A randomised controlled trial to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) for depressed non-responders to Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) high-intensity therapies: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Major depression represents a pressing challenge for health care. In England, Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services provide evidence-based psychological therapies in a stepped-care approach to patients with depression. While introduction of these services has successfully increased access to therapy, estimates suggest that about 50% of depressed patients who have come to the end of the IAPT pathway still show significant levels of symptoms. This study will investigate whether Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), a group intervention combining training in mindfulness meditation and elements from cognitive therapy, can have beneficial effects in depressed patients who have not responded to high-intensity therapy in IAPT. It will seek to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MBCT as compared to the treatment these patients would usually receive. METHODS: In a 2-arm randomised controlled trial, patients who currently meet the criteria for major depressive disorder and who have not sufficiently responded to at least 12 sessions of IAPT high-intensity therapy will be allocated, at a ratio of 1:1, to receive either MBCT (in addition to treatment as usual [TAU]) or continue with TAU only. Assessments will take place at baseline, 10 weeks and 34 weeks post-randomisation. The primary outcome will be reduction in depression symptomatology 34 weeks post-randomisation as assessed using the Public Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes will include depressive symptomatology at 10 weeks post-randomisation and other clinical outcomes measured at 10-week and 34-week follow-up, along with a series of binarised outcomes to indicate clinically significant and reliable change. Evaluations of cost-effectiveness will be based on assessments of service use costs collected using the Adult Service Use Schedule and health utilities derived from the EQ-5D. DISCUSSION: This trial will add to the evidence base for the use of MBCT in depressed treatment non-responders. It will constitute the first trial to test MBCT following non-response to psychological therapy, with results providing a direct estimate of efficacy within the IAPT pathway. As such, its results will offer an important basis for decisions regarding the adoption of MBCT for non-responders within IAPT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05236959. Registered on 11 February 2022. ISRCTN 17755571. Registered on 2 February 2021.

Early Laser for Burn Scars (ELABS): protocol for a multi-centre randomised, controlled trial of both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the treatment of hypertrophic burn scars with Pulsed Dye Laser and standard care compared to standard care alone [version 1; peer review: 2 approved].

This paper outlines the protocol for a study that is being carried out at multiple centres across the UK in the next three years. It is a Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) study funded by the National Institute for Healthcare Research (NIHR). The aim is to assess the effectiveness of treating hypertrophic burns scars with pulsed dye laser (PDL) at an early stage of scar formation. The objective is to improve Quality of Life for the patient by improving both the appearance and quality of burn scarring, as well as reducing its psychological impact. This is a parallel-arm randomised, controlled trial to compare PDL and standard care against standard care alone. The difference is measured between baseline and six-month follow-up. Recruits are within three months of healing from a burn injury; with wounds showing a defined potential for hypertrophic scarring. A total of 120 patients are recruited in a multi-centre study; with randomisation in a 1:1 allocation to each arm. The treatment arm receives 3 PDL treatments at six-week intervals in addition to standard care, whereas the control arm receives standard care alone. The primary outcome is the patient-rated part of the Patient and Observer Scar Scale (POSAS). Psychological and psycho-social impact is evaluated using the CARe burn scale (UWE, Bristol) and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) is determined using the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12). The study evaluates both the cost-effectiveness through an economic analysis and the patient-reported experience of the treatment by phone interviews.

Beating Adolescent Self-Harm (BASH): a randomised controlled trial comparing usual care versus usual care plus a smartphone self-harm prevention app (BlueIce) in young adolescents aged 12-17 who self-harm: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: A mobile app, BlueIce, was codesigned with young people with a history of self-harm to provide them with more accessible and available evidence-based support at times of distress. A preliminary evaluation found that BlueIce was acceptable, safe and used by young people and helped to reduce self-harm. The present study is designed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding BlueIce to usual Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a single-blind, randomised controlled trial comparing usual CAMHS care with usual care plus BlueIce. A total of 138 adolescents aged 12-17 with current or a history of self-harm will be recruited through the Oxford Health National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust via their CAMHS clinician. The primary outcome is self-harm at 12 weeks assessed using the Risk Taking and Self-Harm Inventory for Adolescents. Secondary outcomes include mood, anxiety, hopelessness, general behaviour, sleep and impact on everyday life at 12 weeks and 6 months. Health-related quality of life and healthcare resource utilisation data will be collected at baseline, 12 weeks and 6 months. Postuse interviews at 12 weeks will determine the acceptability, safety and usability of BlueIce. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the NHS South Central-Oxford B NHS Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0212) and by the Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales. Findings will be disseminated in peer review open-access journals and at academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10541045.

