The APPLE Tree programme: Active Prevention in People at risk of dementia through Lifestyle, bEhaviour change and Technology to build REsiliEnce-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale trials of multidomain interventions show that modifying lifestyle and psychological risk factors can slow cognitive decline. We aim to determine if a lower intensity, personally tailored secondary dementia prevention programme for older people with subjective or mild objective memory decline, informed by behaviour change theory, reduces cognitive decline over 2 years. METHODS: A multi-site, single-blind randomised controlled trial recruiting 704 older adults at high dementia risk due to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or subjective cognitive decline (SCD). Participants are randomised using 1:1 allocation ratio to the APPLE Tree intervention versus control arm (dementia prevention information), stratified by site. The intervention explores and implements strategies to promote healthy lifestyle, increase pleasurable activities and social connections and improve long-term condition self-management. Two facilitators trained and supervised by a clinical psychologist deliver ten, 1-h group video call sessions over 6 months (approximately every fortnight), video-call 'tea breaks' (less structured, facilitated social sessions) in intervening weeks and individual goal-setting phone calls every 2 weeks. From 6 to 12 months, participants meet monthly for 'tea breaks', with those not attending receiving monthly goal-setting phone calls. Participants receive a food delivery, pedometer and website access to cognitive training and information about lifestyle modification. Follow-ups for all outcome measures are at 12 and 24 months. The primary outcome is cognition (Neuropsychological Test Battery (NTB) score) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and wellbeing and lifestyle factors the intervention targets (diet, vascular risk, body weight, activity, sleep, anxiety, depression, social networks and loneliness, alcohol intake and smoking). Participants from purposively selected sites participate in qualitative process evaluation interviews, which will be analysed using thematic analytic methods. DISCUSSION: If effective, the intervention design, involving remote delivery and non-clinical facilitators, would facilitate intervention roll-out to older people with memory concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17325135 . Registration date 27 November 2019.

Lycopene inhibits DNA synthesis in primary prostate epithelial cells in vitro and its administration is associated with a reduced prostate-specific antigen velocity in a phase II clinical study.

Interest in lycopene has focused primarily on its use in the chemoprevention of prostate cancer (CaP); there are few clinical trials involving men with established disease. In addition, most data examining its mechanism of action have been obtained from experiments using immortal cell lines. We report the inhibitory effect(s) of lycopene in primary prostate epithelial cell (PEC) cultures, and the results of a pilot phase II clinical study investigating whole-tomato lycopene supplementation on the behavior of established CaP, demonstrating a significant and maintained effect on prostate-specific antigen velocity over 1 year. These data reinforce the justification for a large, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

Analysis and interpretation of cost data in randomised controlled trials: review of published studies.

OBJECTIVE: To review critically the statistical methods used for health economic evaluations in randomised controlled trials where an estimate of cost is available for each patient in the study. DESIGN: Survey of published randomised trials including an economic evaluation with cost values suitable for statistical analysis; 45 such trials published in 1995 were identified from Medline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The use of statistical methods for cost data was assessed in terms of the descriptive statistics reported, use of statistical inference, and whether the reported conclusions were justified. RESULTS: Although all 45 trials reviewed apparently had cost data for each patient, only 9 (20%) reported adequate measures of variability for these data and only 25 (56%) gave results of statistical tests or a measure of precision for the comparison of costs between the randomised groups. Only 16 (36%) of the articles gave conclusions which were justified on the basis of results presented in the paper. No paper reported sample size calculations for costs. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis and interpretation of cost data from published trials reveal a lack of statistical awareness. Strong and potentially misleading conclusions about the relative costs of alternative therapies have often been reported in the absence of supporting statistical evidence. Improvements in the analysis and reporting of health economic assessments are urgently required. Health economic guidelines need to be revised to incorporate more detailed statistical advice.