Prompt closure versus gradual weaning of external ventricular drainage for hydrocephalus following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: Protocol for the DRAIN randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) is a life-threatening disease caused by rupture of an intracranial aneurysm. A common complication following aSAH is hydrocephalus, for which placement of an external ventricular drain (EVD) is an important first-line treatment. Once the patient is clinically stable, the EVD is either removed or replaced by a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. The optimal strategy for cessation of EVD treatment is, however, unknown. Gradual weaning may increase the risk of EVD-related infection, whereas prompt closure carries a risk of acute hydrocephalus and redundant shunt implantations. We designed a randomised clinical trial comparing the two commonly used strategies for cessation of EVD treatment in patients with aSAH. METHODS: DRAIN is an international multi-centre randomised clinical trial with a parallel group design comparing gradual weaning versus prompt closure of EVD treatment in patients with aSAH. Participants are randomised to either gradual weaning which comprises a multi-step increase of resistance over days, or prompt closure of the EVD. The primary outcome is a composite outcome of VP-shunt implantation, all-cause mortality, or ventriculostomy-related infection. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events excluding mortality, functional outcome (modified Rankin scale), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). Outcome assessment will be performed 6 months after ictus. Based on the sample size calculation (event proportion 80% in the gradual weaning group, relative risk reduction 20%, type I error 5%, power 80%), 122 patients are needed in each intervention group. Outcome assessment for the primary outcome, statistical analyses and conclusion drawing will be blinded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03948256.

Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a randomised clinical trial (the TECTO trial).

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the recommended first-line treatment for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but evidence concerning treatment-specific benefits and harms compared with other interventions is limited. Furthermore, high risk-of-bias in most trials prevent firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of CBT. We investigate the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT) in youth with OCD in a trial designed to reduce risk-of-bias. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel group superiority randomised clinical trial (RCT). Outcome assessors, data managers, statisticians, and conclusion drawers are blinded. From child and adolescent mental health services we include patients aged 8-17 years with a primary OCD diagnosis and an entry score of ≥16 on the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). We exclude patients with comorbid illness contraindicating trial participation; intelligence quotient < 70; or treatment with CBT, PRT, antidepressant or antipsychotic medication within the last 6 months prior to trial entry. Participants are randomised 1:1 to the experimental intervention (FCBT) versus the control intervention (FPRT) each consisting of 14 75-min sessions. All therapists deliver both interventions. Follow-up assessments occur in week 4, 8 and 16 (end-of-treatment). The primary outcome is OCD symptom severity assessed with CY-BOCS at end-of-trial. Secondary outcomes are quality-of-life and adverse events. Based on sample size estimation, a minimum of 128 participants (64 in each intervention group) are included. DISCUSSION: In our trial design we aim to reduce risk-of-bias, enhance generalisability, and broaden the outcome measures by: 1) conducting an investigator-initiated, independently funded RCT; 2) blinding investigators; 3) investigating a representative sample of OCD patients; 3) using an active control intervention (FPRT) to tease apart general and specific therapy effects; 4) using equal dosing of interventions and therapist supervision in both intervention groups; 5) having therapists perform both interventions decided by randomisation; 6) rating fidelity of both interventions; 7) assessing a broad range of benefits and harms with repeated measures. The primary study limitations are the risk of missing data and the inability to blind participants and therapists to the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03595098, registered July 23, 2018.

