management strategies. OBJECTIVES: To investigate patients' understanding and responses to family history risk assessment in primary care. METHOD: A mixed methods study set in 10 Eastern England general practices. Participants in a family history questionnaire validation study were triaged into population or increased risk for four chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer). Questionnaires completed immediately prior to the family history consultation (baseline) and 4 weeks later (follow-up) assessed the psychological impact, including State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. Semi-structured interviews explored the meaning participants gave to their personal familial disease risk. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-three participants completed both baseline and follow-up questionnaires and 30 were interviewed. At follow-up, there was no increase in anxiety among either group, or differences between the groups [difference in mean change 0.02, 95% confidence interval -2.04, 2.08, P = 0.98]. There were no significant changes over time in self-rated health in either group. At follow-up, participants at increased risk (n = 153) were more likely to have recent changes to behaviour and they had stronger intentions to make changes to diet (P = 0.001), physical activity (P = 0.006) and to seek further information in the future than those at population risk (n = 300; P < 0.001). Using qualitative analysis, five themes were developed representing ways in which participants gave meaning to familial disease risk ('Being reassured', 'Controlling risk', 'Dealing with it later', 'Beyond my control', 'Disbelieving the risk'). The meanings they attributed to increased risk appeared to shape their intention to undertake behaviour change. CONCLUSION: Routine assessment for familial risk of chronic diseases may be undertaken in primary care without causing anxiety or reducing self-rated health. Patient responses to family history risk assessment may inform promotion of preventive management strategies.

Impact of body mass index on prevalence of multimorbidity in primary care: cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is the co-occurrence of long-term conditions. Obesity is associated with an increased risk of long-term conditions including type 2 diabetes and depression. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association between body mass index (BMI) category and multimorbidity in a large cohort registered in primary care. METHODS: The sample comprised primary care electronic health records of adults aged ≥30 years, sampled from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 2005 and 2011. Multimorbidity was defined as the co-occurrence of ≥2 of 11 conditions affecting seven organ systems. Age- and sex-standardized prevalence of multimorbidity was estimated by BMI category. Adjusted odds ratios associating BMI with additional morbidity were estimated adjusting for socioeconomic deprivation and smoking. RESULTS: The sample comprised 300 006 adults. After excluding participants with BMI never recorded, data were analysed for 223 089 (74%) contributing 1 374 109 person-years. In normal weight men, the standardized prevalence of multimorbidity was 23%, rising to 27% in overweight, 33% in category I obesity, 38% in category II and 44% in category III obesity. In women, the corresponding values were 28%, 34%, 41%, 45% and 51%. In category III obesity, the adjusted odds, relative to normal BMI, were 2.24 (2.13-2.36) for a first condition; 2.63 (2.51-2.76) for a second condition and 3.09 (2.92-3.28) for three or more conditions. In a cross-sectional analysis, 32% of multimorbidity was attributable to overweight and obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple morbidity is highly associated with increasing BMI category and obesity, highlighting the potential for targeted primary and secondary prevention interventions in primary care.

The cost-effectiveness of a novel SIAscopic diagnostic aid for the management of pigmented skin lesions in primary care: a decision-analytic model.

OBJECTIVES: Pigmented skin lesions are commonly presented in primary care. Appropriate diagnosis and management is challenging because the vast majority are benign. The MoleMate system is a handheld SIAscopy scanner integrated with a primary care diagnostic algorithm aimed at improving the management of pigmented skin lesions in primary care. METHODS: This decision-model-based economic evaluation draws on the results of a randomized controlled trial of the MoleMate system versus best practice (ISRCTN79932379) to estimate the expected long-term cost and health gain of diagnosis with the MoleMate system versus best practice in an English primary care setting. The model combines trial results with data from the wider literature to inform long-term prognosis, health state utilities, and cost. RESULTS: Results are reported as mean and incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and value of information analysis. Over a lifetime horizon, the MoleMate system is expected to cost an extra £18 over best practice alone, and yield an extra 0.01 QALYs per patient examined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is £1,896 per QALY gained, with a 66.1% probability of being below £30,000 per QALY gained. The expected value of perfect information is £43.1 million. CONCLUSIONS: Given typical thresholds in the United Kingdom (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY), the MoleMate system may be cost-effective compared with best practice diagnosis alone in a primary care setting. However, there is considerable decision uncertainty, driven particularly by the sensitivity and specificity of MoleMate versus best practice, and the risk of disease progression in undiagnosed melanoma; future research should focus on reducing uncertainty in these parameters.