Does a screening trial for spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic pain of neuropathic origin have clinical utility and cost-effectiveness (TRIAL-STIM)? A randomised controlled trial.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Although a temporary SCS screening trial is widely used to determine whether a patient should receive permanent SCS implant, its evidence base is limited. We aimed to establish the clinical utility, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of an SCS screening trial. A multicentre single-blind, parallel two-group randomised controlled superiority trial was undertaken at 3 centres in the United Kingdom. Patients were randomised 1:1 to either SCS screening trial strategy (TG) or no trial screening strategy (NTG). Treatment was open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome measure was numerical rating scale (NRS) pain at 6-month follow-up. Between June 2017 and September 2018, 105 participants were enrolled and randomised (TG = 54, NTG = 51). Mean numerical rating scale pain decreased from 7.47 at baseline (before SCS implantation) to 4.28 at 6 months in TG and from 7.54 to 4.49 in NTG (mean group difference: 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.2 to 0.9, P = 0.89). We found no difference between TG and NTG in the proportion of pain responders or other secondary outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation screening trial had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 78-100) and specificity of 8% (95% CI: 1-25). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of TG vs NTG was £78,895 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. In conclusion, although the SCS screening trial may have some diagnostic utility, there was no evidence that an SCS screening TG provides superior patient outcomes or is cost-effective compared to a no trial screening approach.

Where do we go from here? - Opportunities and barriers to the career development of trial managers: a survey of UK-based trial management professionals.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials commonly have a dedicated trial manager and effective trial management is essential to the successful delivery of high-quality trials. Trial managers have diverse experience and currently there is no standardised structured career pathway. The UK Trial Managers' Network (UKTMN) surveyed its members to understand what is important to them with respect to career development since this would be important in the development of any initiative intended to develop a skilled workforce. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of UKTMN members, who are trial management professionals, working on academic-led trials in the UK. Members were asked what they perceive as opportunities and barriers to career development. Two reminders were sent to facilitate completion of the survey, and responders were offered the opportunity to enter a prize draw for waived fees at the UKTMN annual meeting. Data were analysed descriptively by using Stata (version 15.1), and free-text responses were reviewed for themes. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 819 UKTMN members; 433 responses were received, although 13 were from non-UKTMN members; thus 420 respondents' data were included in analyses. Respondents were representative of UKTMN membership; however, more responses were received by trial managers based in registered clinical trials units (CTUs). The top three opportunities for career development were (i) training, (ii) helping design trials and (iii) undertaking relevant qualifications. The top three barriers were (i) funding, (ii) few opportunities to get involved in development activities aside from managing a trial and (iii) unclear organisational career pathway. Almost all respondents (401/420, 95.4%) considered career development either very or quite important. Although all respondents had a day-to-day role in managing trials, there was huge disparity between job titles. CONCLUSION: Career development is important to trial managers yet there is a lack of a structured pathway. The enablers and disablers to career development for trial managers should be clearly considered by the clinical trial community and, in particular, employers, sponsors and funders in order to develop a highly skilled workforce of trial managers, who are key to the delivery of trials.

Correction to: Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Following publication of the original article [1], we have been notified that the final specification of randomisation implemented in the study is slightly different to that stated in the protocol and needs to be corrected as follows.

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TRIAL-STIM Study aims to assess the diagnostic performance, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a screening trial prior to full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device. METHODS/DESIGN: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a superiority, parallel-group, three-centre, randomised controlled trial in patients with chronic neuropathic pain with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation. The study will take place in three UK centres: South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital); Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. A total of 100 adults undergoing SCS implantation for the treatment of neuropathy will be included. Subjects will be recruited from the outpatient clinics of the three participating sites and randomised to undergo a screening trial prior to SCS implant or an implantation-only strategy in a 1:1 ratio. Allocation will be stratified by centre and minimised on patient age (≥ 65 or < 65 years), gender, presence of failed back surgery syndrome (or not) and use of high frequency (HF10™) (or not). The primary outcome measure is the numerical rating scale (NRS) at 6 months compared between the screening trial and implantation strategy and the implantation-only strategy. Secondary outcome measures will include diagnostic accuracy, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months as measured on the NRS, health-related quality-of-life (EQ-5D), function (Oswestry Disability Index), patient satisfaction (Patients' Global Impression of Change) and complication rates. A nested qualitative study will be carried out in parallel for a total of 30 of the patients recruited in each centre (10 at each centre) to explore their views of the screening trial, implantation and overall use of the SCS device. The economic evaluation will take the form of a cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation aiming to determine the clinical utility of screening trials of SCS as well as their cost-effectiveness. The nested qualitative study will seek to explore the patient's view of the screening trials, implantation and overall use of SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN60778781 . Registered on 15 August 2017.