A screening method to spot biomarkers that may warn of serious events in a chronic disease - illustrated by cardiological CLARICOR trial data.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a crude screening method for detecting biomarkers which frequently exhibit a rise (or fall) in level prior to a serious event (e.g. a stroke) in patients with a chronic disease, signalling that the biomarker may have an alarm-raising or prognostic potential. The subsequent assessment of the marker's clinical utility requires costly, difficult longitudinal studies. Therefore, initial screening of candidate-biomarkers is desirable. METHODS: The method exploits a cohort of patients with biomarkers measured at entry and with recording of first serious event during follow-up. Copying those individual records onto a common timeline where a specific event occurs on the same day (Day 0) for all patients, the baseline biomarker level, when plotted against the patient's entry time on the revised timeline, will have a positive (negative) regression slope if biomarker levels generally rise (decline) the closer one gets to the event. As an example, we study 1,958 placebo-treated patients with stable coronary artery disease followed for nine years in the CLARICOR trial (NCT00121550), examining 11 newer biomarkers. RESULTS: Rising average serum levels of cardiac troponin T and of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide were seen prior to a fatal cardiovascular outcome. C-reactive protein rose prior to non-cardiovascular death. Glomerular filtration rate, seven lipoproteins, and nine newer cardiological biomarkers did not show convincing changes. CONCLUSIONS: For early detection of biomarkers with an alarm-raising potential in chronic diseases, we proposed the described easy procedure. Using only baseline biomarker values and clinical course of participants with coronary heart disease, we identified the same cardiovascular biomarkers as those previously found containing prognostic information using longitudinal or survival analysis.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: The impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) following heart valve surgery is uncertain. We conducted an update of this systematic review and a meta-analysis to assess randomised controlled trial evidence for the use of exercise-based CR following heart valve surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based CR compared with no exercise training in adults following heart valve surgery or repair, including both percutaneous and surgical procedures. We considered CR programmes consisting of exercise training with or without another intervention (such as an intervention with a psycho-educational component). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS; Bireme); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) on the Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) on 10 January 2020. We searched for ongoing trials from ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical-trials.com, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 15 May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with no exercise training. Trial participants comprised adults aged 18 years or older who had undergone heart valve surgery for heart valve disease (from any cause) and had received heart valve replacement or heart valve repair. Both percutaneous and surgical procedures were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of systematic errors ('bias') by evaluating risk domains using the 'Risk of bias' (RoB2) tool. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity. We performed meta-analyses using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for primary outcomes (all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalisation, and health-related quality of life). MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials with a total of 364 participants who have had open or percutaneous heart valve surgery. For this updated review, we identified four additional trials (216 participants). One trial had an overall low risk of bias, and we classified the remaining five trials as having some concerns. Follow-up ranged across included trials from 3 to 24 months. Based on data at longest follow-up, a total of nine participants died: 4 CR versus 5 control (relative risk (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 2.68; 2 trials, 131 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low). No trials reported on cardiovascular mortality. One trial reported one cardiac-related hospitalisation in the CR group and none in the control group (RR 2.72, 95% CI 0.11 to 65.56; 1 trial, 122 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low). We are uncertain about health-related quality of life at completion of the intervention in CR compared to control (Short Form (SF)-12/36 mental component: mean difference (MD) 1.28, 95% CI -1.60 to 4.16; 2 trials, 150 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low; and SF-12/36 physical component: MD 2.99, 95% CI -5.24 to 11.21; 2 trials, 150 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low), or at longest follow-up (SF-12/36 mental component: MD -1.45, 95% CI -4.70 to 1.80; 2 trials, 139 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low; and SF-12/36 physical component: MD -0.87, 95% CI -3.57 to 1.83; 2 trials, 139 participants; GRADE quality of evidence very low).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to lack of evidence and the very low quality of available evidence, this updated review is uncertain about the impact of exercise-CR in this population in terms of mortality, hospitalisation, and health-related quality of life. High-quality (low risk of bias) evidence on the impact of CR is needed to inform clinical guidelines and routine practice.

Exploratory analyses of the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT): a randomized trial of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care in advanced cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Early and integrated specialized palliative care is often recommended but has still only been investigated in relatively few randomized clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care on the explorative outcomes in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT). METHODS: We conducted a randomized multicentre, parallel-group clinical trial. Consecutive patients with metastatic cancer were included if they had symptoms or problems that exceeded a predefined threshold according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Outcomes were estimated as the differences between the intervention and the control groups in the change from baseline to the weighted mean of the 3- and 8-week follow-ups measured as areas under the curve. RESULTS: In total, 145 patients were randomized to early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus 152 to standard care only. Early specialized palliative care had no significant effect on any of the symptoms or problems. Of the 21 items addressing satisfaction, specialized palliative care improved the item 'overall satisfaction with the help received from the health care system' with 9 points (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 14.2, p = 0.0006) and three other items (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In line with the analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT, we did not find that specialized palliative care, as provided in DanPaCT, affected symptoms and problems. However, patients in the intervention group seemed more satisfied with the health care received than those in the standard care group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01348048.

Loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload: A protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the intensive care unit, fluid overload is frequent and a risk factor for organ dysfunction and increased mortality. Primarily, lung and kidney functions may be impaired by fluid overload resulting in acute respiratory failure and acute kidney injury. No clinical guidelines exist for treatment of fluid overload in intensive care patients. Loop diuretics, most often furosemide, appear to be the most frequently used pharmacological intervention. The aim of this protocol is to describe the methods of a systematic review assessing the evidence of treatment with loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and report it according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statements, use the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook and assess the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We will include randomised clinical trials identified through searches of major international databases and trial registers. Two authors will independently screen and select trials for inclusion, extract data and assess the methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Extracted data will be analysed using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. The protocol is registered at PROSPERO. DISCUSSION: We aim to provide reliable evidence on the use of loop diuretics in adult intensive care patients with fluid overload to guide clinicians, decision makers and trialists on clinical practice.

Internet-based therapy with FearFighter for anxiety disorders: a randomised clinical trial.

Background: Internet-based cognitive behavioural self-help psychotherapy (ICBT) can be an important alternative or supplement to ordinary face-to-face therapy.Aim: To assess effectiveness of ICBT for adults with an anxiety disorder.Methods: Sixty-four participants were randomised to 9 weeks with the FearFighter ICBT program (n = 32) or no intervention (n = 32). Outcomes included complete remission, severity of symptoms and occurrence of adverse events.Results: No difference (p = 1.00) in remission between groups following 10 weeks of intervention nor at 37 weeks follow-up was found. There was significant reduction in the severity of symptoms (p < 0.05) at end of intervention of ICBT compared to the control group, while the reduction in symptoms at 37 weeks follow-up was equal for the two groups. Two participants in the ICBT group and none in the control group reported adverse events.Conclusion: We found no difference in remission, but a reduction of symptoms in the ICBT group compared with the control group at end of intervention. At six months follow-up the two groups showed the same level in the reduction of symptoms. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02499055. Registered 01 July 2015.

Illness management and recovery: one-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial in Danish community mental health centers: long-term effects on clinical and personal recovery.

BACKGROUND: Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based rehabilitation program for people with severe mental illness with the short-term aim of improving illness self-management and the long-term aim of helping people achieve clinical and personal recovery. METHOD: Participants with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders were recruited from three community mental health centers in the Capital Region of Denmark and randomized to receive group-based IMR and treatment as usual or only the usual intervention. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and the one-year follow-up. Long-term outcomes were categorized according to clinical recovery (i.e., symptoms, global functioning, and hospitalization) and personal recovery (i.e., hope and personal agency). Generalized linear mixed model regression analyses were used in the intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 198 participants were included. No significant differences were found between the IMR and control groups in the Global Assessment of Functioning one year after the intervention, nor were there significant differences in symptoms, number of hospital admissions, emergency room visits, or outpatient treatment. CONCLUSION: The present IMR trial showed no significant effect on clinical and personal recovery at the one-year follow-up. Together with the results of other IMR studies, the present study indicates that the effect of IMR on symptom severity is unclear, which raises questions regarding the impact of IMR on functioning. Additionally, IMR did not affect personal recovery. Although more research is needed, the results indicate that the development of other interventions should be considered to help people with severe mental illness achieve a better level of functioning and personal recovery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01361698 ).