Effect of adding a diagnostic aid to best practice to manage suspicious pigmented lesions in primary care: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether adding a novel computerised diagnostic tool, the MoleMate system (SIAscopy with primary care scoring algorithm), to current best practice results in more appropriate referrals of suspicious pigmented lesions to secondary care, and to assess its impact on clinicians and patients. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 15 general practices in eastern England. PARTICIPANTS: 1297 adults with pigmented skin lesions not immediately diagnosed as benign. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assessed by trained primary care clinicians using best practice (clinical history, naked eye examination, seven point checklist) either alone (control group) or with the MoleMate system (intervention group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Appropriateness of referral, defined as the proportion of referred lesions that were biopsied or monitored. Secondary outcomes related to the clinicians (diagnostic performance, confidence, learning effects) and patients (satisfaction, anxiety). Economic evaluation, diagnostic performance of the seven point checklist, and five year follow-up of melanoma incidence were also secondary outcomes and will be reported later. RESULTS: 1297 participants with 1580 lesions were randomised: 643 participants with 788 lesions to the intervention group and 654 participants with 792 lesions to the control group. The appropriateness of referral did not differ significantly between the intervention or control groups: 56.8% (130/229) v 64.5% (111/172); difference -8.1% (95% confidence interval -18.0% to 1.8%). The proportion of benign lesions appropriately managed in primary care did not differ (intervention 99.6% v control 99.2%, P=0.46), neither did the percentage agreement with an expert decision to biopsy or monitor (intervention 98.5% v control 95.7%, P=0.26). The percentage agreement with expert assessment that the lesion was benign was significantly lower with MoleMate (intervention 84.4% v control 90.6%, P<0.001), and a higher proportion of lesions were referred (intervention 29.8% v control 22.4%, P=0.001). Thirty six histologically confirmed melanomas were diagnosed: 18/18 were appropriately referred in the intervention group and 17/18 in the control group. Clinicians in both groups were confident, and there was no evidence of learning effects, and therefore contamination, between groups. Patients in the intervention group ranked their consultations higher for thoroughness and reassuring care, although anxiety scores were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that the MoleMate system improved appropriateness of referral. The systematic application of best practice guidelines alone was more accurate than the MoleMate system, and both performed better than reports of current practice. Therefore the systematic application of best practice guidelines (including the seven point checklist) should be the paradigm for management of suspicious skin lesions in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79932379.

Study protocol: Phase III single-blinded fast-track pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention for breathlessness in advanced disease.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness in advanced disease causes significant distress to patients and carers and presents management challenges to health care professionals. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) seeks to improve the care of breathless patients with advanced disease (regardless of cause) through the use of evidence-based practice and working with other healthcare providers. BIS delivers a complex intervention (of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments) via a multi-professional team. BIS is being continuously developed and its impact evaluated using the MRC's framework for complex interventions (PreClinical, Phase I and Phase II completed). This paper presents the protocol for Phase III. METHODS/DESIGN: Phase III comprises a pragmatic, fast-track, single-blind randomised controlled trial of BIS versus standard care. Due to differing disease trajectories, the service uses two broad service models: one for patients with malignant disease (intervention delivered over two weeks) and one for patients with non-malignant disease (intervention delivered over four weeks). The Phase III trial therefore consists of two sub-protocols: one for patients with malignant conditions (four week protocol) and one for patients with non-malignant conditions (eight week protocol). Mixed method interviews are conducted with patients and their lay carers at three to five measurement points depending on randomisation and sub-protocol. Qualitative interviews are conducted with referring and non-referring health care professionals (malignant disease protocol only). The primary outcome measure is 'patient distress due to breathlessness' measured on a numerical rating scale (0-10). The trial includes economic evaluation. Analysis will be on an intention to treat basis. DISCUSSION: This is the first evaluation of a breathlessness intervention for advanced disease to have followed the MRC framework and one of the first palliative care trials to use fast track methodology and single-blinding. The results will provide evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the service, informing its longer term development and implementation of the model in other centres nationally and internationally. It adds to methodological developments in palliative care research where complex interventions are common but evidence sparse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00678405ISRCTN: ISRCTN04119516.