Cost and Outcome of BehaviouRal Activation (COBRA): a randomised controlled trial of behavioural activation versus cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, debilitating and costly disorder. The best-evidenced psychological therapy - cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) - is complex and costly. A simpler therapy, behavioural activation (BA), may be an effective alternative. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for depressed adults at 12 and 18 months' follow-up, and to investigate the processes of treatments. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial stratified by depression severity, antidepressant use and recruitment site, with embedded process evaluation; and randomisation by remote computer-generated allocation. SETTING: Three community mental health services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with major depressive disorder (MDD) recruited from primary care and psychological therapy services. INTERVENTIONS: BA delivered by NHS junior mental health workers (MHWs); CBT by NHS psychological therapists. OUTCOMES: Primary: depression severity (as measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-9; PHQ-9) at 12 months. Secondary: MDD status; number of depression-free days; anxiety (as measured via the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7); health-related quality of life (as measured via the Short Form questionnaire-36 items) at 6, 12 and 18 months; and PHQ-9 at 6 and 18 months, all collected by assessors blinded to treatment allocation. Non-inferiority margin was 1.9 PHQ-9 points. We undertook intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses. We explored cost-effectiveness by collecting direct treatment and other health- and social-care costs and calculating quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, at 18 months. RESULTS: We recruited 440 participants (BA, n = 221; CBT, n = 219); 175 (79%) BA and 189 (86%) CBT participants provided ITT data and 135 (61%) BA and 151 (69%) CBT participants provided PP data. At 12 months we found that BA was non-inferior to CBT {ITT: CBT 8.4 PHQ-9 points [standard deviation (SD) 7.5 PHQ-9 points], BA 8.4 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.0 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.1 PHQ-9 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3 to 1.5 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.89; PP: CBT 7.9 PHQ-9 points (SD 7.3 PHQ-9 points), BA 7.8 PHQ-9 points (SD 6.5 PHQ-9 points), mean difference 0.0 PHQ-9 points, 95% CI -1.5 to 1.6 PHQ-9 points, p = 0.99}. We found no differences in secondary outcomes. We found a significant difference in mean intervention costs (BA, £975; CBT, £1235; p < 0.001), but no differences in non-intervention (hospital, community health, social care and medication costs) or total (non-intervention plus intervention) costs. Costs were lower and QALY outcomes better in the BA group, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -£6865. The probability of BA being cost-effective compared with CBT was almost 80% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's preferred willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. There were no trial-related adverse events. LIMITATIONS: In this pragmatic trial many depressed participants in both groups were also taking antidepressant medication, although most had been doing so for a considerable time before entering the trial. Around one-third of participants chose not to complete a PP dose of treatment, a finding common in both psychotherapy trials and routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: We found that BA is as effective as CBT, more cost-effective and can be delivered by MHWs with no professional training in psychological therapies. FUTURE WORK: Settings and countries with a paucity of professionally qualified psychological therapists, might choose to investigate the delivery of effective psychological therapy for depression without the need to develop an extensive and costly professional infrastructure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): a qualitative process evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To explore participant views on acceptability, mechanisms of change and impact of behavioural activation (BA) delivered by junior mental health workers (MHWs) versus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by professional psychotherapists. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interviews analysed using a framework approach. PARTICIPANTS: 36 participants with major depressive disorder purposively sampled from a randomised controlled trial of BA versus CBT (the COBRA trial). SETTING: Primary care psychological therapies services in Devon, Durham and Leeds, UK. RESULTS: Elements of therapy considered to be beneficial included its length and regularity, the opportunity to learn and not dwelling on the past. Homework was an important, although challenging aspect of treatment. Therapists were perceived as experts who played an important role in treatment. For some participants the most important element of therapy was having someone to talk to, but for others the specific factors associated with BA and CBT were crucial, with behavioural change considered important for participants in both treatments, and cognitive change unsurprisingly discussed more by those receiving CBT. Both therapies were considered to have a positive impact on symptoms of depression and other areas of life including feelings about themselves, self-care, work and relationships. Barriers to therapy included work, family life and emotional challenges. A subset (n=2) of BA participants commented that therapy felt too simple, and MHWs could be perceived as inexperienced. Many participants saw therapy as a learning experience, providing them with tools to take away, with work on relapse prevention essential. CONCLUSIONS: Despite barriers for some participants, BA and CBT were perceived to have many benefits, to have brought about cognitive and behavioural change and to produce improvements in many domains of participants' lives. To optimise the delivery of BA, inexperienced junior MHWs should be supported through good quality training and ongoing supervision. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27473954, 09/12/2011.