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adult patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: An effective way of preventing sudden cardiac death is the use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). In spite of the potential mortality benefits of receiving an ICD device, psychological problems experienced by patients after receiving an ICD may negatively impact their health-related quality of life, and lead to increased readmission to hospital and healthcare needs, loss of productivity and employment earnings, and increased morbidity and mortality. Evidence from other heart conditions suggests that cardiac rehabilitation should consist of both exercise training and psychoeducational interventions; such rehabilitation may benefit patients with an ICD. Prior systematic reviews of cardiac rehabilitation have excluded participants with an ICD. A systematic review was therefore conducted to assess the evidence for the use of exercise-based intervention programmes following implantation of an ICD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes (exercise-based interventions alone or in combination with psychoeducational components) compared with control (group of no intervention, treatment as usual or another rehabilitation programme with no physical exercise element) in adults with an ICD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases on 30 August 2018 and three trials registers on 14 November 2017. We also undertook reference checking, citation searching and contacted study authors for missing data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if they investigated exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions compared with no intervention, treatment as usual or another rehabilitation programme. The trial participants were adults (aged 18 years or older), who had been treated with an ICD regardless of type or indication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and health-related quality of life. The secondary outcomes were exercise capacity, antitachycardia pacing, shock, non-serious adverse events, employment or loss of employment and costs and cost-effectiveness. Risk of systematic errors (bias) was assessed by evaluation of predefined bias risk domains. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity were assessed. Meta-analyses were undertaken using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight trials published from 2004 to 2017 randomising a total of 1730 participants, with mean intervention duration of 12 weeks. All eight trials were judged to be at overall high risk of bias and effect estimates are reported at the end of the intervention with a follow-up range of eight to 24 weeks.Seven trials reported all-cause mortality, but deaths only occurred in one trial with no evidence of a difference between exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and control (risk ratio (RR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 21.26; participants = 196; trials = 1; quality of evidence: low). There was also no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and control (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44; participants = 356; trials = 2; quality of evidence: low). Due to the variation in reporting of health-related quality of life outcomes, it was not possible to pool data. However, the five trials reporting health-related quality of life at the end of the intervention, each showed little or no evidence of a difference between exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and control.For secondary outcomes, there was evidence of a higher pooled exercise capacity (peak VO2) at the end of the intervention (mean difference (MD) 0.91 mL/kg/min, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.21; participants = 1485; trials = 7; quality of evidence: very low) favouring exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation, albeit there was evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 78%). There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of requiring antitachycardia pacing (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.90; participants = 356; trials = 2; quality of evidence: moderate), appropriate shock (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.58; participants = 428; studies = 3; quality of evidence: low) or inappropriate shock (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.51; participants = 160; studies = 1; quality of evidence: moderate). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to a lack of evidence, we were unable to definitively assess the impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and health-related quality of life in adults with an ICD. However, our findings do provide very low-quality evidence that patients following exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation experience a higher exercise capacity compared with the no exercise control. Further high-quality randomised trials are needed in order to assess the impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in this population on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, antitachycardia pacing and shock.