Protocol for the ADDITION-Plus study: a randomised controlled trial of an individually-tailored behaviour change intervention among people with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes under intensive UK general practice care.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses both clinical and public health challenges. Cost-effective approaches to prevent progression of the disease in primary care are needed. Evidence suggests that intensive multifactorial interventions including medication and behaviour change can significantly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among patients with established type 2 diabetes, and that patient education in self-management can improve short-term outcomes. However, existing studies cannot isolate the effects of behavioural interventions promoting self-care from other aspects of intensive primary care management. The ADDITION-Plus trial was designed to address these issues among recently diagnosed patients in primary care over one year. METHODS/DESIGN: ADDITION-Plus is an explanatory randomised controlled trial of a facilitator-led, theory-based behaviour change intervention tailored to individuals with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes. 34 practices in the East Anglia region participated. 478 patients with diabetes were individually randomised to receive (i) intensive treatment alone (n = 239), or (ii) intensive treatment plus the facilitator-led individual behaviour change intervention (n = 239). Facilitators taught patients key skills to facilitate change and maintenance of key behaviours (physical activity, dietary change, medication adherence and smoking), including goal setting, action planning, self-monitoring and building habits. The intervention was delivered over one year at the participant's surgery and included a one-hour introductory meeting followed by six 30-minute meetings and four brief telephone calls. Primary endpoints are physical activity energy expenditure (assessed by individually calibrated heart rate monitoring and movement sensing), change in objectively measured dietary intake (plasma vitamin C), medication adherence (plasma drug levels), and smoking status (plasma cotinine levels) at one year. We will undertake an intention-to-treat analysis of the effect of the intervention on these measures, an assessment of cost-effectiveness, and analyse predictors of behaviour change in the cohort. DISCUSSION: The ADDITION-Plus trial will establish the medium-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding an externally facilitated intervention tailored to support change in multiple behaviours among intensively-treated individuals with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes in primary care. Results will inform policy recommendations concerning the management of patients early in the course of diabetes. Findings will also improve understanding of the factors influencing change in multiple behaviours, and their association with health outcomes.

The ADDITION-Cambridge trial protocol: a cluster -- randomised controlled trial of screening for type 2 diabetes and intensive treatment for screen-detected patients.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, the benefits of such a strategy remain uncertain. METHODS AND DESIGN: The ADDITION-Cambridge study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of (i) a stepwise screening strategy for type 2 diabetes; and (ii) intensive multifactorial treatment for people with screen-detected diabetes in primary care. 63 practices in the East Anglia region participated. Three undertook the pilot study, 33 were allocated to three groups: no screening (control), screening followed by intensive treatment (IT) and screening plus routine care (RC) in an unbalanced (1:3:3) randomisation. The remaining 27 practices were randomly allocated to IT and RC. A risk score incorporating routine practice data was used to identify people aged 40-69 years at high-risk of undiagnosed diabetes. In the screening practices, high-risk individuals were invited to take part in a stepwise screening programme. In the IT group, diabetes treatment is optimised through guidelines, target-led multifactorial treatment, audit, feedback, and academic detailing for practice teams, alongside provision of educational materials for newly diagnosed participants. Primary endpoints are modelled cardiovascular risk at one year, and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity at five years after diagnosis of diabetes. Secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, development of renal and visual impairment, peripheral neuropathy, health service costs, self-reported quality of life, functional status and health utility. Impact of the screening programme at the population level is also assessed through measures of mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, health status and health service use among high-risk individuals. DISCUSSION: ADDITION-Cambridge is conducted in a defined high-risk group accessible through primary care. It addresses the feasibility of population-based screening for diabetes, as well as the benefits and costs of screening and intensive multifactorial treatment early in the disease trajectory. The intensive treatment algorithm is based on evidence from studies including individuals with clinically diagnosed diabetes and the education materials are informed by psychological theory. ADDITION-Cambridge will provide timely evidence concerning the benefits of early intensive treatment and will inform policy decisions concerning screening for type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled trials ISRCTN86769081.