Cost and Outcome of Behavioural Activation versus Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression (COBRA): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common, debilitating, and costly disorder. Many patients request psychological therapy, but the best-evidenced therapy-cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-is complex and costly. A simpler therapy-behavioural activation (BA)-might be as effective and cheaper than is CBT. We aimed to establish the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of BA compared with CBT for adults with depression. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults aged 18 years or older meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria for major depressive disorder from primary care and psychological therapy services in Devon, Durham, and Leeds (UK). We excluded people who were receiving psychological therapy, were alcohol or drug dependent, were acutely suicidal or had attempted suicide in the previous 2 months, or were cognitively impaired, or who had bipolar disorder or psychosis or psychotic symptoms. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) remotely using computer-generated allocation (minimisation used; stratified by depression severity [Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) score of <19 vs ≥19], antidepressant use, and recruitment site) to BA from junior mental health workers or CBT from psychological therapists. Randomisation done at the Peninsula Clinical Trials Unit was concealed from investigators. Treatment was given open label, but outcome assessors were masked. The primary outcome was depression symptoms according to the PHQ-9 at 12 months. We analysed all those who were randomly allocated and had complete data (modified intention to treat [mITT]) and also all those who were randomly allocated, had complete data, and received at least eight treatment sessions (per protocol [PP]). We analysed safety in the mITT population. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9 PHQ-9 points. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN27473954. FINDINGS: Between Sept 26, 2012, and April 3, 2014, we randomly allocated 221 (50%) participants to BA and 219 (50%) to CBT. 175 (79%) participants were assessable for the primary outcome in the mITT population in the BA group compared with 189 (86%) in the CBT group, whereas 135 (61%) were assessable in the PP population in the BA group compared with 151 (69%) in the CBT group. BA was non-inferior to CBT (mITT: CBT 8·4 PHQ-9 points [SD 7·5], BA 8·4 PHQ-9 points [7·0], mean difference 0·1 PHQ-9 points [95% CI -1·3 to 1·5], p=0·89; PP: CBT 7·9 PHQ-9 points [7·3]; BA 7·8 [6·5], mean difference 0·0 PHQ-9 points [-1·5 to 1·6], p=0·99). Two (1%) non-trial-related deaths (one [1%] multidrug toxicity in the BA group and one [1%] cancer in the CBT group) and 15 depression-related, but not treatment-related, serious adverse events (three in the BA group and 12 in the CBT group) occurred in three [2%] participants in the BA group (two [1%] patients who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed) and eight (4%) participants in the CBT group (seven [4%] who overdosed and one [1%] who self-harmed). INTERPRETATION: We found that BA, a simpler psychological treatment than CBT, can be delivered by junior mental health workers with less intensive and costly training, with no lesser effect than CBT. Effective psychological therapy for depression can be delivered without the need for costly and highly trained professionals. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behaviour therapy for depression (COBRA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. However, CBT is a complex therapy that requires highly trained and qualified practitioners, and its scalability is therefore limited by the costs of training and employing sufficient therapists to meet demand. Behavioural activation (BA) is a psychological treatment for depression that may be an effective alternative to CBT and, because it is simpler, might also be delivered by less highly trained and specialised mental health workers. METHODS/DESIGN: COBRA is a two-arm, non-inferiority, patient-level randomised controlled trial, including clinical, economic, and process evaluations comparing CBT delivered by highly trained professional therapists to BA delivered by junior professional or para-professional mental health workers to establish whether the clinical effectiveness of BA is non-inferior to CBT and if BA is cost effective compared to CBT. Four hundred and forty patients with major depressive disorder will be recruited through screening in primary care. We will analyse for non-inferiority in per-protocol and intention-to-treat populations. Our primary outcome will be severity of depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be clinically significant change and severity of depression at 18 months, and anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (Short-Form Health Survey-36) at 12 and 18 months. Our economic evaluation will take the United Kingdom National Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective to include costs of the interventions, health and social care services used, plus productivity losses. Cost-effectiveness will explored in terms of quality-adjusted life years using the EuroQol-5D measure of health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: The clinical and economic outcomes of this trial will provide the evidence to help policy makers, clinicians and guideline developers decide on the merits of including BA as a first-line treatment of depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954.