Pharmacological interventions for benzodiazepine discontinuation in chronic benzodiazepine users.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged treatment with benzodiazepines is common practice despite clinical recommendations of short-term use. Benzodiazepines are used by approximately 4% of the general population, with increased prevalence in psychiatric populations and the elderly. After long-term use it is often difficult to discontinue benzodiazepines due to psychological and physiological dependence. This review investigated if pharmacological interventions can facilitate benzodiazepine tapering. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions to facilitate discontinuation of chronic benzodiazepine use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases up to October 2017: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Specialised Register of Trials, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and ISI Web of Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP, and ISRCTN registry, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological treatment versus placebo or no intervention or versus another pharmacological intervention in adults who had been treated with benzodiazepines for at least two months and/or fulfilled criteria for benzodiazepine dependence (any criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 trials (involving 2543 participants), but we could only extract data from 35 trials with 2295 participants. Many different interventions were studied, and no single intervention was assessed in more than four trials. We extracted data on 18 different comparisons. The risk of bias was high in all trials but one. Trial Sequential Analysis showed imprecision for all comparisons.For benzodiazepine discontinuation, we found a potential benefit of valproate at end of intervention (1 study, 27 participants; risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 6.03; very low-quality evidence) and of tricyclic antidepressants at longest follow-up (1 study, 47 participants; RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.82; low-quality evidence).We found potentially positive effects on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms of pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; mean difference (MD) -3.10 points, 95% CI -3.51 to -2.69; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -1.00 points, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.87; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -3.57 points, 95% CI -5.34 to -1.80; very low-quality evidence), tricyclic antidepressants (1 study, 38 participants; MD -19.78 points, 95% CI -20.25 to -19.31; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (3 studies, 58 participants; standardised mean difference -0.95, 95% CI -1.71 to -0.19; very low-quality evidence) at end of intervention. However, the positive effect of paroxetine on benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms did not persist until longest follow-up (1 study, 54 participants; MD -0.13 points, 95% CI -4.03 to 3.77; very low-quality evidence).The following pharmacological interventions reduced symptoms of anxiety at end of intervention: carbamazepine (1 study, 36 participants; MD -6.00 points, 95% CI -9.58 to -2.42; very low-quality evidence), pregabalin (1 study, 106 participants; MD -4.80 points, 95% CI -5.28 to -4.32; very low-quality evidence), captodiame (1 study, 81 participants; MD -5.70 points, 95% CI -6.05 to -5.35; very low-quality evidence), paroxetine (2 studies, 99 participants; MD -6.75 points, 95% CI -9.64 to -3.86; very low-quality evidence), and flumazenil (1 study, 18 participants; MD -1.30 points, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.32; very low-quality evidence).Two pharmacological treatments seemed to reduce the proportion of participants that relapsed to benzodiazepine use: valproate (1 study, 27 participants; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.90; very low-quality evidence) and cyamemazine (1 study, 124 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78; very low-quality evidence). Alpidem decreased the proportion of participants with benzodiazepine discontinuation (1 study, 25 participants; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 2.3 participants; low-quality evidence) and increased the occurrence of withdrawal syndrome (1 study, 145 participants; RR 4.86, 95% CI 1.12 to 21.14; NNTH 5.9 participants; low-quality evidence). Likewise, magnesium aspartate decreased the proportion of participants discontinuing benzodiazepines (1 study, 144 participants; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; NNTH 5.8; very low-quality evidence).Generally, adverse events were insufficiently reported. Specifically, one of the flumazenil trials was discontinued due to severe panic reactions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low or very low quality of the evidence for the reported outcomes, and the small number of trials identified with a limited number of participants for each comparison, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding pharmacological interventions to facilitate benzodiazepine discontinuation in chronic benzodiazepine users. Due to poor reporting, adverse events could not be reliably assessed across trials. More randomised controlled trials are required with less risk of systematic errors ('bias') and of random errors ('play of chance') and better and full reporting of patient-centred and long-term clinical outcomes. Such trials ought to be conducted independently of industry involvement.

Simple, low-cost group-counselling programme vs treatment as usual for patients with newly notified occupational hand eczema-Exploratory analyses of effects on knowledge, behaviour and personal resources of the randomized PREVEX clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Sickness absence in hand eczema patients has been associated with stress rather than disease severity, indicating that personal aspects regarding hand eczema should be investigated further. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether patient education vs treatment as usual can influence behaviour and knowledge regarding skin protection and care, as well as personal resources, in patients with occupational hand eczema. METHODS: PREVEX is an individually randomized clinical trial investigating the 1-year effects of a simple, low-cost group-counselling programme vs treatment as usual for patients with notified occupational hand eczema. Exploratory outcomes were behaviour, knowledge, self-efficacy, and self-evaluated skin care ability. RESULTS: In total, 1668 patients with notified occupational skin disease were invited to participate, of whom 769 were randomized and 756 were analysed: intervention group (n = 376) vs control group (n = 380). Behaviour was improved and the knowledge score increased in the intervention group as compared with the control group (respectively: estimate 0.08; 95%CI: 0.02-0.19; P = .01; and estimate 0.49; 95%CI: 0.28-0.70; P < .001). Self-efficacy was lower in the intervention group as compared with the control group (estimate -0.78; 95%CI: -1.25 to -0.30; P = .001). No difference was found regarding skin care abilities. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention had a positive influence on 1-year behaviour and knowledge, but was insufficient to result in long-term positive changes in personal resources regarding dealing with hand eczema.

Participants' and staffs' evaluation of the Illness Management and Recovery program: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Psychoeducational interventions for people with severe mental illness are developed to enable them to manage their illness effectively to improve prognosis and recovery. AIM: The aim was to investigate the benefits and harms of the Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) program among people with severe mental illness in Denmark. IMR builds among other approaches on a psychoeducational approach. METHODS: A randomized, multi-center, clinical trial of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual among 198 participants with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder investigating outcomes related to illness self-management assessed by the IMR scale, recovery, hope and participants' satisfaction at the end of the 9 months intervention period. RESULTS: No statistical differences were seen between the two groups regarding illness self-management, hope, recovery, or satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: IMR appears not to be better than treatment as usual in any of the outcomes. Further studies with a longer follow-up period, better assessments of recovery and a systematic review of the existing trials are needed to assess if the program is effective.

Effect on return to work or education of Individual Placement and Support modified for people with mood and anxiety disorders: results of a randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The effect of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) on return to work or education among people with mood or anxiety disorders is unclear, while IPS increases return to work for people with severe mental illness. We examined the effect of IPS modified for people with mood and anxiety disorders (IPS-MA) on return to work and education compared with services as usual (SAU). METHODS: In a randomised clinical superiority trial, 326 participants with mood and anxiety disorders were centrally randomised to IPS-MA, consisting of individual mentor support and career counselling (n=162) or SAU (n=164). The primary outcome was competitive employment or education at 24 months, while weeks of competitive employment or education, illness symptoms and level of functioning, and well-being were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: After 24 months, 44.4% (72/162) of the participants receiving IPS-MA had returned to work or education compared with 37.8% (62/164) following SAU (OR=1.34, 95% CI: 0.86 to 2.10, p=0.20). We found no difference in mean number of weeks in employment or education (IPS-MA 32.4 weeks vs SAU 26.7 weeks, p=0.14), level of depression (Hamilton Depression 6-Item Scale score IPS-MA 5.7 points vs SAU 5.0 points, p=0.12), level of anxiety (Hamilton Anxiety 6-Item Scale score IPS-MA 5.8 points vs SAU 5.1 points, p=0.17), level of functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning IPS-MA 59.1 points vs SAU 59.5 points, p=0.81) or well-being measured by WHO-Five Well-being Index (IPS-MA 49.6 points vs SAU 48.5 points, p=0.83) at 24 months. CONCLUSION: The modified version of IPS, IPS-MA, was not superior to SAU in supporting people with mood or anxiety disorders in return to work at 24 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01721824.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for major depressive disorder is unclear. METHODS: Our objective was to conduct a systematic review assessing the effects of SSRIs versus placebo, 'active' placebo, or no intervention in adult participants with major depressive disorder. We searched for eligible randomised clinical trials in The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycLIT, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, clinical trial registers of Europe and USA, websites of pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency until January 2016. All data were extracted by at least two independent investigators. We used Cochrane systematic review methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, and calculation of Bayes factor. An eight-step procedure was followed to assess if thresholds for statistical and clinical significance were crossed. Primary outcomes were reduction of depressive symptoms, remission, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were suicides, suicide attempts, suicide ideation, and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 131 randomised placebo-controlled trials enrolling a total of 27,422 participants were included. None of the trials used 'active' placebo or no intervention as control intervention. All trials had high risk of bias. SSRIs significantly reduced the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) at end of treatment (mean difference -1.94 HDRS points; 95% CI -2.50 to -1.37; P < 0.00001; 49 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted CI -2.70 to -1.18); Bayes factor below predefined threshold (2.01*10-23). The effect estimate, however, was below our predefined threshold for clinical significance of 3 HDRS points. SSRIs significantly decreased the risk of no remission (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.91; P < 0.00001; 34 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis adjusted CI 0.83 to 0.92); Bayes factor (1426.81) did not confirm the effect). SSRIs significantly increased the risks of serious adverse events (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.75; P = 0.009; 44 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted CI 1.03 to 1.89). This corresponds to 31/1000 SSRI participants will experience a serious adverse event compared with 22/1000 control participants. SSRIs also significantly increased the number of non-serious adverse events. There were almost no data on suicidal behaviour, quality of life, and long-term effects. CONCLUSIONS: SSRIs might have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms, but all trials were at high risk of bias and the clinical significance seems questionable. SSRIs significantly increase the risk of both serious and non-serious adverse events. The potential small beneficial effects seem to be outweighed by harmful effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013004420.

Randomised clinical trial of early specialist palliative care plus standard care versus standard care alone in patients with advanced cancer: The Danish Palliative Care Trial.

BACKGROUND: Beneficial effects of early palliative care have been found in advanced cancer, but the evidence is not unequivocal. AIM: To investigate the effect of early specialist palliative care among advanced cancer patients identified in oncology departments. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01348048) is a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing early referral to a specialist palliative care team plus standard care versus standard care alone. The planned sample size was 300. At five oncology departments, consecutive patients with advanced cancer were screened for palliative needs. Patients with scores exceeding a predefined threshold for problems with physical, emotional or role function, or nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnoea or lack of appetite according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) were eligible. The primary outcome was the change in each patient's primary need (the most severe of the seven QLQ-C30 scales) at 3- and 8-week follow-up (0-100 scale). Five sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were change in the seven QLQ-C30 scales and survival. RESULTS: Totally 145 patients were randomised to early specialist palliative care versus 152 to standard care. Early specialist palliative care showed no effect on the primary outcome of change in primary need (-4.9 points (95% confidence interval -11.3 to +1.5 points); p = 0.14). The sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Analyses of the secondary outcomes, including survival, also showed no differences, maybe with the exception of nausea/vomiting where early specialist palliative care might have had a beneficial effect. CONCLUSION: We did not observe beneficial or harmful effects of early specialist palliative care, but important beneficial effects cannot be excluded.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may benefit adults with atrial fibrillation or those who had been treated for atrial fibrillation. Atrial fibrillation is caused by multiple micro re-entry circuits within the atrial tissue, which result in chaotic rapid activity in the atria. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based rehabilitation programmes, alone or with another intervention, compared with no-exercise training controls in adults who currently have AF, or have been treated for AF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases; CENTRAL and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection Thomson Reuters, CINAHL EBSCO, LILACS Bireme, and three clinical trial registers on 14 July 2016. We also checked the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews identified by the searches. We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that investigated exercise-based interventions compared with any type of no-exercise control. We included trials that included adults aged 18 years or older with atrial fibrillation, or post-treatment for atrial fibrillation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias using the domains outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots, and by using standard Chi² and I² statistics. We performed meta-analyses using fixed-effect and random-effects models; we used standardised mean differences where different scales were used for the same outcome. We assessed the risk of random errors with trial sequential analysis (TSA) and used the GRADE methodology to rate the quality of evidence, reporting it in the 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs with a total of 421 patients with various types of atrial fibrillation. All trials were conducted between 2006 and 2016, and had short follow-up (eight weeks to six months). Risks of bias ranged from high risk to low risk.The exercise-based programmes in four trials consisted of both aerobic exercise and resistance training, in one trial consisted of Qi-gong (slow and graceful movements), and in another trial, consisted of inspiratory muscle training.For mortality, very low-quality evidence from six trials suggested no clear difference in deaths between the exercise and no-exercise groups (relative risk (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 15.78; participants = 421; I² = 0%; deaths = 2). Very low-quality evidence from five trials suggested no clear difference between groups for serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; participants = 381; I² = 0%; events = 8). Low-quality evidence from two trials suggested no clear difference in health-related quality of life for the Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component summary measure (mean difference (MD) 1.96, 95% CI -2.50 to 6.42; participants = 224; I² = 69%), or the SF-36 mental component summary measure (MD 1.99, 95% CI -0.48 to 4.46; participants = 224; I² = 0%). Exercise capacity was assessed by cumulated work, or maximal power (Watt), obtained by cycle ergometer, or by six minute walking test, or ergospirometry testing measuring VO2 peak. We found moderate-quality evidence from two studies that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity, measured by VO2 peak, more than no exercise (MD 3.76, 95% CI 1.37 to 6.15; participants = 208; I² = 0%); and very low-quality evidence from four studies that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity more than no exercise, measured by the six-minute walking test (MD 75.76, 95% CI 14.00 to 137.53; participants = 272; I² = 85%). When we combined the different assessment tools for exercise capacity, we found very low-quality evidence from six trials that exercise-based rehabilitation increased exercise capacity more than no exercise (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.26; participants = 359; I² = 65%). Overall, the quality of the evidence for the outcomes ranged from moderate to very-low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to few randomised patients and outcomes, we could not evaluate the real impact of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality or serious adverse events. The evidence showed no clinically relevant effect on health-related quality of life. Pooled data showed a positive effect on the surrogate outcome of physical exercise capacity, but due to the low number of patients and the moderate to very low-quality of the underpinning evidence, we could not be certain of the magnitude of the effect. Future high-quality randomised trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with atrial fibrillation on patient-relevant outcomes.

Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.

Cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care for patients treated with catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: Results of the randomized CopenHeartRFA trial.

BACKGROUND: To assess the effects of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation compared with usual care on physical activity and mental health for patients treated with catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. METHODS: The patients were randomized 1:1 stratified by paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation and sex to cardiac rehabilitation consisting of 12 weeks physical exercise and four psycho-educational consultations plus usual care (cardiac rehabilitation group) versus usual care. The primary outcome was Vo2 peak. The secondary outcome was self-rated mental health measured by the Short Form-36 questionnaire. Exploratory outcomes were collected. RESULTS: 210 patients were included (mean age: 59 years, 74% men), 72% had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation prior to ablation. Compared with usual care, the cardiac rehabilitation group had a beneficial effect on Vo2 peak at four months (24.3mL kg-1 min-1 versus 20.7mL kg-1 min-1, p of main effect=0.003, p of interaction between time and intervention=0.020). No significant difference between groups on Short Form-36 was found (53.8 versus 51.9 points, P=.20). Two serious adverse events (atrial fibrillation in relation to physical exercise and death unrelated to rehabilitation) occurred in the cardiac rehabilitation group versus one in the usual care group (death unrelated to intervention) (P=.56). In the cardiac rehabilitation group 16 patients versus 7 in the usual care group reported non-serious adverse events (P=.047). CONCLUSION: Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation had a positive effect on physical capacity compared with usual care, but not on mental health. Cardiac rehabilitation caused more non-serious adverse events.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation may benefit heart valve surgery patients. We conducted a systematic review to assess the evidence for the use of exercise-based intervention programmes following heart valve surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with no exercise training intervention, or treatment as usual, in adults following heart valve surgery. We considered programmes including exercise training with or without another intervention (such as a psycho-educational component). SEARCH METHODS: We searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS (Bireme); and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-S (CPCI-S) on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) on 23 March 2015. We handsearched Web of Science, bibliographies of systematic reviews and trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, Controlled-trials.com, and The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials that investigated exercise-based interventions compared with no exercise intervention control. The trial participants comprised adults aged 18 years or older who had undergone heart valve surgery for heart valve disease (from any cause) and received either heart valve replacement, or heart valve repair. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of systematic errors ('bias') by evaluation of bias risk domains. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity were assessed. Meta-analyses were undertaken using both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. We sought to assess the risk of random errors with trial sequential analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials from 1987 and 2004 with a total 148 participants who have had heart valve surgery. Both trials had a high risk of bias.There was insufficient evidence at 3 to 6 months follow-up to judge the effect of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation compared to no exercise on mortality (RR 4.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 90.78); participants = 104; studies = 1; quality of evidence: very low) and on serious adverse events (RR 1.15 (95% CI 0.37 to 3.62); participants = 148; studies = 2; quality of evidence: very low). Included trials did not report on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and the secondary outcomes of New York Heart Association class, left ventricular ejection fraction and cost. We did find that, compared with control (no exercise), exercise-based rehabilitation may increase exercise capacity (SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.13; participants = 140; studies = 2, quality of evidence: moderate). There was insufficient evidence at 12 months follow-up for the return to work outcome (RR 0.55 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.56); participants = 44; studies = 1; quality of evidence: low). Due to limited information, trial sequential analysis could not be performed as planned. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that exercise-based rehabilitation for adults after heart valve surgery, compared with no exercise, may improve exercise capacity. Due to a lack of evidence, we cannot evaluate the impact on other outcomes. Further high-quality randomised clinical trials are needed in order to assess the impact of exercise-based rehabilitation on patient-relevant outcomes, including mortality and quality of life.